Hum Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- Mary Kate Gach thought she had heard the last of Jack Trawick when he went to death row for murdering her daughter in 1992. Instead, Trawick's twisted writings about how he beat, strangled and stabbed Stephanie Gach and killed other women are available to anyone who wants to read them on the Internet. Many of the writings were put there by a one-time pen pal and admirer of Trawick's. Around the country, dozens of U.S. death row inmates have gotten their letters and artwork posted on the Internet, a practice that torments the victims' grieving friends and relatives. Experts say little can be done about Web sites featuring the writings of killers. "It's the First Amendment," Ruhe acknowledged. Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/13/killers....e.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avada Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 but i thought that if you're a convicted and serving you're rights are surrendered? they're not allowed to vote and all that *but i guess its the rights of the pen pals thats being debated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplecookie Veteran Posted January 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 14, 2004 I only agree with those in prison selling their paintings or dolls or auctioning off their things when the money goes towards the victim's family. This is WAY over the line though, and the state should put a stop to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruBD Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 how much can you do to stop things that spread thru the internet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Saw this earlier today. Think there are general laws that prevent those convicted from profiting from their crimes, via book publishing or whatever. Not sure if things like this are "profiting" via web posting, but very likely going to be something disallowed, at least until someone's out of prison if such occurs. In the meantime, terribly terribly sad that flagrant criminals can still be given more "rights" than victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 hrmm thats kind of disturbing, but realistically with all the other sick stuff on the internet, eveything from making bombs, to other deadly aparatures, to pictures of dead bodies etc this should really come as no surprise. My main concern would be other "criminally minded" people could easily use this to readily and without suspcion study these crimes, and learn from the convicted criminals mistakes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
technics Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 the guy is one sick m0f0... he should be hanged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glockfan Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 the guy is one sick m0f0... he should be hanged! he is on death row you know..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted January 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 14, 2004 I only agree with those in prison selling their paintings or dolls or auctioning off their things when the money goes towards the victim's family. This is WAY over the line though, and the state should put a stop to it. Yeah, but would you accept a check from the murderer of your daughter? I am not sure if I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaise Veteran Posted January 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 14, 2004 they should not have any means of self expression while on death row IMO and I'm a liberal by most standards. I remember that fiend John Wayne Gacey who murdered over 30 boys and buried them in the crawlspace of his house, making those clown paintings and he had a computer in his cell too. Hell the state governor had one hanging in the mansion :o You are sentenced to death for squelching another human beings ability to express themselves through art, poetry, creative writing etc.. you should lose your ability as well. I think once they are sentenced their lawyer is the only person they should be allowed to have contact with, no family either. Same goes for those serving life without parole..shut em up and isolate them..forever. Just like their victims. moved to RWI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 In regards to punishing the criminal as away of helping a family... how does causing pain to another human being make someone happy? Yes, in the context of crime-committing it might seem all fine and dandy, but 4-5 years down the line, the family is just going to forget about it and move on with they're lives. I don't see how punishing criminals helps facilitate the process of letting people "move-on". Moreover, what is enough? For example, how much imprisonment/compensation should be done to exact the family in justice? Other then using some arbitrary number, such a calculation would be impossible to make, so where is the brightline? Why is it not eye-for-an-eye? I don't think there is any sufficient way of punishing the criminal or compensating the family enough for the crime, so why even assign a punishment/compensation to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Punishment is dealt out because society demands it. It is not the individual family that is taken into consideration when punishment for an offence is considered, it is based off what society (as a norm) generally finds an acceptable punishment. And in the case of murder, that is generally life, or depending on what country/state your in, the death penalty. Perhaps the punishement doesnt fit the crime, but thats just because the law is slow to react to change, and take extreme measures. But I have to say someone above raised an intresting point. Obviously society demands some form of justice...but seeing the criminal isolated, or executed still isnt going to make the pain the family feels magically go away, so what does comphensate for an intangible injury they suffer from? Good question indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 (edited) ....Yes, in the context of crime-committing it might seem all fine and dandy, but 4-5 years down the line, the family is just going to forget about it and move on with they're lives. I don't see how punishing criminals helps facilitate the process of letting people "move-on".... Um, very disturbingly misguided. :no: Families never truly "forget about it" and "move on" with such things. They do the best they can to continue "life". If anything, every time they see the criminal's "freedom of expression" or whatever, it reminds them of the "freedom of expression" one lost through a murder or other crime. Anyway, no, families don't "forget about it", and probably never truly recover from such occurrences as much as criminals themselves can just push things out of their own minds and want to "move on" with their own lives. Please realize that consequences to victims and their families aren't just "forgotten" 4-5 years down the line, and that there remain practical consequences to them forever even if they try to forget because they can't do anything about it. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing that can truly be done to murderers or comparable folk to compensate victims and their families for what's happened, and imprisoning someone is but perhaps 10% of why such is done. [Edit: Given that victims themselves, personally, cannot publish things in cyberspace as a result of crime/murder, I see no reason why perpetrators should be allowed to do so with "freedom of expression" excuses or whatever. Horribly horribly sad every time criminals are given more "rights" than their victims were given.] Edited January 15, 2004 by poind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted January 15, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 15, 2004 But I have to say someone above raised an intresting point. Obviously society demands some form of justice...but seeing the criminal isolated, or executed still isnt going to make the pain the family feels magically go away, so what does comphensate for an intangible injury they suffer from?Good question indeed. Um to answer you question in very simple terms, it deters a lot of people from committing murder. Of course there will always be people who break any law that is made, but if you look at the punishments' severity, the weaker the punishment the more often such a law is broken. Case in point, everybody speeds while driving (I know that I do). The enforcement and punishment for it are rather minor (especially when compared to the death penalty or live in prison and the pursuit a murder would get). If murderers received a proverbial slap on the wrist you would see a lot more people that "sit on the fence" with whether or not to kill someone, would infact kill someone. So in that regard it does work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Angry Bunny Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Wow... I only live an hour away from Birmingham and this is the first I've heard of that... All I can say is sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiLViEtDuDe917 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I would have to say that that is very disturbing. First of all, they murder someone, second they post it on the internet which can spread around the world in 5 seconds or less. This is a very disturbing and public action. I bet that no one here wants a picture of them sleeping or something posted in neowin.net.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Sorry, obviously punishment is meant to act as a deterrant, I was more thinking philosophically as to what constitutes reciprocity to the victims of murder crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairon Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 So who wants to find the site with his postings? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaise Veteran Posted January 17, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 17, 2004 So who wants to find the site with his postings? :D geez man where in NJ are you?..a smack to the back of the head is in order ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted January 17, 2004 Author Share Posted January 17, 2004 :rolleyes: I wouldn't be too bothered by criminal's postings. You would have to make an effort to find them, they aren't going to jump out at you. And only the looney-est people are going to view them. (wow Blaise -- you sure get violent ... glad you are 200 miles away ! LOL :laugh: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaise Veteran Posted January 17, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 17, 2004 :rolleyes: I wouldn't be too bothered by criminal's postings. You would have to make an effort to find them, they aren't going to jump out at you. And only the looney-est people are going to view them.(wow Blaise -- you sure get violent ... glad you are 200 miles away ! LOL :laugh: ) where exactly? :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Of course there will always be people who break any law that is made, but if you look at the punishments' severity, the weaker the punishment the more often such a law is broken.Case in point, everybody speeds while driving (I know that I do). The enforcement and punishment for it are rather minor (especially when compared to the death penalty or live in prison and the pursuit a murder would get). If murderers received a proverbial slap on the wrist you would see a lot more people that "sit on the fence" with whether or not to kill someone, would infact kill someone. So in that regard it does work. Indeed, any given "law" is no better than its ability to be practically enforced, even if just on a fairly random/unknown-when-it-will-happen basis. (At risk of bringing up indirectly related stuff, U.N. "resolutions", for example, are no better than U.N. ability to practically enforce them.) People can try speeding, but there remains risk of hitting the sometimes random conditions that lead to "enforcement". People can try murdering, or comparable crimes, but law enforcement has marked interest in doing everything possible to track down each and every occurrence, unlike speeding. Whether or not law enforcement pursues something does not negate the natural consequences that can occur should someone do various things (e.g., the practical risks one encounters if they drive recklessly, be law enforcement there or not). The more "severe" the crime, yes, the more it's likely to be pursued by law enforcement, as well as it's more likely law enforcement takes consequences if the infraction is ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted January 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 18, 2004 First of all, they murder someone, second they post it on the internet which can spread around the world in 5 seconds or less. The murderer did not post it online. He can't. He wrote letters to a "fan" who then posted it online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts