Comments on: Justice or Mercy? The Walsh/LeFevre Case

By: ChaosApothecary

ChaosApothecary — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:27:18 +0000

The real question is: Can we collectively make an exception for one, without losing faith in our justice department?

Regardless of her claims to have lived a “good” life for the past 32 years, we will never know what has truly happened. Did she continue selling drugs without being caught for 5 years after having escaped prison?

What message will this send to other criminals? If we are lenient with her, we would be hypocrites to send anyone other fugitives back to jail if we believed that they had “self-rehabilitated”.

And if we believe in that, what is the point of jails? Why don’t we either just decide to execute people or tell them to rehabilitate themselves?

Before I go on with that line of thinking, I’ll address my personal feelings on this subject.

I sympathize with her as a person, and assuming the government does some background checks on her to ensure that she has not been committing crimes during these 32 years, having her spend her “remaining” time simply on parole seems more than fair.

She should not get off free, since crimes were committed and a sentence has not been served, but I cannot see sending her back to prison to rot away as being good for our society as a whole.

We have far too many people doing that already.

By: Jack H

Jack H — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:34:17 +0000

If the goal of prison for non violent drug users/dealers is rehabilitation, I think they should have no problem reducing her sentence to mass amount community service making an example for inmates who take control and decide straighten out their lives after they get out. The truth is that most people who go to jail, go back to jail, my friends and I say jail is simply the College of Criminals. One goes in knowledgeable on some types of theft, and drugs, and come out with a degree in money laundering 101….. If she is deemed rehabilitated, I say let her live with society while serving time!

By: Steven Robbins

Steven Robbins — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:14:42 +0000

Although Susan Walsh lives a just life, I still think that she should serve time for the crime that she committed in 1974. Justice needs to be paid and she needs to be shown why the actions that she did partake in are in fact wrong. If she is let off the hook so to say, it will show many others’ that partaking in these sort of actions is okay as long as you are no longer that type of person. Although she was young at the time and did not fully think of the implications of these actions, it still does not rid the fact that she is a criminal and must serve time. By serving time, she will be made an example of and it will thus show others that taking part in these kind of actions is not okay and is illegal.

By: Sheyri

Sheyri — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:58:06 +0000

I Believe that justice need to be pay, In order for a person to learn what is right and wrong they need to be told and explained why? what? they wore doing was wrong according to the society they are living in. I’m more than happy to hear that Susan Marie LeFevre was able to change her life in a different direction and that ended in a positive way, but I think its wrong that a person run away for what is their punishment for their own actions especially when they are aware of the harm they are causing to others. Maybe at a point in life she was inconsiderate and its time to think of those she cause harmed. She should pay for her actions, because maybe at a bad stage of her life she can be tempted to sell drugs again, you should not let her doubt if she should or shouldn’t sell drugs again. You should make her paid for her actions so that she will learned that its bad to sell drugs to others.Because if you let her get away once she might think she can get away with it and even other things that we don’t even know.

By: Paul Moloney

Paul Moloney — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:40:25 +0000

It seems that a stricter justice belongs to those entrenched in their unreasonableness, while mercy belongs more to those that recognize their unreasonableness for what it is and have a real change of heart, which means they want to make amends in some form.

It seems people are divided over whether this person is the same unreasonable person or whether she has actually changed for the better. Reasonable arguments have been made on both sides.

If nothing else, this case demonstrates that we do more harm to ourselves through our unreasonableness than anyone else can do to us.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 13 May 2008 01:26:13 +0000

Marie Walsh LeFevre may have led a clean, exemplary life for the past 32 years, but I do not feel that it completely cancels out the fact that she commited a crime and broke free from person. As many have stated, she was young at the time she commited the crime and we all make mistake when we are young, this is true. However, she was given a sentence nonetheless, a sentence she was responsible for serving. Just because she has lived a good life since breaking free does not excuse her of her past actions. There are other people who are serving a sentence for committing the same exact crime who could very well have the potential of living a crime-free life if they had the opportunity of breaking free and starting over again. It would’ve been unfair to let her entirely off the hook.

By: Justin Benhoor

Justin Benhoor — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:48:10 +0000

This is a tough one. On one hand, we all know that we all make stupid mistakes when we are young… Maybe not selling heroin, but mistakes nonetheless. So should we all be punished for those mistakes we made in our past but never had to suffer the consequences of ? Should we be going through the past 20 years of Ralphs video surveillance and give all the kids who stole candy from the candy isle shoplifting citations ? I personally believe that some things can be let go. For example, Walshs crime wasn’t a violent crime, it could have just been a product of bad judgement, or harsh circumstances. And if she was able to prove that she can be an upstanding member of society for the past 20 years, then in my eyes that proves that rehabilitation is no longer necessary, and perhaps never was. But if we are to let those “petty” crimes go, then who decides where we draw the line ? What do we say to a “rehabilitated” ex-muderer who hasn’t killed someone for the past 30 years ?

By: Sean Clark

Sean Clark — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:22:50 +0000

I think it comes down to a very simple question. Is prison used more as a tool to rehabilitate the individual so when they re-enter the world they can be productive members of society? Or do we use prison more as a punishment for the crimes in which someone has committed? We obviously use it for both, but what is the goal when we send someone to prison? This woman has lived for 32 years in society without committing any crimes and by all accounts has been a productive member of society. What is throwing this woman in jail for ten years going to accomplish? I believe that the appropriate for punishment for this specific case should be time served.

By: forrest noble

forrest noble — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:25:44 +0000

You’re right Ryan, it would be even a sadder case if she had been selling only a few bags of weed but—————- she received a 10-20 year sentence for the sales of heroin as indicated above.

According to my research on Google for a couple of minutes, she claimed that she was only a user of heroin but possessed a quantity that qualified her as a seller under the law. She pleaded guilty.

She might get parole after serving at least a few years, in at least a medium security prison. She did escape before and is a convicted felon. That’s the best that she can realistically hope for. There would be a mandatory minimum sentence for her prior conviction even if she got concurrent time for her escape. A required part of her sentence must be time of incarceration for this crime which the judge has no discretion over. This is the law that has been developed over time by our elected legislatures.

The law can be changed if enough people vote to make changes to it. But a legal system based upon a case by case approach, I think, would be too expensive and ineffective. Mrs. Walsh will serve some time before she could be eligible for parole.

your friend forrest

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:58:26 +0000

Mrs. Walsh did, indeed, commit a crime that deserved punishment. However, in the United States of America it is unconstitutional to give a punishment that does not fit the crime. Unfortunately, That is what Mrs. Walsh received. She was sentenced to more time than most Sexual Molesters and violent criminals. Mrs. Walsh did deserve to be behind bars. However, not for 10-20 years! I am sensitive to the fact that our government should uphold the law to make our judicial system seem “efficient” as well as effective. On the other hand, this situation is not black and white. Our government has continued to decriminalize marijuana and lessen the sentences of marijuana trafficers. Futhermore, Mrs. Walsh has stayed out of trouble and led a clean life since. If any punishment is given, it should be a probation or house arrest. Personally, I do not want to see my tax dollars spent on jailing a woman that sold marijuana 32 years ago. Metal bars are for viloent, malicious, and untrustwory people who need to be physically restrained. Fortuately, Mrs. Walsh does not fit this criteria.