The Campione case is just another example of madness and the law colliding. The jury struggled -- they took seven days before coming back with a verdict.
It's quite clear that Campione was unbalanced at the time of the killings -- but it also seems quite clear she knew what she was doing. Still, her claim of abuse obviously rang true to some degree -- look at the judge's comments below.
The problem is that our system assumes you are sane or insane -- a binary analysis. The system then looks to punishment as deterrence. It's obvious deterrence isn't an issue here -- no one about to kill their children is deterred by potential future punishment.
Even denunciation rings thin in a case like this -- apart from a few on twitter calling for "hang the bitch" (I'm not kidding -- that's a real post) -- this tragedy doesn't call for vengeance as much as it calls for tears.
Campione was not unaware of what she was doing -- she was not suffering a disease of the mind such as to give a criminal defence -- the jury got the facts right. But she was not in her right mind. Of course, how many murderers are?
http://bit.ly/doyoz0
Minutes after a jury convicted Elaine Campione of two counts of first-degree murder in the drowning deaths of her little daughters, the trial judge suggested she belonged to a class of "weaker and more vulnerable" citizens who as "victim/offenders" sometimes "act out of the expected norm."
2 comments:
Thanks for your valuable contribution!
My impression of such trials - of parents killing their children - is that men accused of these crimes rarely get the type of venomous attacks from the public that women do.
Also, the sentences men receive seem more lenient.
A recent case that allowed under-rock dwellers and various pond scum to vent their gynophobia was that of Chris Little. His supporters claimed he was framed and/or he was justified in the honour killing of his estranged spouse.
Post a Comment