Chapter 3 Sample

[ Home ]

Violence is Not Your Fault

"There is always going to be room to claim errors.
There is always going to be human error. But we
tell the appellate court to quit believing doubts"
--- attributed quote from Steven L. Wessells who is trying
to limit death penalty appeals, from Los Angeles Times
article: Faster Isn't Always Better, editorial section: 1/8/95

 

Perverse Legal Outcomes in Violent Crime Murder Cases

The next few examples can be classified under the above.

S & R Legal Nerd Example #23

Then there's the "adopted child syndrome" or abuse excuse criminal defense reported in the Los Angeles Times Commentary pages on 5/15/94. None other than the renowned (famous or infamous) criminal defense attorney, Alan Dershowitz bemoans the fact that a defense lawyer had come up with this defense for Joel Rifkin accused of murdering 17 women, mostly prostitutes. The "abuse excuse" for Rifkin's serial killing rampage went as follows: as a child he was given up for adoption by his presumably prostitute mother thereby depriving him of his biological mother which explains why he gravitated to the world of prostitutes, and we can only surmise that he had to strangle them to alleviate his pain.

Dershowitz is concerned that more similar cases of this psycho babble reasoning might further creep into the realm of commonly accepted criminal defense. He says it would be a "sick joke" except that this defense is now becoming the defense of choice in a growing number of murder cases. He goes on to further point out, and I quote the article: "Psychologists and other professionals are lending their credibility to this parade of pathetic excuses." Of course, he soberly reminds us: "But the vast majority of adopted children do not kill." In fact he thinks adoptees probably do not kill at any greater rate than non-adopted children, as a group. [No kidding, Alan, you reached that conclusion all on your own by your own rational thought! Wow, what a concept]. Alan continues: "These excuses also send a dangerous message about personal responsibility.... [This in an] "age of blame-everyone-but yourself-sob-stories ... [whereby] few people seem ready to take responsibility for their own actions."

What a bunch of CRAP this type of criminal defense is! Good thing that even the lawyer, Alan Dershowitz has an inkling that it, the legal system, and criminal defense lawyers have perhaps gone too far. No kidding, Sherlock! What was your first clue? Unfortunately, more and more the country is subjected to such legal stupidities as this --- this is merely one in a long line of 95% S & R Rule stupid and ridiculous arguments created to justify criminal atrocities and their perpetrators with the intent to garner sympathy for these poor souls who have lost their way as victims themselves! It is actually disgusting that people would make these arguments, and even more disgusting that people (jurors, judges, and other lawyers) would even seriously consider them. We ought to be seriously concerned about a legal system that would even deign to countenance such tripe and garbage, and act as if they merited any serious validity. This kind of stuff is not reasonable, not beneficial, and doesn't help regulate society or its members in any realistic or practical way. So why do we allow it to happen?

S & R Legal Nerd Example #24

It gets worse. On 12/6/94 KCBS New Radio reported that a criminal defendant was presenting the legal argument that he was innocent because his "genes" caused him to commit his crime. This story was further elaborated in the Equal Time section on page 10 of The Limbaugh Letter dated: January, 1995. The newsletter described how Stephen Mobley brutally in execution style murdered a Domino's Pizza store manager in Georgia in February, 1991. He soon thereafter committed another half-dozen armed robberies. After he was finally apprehended at the conclusion of a high speed chase through Atlanta; his lawyers claimed that Mobley was genetically predisposed to crime --- that a killer gene had made him do it. This so-called excuse for his committing violent serious crimes was supposedly buttressed by the fact that his immediate family had a history of committing violent crimes. Also, the defense pointed to a Harvard University Medical School study which had supposedly identified a genetic mutation which predisposes people toward violence. No evidence was ever given, however, as to whether or not this supposed genetic mutation which predisposes violence had ever been confirmed or replicated by another researcher. Any scientist knows that it takes more than one study to confirm the existence of any so called research finding.

At any rate, I guess this genetic mutation reasoning is no more ridiculous than the now infamous "Twinkies Defense" presented during the 1979 trial of Daniel James White who murdered the Mayor and a fellow San Francisco supervisor. In that case the court rendered two verdicts of voluntary manslaughter because of a defense of impaired mental capacity resulting from eating too much junk food, like Twinkies.¹  The "Twinkies Defense" while novel, was nonetheless effective. It reasoned that an abnormally high blood sugar count was to be blamed for the mayhem caused by Mr. White.

Who knows about the validity of such tripe? But it seems there is no end to these stupid and ridiculous kinds of criminal defense arguments designed to enable criminal perpetrators to escape the consequences of their actions. If we always look for any no matter how remotely reasonable or possible excuse to eliminate personal responsibility for ones actions; then the notion of personal responsibility for actions under the law becomes entirely moot. It just won't exist; because you can always find something, no matter if it seems stupid and ridiculous, to "pin it" on. Then apparently all you need is some slick, fast-talking lawyer to sell it to a jury, or merely confuse them. It doesn't matter which, the outcome will be the same!

S & R Legal Nerd Example #25

On 11/6/94 an opinion by Joel D. Roberts was printed in the Los Angeles Times titled: Why is the Night Stalker Still Alive? An immediate subtitled quote below the story read: "It's lunacy to keep a man alive so you can give him the death penalty for the 20th time." As I think Mr. Roberts can best express the idiocy of this case, I'll present below what I think are the most telling elements of his article:

...the summer of 1985 ... was the season of the Night Stalker, where Richard Ramirez roamed, he reigned. Now, nine years and 19 death sentences later, the Stalker is still likely more than a decade from death.... We house and feed him, clothe and entertain him, minister to his medical needs and facilitate his contact with fans.

...perversities of the fringe [are one concern]; what concerns me here is the perversity of the system. In fact, perverse may be too weak a word for it....Already on San Quentin's Death Row, the Night Stalker now awaits trial in San Francisco on one final count of murder. The best possible outcome, from the state's point of view, would be a first degree conviction with "special circumstances," resulting in yet a 20th death sentence.

This lunatic redundancy will not come cheaply. The Los Angeles trial cost nearly $2 million (which was after the millions spent on the manhunt) and there's no reason to assume the new trial will cost less.

Roberts goes on to point out, "The new trial is not only pointless, it's dangerous." He feels this is so because he says the witnesses and victims now so many years later when called as new witnesses again may forget what they said before or what they can still accurately recall. If the witnesses now say any statements which are at variance in any way with past statements made at any of the earlier trials; Ramirez's lawyers may be provided with new endless grounds for appeal. Don't forget that even if Ramirez is convicted one more time, he will still be entitled to automatic appeal of any new 20th death penalty sentence.

Posing questions for liberal judges and criminal lawyers who seem to delight in the way the Night Stalker case has so far been handled with what he calls "perverse pyrotechnics," Roberts asks: "How many lives does a man have to take before we deem him undeserving of life? How many death sentences must a murderer receive before the first is carried out"?

This case as much as any other that can be recounted shows that the legal system as it is currently being applied in violent murder cases is a seriously broken, perverse system which defies common sense and bears not even a remote resemblance to anything that can be considered reasonable or beneficial for society. It is NOT JUST! Instead it is perversely STUPID and RIDICULOUS! How long will it continue?

1.Edward W. Knappman, ed. Great American Trials: From Salem Witchcraft to Rodney King (Detroit, MI, Gale Research Inc.,1994),p.686