My go-to case for defending the death penalty is the Cheshire home invasion, though the surviving Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an equally strong, indeed I would say irrefutable case. I now have another one.
Read with care.
Kristel Candelario left on a summer vacation in Puerto Rico with a male friend, leaving her 16 month daughter Jailyn alone in a playpen with a few bottles of milk. The neighbor’s doorbell camera recorded the baby’s anguished screams as she suffered from abandonment and separation, hunger and dehydration. After a few days at the beach and another stopover in Detroit, Jailyn’s mother returned tp her Cleveland home to find her daughter dead, though she had the gall to call 911 in a panic. She’d been gone for about 10 days. I wonder what she expected to find.
Candelario pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated murder and one count of child endangering. At her sentencing this week, the court heard forensic pathologist Elizabeth Mooney explain how infants experience the most extreme separation anxiety at the ages of nine and 18 months. “The pain and suffering she endured lasted not only hours, not days, but possibly even a week,” Mooney said, as she choked up with emotion. “This feeling of abandonment for days on end, coupled with the pain of starvation and extreme thirst is a type of suffering I don’t think any of us could ever fully fathom.” Police found poor Jailyn lying on a mattress that was covered in urine and feces. The baby was emaciated, weighing seven pounds less than she had at her last doctor’s visit two months earlier. Her eyes were sunken, and fecal matter was in her mouth and fingernails.
This wasn’t the first time Candelario had left Jailyn alone either. The mother left the child in the playpen for two days just before she went on vacation.
Calling her crime the “ultimate act of betrayal,” the judge sentenced Kristel Candalario to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The defendant had the astounding brass to tell the judge that she believes God and Jailyn have forgiven her. “I am not trying to justify my actions, but nobody knew how much I was suffering and what I was going through,” she said.
She should be executed.
The woman couldn’t even show appropriate remorse. There is no question of her guilt. The crime is cruel beyond imagining. If I were an Ohio resident, I would resent paying a single cent to keep this sick monster alive. As I have written before, the death penalty is necessary to establish the absolute limit of inhumanity that a civilized society will and should tolerate. A mother who kills her daughter like this is beyond that limit, and her punishment should make that statement clearly and emphatically.
Ethics Alarms 
agreed 💯
As I have written before, the death penalty is necessary to establish the absolute limit of inhumanity that a civilized society will and should tolerate.
By doing the exact thing it’s condemning? That doesn’t make sense.
I think having to live the rest of your life behind bars is enough.
I don’t think you’ve made a convincing case in anything I’ve read in your arguments.
Money is a silly argument because aren’t you also disgusted your tax money goes towards keeping a child rapist alive?
Also, sorry about your loss.
[Thanks. I appreciate it.]
That’s the usual facile and intellectually dishonest argument that passes for logic from the anti-capitol punishment chorus. Of course it’s not the “exact same thing,” any more than killing an enemy soldier in a war is the exact same thing as what the DC snipers did. One is a legally sanctioned killing, and the other is a sadistic, cruel murder of an innocent. Doing the exact thing to this Ohio woman would be locking her in a cell and not feeding her until she died in her own excrement. No, we don’t torture criminals to death. They are dispatched quickly and as painlessly as possible. treating the Cheshire murders the same as their victims would be raping them and setting them on fire. Again, we don’t do that.
The reason life in prison is not sufficient is because lesser crimes of lesser viciousness also get the same punishment, and deserve life in prison. Not having death penalty is how European countries end up with tiny sentences for terrible crimes.
Glad to hear from you. I thought you had fled the coop!
I believe it absolutely makes sense. Again, the death penalty doesn’t bring full justice to the victim…it never could. Even victims of “lesser” crimes – kidnapping, home invasion, robbery, assault – testify after-the-fact that the judgements against the perpetrator brings “some semblance of justice” or “a sense of justice” or “some closure to the situation” or “the ability to move on.” None of these statements…NONE of them…indicate that the victim feels justice was fully served.
How could a child – only just able to walk – suffering through wanton, willful neglect such that she died ever be given sufficient justice, even with a death penalty for the guilty? It doesn’t happen.
The death penalty does not benefit the victim…nor does it fully punish the guilty.
The death penalty benefits society, which (in a sense) bands together and tells itself, “There are some actions so heinous that we collectively decide deserve death. If you commit them, death will be your reward. And the last sounds you hear as you leave this mortal coil will be society rejoicing that it has cleansed itself of you.”
“The death penalty benefits society, which (in a sense) bands together and tells itself, “There are some actions so heinous that we collectively decide deserve death. If you commit them, death will be your reward. And the last sounds you hear as you leave this mortal coil will be society rejoicing that it has cleansed itself of you.”
Exactly.
Joel,
Justice for the victim is not really the point of the criminal justice system. While the crime is committed against the victim, the action is brought by the state for the accused’s violation(s) of societal norms, rules, regulations, laws, that merit prosecution. The case is styled, “The State of ____ v. John Doe” and not “Crime Victim v. John Doe”. Justice for the victim would occur in civil court. Conviction and punishment are supposed to tied to harmful conduct and the harm caused to society.
The death penalty is supposed to be reserved for those crimes that so egregious that society as whole would say, “yes, you are no longer worthy of living in our society and there is little likelihood of your redemption for such heinous actions. You forfeited your right to live in our civilized society and your final/ultimate removal will send the message to the community that we will not tolerate this behavior – ever.”
I am not sure if the death penalty actually serves as a deterrent, though. James Byrd walked down a country road and three vicious monsters captured him, tortured him, tied to the bumper of their pickup truck with chains and dragged him to his death. The crime was brutal, repulsive and horrendous. The death penalty clearly did not stop them from viciously murdering an innocent man.
It took over ten years to finally carry out the sentences because of automatic appeals and other legal actions.
It took that long even though many opponents of the death penalty either sat on the sidelines shaking their heads in wonder or simply gave a perfunctory objection to their sentences (two were sentenced to death and one to life in prison). There were no last-minute anti-death penalty advocates shouting about the inhumanity of the death penalty. There were no vigils by anti-death penalty advocates bemoaning their executions, filing last-minute appeals because of their mental acuity (or lack thereof) or other mitigation defenses. The local ACLU and other “life without parole” advocates merely stated that they were too engaged in other cases to take up these fuckers’ causes.
jvb
Because it was a “hate crime.”One of the key strikes against supposed death penalty opponents is that when the crime is bad enough, they will tell pollsters, “Of course, this is an exception: kill him.” Opposing the death penalty is absolutism:if you believe there are exceptions—Hitler, say—then you aren’t opposed to the death penalty/
Texas didn’t have “hate crimes” at the time. The Byrd case was used to promote in Texas, which George Bush vetoed. Gov. Perry later signed it into legislation.
But, you are correct. If the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment then it should be cruel and unusual for these monsters, too. But, somehow shoes needed to be tied and sock drawers needed organizing so the opponent/advocates were busy on those days.
jvb
To be absolutely precise, the Left was calling such episodes “hate crimes” before there was any law making hate crimes an enhanced offense. The Byrd murder was a particularly stupid case to use to promote the legislation: when you drag anyone behind a truck so his head pops off, no further demonization of the crime is necessary.
True, but hate crime legislation is not about how awful or terrible the crime is. Hate crime laws set classes (races, ethnicities, etc.) against each other. The same crime is punished at a greater level if the crime is committed against a preferred victim class.
jvb
My point is that in a crime like that, the Hate crime label doesn’t make a bit of difference. It’s like declaring that the “Final Solution” was a hate crime. At a certain point, you CAN’T punish a crime at a higher level.
Agreed. You are correct – how many times could the state of Texas have executed the two death row inmates?
My point on hate crime law, though, is that it is inherently unjust to create a punishment enhancement because the perpetrator’s actions were motivated by “hate” against a protected class where the same crime is not punished as much because the victim does not qualify as a protected class member. Isn’t intentional crime – murder, rape, assault – already motivated by “hate”?
jvb
“how many times could the state of Texas have executed the two death row inmates? ”
Well, they could always bring back the olden sentence of being hanged, drawn, and quartered. I think that encompasses about three executions before the victim is allowed to actually die.
Of course, I think the Constitution might have something to say about that.
The end of the article quotes a poem read by the lead detective at the sentencing hearing. Do you think that was appropriate, or was it unprofessional theatrics?
I bet you can guess.
There are only two reasons that this woman should not fry like the morning bacon. One is that she did not actually beat the child to death, but that can be overcome by the fact that she knew damn well what was going to happen here and didn’t care. It could be argued that dying alone after prolonged suffering is worse than simply being beaten to death.
The other reason is that she pled guilty, thus sparing the state the expense and anguish of trying her, and obviously she was not going to plead unless the death penalty was off the table.
Maybe the prosecutor should have said no deals, this is a capital case and we’re proceeding to trial. however, that’s not what the prosecutor did, and prosecutors have discretion. We don’t know what the prosecutor’s resources were like. Maybe he did not have the numbers in his office to tie up his best prosecutors on a capital case that would last weeks and weeks.
the other limited upside of this is that the other relatives of this child and the general public will not have to hear this woman’s name again until she reports prison and that will be the last they will hear of her. This woman will not become some anti-depth penalty activist’s muse, a poor misguided mother who did not know any better and is now facing death. I don’t understand how some of these activists can fall in love with these people who are the worst examples of humanity and insist that they should be allowed to live after what they’ve done. Yet they do it. Way back when some of us might remember the pending execution of Stanley “Tookie” Wilson in California who murdered a family from Taiwan and referred to them as “Buddhaheads.” The guy was a racist murderer and yet some flocked to his cause. Then there was Karla Ray Tucker, who was to be executed on George W Bush’s watch when he was governor of Texas. She had killed someone with a pickaxe and talked about getting a sexual thrill when she did it. However, she had become a born-again Christian in prison, so more people wanted to save her life. To his credit, GWB didn’t want to hear it, and this woman fried. It was brought up again when he ran for president, but no one was that impressed.
Personally, I am of the opinion that those who advocate for the saving of the life of people like this should then have to assume their care and have them move into their neighborhoods. it is too easy to advocate for the sparing of the life of the worst of the worst when it doesn’t cost you anything. We’ll call it the LARK program, which stands for liberals assume responsibility for killers. Understand but some of these worst of the worst people could kill you a dozen different ways with just one hand. I would not suggest you ask them to demonstrate that at your next yoga class. Understand also that some of them will not want to interact with the women and girls in your neighborhood except sexually. Nonetheless, you take good care of them, and occasionally the feds will check in to make sure you’re doing so in keeping with the standards that you believe they should receive.
Actually, one other thing I remembered, I think that in almost all states ONLY a jury can impose the death penalty, a judge can’t. So, by pleading guilty you automatically take execution off the table, but by the same token if you refuse to plead, you risk a jury hating you enough and getting pissed at you enough to give you the spike or whatever. That’s not really right, the jury should impose the death penalty because the case qualifies legally and factually for it, not because they hate the defendant, but who are we kidding?
” I wonder what she expected to find.”
She confused her daughter with a cat? I don’t understand either what she thought was going to happen unless she’s that intellectually obtuse. This is a selfish, selfish woman who did a test run for two days before leaving on vacation to see if it was possible to leave her daughter alone The two days she left her daughter alone before going on vacation was a trial run, I’m betting, to see if leaving her with a bunch of bottles and in a place where the poor kid couldn’t fall or drink poison would work.
I wouldn’t leave my cat alone for a weekend jaunt let alone ten days.
At 16 months, the child was within the 2 year window Pete Singer (and probably Ezekiel Emmanuel) has been pushing for ‘later’ term abortions. Now that the envelope has been pushed to birth and slightly beyond for abortions, this could be the reality of abortion in many states soon.
And so we have a return to the ancient days when unwanted babies were exposed.
If the neighbor’s doorbell could hear the child’s anguished screems, why did nobody call the police!
The mother is responsible for the death, but the neighbors failed, too.
Admittedly, I wondered that, too. If the doorbell camera captured it, why did neighbors not hear the child? If they did, did they think this was just a colicky baby? Did they not want to butt heads with a possibly combative mother?
The way my camera works is it only notifies me when movement is detected: someone walking by, for instance. If I choose to pull up the video capture, it is only then that I would see the person who walked by and would hear any noise in the background. If my neighbor were playing loud music for instance, but there was no movement detected, my camera would not notify me nor would it capture any video. I’m guessing they pulled up any and all video that was captured due to movement and it was then that they could hear the crying in the background. There’s no indication that the neighbors were even home. Tragic still.
And she’ll get hers in prison. I hope.
Finding out you’ve left a child home alone for days is a recurring nightmare for many parents. I cannot fathom the line of thinking that would rationalize doing so deliberately would be okay in any stretch. Leaving a child alone for even a day would be such a miserable experience for the child — the overflowing diaper and probably the awful diaper rash that would accompany it, the hunger, the lack of any comfort… I have to admit, I’m distressed to distraction even contemplating what that poor child endured. This is so horrifying to me that I actually broke down and cried for a bit.
Is this a case that justifies the death penalty? I’m not sure I can answer that without the opportunity to let my emotional reaction calm down. I mean, damn it! Milk starts stinking when left out for a day. What did she think that milk would be like after a couple of days, and the desperation with which the child would drink it because nothing else was forthcoming? And how much worse is it that it would have given the child diarrhea, on top of all the other excrement she was wallowing in? And how that food just prolonged the agony????
Has the pro-choice crowd tried to make hay with this?
PWS
Speaking as someone whose first reaction was, “we should be allowed to execute her the same way,” I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no point at which we’re exempt from trying to understand other people’s perspectives. The assumption that there is is what brought us to the status quo.
Based on the CNN article, I am considering the possibility that Candelario was not in her right mind for some reason, to the point that she was making decisions while incapable of processing the consequences of her actions. How it got to that point, I don’t know.
However, I would expect Candelario to be responsible for noticing her own lapsing judgment (or scheduling regular check-ins from others) and making arrangements for other people to step in. I don’t know if she somehow ended up with nobody to trust for that purpose, but it really shouldn’t have been so difficult for her to arrange for a child’s safety if she absolutely had to leave for some reason. I’m curious as to what led up to that point to make her so ill-prepared to be a parent, and why she chose to become a parent anyway.
If she’s just pathologically selfish, the judgment is easier. People are allowed to be selfish, but they’re not allowed to suddenly abandon those they’ve assumed responsibility for. I’m not going to defend her life until and unless we have enough resources to rehabilitate all of the more promising cases first.
Overall, I’m ambivalent about this case. I guess my conclusion is, don’t underestimate human incompetence. If we start executing humans for irresponsibility, we need to be careful how we define our criteria or we may start running out of humans, especially if someone tries to turn the law against members of groups they don’t like.