Should serial killers serve multiple sentences consecutively? Winnipeg case ignites debate

WARNING: This story contains details about violence against Indigenous women.

The brutal acts of a Winnipeg serial killer that left even the judge who handed him a life sentence calling that punishment inadequate have illuminated a debate over how long people convicted of multiple murders should wait before getting a chance to apply for parole.

Jeremy Skibicki, 37, was officially sentenced Wednesday after being convicted in July of first-degree murder in the deaths of four Indigenous women in 2022. While each charge carries a mandatory life sentence without a chance of parole for 25 years, a 2022 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada ruled those sentences must be served concurrently, not one after another.

That means Skibicki is in effect serving the same sentence he'd have gotten if he'd only been convicted of murdering one woman — which doesn't sit well with some.

"You may say that he has four sentences, but what does that really mean? It really means nothing, because he's serving them all at the same time," said Karen Wiebe, the executive director of the non-profit Manitoba Organization for Victim Assistance. Her 20-year-old son, TJ Wiebe, was murdered in 2003.

That sentiment echoed ones shared outside the courthouse following Skibicki's sentencing, when family of one of the victims and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Cathy Merrick said they would prefer to see his sentences served consecutively. 

If that was an option, it would mean the four 25-year parole ineligibility periods could be stacked, and Skibicki could remain in jail with no chance of parole for as long as 100 years.

"I think that we just might have to change the legal system when it comes to consecutive sentencing, because he's got to be accountable for the four deaths that he committed," Merrick said, adding she's still confident that even though he'll be allowed to apply for parole after his 25-year period is up, Skibicki will "stay in that cell for the rest of his life."

In sentencing the murderer, Manitoba Court of King's Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal said while he agreed with the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, he thinks it was "purposely silent" on whether the law could eventually be changed for future cases like this one — leaving the door open for "an even more serious sanction … for cases involving, for example, a serial killer."

But one legal expert says even though Skibicki will be allowed to apply for parole, the chance of him getting it is "virtually nonexistent," given the "horrific details" of his crimes, and their impact on victims' families and public safety, all of which the parole board will consider if he does apply.

But even for the worst offenders, for whom parole prospects are slim, "it's important for inmates to have some incentive to abide by prison rules and to have some hope for their future. Our [justice] system really depends on that," said Lisa Kerr, an associate law professor at Queen's University.

"It may be sort of an emotionally appealing thing to say 'we should not even have a hearing 25 years down the road,' but it would be a very dysfunctional change in terms of how the prison system operates."

Kerr said the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to get rid of consecutive life sentences — introduced in 2011 legislation under Stephen Harper's Conservative government — wasn't about whether any particular offender deserves such an extreme punishment, but whether Canada should have to abide by any limits in the penalties it's allowed to give.

The old law was "a very blunt tool," she said, and deciding to bring it back now would be "betraying our values" as a country committed to constitutional rights, human dignity and rehabilitation.