Who is served by imprisoning Eric Rudolph?
I read this the other day:
Published: August 17, 2006
The portrait of prisoner Eric Rudolph (Star Tribune, Aug. 14), demonstrated just how much of a waste the penal system can be.
It is easy for a prisoner to claim remorse and rehabilitation after the fact, after killing some people and blowing up the Olympics. What makes Rudolph unique is he demonstrated personal excellence in the decades he spent as a anti-abortion crusader, Christian Identity militant and freelance commando.
Now he sits in an overcrowded prison at taxpayer expense. And what is accomplished? A movement sees their hero and standardbearer a few times a year. Meanwhile, Rudolph passes the days by picking up trash and watching television. Even more ridiculous, he is classified as an intensely supervised inmate - lotsa luck! - an escape threat and a potential danger to the general, non-aboriton-providing public.
Criminal justice advocates argue that Rudolpph got what he deserved. His supporters maintain that she never even should have been prosecuted, given that he was just defending the lives of the unborn from murderers. Many others don't remember the turbulent 1990s and probably don't care one way or the other. They don't care! What else is the penal system for but to reflect public opinion?
Whatever one's position, you must admit that Rudolph's present situation is one of pure waste, with nothing being accomplished whatsoever. Very sad.
BUD DuGLAY, APPLE VALLEY
Now, I personally find the notion of releasing Rudolph - who has been convicted of bombing the '96 Olympics, and is serving four consecutive life terms for a number of deaths caused by bombing the games and abortion clinics, among other things - distasteful to the point of noxious. I say this to head off the inevitable "wow, you wengnuts support Rudelph!".
But it would make as much sense as freeing Soliah, right?
(Via the Strib)
(Note to those who are too tightly wound to really exist in the wild: The above was a satrical rewrite of an actual letter to to Strib. It was done to satirize the overweening, self-serving myopia of the weasels who think that just because Sarah Jane Olson Kathleen Soliah spent 15 years as a prissy DFL housewife she should get a walk for trying to kill cops and participating in a robbery where someone - a person who deserved freedom vastly more than Soliah - was murdered in cold blood. The weasels with whom I share this city. The weasels who, in some cases, run this city.
Yes, it's satire.
Posted by Mitch at
August 23, 2006 05:15 AM
| TrackBack
A "bunch" of "doctors"?
Posted by: Colleen at August 23, 2006 06:58 AMMore rightwingers making excuses for criminals. Both Rudolph and Olson were convicted and sentenced appropriately. They belong in prison.
I recognize that Rudolph is something of a hero to wingnuts, of course. He did kill two and wound dozens in indiscriminate bombings, but at least he was against gays and abortion!
Posted by: angryclown at August 23, 2006 07:41 AMThe difference is that the conservatives never supported Rudolph, and pro-lifers were always criticizing him. The right distanced themselves from this guy constantly, and his supports are few and far between. Meanwhile, Soliah is defended by the left consistently. The inability to distance themselves from the frige has been the undoing of Democrats and liberals for decades, and certainly is a problem when it comes to Soliah.
Posted by: David Poe at August 23, 2006 08:01 AMDavid got it.
Clown - you're right. They got got the sentence they deserved. So far so good.
Except the *real* letter to the Strib echoed sentiments you hear all over the Twin Cities' left, and not just from obscure people. When she was arrested, her defense team raised a *million dollars*, mostly from wealthy DFL activists and politicians. These are not the "lunatic fringe" of Minnesota politics - the people ponying up for this self-styled terrorist were the mainstream of Minnesota liberalism; elected officials, professionals, leaders. And their line wasn't "she deserves a good defense" - it was like the letter said; "It was so long ago! She's been such a good person!" [and a good DFLer - yes, her politics were specifically mentioned by many of her defenders; "She's done so much for choice/gun control/women's issues..."]. They protested her sentencing, vigorously denied that she'd done anything all THAT wrong, and slithered around repeated attempts to remind them of the families of the people the SLA murdered.
Say what you will about "wingnuts", Clown, but I don't recall a single credible conservative defending Rudolph.
Posted by: mitch at August 23, 2006 08:57 AMOh I get it. That's another one of your pretend letters. So your real point is that Olson and Rudoloph are pretty much equivalent?
OK, well, they're not.
Both Olson and Rudolph were domestic terrorists who belong in prison. Rudolph's crimes were worse and he's clearly dangerous. As far as Angryclown is aware, Olson left her criminal past behind decades ago and poses no foreseeable danger to anyone now.
That's why Olson will get out one day in the not-too-distant future while Rudolph will die in prison.
Angryclown thinks that anyone who spends much time lamenting the fate of either (outside of friends and family) is soft in the head.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: angryclown at August 23, 2006 09:43 AMOur home grown terrorist Sarah Jane was arrested in 1999. As noted above, DFLers raised more than a million dollars over the next few years for her defense fund.
Money well spent I say! This was a million or more that did not find its way into DFL coffers.
The results: In 2002, Pawlenty won. In 2002, Coleman won.
Thanks to all the DFLers who gave so generously to Sarah Jane's defense fund.
Posted by: Jack Bauer at August 23, 2006 10:34 AMUm, cause she didn't want to go- to jail maybe? Just guessing here.
You'll find that criminals will occasionally lie or even assume false names to avoid apprehension, Paul. "Olson" instead of "Soliah", "Unibomber" instead of "Ted Kaczynski", "Angry Clown" instead of "Charles Manson". You get the idea.
Posted by: angyclown at August 23, 2006 10:46 AM"So your real point is that Olson and Rudoloph are pretty much equivalent?"
Nope. Not even close (although both were most assuredly domestic terrorists).
My point was that the regional left has a very malleable notion of "justice", and what it is, depending on who the subject is.
Posted by: mitch at August 23, 2006 11:20 AMOh yeah, AKS, I'm totally reading the "extended entry section." I just can't get enough of that smart-thinkin' Mitch goodness!
Angryclown skims. Usually Mitch signals he's phonying up a letter by including implausibly bad spelling.
Posted by: angryclown at August 23, 2006 12:15 PMWell that's cause you're not so good with the reading, Paul. Angryclown simply made the point that Olson is no longer dangerous, in contrast with Rudolph. But she's guilty of serious crimes and should be punished for them. The fact that she became an otherwise law-abiding citizen while successfully evading capture for many years does not change my opinion.
Posted by: angryclown at August 23, 2006 01:03 PMClown,
"Olson is no longer dangerous, in contrast with Rudolph. But she's guilty of serious crimes and should be punished for them. The fact that she became an otherwise law-abiding citizen while successfully evading capture for many years does not change my opinion..."
Yeah, but...
...um....
...oh, wait. We agreed.
Who knew?
Posted by: mitch at August 23, 2006 01:46 PMChunk,
And Rudolph got four consecutive life terms, while Soliah got (if memory serves) 14 years.
Complicity in one murder, and *conspiracy* to commit murder on cops, is more than just "talking about it".
Posted by: mitch at August 24, 2006 07:25 AMYeah, Chunk, if Mitch and Angryclown are in agreement, it's gotta be true. No question Rudolph's crimes are more serious than Olson's. But she was part of a dangerous criminal conspiracy that *did* kill people.
In an earlier comment, Paul echoed the sage advice of Sammy Davis Jr., which Angryclown will repeat:
1. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
(This one speaks for itself.)
2. Don't go- to bed with no price on your head.
(Olson could have turned herself in long ago, sparing her family the heartache she has caused them.)
3. Keep your eye on the sparrow when the going gets narrow.
(Angryclown has no goddamn idea what this means.)
Posted by: angryclown at August 24, 2006 07:52 AM"Angryclown has no g***mn idea what this means"
If trapped in a box canyon or arroyo, eating small birds can keep you alive.
Posted by: mitch at August 24, 2006 09:04 AMalfgebrcz kxsrbn atmwcuo srjfwi eblh ignurcq pyikqgnf
Posted by: ufhgzplso rbsmkvq at September 9, 2006 12:37 PM