Crazy or Contrite?

May 2, 2004 11:44 PM

The facinating story of Seti Scanlan- After a mental meltdown, he went on a crime spree of robberies, in the process killing 2 victims. He fled from California to Oregon where he... gave himself up. Since then, he has pled guilty to all charges and waived his right to a trial. He attempted to wave his sentancing trial and accept the death penalty, but the judge would not allow it. Scanlan himself says that he just wants to stand up and face the consequences of his crimes.
posted by falconred (12 comments total)

Well, it's not clear to me that he had a "mental breakdown". I mean, not in a way that's hugely distinct from many other people who make really bad decisions to commit criminal acts.

I find it hard to believe that more people don't act like he's acted since he turned himself in. I suppose that a not insignificant portion would, all things being equal; but they're dissuaded by their attorneys and friends and family. The argument would be: "If you're repentent enough to want to die, then perhaps you don't deserve to die. And think about us (family)." The attorneys will argue on a procedural basis, that the system is set up so that you're supposed to fight for your defense, even when guilty.

And so it probably takes a very unusual person to consistently and over a long period of time pursue the course of action that Scanlan has. It's also, I think, necessarily someone with no hope for themselves, whatsoever.

There's no doubt that there are some crimes so grave that they simply must be punished regarldless of the circumstances, the criminal's remorse, or his reformation. This may be one of those crimes. But were I on the jury, I'd be inclined to go with a life sentence rather than execution because, clearly, there is some virtue in the boy. Given that so many killers are supposedly unrepenting, isn't that enough to spare his life?

But I believe that in many a holding cell and prison block you'll find, at least on infrequent occasions, the realization by more than a handful of killers that what they did was very, very wrong. Others really don't care at all. It'd be nice if we did a better job telling them apart.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:56 AM on May 3, 2004

I always wondered what would happen if you showed up in court and said "Look, I can save you a whole lot of time -- I did it, and I'm not fighting it." Obviously my curiosity never got strong enough to find out first-hand, but this case is really interesting.
posted by Dark Messiah at 5:39 AM on May 3, 2004

This is exactly the kind of guy that deserves to rot in prison though - he should have to spend the rest of his natural life thinking about what he did. He's so eager for death, for the easy way out.
posted by agregoli at 6:46 AM on May 3, 2004

He's so eager for death, for the easy way out.

I beg to differ. If he wanted to die as bad as you claim he does, then he'd likely have killed himself. It's not like murder-suicide isn't a common ending to a crime spree.

If nothing else, I can respect the man for owning up to his crimes. I don't have to like him, but in a society where everyone seems to have an excuse ("my daddy used to hit me", "mommy never told me she loved me", ..etc), I am just glad to see someone finally say "You know what, I did it! I was an idiot of criminal proportions, so gimme what I deserve".

Think about it: a murderer just showed more intenstinal fortitude and all-around courage than most of us law-abiders do on a daily basis. He's still a murderous criminal, though. Don't get me wrong there.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:07 AM on May 3, 2004

I suspect his diabetes has something to do with his behavior. I'm not saying it is an excuse, but I know that at least some diabetics who don't control their condition can behave erratically. Being said, the death penalty for killing a wife and mother of two still works for me.
posted by rglasmann at 9:57 AM on May 3, 2004

I suspect his diabetes has something to do with his behavior. I'm not saying it is an excuse,

I think it's sad that a possible explanation for aberrant behaviour has to be couched in phrases like "I'm not saying it is an excuse", as if we need to make it clear that even if someone wasn't in their right mind for a medical reason it wouldn't matter, because all right-thinking people would still want to fry their ass. There does not need to be an excuse, you cannot excuse murder, but you CAN explain it sometimes, and that explanation should be taken into account legally.
posted by biscotti at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2004

Agreed, biscotti, that there is no excuse for murder. Most especially a murder that claims a victim like Alice Martel who seemed to just be working hard to build a nice life for her family.

I was just pointing out that one of the challenges of diabetes is the need to keep it under control and that it can effect one's thinking. I am pleased that it appears to not have been offered up as an explantion for Seti Scanlan's actions and a legal defense.
posted by rglasmann at 2:18 PM on May 3, 2004

After he's dead, can I use his name for my distributed computing team?
.
.
.
...I'm a bad, bad man.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:20 PM on May 3, 2004

Agreed, biscotti, that there is no excuse for murder. Most especially a murder that claims a victim like Alice Martel who seemed to just be working hard to build a nice life for her family.

Unprovoked murder is unprovoked murder, whether it's a nice mother working to build a nice life or a sleazy loser leeching off society. I don't agree that there's an "especially".

I was just pointing out that one of the challenges of diabetes is the need to keep it under control and that it can effect one's thinking. I am pleased that it appears to not have been offered up as an explantion for Seti Scanlan's actions and a legal defense.

I agreed with what you were pointing out, I disagreed with the fact that you added the "I'm not saying it's an excuse", since it really bothers me that people are so quick to discount the explanations behind acts as "excuses", when the consideration of those reasons might get in the way of the punishment the US legal system in particular seems so eager to mete out - people don't want justice, they want punishment and revenge. His diabetes damned well SHOULD be offered up as an explanation, uncontrolled diabetes affects your state of mind and your judgment, and impaired judgment has a direct effect on how much responsibility you should be expected to take for your actions. Regardless of what happens to Seti Scanlan, Alice Martel is dead - treating him unfairly doesn't make anything better and makes plenty of things worse.
posted by biscotti at 2:37 PM on May 3, 2004

Unprovoked murder is unprovoked murder, whether it's a nice mother working to build a nice life or a sleazy loser leeching off society. I don't agree that there's an "especially".

Fair enough. Every life is precious and should be protected. Sometimes certain tragedies just touch closer to home.

His diabetes damned well SHOULD be offered up as an explanation, uncontrolled diabetes affects your state of mind and your judgment, and impaired judgment has a direct effect on how much responsibility you should be expected to take for your actions.

Diabetes IS controllable. The article doesn't indicate for certain if Scanlan was working at controlling it or not during his crime spree. However, since it is controllable, I would say he should be keeping it under control and not letting it affect his judgment. It should not defer any responsibility in this case.

Regardless of what happens to Seti Scanlan, Alice Martel is dead - treating him unfairly doesn't make anything better and makes plenty of things worse.

How is holding him accountable for his actions here "treating him unfairly"? I applaud Scanlan for not offering explanations (or making excuses) for his crime. He is owning up to it and asking to be punished. The death penalty in this case IS justice.
posted by rglasmann at 3:16 PM on May 3, 2004

But were I on the jury, I'd be inclined to go with a life sentence rather than execution because, clearly, there is some virtue in the boy.

I really don't understand why life in prison is supposed to be a less painful sentence than straight-up execution. It's still a death penalty; it just adds on forty or fifty miserable years stuck in a grey concrete box with bad company and worse food. If you want to show the guy mercy, kill him quickly and get it over with.
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:33 PM on May 3, 2004

If you want to show the guy mercy, kill him quickly and get it over with.

Maybe in this case, but that's bad overall stance to take. You can't undo an execution, but you can let someone out of jail if future evidence proves the wrong person was convincted. (It isn't much, but it's something.)

Yes, this case is decidedly different; he obviously did it -- he said so himself. Still, life in prison might be better for him -- if you're still keen on that mercy idea, that is. At least in prison he's alive, and he can be treated for whatever psychological problems he may have.

Hell, even if he makes license plates for 30 years, I think that's a better use for him than filling a 6-feet-deep hole in the ground. I think it's a well-proven fact that killing criminals doesn't accomplish anything other than satisfying a need for revenge. It won't undo his crimes. It won't fix anything, instead we'll have 3 dead people instead of 2.

'Might as well try and save this guy, even if it's a seemingly lost cause. That's how compassion -- mercy's tag-team partener -- works, correct?
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:59 PM on May 3, 2004