I just found this twelve-part series on that tells in detail the story of the kidnapping and murder of seven-year-old Amanda Brown in 1998. Her body was never found but her killer is on death row.
I saw a poll around the time Willie Crain was sentenced to death asking if they should allow the death penalty in cases where the victim’s body was never found. The idea being that there’s a margin of doubt there. To me it makes no difference. A jury is supposed to convict if there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, body or no body. The standard of evidence is the same whether the defendant is facing the death penalty or a month of probation.
October 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
God I just read the 12 parts of the article. I am reluctant to criticise the mother, because of course Willie Crain is 100% responsible for the death of Amanda. However to point put the obvious- how Amandas mother could invite a man, not just into her house, but into her bed with her daughter present- a man she had known for less than 3 days is, well, frankly incredible to me. I often think that if I ever have children (doubtful), I would be one of those paranoid mothers, on account of all the crimes and missing people information I have ingested. However, the more I read these kind of cases, the more I am convinced that may be no bad thing. Even, by the mothers own admission, there were red flags before they went to bed. The door closed, her sat between his legs etc. Some people are scarily stupid. Saying all that, I am sure she feels terrible enough, without anonymous loud mouth commenters like me pointing it out.
Incidently, I am against the death penalty (I am British and live in the UK, which I guess is kind of relevant to the argument). However I do agree that if you were to apply the death penalty, the presence of a body should be irrelevant. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the criteria for conviction, as you rightly point out. There are no cast-iron guarantees that a body would yield any further forensic or other evidence, even if it were found. Especially, as it a lot of missing people cases, the person has been missing for many years.
October 8, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
Yeah, I agree that the mother acted foolishly. Perhaps her judgment was impaired by her drug addiction.
October 8, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
Circle me!
That is sick to let a strange man get that close to your child that she is between his legs withthe doors closed and still have him home in bed with both of you.
October 8, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
England could save itself from its chav and yob problem if it went back to using the gallows on Tyburn Hill.
October 8, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
Probably not. Tyburn didn’t stop the chavs and yobs back in the 1700s, why should it work now?
October 8, 2009 at 5:16 pm
But thus was ended the problem with those who ended on Tyburn. An outbreak of hemp quinsy does a people good. Nothing in their lives became them like the leaving it, in many cases.
October 8, 2009 at 9:28 pm |
Nature gave us the biology to produce kids, but the instinct to protect them doesn’t always kick in for some.
I’m sorry. Reading about the mother letting this man she barely knew into her house with her daughter and all the warning signs she ignored… it has pushed one of my buttons. Get ready for a long rant.
Has anyone seen the film “Idiocracy” that came out in 2006? It’s a comedy, but it has a bite because you can see some truth in it. What happened is that most of the educated and intelligent people didn’t have kids until they were in a position to properly care for them. But all the stupid people had kids indiscriminately and have outbred intelligent people, so that by 500 years in the future, the world is run by morons.
Yes, it’s a funny film. The part that is not funny is that in this country, you have all these people having kids solely because their biology allows them to when they shouldn’t even be around kids, let alone having any of their own. Animals that eat their own young have better parenting skills than these people. Those kids (if they survive the neglect and/or abuse) grow up completely messed up to be either perpetual victims or predators and society pays for it in a big way.
I’m not saying that intelligent or educated don’t abuse or neglect their kids. I grew up around several children whose parents were white collar professionals where at least one of them was either too narcissistic or too involved with their substance abuse to see their children as anything more than an annoyance. But most of them don’t breed indiscriminately because they usually practice birth control for the most part.
It is usually the poor, ignorant, uneducated, screwed up and substance abusing people who keep cranking them out. I know that’s not politically correct, but it’s true. I also want to state that I don’t think being poor and lack of formal education automatically makes one a bad parent. There are no absolutes here and as long as a parent is a moral person and raises their kids to be the same, they usually turn out OK. But for the most part, almost all of the kids you find in Child Services or the foster case system have come from people like that.
A while back, I had an idea that the government should offer $20,000 or so to anybody, no matter what their socio-economic background in this country from the age of 12 on up, to have either their tubes clamped or have a vasectomy, as long as it was a reversible process. If they wanted to have children and have the process reversed, then they would have to pay the money back. For that kind of money, most people would snatch it up in a heartbeat. Let’s face it. Kids are REALLY expensive and if you don’t have the money to get the process reversed, then you have no business having kids right then, nor do I see a bank loaning you the money. If it is discovered that the procedure was illegally reversed, then that should be a criminal offense and they would not be able to receive any government assistance whatsoever. It won’t stop the problem, but it will definitely slow it down. The plan isn’t perfect and there would be a lot of loose ends to iron out, but this would pay for itself in welfare costs, social services, prisons, etc.
Look, I know a lot of people reading this will want to tear into me for what I’ve said. I am not some wannabe dictator who has been reading too much into Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch theory and thinks he has all the answers. I am just tired of seeing all this… crap that we have to deal with when screwed up people have kids. In Brazil, things are so bad there with packs of feral children, that there are death squads that go in and wipe them out. Compassion is all well and good, but it doesn’t work with people who are sociopaths and psychopaths with no empathy and more than a few of these kids are turning out this way because they were brought into this world and raised by people who should never be parents.
If you are convicted of gross negligence or abuse against your own children, you should have your reproductive rights forfeited forever.
Rant over.
October 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm |
Justin,
Very well said!
October 9, 2009 at 3:23 am |
Justin – Right on, Brother!
People got mad at me for saying the same thing, but I had to say it. I’m glad to hear someone else make the point. Wish I could shake your hand and buy you a drink.
October 9, 2009 at 8:47 am |
The death penalty does not lower crime rates. This a proven fact. The UK is a much safer country now, than it was when we executed people. Although the right wing press would have you believe otherwise.
Incidentally- as many people have pointed out- my view on this might change should I ever (God forbid) be personally affected by this issue. I have always accepted this.
Justin- a scary prospect, but I understand the point you are trying to make. I often wonder if everyone should be allowed to have children too. This is unfortunately something I do have personal experience of.
October 9, 2009 at 9:29 am |
I’ve been against the death penalty ever since shortly after Timothy McVeigh was executed. I was kind of ambivalent about it until I had a conversation with my sister and told her I was troubled about the possibility of innocent people getting executed. She told me, and I quote, “If they’re on death row they’re guilty of something.” She said she didn’t care whether they had actually committed the crimes they were convicted of.
Since then I’ve been anti death penalty. My sister is an extremely ordinary, commonplace person, and if there are a lot of people out there like her, I don’t want them to have the power to sentence people to death.
October 9, 2009 at 10:17 am |
Woah. Yes that is a terrifying prospect. (The average person also has little or no interest in politics either- another fact I have discovered recently)
I have actually been against the death Penalty since I read (randomly) The Green Mile- when it was first published (before the film, which I did not enjoy, but that is by the by). I was a youngish teenager at the time and it affected me profoundly. I often wonder if it would have the same effect if I had not come across it then, but had read it now, as an adult.
As well as the worry of executing an innocent, I can see no logic in punishing people by death, because they have murdered someone. How can one be wrong and not the other? Makes no sense to me.
October 9, 2009 at 8:46 pm |
I’m not For the death penalty to end someone’s life but we need to have “truth in sentencing”. Life in prison doesn’t always mean Life. The killer gets out. If we had true Life in prison, not ever getting out of jail, then more people would be okay with life in prison.
How many times have we heard a prisoner/killer found God and is now a different person? Good, they found religion. They can help other prisoners.
I grew up in Calif, lived in Atlanta (my 3 children were raised there) and moved back to Calif so most of my homes have been in conservative areas so most people believe in the death penalty b/c they don’t want the bad guys out.