Online predator sentenced; victims' families differ on sentence

You may have heard of the bizarre and tragic case of an American nurse, William Melchert-Dinkel, who has just been sentenced for seeking out depressed people online and getting them to kill themselves. At least two of them, Nadia Kajouji of Brampton, Ontario, and Mark Drybrough, from Coventry, England, actually did it. Melchert-Dinkel has just received a somewhat creative sentence - following 260 consecutive days in jail, he'll serve weekends on the anniversaries of Kajouji's and Drybrough's deaths for ten more years. One thing I find interesting, though, is the vastly differing reactions of the victims' families to this sentence. From the CBC article:

Marc Kajouji, Nadia's brother, said the punishment was too light for the crime.

"A guilty verdict isn't justice; punishment is justice," said Kajouji. "A year in a jail with work release doesn't really seem like justice."

Meanwhile, across the pond we see this:

Last night Mr Drybrough’s mum Elaine, of Walsgrave Road, Stoke, said the sentence was a “good result”.

So is an individual difference, or a cultural one? I'm inclined to think the latter, especially since this isn't the only case of dramatically different responses to similar crimes between Canada and the UK. Remember how Tim McLean's mum was all but calling for the public execution of Vince Li? Well, when another person with severe mental illness, Sabina Eriksson, killed a man in the UK in 2008, the victim's brother had this to say:

"We don't hold her responsible, the same as we wouldn't blame a rabid dog for biting someone. She is ill and to a large degree, not responsible for her actions. But her mental disorder should have been recognized much earlier."

So why are we so much more vengeful here? I think it's probably because we watch more American TV, with its emphasis on hang 'em high "justice". For what it's worth, I find the British response more rational and civilized.

A story that needs to be read

The shocking death of Tim McLean last summer has generated the predictable torrent of blood lust on the part of the general public (check the comments section of pretty much any news story on the case). Given that climate, the Winnipeg Free Press is to be commended for running this story about the history and application of the legal finding of "not criminally responsible". Of course, many of the people leaving comments continue to decry the possibility of such a verdict:

Yes, the mentally ill definitely need treatment. However they also deserve some form of punishment to allow justice for the victim(s) and protection of society... at least keep them away from society for a couple years.

The whole idea of punishment makes sense given the premise that the person punished was aware, in some capacity, that they were doing a bad thing, and therefore needs to be taught a lesson. But the whole point of a verdict of "not criminally responsible" is that the court is convinced that the accused did not have that awareness, and that therefore punishment is not the appropriate approach to the problem. It is not a denial of the existence of a problem, simply the recognition that the problem at hand is a different sort of problem than the criminal justice system is designed to deal with.

And what the heck does the above poster mean by "to allow justice for the victim"? Now "protection of society" I can understand, and many (perhaps even most) people found to be "not criminally responsible" do need to be kept away from the public. But "justice for the victim"? Excuse me, but the guy is dead. He ain't coming back, no matter how much you torture and torment the killer. Unfortunately, a public raised on daily doses of CSI and Law and Order is very easy to whip up into a bloodthirsty frenzy when the discussion turns to crime.