Psychopathic Men, Exemplary Women
If ever there was a loathsome offence against all that society holds dear = the protection of its young being that paramount dearness, and the offence being that of brutally snuffing out the life of the young - it is exemplified by the psychopathic monster whose name is Clifford Olson. Even people who are distinctly averse to the very notion of capital punishment might find it in their hearts to accept there might be anomalous occasions when an exception could be tolerated.
Eleven children, between the ages of 10 and 16, raped and tortured, murdered by this odious monster. Eleven children denied the opportunity to live, to discover, to feel joy and love and the challenge of opportunities. Eleven children whose families are destined to live a nightmare that never ends. And the charade of appearing before a parole board where each time that occurs the bereaved families shudder and die a little more.
Canadians voted for an end to capital punishment. A life incarcerated for crimes committed would suffice to inscribe Canadian justice on society's awareness of crime and punishment. Care is given to the incarcerated to ensure they are well fed, exercised, opportunities given to express themselves. The right to vote? The right to receive taxpayer-funded pensions? The right to receive medical treatment and the right to sue the system?
What presents as a mystery, however, resides in the case itself. That the RCMP finally found the man responsible for the disappearances of eleven children. And that in an effort to recover the bodies of those slaughtered children an agreement was reached to ransom those bodies to give the families closure with the burial of their mangled, decomposed bodies. Ten thousand dollars to be handed over in exchange for each child's body, its whereabouts disclosed.
The man's unspeakable, conscienceless, brutal atrocities describe his character. But wait, there is another personality and character involved here. The individual to whom he was married, his wife. To whom the $100,000 ransom money was delivered. Where was her conscience? To know that her husband murdered young children in his depraved psychotic lust might be presumed to bring despair to any woman.
This woman accepted as her just due a hundred thousand dollars. Her husband murdered children and her conscience allowed her to accept that blood money, the money given over to ensure the location of those poor bodies would be found. How sordidly immoral is that? That represents a kind of associative relationship to the crime that is profoundly despicable.
What motivates such women?
I write that in the plural because there is another, more recent instance where a woman whose husband has been accused of dreadful crimes has also sought to protect herself financially from loss associated with her husband's crimes. Col. Russell Williams has yet to be tried for murder. Two murders. Along with a series of other crimes, like rape and home invasions and thefts.
And Col. Williams' wife has taken steps, with her husband, to ensure that their jointly-owned property was signed over to her. A civil lawsuit has been launched by one of the sexual-assault victims of her husband, and fearing that the outcome of the lawsuit would impinge on the value of jointly-held property, she took steps to protect her financial interests.
One might assume that a woman would think last of such relatively mundane matters, would be more likely to want to disown any possessions held jointly with such a man. Not so, evidently.
Mary-Elizabeth Harriman conspired with her husband to take legal steps to ensure she was the sole owner of a costly townhouse, while leaving him the sole owner of a modest rural cottage. So where is the conscience of this woman? Married for long years to a man whose psychopathy evidently was never a bother to her personally, but which resulted in the attacks and rapes of other women, and the rapes and deaths of two.
Her concern is to protect her financial investments. Not that she is incapable of looking after herself financially. She has a well-paid professional job working for a national charitable health institute. She is now concerned to have court action banning publication of information respecting her professional life, her personal finances and her legal affairs.
"Her reputation in the community is exemplary", according to a legal document filed with the court.
Eleven children, between the ages of 10 and 16, raped and tortured, murdered by this odious monster. Eleven children denied the opportunity to live, to discover, to feel joy and love and the challenge of opportunities. Eleven children whose families are destined to live a nightmare that never ends. And the charade of appearing before a parole board where each time that occurs the bereaved families shudder and die a little more.
Canadians voted for an end to capital punishment. A life incarcerated for crimes committed would suffice to inscribe Canadian justice on society's awareness of crime and punishment. Care is given to the incarcerated to ensure they are well fed, exercised, opportunities given to express themselves. The right to vote? The right to receive taxpayer-funded pensions? The right to receive medical treatment and the right to sue the system?
What presents as a mystery, however, resides in the case itself. That the RCMP finally found the man responsible for the disappearances of eleven children. And that in an effort to recover the bodies of those slaughtered children an agreement was reached to ransom those bodies to give the families closure with the burial of their mangled, decomposed bodies. Ten thousand dollars to be handed over in exchange for each child's body, its whereabouts disclosed.
The man's unspeakable, conscienceless, brutal atrocities describe his character. But wait, there is another personality and character involved here. The individual to whom he was married, his wife. To whom the $100,000 ransom money was delivered. Where was her conscience? To know that her husband murdered young children in his depraved psychotic lust might be presumed to bring despair to any woman.
This woman accepted as her just due a hundred thousand dollars. Her husband murdered children and her conscience allowed her to accept that blood money, the money given over to ensure the location of those poor bodies would be found. How sordidly immoral is that? That represents a kind of associative relationship to the crime that is profoundly despicable.
What motivates such women?
I write that in the plural because there is another, more recent instance where a woman whose husband has been accused of dreadful crimes has also sought to protect herself financially from loss associated with her husband's crimes. Col. Russell Williams has yet to be tried for murder. Two murders. Along with a series of other crimes, like rape and home invasions and thefts.
And Col. Williams' wife has taken steps, with her husband, to ensure that their jointly-owned property was signed over to her. A civil lawsuit has been launched by one of the sexual-assault victims of her husband, and fearing that the outcome of the lawsuit would impinge on the value of jointly-held property, she took steps to protect her financial interests.
One might assume that a woman would think last of such relatively mundane matters, would be more likely to want to disown any possessions held jointly with such a man. Not so, evidently.
Mary-Elizabeth Harriman conspired with her husband to take legal steps to ensure she was the sole owner of a costly townhouse, while leaving him the sole owner of a modest rural cottage. So where is the conscience of this woman? Married for long years to a man whose psychopathy evidently was never a bother to her personally, but which resulted in the attacks and rapes of other women, and the rapes and deaths of two.
Her concern is to protect her financial investments. Not that she is incapable of looking after herself financially. She has a well-paid professional job working for a national charitable health institute. She is now concerned to have court action banning publication of information respecting her professional life, her personal finances and her legal affairs.
"Her reputation in the community is exemplary", according to a legal document filed with the court.
Labels: Canada, Human Fallibility, Human Relations, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 7:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home