Eric Smith Denied Parole Again. Thoughts and Reactions.

Great Debates
1

I’m writing this OP more in the mode of a poll, but I think that the issues that it touches, mental health, criminal justice, and juvenile justice are all going to be so polarizing, and frankly interesting, that a simple poll will not be possible. It’s going to end up a debate, I do hope it will remain a polite, and respectful one, though.
Eric Smith, in 1993, sodomized and beat to death a four year old boy. Eric Smith was thirteen years old at the time. As can be imagined this crime sparked a huge reaction, both locally and nationally. The two principals of the case were both hugely photogenic, and the press ate up the story. Even though he was thirteen at the time of the crime Smith was found competent to stand trial, and was tried as an adult.

At the time the prosecutor was of the opinion that if Smith were tried as a juvenile offender he would be released upon his majority (I think, in this case it would have been 21st birthday) with no way to protect the community from what he believed, and still believes, to be a continuing threat. Given the aspects of the crime, and the lack of remorse (and even understanding) shown by Smith, it was not a hard sell to the public, that he should be locked up as an adult.

The trial was straightforward, and Smith was convicted of second degree murder. He was sentenced to nine to life for his crime. He spent the first six years of his sentence in a juvenile facility, and since has been in a maximum security prison, and most recently he has been transfered to a medium security facility.

Beginning in 2003, after his nine years were completely, Smith first became eligible for consideration for parole. He was denied. Since then he’s been denied parole on a roughly two-year cycle. Yesterday was the most recent time he has been denied parole.

At this time, it looks likely that Eric Smith will be shooting for parole, and being denied it, on a two year cycle, for the rest of his life.

To complicate matters, there has been, from the very beginning, discussion that Eric Smith suffers from a number of conditions that would affect his mental stability, ranging from fetal effects from the anti-nausea drug Tridione, to something the defense’s psychiatric counsel diagnosed as intermittent explosive disorder.

Both the defense and prosecution tested Smith extensively before the trial, and neither side could find evidence of a brain chemical disorder. The prosecution, of course claims this proves there was none, while the defense instead claims it proves that our diagnostics at the time aren’t perfect. (Big surprise there…) The jury chose to side with the prosecution’s interpretation, and they did so with a certain amount of evidence. Investigators testified that even when Smith was viewed as nothing more than a teen who had made a grisly find, they were getting a sense that he’d enjoyed thinking about the crime that had happened. Likewise, the ability to make up and story and stick to it for any length of time is often considered a sign that the person in question can recognize right and wrong well enough to meet the standard of being competent to be held accountable for one’s actions: To wit, the person in question could recognize how society would view right and wrong, and knew that society would consider her or his actions as having been wrong.

Whether Eric Smith is criminally insane or not, he’s been found sane enough to stand for his actions, and to continue to be held accountable for them. This article from 2004 goes over a lot of the ground I’ve covered here, and provides some highlights I’ve skipped.

Looking over it, I think that Eric Smith is stuck in the “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” trap, much as the members of the Manson family are: If he isn’t honest and forthright about what happened, and why, he stands no chance for parole. If he is honest and forthright about what happened, and what he was thinking at the time, he stands no chance for parole. The Tom Brokaw piece I linked quotes Smith’s own words to the parole board:

Even 15 years after the fact, and 6 years into the indefinite period of his sentence, that view of the thirteen year old that Eric Smith chose to be is damning. Add to that the belief that most people have, after seeing the accounts of Smith’s treatment records, that he really had to have been insane to do what he did. Mix in the fact that none of the psych people, on either side, can adequately explain what went wrong in Smith’s mind that morning.
In some ways the Eric Smith case reminds me of one of my personal bete noire: Arthur Shawcross. For those not familiar with the Shawcross case, he served time in the 70s and 80s as part of a plea agreement that had him pleading to manslaught for the deaths of two teens in the Watertown, NY area. Released by a judicial order, he was slipped into the Rochester community without letting any of the law enforcement know what was coming. In spite of some pretty scathing advice from the parole board members about the suitability for release of this prisoner. After he came to Rochester, he ended up killing eleven women.

Both Smith and Shawcross were misfits. Both men are of questionable sanity, even if they do not meet the standard of being unable to be held accountable for their crimes. And as much as it pains me to say it, the claims that Smith would re-offend if released strike me as being credible. (What I mean is that based on what information is available to the public I’m not convinced that Smith would be safe to be released, not that I think he’d turn around on release and kill the first kid he met.) There may be information available in the private records to discount that claim, but it’s a claim that I would have to see countered with more than just the killer’s words.

My position on this situation is that while not ideal, the situation with Eric Smith is probably as close to being satisfactory as can be found. It certainly sits better with me than the outcome from a similar crime in 1993, the murder of James Bulger by two 10 year old boys in Liverpool England.

I would very much like to hear what other Dopers have to say on these topics. Considering the concurrent thread about Susan Atkins here in Great Debates it seems more timely than I had imagined when I first decided to share my thoughts.

2

This is a tough one. First I’ll say that anyone who I might parole would have to show sincere remorse. That said, I think it helps society to hold people completely accountable for their actions. But at what age can we expect someone to not make mistakes. If a 4 year-old shoots someone it’s not the same as a 24 year-old shooting someone. I don’t know where 13 fits on the that continuum. I even doubt that it should be tied to age in the abstract. Some 13 year-olds are more like 16 and some are more like 11. So I’d be willing to consider paroling him. It would be dependent on his attitude and the reports on his behavior over the last 15 years.

Not very helpful, I guess. I’d be curious to see what others think.

3

When I was 13 I most definitely knew right from wrong and was crystal clear that you did not kill people or beat them up and so on. What I think may not be crystal clear to a 13 year old are the full ramifications of their actions. They may know killing is wrong but not fully appreciate the effect that doing so has on other people including the victim’s family, their own family and the community at large not to mention barely being able to comprehend how big a deal “life” in prison is.

That said the kid sounds like damaged goods and I can see no reason to put him back on the streets. I thought children who displayed cruelty to animals (or other humans) and were remorseless about it were the types to be prime candidates for awful deeds later in life (literally psychologically unbalanced in a profound way). This kid sounds like a prime example.

At the very least I think he would need to convince me of a profound sense of remorse. Not just blabbing the words but show a firm understanding of the awful nature of his actions. Frankly if such a thing were achieved it would be a crushing weight on his conscience every day. After that I’d think about it.

4

I wish that these people could get the mental help they need to at least not be a danger, even better if they could be productive members of society. Unfortunately our society has determined that they don’t want that. We have other priorities.

Until such time as that changes I am in favor of keeping them separated from the rest of us by whatever means necessary.

5

This is a tough case. On one hand you want to rehabilitate a child if possible but on the other hand we can’t fix every monster that graces us with his or her acts of violence. To the extent that prisons are used to protect the public from such violence is undeniably important. If an individual does not take the necessary steps to get well then society is obligated to protect the innocent from further violence.

This often leaves prisons as substitutes for mental health facilities, which in most cases is a lost cause. Whether a person is not fit to return to public life is due to self-destructive actions or mental illness is not within the prison systems capacity to measure. All they can do is review and recommend based on his actions.

6

I think, sometimes, people can be mentally “broken”. A child who bashes a four-year-old’s head in with a rock, pours Kool-Aid into his crushed skull, then sodomizes him with a stick seems, in my unprofessional opinion, to be an example of one such individual.

I agree, in general, with your assessment of some of the problems with our prison system, but I don’t think this particular individual’s non-candidacy for parole is an example of such a failure.

7

Anyone who does something to brutal so another human being is obviously fucked up in their head. Add being 13 years old to that and you got someone who is obviously insane and not competent.

To me, this is nothing more than yet another prosecutor trying to get a feather in his cap by making someone pay rather than getting this 13 year old, mentally ill child some help. No matter how brutal the crime. He was 13 for shit’s sake ! Yes, we can know right and wrong at that age, but the brain is not developed at that age and a 13 year still needs lots and lots of guidance.

There were obviously lots of underlying issues going on in this kid’s world to make him do this, was that investigated? In other words, where were his parents? Were they investigated for abuse of any kind? I didn’t read the story and know little about it, but it seems to me that this is another case of , “Man, this was sick, let’s lock him up and throw away the key, because he’s crazy”.

I think that he should be evaluated by a good Psych Doctor, if he already isn’t and the case should be re investigated and retried.

8

I know you said you didn’t read any of the linked articles. But did you even bother to read the OP before you decided there had been no psych evaluation?

If you read the Brokaw piece, as well as the current news piece about the the most recent parole denial, you’ll see evidence of lots and lots of psychiatric evaluations, and treatment going with Smith. One of the reasons that the jury didn’t buy the defense’s theory about intermittent explosive disorder is because the disorder is, at best, a poor fit for the circumstances of the case. Not least of the reasons being that it tends to be a disorder that develops much later in life.

I’ll admit part of my vehemence towards your opinion is that I see so many people equating all mental illnesses on one, single plane. So, not only would Eric Smith, because he’s obviously mentally ill, not be accountable for his actions, but the guy down the street who’s on anti-depressants isn’t either. And they’re equally a risk for the population at large.. Which is one reason that it’s so hard for people with the stigma of mental illness to find work, because employers and their co-workers all expect someone to “go-postal” once they find out there’s a history of mental illness.

Simply because someone is mentally ill, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are incompetent.

9

The Kool-Aid was sick. I remember when this was big news (Smith is only a year older than me and this happened very nearby) that whenever the police mentioned the Kool-Aid to him, he got this weird sense of happiness about him. I believe that’s what made the police first suspect him.

Say what you will about the insanity defense, but Eric Smith is a sick fuck and it would be alright with me if he never got out.

10

It’s one of the toughest of questions that a criminal justice system can face - what is the age that an individual becomes responsible for their actions? Can you frame an equitable system that caters for ten-year-olds? Nine, four?

11

Most people would agree that a 13-year old committing these acts is so grossly abnormal that deliquency or hooliganism simply isn’t adequate to describe it. But how do you say that his actions are the result of mental illness when the “mental illness” has no definition or symptomology except for committing violent crimes? Given such a conundrum, most people fall back on the label “monster”, and take the pragmatic viewpoint whatever the cause, his threat to society must be contained. IIRC, the courts have pretty much rejected the idea that heinousness of a crime is proof in itself of mental illness. One would hope that the bar for his release would be very, very high. regardless of whether he was criminally incarcerated or civilly committed.

As a side issue: do multiple failed parole applications prejudice one’s chances on future applications? Rather than a futile round of pro-forma applications with summary rejection, would someone stand a better chance if each new application was spread further out?

12

Our society recognizes that kids are not adults . They are not mentally developed enough to vote or drive . Yet we declare them legally adults when it suits our sense of revenge. This kid is a problem because it is possible he may never have reached mental maturity any way. We should show compassion but he has already killed. He was not an adult,but may never reach an adult understanding. I am sure prison has not done much to make him a good citizen.
Prison forever for a crime at the age of 13 seems wrong. Letting him out without any chance of rehab seems wrong. We need another alternative. Can a softer type of Alcatraz be built. Exile without complete prison conditions maybe.

13

[nitpick]
Not two teens - two children, a ten year old boy and an eight year old girl. Cite.
[/nitpick]

Regards,
Shodan

14

I agree it’s a tough question. Which is why I was careful to say only that the decisions made in the UK over those two boys sits uncomfortably on me. I don’t know that the treatment they’ve received is justice for them, nor whether it may be justice for James Bulger. I just have questions about it.
Shodan, thanks for the correction.

15

Tough question, I agree with the OP that it was handled pretty much as best as it could be.

Eric Smith has a chance at redemption if he can ever show a parole board that he deserves it–so far it appears he has not been able to do so.

To me, if you’re capable of recognizing that an action is wrong and you do that action, you should be punished for it.

When I was a little kid, I once got mad at my sister and pushed her down. I was under the age of ten, I was punished. I knew what I did was wrong, but I did it anyway. Should I have been charged with assault? No, at that age my impulse control was poor, society had nothing to gain by charging me with assault. I felt bad about it after it happened.

At thirteen I’d already been hunting, I’d killed deer before. I knew what life and death were. No, I probably couldn’t “fully grasp” what a life spent in prison would be like–but I could fully grasp how big a deal murder was. Murder isn’t a hidden topic, it was spoken about throughout the bible, in the media and et cetera. At thirteen in a lot of ways I may have been “a dumb kid” but if I murdered someone, I’d still be someone who recognized that the act was wrong.

Every thirteen year old is different, that is why I don’t buy into strict age cutoffs, there has to be independent evaluations of each and every case. In this case, it appears the prosecution’s argument, and its experts’ arguments, were the most persuasive to the jury that sat and heard this case. It’s rough, but that’s the best we can do in our system, get twelve men and women up there, make an argument for both sides, and they have to decide which one they buy.

I have a cousin (about twenty years younger than me) who was brilliant growing up. He graduated college, married his high school sweetheart, and seemed to be on track to live a great life. At age 24 he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, within two years his wife had left him and he was in and out of mental hospitals. Eventually, with treatment and medication, he’s now living as close to a normal life as he can. It’s hard for him to find work, but he’s a hard worker.

I often think of this cousin when people try to excuse a crime because someone has mental illness to any degree. Yes, there were times when my cousin would have a hard time distinguishing reality–if he committed a crime because of that he should not be punished for it. However, my cousin is quite capable of being competent, he’s just as capable as me, or you, or any other “normal” person of committing a murder for all the reasons a “normal” person might.

Simply because he has a mental illness doesn’t mean any and all of his actions are guided by it, or that any and all of his actions could be explained by it. Yes, his mental illness has had a profound effect on his life, but it isn’t him, he as a person does exist and can act independently of his illness. Personally I think it insulting in general to people with mental illness to simply assume that criminality, especially brutal and heinous criminality, can just be explained away as mental illness. It unfairly maligns the mentally ill and quite simply removes blame from where it should lie. Sometimes people do very bad things for very bad reasons–but they were in control and if that is the case, they should be held accountable.

There’s a certain subset of the population, who, the more brutal the crime, the more prone they are to just say “well, they must be mentally ill to do this, we must treat the poor babies”. If they are mentally ill, yes, we should treat them. The evidence presented to the jury wasn’t persuasive, they were there, we weren’t. They heard all the arguments, we haven’t. Everyone should keep that in mind.

Is Eric Smith mentally ill? Possibly. But my understanding is insanity is an “affirmative defense” and not only must it be proven that Eric Smith has a mental illness it must be shown that that mental illness prevented Eric Smith from distinguishing from right and wrong.