Read this and gnash your teeth. I'll comment more after work.
Related: Check out Michelle Malkin's Immigration Blog, which documents the legion (heh) problems with unchecked illegal immigration.
--------
Ok, I’m back. It’s late, but I must rage. Impotently, but still. You know, I’m a bona fide AmCit (and taxpayer in the state of Virginia), but my rights pale in comparison to the legion illegals that roam the country.
Case in point, that which I linked to earlier today. Illegal El Salvadorian. Rapes & murders 16-year-old in Virginia. Makes sympathetic, bleeding heart friends at neighborhood “working class” bar. A patron notes, “A very nice guy, very nice…Oswaldo had a lot of friends in here after he started meeting all of us.” I guess Oswaldo forgot to gesture that he had raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl. Guess that just doesn’t come up naturally over crappy beer in a dive bar.
Cut to – tons of evidence linking Oswaldo Martinez to the rape and murder of Brittany Binger…but, guess what? Because O. Martinez is deaf and illiterate, he is “legally incompetent to stand trial” until such time as “treatment specialists…’restore competence.’” Ummm…how long do you think that will take, huh? How about “forever”? If he can effectively communicate with his defense lawyer about his actions, he can stand trial for the – did I mention? – rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl – then he will have a substantial and damning case against him. Whereas, in his present state of sub-Helen Keller, he gets 3 hots and a cot, as they say, indefinitely, as well as medical and dental care, education to the point of his ability to communicate (hah!), representation, etc, etc, etc.
So…what it comes down to is that Brittany’s friends and loved ones, as well as the rest of us in Virginia, will support, pamper and educate ol’ [illegal] wolf-boy Oswaldo until he drops dead of old age (which is just about when he’ll “become competent” to stand trial). Since his own [legally working] brothers couldn’t even stand to have him in their homes (they put him in a little shack beside their trailers), being in indefinite custody of the state must be like, um, heaven or something. He should never have been our concern in the first place; but after he’s committed a heinous crime, he’s our little disability poster boy and ward for life.
Questions:
1. How the hell did he get here in the first place if he’s so “linguistically incompetent”?
2. Could we (anyone? anyone?) discretely actualize the concept of “bullet” and “brain” in his case and save us all some cash? And you bleeding hearts may NOT say anything: you’ve condemned millions of completely innocent humans to violent deaths at the altar of Convenience. Non-starter.
3. Why is this horrendous and depressing story in the Style section of the Washington Post? Eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One thing I found telling about the WPost article is how the writer almost fails to mention the victim. She is little more than window dressing for this tale of a foreign national, in this country illegally, who decides to rape and murder a young girl for fun. The reader learns far more about the killer and his life than we do about the victim.
My guess, from the tone of the article, is that the author was looking to make the killera stand in for the great "silent" masses of foreign nationals in this country illegally. Not that he - or I - think that most of them are rapist killers; rather, that they are "silent" because of barriers linguistic, cultural and legal and that American society is responsible for the hardships in their lives and bears the blame for anything negative they may do - whether it is creating insular communities, joining vicious street gangs, behaving in broadly anti-social ways or just engaging in garden variety criminal mayhem like this guy. The author goes to great lengths to demonstrate how, once the foreign national in question was finally accepted by his Anglo fellow patrons, he started to open up and become a nicer fellow, the implication being that, if only the standoffish locals in the bar had accepted him sooner, maybe he wouldn't have decided on taking up recreational homicide.
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.
Is it just me? I was totally creeped out by the fact that he only became more outgoing (well, as much as he was capable of) after he had raped and killed. Want to improve your social standing? Boost your self-esteem? Butcher the innocent. Yuck.
I took the story as an indictment of a seam in the legal system, and while I'm happy with capital punishment for the deserving, I'm also a fan of trials, Birkenstock-wearing pinko that I am.
I think, though, that it's a wash. It's a long shot that the guy would get the death penalty because you have to prove premeditation. There's no way to prove such in this case because he was incapable of communicating premeditation to anyone. And any half-assed attorney could convince a jury of some level of dissociation because of his handicap and his outcast status. So we're looking at second-degree, and at best, a life term.
Which is exactly what he's getting.
And that will likely continue. He has no incentive to gain competence because he knows he would only be tried and convicted in the end. He can be counted on, I'm sure, to mallinger his way through whatever education process they have in store for him.
Capital punishment, let's not forget, does not come free either. Since our society places a high value on life, and regards taking it away as the ultimate infringement on freedom, we devote more public resources to capital trials. Appeals, paperwork, time spent by judges, prosecutors and staff. All that silly stuff, not to mention that we'd probably be paying for his defense attorney. We don't execute people because it's cheaper for the taxpayer. It isn't. The average execution consumes $2 million in public resources; the average life conviction, less than a third of that. The average lifer costs $35,000 a year to detain. Life terms are a bargain, at least for the first 40 years or so. There are good reasons to execute the deserving. Cost isn't one of them.
It's unfortunate that he's the responsibility of our taxpayers, illegally, but turning him back over to his home country offers no assurance he would be executed or incarcirated, or for that matter, stay there. He got here once. Would you settle for a "maybe" as to whether he would come back? I wouldn't.
Against all odds, justice is, I think, being done here.
I would add, too, that this country commits a lot of blood and treasure to being the world's cop. Sometimes it's really sexy, like defeating Hitler, or neutralizing Milosovich, or snatching Noriega out of Panama. Other times, its banal, like putting this monster somewhere he can no longer do harm just because we got to him first. Same-same.
Post a Comment