The worst thing about a scam like this is that the next defendant who comes along and legitimately deserves some consideration will have a harder time getting it.
Christopher Flauding was considered retarded.
Now, 27 years after he killed a Merrillville woman, he's about to go free, a bachelor's degree in anthropology to his name.
Flauding was 17 when he attacked Celia Villareal with a butcher knife as she walked into her far-Northwestern Indiana home.Now 44, Flauding disputes labels such as "borderline mentally retarded" and "a limited mind" that were attached to him -- and may have saved him from the death penalty.
And there's no point in hating the defense attorney, who was just doing what the defense attorney is supposed to do. Our real anger should be directed at those on the other side who didn't work hard enough to document the hustle. The prosecutor didn't even challenged the "retarded" claim. What was that all about? Here is that prosecutor. Note the barely concealed sarcasm:
"Hopefully, the education the state has provided him above and beyond that a lot of kids not committing those crimes will get will serve him well. I surely hope all the violent tendencies he showed have been expunged."
It's worth noting, however, that this particular prosecutor has become a defense attorney, so I guess she must not think there are too many violent criminals scamming the system. Oops, guess I have a little issue with defense attorneys after all.
That education, I'm sorry to say, was provided by my alma mater, Ball State. So, if you want a college degree, you can get good grades, try for a scholarship, work during high school and save your money, get your parents to help, take out a loan and join the military for a few years so Uncle Sam will help foot the bill. Or you can kill somebody. What a deal.
Comments
Leo...don't go giving me any ideas now, especially since I dropped out in the late 70s and WISH I would have stayed IN!
My wife did it the "hard" way....got good grades, scholarhsip, grants, loans...the whole enchilada, and now teaches the youth of America so they won't have to go out and kill someone to get the easy degree. I LOVE irony!
Yet, if one were to carry this thought further...in *my* neighborhood, I "should" be living amongst a bunch of college grads, as we seem to have more people incarcerated than I'm used to. My neighborhood "should" look like Princeton's campus, for that matter.
Used to be a time when most EMPLOYERS would pay for you to go to (community) college, doing the 50% reimbursement thing up front, with the other 50% back at you AFTER you received a 3.0 GPA or better for the semester.
But times change I guess. Now....how many semester hours can I recoup "if" I jaywalk or litter???
And does killing my house plants by too much watering count towards that goal?
Bob
I read that article from yesterday's paper this morning at breakfast. Murder is always a tragedy and passing off a competent but violent man as mentally retarded is a crime in itself. Truly mentally retarded people have enough obstacles to overcome without public fear. I don't know what is fair punishment for murder. I am glad that burden doesn't fall on me. I feel awful for the victim's family.
But you may be being a bit harsh on the criminal. He has applied himself in prison and that should be commended. When he gets out his aspirations are to be a truck driver - something he may find harder than he thinks with that kind of conviction behind him. His bachelor's degree from Ball State will not get him far.
Two books (the second actually three books0 really changed my view of the death penalty and prison. The first is The Ultimate Penalty by Scott Turow. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031242373X/sr=8-1/qid=1141678849/ref=sr_1_1/104-2895334-9503900?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Turow exposes some huge problems in our current system. I think his final analusis is right: the death penalty is necessary in extreme cases - such as particularly brutal crimes and serial killers. The community needs the criminal to be stopped once and for all and needs to put him in the ground to move on. But it should not be used as a deterrent, since it isn't. And it should be used even for murder most of the time. It is should be reserved only for the worst cases. You can read Turow for yourself and see if he convinces you.
The second book are the three diaries of Jeffrey Archer. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312330847/sr=8-2/qid=1141679060/ref=sr_1_2/104-2895334-9503900?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Archer ends up learning that murderers in prison are the least despicable. Most of them committed a single, terrible violent act. Like the prisoner in our story they make no excuses for it, they regret it. They want to make amends. Archer does find despicable people in prisons: the careerists, the burglers and drug-dealers who are in and out of prison and have no regret or intention to reform. At first glance you would think the murderers are the worst, but at the end I think Archer is on to something.
Petersen