Rush to Judgment: Habit, Tradition or Human Nature?

I’m a little confused about the current situation concerning 46-year-old Randall Hopley, the British Columbia man accused of snatching three-year-old Kienan Hebert from his home in the early-morning hours of Sept. 7, 2011. Thankfully, and surprisingly, the boy was returned to his home, apparently unharmed, four days later, around 3 a.m. When Kienan was returned to his home, his family was, either by coincidence or design, staying at the home of friends nearby, and had left the doors of their own home unlocked; again, apparently. 

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, had previously made a public plea for the abductor to return his son to a safe place, and walk away. The person who took Kienan back home in the middle of the night, to an empty house, no less, left him on the couch in front of the television, then called 911, saying the child was safely home.

I’m confused because Hopley seems already convicted of this crime, but to my knowledge he hasn’t pleaded guilty or innocent, hasn’t had a trial, hasn’t spoken publicly about the situation, and as far as I know police haven’t said publicly what, if anything, Hopley has told them about his alleged role in all of this. Yet, in true Canadian fashion, or perhaps just in keeping with the age-old and unfair ‘rush to judgment’ aspect of human nature, Hopley’s already been tried and convicted in the media, and in the infamous so-called ‘court of public opinion;’ most of whom don’t know any more about the case than I do now as I write this.

In short, do we know for sure that Hopley took Kienan Hebert? Is Hopley necessarily guilty just because he’s been arrested? Many people seem to think so. When he made his first court appearance last week after his arrest, “Outside the courtroom, a small crowd was picketing against Hopley. Their signs called for the death penalty to be brought back for offences against children” (Calgary Herald, Sept. 14, 2011). His lawyer asked for a psychiatric examination, with his next court date, via video link, set for November 9, 2011. According to CTV News Hopley’s charged with kidnapping, abduction of a child under 14, breaking and entering, and two counts of breach of probation” (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110915/randall-hopley-arrest-110915/). 

A Globe and Mail editorial says Hopley’s record includes a 2008 sentence of 18 months in jail and three years’ probation for attempting to kidnap a 10-year-old mentally disabled boy from his bedroom (Sept. 14, 2011). He “had a conviction in 1985 for sexual assault in matters relating to children…So there was reason to suspect a long-term problem with pedophilia” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). And Hopley “had been released from jail just a few weeks ago after serving a two-month sentence for assault” (Toronto Star, Sept. 17, 2011). CBC News claims “in the mid-1980s Hopley was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to two years in federal prison, the National Parole Board confirmed” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/08/bc-kienan-hebert-randall-hopley-amber-alert.html).

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, has blasted the justice system for not keeping closer tabs on Hopley after his previous troubles with the law: “Hopley is [at large] for a reason: because someone didn’t do their job right,” he told the Calgary Herald. “The judges and the system failed us” (Macleans, Sept. 16, 2011). I understand Hebert’s anger, but perhaps he can save some of it for himself and his wife. After all, if they left their doors unlocked the night their son was abducted, did they not fail him by not protecting him and his safety to the fullest extent possible, and for implicitly and potentially putting the boy and their entire family at risk?

When I suggest here Hopley could be not guilty of the charges relating to Kienan Hebert, I’m not being naïve and I don’t have blinders on. I realize he might be guilty as sin. But he also might be not guilty. The public won’t know for sure until he enters a plea, or is found guilty or innocent, or there’s some other kind of resolution to the case. 

I’ve covered court cases, including murder trials, for daily newspapers in my previous life. I’ve seen and heard people profess their innocence and be proven guilty. I saw a 19-year-old boy-man with a criminal background, pimples and a peach-fuzz moustache in northeastern Ontario admit to robbing the night desk clerk of a local hotel; and brag he wanted to go to “the big house.” He got his wish: a two-year sentence in Kingston Penitentiary. But I’m also aware of the many cases, in Canada alone, where many men have been convicted of terrible crimes; only to be vindicated afterwards and eventually proven innocent. So, rushing to judgment, even when the situation seems cut-and-dried, can be grossly unfair and a huge mistake.

If Hopley took Kienan Hebert, maybe he has a penchant for little boys and a need to strike out at and be in control of those he perceives as more-vulnerable than he is. And by most accounts he’s one of society’s more-vulnerable souls: supposedly borderline retarded, according to his lawyer; not much formal education; a criminal past including crimes relating to children; a troubled childhood that saw his father killed in a mine explosion when he was two years old; gravitating toward trouble after his father’s death; and being taken from his mother by child welfare when he was six or seven years old. His mother, 70, has been quoted as saying she “didn’t mind” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011) when he was taken from her because she thought it was best for him but she loves him. “She lost track of his whereabouts and would mostly get second-hand accounts of his problems with the law” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

If Hopley did take Kienan Hebert from his home earlier this month, does his own wretched background justify his actions? No. If he took the boy, could his own background help to explain his actions? Perhaps. If he took Kienan should he be held accountable in some way? Yes. But if he did take the boy, is anyone else inherently complicit in enabling the intruder to enter the Heberts’ home and commit this crime? 

Kienan’s parents discovered him gone around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 7. He was an easy target because of his age. But did Kienan’s parents leave the doors unlocked when they went to bed; in effect potentially putting themselves and their children at risk? If so, they implicitly invited disaster, even or especially in their little town of Sparwood, B. C., population, about 4,000. If this were the case, perhaps any number of people could’ve entered and violated the Heberts’ home: anyone who checked their doors when the house was dark, or who might’ve known the family’s habits in that regard, or who’d been inside the home before and knew its layout; who knew exactly where to find Kienan, if he was the specific target. Perhaps Kienan was just the first child, or the first boy the intruder saw and decided to take, turning the Heberts’ lives upside down in the process by spiriting the boy away while the rest of the family slept.
If the Heberts left their doors unlocked all night, this seems unsafe and defies common sense in this day and age; even in the ‘safest’ communities, especially with precious children in the house. So, if this were the case perhaps Kienan’s parents must accept some responsibility for unwittingly helping to facilitate the crime. In fact, the acting mayor of Sparwood, Sharon Fraser, says this overall situation has taught the town an important lesson: "This is one of the hardest lessons all of us have had to learn, that we can't leave our doors unlocked and we can't let our children just run" (The Huffington Post, Sept. 19, 2011).

Paul Hebert, a self-proclaimed Christian, has even chosen to forgive Hopley for taking his son, even though Hopley hasn’t yet been convicted of or pleaded guilty to anything. Hebert says anger is for those who want to be victims, while compassion allows one to “move on...how can you be angry with someone who needs help as much as he does?...He still had the compassion to bring Kienan back and I can’t forget that…I think his mother needs to know that everything is okay…Hopefully, her son is going to get the help he needs now” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

At first glance, Hebert’s graciousness is admirable, but on closer inspection it's seriously tarnished and ultimately ineffective. That's because he seems to contradict his faith-based big-heartedness by jumping the gun and forgiving Hopley for something of which he hasn't even been convicted; and of charges to which he hasn't even pleaded guilty or innocent. In this context, Hebert, who wants to appear charitable and presumably different from those who are more narrow-minded than he seems to think he is, actually seems just like everyone else who’s already convicted Randall Hopley--before he’s had his day in court, before he’s entered a plea, before he’s been found guilty or innocent of taking Hebert’s son, or before there’s some other resolution to the case. 

Police say Hopley was the only real suspect, because of his particular criminal history. But my question remains: do we know for sure, yet, that he took Kienan Hebert?