By Wyatt Earp | October 27, 2007
I don’t know how I feel about this one. I’m not sure I believe the murderer of a police officer should be allowed to plea. Was the case flawed? Is that the reason? Is it because Philly notoriously allows even the worse of criminals to skate by easily?
Shouldn’t a cop killer receive an expedited ticket to his death?
A plea seems like a slap in the face, but then again, that’s all the justice system and administration of Philadelphia seem capable of.
However, one source is quoted as saying that the family is comfortable with the plea. Families don’t really have a choice, do they?
For example, an unidentified “police official” was credited with, “As much as [the prosecutors] want to get the death penalty, they know how much the family has to go through” with a lengthy trial.
The length of a trial shouldn’t be a consideration. Justice should be the consideration.
Avoid a trial for the family? Whose family? The killer’s? Yes, it is hard. Look at what Daniel Faulkner’s widow continues to endure. However, if someone is brave enough to serve a community the way Skerski did, doesn’t the family deserve to have, on their behalf, a prosecution of their family member’s killer to the fullest extent of the law? Yes, it doesn’t bring back Skerski to them, but doesn’t his memory deserve more than some thug getting life plus 200 years? Three hots and cot versus paying for a crime doesn’t seem like such a good trade off to me.
I just don’t know.
Topics: Uncategorized | Comments Off