On the famously liberal TV network, CBS, there is a
program called "48 Hours" which recently ran an episode on the efforts of
two women to keep a murderer, Wesley Wayne Miller, in jail.
Wesley Miller was a football player. He looked like
Tom Cruise. He was a star of the team-- or is that just a cliché
offered by "48 Hours" to hype the story?-- and you know how America treats
athletes. You can be a complete moron and a good athlete and everyone
will love you. It's hard to tell if Miller was a moron or not.
He doesn't get to express himself very much in this piece.
Wesley Wayne Miller was convicted of rape and murder and
sentenced to 25 years in jail. I have no sympathy for Wesley Wayne
Miller. He had a parole hearing after two years. That was
probably due to some legal technicality and I doubt he had the slightest
real chance of getting paroled-- this is Texas-- but it seemed disturbing.
I do have a lot of respect for the concept of "rule by
law". That means that a society agrees on a way to create and amend
laws, creates and amends the laws, passes them, and then insists that they
be applied equally and consistently to all citizens. The point of all
this is that just because you like someone doesn't mean you can give him a
lighter sentence than someone else you don't like. Personal bias
should not be a factor. There should be clear and objective criteria.
We don't invite the family of the victim to determine what the punishment
should be, for good reason. All of us, through our votes, determine
what kind of justice system we have.
Well, now that I mention it-- I don't think that is true
anymore. We do allow families of victims to give impact statements,
though they still do not directly determine the sentence given.
The reporter of the piece, Susan Spenser professes
astonishment at the "light" sentence Wesley Miller received. I was
astonished that she considered the sentence light. That's a pretty
amazing judgment: 25 years locked up in a prison cell is a "light" sentence.
I suppose it is, compared to floggings or torture or slow strangulation.
The program proceeded to ascribe guilt for three or four
other rapes to Wesley Wayne Miller, in spite of the fact that he was never
charged or convicted of them. One victim now just "knows" it was him.
He "probably" committed the others. Why bother with a trial? Who
else could it have been?
And now that the viewers know that this man has committed
all kinds of other crimes, over and on top of the one murder and rape, don't
you just share the absolute horror of the reporter at the idea that a man
could serve his sentence and then be freed?
Miller applied for parole and was turned down several
times. He was ordered to attend classes to remediate his sexual
deviancy-- is this some kind of joke? He refused. A psychologist
regularly employed by the state certified that Wesley Miller had no
redeeming characteristics whatsoever-- a fascinating conclusion based on
some kind of amazing insights that only a framed degree can give you.
Rona Stratton is the sister of Miller's victim, Retha
Stratton. She and her best friend, Lisa Gabbert, have made it their
life's mission to ensure that Miller pay forever for murdering Retha
Stratton. They made sure that he never got parole by attending all of
his hearings and organizing petitions.
They express deep pleasure-- almost a sense of taunting--
in watching Miller walk by during these hearings, knowing that they are
partly responsible for keeping him in jail.
When he was finally released under Texas' obligatory early
release program (designed to reduce over-crowding in their despicably
ill-managed prisons), they tried to get every community he could be assigned
to to reject him. He ended up living in a county jail instead of a
half-way house, where he was locked up for 23 hours a day. That kind of
defeats the purpose of a transition home. Miller didn't get any chance
at all to adjust to life on the outside.
Now, I could see how the two women might take some grim
satisfaction in seeing that Miller was not released early. But I was
fascinated by the pleasure they took in it, their delight in hounding the
guy. It's almost impossible to feel sympathy for a former high school
football jock, rapist and murderer, but you almost start to-- he was told
his sentence was for 25 years. They didn't tell him that he would be
fair game for family and friends of his victims to do whatever they could to
increase his suffering as much as possible.
The two women succeeded in lobbying for a new law that
created a special category of sexual offenders who could be controlled in
various ways indefinitely by the state even after they had served their
sentences. Is this constitutional?
More importantly: if a person is so psychotic that he
deserves to be held indefinitely by the state, how can he be held to be
criminally responsible for his crimes?
If Wesley Miller was criminally responsible, and not
"psychotic", then he would be sentenced to jail time. He wouldn't get
to go to a cushy psychiatric hospital, from which suspiciously intellectual
and effeminate psychologists would be able to eventually release him as
cured. No, no, no.
So he is a criminal. So he is criminally responsible.
So, all right: he gets 25 years. I don't think that's a light sentence
but some do. Well, tough. That's the
jury system. He was tried fair and square. If you don't like the
results, complain to the jury.
But don't try this: change the laws afterwards so
you can get back at him some other way. And that's what they did.
And now they are trying to get the law applied to Wesley Miller even though
the law was enacted well after he had committed his crimes and been
convicted and sentenced for them. Is that fair?
These two women are immune to any kind of backlash: they
are family and friend of victims. How dare you think they might just
might be vindictive or cruel, or that the sense of purpose they have found
for their lives, inflicting suffering on another human being, is anything
less than righteous, virtuous wrath?
That it might be misguided, narcissistic, and demeaning?
The sheer joy with which America punishes criminals with
long, brutal sentences, makes you wonder if this will ever be a civilized
society. It's easy to be civilized if you think it means donating to
charities and having award shows. It's a lot harder if you think the
heart of civility is the ability to see beyond personal payback.
