This is the animal that led Polimom to start blogging (ABC):
SPOKANE, Wash. Oct 12, 2006 (AP)— Lawyers for Joseph Edward Duncan III said Wednesday he will admit to the murder of 9-year-old Dylan Groene in Montana and to killing three of the boy’s relatives in Idaho if prosecutors will drop the death penalty option.
The atrocities committed against Shasta and Dylan Groene by Duncan (a.k.a. Jet, and Jazzi Jet) appalled me more than any other, and his actions crystallized my position on the death penalty in cases like his.
And yet… there’s a little girl out there in the world who somehow survived (WaPo):
COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho — A girl who survived a massacre at her family’s home last year is competent to testify in the trial of Joseph Edward Duncan III, which begins next week, a judge ruled Thursday.
Unfortunately, as terrible as that massacre was, it isn’t all she came through. She also witnessed the hideous murder of her brother, with whom she was kidnapped… and with whom she was apparently molested. And as Captain Fantastic at The Cellar blog writes, he is accused of:
Crimes which caused the violent death of young Dylan Groene in view of his little sister, survivor Shasta– who was allegedly forced to participate in “cleaning up” the crime scene- a “camp” Joseph Duncan brought the children to in an otherwise peaceful, remote area of western Montana’s Lolo National Forest.
That a judge has ruled her competent to testify implies (to me) that she’s an incredibly strong little girl who has been getting the support and help she has to have.
But she’s still a 9-year-old little girl, and she should, if at all possible, be spared further pain.
Peven said Duncan is willing to plead guilty to spare Shasta Groene the trauma of having to testify in court against him.”It’s the right thing to do,” Peven told The Associated Press. “Mr. Duncan doesn’t advantage himself in any way.”
Duncan understands that by making the confessions, he will make it easier for the federal government to convict him of expected charges of kidnapping and murder in the abduction of Shasta and Dylan when the state case concludes, Peven said.
Polimom’s very skeptical that Duncan’s acting altruistically, but if it is true that, as a result of Duncan’s confessions, the federal government will be able to pursue their case against Duncan without Shasta, then the Kootenai County prosecutor’s office should have accepted this plea bargain…. but they didn’t.
However Duncan’s defense team says Prosecutor Bill Douglas has rejected the deal.
Douglas has said all along that Duncan deserves the death penalty for his crimes. The revelation of the plea rejection comes just five days before jury selection begins in the case against Duncan for the Wolf Lodge Bay murders.
By insisting on going forward with the trial at the local level, prosecutor Bill Douglas appears to be looking for a notch in his belt at the expense of a little girl. Worse yet, it isn’t necessary if the federal case will only get stronger as a result of the guilty plea.
Shasta may be competent; if she is, that’s wonderful. Terrific! Miraculous! But her mental strength is the only bright spot in this very dark tale.
Yes, Duncan deserves to die… but not at Shasta’s further expense.
She’s suffered enough.
* * * * *
Update Monday Oct. 16: From CNN:
COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho (AP) — The man accused of kidnapping two children from their Idaho home and killing their family agreed Monday to plead guilty to murder and kidnapping charges to escape the death penalty, officials announced in court as his trial was about to begin.
Under the deal, Joseph E. Duncan III, 43, will be sentenced to three consecutive life terms in Idaho, then face federal charges which could carry the death penalty.
The deal also means the only survivor, 9-year-old Shasta Groene, will not have to testify. She was expected to be a primary witness against Duncan at trial.
According to the article, they’ve had some difficulty finding an unbiased jury (go figure!).
Obviously, Polimom’s relieved at this outcome for Shasta’s sake. There’s more, though:
The plea bargain request included an offer to give investigators access to encrypted files in Duncan’s computer, which are thought to contain graphic evidence of his crimes.
Experts have yet to unlock the files and Duncan, a computer expert, has bragged that the encryption protection he used is so strong that it will take authorities three decades to crack it.
Since his arrest, Duncan has also been implicated in the unsolved deaths of two children in Seattle and one in Southern California.
There were lots of reasons to do the right thing here…
I comletely understand your point, but this points to a general issue with our criminal justice system: the victim of a crime has no special status; he or she is, in legal terms, simply a witness for the state in the state’s case against the accused criminal.
And, if the community has decided that the appropriate penalty for this crime is death, it is the prosecutor’s job to seek that penalty.
Add to that the politics of all this (nobody wants to have to explain why they didn’t seek the maximum penalty for someone who admitted he committed the crime) and the situation you’re talking about seems inevitable.
Especially when judges and attorney generals are elected. They have to answer to voters, and that means that they will be quite hesitant not to seek the maximum penalty in a horrific, high profile crime. Personally, I think those who administer justice should be insulated from politics as much as possible, and be appointed rather than elected.
I’ll certainly agree with John on this one. It is a real conundrum. However, my question is that if the Federal case would have been helped by the Guilty plea, could they have sought the death penalty in the Federal courts? If so, then the DA could have explained it as a win-win: help the Feds, put the guy away for good, keep the girl from having to testify.
One thing John said I’ll take exception too, however:
Not necessarily. If, in fact, the victim is the key witness, s/he has a special role in the case as the accuser, whom one accused of a crime has the right to confront.
Somehow, it wouldn’t surprise me if the creep’s lawyer doesn’t try to take Shasta apart on the stand — and, despite being ruled ‘competent to testify’, my guess is that emotionally she is one very fragile person.
~EdT.
The right thing to do is to eliminate this vermin from the world of the living with as little cost to the rest of us as possible. I agree it is a good thing that we’re sparing the little girl the trauma of confronting Duncan, but I regret the millions we’ll waste trying the scumbag in Federal court and more millions if he beats the rap there. Resources are finite; sometimes we have to make hard choices.
Regarding John’s comments about insulating judges and prosecutors from accountability, that’s fine until they become so out of touch with reality that their decisions aren’t reflective of the society they’re supposed to be serving, as can be seen with the SCOTUS.
I don’t think he’ll make it long in prison. Even the criminals don’t like pedophiles.
Ed – I’m just talking in legal terms (based on my experience years ago as a victim witness advocate in Massachusetts). I think the victim’s testimony certainly has a big impact on the jury, for example. But the way the system is set up there’s rarely much of a mechanism for dealing with the needs of the victim.