What To Do With Monsters?

"But most tragically of all, you have snuffed out the life of a beautiful, talented, vivacious little girl ... And for what? So that you could gratify your twisted and deviant desire to have sex with a child. Only a monster could commit an act of such pure evil. You sir are a monster."
--Justice Thomas Heeney, to Michael Rafferty, upon sentencing him for first degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault




Sir, yet.


I can think of many things to call Michael Rafferty -- monster is perhaps the mildest of them -- but I don't think he merits sir.


Rafferty was convicted in the bludgeoning death of eight-year old Victoria "Tori" Stafford, who was abducted on her way home from her Woodstock, Ontario public school on April 8, 2009. Rafferty's then-girlfriend, Terri-Lynne McClintic, procured Tori for him, in a chilling echo of the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case twenty years ago. 


Tori was raped and beaten to death with a claw hammer. Despite being convicted on all counts, Rafferty maintains he is not guilty. Presumably he believes McClintic is. (Terri-Lynne did, in fact, plead guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.) An appeal is planned. Little good it'll do. Tori will remain, tragically, dead. 


The jury came to their conclusion without being apprised of several pieces of damning evidence. In Canadian jurisprudence, computers are no longer considered things but are instead deemed places, and therefore require their own warrants to be legally searched. No such warrant was obtained for Rafferty's laptop, and the Google searches ("how to abduct a child", among others) and child pornography were thus inadmissible evidence. I hate to admit I agree that this was the right move. It's a damn good thing there was enough evidence to convict Rafferty without the stuff in the darker corners of his hard drive.


Longtime readers will know that I am generally not a fan of the death penalty. which has not existed in Canada since I was four years old. There are far too many people wrongfully convicted of murder for me to feel comfortable with capital punishment. And in many cases, killing the killer is simply a reflexive action, borne out of a spiritually juvenile desire for revenge.


There are exceptions.


Where there is incontrovertible evidence--never mind a shadow of a doubt, a molecule of doubt is too much--I believe some people should be expunged. People like Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. People like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson">Clifford Olsen. People who brag that they did it, have photo or video proof of themselves doing it, and have every intention of doing it again. 


People like Rafferty and McClintic?


I'm not sure. I will say this: I don't see the point in keeping this thing alive. And I have a real problem with the sentencing: "life" means no chance of parole for 25 years. I don't like seeing qualifiers...it should read life, with no chance of parole. Never mind that, Rafferty got ten years for the sexual assault and ten years for the kidnapping. Both sentences, as is custom in this country, will be served concurrently with the one for murder.  In other words, it's new math: 25 + 10 + 10 = 25. Doesn't seem, dare I say, just. 


And then again, if you're going to lock this guy up for the remainder of his natural life, as I would argue you have a moral duty to do...is there any reason that natural life should be prolonged, at a huge expense to the taxpayer? Child-killers are routinely  segregated from the general population in prisons, "for their own safety". I will rephrase that. Monsters who violate the safety of childhood in the most hideous ways imaginable are assured personal safety in jail. 
How does that make you feel? Bad? Sad? Mad? All of the above?


Our judges and juries in this country do a very good job with the tools at their disposal, most of the time. Justice was undoubtedly served in the Tori Stafford case. A pity that justice is so cold.