Some argue that it is better to let ten guilty men go free before we
execute an innocent, Unit 1012 (we DO NOT support a wrongful conviction) can
add on that letting the guilty live is dangerous to society..... If Leigh
Robinson was executed in the 1960’s, another life would not be lost. This is
the consequence for failing to execute a murderer…
Leigh Robinson was
spared the death sentence in 1968 for a murder of a woman he committed that
year. Unfortunately, he was released and he murdered another woman on 28 April
2008 in Melbourne, Australia. The murder occurred forty years later after his
first one. Please go to this blog
post to learn more about the murder.
Please go to this previous
blog post to read this article from his stepson who wants his own
stepfather to pay with his life and also a testimony from the niece of
Robinson’s first victim.
INTERNET SOURCE:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/why-leigh-robinson-should-die/story-e6frfhqf-1225781362061
Why Leigh Robinson should die
- Daniel Robinson
- Herald Sun
- October 01, 2009
MY stepfather took the lives of two
women, 40 years apart. There is no doubt in my mind that he should pay the
ultimate penalty for his crimes
NOT only would I support the
death penalty in the case of my stepfather, double murderer and convicted
rapist Leigh Robinson, I would even go so far as to ask the judicial system to
make public the details of all defendants' past crimes.
At his recent trial, why was his
history quashed? The members of the jury that convicted him this week of the
murder of Tracey Greenbury last year were not told that he had killed before.
Even though it took them only an hour
to reach a verdict, not one of them was aware that he had earlier been
sentenced to death for the 1968 murder of his former girlfriend, Valerie Dunn,
who was only 17 at the time.
But after taking her life, he was
spared the gallows and he served only 15 years in prison.
Why am I affected by this? Because the
man who carried out both murders, 40 years apart, is the man who raised my
three sisters, my brother and me. He raised us and he destroyed us, just as he
destroyed the families of his victims.
The idea of rehabilitating murderers
is bull. This man must hang.
He must never be given the chance of
getting out into society again, simply because he will kill if he is ever
granted his freedom.
He's done it before and he'll do it
again. There is no delicate way of saying this. If he is freed, he will kill
someone else.
Tracey Greenbury, unfortunately, did
not know about his violent background. It cost her her life. It is my carefully
considered opinion that when the truth about his background began to emerge,
she tried to distance herself from him. But it was already too late.
She died instantly when he shot her in
the back of the head, at point-blank range. He pleaded not guilty to her
murder, but I watch enough of CSI to know that if ballistic evidence, weapon
residue and DNA evidence at the crime scene all adds up, justice always catches
up with a killer.
But how do we define justice?
Convicted killers, like convicted sex
offenders, must bear the brunt of their crimes. My stepfather must face the
consequences of his actions.
He must hang. He must never be given
the chance of re-emerging into society and doing the same thing again.
In the case of repeat offenders - as
indeed he was - the legal system must find a way to disclose a killer's prior
conviction and history to a jury, the next time that person faces trial.
Mentally, what makes a person like my
stepfather a danger to society? I do not know where to begin. I cannot define
this in simple terms. But when a human being physically abuses those who are
their closest relatives, that person has already shown no respect for the norms
by which society is defined.
As far as the issue of guilt goes, it
is a clear-cut choice. If there is irrefutable evidence and if there is an
eyewitness to a slaying, then there can be no quibbling over a guilty verdict
and the killer should get death. On the other hand, if there is the slightest
element of doubt, then the due process of the law must dictate what happens.
I must also point out that the issue
of mental care of people who have offended in any way and are assessed as being
likely to reoffend is a debate with no simple solution. People need all the
help they can get, up to a point.
In the case of my stepfather and his
horrific crimes, there had to be some mental or psychological trigger factors.
What were they? I cannot begin to guess. How deep were they? I do not know. How
far back into his life do we need to go to see when they first began to
surface? That is impossible to define.
If a person is psychologically unwell,
is there a case for them to be locked up? Society must debate the issue,
because it has wide ramifications for the safety of those of us who trust the
law and the law enforcement agencies to assure our safety.
If a member of your family were
assessed by doctors and judged as being in need of regular medication to
control a particular pattern of behaviour, this in turn raises an interesting
scenario.
L ET'S say it was your stepfather, not
mine, who was judged as being a danger to society. Let's say his wellbeing
depended on your ability to monitor his activities and to make sure he took
regular medication. Let's say, in an extreme scenario, that it was your
responsibility to keep him indoors.
Would you be able to deliver on all
those demands? If you had to ensure that the person in your care, whatever the
level of their crime or their innate tendency to commit a crime, would you
actually be able to physically shove a tablet down their throats? You could
fetch the tablet, you could fetch a glass of cordial or water to wash it down,
but could you actually ensure that they did not spit the tablet out without
your knowledge?
If the legal system cannot make it
safe for us to live alongside people who break the law and commit offences of
any nature, then we should have a say in defining how these people are treated.
When my stepfather was given early release
from jail, he continued to re-offend in many ways, not all of which came to
light.
If he had raped, murdered, pillaged
and plundered, he was smart enough to put the sort of fear into people to an
extent that you would not believe. Yet he could stand up in front of a jury and
without any hesitation he could plead not guilty to the vicious murder of
Tracey Greenbury. This is precisely why juries must be told the full history of
people accused of crimes of this level.
My stepfather was shrewd enough to look
round a courtroom full of people and deny any wrongdoing.
I was at work when the first reports
began to emerge of Tracey's death. I knew exactly who had done it, even before
my stepfather's name first surfaced. I just knew who it was. No question about
it. There was no doubt at all in my mind.
I CALLED Mum but she knew that he was
involved although she wouldn't tell me. I asked her where he was, but she
claimed she had no idea.
I think Mum is a classic variation of
Stockholm syndrome, where people caught up in confronting situations begin to
find empathy with those who are committing a crime. She always defended my
stepfather, even when it was a question of what he was doing to us kids. She
always believed in his innocence. Nothing anyone can do will ever change her
opinion.
On the other hand, nothing will make
me back down from my opinion on the death penalty. That - the belief that I
must never back down - is the only thing I took from my mother. I threw out
everything else I ever learnt from her. But she once commended me for being
brave enough not to back down, and that is precisely what makes me so
determined to recommend the death penalty for my stepfather.
I don't understand what made Leigh
Robinson the sort of person he is.
I cannot begin to comprehend what made
him the sort of person he turned out to be. It is impossible to define how that
part of the human brain works in the case of a double murderer.
He must be hanged, shot or stoned to
death for the crimes he has committed.
No comments:
Post a Comment