Blue Byline

A cop's perspective of the news and South Sound matters

Vigilante “justice” gets new definition in trial: homicide

Post by Brian O'Neill on June 4, 2012 at 1:02 pm with 36 Comments »
September 20, 2012 8:25 am

(updated 9/20)

For the record, it didn’t have to be done.

The “it” I refer to are the vigilante killings of two sex offenders, Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray, carried out by one Patrick Drum. The two shootings on the Olympic Peninsula, which occurred on June 2 and June 3 of this year (Trib 6/4), were the result of Drum’s violent frame of mind and his decision that, “it had to be done.”

If that is true, then we have truly made no progress as a civilized society since, well…at least the twelfth century, when Henry II of England formalized the jury trial.

Even following his conviction (Huff Post) his story continues to generate comments in praise of Drum’s actions for the obvious reason – When it comes to sex offenders, the mob is quick to reach for pitchforks and torches.

It is easy to understand the scorn our society holds for those who prey on the bodies and souls of the most vulnerable among us. The sex offenders whom I have interviewed and arrested are sleazy degenerates, and my interaction with them provided little beyond a sense of extreme revulsion.

Which is why many readers are willing to stand and cheer when two felons, convicted of sex crimes, reap the whirlwind. That feeling of revenge is instinctual, a byproduct of our primitive brain, and if we continue to tap into this part of our thoughts we may as well erase a thousand years of civilization.

Vigilante killing is a violation of every painful step our society has taken towards a fair judicial process. We are still taking those steps – our system is not the blind and objective pinnacle of justice to which all men and women can turn. We have a long way to go towards that point, but we have made much progress over the years.

Our criminal justice system views the taking of a life as the consummate expression of inhumanity. Perhaps more to the point, homicide is an act of utter hopelessness. This might be better understood by people who have actually witnessed the act or aftermath of violent death. From that perspective the lifeless form of another human being is a visceral and stark reality. In the case of a homicide scene, the killer’s presence is as palpable as the body itself. It is a shocking and abhorrent image.

Such were my thoughts when I read the June article on the Olympic peninsula killings, which included reader comments such as, “the gene pool needs a little cleaning.” The only real message in this reader’s piece of misplaced bravado is the depressing theme we normally attribute to the third world – life has little value.

Our justice system, for all its faults, is the product of our collective will. It was created to honor our belief that life is sacred and that people deserve a chance to defend themselves. It was also created to repudiate the idea that justice should be delivered upon the presumptive judgment of one person.

Now that he has been convicted of homicide and pondering a life sentence, Patrick Drum will have plenty of time to consider that fact.

Leave a comment Comments → 36
  1. ShanaRowan says:

    As the fiancee of a registered sex offender, thank you. Just one small caveat, in reference to your first paragraph. Not all sex offenders have victimized children, used violence, or live up to the “typical sex offender” stereotype. My fiancee was 12 when he committed his crime, but was charged as an adult. There are many, many more like him, and our willingness to talk about child safety only when convenient speaks volumes about what this hysteria is really about.

    The hateful reader comments are to be expected, though. It’s the way that most articles covering this story merely refer to the 2 murder victims as “rapists” or “sex offenders” that is the most disturbing. That they were, but more importantly, they were someone’s family. Someone is grieving for them. Someone’s life has just been destroyed. Where is the justice for them?

  2. Brian O'Neill says:

    Thanks for your comment, Shana. In past columns I have discussed the huge gap between the types of sex offenses that require registration, and I agree that there are many individuals that must unfairly live with this stamp. That may have cost these two murder victims their lives.

    However, since the alleged killer has been caught there may be justice for the victims (or the closest our society can come to that concept).

  3. thoughtful1 says:

    Both of you have advanced thoughtful, cogent and compassionate points of view. When we go back to a vigilante justice “system”, we repudiate all that our nation stands for. As I remember a very sage teacher from high school in the late 60’s, “Justice is blind, so it can’t see our bias.” I hope that the State Courts will not cave to the Court of Public Opinion.

  4. Piercecountyvet says:

    I don’t know anything about the case that has led to the death of these two people. I do know that our current state laws are a political and highly destructive reaction to unreasoning fear. My own father could be serving a life sentence for my sisters conception. He would be classified as a violent sexual predator under current Washington state law. I’ve asked my mother about their relationship, she doesn’t see any reason why my father should be classified as a monster and hounded for the rest of his life. Now, a few decades later, we want to wrap our children in a protective legal cocoon until they are at least 18, then we will wash our hands and declare that our job is done, they are safe from predators and we can all sleep peacefully. How can we so conveniently forget our own adolescence? We, you and I, all had our rebellious phase. We gleefully ignored our parents warnings and strictures to seek out those forbidden experiences, sex, drugs, alcohol and more. Our reaction as adults and parents is to endorse the criminalization of anyone, be they older teens or others who enable our “innocent” children to act out their rebellion. Shame on us all for expanding the criminalization of foolish teenage rebellion.

    We need to be better, not make more criminals.

  5. Rudy101 says:

    This murder was directly caused by the sex offender registry. Harassment is directly caused by the sex offender registry. Violence directed towards those on the list is a direct cause of the sex offender registry.

    The public and law making bodies says the sex offender registry protects the community because “an informed community is a safe community.” That is it. That is the whole basis for the public sex offender registry. A ONE LINER.

    Not only is this an utterly simplistic approach to the registry, but who gets the label is completely left to a legislature.

    Mr. O’Neill states that many people must unfairly live with the sex offender label. Why is that? Because they don’t present a danger to the community? Their crime isn’t of the level that presents a danger to the community? They have lived offense free in the community for a long period of time? They are disabled? They were juveniles when they were placed on the list?

    All of those questions should be answered by a court of law and then proper restrictions placed depending upon each individuals.

    But the U.S. will never do that. Why? Because when scrutinized, the “informed community is a safe community” mantra would fail and then, for the vast majority of offenders, unlimited public dissemination would not happen. However a safer community would happen.

    Everyone has an opinion about who should be on the registry and who should not be. Those opinions come together to form a consensus a legislature acts upon.

    It is the wrong place for this. It belongs in a court of law.

    And finally, the public DOES get access to the sex offender registry. Everyone hates those on the registry (even Mr. O’Neill) solely by virtue of being on the list. Many people are condoning the act of violence that occurred when two people were murdered.

    You can’t reasonable expect, even dangerous people to follow a registry when their safety and/or security would be put at risk. And if society does they had better have an articulable reason for doing such a thing as determined by a court of law.

    As a matter of law, your registry IS not being followed. It is not reasonable, rational, related to public safety, proportional and fair. The registry allows even the most unstable in the community, the most angry, the most spiteful people access and the only way anyone can justify the registry is with a on-liner of, “an informed community is a safer community.”

    This is exactly why your registry is beat.

  6. Brian O'Neill says:

    Rudy, while I thank you for your comments, I would also request that you not put words in my mouth. I don’t indiscriminately hate people – if I did I would not have written this column – and I dispute your suggestion that “everyone” hates those on the registry. If you want to use the word hate, let’s reserve it for the crime itself.

    As for the registry I have seen it used to great effect in keeping tabs on certain registered sex offenders who would otherwise be doing some very bad things. Though there may be numerous people who don’t belong on it, I believe its existence is a necessary tool for public safety.

    I will believe the evidence I have witnessed first hand.

  7. Rudy101 says:

    Well, Mr. O’Neill, you say… “it used to great effect in keeping tabs on certain registered sex offenders who would otherwise be doing some very bad things.”

    What do you mean by keeping tabs on an offender? Because someone is registered you can search their homes? You can search their computer? You can tell them where they can and can’t go? You can force them into therapy?

    In fact, the State can do none of those things. The sex offender registry ONLY forces people to give up their names and addresses, along with some other information, to be shared in unlimited ways for the specific purpose of isolating that person from the community.

    Also, any evidence you see that the registry protects? That is called anecdotal evidence. It is evidence that is based upon experience. It isn’t actually evidence at all because experiences are inherently limited.

    I have been all up and down the commenting sections of the articles on this murder of these 2 registered people. There is an awful lot of people condoning this type of violence. These are the same people who get the names, addresses, a photograph, and other information along with a map to houses of registered offenders.

    Can you make a rational argument that giving THOSE people, who have a such a seething hate for the people on a registry, that they also advocate for the murder of those people on a registry and giving those people registry information? Do you really believe that as they get that information they use that information in benign ways for information only? Many of them really believe there is no legal protection for registered offenders (where do you think they come up with that?). Don’t you think they don’t use those ideas they have and not harass and threaten registrants?

    The point of the matter is, your experience is not evidence, and the evidence that IS evidence (like peer reviewed research) shows overwhelmingly that the registry does not reduce offense levels and therefore provide public safety.

    The conclusion is: There is no public safety benefit to a registry. It is not a matter of opinion or experience but of fact. If is also factual, that the registry is even used to commit murder, along with harassment, threats of violence and other types of violence. The registry is used to banish people from the community, cut ties to the community, and to isolate people from the community.

    Now, with all of that said, there ARE dangerous people on the registry. If society can’t avail themselves to use a COURT system in order to properly regulate a person beyond a sentence handed down by a court of law (which THEN you could really keep tabs on someone), then you don’t get your registry and a person thus has the legal right to flee the registry and do whatever they can to avoid the registry.

    The police doesn’t care if a registrant loses their safety and/or security, society doesn’t care nor the courts do they care; therefore, the registry, as a law becomes null and void. This stuff is basic to ALL laws and became law out of the ashes and destruction of WWII.

  8. Brian O'Neill says:

    Your comments suggest you either did not understand or did not bother to read my column.

    The police routinely visit almost every sex offender that is required to register, and my own experiences in that capacity give me the confidence to state that those visits can prevent or reveal some sex offenders doing unspeakable things. Your narrow-minded interpretion (which suggests you are one of those registered individuals?) interprets that as hatred for every person on the registry. As a law enforcement professional and a person I believe it is wrong to pass judgment on people whom I have never met.

    I have already stated that the requirements for registry are too broad, a point to which most people would disagree – most people believe that anyone who has committed a felony sex offense deserves what comes their way. I recommend you not vent your spleen at people who are at least trying to form a balanced opinion.

  9. Rudy101 says:

    And Mr. O’Neill, I don’t care about your opinions or experience about those on the list. Your opinions or experience don’t represent the opinions of many of those that get the information on the registry or what the research says about the registry.

    If what you say is true, and the requirements to be on the registry are too broad AND many people believe that a person on the list “deserves whatever comes their way,” and those same people have the means and mindset to act in ways against offenders; and there is no mechanism to get them off the list, what is a person unjustly on the list to do?

    They leave the list. That is what they do.

    And because there is no process to determine who is unjustly on the list and who is not it then becomes assumed everyone on the list is unjustly on the list.

    See how that works? When the State fail to have processes, nobody gets a list. It is like trying to put all people charged of a crime into prison without a trial. It just can’t be done. ALL, guilty and innocent goes free.

    You think I am registered? I am not. I laugh at your registry. The funny thing about it is, that you really believe the registry laws are credible because you can enforce it. Credibility of laws are not found in its enforcement, but by DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

    The registry is woefully lacking.

  10. Brian O'Neill says:

    I’ll consider that the next time investigators use the registry to solve a sex crime. That happens way too often.

  11. Rudy101 says:

    They don’t do that. I know that. In fact, it is extremely rare that the sex offender registry is used for investigative purposes and actually solves a crime.

    Why is that? Because over 95% of all sex crimes are by people not on the registry AND over 90% of sex crimes are by people known to the victim AND the use of D.N.A. to match an offender is a much better tool and is used much more often.

    I am not saying it never happens; I am saying it is extremely rare and it just does not justify creating a comprehensive extra-judicial police State around anyone a legislature wants.

  12. Rudy101 says:

    The registry does only one thing as it pertains to law enforcement. A person accused of a sex crime and is on the registry is arrested faster than someone not on the registry. That is all. It does not protect the community. It does not help in solving crimes. It doesn’t prevent crime. It actually creates more crime directed against registrants and forces criminal activity as a last resort by registrants.

    Is there anything useful the registry does? ANYTHING? Because I have a lot of case law; read a lot of the research and what I see is the only thing the State has is the ASSERTION, backed up with NO EVIDENCE that the registry does anything, and have used that naked assertion in order to strip, to a very large degree, most every civil right a person has ex-post facto, without hearing or challenge and all that is coming down the pike is more laws with naked assertions and more loss of freedom.

    Your registry can’t stand any real scrutiny. You know that, right?

  13. Rudy101 says:

    If you want, I will back up all my assertions with internet citations from university, peer reviewed, independent research.

  14. Brian O'Neill says:

    You will have a tough time convincing someone of your assertions who works in the profession and experiences the opposite of your theoretical data.

    I can only agree to disagree.

  15. Rudy101 says:

    You’re the executive branch of government. All you do is follow orders; and in order to make your job doable, you tend to believe your orders. Nothing surprising about that.

  16. Brian O'Neill says:

    I believe we’re done here.

  17. Rudy101 says:

    Until that registry has some due process, is rationally based upon an actual dangerousness, does not put an offender into the position of choosing between his safety and/or security and following the law or going to jail, has a mechanism for removal from the registry for not being dangerous, does not allow non-dangerous people on the registry in the first place, does not allow the public to take the law into their own hands and is actually rationally related to public safety, I am not done.

    I don’t blame you, or dislike you because you are a police officer. All I am doing is challenging your belief system.

    You should take a look at the research on this topic.

    We do need police officers who are dedicated to public safety. But what we don’t need is policies and laws that makes a person into a social pariah without any recourse EVER.

    You or anyone is not in a position to decide who the scumbags are and who are not that reside in the community. Your job is to give equal protection to EVERYONE in the community. However, you are just human, and when society gives you a hate list, you will tend to make judgements and act accordingly to it without any real intention to do so.

    That is why you believe you are protecting the community with the list.

    Things like, rocks thrown through windows, threatening notes left on doorsteps, vandalism of property, icy stares from neighbors, ripped up lease agreements, lost jobs and social isolation that most registrants go through just don’t make any impression on you, the neighbors, the media or anyone.

  18. HawkBat1 says:

    While I won’t presume to know the specific numbers on either side of the argument, I feel safe in making the guess that far more sex offenders who are listed on various public databases have gone on to commit additional sex crimes than there are those who have become “victims” of their listing.

    The complaint of those who feel it unfair to have a sex offender database need to stop seeing themselves as victims in this process of publication. One who violates another person, whether through a violent rape or by a “misunderstanding” of the age between an “offender” and “victim” have still violated the law.

    Regardless of how or why or what their excuse, the law was broken. They can claim ignorance, stupidity or whatever they want, but as it stands the laws were still broken. If they want something changed, then they can contact their local legislator and speak to them about it. Complaining about something while sitting idly by and not taking action about your perceived injustice is just more of the same – a self inflicted pity-party.

    When someone breaks the laws as they currently stand, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

  19. Rudy101 says:

    Mr. Hawk?

    The registry is used to harass, threaten, isolate, banish and put fear into offenders. The registry was passed ex-post facto and is a canvas for a legislature to paint on any type of restriction they like under any public safety theory they want.

    The State has broken the law. The State is prohibited from passing ex-post facto laws but did it anyway. The State set up a police state around a group of people the legislature defined extra-judicially.

    Therefore, as the registry laws are written and applied illegally, they then do not have to be followed.

    Your safe assumptions? Are wrong, Mr. Hawk. The public registry leaves people as desperate outcasts which then makes it more likely those people on a registry will act out in anti-social and criminal ways.

    The court calls the registry a civil law, therefore, the ex-post facto clause does not apply. In order for registry laws to be civil, there must be civil outcomes, such as a safer community. However, harassment, threats, isolation, banishment and fear are NOT civil outcomes. Those are punitive AND they fall under cruel and unusual punishments.

    The State wants to regulate beyond a sentence for public safety? Then they must go to a court and have rational restrictions related to the individual.

    Putting out registry information in unlimited ways in order for that list to be used to systematically strip a person of civil rights is ILLEGAL.

  20. LawReform says:

    This is the reason that ANY registry is WRONG and NOT in the best interest of Safety.

    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin 1775

    We as citizens have given up so many of our civil rights in the past 10 years. I don’t believe that many even realize what they have given up for the illusion of safety.

    While this law enforcement officer appears to be of the ‘thinking’ variety it does not mean that every other officer in this country is the same. In fact the man that wrote this article is more the exception rather than the rule. As with ALL change that has effectively come into being started with ONE PERSON that came up with the idea and new attitude. I can’t say that he isn’t quick to jump to conclusions about even the posters here, for he accused someone of being on the registry because of their attitude about it. THAT is not being objective, while looking at everyone as “innocent until proven guilty”. From what I have seen most law enforcement are trained to look for problems, which in turn means everyone is “guilty until proven innocent” otherwise there would never be a “person of interest”.

    I do hope that this officer continues to learn and study what the effects of the registry is really like on not only the offender but those that are related to them. For that registry is to protect the children, but what about the innocent children that are tormented by their peers and their peer’s parents because their parent is listed? How exactly are those children, spouses, siblings, parents, etc protected by the registry? And how is ostracizing a person’s entire support system helping them NOT reoffend? Those are the questions that have gone unanswered by the author.

  21. How much more does the community need to be protected? Sex offenders have a 3.5% recidivism rate, and it is not due to the registries, it is due to going to prison and facing a life of hell among others who are also criminals. Even before any registries, the best study showed only 9-13% recidivism rates, so while the registries did bring it down a little, it is not nearly worth all the destroyed lives it has left in it’s path. Rudy, I would like to correspond with you, is that possible?

    Oh, by the way, the 3.5% figure came from the U.S. Justice Dept., (certainly no friend of sex offenders)doing the most exhaustive study ever on criminal recidivism in general, and sex offender recidivism in particular. It involved the release of 272,111 inmates from 15 different states in 1994. They were then tracked for the next three years to see who would reoffend among the sex offenders. This is as close as it gets to a NATIONAL RECIDIVISM RATE for sex offenders.

    Three federal courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to put offender names on a public register without giving them a hearing to determine their ‘current dangerousness’. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against all three of the lower courts and said that sex offenders were not entitled to a hearing because registries did not constitute punishment. I wonder what Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray would have thought of that?

    The officer doesn’t care whether it is punishment or not because he doesn’t have to register as a sex offender yet. I personally have ‘extreme revulsion’ towards any officer of the law who describes any other human being as a ‘sleazy degenerate’. Christ died for his sins the same as yours officer, and if you can’t forgive him, my Lord will not forgive you you’re sins. We all need to repent of all our sins and get it right with our Creator while we still can. None of us are garanteed tomorrow, so we need to read and understand the Gospel message of Jesus, the Christ, and turn away from all our sins that we have done up to this point in time, and humble ourselves and earnestly seek forgiveness from the only One who can grant it to any of us.

    Stop utterly destroying the lives of upwards of a million registrants who, according to your own Justice Dept., have stopped reoffending sexually. If a person has been out of prison and lived crime-free in the sense that they have not been re-arrested for any felony crime for at least seven (7) years, then allow them to be exempt from the requirement to register and expung their info from the registries. Anyone would still able to check on their criminal record, but now they would have earned an opportunity to be treated like any other criminal AGAIN. And make that law retroactive also.

    Oh, by the way, officer, I am a registrant. The last time I registered, I made some of these comments to the ladies behind the glass, and one of them got tired of hearing it, so she demanded that my wife (who has never been convicted of any crime in her life) surrender her driver’s license to be photocopied and put in My file! I advised her not to comply, and one of them called in two detectives who deal with sex offenders in my area, and they told me that had she not complied, I would have been in violation of the registry laws. He was the same officer who did a home visit a few years ago, and when I thought they were through with their questions, I turned to go, and he pulled his gun on me. I heard the other officer tell him to ‘holster it, and I turned around just in time to see him putting it back.

    He told me that if I didn’t want my wife becoming involved in the registry process, I shouldn’t bring her in with me. He also said that these ladies (behind the glass) have to talk to enough “GARBAGE” everyday, they didn’t need to hear any more from me. Like the officer on this thread, he carries a badge, and a gun, and has (literally) a license to kill people – like us “SLEAZY DEGENERATES”, or us “GARBAGE”. There is something really wrong with this picture, and America had better wake up to it before it gets completely out of control.

  22. When manufactured FEAR is the order of the day, then PROTECTION is the name of the game!

  23. I guess everyone on here can say however many words they want but because I am a registrant, I am extremely limited?

  24. It’s obvious you only welcome comments that you approve of. Afraid of a little truth? I wrote some good info that would be very benificial to sex offenders who might be reading this, and you refused to print it because I might have ‘repeated myself’ one time? Why are you sensoring me?

  25. Viking96 says:

    Good evening Mr. Oneill;

    Could you comment on if your fellow officers share your opinion and what political aspirations you may hold? Thank You


  26. Brian O'Neill says:

    Viking96- I would venture that few of my colleagues worry too much about the civil rights of convicted felons. Most cops, in my opinion, invest themselves in their profession, and that means placing a high value on our system of laws. The registry, regardless of one’s opinion, is part of that system. As for political aspirations, I have none.

    Bill68- I have not edited any of your comments – in fact, I just read them a few moments ago. Your content either included offensive language or an excessive number of links, either of which would be purged automatically by the newspaper’s online filtering. I’m not afraid of a little truth, but I would recommend you find a more suitable location to have a sex offender rally.

    Diehard25- You are also welcome to find another venue to gain support for your fight against sex offender registration. You are preaching to the wrong choir.

  27. Viking96 says:

    Most people I know consider Patrick Drum a hero!

    After reading some of your stories I understand how flawed the registration system is, Mr.O’Neill obviously recognizes that.

    What I dont understand is why some of you are attacking his character? If it was me in your situation, deserved or not I would be very grateful to those who respect the law above all concerning your group. Like I said deserved or not.

    I’m here to tell you- Joe regular guy would be happy to look the other way, no questions asked.

    Think about it. Jon

  28. shiitakeawards says:

    Your entire argument is ruined by the following:

    “When I have been required to interview these sleazy degenerates, the term that would best describe this experience (at least one suitable for newsprint) would be revulsion. Extreme revulsion.”

    And that kills your entire argument. If you feel that way because you are looking at a label and NOT a human being than you are no different in your heart than Patrick Drum or the anonymous cowards posting on message boards cheering this vile murder.

    Those so-called “degenerates” were also husbands, sons, and fathers, and were no less human than the rest of us.

    Dehumanizing people makes it easier to commit injustices against them. This has been a constant throughout history, and this article isn’t breaking that trend.

    oncefallendotcom for REAL facts on s*x offenders.

  29. glassmaddy says:

    Mr. O’Neil–I apologize for being late to commenting on this article–wow–what can is say–you support the registry. Over my many years of looking at the registry and researching the facts I find that people that support the registry are 1) clueless to how the government is labeling people right and left for non-violent crimes such as teenage consenusal relationships, streaking, peeing in public, or any other stretch of the imagination–this is 95% of the non-violent people of the registry–they will not reoffend or are a threat to society, 2)women who have been abused by their fathers–they are angry–rightfuly so and see everyone as an abuser–what they do not understand or take the stand for is to imprisoning their father or mother for letting it happen (95% of child abuse happens in the home), and 3) people who are presently abusing kids and find the registry a way to hide and dilute their crimes. Which category do you fall in?

  30. glassmaddy says:

    Oh and I find people that have extreme revulsion for people–usually have that trait.

  31. Brian O'Neill says:

    shiitakeawards – Thanks for your comment. You are correct in pointing out that labeling people is a slippery slope, and I concur that such a mindset can lead to a dehumanized view of an individual. I will, however, take great exception to your statement that name-calling puts my character in the same league as a person sitting in jail on homicide charges. That level of hyperbole only takes the wind out of your argument.

    I will not apologize for the terms I used. I was referencing specific individuals whom I arrested and interviewed. While I understand that the offenders may have personal lives as husbands, fathers, sons, whatever, most people could care less that a monster like Gary Ridgway was married. Or that Adolf Hitler was somebody’s son. That argument rings false.

    In any case, the individuals to whom I was referring have long since been tried and convicted for their crimes. I understand your point of view as it pertains to labeling, and my column was meant to point out that not all individuals required to register deserve that stamp. On that we both agree.

    But I have little pity for people who sexually violate the innocent.

  32. Brian O'Neill says:

    glassmaddy- So my choices are clueless individual or abused daughter? Well, I’ll take door #3 which is labeled, “I’ll keep an open mind”. I don’t understand your last comment, though I assume it’s just a swipe at my character. I’ll consider myself properly insulted if you’ll consider correcting your syntax.

    My comments are based on discussions with victims, arresting or making home visits to sex offenders and attending classes on the psychology of sex offenders. Your stats don’t match up to the world I’m seeing.

    Thanks for your comment.

  33. Brian O’Neil, you know nothing about what you call the “justice system”. ‘Criminally unjust system’ is more accurate. The Liberal platitudes you spout about it make me sick. Do you know that there are people in prison for Marijuana for 30 years? Do you know af any case where anybody ever FORCED anybody to smoke enough Marijuana to ruin anybody’s life? If a child rape gets 10 years, how do you justify even one minute for Marijuana distribution where all participation is voluntary and there is no victim to be found?

  34. Bill O’Neil, you know nothing about the effect of child molestation upon the victims. It is FOREVER!!! It radiates out around the original victim to hurt others. I do know. I had 5 brothers. We 5 older boys did not understand what what was wrong with Bill, our youngest. A decade after his suicide at the age of 18, I learned he had beed raped by two males in a park when he was 12. THAT explained his problems and suicide. You are clearly have been programmed into submission by the dominant feminist matriarchy. Clueless, emasculated squares like you are an endless source of mirth to Men in the real world and of sex to hardened, long-term cons in prison. I suggest that emasculated “Bitch Boys” avoid both Prison and the Real World.

  35. Bill O’Neil, you are an endless source of nebulous platitudes that you do not understand. You state one correctly but use it wrong: You say that “Life is sacred and people deserve a chance to defend themselves from the presumptive judgment of one person.” but apply it to the perpetrator of a horrific felony (Felony means irreparable wrong) rather than to the victim. My little brother had the human right to defend himself against those sodomites and I, his older brother had the right, but not the opportunity, to defend him. If I had come upon tht ugly scene and applied my animal self to its locical conclusion, whiney Liberal ‘manginas’ like you would have put ME in prison.

    You are PATHETIC.
    YOU are the PROBLEM.
    YOU facilitate child rape.
    Drum is infinately better than you.

  36. Brian O'Neill says:

    dogguy- Hopefully you feel better now that you have vented all your years of frustration. Perhaps you have not considered the fact that, in my police career, it has been my job to console and assist many, many victims of sexual assault – boys and girls as well as women. If you believe that my views represent some twisted sense of pity for pedophiles, rapists and molesters, then clearly your reading skills are well below the standard range.

    However, I also believe that if we all acted as you suggest, if we give into our rage and run around “deleting” people we don’t like, we might as well pack up the law books and head back to the Dark Ages. If you are as smart and all-knowing as you seem to believe you are, you will already know that.

    I recognize that there are basic problems with the criminal justice system. I know the frustrations of watching criminals whom I have arrested walk out of court as free individuals. I know that there are discrepancies in sentencing between state and federal court, that some crimes are treated in disproportionate ways. I know all this, just as I know that the illegal marijuana trade is not a “victimless crime” as you suggest. Feel free to travel the streets of Ciudad Juarez or Nogales in Mexico, where the cartels run rampant, fueled in part by marijuana sales.

    I also know that there are people who believe that the rules don’t apply to them, who feel that they know better than the rest of us, who feel that they have the right to take whatever action in which they feel justified. In your ranting you identify that type of antisocial individual as a real man, whereas I simply view that person as a criminal.

    Long after you and I have left this earth for some other place, there will still be sex offenders preying on the weak. And there will still be cops, working within the confines of our imperfect criminal justice system, risking their own safety to protect the innocent.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0