A 25-Page Rap Sheet = 5 Dead

The Product of a Liberal “Justice” System

David C. Stolinsky, MD
July 9, 2009

The South Carolina spree murderer has been identified. He had been paroled only two weeks earlier and had a 25-page criminal record, including armed robbery, burglary and assault. He was surprised during another burglary and shot dead by police in North Carolina, ending a reign of terror in which five people were murdered. They included an 83-year-old woman and her daughter, a farmer, and a storeowner and his 15-year-old daughter.

A police official waved the thick rap sheet at TV cameras and demanded to know why someone with such an extensive criminal record had been released yet again. It was almost as if the criminal had been told, “You’ve committed many crimes, but you haven’t murdered anyone yet, so we’re letting you loose on the community to try again.”

A three-strikes law would have saved those five lives, but liberals oppose such laws. This is a striking illustration of the proverb, “He who is kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind.”

When I heard that the criminal had been killed by police, I was relieved that the murder spree was ended. But I was more relieved − happy, in fact − that the murderer was dead. Wouldn’t it have been enough if he had been arrested?

No, it wouldn’t have been enough.

My happiness that the murderer was dead was a result not only of the current murder spree, but also of a whole series of sad events − a sort of buildup of injustice, an accumulation of injury, a collection of needless pain.

● Fifteen-year-old Mary Vincent was raped, had both forearms chopped off with an ax, and was left for dead in California. Remarkably, she survived. The rapist and attempted murderer was released after only eight years in prison. He moved to Florida, where he stabbed a 31-year-old woman to death. He was sentenced to death, but died in prison four years later, before the sentence was carried out.

● Twelve-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped from her California home at knifepoint, raped and strangled. The murderer had a long record and was wanted for parole violation. This case fueled the push for a three-strikes law. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but remains on death row 16 years later.

● Fourteen-year old Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped from her Utah bedroom. Elizabeth was found nine months later. She had been living with two molesters, who were too mentally ill to stand trial. They remain in a mental hospital.

● Seven-year-old Danielle Van Dam was kidnapped from her California bedroom. Later her nude body was found so decomposed that a dentist had to identify it by her teeth, some of which had been knocked loose. The murderer was sentenced to death but remains in prison.

● Four-year-old Samantha Runnion was kidnapped from in front of her California home.  Her nude body was found by a roadside. The murderer had previously been acquitted of molesting two nine-year-old girls, though he admitted touching one of them repeatedly while “bathing” her. His lawyer got him off by accusing the girls of having been “coached,” and referred to this case as a “win.” We might use a different word. The murderer remains on death row.

● Five-year-old Rilya Wilson disappeared from the Florida foster-children’s program, but nobody noticed for 15 months. Rilya’s body was never found, but a caretaker was charged with her murder. A search of the Internet failed to reveal what happened to the accused murderer. Both the child and her case seem to have been lost.

While writing this article, I searched Google for “kidnapped girl.” I found 999,000 entries, indicating that Google is a powerful search engine − and also that we are in deep trouble.

Perhaps all this sad news had been on my mind.

Perhaps the deterrent value of being shot to death was glaringly obvious.

Perhaps I knew that the scales of justice are seriously out of balance.

Perhaps the news that the murderer of four adults and a teenage girl had been shot dead by police helped to balance the scales a bit.

When scales are out of balance, they need to be rebalanced.

Early in the last century, trials were brief and punishment prompt. In 1901 President McKinley was shot with a handgun that was advertised in the Sears catalog for $3.27 − including postage.

But the assassin was electrocuted 53 days after the crime. The homicide rate in 1901 was only about one-fourth of what it is now. Which factor seems to have a greater effect on homicide: easy access to guns, or prompt punishment of murderers?

Does the death penalty deter criminals? In 1950 the homicide rate was 5.3 per 100,000 population. There was one execution for every 67 homicides. By 1960 the homicide rate was 4.7, but now there was only one execution for every 151 homicides.

The courts blocked all executions from 1968 through 1976, and from 1977 through 1980 there were exactly three in the entire nation.

Homicide reached its 100-year peak of 10.7 in 1980. It is difficult to claim that this was a mere coincidence, and not a result of our misplaced sympathy for murderers.

Executions then increased slowly. By 1992 the homicide rate was 10.0; there were 31 executions and 23,760 homicides, or one execution for every 766 homicides. Even if capital punishment deterred murderers when it was used on one in 67 of them, could it still deter when the odds improve to one in 766, and that after an average of 11 years’ delay?

But by 1995 executions had increased to 56, or one for every 386 homicides, perhaps explaining the fall in homicide.

Other factors were at work. We can’t say that the thirteen-year virtual moratorium in executions was the sole cause of the peak in homicide. But we can say that the moratorium clearly did not cause a fall in homicide.

Those who claim that abolishing the death penalty would teach nonviolence ignore the evidence from this thirteen-year, nationwide experiment, which is the best evidence we are likely to see. There is also strong statistical evidence that the death penalty deters homicide.

Abolishing capital punishment may be argued on religious or philosophical grounds, but not because it is a promising idea worth trying. It was tried. It didn’t work.

President Kennedy remarked that those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent change inevitable. Likewise, those who make legal justice unavailable will make extralegal justice unavoidable.

Americans tolerate a certain amount of violence and disorder. We aren’t a regimented people. But our tolerance has limits.

If the courts don’t execute murderers, especially murderers of children, the police will have to shoot them − while resisting arrest, of course. And if the police don’t shoot them, eventually ordinary citizens will.

Eventually people will stop tolerating the intolerable.

When I was eight years old, I walked to school alone through a park. Back then, there was more poverty and racism than there is now. But back then, people were held responsible for their actions, so there was less crime. Kids could grow up without fear. Then molesters lived in fear. Now kids are taught “stranger danger.” Then criminals lived behind bars. Now law-abiding citizens install window bars. That’s progress?

I was more cheerful because I knew that the South Carolina murderer of five could never hurt anyone else. Never. But beyond that, I knew that the scales of justice were just a bit more balanced than they had been an hour earlier.

It may be that some of the anxiety and depression so commonly felt by Americans is the result of a continual bombardment of news about brutalized victims, especially children − but a dearth of news about the execution of the murderers.

We can’t help but be affected by all this unanswered violence against the innocent and vulnerable, leaving us with a profound sense of helplessness and injustice.

If people think they are helpless in an unjust world, it is no surprise when they feel depressed and anxious. But instead of large doses of “happy” pills, perhaps all they need is to feel a bit less helpless, in a world that is a bit less unjust.

A good place to start is to straighten our bent justice system. This may take some time. Meanwhile, you’ll understand if you see me smiling when I hear that at least one bad guy got what he deserved.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com