Murdered Cop's Relative Speaks
If O.J. did it, here's how it happened. Neal Kelley did it. Here's how it happened. Rich man, poor man. Both escape legal justice. One thanks to big-bucks lawyers and race-baiting; one thanks to institutionalized therapeutics and the incompetence of the Washington state department of corrections. It's hard to call career criminal Kelley's death in a car crash - one in which he was clearly at fault - cosmic justice. Considering that he took an innocent motorist in another vehicle, who happened to be a rookie Seattle cop, with him.
In my original post on Kelley, and his killing of Elizabeth Nowak, commenter Douglas W. identifies himself as Nowak's brother-in-law and offers a passionate reaction reprinted here below. Political observers will notice in his words a strong appeal for bi-partisanship in improving criminal justice policy. Interesting. Across the public policy spectrum, that's a view more and more of the electorate seem to share. Could this actually be a "teachable moment" for public servants? I know: I won't hold my breath. But here is Douglas W.:
Good Morning All - I am the brother-in-law to the lovely Ms. Beth Nowak whom your streets took from this world. Her story, so very sad and unsettling could have happened in any city on any street. How it happened, when it happened I'm not sure but over the past 15 or so years this NATION has had a break down in social and family values. Its easy to use terms like liberal and conservative or Republican or Democrat when discussing these issues but the fact is plain. A repeat offender, a criminal, a person who doesn't subscribe to right and wrong type of life was able roam free. We as a nation have done a very good job at rewarding those who refuse or are unable to become an active member of society. There are so many hard working Americans trying everyday to do what right and they get nothing. But we are supposed to compliment and commend an alcoholic or drug user for staying clean. What about the millions of us that never got hooked in the first place. We have a civil right as the richest nation to take care of those who truly need, TRULY NEED - I feel the rest should be taken out with the garbage. In these last elections they polled the citizens of Wisconsin on the death penalty and it overwhelming(ly) was supported. Perhaps that's a start.We now have to rebuild the shattered lives and move forward from this. The government spends millions and millions on the rights and treatment of criminals, who has to spend the money to put to rest this committed and dedicate law officer, this War Vet who would do anything for her country - (for) her family, her mom, her dad. It's time for action. We have laws on the books, we should use them. It's time we take a stand against our voted officials. If the people we put into office do now represent us the way in which we voted them in, we need to remove them. There should be NO plea bargains and I think these attorneys th(at) feed off the bottom should be accountable for the scum they represent.....And finally, we need more prisons. This country has no problem spending money. It's time we as Americans decide how OUR money is spend and not some red tie- or blue tie- wearing fool behind a desk. We need to stop thinking in terms of political parties and start thinking in terms of issues. We put these people in office to represent us; we need to control what they do. We all appreciate your prayers at a time like this and I would personally ask that for those of you whom might read this also say a prayer for Beth's family at this very trying time. Bottom line is this problem in not limited to Seattle, its everywhere. Thanks and God Bless
Elected officials, law enforcment officials, and judicial personnel in Washington state, King County and Seattle, knowing full well the shameful details of Kelley's history and the events leading to Nowak's death, ought to read carefully what Nowak's relative says here. Then they might seriously consider the human cost of unearned lenience in cases like Kelley's and that of Mary Jane Rivas. The end result of such listening and reflection by our detached, self-interested political class should be - by whatever means necessary - structural changes to ensure our system doesn't give proven malefactors license to run free and kill. I can't think of a more basic priority of government.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 15, 2006 09:55 AM | Email ThisYep, the bigger the deterrent, the lesser the crimes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 15, 2006 10:36 AMhow would this scumbag perp been treated in a country touting a peaceful religion and strict laws? repeat offender? doubt it. since we love and want to appease the peaceful religion countries so much, let's be "enlightened" by trying their penal codes too.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 15, 2006 10:53 AMGet tought on serious/repeat offenders, govt. officials!! This coddling stuff is dangerous!
Posted by: Michele on November 15, 2006 11:12 AMThen they will scream for heads on pikes. Average law-abiding citizen/policeman be damned.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 15, 2006 11:29 AMThe only way to prevent most similar deaths is to imprison anyone who has shown a proclivity to drive recklessly until we are confident he is permanently "cured" of this proclivity. Often that would mean life in prison since "cures" are difficult to effect, let alone verify.
How much are you willing to pay for so many prisons? What if we could save more innocent lives per dollar by, say, rebuilding our bridges and viaducts, or improving our health care system?
It also might be unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the punishment has to fit the crime someone has committed, not the crime they might commit. I think you can confine someone if you can prove he is DEFINITELY a danger to others, but that's difficult. Of course we could amend the constitution.
In this case we also could have prevented the death by having more police detectives (to follow up leads more quickly), more police officers (to seek out probation violators), and more prosecutors (to pursue the maximum charge in every case). How much are you willing to pay for those things? And even with these steps, he would have been freed eventually, perhaps with a similarly tragic ending.
Posted by: Bruce on November 15, 2006 11:30 AMI would hope The Times would relentlessly stay on top of and report what matters:
What really transpired between SPD and Maleng’s office in handling Kelly’s July arrest?
What did Kelly’s parole officer, oops – sorry, make that community corrections officer do/not do?
Maybe that’s too much wishful thinking. I suspect the answers would most likely be “over-worked and under-funded.”
Posted by: Tyler Durden on November 15, 2006 11:50 AMNothing, of course, is further from the truth. He was a humnan wreck that that is, sadly, better off dead. Some of us are just that way. I've known a few and don't understand why they choose to be that way.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 15, 2006 12:07 PMnow i will gladly pay--for more police and prisons. Let's also cut some silly social programs like diversity/aid to illegal aliens to help pay for it too--not simply more taxes.
and no more plea bargains. serve the whole time. make the inmates work. no cable and other perks other than minimal for comfort/life. it's a prison, not a 5-star hotel.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 15, 2006 12:11 PMGood question and what bridges, viaducts and healthcare has to do with it is beyond me.
My answer about prisons:
The questions should be: How much is my life worth? How much is my wife's life worth? How much was Officer Nowak's Life worth. I think it is certanly worth putting someone with multiple felonies away for a long time.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker on November 15, 2006 12:20 PM- Plea bargains get more criminals punished with limited prosecution and court dollars
- Cable and other prison "perks" (I'm guessing life is still pretty miserable there, not like your hypothetical 5-star hotel) reduce prison violence and guard costs and help prisoners with their eventual transition back into society
- Aid to illegal aliens -- you need to be more specific, but some is intended to keep them and their children from becoming criminals or using expensive emergency rooms
As for "diversity", this word is used to cover a lot of things, some silly, some to protect and give opportunities to people who deserve it.
Do these programs accomplish their intended purpose? I'm sure some do and some don't. But to attack them all with a broad brush is just mindless rhetoric.
Posted by: Bruce on November 15, 2006 12:34 PMAnd I completly agree with all of you about the conditions in prisons, no tv, no internet. Hard work, hard excercise, learn to read (english) or you don't get out.
Posted by: the duke on November 15, 2006 12:46 PM"- Cable and other prison "perks" (I'm guessing life is still pretty miserable there, not like your hypothetical 5-star hotel) reduce prison violence and guard costs and help prisoners with their eventual transition back into society"
Perhaps we don't WANT some of them back in society... Frankly, my continued existence, and those of the people whom I care about, is worth the extra couple of bucks to keep repeatedly convicted felons off the street. To quote Markos Z. "Screw 'em [the repeat felons]. I feel nothing"
"- Aid to illegal aliens -- you need to be more specific, but some is intended to keep them and their children from becoming criminals or using expensive emergency rooms"
Better cost savings? Ship them back home since they, ta-da, have broken the law?
Posted by: FT on November 15, 2006 12:52 PMExcellent questions!
In an ideal world, an infinite amount. No one should die a preventable death. No one.
In the real world, we place a value on life every time we buy a car, build a building, build a road, staff a police force, sentence a criminal, get medical treatment, regulate job safety, regulate pollution, etc. More money for any of those things would save innocent lives.
It is difficult to talk about these choices, so many are made quietly, carelessly, and for bad reasons. That's human nature, I guess. I'm not sure what the right tradeoffs are. But to deny that they are tradeoffs is simply wrong.
Example: Let's say the state could spend $1 billion per year to rebuild dangerous roads, saving 10 innocent lives. It could spend $1 billion per year to prosecute and imprison every violent felon for life, saving 20 innocent lives. It could spend $1 billion per year to prosecute and imprison more drunk drivers, saving 100 innocent lives (ignoring the drunks' lives). Should we do all of these things? None of them? Some of them? How should we decide?
(I've pulled these numbers out of the air, so don't waste your time questioning them. But the issues are real.)
My point is not to diminish any life. It's to point out that, without consideration for the tradeoffs, we can't have a useful discussion of many issues in society. People can yell and scream, but nothing will happen.
Posted by: Bruce on November 15, 2006 12:59 PMWasn't Kelley was one of those transitional prisoners?
Posted by: Tyler Durden on November 15, 2006 01:01 PM"especially if they are required to pursue citizenship as well". They are required to obey the law including immigration law, they are not required to pusue citizenship. They are free through the legal process established.
Posted by: Right said Fred on November 15, 2006 01:29 PMPut these people away, if it be 5 or 10 years.
Make them work on the forest roads or what ever.
I'm tired of taking care of these fools. Make prison a place you never want to come back too.
Bruce, may I ask. What is your mother, father, sister, brothers life worth?
When a person like this can break so many laws, so many times. It proves to all of us. He was never worried because he would be right back.
If someone like Kelley is allowed to roam free, I have no control over him. I'm sure that Officer Nowak was obeying the traffic laws when someone who should not have been allowed to be in lawful society needlessly killed her.
I want criminals locked up. I want people like Kelley in jail. Guys like Kelley should fall into a habitual offender category and a provision should be in place to lock them up for a very long time.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker on November 15, 2006 01:48 PMMy sister has been in the loop of our justice system for over 10 years. She's been arrested for stealing credit cards, cars, prostitution, drug possession, etc. Every time she ends up in drug court.
Every time she walks out of treatment. She misses court dates, skips community service, etc. I don't think she's ever been sentenced to more than 6 months at a stretch and she's usually released early.
My dad even begged the judge to give her a real sentence once, before they moved out of state so they didn't feel obligated to deal with her and her problems anymore, and to get the three kids of hers that they'd adopted as far away from her as possible.
Probation should be reserved for those with little to no criminal history. For those with the least likelihood of re-offending. For those that have proven that they will continue to break laws, harsher penalties are in order.
Posted by: Leonson on November 15, 2006 03:00 PMYes, I did catch the part about making prisons unpleasant. I see the value in that, although of course if the Supreme Court says they meet the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment", then they'll have to change (or we'll have to change the constitution). I also see the value in treating people civilly if we want them to become civil members of society. And prison officials have a much easier time maintaining order when prisoners have the opportunity to earn privileges. (If you give people the bare minimum that's not cruel and unusual, there's nothing you can take away for punishment.)
I'd want to see research into the effects of various types of treatment -- I'm sure much has been done.
prisoners "deserve" more? then crybaby liberal groups like Amnesty International or private lib groups/citizens pitch in & sponsor the inmates for all the balance of the 'goodies' and costs--not taxpayers.
why should a prisoner get 1st class healthcare while veterans and senior citizens (LEGAL citizens) get the budget whining of "no funds?"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 16, 2006 10:10 AM