August 01, 2006
It's OK - He Was Bipolar, Or 'Blackout Drunk,' Or.....

The Seattle P-I reports Spokane murder suspect Ryan Snow slashed his grandfather's throat but is stressing he's bipolar, a not uncommon tack. We'll see if defense attorneys pick up that theme, as seems likely. A "bipolar" defense seems increasingly likely for Naveed Afzal Haq in his alleged murder of one and attempted murder of five at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle offices Friday. Meanwhile "blackout drinking" looks like it will be central to the defense in the alleged killing of four in Kirkland earlier this month by Connor Schierman. Is something wrong here? I think so.

Both in prosecution and upon conviction, heinous murders beg the ultimate sanction, not weasely evasions of responsibility abetted by defense attorneys, psychiatric consultants, addled jurists and the media. Each time the perpetrator becomes a patient, the risk grows that the real victim(s) will become a footnote, a casualty of the liberal impulse for absolution.

A University of Washington expert offers some insight on bipolar killers in a P-I article today:

...said Wayne Katon, a psychiatry professor at the University of Washington....rarely is the disorder associated with this type of crime.....(he added) "It's very, very unusual for bipolars to be killing anybody, let alone five or six people. Data would suggest that in terms of violence, the homicide rate of bipolars is lower than the general population," he said.

Haq's bipolar excuse for shooting Jews, already being talked up by his lawyer Larry Stephenson (see above link) is null and void. Likewise Schierman's repugnant defense-to-be of "blackout drinking."

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng has two current high-profile cases - Schierman's and Haq's - in which his office must push for the death penalty, or risk looking disturbingly soft on murderers.

Let's keep in mind that life in prison isn't so bad for the type of pathological loser who gets convicted of first-degree murder: they get shelter from the elements, plus room and board, and a controlled environment free of disturbing challenges such as finding work, forming and maintaining relationships, and living life by society's rules. Each such inmate costs taxpayers aplenty, though.

It's a matter of morality, justice and lastly, cost control. Alleged murderers such as Haq and Schierman, if convicted, must certainly get the big Bee Sting.

No excuses.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at August 01, 2006 10:19 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Bi-polar seems to be the new disease to replace the insanity plea. Insanity has worn thin, so come up with a new fancy name to get murders back on the street.

The whole world is bi-polar - North and South.

Posted by: Fred on August 1, 2006 10:41 AM
2. Howyousdoin

Dere goes two of my three defense's nows if I get caught wackin someone I only have sleepwalking as a defense.

Forgetaboutit

Posted by: Joey bag of doughnuts on August 1, 2006 10:42 AM
3. Run graphic crime scene photos in the paper with the names of all those who think the killers just deserve a slap on the wrist underneath the pictures. I'm so tired of all the excuses the PC crowd comes up with to defend these despicable lowlifes. What about the victims?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? These are people who were horribly, painfully murdered by nutjobs who have "issues". Scr*w the "issues". Hang the b*st*rds!!

Posted by: Burdabee on August 1, 2006 10:45 AM
4. Loosing a family member to a murderer has to be the hardest thing anyone can go through.

Having the PC crowd circle the wagons to defend the murderer must be just as tough for the victims families.

Posted by: bobk on August 1, 2006 10:51 AM
5. No one is responsible.

They have a disease that makes them murder.

We must be sympathetic with there condition and overlook the unfortunate consequences of society not being willing to deal with the condition they suffer from.

It's our fault!

GAK!!!

Posted by: JCM on August 1, 2006 11:31 AM
6. It's pretty disturbing that for the last 30 or so years, we have moved toward becoming a society that is unwilling or unable to recognise evil. Of course, that means we would be forced to admit that the other side of that coin exists, and there's the rub. In taking traditional religion from our daily lives in the public realm, we become ill equipped to recognize plain old evil and deal with it effectively. According to the current liberal line of thinking, we must find excuses for evil behavior and then absolve it. There must be a "reason" for such evil acts, and therefore the perpetrators are not responsible, but society as a whole is. And in the end, we ARE responsible. We have enabled the current environment to thrive.

Posted by: katomar on August 1, 2006 11:34 AM
7. OK then, if their "disease" excuses their crimes, the logical conclusion is they are too unpredictably violent to remain in society. If they and their attorneys stipulate they cannot control their own behavior they must never be allowed to live among us. They should be treated as we would deal with wild beasts loose in the city - not cruelly, but tranquillized, bound and exiled to an island or fenced remote location.

Posted by: Steve on August 1, 2006 11:34 AM
8. Actually...they'll find a way to blame it on George Bush somehow.

Posted by: Cara on August 1, 2006 11:35 AM
9. Steve,

You're applying LOGIC until you get in touch with your FEELINGS you're just not going to get it. It is attitudes like yours that push these poor, poor people over the edge. If you would just understand and empathize with these sick people we could solve this problem.

Off to a re-education camp with you until you recant the false religion of LOGIC, you've be deluded by the evil nasty right wingers that you can apply logic and solve problems.

Posted by: JCM on August 1, 2006 11:48 AM
10. To quote Monty Pythons from 30 some years ago when the police came into arrest someone...

Perp: "Its a fair cop, but society is to blame"

Police: "Yes, and we'll be charging them too."

Posted by: Fred on August 1, 2006 12:21 PM
11. bipolar, whatever; notice the killers always find enough wits and cunning to make it through their daily lives and plan out or at least set up all the right components for their tirades--even for years at at time; we are not considering perps who sit rocking themselves for hours or staring out in a non-functional daze; hence, my tears do not fall for killers like these; it's conscious--it's planned--it's knowing; so is society's response--fair trial, death--and swiftly;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 1, 2006 12:38 PM
12. Steve wrote:
"OK then, if their "disease" excuses their crimes, the logical conclusion is they are too unpredictably violent to remain in society."

I agree Steve. I have bipolar disorder myself and know several people with the illness. Don't know a one I'ld consider homocidal, even potentially. It's really an individual thing. Straight forward murder is still simply murder. Take him or her out of society if they can't live in it.

Cheers.

Posted by: Jed on August 1, 2006 12:42 PM
13. The cops should have said this guy was reaching for a gun and just shot him and saved us all the trouble.

In the moral relativism and subjectivism of today's progressive, all members of any "victim" class must be excused of any responsibility.

I can say that if a guy like Conner Schierman ever destroyed my life and took from me my wife and two children, the cops had better do a really good job of keeping him hidden.

This only improves the chances of conservatives gaining power, even in Blue Seattle, because folks are fed up with a system that neither protects them, nor punishes those who commit crimes. Why trust in our justice system when we don't see results?

Yeah, Norm Maleng sure as hell better push for the death penalty. I don't care what anyone says about a lawyer's sworn duty to defend. A lawyer like Larry Stephensen mounting a bipolar defense for an evil murderer is part of the problem, and ought to be disbarred.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 1, 2006 01:09 PM
14. Is that little punk who killed the tennis coach last year on death row yet? Or is some sleazy lawyer like Larry Stephensen trying to get him off because he was a minority victim, etc.?

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 1, 2006 01:13 PM
15. Maybe I missed something, but can someone please point out where anyone is saying that either of these murderers deserve a "slap on the rist"?

Posted by: Splinter on August 1, 2006 01:18 PM
16. Splinter--in the case of these two scumbags, a "slap on the wrist" is anything short of the death penalty. And if you think the death penalty is too harsh for these clowns inspite of their horrific crimes, then you are just another clueless bleeding heart liberal moonbat who cannot comprehend that there are truly evil people in the world who need to be removed from society--permanently.

Posted by: Burdabee on August 1, 2006 02:06 PM
17. Aug. 1st 1966, 40 years ago today Charles Whitman killed 13 people and wounded 31 others from a University of Texas Tower.

What caused him to go on this rampage: Bi-Polar, Minority Victim, Alcohol Blackout, Sleep Disorder, Drug Crazed, Bad Childhood we will never know...because in Texas they know how to handle these clowns...they shoot them dead on the spot end of story!!!

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on August 1, 2006 02:07 PM
18. Burdabee: "... a "slap on the wrist" is anything short of the death penalty. And if you think the death penalty is too harsh ... then you are just another clueless bleeding heart liberal moonbat..."

Anyone that disagrees with you seems to be a "moonbat"... interesting approach.

I think a reasonable person could argue that life in Walla Walla, without a chance of parole, is far worse than death. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not because it is too harsh. Because it does not serve as an effective deterrant and it is incredibly expensive compared to keeping them locked up in a dank dark cell for the remainder of thier miserable lives. It also goes against my personal religious convictions about taking another's life, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. The only reasonable argument for the death penalty (IMHO) is that is serves as revenge for the victims... and that is a pretty strong arguement actually.

Posted by: Splinter on August 1, 2006 02:39 PM
19. Burdabee: "... a "slap on the wrist" is anything short of the death penalty. And if you think the death penalty is too harsh ... then you are just another clueless bleeding heart liberal moonbat..."

Anyone that disagrees with you seems to be a "moonbat"... interesting approach.

I think a reasonable person could argue that life in Walla Walla, without a chance of parole, is far worse than death. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not because it is too harsh. Because it does not serve as an effective deterrant and it is incredibly expensive compared to keeping them locked up in a dank dark cell for the remainder of thier miserable lives. It also goes against my personal religious convictions about taking another's life, (regardless of who they are) but that has nothing to do with this discussion. The only reasonable argument for the death penalty (IMHO) is that it serves as revenge for the victims... and that is a pretty strong arguement actually.

Posted by: Splinter on August 1, 2006 02:41 PM
20. Splinter--i agree with the points on not being a deterrent, the cost and revenge factor; however, i have a problem with keeping that type of offender alive and healthy on my dime when others like disabled and seniors have less resources or none; also, i like the finality of it & closure for the victims' families; after all, victims' families give them free food and medical care by keeping them jailed--a double insult;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 1, 2006 03:13 PM
21. Jimmie - "i have a problem with keeping that type of offender alive and healthy on my dime"

yeah... not an easy solution to that since it takes even more of our money to put a needle in his arm or a noose around his neck...

i can't speak from a victim's point of view because i have not been a victim of a violent crime nor have i lost a family member to a violent crime... but it seems that the way death penalty hearings are so incredibly drawn out over years and years, it would make the suffering and drama even worse. If the only available sentence was life in prison, no chance of parole, at least it is over. Again, i can't speak from a victim's perspective.

Posted by: Splinter on August 1, 2006 03:21 PM
22. As currently used (i.e. hardly ever), the death penalty is not much of a deterrent. But historically, if you look back at societies in which it was well known that "if you do 'X', you will almost certainly be caught and executed," 'X' really wasn't a problem.

But I think we should give these folks the benefit of the doubt, just in case they really are bi-polar, and only give them a lethal injection in the arm corresponding to their "bad pole."

Posted by: TB on August 1, 2006 03:23 PM
23. Splinter--this is not about the merits of the death penalty as a deterant. What is a deterant to justice are these whackos killing defenseless women and children and then claiming they were too drunk or mentally unhinged to avoid harsh punishment.

If the jails were set up so that these two would be locked up forever in a small dark cells with slices of nutriloaf shoved under the door, then I would go for the life sentence. But these two will have access to counseling, weight rooms, cable tv, free medical and dental care, reading materials, three squares a day, educational opportunities, etc.

I hope you are never, ever in a violent situation. It is a terrible place to be. I can't even begin to imagine what the families of the victims are going through right now while the local media is advocating education and understanding of the "issues" the killers are dealing with.

What are you going to tell the soldier who returned home for the funerals? "Hey, dude, sorry your wife and kids were stabbed to death, but the guy who did it has a drinking problem and is sure you'll understand it was the booze that made him do it, so no hard feelings, ok? And here's a pamphlet that will tell you all about alcoholism."

Posted by: Burdabee on August 1, 2006 03:46 PM
24. I agree with post #12. I have a friend who is bipolar and has had severe bouts. This characterization of bipolar people as criminally insane is unfair and insulting. Call it like it is: he is an extremist militant.

Posted by: Peggy U on August 1, 2006 07:34 PM
25. Excuse me, but the death penalty is a deterrent. It prevents the perp from committing another murder.

What we have is a serious problem in the costs to process. What not limit appeals to two or three. After the appeals are exhausted, kick the horse and let him or her hang.

Posted by: snuffy on August 1, 2006 10:51 PM
26. I'm still trying to figure out how a guy with a ten year history of mental illness can walk into a gun-shop and order up 2 handguns. So nice to see that Republicans are supporting the mentally ill's right to bear arms.

Posted by: me on August 1, 2006 11:11 PM
27. The poster child for life sentence vs. capital punishment should be Richard Speck. Anyone recall the video depicting Speck with his taxpayer funded breast enlargement and doing drugs? He enjoyed himself for the nineteen years he spent in prison until he died of a heart attack.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on August 2, 2006 12:02 AM
28. me - what a complete distortion of what anyone has said, including Republicans. I personally do no think that the 2nd Amendment says that citizens are free to be armed (the word is militia, but that is another discussion), but no one, NRA included, has advocated allowing anyone and everyone to have guns.

If the gun shop owner did not do the back ground check then the store should also be liable (assuming the guns were purchased in the past ten years) or the government for not properly maintaining the records.

Posted by: Fred on August 2, 2006 08:24 AM
29. hey "me"--read 28; also, i'd be happy to see you holding your ding dong while another Katrina-like civil meltdown with looting & rapes or another freak like this perp comes along; think a big group hug will work? what part of the bully-infested playground did you hang out in? behind Teacher?

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 2, 2006 10:40 AM
30. Ok, so I'll retract the second part of my statement: Republican's and the NRA don't want crazy's to have guns. Fine.

But, the first sentence, "I'm still trying to figure out how a guy with a ten year history of mental illness can walk into a gun-shop and order up 2 handguns?" We need to change our laws to make it harder for people with mental illnesses to get guns.

Posted by: me on August 2, 2006 03:12 PM
31. Jimmie, I had to take a class in restraint and take down to get my job. You're talking out your neck.

Posted by: me on August 2, 2006 03:19 PM
32. Thanks, "me." You are using the King's English too. That's 'out my neck' for you prison talkers. I'm not defending R's, just zapping broad statements like yours about wide-spread and knee-jerk gun control...and that's 'out my azz,' o.k.? I'm just trying to make a point--o.k. Mr. Takedown? No need to unsheath the swords. There--you win. You can pizz up the pole higher than me, o.k.? Big deal. So I got a little excited. Shake hands, big guy.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 2, 2006 08:16 PM
33. Jimmy

I wasn't and am not talking about "wide spread" gun control. You made that part up. I was talking about people with some sort of mental illness not being able to purchase firearms. I'm not sure how that would work, but it seems like something we should look into.

Posted by: me on August 2, 2006 09:06 PM
34. Splinter: The good thing about the death penalty is that we never have to worry about repetitivity. The bad thing is that we could be wrong. We seem to fear being wrong more than safety. A case in point is Joseph Duncan who killed a family and raped two children over several weeks and finally killed one of the children. The state of Idaho is declining to prosecute the death penalty because they don't believe they can afford to ask for the death penalty. As much as Joseph Duncan deserves to die and should never, ever escape his punishment and the public should be able to safely tuck their children in to sleep at night, he will live because we are careful. As the Minnesota judge proved, we are too careful. There is a point when careful is too costly for future victims.

Posted by: Elaine on August 2, 2006 09:35 PM
35. Me--point taken--i agree--thanks for your opin.

well, the privacy guys & opponents will have to compromise and have a quick check database that includes SOME limited medical (mental) info; otherwise a biometric base; as for
'making that part up,' you & I know how politicians react--punish all for the few;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 3, 2006 06:59 AM
36. Elaine--correct-o; we do fear being wrong, and the ultimate penalty is nothing to take lightly;

however, it also says that we (society) mean business and the perp MADE A CHOICE to forfeit his life for another who did not voluntairly choose the same; if we feared making mistakes, we would never have any scientific advances, moon landings, defensive wars and other serious matters; i too am enraged at subsequent offenders--they are foisted on us by sick, righteous attorneys & judges who will not have THEIR families personally affected by these maniacs;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 3, 2006 10:19 AM
37. Grrrr.......Bipolar is neither a reason nor excuse. Only 5% of crimes are committed by a person with a mental illness diagnosis. They're not as likely as the general population to commit a crime. Should normality then be a defense?

Posted by: JoAnne on August 4, 2006 05:41 AM
38. JoAnne: Good point.

Posted by: Peggy U on August 4, 2006 10:48 AM
39. I too disagree with the death penalty for the soul reason that it is an easy way out. Maybe not for his family but for him. I would prefer for him a life time torture before he gets sent to hell. When are we going to pass the bill to send these jerks to a prison out of this country like Cuba.. or something where they have the opportunity to be treated inhumanly just like they treated their victims! come one now! Conner is a one of those "high security" prisoners he won't even have a chance to get rapped. shucks.

seriously Walla Walla would seem like a five star hotel compaired to the many other places he could rot in this world. I'm sorry but I'm tired of people pittying him. Pitty Leonid who has to spend the rest of his life wondering what his boys would've been like...

Posted by: AAK on August 11, 2006 03:07 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?