Luka Rocco Magnotta, just the name conjures up horror. Canada’s latest notorious killer has been caught and is in custody, but where do we go from there? Is Magnotta as bad as Dahlmer or Bundy? Would he have gone on to kill more people if he didn’t make the mistake of being caught in an internet cafe? Apparently that was his intention. Now Magnotta is in custody and his killing spree is over before he really got started. Were there others on his kill list? The world may never know!
I am bringing up this heinous killer for a reason. Mostly because I read an article this morning that made me go hmmm, just looking at the headline. The headline read; “ Magnotta Back in Court for POSSIBLE Psychiatric Evaluation.”
Really? POSSIBLE psychiatric evaluation? Are they serious? Shouldn’t a psychiatric evaluation already be under way? The man did kill and chop up another man for heaven sakes! I mean it isn’t as if there was a worldwide manhunt for this guy because he crossed the road against the red! I’m thinking psychiatric evaluation should be a given not a possibility! But Canada has always been a country obsessed with the rights of the criminally accused. Which brings me to the question, “why do convicted criminals still have rights?”
Oh I hear you all screaming…yes I asked that question! And YES I do expect an answer! That’s right, I want to know why we are so obsessed with the rights of people who care nothing for the rights and freedoms of others. IMHO the world has created the crisis of criminality it now finds itself dealing with. In our quest to afford the accused fair treatment we have lost sight of the rights of the victim.
Did you know that if a person enters your home with the intention of robbing you, and your dog bites that person, they can report the bite and have your dog impounded and euthanized for protecting your property? If a criminal breaks his leg running away down your driveway they can sue for damages! I know! It seems surreal! How is it that in the act of committing a crime on your property a criminal can hold YOU responsible for any injuries incurred? I’m sorry, but in my opinion if I am protecting my person or property from someone who is committing a crime against me I should be able to defend myself without fear of retribution. To my way of thinking it should be the perpetrator who worries about arrest not the victim.
But back to Magnotta. The idea that a psychiatric assessment of Magnotta is “possible” but not required baffles me. After all, we are talking about a killer here not a jay walker. A killer who not only took the life of his victim, but also cut him up into little pieces and shared his remains with the world, and the Canadian courts see psychiatric evaluation as just a “possibility”? What is wrong with this picture?
If psychological assessment is not done on Magnotta, it could create a technicality later on. A defense attorney could arguably claim that Magnotta was insane at the time of the murders but was never given a psychiatric evaluation to determine his fitness for trial. In a case of this magnitude, no stone must be left unturned by the prosecution, nothing must be left to chance, one wrong move could put a serial killer back on the streets.
Of course, the psychiatric evaluation sometimes works against the prosecution. If Magnotta is as smart as he thinks he is it is conceivably possible for him to fool the authorities into thinking he is insane or was temporarily insane at the time of the murder. This is a difficult thing to do, but it has been accomplished in the past. The only thing Magnotta would gain from such action however, is to serve his sentence in a psychiatric facility rather than a prison. Although for some criminals this has much appeal.
Crazy or not, we all hope Magnotta is going away for a very long time! But that brings me to another question. Should Canada have the death penalty for heinous murderers? I mean when you think about it, why are we paying for them to live after they have taken someone else’s life?
Rants & Tickles