Ethics run wild in the legal system. Everyone knows that. Is this right? Is this wrong? How do you distinguish the two? These question arise everyday when it comes to court cases.
In the New York Times' article, "In Secret 1996 Tape, Doomed Woman Pleads with Her Killer." Before even reading the article, I could feel several possible questions already popping into my head.
The article was about Kathleen Stanfield Weinstein, a 45-year old special education teacher from the Jersey Shore that was kidnapped and murdered in 1996. The suspected murderer was 27-year old Michael T. LaSane. The issue behind the article was the release of an astonishing 46 minute tape of a conversation between Weinstein and her killer. Why is this tape being played 11 years after Weinstein's death and 10 years after LaShane pleaded guilty to her murder, but retracted in last year? The reason was that Weinstein's family never allowed the tape to be heard publicly, the article stated. The tape was ordered to be played in court on the terms that it was it was not released for the press. Is it ethical to keep such a vital piece of evidence out of the trial for so long, when apparently Ms. Weinstein recorded the conversation to help authorities put her killer behind bars, where he belonged?
The contents of the tape were saddening. Weinstein pleads with her kidnapper (cough, LaShane) telling him to find a better life, that she can help him get a job, and that she has a 6-year old son that she needs to go home to. Weinstein is was also quick to get specific information from her killer. As the Times states, she got him to disclose information about his childhood in Alaska, his parents' time in the military, and his injured hand. Apparently, her pleading didn't cut through her killer's tough skull. Weinstein's body was found bound with duct tape and covered with a blanket.
The information on the tape led investigators to uncover LaShane's birth certificate from Fairbanks, Alaska, records indicating his parents served in the Army, and a photograph taken shortly after his arrest showing a brace on Mr. LaShane's right wrist. Now, why wouldn't Weinstein's family want that tape released to disclose this pertinent information right away?
LaShane's lawyer argues that it is not his client on the tape. As any ethical or working mind for that matter, would agree, voices can sound very similar and a tape with his voice on it wouldn't be specific enough grounds to play on. However, thanks to Weinstein's quick thinking the information LaShane disclosed almost proves that he was in fact who Weinstein was begging for, for her life.
In my mind, with the ethical issues surrounding this case, the family should not have had a say in if the tape were played or not. It should have been viewed as a vital piece of evidence in the case and used without say. If everyone had the chance to record their final moments like Weinstein did, more guilty criminals would be put to justice.
The Times closed the article with Weinstein's final words: "I always thought that I was so lucky, too. I guess it wasn't a lucky day. All I know is I'm going to trust in God because that's the only thing I have right now."
Article by: RICHARD G. JONES
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment