🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Jan09.090548.366294@skipper.cityconnect.com> Keethie@skipper.cityconnect.com (Keith P. Keber) writes:
>Ok, here it is. The story was recounted in the January 6, 1994 edition of the
>San Jose (CA.) Mercury News, Section B (the "Local" section), page 8. It
>details the brutal killing of a family's pet. It is not for the squeamish. At
>the risk of redundancy, I'm only posting this so that if anyone ever comes
>into contact with this guy, they'll know with whom they're dealing. The only
>action I suggest anyone reading this take is to help form a free or low-cost
>publicly accessible database so that he will not be able to slip into the
>shelter of anonymity in the future. I think that this heinous deed, and all
>others like it, should follow him and other unfeeling perpetrators for the
>rest of their days, and when you read the account, I think you will agree. 


[story deleted, no sense in having to re-read it here]

I applaud your concern for the animals of the world but I have to say
that I have my reservations about the thought of creating a database
open to the public of people involved in abuse cases.  Going to the 
extreme here (and it is rather extreme when you consider the consequences)
of keeping the case alive after the courts have rendered a verdict
and exacted punishment is going to get you sued, at the least, and 
possibly worse.

By the act of maintaining a public record of a crime that has been
tried and sentenced according to the law of the community so that you 
can be certain to follow him and others "the rest of their days" 
eliminates a person's right to go on with their life after the case
is closed and the sentence is carried out.  Society will have exacted
its price in full on these persons after fines and jail sentences
are complete.  And, if this fellow commits another crime in the 
future, rest assured that the appropriate law enforcement agencies
will exchange all the information appropriate to the case.

I am in no way trying to defend this man's actions or attempt to 
minimize the severity of the act.  I just want to say that we 
still allow people to repent from the wrongs they commit without
everyone in the world butting into it.  Where I will jump in to 
defend this fellow is that he has the right to not have this
event haunt him in the ways that your proposal would indicate.  
There are a lot of people out there who have committed crimes that
they later regret and repent (the very similar example of driving
while intoxicated and having a fatal accident leaps to my mind)
and while I am no happier with the needless deaths, when it's over,
it's over.  

I say throw the book at him now and then leave it alone.  It will
be in the past and we have no right to use the past to deny a person
a future.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet.
I just thought I would offer my opinion.

Gail Brookhart