 |
Angel Maturino Resendiz, the so-called Railway Killer, has admitted
killing nine people in two years. His victims were bludgeoned, raped,
beaten, stabbed, clubbed or shot. Some were hacked into pieces.
In his death penalty trial for the Dec. 17, 1998, murder of Dr. Claudia
Benton, Maturino Resendiz has entered a plea of not guilty by reason
of insanity. His attorneys have stated that he committed all the murders
he's accused of, including Benton's, but insist he was "insane
at the time."
What does that mean? I may not be the most objective person to ask,
as you'll see. I have a realist's view of the insanity defense, built
by years of face-to-face experience with violent, predatory criminals,
especially serial killers.
In short, the insanity defense is an assertion by the attorneys for
the defendant that he did not understand the difference between right
and wrong when he committed the crime with which he's charged, due
to mental illness or mental defect. Because of this, the defense argues,
the defendant should not be held criminally responsible for, i.e.
found guilty of, the crime.
Making
choices
Jurors in a case in which the insanity defense has been employed
are asked to decide whether the defendant had the capacity to differentiate
right from wrong. Psychiatric experts from both sides testify, and
their opinions might completely contradict those of one another. So
how does the jury decide? I think that would be an awfully difficult
distinction to make.
But here's my personal problem with the plea: These serial killers
and serial rapists all make choices. We can debate and ponder whether
they understood the morality of their choices, that murky right-or-wrong
issue. But I can't imagine many instances in which, for example, a
violent criminal bludgeons an elderly woman with a pick ax without
understanding that he's causing her to die.
Maturino Resendiz allegedly did this to one of his victims, a 73-year-old
woman. Did he know that what he was doing was wrong? After more than
25 years in criminal justice, I'm still not entirely sure how that
can be determined. What I'm more interested in is whether he knew
he was hurting her very badly and, finally, killing her.
Defense gambles on plea
Clearly, he did. Serial killers know what they're doing. They don't
accidentally kill people. They don't have a problem understanding
what death means, and that they have the power to kill. That's what
excites them -- the act of frightening, controlling, hurting, dominating
and ultimately, in a few minutes or days, killing their victims.
Maturino Resendiz's attorneys admit that he meant to kill his victims.
He apparently thinks they were all "evil" and that -- as
some sort of an avenging angel of God, with an apocalyptic message
for the world -- he was sent to kill them. Does this mean he's "not
guilty by reason of insanity"?
If the jury thinks so, he won't be put to death. He'll be committed
to a mental institution, probably for a very long time, maybe the
rest of his life. Knowing this was an option, a gamble the defense
might win, Maturino Resendiz and his attorneys chose to enter the
insanity plea to try to save his life.
Serial killers deserve to die
I argue that his victims never had a choice, so why should he? If
I had one case to cite, one instance where a violent criminal at Maturino
Resendiz's level was treated successfully and rehabilitated into a
healthy human being, I might feel differently. But I know this: Serial
killers cannot be rehabilitated. I'd stake my life on it.
So if he spends his life in a mental institution instead of being
put to death, it will be because the jury feels that due to whatever
debilitating, impairing mental disorder the defense will claim he
has, they must act mercifully toward him and spare his life.
Serial killers don't deserve our mercy. For the murders they've committed,
I believe they deserve to die. To prevent them from killing again,
I believe they deserve to die. I don't apologize for those statements.
I've looked into the eyes of so many serial killers and seen not just
an utter lack of remorse but a frightening truth: If you let me out,
I'll do it again.
|
|
|
