Stories like this should be getting you to think harder about how our justice system works.
A day after The Providence Sunday Journal reported the scheduled early release of child-slayer Michael Woodmansee, hundreds of outraged readers called the offices of the state attorney general and Corrections Department on Monday demanding that the killer who shellacked the little boy’s bones remain behind bars….In 1975, Woodmansee, then 16, stabbed to death 5-year-old Jason Foreman who lived on the same Peace Dale village street in South Kingstown.
Authorities found the boy’s shellacked bones and skull in Woodmansee’s bedroom seven years later after Woodmansee tried to strangle the local paper boy and ended up confessing to killing Jason.
But in 1983, as part of a plea-bargain arrangement, he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. A judge ordered him to serve 40 years of a 50-year sentence. (As part of the plea arrangement, Woodmansee also received 10 years for assaulting the second boy. That term ran concurrently with the longer sentence.)
Ok here’s the first hint of bad justice. 50 years for stabbing a child and preserving and keeping the bones? And all this after attempting to murder another boy he got a concurrent sentence? What’s the point to concurrent sentences anyway? That sounds a little two much like a “Buy two for the price of one” coupon. What do you think will be different with a monster like that 50 years later? Also, while maybe somebody like the Boston Strangler, or Ted Bundy who preyed on young adults and killed with brute force, maybe those creeps might lose a little speed off their fastball, with age and chose to “retire” from their grim lifestyle….somebody who stabs and strangles children? I suspect he’ll be a danger to society until he’s infirm. But that’s not the end…
Because of a long-standing “good time” law, Woodmansee is coming up for release 12 years sooner than many people might have expected –– or seem willing to accept.
Under the earned good time law that Wall says has been on the books since 1960, Woodmansee regularly had 12 days a month subtracted from his sentence: 10 days for good behavior and 2 days for holding a prison job.
I wonder if he’d have been as well behaved if they housed children in his prison? I wonder how well-behaved he’d have been if he wasn’t surrounded by pipe-swinging gang-bangers who know he’s a child killer, and a pervert?
Still nice to see a violent monster being released to freedom, isn’t it? Obviously the solution to this problem is to make it harder for me to buy a gun. That will prevent this asshole from stabbing another kid.
Now comes the heartache.
Meanwhile, as John Foreman, the father of 5-year-old Jason Foreman, reiterated his intention to seek revenge –– telling a radio audience that if given a chance he would kill the “monster” who “ate the flesh of my son”
Frankly, as much as I hate the idea of vigilante justice, the father is right. This monster should have been killed for his crimes, and this beast is STILL the same monster that was locked up years ago. Given opportunity this beast will kill another child. If the father murders this shithead he should be charged with murder…but I’ll be deeply conflicted about that.
This is my problem, when child-eating killers are set free, while people like myself who have done nothing worse than a speeding ticket are punished and restricted.
This is BAD JUSTICE and it needs to be fixed!
If I were on that jury, the prosecution would be very hard-pressed to get me to vote to convict – partly because I would be very tempted to personally hand him a scoped rifle and ammunition (or chloroform, rope, and a filleting knife) to do it with.
This is one bastard who should have been sentenced to die in prison, one way or another.
That is the tough part. As gunnies we all learn the lines where justifyable lethal force turns into assault and murder. Things like you can shoot (and kill) somebody attacking you with lethal force, but you can’t shoot them in the back as they flee the scene of the crime.
Vigilante killing IS murder, and its hard to see it otherwise. The state failed this man and it can’t be fixed ex-post-facto. We should be working to change the laws so monsters are treated appropriately, which is death.
I’m picturing Oleg Volk’s “cure for sociopathy” poster with a CZ-52 and a box of ammo.
I think that’d do the trick.
I’ve got a C-note for the father’s legal defense fund.
The murder in this case seems likely to be the type of killer who kills to fulfill some psychological need. If that is so it could be likely that he will kill again. I think, if you were so inclined, you could view the killing of this murderer, by the victim’s father, as a defensive act in that it prevents what someone could reasonably believe was inevitable harm to another.
I personally hope the authorities commit this criminal, which the article states they may be able to do.
I hope so to on the commitment.
That being said, much like shooting a mugger or rapist in the back as they flee when they realize their victim has a gun and the will to use it is murder. Killing this monster because he’s out free on the streets is just as murderous. Tho I agree that given opportunity he will kill another child.
Maybe Dad should get his carry permit and take a sabbatical from work to follow the monster around as a personal security detail….not for the monster, but for the next victim.