creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Connie Schultz icon
Connie Schultz
8 May 2013
Cleveland Ordeal Dredges Up Trauma for Others, Too

As I write this, not even 48 hours have passed since three young women escaped a decadelong nightmare of … Read More.

1 May 2013
In the Wake of Another Factory Fire: Calling All Women

For many years, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society held an annual fair that sold only goods that weren'… Read More.

24 Apr 2013
Steubenville Digs In

Last month, after a trial that garnered worldwide coverage, two high-school football players in Steubenville, Ohio,… Read More.

The Accused Are Still Human

Comment

Last week, Phillip Morris, a colleague of mine at The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, wrote a column objecting to the amount of taxpayer money being spent on Anthony Sowell's murder trial.

As most Clevelanders know and many others might remember, it was a year ago this month that Sowell made international headlines after police found 11 women's bodies at his house on Imperial Avenue. In an inexplicable act of insensitive scheduling, the court set his murder trial to begin on Valentine's Day.

Phillip is particularly galled by the $24,992 already spent on a social researcher whose job is to "humanize" the man accused of murdering the 11 women.

"If the defense wants to unearth background information about Sowell, why go the platinum route with our money?" he wrote. "Simply because it can? Simply because the defense knows that the court worries about appeals in such high profile cases?"

He added: "Let's not spend tons of public money trying to humanize him or help the public to understand him. ... We all have issues. The only thing that matters here is guilt or innocence."

Surely, Phillip's argument resonated with many readers.

I, however, respectfully disagree.

There are good reasons to provide as strong a defense as possible for Sowell, and they have little to do with the particulars of his case.

Let's start with due process. There is a reason we call Sowell an "alleged" killer. He has not been convicted of a single murder, and an accused person in this country is still innocent until proven guilty. We hold this high standard not to absolve the guilty, but to protect the wrongly accused. America has a patchy record with the latter, as the Innocence Project's 259 exonerations so far tragically illustrate.

Most of us want to believe we're fair and wise, but our versions of justice are as diverse as our population. An easy example comes to mind: Gather a roomful of people and watch them discuss the issue of rape.

Odds are high the discussion will turn from the accused to the accuser. Some will say it's too easy for a woman to allege rape for revenge. Someone else will offer the scenario of a woman who says yes until she says no and will point out how unfair it is to ask so much of a guy's hormones.

Then comes the imaginary proof of a victim's consent, if not duplicity: What did she expect was going to happen when she was wearing ... that shirt ... that skirt ... that smile...? Why was she hanging out in that bar ... that neighborhood ... that parking lot?

Every time I write a column that says no woman deserves to be raped, some anonymous readers insist I'm wrong. They are the same people who weighed in every time I wrote about Sowell and who disparaged the women whose bodies were found at his house. Their question drips with accusation: What kind of woman hangs out with a registered sex offender, anyway?

Sowell faces the death penalty if convicted. Now, there are plenty who think Anthony Sowell's life isn't worth a dime of the money that will be spent to defend him. But one person's monster is another person's redeemable soul. Cherry-picking justice is a dangerous game. Which accused murderers should we invest in? Who decides?

Government institutions, including our judicial system, are run by humans and are thus imperfect. But perfection must be the standard if we're going to claim the right to kill people who kill people — and call it justice. When it comes to the death penalty, one mistake is one mistake too many. And if we're looking to save taxpayer money, we should abolish the death penalty. Most of those expensive appeals would evaporate if convicted murderers were sentenced to life without parole.

Finally, let's talk about why it matters for someone to examine an accused killer's life for a shred of his humanity.

Understanding the childhoods of men like Anthony Sowell is an investment in the futures of boys still young enough to be saved. Children are always watching and learning, and those who grow up in poverty often fall prey to lousy role models. Self-hatred is the legacy of childhood cruelties, and it unleashes many poisons. Without intervention, brutality begets brutality, and the abused often grow up to be abusers. Sometimes they become murderers.

Anthony Sowell is accused of doing unspeakable things to many women. Most of us want to believe we have nothing in common with a man accused of such horrible crimes.

But just like every last one of us, he was once somebody's baby.

And no matter what he did or didn't do, he is still one of us.

Maybe that's what really galls us.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and an essayist for Parade magazine. To find out more about Connie Schultz (cschultz@plaind.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
I'd follow your argument if the man were accused of a single rape. I'm not sure I'd buy it, but I'd follow it.

But eleven corpses, supposedly humanized by the man's bad childhood? Isn't that argument likely to work differently than you expect? Isn't it likely to stigmatize any man who has had a miserable childhood as a more likely criminal than one who's grown up well-off?

If I were on the jury, I wouldn't want to hear about the accused's childhood. I'd want to hear how he could be innocent, given the eleven corpses.
Comment: #1
Posted by:
Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:26 AM
Schultz prides herself on not seeing the forest for the trees. The man is innocent until proven guilty, not innocent because of extenuating circumstance. With the knowledge gleaned from this exercise will authorities someday bust into anyone's home to decide if a child is being raised to kill? Apply the KISS rule; Keep It Simple, Schultz.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Tom
Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:34 AM
With all the advocacy groups, mental health organizations and other free prevention resources, there really is no excuse for anyone to carry out such a horrible exercise in self pity. We shouldn't make allowances for people who experienced adolescent hardship when help is available.

Do you think "Any" of the Innocent Project"s exoneration's include prisoners with a dozen corpses in their house? Could it be that you are that delusional? With all due respect, Ms Schultz, you are throwing cow chips out in sheep pasture.

There will be nothing to gain by studying the life of this murderer. The annals of human history are littered with cases of heinous crimes by people who have had hard lives to privileged lives. One only has to think of John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.

We have hundreds of killers to study. Gary Ridgway, the notorious Green River Killer, is still sitting in prison after a deal with the prosecutor that spared him the death penalty. Ridgway's case was one of the most expensive. Covering four counties, the costs to prosecute Ridgway ran into the millions with King county alone topping $6.8 million. Why it costs so much to prosecute someone who has admitted guilt is another story.

Why waste money defending someone who is only going to be found guilty in the end? The money would be better spent on additional police and surveillance equipment to protect the citizenry.
Philip Morris is right; it is just a matter of innocence or guilt.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Thomas Parinello
Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:19 AM
@Thomas Parinello
"We shouldn't make allowances for people who experienced adolescent hardship when help is available. "
There are two separate phases to the criminal prosecution of the accused: One determines guilt or innocence. The other determines the penalty once found guilty. Mitigating circumstances don't determine guilt or innocence, only the crime qualifications as defined by law. However, when it comes to the penalty, mitigating circumstances determine a great deal. As an example: If a man plotted to kill an abusive spouse, do you think that they should receive the same penalty as a man who plotted to kill a random grandmother they saw walking back and forth from the store each week? I don't.
"Why waste money defending someone who is only going to be found guilty in the end?"
Because we are all innocent until proven guilty in this country. That means that every person is due the best defense that their lawyer can provide. A defense lawyer needs to use all of their skills and resources to ensure acquittal, and the prosecution needs to do the same for prosecution, both within ethical guidelines. This is how our judicial system works, and it is a pretty damn good system.
"The money would be better spent on additional police and surveillance equipment to protect the citizenry. "
Frankly, although I appreciate money being spent on additional police, I don't want surveillance equipment erected all around my community to make you (or anyone) feel safer. That is a clear violation of my civil liberties, as it doesn't allow me to confront my accused in the event of my arrest. If we reduce this man's civil liberties, no matter how much we all want to see him do a big shoe dance at the end of a rope, we reduce our own...and that is reason enough to spend the money.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Julie
Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:43 AM
We are all entitled to our opinions as with those that oppose the death penalty and those that don't. I understand what you are saying about the judicial system but there should be, out of mere logic, for those criminals who "Are" guilty by reason of combined evidences including but not limited to admission, smoking gun etc., an Amendment to expedite the judicial process to the penalty phase. In this Sowell case "what guilt" is there to prove? Sowell in all reality "IS" a killer not an alleged killer which is legalese fundamentalism. Defense and trial proceedings in this case are completely a waste of time and tax payer money; mediating the penalty is not. Of course wasting tax payer money isn't anything new is it? After wasting who knows how much on this case millions more will be spent if he doesn't get the death penalty. Let's be glad we don't have another Ken Starr vs Clinton investigation which was said to have topped out at 7.2 million.
Mitigating circumstances could be introduced in consideration of penalty but I do think, as many others do, that we should jump to the chase. Besides, mitigating circumstances in this case are weak at best. What, a rough childhood? Everyone has their limitations and we could look at the Lorena Bobbit case to see that. But in my opening post I clearly said that there exists, more today than ever before, myriad alternatives to acting out our personal frustrations.
I hate to have to break the news to you Julie, but there is already a great deal of surveillance in your community. Violation of your civil liberties? LOL Make sure you bring your umbrella next time you visit a Walmart parking lot and many other places you go.
I guess you didn't read that more "funds" were granted the defense team in order to hire paralegals to comb through 2000 Hours of "Surveillance" video.
Many states are economically strapped and we shouldn't waste tax dollars at the expense of our educational and infrastructural systems on account of depraved and/or deranged individuals preying on innocent victims. The suggestion of police and surveillance was generalized; there are many resource starved areas in our cities that can use the money wasted on these obviously "guilty" people.
We are evolving as a society and so the legal, judicial and political systems must evolve along with us, ethically and morally. Our society has over stepped the boundaries of intollerance, the ramifications of which are increased crime, murder, bullying and various levels of terrorism; we need to clamp down on ourselves; society is getting apish.
Interviewing Sowell for the sake of understanding or establishing pre-conditioned circumstances that may lead to preventative measures concerning future generations is a fallacy in that it implies that a child with similar adolescent circumstances will lead to similar actions and it confuses correlation with causation.

PS: I never said we should drag him out in the street and hang him from the nearest tree. There could be a penalty hearing in which the defense will offer the mitigating circumstances that will affect the degree of penalty. Please don't read into my comments or make inferential statements regarding my position.

Comment: #5
Posted by: Thomas Parinello
Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:10 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Connie Schultz
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 15 May 2013
Dennis Prager
Dennis PragerUpdated 14 May 2013
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 14 May 2013

21 Oct 2009 Nice To Know We Still Can Be Duped

9 Nov 2011 Keep Talking, Herman Cain

16 Nov 2008 Jailers Cut Off Anti-Anxiety Meds, and a Singer Dies