There are many stories today that merit discussion on GMD, from Bruce Lisman’s attempt to redefine and co-opt “sustainability;” to the ouster of F-35 opponent, Rosanne Greco, as chair of South Burlington’s City Council; but, before it slips seamlessly into legal precedent, I thought we should consider the case of the so-called “Cannibal Cop” who has been convicted and now faces possible life-imprisonment for his “crimes.”
It is tempting to focus only on the unpleasantly sensational details of Gilberto Valle’s fantasy appetites; and were that the end of things, I would say “Great! One more loathsome potential predator removed from the streets, forever.”
But of course that’s not where it ends, as legal judgments carry the weight of precedent which can have surprising consequences for the rest of society.
Does this judgement open the door, even a crack, to a future in which people will be locked-up just for thinking about committing a crime?
Nevermind that social media has become both the staging area and the mirror held up to every imaginable thought and deviancy, it is still nothing more than words and pictures.
Is it the natural progression of this new form of culpability that it will eventually be used to justify preemptive police action, or something even more sinister…like political imprisonment or assassination?
I would like to know what some of the legal minds around GMD are thinking today. Is this conviction as concerning to you as it is to me, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
I knew that this case existed in very vague terms, and now I probably know more than I ever wanted to know about it.
Conspiracy cases always carry the risk that someone may be charged not for actually doing anything, or trying to do anything, but simply for consipiring–literally “breathing together”. This is why many, although not all, jurisdictions require that the accused conspirator must have taken some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to support a conspiracy charge.
Here’s what the Vermont law on conspiracy says:
In this case, while the defense was that it was all talk, there were apparently some overt acts that the prosecution was able to prove, including an occasion when he actually met one of his potential victims for brunch.
One thing this whole episode seems to prove is that some people are just much broader-minded than others. Or, as the wife of one of his cannibal pals said, “It’s disturbing, yeah,” she told a reporter. “But you have to accept your partner’s flaws in a marriage.”
My short answer is that I don’t think this creates any new principle.
When a friend mentioned this case to me, I finally broke down and looked it up. I have to admit my first thought was that this skirted awfully close to prosecuting thought. But…I also know that trials presented in the media often bear very little resemblance to what actually went on in court. It is possible that there is a very good reason why the jury believed that a real threat was present to the women.
I know that my husband sat on a murder trial jury once, and I carefully saved all the news coverage for him until after the trial was over. We had much hilarity going over the articles, with him explaining all the things that weren’t mentioned, and how inconsequential in the thinking of the jury certain things the press chose to highlight were.
So, I guess I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the jury, but definitely will be interested to see how this all plays out with appeals, etc.
Another way to look at it is that the details of the fantasy were so lurid and disturbing that the jury was willing to accept some pretty skimpy overt act evidence.
We’ll see what happens on appeal.