A week or so ago, a 14-year-old girl in the southwest suburbs was murdered by a guy she found burglarizing her family's home. The Cook County State's Attorney tells us that the suspect stole her cell phone and later used it to text "cruel" messages to her parents about killing the child.
Her death is horrific. The taunting by text suggests unspeakable evil.
For cases like these, and all of the rest that are just as incomprehensible but not as widely publicized, Illinois needs to reinstate the death penalty.
A death penalty that is written to allow a defendant constitutional legal recourse but limits the number of appeals and narrows them in scope. Not a death penalty that can be subverted by endless legal maneuvering but, rather, a death penalty with mandatory review by a panel made up of professional investigators tasked to evaluate all the evidence in the case, even that which is pertinent but not introduced at trial. And not a death penalty that would allow the convict to languish while on death row. Time awaiting punishment would be spent at hard labor or, at the very least, in a cell with no television or radio, no amusements or distractions of any kind. Four walls, a cot and three meals a day. Limited exercise periods.
I believe in capital punishment for two reasons. First, if publicized and implemented on a regular basis, without anger, in a humane and efficient fashion, it may become a deterrent to others contemplating unspeakable crimes. Note the phrase, "if publicized and implemented on a regular basis." One execution once in a great while won't get the message across.
Second, while deterrence cannot be measured, putting the individual to death assures he is no longer a threat. To anyone. Correctional officers while he is incarcerated and any innocents on the outside if the system, in what often passes for mercy but is, in truth, misguided wisdom, one day decides to release him.
Capital punishment is brutal. Many good and kind souls find it morally repugnant and not socially acceptable.
I find it fundamentally unacceptable that animals wearing the disguise of human beings wantonly destroy innocent lives and then face a "maximum" penalty that many of them find laughable.
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Friday, November 4, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Moammar Gadhafi is Still Dead
As I watched the coverage of Gadhafi's murder/execution/accidental death by gunshot yesterday, I kept thinking of the old Saturday night live skit from the 80's where, among the top "news," came the breathless headline, "Francisco Franco is still dead!"
From the gruesome videos and video captures shown repeatedly on the networks, and that appeared this morning on the front page of Rupert Murdock's New York Post (proclaiming, "Khadafy Killed By Yanks Fan; He Had More Hits Than A-Rod"), I'd say there's no doubt Gadhafi is not only dead, but will remain so for the forseeable future. We have the pictorial evidence right in front of us.
A bullet to the head and, apparently, one to the gut, will do that.
Don't get me wrong. The guy had blood on his hands long before the mob dragged him out of that drainage tunnel. It's long believed he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 that killed 243 people, some of whom may have survived until impact (The Sun tabloid in Britain ran a headline today saying, "That's for Lockerbie"), that he supplied bombs to the separatists in Northern Ireland, killed Americans, and committed countless atrocities in his own country. I feel no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi.
What I'm pondering is the clumsy and garishly public nature of his death. What have we gained, or lost?
Certainly, revenge is sweet for some and they have the right to savor it. Others have argued that the visual savagery of his slaying will propel Libyans on to democracy. Yet others believe the televised brutality will send the proverbial message to other bad guys, "This could happen to you, too."
Of course, for those looking forward to their 72 virgins, that last argument may not have much impact.
What about the rest of us?
What, especially, about the kids and young adults we teach to follow the rule of law? Those who undoubtedly got a clear message from yesterday's bloody endless loop of death, that "law" isn't sacrosanct? That shooting a guy you hate in the head is okay if you do it in front of a cheering crowd and it gets broadcast on CNN?
And does this mark the "end of an era of arbitrary rule," as some have claimed, or does it really just underscore the fact that power always comes down to who's better armed and quicker on the trigger when the moment presents itself?
Beats me.
All I know is, I turned off the TV once I saw Moammar Gadhafi was still dead.
From the gruesome videos and video captures shown repeatedly on the networks, and that appeared this morning on the front page of Rupert Murdock's New York Post (proclaiming, "Khadafy Killed By Yanks Fan; He Had More Hits Than A-Rod"), I'd say there's no doubt Gadhafi is not only dead, but will remain so for the forseeable future. We have the pictorial evidence right in front of us.
A bullet to the head and, apparently, one to the gut, will do that.
Don't get me wrong. The guy had blood on his hands long before the mob dragged him out of that drainage tunnel. It's long believed he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 that killed 243 people, some of whom may have survived until impact (The Sun tabloid in Britain ran a headline today saying, "That's for Lockerbie"), that he supplied bombs to the separatists in Northern Ireland, killed Americans, and committed countless atrocities in his own country. I feel no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi.
What I'm pondering is the clumsy and garishly public nature of his death. What have we gained, or lost?
Certainly, revenge is sweet for some and they have the right to savor it. Others have argued that the visual savagery of his slaying will propel Libyans on to democracy. Yet others believe the televised brutality will send the proverbial message to other bad guys, "This could happen to you, too."
Of course, for those looking forward to their 72 virgins, that last argument may not have much impact.
What about the rest of us?
What, especially, about the kids and young adults we teach to follow the rule of law? Those who undoubtedly got a clear message from yesterday's bloody endless loop of death, that "law" isn't sacrosanct? That shooting a guy you hate in the head is okay if you do it in front of a cheering crowd and it gets broadcast on CNN?
And does this mark the "end of an era of arbitrary rule," as some have claimed, or does it really just underscore the fact that power always comes down to who's better armed and quicker on the trigger when the moment presents itself?
Beats me.
All I know is, I turned off the TV once I saw Moammar Gadhafi was still dead.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Unconventional Interrogation?
I'm going to take a wild guess that Joran van der Sloot, the fellow accused of beating and then strangling to death a Peruvian woman in his hotel room last week, confessed to the murder after facing some creative and unconventional interrogation by police.
Just a guess, mind you.
Van der Sloot, as you might recall, is the suspect in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway in Aruba. In fact, he was arrested twice and actually confessed several times to various scenarios involving Holloway but was released when authorities in Aruba failed to turn up enough evidence to keep him in custody.
In the most recent case, he's accused of breaking his female companion's neck after discovering she had read details about the Aruba investigation on his laptop.
Wouldn't you just hate it if your current girlfriend found out most of the world had you figured as a murderer?
I'm sure I'll hear objections but I think this is exactly the sort of case that begs for unconventional interrogation of the suspect. It's a shame the Peruvian cops didn't clear up the Holloway matter with Mr. Van der Sloot while they had his attention.
It's unfortunate, too, that U.S. law doesn't allow creative interrogation of some suspects. Particularly those who have killed a wife, or two, and then laughed in the faces of the cops, the families of the victims and the public.
With Van der Sloot and the others I'm thinking of, we're talking psychopaths of course. Predators who not only have no feelings, but delight in ripping the hearts out of those who do. For them, the mere act of murder isn't enough. Their true delight comes from our horrified reactions. They revel in the anguish they cause.
One of them even attempted to recruit a new victim right in front of us. You remember that, don't you? He proposed marriage. She accepted. Then her family and friends convinced her that her sweet patootie was actually something feral-hungry with sharp teeth and claws.
These are the sort of individuals who should face a much more unusual police interrogation. One designed to elicit specific answers to specific questions and then the promise of a guilty plea.
The sort of interrogation that requires a mop and a bucket to clean up afterward.
Just a guess, mind you.
Van der Sloot, as you might recall, is the suspect in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway in Aruba. In fact, he was arrested twice and actually confessed several times to various scenarios involving Holloway but was released when authorities in Aruba failed to turn up enough evidence to keep him in custody.
In the most recent case, he's accused of breaking his female companion's neck after discovering she had read details about the Aruba investigation on his laptop.
Wouldn't you just hate it if your current girlfriend found out most of the world had you figured as a murderer?
I'm sure I'll hear objections but I think this is exactly the sort of case that begs for unconventional interrogation of the suspect. It's a shame the Peruvian cops didn't clear up the Holloway matter with Mr. Van der Sloot while they had his attention.
It's unfortunate, too, that U.S. law doesn't allow creative interrogation of some suspects. Particularly those who have killed a wife, or two, and then laughed in the faces of the cops, the families of the victims and the public.
With Van der Sloot and the others I'm thinking of, we're talking psychopaths of course. Predators who not only have no feelings, but delight in ripping the hearts out of those who do. For them, the mere act of murder isn't enough. Their true delight comes from our horrified reactions. They revel in the anguish they cause.
One of them even attempted to recruit a new victim right in front of us. You remember that, don't you? He proposed marriage. She accepted. Then her family and friends convinced her that her sweet patootie was actually something feral-hungry with sharp teeth and claws.
These are the sort of individuals who should face a much more unusual police interrogation. One designed to elicit specific answers to specific questions and then the promise of a guilty plea.
The sort of interrogation that requires a mop and a bucket to clean up afterward.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
In the News...
Three stories in the news caught my eye today.
Betty Broderick is up for parole. Back in the early nineties, she shot and killed her ex-husband and his much younger wife after a really nasty divorce. She portrayed herself as a victim and a bunch of women supported her. She became the poster child for housewives who feared their husbands would dump them for younger babes. That happens so frequently in California. Books were written about her. Merideth Baxter (from "Family Ties")played her in a couple of TV movies.
Frankly a prosecutor friend of mine put it best: the solution for a bad marriage is divorce, not murder. Especially not a double murder where the killer slips into the house and kills the happy couple in bed.
A big thumbs down on Betty to the California Parole Board. No, I don't think she's a risk to society at large. But I sure wouldn't lay odds on the survivability of any new boyfriend who pisses her off.
Speaking of "victims," Conan O'Brien is reportedly signing a deal today that will give him $32 million to leave NBC in the wake of the Jay Leno fiasco. His staff will split an additional $12 million. It's been one of the better and more fun stories to watch in this grim new year. A bunch of idiots with money to burn screwing each other.
And now, thanks to the US Supreme Court, another bunch of idiots with money to burn will be able to use it to bankroll American elections.
The Supremes ruled today that business, unions and non-profits can contribute more freely to political candidates. It's a freedom of speech thing, say the Justices.
My favorite quote comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the High Court's conservative members, voting with the majority.
He says, "The appearance of influence or access," he wrote, "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
Oh really?
Betty Broderick is up for parole. Back in the early nineties, she shot and killed her ex-husband and his much younger wife after a really nasty divorce. She portrayed herself as a victim and a bunch of women supported her. She became the poster child for housewives who feared their husbands would dump them for younger babes. That happens so frequently in California. Books were written about her. Merideth Baxter (from "Family Ties")played her in a couple of TV movies.
Frankly a prosecutor friend of mine put it best: the solution for a bad marriage is divorce, not murder. Especially not a double murder where the killer slips into the house and kills the happy couple in bed.
A big thumbs down on Betty to the California Parole Board. No, I don't think she's a risk to society at large. But I sure wouldn't lay odds on the survivability of any new boyfriend who pisses her off.
Speaking of "victims," Conan O'Brien is reportedly signing a deal today that will give him $32 million to leave NBC in the wake of the Jay Leno fiasco. His staff will split an additional $12 million. It's been one of the better and more fun stories to watch in this grim new year. A bunch of idiots with money to burn screwing each other.
And now, thanks to the US Supreme Court, another bunch of idiots with money to burn will be able to use it to bankroll American elections.
The Supremes ruled today that business, unions and non-profits can contribute more freely to political candidates. It's a freedom of speech thing, say the Justices.
My favorite quote comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the High Court's conservative members, voting with the majority.
He says, "The appearance of influence or access," he wrote, "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
Oh really?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
On Murder and 20/20 Hindsight
Several people took me to task for yesterday's post about the double murder/suicide in Wilmette, just as they did awhile back when I made the assertion that crime victims often ignore warning signs of danger, particularly when they occur in relationships.
Richard Wiley was an ex-con who murdered his first wife by stabbing her almost two dozen times. He was convicted, served fifteen years of a thirty year sentence, and was released in 2000. The man who prosecuted him is quoted as saying Wiley,"gave me chills."
Eight months after his release, Kathryn Motes married him.
Over the weekend, the couple reportedly argued. Then, police say, Wiley shot her and her teenage son, spent the night writing a suicide note, then killed himself.
Motes knew Wiley killed his first wife. So did her pastor and the people in her church. The pastor who married them tells the Tribune she even had misgivings about marrying the two but that Motes assured her she had considered all the scenarios and could, "deal with it."
And some of you think there weren't warning signs in this relationship? C'mon! The man got angry and stabbed wife number one twenty-three times! Some relationships have subtle hints of problems to come. This one flashed, "DANGER AHEAD" in big red letters from the first day they met. Undoubtedly there were other, more subtle, warnings that went unheeded over the past eight years, too.
Yet, as one friend noted to me yesterday, "People see what they want to see." And no one wants to see evil when they look into the eyes of someone they love.
My final thoughts on the subject? God Bless Kathryn Motes for loving Richard Wiley despite his history. God Bless the members of their church for accepting him and supporting her. I wish it had all turned out differently for them and her son. May God rest their souls.
"Thus," as I am fond of quoting Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "endeth the lesson."
Oh, but not really. A little postscript.
Recently a young mother in the Chicago area moved in with an ex-cop with a history of checkered relationships. You know the one I mean. One ex-wife dead in their bathtub? The other one missing? His grinning face all over the news on a regular basis? That guy.
Another pretty obvious case of warning bells clanging loudly, right? Personally, I think she'll go missing someday, too. Just because he wants the thrill of doing it right under the noses of people who are watching and waiting for it to happen.
I'm more worried about the silent domestic alarms, however. The ones going off, maybe in a relationship in your community. Maybe even between people you know and care about.
Perhaps nasty words have given way to shouting. Making threats. Or grabbing an arm and twisting it. Or giving a shove. Maybe a punch. Maybe one of the kids has an unexplainable bruise. Or someone has a black eye from "running into a door." Or someone fell down a flight of stairs.
Accidents, pure and simple? Or warning signs of domestic abuse?
What does your intuition tell you?
What are you going to do about it?
Richard Wiley was an ex-con who murdered his first wife by stabbing her almost two dozen times. He was convicted, served fifteen years of a thirty year sentence, and was released in 2000. The man who prosecuted him is quoted as saying Wiley,"gave me chills."
Eight months after his release, Kathryn Motes married him.
Over the weekend, the couple reportedly argued. Then, police say, Wiley shot her and her teenage son, spent the night writing a suicide note, then killed himself.
Motes knew Wiley killed his first wife. So did her pastor and the people in her church. The pastor who married them tells the Tribune she even had misgivings about marrying the two but that Motes assured her she had considered all the scenarios and could, "deal with it."
And some of you think there weren't warning signs in this relationship? C'mon! The man got angry and stabbed wife number one twenty-three times! Some relationships have subtle hints of problems to come. This one flashed, "DANGER AHEAD" in big red letters from the first day they met. Undoubtedly there were other, more subtle, warnings that went unheeded over the past eight years, too.
Yet, as one friend noted to me yesterday, "People see what they want to see." And no one wants to see evil when they look into the eyes of someone they love.
My final thoughts on the subject? God Bless Kathryn Motes for loving Richard Wiley despite his history. God Bless the members of their church for accepting him and supporting her. I wish it had all turned out differently for them and her son. May God rest their souls.
"Thus," as I am fond of quoting Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "endeth the lesson."
Oh, but not really. A little postscript.
Recently a young mother in the Chicago area moved in with an ex-cop with a history of checkered relationships. You know the one I mean. One ex-wife dead in their bathtub? The other one missing? His grinning face all over the news on a regular basis? That guy.
Another pretty obvious case of warning bells clanging loudly, right? Personally, I think she'll go missing someday, too. Just because he wants the thrill of doing it right under the noses of people who are watching and waiting for it to happen.
I'm more worried about the silent domestic alarms, however. The ones going off, maybe in a relationship in your community. Maybe even between people you know and care about.
Perhaps nasty words have given way to shouting. Making threats. Or grabbing an arm and twisting it. Or giving a shove. Maybe a punch. Maybe one of the kids has an unexplainable bruise. Or someone has a black eye from "running into a door." Or someone fell down a flight of stairs.
Accidents, pure and simple? Or warning signs of domestic abuse?
What does your intuition tell you?
What are you going to do about it?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Rods and Ends
Thanks to L.A. Wilson for the review of Every Secret Crime on Books are Pretty earlier this month.
And speaking of other bloggers, if you have ever wondered if you could marry a serial killer, Katherine Ramsland, PhD. discusses some who did on Lee Loffland's wonderful and incisive blog, The Graveyard Shift.
Speaking of marrying a serial killer, it's interesting to note that our local publicity-mongering ex police sergeant with one spouse technically missing, and another dead-in-the-bathtub, is on the matrimonial trail once more. After some confused denials, the happy couple recently officially announced their intent to betroth. Or he did. During an interview on Nightline.
That guy, I tell ya, is a publicity machine. Impressed at the job his flacks are doing for him, former governor Blago apparently used the same firm to arrange his whirlwind, last gasp media blitz last week. There's irony for ya.
Oh, that's right. News of the day is that we have a new governor and that the old one is finally and officially toast. I have to say Blago's final days were like watching the Extended Version of the famous O.J. Simpson pursuit. Having covered the state capi-tool back in my graduate school days, I was pleased to note that our new generation of state senators are just as windy as their predecessors. But when backed into a corner by the world media and public opinion, damn if they don't wield a heavy voting hammer. What courage it must have taken to come up with that unanimous vote.
My final take on the Blago Bust and followup?
The arrest and subsequent impeachment and ousting of our governor and all of the associated fallout could have been a wake-up call, not only to all elected officials but to all Illinoisans.
Unfortunately, most everyone will just hit the snooze button and go back to sleaze.
And speaking of other bloggers, if you have ever wondered if you could marry a serial killer, Katherine Ramsland, PhD. discusses some who did on Lee Loffland's wonderful and incisive blog, The Graveyard Shift.
Speaking of marrying a serial killer, it's interesting to note that our local publicity-mongering ex police sergeant with one spouse technically missing, and another dead-in-the-bathtub, is on the matrimonial trail once more. After some confused denials, the happy couple recently officially announced their intent to betroth. Or he did. During an interview on Nightline.
That guy, I tell ya, is a publicity machine. Impressed at the job his flacks are doing for him, former governor Blago apparently used the same firm to arrange his whirlwind, last gasp media blitz last week. There's irony for ya.
Oh, that's right. News of the day is that we have a new governor and that the old one is finally and officially toast. I have to say Blago's final days were like watching the Extended Version of the famous O.J. Simpson pursuit. Having covered the state capi-tool back in my graduate school days, I was pleased to note that our new generation of state senators are just as windy as their predecessors. But when backed into a corner by the world media and public opinion, damn if they don't wield a heavy voting hammer. What courage it must have taken to come up with that unanimous vote.
My final take on the Blago Bust and followup?
The arrest and subsequent impeachment and ousting of our governor and all of the associated fallout could have been a wake-up call, not only to all elected officials but to all Illinoisans.
Unfortunately, most everyone will just hit the snooze button and go back to sleaze.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)