It's cases like these that incline me towards thinking that law enforcement should have the capability to get a torture warrant that would allow them to forcibly extract information from perpetrators.
The man suspected in Carlie Brucia's (search) abduction, which was captured by a surveillance camera on Sunday, has not been cooperating with investigators, the Sarasota County, Fla., sheriff said. ...I don't know enough about the details of this case to say that this guy should be tortured, but I do think such measures would be appropriate in some circumstances. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Some might argue that it's better to never use torture than to risk misusing it, but I'm not convinced. Our criminal trial process unjustly convicts people from time to time -- and even executes them -- but we don't throw up our hands in despair and eliminate the entire justice system."We have strong evidence that he is in fact the perpetrator," said Capt. Jeff Bell, the lead Sarasota County sheriff's investigator on the case.
Sheriff Bill Balkwill (search) told reporters during a morning news conference that his department was certain the 1992 Buick station wagon "is the vehicle that was used in the abduction." ...
"We don't have any motive," Lesaltato said. "We've tried talking to him, but he refuses to talk to us."
Regardless, this guy should have been off the streets a long time ago.
Smith has been arrested at least 13 times in Florida since 1993, according to state records.This type of lifetime criminal is generally never reformed, and well-meaning attempts to do so are what lead to tragedies like this kidnapping.He was arrested in 1997 in Manatee County on kidnapping and false-imprisonment charges. A 20-year-old woman in Bradenton said he grabbed her as she walked by and tried to pull her away, according to records released by the Manatee County Sheriff's Office.
"He got on top of me and told me to shut up or he would cut me," she told authorities. After a struggle, she said, she managed to run into the street, and passengers in an approaching van stopped and rescued her. ...
Records show other convictions for heroin possession, prescription-drug fraud and aggravated battery. Smith was placed on probation for cocaine possession last March.
Update:
I guess torture wouldn't have made a difference in this case, since the poor girl was already dead. I hope the guy fries. Unfortunately, it sounds like he may have bargained for leniency in exchange for revealing the location of the body.
I'm going to remember this post so that if I ever have kids I'll be able to explain to them exactly how serious they have to be about their safety. From the video it appears that the girl could have probably gotten away by screaming or throwing a fit, but she went along with barely a struggle.
Update 2:
Donald Sensing has some good tips on what to teach little girls.
This is why "three-strikes" laws are so valuable. It is effective when there is an obvious pattern.
It is tiring to hear people say that some career criminal is being sentenced to life for "stealing a bicycle" or some such. Being convicted of three separate FELONIES is no small task.
I disagree. Lawmakers are always defining felonies down to get tough on crime. Stealing a bike differs from beating someone to death. Stealing three bikes differs from beating three people to death on three occasions, or raping a woman, killing a dog, and beating a stockboy.
I also disagree with torture in any case, particularly domestic crime. If it becomes a tool for police to use, they will pull it from the toolbox more and more as time goes by.
Brian J:
I certainly disagree with the substance of your post. Lawymakers are not 'always' defining felonies down to get tough on crime. They may do so occasionally, usually by public outrage and demand but rarely, if ever, without reason. It simply would not be in their own best political interest.
The judicial system (in California) is not without fault, but that really depends on which side of the jail bars you are standing. There are countless criminals, murderers and volent felons included, released back onto the street without completing even the majority of their sentence. So the judicial blindfold is raised for them, for another peek of 'outside' life, frequently to the detriment of society at large.
Criminal recidivism relates to over sixty per cent of all crime committed. There is also an eighty per cent chance that a released criminal will repeat offend within the first six months of release. Putting and keeping criminals away from society can only improve these percentages.
Without doubt the 'three strikes' law in California works. It keeps habitual offenders off the street, usually for lengthy periods. In my experience however, the 'strikes' are not always proceeded with as Felonies, just to get a lengthy prison term. Often, each 'strike' is required to be similar in nature, before the three strike rule is invoked. i.e. A Grand Theft, say of a bike valued at $800, A felony drug posession charge, and a felonious assault - perhaps arising from domestic violence (3rd strike), over the course of five or ten years would not necessarily initiate a lengthy '3 strike' sentence. Frequently Prosecutors will 'bargain down' one of the convictions, or accept a Guilty plea to a lesser charge, in the interests of justice. Bear in mind that a person committing a specific crime is not necessarily prosecuted for it nor convicted of that crime. Consequently the sentence may be vastly different, and usually to the benefit of the criminal.
A substantial issue is one of prosecutorial case load. Again, in the interests of justice, it may be far better to get a three, five year or even ten year sentence with a guilty plea, than to undergo a costly, time consuming trial for just for a few more years. Over eighty percent of criminal filings are straightforward 'guilty pleas' or 'plea bargained' resulting in a lighter sentence.
Sure it's a revolving door, but prosecutors, in general, respond with good conscience to the needs of society.
We are a 'civilized society' and torture is abhorrent to all aspects of our senses. It violates our moral and ethical values. We even condem other countries for using it. But try explaining that and rationalizing your 'feelings' to the parents of the missing girl.
There are rare circumstances where torture could be appropriate - this is perhaps one of them, but (unfortunately) morally would not be acceptable. It is contrary to our societies belief system but has merit by an individual and on a case by case basis.
Where would be the harm, if, say under extreme circumstances an application for specified and lawful torture was made before a Judge(s). The nature of the torture having been agreed to by the Legislature. The Judge(s) reviewed the circumstances and approval was given for the torture to be carried out. Much the same manner in which a search warrant is applied for. I accept that the idea is clinical, but, having this 'tool in the toolbox' is better than the alternatives. Just the existence of the 'legal' torture, and knowing that approval for it may sought and given, would be more than enough for most deserving criminals to spew their guts...probably a few cookies as well - not to mention a change of underware.
I gotta tell you, if someone is convicted three times for felony theft of bicycles, i would still support a considerably lengthened sentence under a three-strikes law. Why? For bicycles? Absolutely!
Theft is tolerated far too much in our society. But if a person plans a theft, follows through by trying to get money or drugs for the stolen item and then enjoys the fruits of that theft, all of which usually require active thought and planning, we can easily assume they are committing other "impulsive" crimes that do not require thought.
Plus, all you need is to just once find yourself on the business end of a felony charge to never, ever want to let yourself get in that position again. Like i said before, to get three separate CONVICTIONS takes some effort. If the very real threat of prison doesn't deter you, then you certainly need to be removed from civilised society.
Having said that, i do think it is very important for prosecutors and judges to have discretion in applying three-strikes sentences, based on the nature of the crimes committed. Violent criminals should certainly be locked away quicker and for longer terms than non-violent or drug offenders.
As far as torture goes, as much as i like the idea of rapists and murderers being slowly tortured to death (a fitting punishment), i think it brings up moral issues that i really hope the United States is above, especially when used as a means of getting information from suspects. I think it just might be one of those things we can't do just to prove that we are, by example, better than other countries. Just my opinion.
I agree with Plug. I don't think it should be easy to torture people, and I think a public paper trail should always be made. Nothing should be done in secret.
I also agree with MN on the seriousness of theft.
I like three-strikes.
Anyone who thinks California's three strikes law is too draconian need only consider this: if Florida had passed our version of the three strikes law, his "nonviolent" priors would have put him away for good, and Carlie Brucia would be alive today.
[Contrary to the implication of the original story, the kidnapping and false imprisonment charge resulted in an acquittal.]
The word 'torture' conjures up vivid and diabolical methods of inflicting grievious harm, perhaps even death, without cause. The 'torcheree' is always assumed to be the victim and the 'torcherer, a sadist, deriving nothing but pleasure from another's pain. If 'torture' was renamed and identified as 'Lawful persuasion by force or intimidation', it somehow becomes more acceptable.
I'm in a Western Civ class right now and for different reasons we were discussing torture and forms of punishment on Monday night. In 1800 England there were over 200 crimes you could getthe death penalty for. Today in America of course, there is only one reason. I told the teacher caining should be allowed here (who defines what is cruel and unusual?). He asked for what type of offenses and before I could answer, he asked ,"What if i stole from Wal-Mart?" I said, "Well, if you were cained, you probably wouldn't do it again!"
I just think our whole system is too soft on criminals. I watch "Law & Order" all the time. I know it is fiction and entertainment but having certain evidence tossed out because you don't follow every step in some process is ridiculous. This happens in the real world and I get so mad! I believe in innocent until proven guilty but to throw out evidence (and possibly an entire trial) because someone in law enforcement gets overzealous and takes evidence from the crime scene to take in before there's a search warrant executed - come on!
Sorry, didn't mean to go off on a rant there but not having harsher punishment is what let this sicko stay on the streets long enough to harm Carlie.
Petra: I love L&O too, but I think it's really important that police and prosecutors follow the proper procedures. You may argue that the existing procedures are too strict, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge to really discuss that sort of point.
Just as with your caning example, if police have a case thrown out because they were "overzealous", maybe that'll teach them to follow the law next time.