I think True Crime is the actual story of the crime it can be the gist of just the facts or a whole narratives which can include fictional details or bias but it tells the story. True Crime I believe can be poems, ballads, news clippings, even tv shows just anything that gives tells the story.
I found the torso comic a bit confusing to understand yet when I understood certain parts the pictures defiantly helped creates a tone for the each part of the story. The comic itself was very interesting and drew me further into the story with each page I read. Since this is a comic and states that it is based on a true story it makes me wonder how much of the story is true… like the detectives, who the actual murder was, and some the scenes that occurred.
Although some parts of the story are not true and are dramatized for the effect and to draw in readers I believe that the comic was a interesting yet informative way to present a case. I was actually sadden when Simon’s head appeared on the floor and got nervous the moment that the “Torso killer” or Gaylord escaped and since he was never able to be tried, he got away with murder. This fact makes me unease, but overall I love the story although it freaked me out.
I was looking up the suspect “Gaylord” and found out his real name was Dr. Francis E. Sweeney. Once he had voluntarily hospitalized himself he had harassed Ness just like in the comic though, I would have hated the feeling that he was so close to putting him away and that Sweeney truly became untouchable.
On Monday my group went to the library and discussed many possibilities to present the stories read and decided to create two trailer clips showing the key points of each story. We drafted scripts for the two stories chosen as well as discussed props and roles for each person.
I found the comic as a very interesting way to share information about a topic, it is short and to the point yet very informative. To start off with I had never heard of the Ohio Gang and had not studied Harding very much either and though this did show the presidency in a negative light, I feel as if it did highlight the connection between the Ohio Gang and Harding pretty clearly. Harding was not all bad as depicted he did sign/pass the first child welfare program and first to pursue world security through arms regulation and reduction so he did do some work as a president. Yet I am sure at the time he seemed as a horrible person as Richard Nixon did in the Watergate scandal. The media just has a way of painting a certain picture in everyones mind of a topic.
And back to the actual use of the comic to share this information also reminded me of this book my RA let me borrow this comic book/textbook about the prison system in the US called The Real Cost of Prisons Comix, which is weird how one can get so much information from drawings.
Here is a Political Cartoon on Muckraking: Clearly it depicts the artist opinion on the necessity of investigating the presidency
It is hard to think that a lot of deaths from people killing other people are not considered murder of the first degree but as manslaughter and therefore the offender is punished less severely. And yeah it makes it sound as if some get away with taking the life of another for a lesser to no price but I think it should be considered that in crimes of passion in which the offender is in an unstable mental state they act purely on what they their emotions say. By this when they awake and realize what they have done it can take a huge toll on them also. Such as if a man finds out his wife cheated on him, one would of course be angry and hurt, some more than others and if the husband overreacted and accidentally killed her at that moment is different than if he had planned for months then killed her so that he could once again be single. There is a huge difference in these situations in the first one he obviously loved her dearly which cause him to be so unstable while the other was just pure evil which is why I am confused why in the Crime News from California its trying to clump crimes of passion with cold blooded murder.
It is understandable that this group of people that were being oppressed for a long time by their masters would want to seek vengeance over their oppressors but in a way this was executed as described by Nat Tucker’s confession may have not been the best way for his follows as well as other slaves. In his mind he may have felt he had all reason to do what he did but all and all he didn’t free all slaves so, did nothing more then make white people afraid that their slaves would try to rise up against them, by this causing them to take action to avoid it. By his revolt he cost the unnecessary lives of many and further affecting the lives of people not involved. I feel as if there could have been a more effective way of dealing with it although his reaction was understandable due to the living situation.
Now to the Murder of a Daughter story that seems to just be cruel and since the story is not told from the perspective of the dead daughter I don’t think it will ever tell all the abuse I am sure this girl must have gone through if her parents were willing to feed her own excrements during her sickness. The punishment of the parents was extremely forgiving to the death of their daughter, which probably shouldn’t have been only manslaughter.
I am not sure why the reading on Jesse Strang upset me so much. It could have been the fact that it was the unnecessary murder of the husband Whippie or that the only person convicted was Jesse Strang. First of all I feel as if Elise just wanted her husband dead because Elise and Jesse could have easily made a run for it and been together without killing anyone, it is a big world and many places to hide away, not that I am saying running away from your husband is okay (talk it out). But Elise was just out for blood and then she took no responsibility for her actions and allowed for Jesse to be blamed for all of it, this showing how much she truly cared for him. I think Elise Whippie is an extremely manipulative person and only out for herself.
While reading the three stories I realized they all have 1 thing in common all of the offenders were thieves even when convicted of a different crime and all died therefore took that stealing eventually leads to death… I also found it coincidental that both Powers and Mountain were thieves and were not convicted of that but of raping women. Another think that somewhat caught my eye while reading was how Powers was able to play with children right after committing his violation of the lady on the horse, this actually really shocked me because it made it seem as if he took his act as if it was just another day. These people had some sticky hands and some messed up heads.
This reading was very detailed in the way some were punished and had me grossed out as well as feeling bad for the actually criminal receiving the punishment of being tortured by removing skin and pouring hot liquids then torn to pieces as the execution, but it got me wondering:
How does one judge an appropriately sentence of punishment to a criminal? There are way to many variables to consider because each situation can be very different and have the same outcome of crime yet one must remember to be reasonable in assigning a punishment to a crime. When there is a strict punishment for a strict punishment for a crime such as murder=death sentence by gallows or guillotine either way it doesn’t consider the circumstances under which the act occurred. It could have been accidental or premeditated yet the condemned would have the same sentencing which doesn’t make sense at least now a days it doesn’t. This meaning that each individual case must be analyzed to the furthest extent to receive the most suitable sentencing for the given crime and yet the intended punishment may still not be what they receive.
Then comes the argument of whether the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment or whether it even makes sense to kill someone for a crime. Although the death penalty has changed from a public display of punishment to a private punishment that is meant to punish not create pain the death penalty is still argued upon. When a criminal is sentenced to death it is almost an immediate out without actually serving their time for the crime yet when a criminal is placed in a facility they’re body must endure the lack of everything they use to know. Which for some being incarcerated could drive them to a mentally unstable place causing a affect sometimes worse then what other receive as their crimes. So again, how can a crime truly be appropriately punished?
I found the reading in pillars of salt interesting manly due to the fact that these women said they found Christ because of there sins. In a way many people do this they feel remorse for their actions and turn to God for forgiveness. Yet it seems as if the act of murdering gave them a huge push to question their own faith and to commit to God, yet I am not quite convinced that it is not just because they knew the punishment of infanticide is death meaning coming face to face with the one who would make or break whether you are saved.
I also found the whole act of their crime interesting because when you picture a mother and child you see a sweet lady loving a protecting their child from harm yet before the baby could have a life their own mother strips them of their breath. The whole concept of killing babies just shocks me and then the fact that some theses ladies did it to her own kid or to their master’s kid is almost unthinkable for me, killing a child, its just truly sad.