DANIEL ROBINSON ON WHY HIS STEPFATHER SHOULD DIE

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 12:00AM

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.