Friday, October 27, 2006

The Baretta Law

Remember "Baretta"?

That was the television series starring Robert Blake as NY Detective Tony Baretta.

Remember Robert Blake?

That was the Hollywood actor (and a darned good actor) who starred in the series.

His tagline:
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

I'm sure you remember that one. It probably dissuaded countless felons (it's good advice) from "doing the crime". Well, it may not have stopped Blake from shooting his egregious wife, but that has never been proven ... but never mind.

(Case 0): Let's use this as a basepoint in our evaluation:

Using your Baretta to Shoot your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.

The point of this exposition is that while some of us get away with murder, many of us don't get away with lesser crimes.

Let's look at three case examples, all of which were high-lighted in today's news (October 26, 2006):

(Case 1) from the Bay City Times (Michigan): Man Charged with Bestiality

A 44-year-old Saginaw man remains jailed today on charges of bestiality after he was seen engaged in sexual acts with a dead dog, Michigan State Police troopers said
Ugly story. At least.. The dude was getting it on with a dog that was three days dead. Is this a "Three Dog Night"? Decidedly not. It was his g-friend's dog, had been run over by a Honda Civic (I'm making that up, but it seems to fit) and there was a whole school-yard of children watching as he did the dirty deed.

In the words from Gremlins (or was it Gremlins II) :
"Civilized? Decidedly not.
Funny? Yes!"
Okay, we have a loser who can't get it on with his honey, or even his honey's dog until he/she (the dog, not the honey ... although who can tell?) is three days dead.

What do the authorities charge him with?

A "Crime Against Nature":
Sounds pretty lame, right?


Here's the Money Quote:
The official charge of crimes against nature carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. If the person is a repeat offender, the maximum is life in prison.
SO, for those of you who care to know, 'molesting' a dead Labradore Retriever is gonna cost you 1.5 decades in the slammer.

Boy, when you get out, I bet you never do 'that' again!

(Note: an earlier version of the report mentioned that the officers on the scene approached the "witnessing" children in the school-yard and reassured them that the 'victim' was 'not hurt'. I have NO idea how they came to that conclusion, or why they felt it was important to mention it to the drooly-mouthed kids whose only comments were "Holy Cow" and "Bitchin".
Yes, I am making this up. in part; this is what I would have said under the circumstances. So sue me.)

Another note: I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a "Crime Against Nature" in that state, but I'm pretty sure I'm glad I'm not a resident. And I don't even KNOW a Labrador Retriever!~ I swear I'm not making that up.

Let's summarize:

Shooting your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.
Porking a dead dog in the street: 1.5 Baretta points.

( Note: 1.0 Baretta points is equal to one decade in the slammer.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Besides, how satisfying is it to pork a dead Lab? Is it going to wake up and go "
HOWWWLLLLLL~ in an attempt to acknowledge your sexpertise?)

Get real, Dude. Get a life.

Get a room!

Or at least a kennel,


(Case 2) Here's a guy who drowned his 5-year-old daughter in the bathtub because, as nearly as anyone can figure, the voices in his head said it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Kam Shing Chan, also known as Daniel Chan, was convicted of murder after drowning his 5-year-old daughter in 1989.

He was found guilty of murder and ruled criminally insane after the drowning of his daughter Cindy in their SE Portland apartment’s bathtub on Dec. 6, 1989, according to a 1990 article in the Oregonian.

According to court records, Chan was found incompetent to stand trial due to his mental condition and institutionalized.

He was released conditionally from Oregon State Hospital in 1996.

Court documents stated Chan believed he was acting under God’s orders when he drowned his daughter. He interpreted two sirens he heard the previous night as God’s signal to kill her.

That's right folks. Kill your daughter, it's worth seven years

Then ... you walk.

Well, of course you were NUTSO at the time, so you get a free ride, essentially.

Do I have to tell you that this is A Bad Thing, or are you such a nutso freelance jerkoff that you need the input?

An update on the Summary:

Shooting your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.
Drownng your five-year-old daughter for no apparent reason: 0.7 Baretta points.
Porking a dead dog in the street: 1.5 Baretta points.

NB: There's more on the story of Kam Shing Cam. I don't want to confuse the issue now, but I'll tell "The Rest Of The Story" at the bottom of this article


(Case 3): A Brazilian man murders 42 children, and he is convicted of the first count of murder (whatver degree). Word is, he mutilated ast least some of his victims. The penalty?

Twenty years in jail. Total. (More to come: film at eleven!)

Oh, well "THAT'A Harsh!"

Francisco das Chagas Rodrigues de Brito, a 41-year-old bicycle mechanic, was given 19 years for homicide and one year and eight months for hiding the body of the 15-year-old victim, the court said in statement.
The box score is now:

Using your Baretta to Shoot your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.
Drownng your five-year-old daughter for no apparent reason: 0.7 Baretta points.
Porking a dead lab in the street: 1.5 Baretta points.
Murdering and mutlating the bodies of young boy children, 2.0 Baretta pointsper child.

I'm not sure here, you will have to tell me.

Is "Porking a Ded Dog" more egregious than killing your wife, and getting away with t?

Is it worse than drowning your daughter?

Is is almost 3/4 as bad as killing and mutilating a child?

What's the objective standard here?


Remember the guy who drowned his five-year old daughter?

Here's a quick review:
The authorities decided he was crazy, and put him in the hospital for mental evaluation, where he was treated. In 1995, (previously reported as "1996) after five years of 'treatment', they determined that he was safe to be released from the asylum. For the next 11 years he was "a model patient".

Last Wednesday, October 15, 2006, he entered a local church with a can of gasoline and a zippo with the full intention of burning everyone at the service alive.

He set several fires in the church, and couple of fires on the person of the congregation. Fortunately, nobody was killed (one lady was reported as having successfully used the "Drop and Roll" technique to put out the fire on her clothing) . Members of the congregation rushed Chan, immobilizing him, and managed to put out the fires he had set within the church.

The church members are to be congratulated, I suppose, for not rending him limb from limb. But they might have saved the Great State of Oregon a lot of awkward decisions if they had.

Now the State of Oregon finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why this man, who for the past 10 or 11 years has been described as "a model patient", suddenly snapped.

Two possible explanations occur:
  1. He was never really 'cured', or his insanity was never really 'controlled' by his medication; only by him as he waited his chance:
  2. He was never really insane; he is just evil
Not only can the judicial authorities establish a reasonable scale of 'evilness' to assign appropriate punishment according to his actions, but the medical authorities can't tell the difference between sanity/insanity/evilness.

When the "religious community" was exposed to the depth of his depravity, their decision was to pray for him.

I think he's past all of that. Sooner or later he will be released, again; and then it's only a matter of time until he strikes, again.

No comments: