The Victim

[HaysooChreesto!]

Last night something came to my attention about my stepdaughter's biological father. The man was sentenced to 30 years in prison about a year ago for kidnapping, rape, and attempted murder of his wife of some nine years. The sentence was so harsh because the police had come out to a domestic disturbance at their house a year prior and he was subsequently charged with what the state of Washington calls "4th Degree Domestic Assault". It's basically where the cops come out and assess blame in a situation where no actual physical violence had occured---at least that's the way I understand it.

Due to various other factors about this guy, including his almost complete abandonment of my stepdaughter, I can't say that I felt a lot of pity for this man. He left B (my stepdaughter) to move up to Washington with this new woman when B was only 7. That's it, gone, see ya'. He always sent the legally agreed on child support; he was a firefighter and not paying support is a huge no-no for those guys. That's where his role in B's life began and ended though. Not even a call on her birthdays or during Xmas ever came. Never. We would fly her up to see him once a year for a week or two in the summer, during which time he'd fuck with her head and tell her that he wanted her to move up there with him, that it was "his turn" to have her live with him. Of course he had no such intentions but year after year she'd come home in tears over it.

He went on to father six more kids with this woman in Washington and their marriage was nothing short of disaster year after year. He cheated frequently. He was also a frequent church goer, telling B that he felt sorry for me because I was an atheist. I know, hypocrisy cubed.

Now, after all this I think it's understandable why my sympathy for this man was a little above zero. However, last night I found out that the guy had been seriously molested as a child. It's not bullshit, it's true. He was raped repeatedly from around ages 9-11 by some neighborhood freak. I also discovered that shortly before the incident where he nearly killed his wife, he had just broken off a gay affair he'd been having with a former boss. This is obviously a tortured person.

At what point does understanding give way to punishment in a case like this? He's clearly very, very troubled and from what I've been told, he's been diagnosed with several mental disorders. I think it's safe to say that those disorders grew from the severe childhood abuse he suffered. Then there's the religious aspect of it. He's apparently bisexual and being of a conservative Xtian background, it has to have caused huge conflicts within him. He insists to all who know that he's not gay, that it's something that "just happened" because his wife wasn't willing to have sex with him anymore. For obvious reasons, I don't buy this. A heterosexual man deprived seeks out other women, not men.

At any rate, what should be done in a case like this? I fail to see how thirty years of incarceration in a state penitentiary will help society at large or the individual in question. It's not that my heart is bleeding---he does need to be kept away from society because he can't deal with reality in any kind of manner that could be deemed safe. Still, I have to think there's a better solution that won't take 30 years. What's there to work for? By the time he gets out he'll be around 65. What will he do then?

Or is it the case where a human being, once reaching a certain point, can never be brought back and therefore the only thing to do is lock them up for good? I do think that's a legitimate solution for many dangerous people.

I'm also not trying to relieve him of any personal responsibility-not by any means. But where's the line at which one ceases to be a victim and becomes purely a criminal?

[Vandrare]

Tough questions really... but is there ever a clear line to be drawn? Surely every criminal is a victim of his situations at least in part.

I myself struggle with the issue of where personal responsibility really begins and ends - and its an offshoot of the nature 'v' nuture debate. How much of the way we think, and react to situations is due to our upbringing, and how much is inbred? I tend to think so much of it is learnt or due to our experiences in life... but this takes a lot of personal responsibility away from the individual.

Because of that I would prefer to err on the side of caution, and have incarceration as a measure to protect society from further crime, and as a place of rehabilitation (which it isn't really), rather than as a punishment for the crime.

In this situation though, shouldn't this man be sent to an institution for treatment? He definitely needs to be kept out of society till he's able to function again, but he needs help to rehabilitate.

:-D Anna

[mickw]

For what it's worth, at the very least you'd think any defense attorney worth his or her salt would have brought all that stuff up as possible mitigating circumstances.

[dancer_rnb]

I feel more for those that try to kill themselves instead of someone else in those situations.

[orpheus last chant]

I just want to ask one thing: How is 30 years for rape, kidnapping and attempted murder a harsh sentence? Doesn't seem to me.

[HaysooChreesto!]

For what it's worth, at the very least you'd think any defense attorney worth his or her salt would have brought all that stuff up as possible mitigating circumstances.

Certainly. It was a combination of him not telling his attorney everything and the guy just being a shitty lawyer.

[HaysooChreesto!]

I just want to ask one thing: How is 30 years for rape, kidnapping and attempted murder a harsh sentence? Doesn't seem to me.


I meant that relatively. There are murderers who do less than ten years. It happens all the time. In this case, the reason for the lengthy sentence without possibility for parole was due to the 4th degree domestic charge prior. There was also an incident in the state several years prior where a police officer committed a similar crime and in reaction to that the state passed very punitive laws against cops, firefighters, etc.

I have no respect for this man. I do however have to question how the victims, society, and the criminal himself are served by what for all intents and purposes amounts to a life sentence.

[javarush]

Around here, if he were acquitted for reasons of insanity, he'd be committed to a mental health institution which essentially amounts to a prison with better access to specialized rehab programs. It's not punishment per se, but removal from society. What makes such incarceration very different is that for consideration for release, the burden of proof would be on him to show that he's no longer a threat to society. That can make the sentence very open-ended. The review board members are typically not only professionals but also street-smart so that release, even supervised/conditional release, is not at all easily obtained. When there's a history of violence, any kind of release can become virtually impossible. But even with the safeguards, deceptions do occur, supervision momentarily lapses, therapy compliance falls apart, and innocent people can again get hurt. We recently had a particulary nasty case in which a supposedly supervised, medicated outpatient stole a handgun and literally executed three innocents for no apparent reason; a cab driver and a husband and wife were head shot while in the kneeling postion.

[CelticChic]

I have no respect for this man. I do however have to question how the victims, society, and the criminal himself are served by what for all intents and purposes amounts to a life sentence.

I guess my answer here is that prison exists less as a punishment to the criminal than to function in protecting the individuals of a society from further harm. Ideally I think we would rehabilitate criminals rather than punish because many will come back into society and I doubt jail time is good for very many people. But ultimately a criminals victims and society are protected by their incarceration and that is (to me) the point.

[Joe Bloe]

I guess my answer here is that prison exists less as a punishment to the criminal than to function in protecting the individuals of a society from further harm. Ideally I think we would rehabilitate criminals rather than punish ...
I don't see the point of punishment, certainly not punishment for its own sake. I do understand the desire for revenge if one is wronged, but I see that as a desire to overcome, not to give in to, sort of like the desire to cheat on one's spouse or to eat that extra piece of chocolate cake.

In theory, the threat of punishment is supposed to work as a deterrent, and to work as a deterrent it must be carried out in cases where it is too late to deter the crime already committed. But those very crimes committed in spite of the threat of punishment reveal the limitations of that strategy. Another theory of punishment is that it is supposed to "even the scales," that by harming another, one deserves to be harmed oneself. But I fail to see anything positive resulting from inflicting another negative (as your mom always said, "two wrongs don't make a right").

Rehabilitation seems to me to be a far better goal than punishment: I'd much rather be around people who don't commit crimes because the don't want to rather than because they fear the resulting punishment if they do. If rehabilitation isn't possible, continued incarceration does function to protect others from someone who has proven himself to be dangerous, which I think is a legitimate goal. And in the case under discussion it sounds like he is dangerous regardless of who is at fault for him becoming dangerous.

Whether or to what extent rehabilitation is possible is another question, but rehabilitation seems to me to be a legitimate goal whereas punishment, while it may be a legitimate means to a legitimate goal (though I'm not convinced it is), is not itself a legitimate goal.

[Hazy Daisy]

I think the question isn't whether this man should go to prison or should go to a mental institution: I think there should be a third option which combines both. He is a criminal, he is dangerous, and he doesn't belong in a regular mental hospital where he could potentially victimize members of the public seeking mental health treatment (remember, not everyone in the mental ward is there involuntarily, and the vast, vast majority of them are emotionally wracked, not violent or dangerous -- at least not to anyone other than themselves). However, prison won't rehabilitate him and he could be further victimized there, so where he belongs is in a facility that combines both incarceration and treatment. Such a facility could be high security, even somewhat punitive, while being ultimately treatment oriented. As much as therapy might help this guy and lead to a better outcome for society in general, vulnerable, non-violent mental patients (that is, the majority of them) need to be safe from people like him. (And with people like him out of mental wards, maybe mental wards could stop treating patients in the two-faced way they do now, half of the time like a patient and half of the time like a convict.)

(Damn, did I use enough parentheses? WTF is with me today?)