OVER HERE- A PRAYER FOR ADAM
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 02:45AM Adam Walsh, age eight, was abducted from a mall many years ago by a serial killer. His head was the only part of him found by the authorities. The rest of the child'sbody was never found. The police have apparently "solved" the case this week, and his father who was inspired to create and host America's Most Wanted has declared an end to his family's torture over who did it.
I am opposed to capital punishment for the crime of murder, and it is cases like this which make me wonder if i am right or wrong. Agree with me? If you do please take two minutes, no more, and wonder what Adam Walsh's last two minutes were like. Not easy thinking is it? I know the Court system makes mistakes, and my opposition is based almost exculsivley on that - I don't want some innocent man condemned. But could someone argue that Adam's killer didn't deserve death, or that we as a society shouldn't impose the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime.
And what of those who think a death sentence the only answer. What if someone was put to death in error, as the police only declared the real killer this day.
Too often we decide where we are on a particular issue and then stick to that opinion without questioning ourselves.
Maybe it is wrong for me to even offer this example as a topic. Actually make that probably. But it presents, for me, a moment to consider and reconsider where I stand on the issue. And also in that moment, a chance to offer a small prayer for Adam Walsh,who will miss this Christmas as he has missed so many before, whose family is destroyed, whose innocence was breached and whose soul I pray soared to heaven more quickly than his cries.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (64)
Mahons look at those two beautiful kids of yours then think about Adams last two minutes....
"I am opposed to capital punishment for the crime of murder, and it is cases like this which make me wonder if i am right or wrong. Agree with me?"
I couldn't DISAGREE more MAHONS. In opposing Capital punishment you are reasoning with your heart and not your head.
Scum who are convicted of henious crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and aggravated assault should be put down by society if for no other reason but to prevent them from re-offending. Revenge doesn't come into the equation. Capital punishment is simply an efficient manner in which a convicted person is eliminated.
Unlike some of my Liberal brethern I do not believe in the "Sanctity of Life" for those who would commit the previously mentioned horrific crimes.
These abhorant creatures are to society as cancer cells are to the individual. The only way to survive is to completely and utterly destroy the threat.
Obviously if you let the victim's next of kin decide on a murderer's fate, they would be hangin' 'em high and in multitudes.
And by asking outsiders to imagine that they are the next of kin, that the victims are their children, you are bringing this emotional standard to a new dimension. The same goes for imagine what the victim's "last two minutes were like".
I dont know if prosecution lawyers do that in the States in an attempt to sway juries, but if they do they are wrong.
Justice much be as dispassionate as it is blind. It must always make a big effort to - if necessary - see beyond human instincts and judge each case without emotion. We will of course always empathise with the victim, but if court judgements or laws are made on this basis the result will be chaos and injustice.
Who can be entirely dispassionate when addressing things of this nature? I'm not sure it's possible, and if it is, I'm not sure I happy with that either. If you lose an abhorrence for this, I don't honestly believe that's a good thing.
Noel - Well what I was asking is for people to think about their position on the issues of capital punishment (pro or con) ratherthan give their automatic answer right away.
Eddie - Agree with me was a question used to ask those who do to consider, not necessasarily reconsider, their opinion.
As I said:
Mahons look at those two beautiful kids of yours then think about Adams last two minutes....
then make the decision if you are not only for the capital punishment but they wouldn't have to restrain you from doing it yourself
Eddie,
"Scum who are convicted of henious crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and aggravated assault should be put down by society if for no other reason but to prevent them from re-offending."
Imprisoning them keeps them from re-offending.
"Revenge doesn't come into the equation. Capital punishment is simply an efficient manner in which a convicted person is eliminated. "
Except it isn't efficient. It costs more than life imprisonment, and it has the potential to kill the innocent (which is certainly not an efficient way to prevent reoffending).
Though there is an argument that it is more cruel to imprison somebody for life than to kill them.
Mahons,
"Well what I was asking is for people to think about their position on the issues of capital punishment (pro or con) ratherthan give their automatic answer right away."
Noel is still right though. It is a bit like asking people to consider their marriage vows in the light of a scenario where Elle McPherson, Angleina Jolie and Keira Knightley all show up naked with beer and pizza, and offering you $1m apiece to spend the night with them. And, you know, think about it rather than giving your automatic answer straight away (I'm sure your wife would have the same advice :-)
Of course most people would want to kill someone who killed their child. The question is not if you would want to but is it right.
right on the money Frank
If someone murdered one of my chldren, if the state didn't kill them, then I would. Even if it meant I would spend years in prison. For the heinous crime of killing a young person death is the only answer, and by hanging or just dangling for sometime before the last breath leaves their body. Chicken wire I believe is the answer, and if was a sex crime they should die with their balls stuffed in their mouths. Is this a bit strong oh dear I do so wish not to upset people of liberal culture. Prehaps wishing you all Merry Christmas is not appropriate at his moment.
"If someone murdered one of my chldren, if the state didn't kill them, then I would."
Great post, Mahons.
I tend to agree with Maggie. I oppose the state death penalty for two reasons: 1) an innocent person may be executed; 2) basically I don't agree the state should have such a power.
BUT
If a grieving parent were to kill the murderer in a case like Adam's, I don't think they should be punished - or at least it should seriously mitigate any sentence they are given. (I know this also contradicts my belief in due process but there you go.)
I'm OK with the state having the power to remove the impurity from human society and think it entirely moral to execute a person who murders but have a really hard time with the ( very real ) possibility of an innocent person being executed.
That one you just cannot talk your way out of, and it's an especially big issue in places where they want to :"fry 'em all "
Frank - I wonder if we back away from the facts of a case in an effort to avoid emotion we can back away too far until the crime becomes more of a statistic than an actual event. There are some safeguards to avoid inflaming a jury, but we aren't discussing this as a jury at the moment.
Maggie/Troll - your reactions have justification.
What, The Phantom, if all the evidence is there...DNA et al...what then ...I don't and neither do the majority say 'fry em all' but there is in most cases overwhelming evidence. I am also proud to say the British discovered it DNA
Maggie
I support it in those cases. I'm just saying that I want very great care to be employed - which is not always the case
I would also want to restrict obstructions of justice by Johnny Cochran type defense lawyers, or those who try to say that their client murdered because he ate a Twinkie ( Harvey Milk ) or those who say that their client murdered because of "historic racism" and "black rage"( Colin Ferguson in NY, who murdered whites on a commuter train ). All these lawyers should have been disbarred for making knowingly fraudulent claims in a court of law and bringing the profession and the legal process in general into disrepute.
Chiming in with you on this one Maggie, great comments and awesome no messing approach to the issue.
Today we have more scientific knowledge than ever before with which to ensure 100% guilt or innocence in *such* cases.
I would happily draw the knife across the man's throat and stand by and watch the last drop of blood leave his body. After he had been hung until almost dead with his scored burned and mutilated genitals stuffed into his mouth as you say assuming, as I do, that in most male violent crimes it was sexually motivated and that the boy's suffering was as humiliating and degrading as it was violent.
I actually don't care if the case is over a child or an adult.
Where such violence is involved and the murder was intended to be cruel, violent and callous as some form of pleasure as it is for serial killers/paedos, a long spell in prison contemplating your impending violent and painful death with at least a few attempts to exonerate yourself in court maybe to be absolutely certain of guilt, is the answer.
And yes if I ever get the chance to exact justice of my own in any such situation over myself or a member of my immediate family if the state had failed them then I too would happily ensure punishment was exacted and spend all my life in prison for it. Absolutely NO qualms, ZERO hesitation.
There is nothing more gut wrenching or potentially riling than a lack of perceived justice for a victim. This is in and of itself a life sentence.
I don't believe the power resides with the state anyway. I believe the power to decide should reside with the victim or victim's family and be exercised via the state and that they should have some say in it.
and as an aside..there is no heaven for his soul to fly to sadly. Obviously a true God would never have allowed such violence to befall the innocent boy in the first place. Cases like this remind me of that fact.
thats the whole thing you can step away from it emotionally unless it's your own child.
I am pro death penalty but only in casses of no doubt and especially in casses involving children.
and by no doubt I mean eye witnesses, DNA hard evidence jury trial and 1 apeal
I don't agree that the family should have undue influence.
That can lead to two identical heinous crimes with two different punishments - the first where the family forgives, the second where the family wants vengeance.
The family should not have the power to cut anyone a break, nor should they have the power to ask for medieval punishments.
I want a stern, unemotional, accurate justice system that seeks the truth.
I didn't say they would so you shouldn't overdwell on that. I said 'some' and with good reason. But it does depend on how you perceive justice I guess. 'Truth' is in the process towards justice. It is not the ultimate goal of it. And of course victims should always feel the state has acted justly on their behalves - as it acts for and by us at the end of the day.
Reading all these posts certainly does give pause for thought, not least of which is, just what is Justice?
I think we all agree it should be more than just a matter of revenge, but as when a child is the victim, should there not be some element of retribution?
Does incarceration really give any closure or peace of mind to the parents?
At present, I doubt that a life sentence really satisfies anyone's criteria for suitable punishment, but then what do we replace it with?
Given the flippant disregard for life by many of the perpetrators, I think that there is a place for execution, but certainly not as a mandatory punishment. - but who can we trust to make those decisions, - it seems that while people are quite happy to let doctors have the power of life-or-death, they are reluctant to allow the judiciary the same discretion...
I place the greatest emphasis on the word "unemotional".
I don't even see it as punishing necessarily.
I see it as cutting out a cancer cluster for the benefit of the greater society.
we put that power in jury
Glad I helped back my "Should Sarah Palin's husband cheat on her with a gay Muslim abortionist in a Chicago hotel?" post as the less confrontational piece.
Troll - I thought your response regarding the appeal, eyewitnesses etc was a thoughtful one.
Mahons,
I believe you are either for the death penalty or against it. It is not conditional.
I am opposed.
Hmmm, we use a jury for that don't we - a jury arrives at a decision 'supposedly' unemotionally while a lawyer defends a case using every emotion in the book! But the unequivocal verdict is to be determined by cold hard facts. (except in rape cases where it is determined simply by hearsay and a wing and a prayer). The punishment, for that is what it is, be it jail or death, at the end of it, should be predetermined by a cold hard bunch of fatcat bigwigs I suppose, but it should fit the nature of the crime. And the latter should include the nature of the victim's suffering and express society's outrage at it. I always thought it kind of did. I certainly don't view long jail terms or death sentences as a major deterrant in the outcome else we would have less of this crime not more of it. Just dispose of the garbage. Fittingly.
Pinky - Well it is conditional in that even those who favor it may favor it for one or more crimes (treason, piracy, murder etc). In addition, it can be imposed on types of murder see premeditated as opposed to manslaughter, or the killing of a police officer in the line of duty.
I suppose I was asking people whatever side they come down on the issue to think about their position instead of merely broadcasting it. And then broadcast away.
--while a lawyer defends a case using every emotion in the book--
Correct
In a big picture criminal defense lawyers act to protect rights and justice but in many individual cases they quite knowingly act to obstruct justice.
A jury may feel sympathy but is instructed not to base their decision on sympathy, a difficult thing to do for any human, but suprisingly done routinely.
Child abuse is apparently very much a chain thing.
Another young boy’s maternal grandmother was a Satanist, who exposed him to various satanic practices and rituals in his youth and gave him the nickname "Devil's Child". His father abandoned the family when he was six years old, and his mother was apparently a religious fanatic, who often abused him and dressed him in girl's clothing.
At school, he received failing grades and was held back twice, before dropping out of high school in the ninth grade. He was often designated as being mentally retarded, with an IQ tested variously between 54 and 75. He was also believed to suffer from various learning disorders (including dyslexia) and being illiterate. He also suffered from epilepsy, which resulted in frequent grand mal seizures. Throughout his childhood, he ran away from home often and would often sleep in abandoned houses.
He admitted to having committed his first murder at the age of fourteen. After being propositioned for sex by a travelling salesman, he ran over the salesman with his own car (one action of his at least many here will approve of). He later supported himself by prostitution.
This is the boy who grew up to be the murderer in this case, whose absolutely rotten life many of you would like to end by stuffing his genitals in his mouth and hanging him with chicken wire for being such a bad lad.
Executions make people feel good and morally high, they also bring closure to some families. We can I hope agree, however, that the main priority should not be on killing the killers but preventing such crimes in the first place. Killing such a criminal as this is the easy, if self-gratifying, way out. It will have at best an insignificant effect on the rate of the crime in question.
I think we as a society should be mature enough and confident enough in our resources and intelligence to face the much more daunting task of reducing the frequency of such crimes by doing hard work to prevent the context developing in the first place, by isolating and treating the various causes and by attempting to recognise the symptoms before it is too late.
Phantom - the defense lawyer's role is to advocate for his client, not to insure justice is done. I don't know of too many who actually obstruct justice, and if they do, they can be charged.
Alison,
First, nice to see you again.
It is a very difficult issue, particularly when the question of slain child is introduced.
Which is why I say, you are for or against and it is non-conditional.
Many people have questioned and even insulted me on this position, posing the question, 'If it was your child..'
My answer is always the same. My sense of love and loss for my child has nothing to do the the evil acts of another. It is independent.
I oppose the death penalty.
I suppose I was asking people whatever side they come down on the issue to think about their position instead of merely broadcasting it. And then broadcast away.
I understand Mahons.
For me, it does not require that thought and I am not giving a knee jerk reaction.
I am opposed to the death penalty.
I don't use obstruct justice in the way that a lawyer would.
I think that a lawyer that intentionally spreads doubt when he knows that the facts are not in question is guilty of obstructing justice in my book.
Johnny Cochran is Exhibit A, and William Kuntsler ( "black rage" )is Exhibit B.
In the OJ and Ferguson trials they did not act as officers of the court, they knowingly acted as impediments to justice.
I am not an unabashed admirer of our system. And do not accept that "its the worst except for the others " I see it as very flawed, and as one that should be open to learning from other systems.
Noel - I don't think those who believe in the death penalty are necessarily bloodthristy or that those opposed are necessarily soft on crime.
Pinky - I am fairly certain I could have predicted everyone's reaction. We've been down this road before. What I was hoping for is a chance for folks to contemplate the other side, even if they ultimately reject it.
Phantom - on those two examples you are correct. And a good prosecutor and judge would have had Cochran for lunch and Kunstler for dinner.
Mahons,
"I wonder if we back away from the facts of a case in an effort to avoid emotion we can back away too far until the crime becomes more of a statistic than an actual event. There are some safeguards to avoid inflaming a jury, but we aren't discussing this as a jury at the moment."
It is appropriate to have an emotional reaction to such crimes, and it is appropriate to consider the best way to stop them happening again (or in the first place) - just not at the same time.
And you know, small children die in greater numbers in horrible accidents and of easily preventable causes all the time. They get run over by buses, they stowaway on aeroplanes and get killed when the landing gear comes down, they starve to death or they die for lack of clean water. Their last moments must be just as horrible. It doesn't mean we should kill somebody to make ourselves feel better about it.
The question should be how does killing the person help any child at risk. I don't think it does.
I would also ask, if the system should put an innocent person to death, who among the supporters of the death penalty will volunteer to be killed in the manner that they say justice requires? Because that innocent victim will be somebody's child also - and their last moments, and their parent's pain, will be horrible. And of course they claim it can't happen anyway, so they have nothing to worry about. Right?
Re your 3.33 Phantom - agreed.
'The question should be how does killing the person help any child at risk. I don't think it does. '
Great post Frank.
No of course it doesn't Frank. But then neither does rehab or jail sentences so why bother? Or touchy feely lets try and understand and prevent mentality either - and as an unabashed advocate of the death sentence in such cases I don't believe that to be the key reason to advocate it.
We will never properly eradicate or prevent such abhorrent human behaviour so simply lift the lid and dispose of the garbage. The less pointless human crap taking up prison space and using up tax payer money to be held securely or live a life of relevant comfort inside prison the better.
Well there should be far more emphasis on rehabilitation of offenders, in this country anyway
Don't necessarily speak of the kind of criminal spoken of here - who needs to be lasered out of society, end of story -- but all would benefit if there was a serious effort at rehabilitation and if prison life was less brutal especially for first time nonviolent offenders.
Frank - I wouldn't advocate for capital punishment to make someone feel better (I refer of course to the victim's family).
I do think the last moments are appropriate before a jury considering guilt and especially the penalty phase. I don't support capital punishment myself for the crime of murder because it has been and still likely will be misapplied.
It's not necessarily to make the family 'feel better' Mahons, it's to provide them with justice of which that is a part - the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime as you stated. Else why are you advocating a death penalty in your post speaking of 'deserving death' if not because it makes you 'feel better' that justice is served?
It would surely make me 'feel better' knowing that some bastard had been taken out.
"I don't support capital punishment myself for the crime of murder because it has been and still likely will be misapplied."
I don't understand this comment, is your judical system in the habit of misapplying death sentences?
We know you are crap at economics but I always thought you had a pretty decent justice department.
Alison - I was responding to Frank's post which seemd to imply that advocates of the death penalty sought it so they would "feel better" which is not a reason to support it. I do feel a person actually guilty of a premeditated murder does deserve it, but I am certain the system's fallibility makes it unjust as a penalty.
Maggie
C'mon now,no cheap shots about our excellent financial professionals like Madoff.
There is always the possibility that an innocent person will be executed, just as there is always the possibility that an innocent person will be jailed
The US is not the only country who has falsely convicted someone of a crime. Where the process is run by human beings, there will be error. And overzealous prosecutors. And idiot judges. And stupid juries. And juries that understand everything but who nonetheless vote against the evidence for their own reasons ( jury nullification ) And errors in the evidence. And police malpractice. These things should never happen, but there will be times when it does happen.
Cheap shot Bo`ocks - all the lives he has destroyed I think the death penalty ought to be applied to him.
"There is always the possibility that an innocent person will be executed, just as there is always the possibility that an innocent person will be jailed" maybe so that is why the death penalty will never be re-instated in the EU. Shame in my view, the error feasibility is miniscule.
Maggie - the system is actually quite good at finding the guilty guilty, but not perfect. If an innocent person is put to death for a crime they didn't commit, there is no remedy as in the situation where wrongly imprisoned man at least can walk out of prison.
Mahons, as I understand it people oonvicted in US and now currently on 'Death Row' spend years and years in that situation, appealing and appealing so surely, if innocent, they would have 'walked' a long time ago.
Depends how long it takes for the new evidence to be revealed
There were cases where (new) DNA technology exonerated people many years after the fact
I am now going to cook for a 'hungry' man so will leave this post and attend to a poor dead chicken. Don't you often thank god you were born into the premier division on the food chain and not some hapless chicken or ......turkey!!!!!!
Maggie - Most are overwhelming guilty, but some aren't. Therein lies the problem.