Diary of A Sick Mind
Freedom of press is a inspirational idea, the cornerstone of democracy. But what the fuck were the authorities doing letting convicted psycopath blog about his sick mind without even keeping a freaking eye on him?
According to Associated Press, convicted sexual offender Joseph Edward Duncan III spent months blogging about his struggle of right vs. wrong. Then, four days before two Idaho children he is accused of kidnapping disappeared, he wrote: "The demons have taken over."
That was his last entry. Police in North Dakota used that very entry to charge him on 2 kidnappin counts. Its believed that he took 9 year old Dylan Groene and his 8 year old sister Shasta before bludgeoning to death their brother mother and her boyfriend.
Duncans last entry had a whopping 261 comments. Most of it expressed a justifiable anger as to why the the authorities were sitting on their donut laden butts when a sick man said the demons had taken over. In a country that has Megans Law ( all convicted sexual offenders of children must be registered) and the Patriot Act the inadeptness of the authorities is at best disturbing, at worst fatal.
posted by Nashenee at 11:08 PM
8 Comments:
It is understood that the perpretrator was to blame for his actions, that goes without saying. And i never suggested that the victims were to blame. What infuriated me was the police/ FBI didnt keep an eye on him. In the polices defence, it seemed that they only knew abt the blog after he stopped reporting to his parol officer.Still, this whole thing could have been avoided with a lil more vigilance from th police.
So if I (as a convicted felon) post an annonymous comment on your blog with some threats, the authorities are supposed to know who I am? What if I start my own blog under some other name? They're all supposed to keep an eye on me, too, but where are they? They have a "whole lot" more things to do than to watch every bad person out there. What do you define "vigilance" as?
Posting an anonymous comment with threats is one thing, having your own registered blog is another. And it doesnt matter if the blog wasnt registered under his name, because his family and friends knew about this blog before the crime was committed, so lets not get ahead of ourselves here. Even the police were aware of this guys online diary.True, police have their hands full. Im not asking them to 'watch every bad person out there' - this bad person practically implied that hes gonna murder again, so yeah... the police are duty bound to keep an eye on him. The issue of aunthencity is irrelevent here. Whether or not what he published was true or flase, it should hv been enuff to alert the police when the police very well knew he was capable was of carrying out these atrocities. Better safe than sorry. Vigilance : alert watchfulness.
Let's turn the tables, shall we? So just wondering if this is to be enforced, what is your explanation for drinking and smoking at a petrol station, Nirash? (Exhibit A: Ürban Âddict)
A little bit of perspective here ppl, smoking and drinking compared to kidnappin and murder?!
To my knowledge, drinking at a petrol station never caused any one any harm, never mind loss of lives. Smoking at a petrol station, on the other hand is asking for trouble and those doing it should be whiped and spanked on their asses. (Name of the Accused: A. D.)
ARe you sure, Shankar? According to the news, the police are doing just that- charging the guy based on his accounts. I dont see whats wrong with that, or how this whole thing is connected to copyright laws. No one is copying him, they are just using what he wrote to make a case against him. And whats so wrong with that? Numerous times before police have used peoples journal or diary as proves that the accused is guilty of the crime . It is within the constitution, even in America. Just because this happens to be an online journal it doesnt make the accounts invalid, provided there are other circumstantial evidence. Freedom of speech is still upheld. He or anyone else can say whatever they want. If you wrote fictitous stuff about hurting or murdering other ppl, then you are protected by the freedom of speech, no one can charge you. But, if you committed a crime and you wrote or talked about it, you surely can be charged based on your accounts.
Maybe i was too harsh on the police. In all honesty I dont know whether they should be held partly responsible for what happened. The whole thing is just to tragic and outrageous.
I was wrong on the copyright law part. I cant help it, most of my friends breach copyright laws all the time. They know who they are :}
Post a Comment
<< Home