That story doesn't give all the details I got on the radio. 570 KNRS in Utah
John Geoghan, the 'icon' of the scandal with Catholic priests, having allegedly molested 130 children and been transfered repeatedly when the parents started making too much noise, was killed by Joseph Druce. Joseph was already in prison for the maximum sentence allowed in Massachusetts: life with no parole. He had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of more than one man, and he was in prison for killing an older man that he believed was hitting on him.
Joseph apparently planned this out. He looked for a chance to do this. When Geoghan's door was open, Joseph slipped in, shut the door and somehow barred it from being opened. He then used a cloth of some kind to stragnle Geoghan, after which he wrapped the defrocked priest in a sheet, and then repeatedly pummeled Geoghan, even jumping on the priest with all of his weight, until he was sure the man was dead. Then Druce unbarred the door so that the guards could come in and take him.
Anger issues? Uhm, yeah.
Do you think justice was served? Why or why not?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't justice. Justice is equal distribution of the good. That was just answering wrong with more wrong. I don't feel very sorry for him-but it wasn't justice, and shouldn't have been done
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
But it does seem oddly satisfying. His killer had nothing to lose, and it does show what can become of hundreds of children abused both by individuals and the system that protected the pediphiles.
Not just, but maybe ... fair. Poetic, in a brutal, what-goes-around-comes-around sort of way. It certainly isn't a surprise.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know the thing that surprised me was reading that Druce was convicted of sending a letter with white powder in it, claiming the contents were anthrax. This is a guy who is serving a life sentence for murder and no one is checking his outgoing mail?!? Seems like MA has problems in the prison system in general.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
How would you apply this viewpoint to this case? You're trying to give me only positive statements, but I'm not sure that's the full picture. What would be justice here, to you?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in cases of abuse, murder, etc. it is impossible for "justice" to be done. Justice is returning what was lost, restoring damage done. But, you cannot return what the boys he abused lost. You cannot restore them to their innocent state. That is what makes crimes of this nature so heinous.
I do think that there is a sense of irony, of "what goes around comes around". Someone who infringed on another person's body had his body infringed upon...
posted
So what do we do when "true justice" (framed only in positive terms) cannot be done?
Sorry . . . I've been reading the newer additions to Slash's old thread, and I'm thinking some people need to die.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because of his actions, he probably had it coming. Whether or not he deserved it or it was just is another issue altogether.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what do we do when "true justice" (framed only in positive terms) cannot be done?
I'm not sure. I think that's the problem our "justice system" struggles with constantly. I think that while the purpose of our "justice system" should be "true justice", in these instances where it is impossible, punishment is an acceptable alternative. As a society though, we rarely agree on what punishment is appropriate for a particular situation. Personally, I think that death is an acceptable punishment for certain offenses (such as murder). I don't know about abuse. It is such a horrific and emotional crime that I'm not sure what punishment should be given to those that engage in it. I don't know if revenge is the answer, even though it may be deliciously appealing ("let's how you like being locked in a cage/closet/etc. for weeks!"). I guess I would like to think that even punishment should serve a purpose. I just don't know what the purpose should be and how to accomplish it in each situation.
posted
I think we all sort of subconsciously ascribe to the idea of karma. What goes around comes around. 'He had it coming.' I think it just means that an ending like this was predictable, not unexpected. Deservingness doesn't really enter into it. If you never wear a seatbelt, then don't be surprised if you go through the windshield in an accident. Maybe you didn't deserve it, per se, but it seems to be a reasonable result of your actions, even if the accident wasn't your fault.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Is our justice system about creating justice, which as we see is difficult to do, or is it about protecting society, or is it about punishing criminals, or is it about rehabilitating criminals? <--- rhetorical question
Clearly, we in the US don't have a coherent national philosophy on that issue, and this is where a whole lot of other problems creep in. Right now, we seem to be failing at all of those goals. Protecting society seems like it should be the easiest of these goals to achieve, but our prisons are so overcrowded that we aren't keeping the criminals away from society.
Say, anybody ever read Starfire and [/i]Aftermath[/i] by Charles Sheffield? In that novel, they put incorrigible criminals in cold sleep indefinitely. The idea is they are removed from society, they don't suffer (theoretically), they don't take up much space, and if it turns out a mistake was made, they can be reintroduced into society. Of course, after enough centuries pass by, we sure would need a lot of storage space. Maybe they could be kept on an asteroid or something . . .
Anyway, what do you think of this? It sure doesn't satisfy my thirst for vengeance, it's just a thought that comes to mind as I read this thread.
EDIT for clarification, because I'm a slow poster!
posted
I dunno, I have a problem with the contrast between an early death and vs. life in prison.
Elimination of a predator is a good thing, I think -- that is, a dangerous habitual predator who couldn't be restored to a normal life by any kind of therapy (I don't actually know whether Geoghan falls into that category).
I think a more fitting punishment for him would have been to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, living in constant fear of something like this happening. FEAR of death is far worse, in my opinion, than death itself.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Geoghan could probably not have been rehabilitated. Unless child molestors are caught and subjected to intense therapy by their early teens, before adult sexuality has really set in, anything after that can be only behavior modification and not be considered an actual cure.
And most horrible of all is that though Geoghan's actual victims may number around 130, there are probably several of those who became predators themselves and have harmed other children.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not it was just, the result of his abuse and tolerance of abuse amounted to a broken, angry man that would seek him out and brutally murder him.
I'd say he was facing the consequences of his actions.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
this isnt just some one time screw up. That man was sick. I want to know, why the court only gave him life in prison, and not death.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't kill anyone. It wouldn't have rectified anything.
I think he got what was coming to him. I feel a certain satisfaction in it. But I don't feel good about it. It isn't a good outcome.
But I also see that this could actually backlash against his victims who are seeking healing themselves.
This is going to sound odd, but revenge isn't enough. Revenge doesn't stop the pain. What could stop the pain is being able to prevent it from happening, to save others from the pain. Increasing the hurt, in this case by violent action even if it was towards the perpetrator, does not end the pain. Not for me, anyway.
The equation needs to balance out to the most joy possible for everyone. I'm not a pacificist about this, as those of you have seen that I do support the forced removal of a tyrant. Truly awful things need to be done sometimes to prevent even worse things happening. And all you have is the data before you by which to make a judgement.
But then again, in the eternal sense, where the love of God is for all and we face being aware of the true reality of our actions, perhaps this would have a redemptive aspect for the priest himself. Perhaps he himself would consider it justice.
I wonder if he hated himself for being that, and if he wished for something like this to happen?
posted
Icarus, one of the problems with freezing people is that you're assuming there is no afterlife. If there *is* a job you're going to prevent their divine judgement from taking place, whether the judgement would be good or bad. I don't know why, but that lept out at me as being a problem when I read that. The issue of resources aside.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting point, Bob. I hadn't thought of that. Can God be cheated, if He exists? hmm . . .
quote:But I also see that this could actually backlash against his victims who are seeking healing themselves.
This is going to sound odd, but revenge isn't enough. Revenge doesn't stop the pain. What could stop the pain is being able to prevent it from happening, to save others from the pain. Increasing the hurt, in this case by violent action even if it was towards the perpetrator, does not end the pain. Not for me, anyway.
I don't buy that the death of a perpetrator is likely to set back the healing process of a victim. I agree that revenge isn't enough, and it doesn't stop the pain. But there is satisfaction in revenge, and also some closure when a perpetrator is killed.
Kayla, are you saying you hate the idea that death is not warranted for someone who doesn't kill somebody, or that you hate the idea that death is warranted for those that do?
I feel that violent rapists and those who rape children should be destroyed. They haven't necessarily killed, but they typically destroy lives, and their actions often lead to other people taking their own lives.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are things worse than murder and it bugs the hell out of me when people say there isn't.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Take the case of the mother who was, I believe, psychotic and depressed, and drowned her four children. About a year ago, I think? She was assessed at the time as clearly not mentally healthy. People even started blaming the father because he left her with the children.
From what I gleaned, I honestly believe she loved her children, but she was clinically insane. I am of the opinion based on what I've been told that in her case, curing her would be torture and giving her the death penalty would be mercy.
Indeed, this is why I can't make myself be completely against capital punishment. I think that in some cases, this would be the best punishment for the sake of the criminal. I guess that is because I believe in an afterlife, and that healing can occur in the afterlife. For some people, 'making things right' when they have murdered would mean giving up their own life. If there is no afterlife, then I guess it is merely a cessation of a miserable existance. Life itself is not sacrosanct. Experience and growth is. If one comes to a point where growth is not possible because repentance is not possible, then their life becomes intolerable and death is mercy.
But who can judge by those kinds of principles? No one on earth. All we have is this system that is barely competent, and sometimes not at all competent in uncovering guilt and innocence and appropriate consequence.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that. I was talking about victims. Murder isn't the worst thing that can happen to a crime victim.
I'm of the personal opinion (sometimes) that the worst of the worst should be forced to live for a very long time. Not in the prisons we have now mind you, but if the point isn't going to be rehabilitation, then retribution is the way to go and the best way to do that isn't to kill them, it's to torture them.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
This isn't a black & white question, is it? I have struggled for 20 years over how I feel about the death penalty/dealing with murderers and other hatefilled criminals.
My father was murdered when I was a teen. I have struggled with the idea of the death penalty since then. His killer is in prison -- supposedly life sentence, but he comes up for parole now ever 5 years or so, and we have to go back to the parole board and protest his possible release.
I don't have hate for the killer enough to want him dead. I don't think his death would in any way make my grief any less. HOWEVER, I also cringe every paycheck knowing that some of my tax dollars are going to house/clothe and feed this man, my enemy. He has many priviledges that even my own children do not have (and, granted, my kids have some priviledges, like freedom, that he doesn't) There were years, when my children were younger, that we barely had enough to eat, and no health care. He had all that -- state provided. So yes, I was bitter.
Yes, there are punishments worse than death, as someone said here. But many criminals are not feeling that punishment.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say, anybody ever read Starfire and [/i]Aftermath[/i] by Charles Sheffield? In that novel, they put incorrigible criminals in cold sleep indefinitely. The idea is they are removed from society, they don't suffer (theoretically), they don't take up much space, and if it turns out a mistake was made, they can be reintroduced into society. Of course, after enough centuries pass by, we sure would need a lot of storage space. Maybe they could be kept on an asteroid or something . . .
Neither of those...though I did read part of a short novel once in which freezing occurred. It was written from some strange charismatic POV (the author had apparently written a previous mystery novel in which the solution was that a demon was involved); freezing actually turned out to be worse than hell, at least from the perspective of the frozen individual.
My problem is that when such frozen people are released, they will be unchanged. Of course there are all the arguments that prisons don't rehabilitate offenders--but life goes on, and it's possible that even if prison life doesn't teach them not to commit crimes, some other event during prison will. Freezing...well, the presumption is you go to sleep and wake up years later; you might as well let them spend a night in prison and leave for all the consciousness of it they have.
quote:Icarus, one of the problems with freezing people is that you're assuming there is no afterlife. If there *is* a job you're going to prevent their divine judgement from taking place, whether the judgement would be good or bad. I don't know why, but that lept out at me as being a problem when I read that. The issue of resources aside.
quote:Interesting point, Bob. I hadn't thought of that. Can God be cheated, if He exists? hmm . . .
Well, divine judgement will still take place eventually--just later. I don't believe it's possible to cheat God; I concluded that the soul is indestructible for that reason alone. (Clearly I didn't buy the "worse-than-hell" bit...)
I did once come up with the notion of having oneself frozen in order to preserve the church, should the need arise...
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Like someone else said, Druce had nothing to lose. He was already a convicted murderer and the absolute worst the state was willing to do was put him in prison for the rest of his life. What would therefore stop him from killing people while he's in prison?
I don't feel particularly sorry for the dead child molester, but it's a TERRIBLE thing for prisoners to be punishing other prisoners. That doesn't help anyone at all. You want the STATE to hand out punishments. Letting prisoners beat each other, rape each other, kill each other, this only encourages violent behavior.
Druce was a murderer. He should have been executed. When someone proves, by committing a heinous crime, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are evil, dangerous, and unfit to live in human society ever again, I see no reason to keep them around. If *nothing* else, it keeps them from killing anyone else. And like we know, even in prison they can still kill again.
If the State wants a prisoner to die, they need to do it, and send a message to everyone else: if you commit certain crimes, you'll pay for it with your life. Prisoners killing prisoners sends no such message. Applying such punishment in rare and uneven circumstances sends no such message.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The prison system should change. It's unfair that a person caught with a bit of drugs will get sent to jail longer than a person who has molested a child. What they should do is have separate prisons for violent criminals and rapists and for people who just commit crimes involving drugs or theft. It makes no sense for them to be in the same prison system. Most Thieves and people like that can be rehabilitated. Rapists and child molesters cannot and should be allowed to rot for their crimes. But at the same time I do not believe in the death penalty. To me it's simply state sanctioned murder, it does not prevent crime. What really would prevent crime would be keeping each person at an early age from slipping through the cracks.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
