August 15, 2013 2:01 pm ET
Is Sun columnist happy that a serial baby killer will be set free?
Source: A Misguided Sense of Justice?
In a past blog, I discussed my disgust with Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks. Even now, as I think of Mr. Rodricks, I can’t help thinking about a reference to Lt. Dan from the Forrest Gump movie, especially since it shows a runaway fishing boat plowing through a dock on an aimless course.
To me, such is the logic behind Mr. Rodricks’ sense of justice that has him taking the side of the guilty over the innocent with so much enthusiasm that it calls for that pink liquid to settle my deep pit of righteous indignity, as Bill O’Reilly would say.
Back then, I needed some of the pink liquid. Today I need a whole lot more of it.
What has me back on the “Pepto wagon,” you may ask? The answer is a recent story about a serial baby killer about to go free—a story that reeks of the rather lame sense of justice to which Mr. Rodricks subscribes.
Yes, you read that right. A person jailed for killing an untold number of babies and a hospital covering up the crime is now being heralded as someone who deserves another chance in society.
Excuse me while I take another swig of my pink liquid. (Gulp)
When I wrote the original blog about the courts deciding that a life sentence is not really a life sentence, it made me ill to think that the guilty will go free just because the incident took place long before some of you were born. The justice system is not able to retry these felons that are getting a “get out of jail free” card due to some words spoken by judges, as there has been too much time that has passed since the original trial.
It is beyond troubling to see just how badly the standards of justice are abused in this situation. (How can I say this next bit of information respectfully? Oh well, I guess the truth won’t hurt.) It’s not hard to see the sheer idiocy of the criminal justice system in this country (funny ties included) and the total lack of truth and justice, which should be the driving forces behind the system.
However, those ideals went out the window when lame politicians began to tinker with the system and even lamer judges began to interrupt and apply logic (or a lack thereof) to a system that is widely based on interpretation rather than scientific facts. Even the facts are often muddled in the system due to outside factors like race, stature, public opinion, corruption, and case law (often dating back to biblical times).
I suppose that last statement may be a bit of a stretch on my part, but it is indicative of the common law approach.
Lt. Dan, what would you say to the parents of the 50 (or more) babies that the person killed? I don’t think your quote will cover it: “It took the notoriously slow court another 32 years to declare, in 2012, the instruction unconstitutional and apply it to all cases before 1980. You’d think the high court of this ostensibly progressive state would have seen the light much sooner. That would have served justice and saved a lot of grief.”
Although, the last sentence is rather telling. Where is justice served in this case, and who are we grieving for, Mr. Rodricks? Do you have the guts to look at each of the victims in these cases and spout on about what you are essentially saying is 32 years of judicial incompetence?
Putting the spotlight on the guilty and championing their cause may be the most backward thinking I have ever seen. I hope that Mr. Rodricks can sleep well at night, especially considering that there are additional murderers out on the street every day.
I think I need more pink liquid to deal with this one. I hope they sell it by the case…