Unnecessary And Lengthy Appeals Lead Jurors To Decide Life In Prison Over Death

by Matthew Pasalic

In the April 6th 2006 edition of the Laurel Leader, it was reported that Robert Mark Billett was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering Cpl. Steven Gaughan and three 20-year sentences for attempted murder. Although County State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey had asked for the death penalty, he “hailed” the verdict and concluded that county residents have sent a “strong message” that the killing of a law enforcement officer has “serious consequences.”

I am pleased that Billett, a miscreant, will likely never walk the streets again, yet this case raises many concerns that I have about the pursuit of justice. After reading the article, it became evident that Gaughan’s family was reluctant to seek the death penalty because of the insurmountable pain of having to endure lengthy appeals processes. Several officers were disappointed with the decision to drop the death penalty, but they likewise were concerned about an excessive trial coupled with years of appeals.
I totally respect the decision of Gaughan’s family not to pursue the death penalty. They are more qualified than I to determine the fate of Billett in a court. Yet, I have several objections to Mr. Ivey and others who assessed that this verdict sends a “strong message.” Prince George’s County has more homicides than any other county in the state of Maryland, but when is the last time that a criminal was sentenced to death? There are lengthy and costly appeals processes and this is because of ultraliberal judges and judicial activism. As a result, it becomes burdensome for the victim’s family members to seek the death penalty. Conversely, this may be favorable news for those convicted of murder, as a life sentence seems to be the maximum penalty, but rarely imposed.

Furthermore, the Laurel Leader also reported that Circuit Court Judge Jackson insinuated that if Billett had allowed Gaughan to “arrest him rather than run, they may have gotten along” (how often does this happen?) and that they “probably would have made each other laugh.” This is because both men had an ability to make others laugh, according to the sentencing testimony. Yet, such a diversion is irrelevant, humorless, and diminishes with the disconcerting reality that a courageous officer was abruptly murdered and leaves behind a compassionate wife and loving family.

Mandatory Gay Pride Horror

In response to “Firefighters seek to sue over forced ‘gay pride,’ The Washington Times A 5, August 10th), I must react with absolute outrage and disgust. The four firefighters should be commended for suing their department for the overt abuse and sexual harassment that they endured from homosexual perverts. Although the firemen were also subjected to ridicule from Christian conservatives who opposed the gay parade, it was not surprising that it was the liberated, boisterous homosexuals who conducted themselves in a domineering and unruly manner. The Family Research Council reported through email that lesbian chief Tracy Jarmen apologized for the mistreatment that the firefighters received acknowledging all forms of harassment as unacceptable, but went on to indicate that the department “has an established tradition of accepting invitations from diverse community groups…to march in parades” (Family Research Council, August 8th).

Somehow, I have much doubt that the “diverse community groups” would include activism from a conservative worldview. For further edification, I would like to know how many invitations the San Diego Fire Department has accepted from the local National Right to Life? Would firefighters be required to participate in a three-hour parade for the rights of the unborn? How about a march to protect America’s borders from invading illegal immigrants? Here is an even better example: Suppose a Bible-believing Christian fundamentalist fire chief required four of his firemen, who happened to be homosexuals, to attend a pro-marriage rally. During the event, the four homosexuals were derided as pro-family advocates referred to them as “queers,” and “sinners,” along with other insulting terms. Bible tracts were tossed at them as they were told that they are going to burn in hell for eternity. There is no doubt that such a story would dominate the headlines of every newspaper in this country. If a demagogue fire chief with blatant political activism were to require his firemen to attend a parade for any of the aforementioned causes, there would undoubtedly be a firestorm of protests from liberals, feminists, and other activists groups such as the ACLU. Any fire chief would likely be terminated for violating the ethos of the firemen along with the improper authority of using the city department to endorse a parade of political propaganda.


Furthermore, what does the mandatory attendance of a homosexual parade have to do with the job description of a firefighter and why were these four men coerced into being a part of this corrupting parade? One could fully understand a fire chief requiring some of his men to participate in a Memorial Day parade or some other traditional holiday observed by Americans. It would likely be a responsibility that most firemen would gladly want to be a part of.

In summary, I am disappointed, but not surprised, with the lack of media coverage over this most disturbing case of sexual exploitation. Perhaps my strong disapproval of homosexual crusaders as sordid and misguided sinners in defiance of God and basic biology is a waning position to maintain in the United States. However, it is the Biblical view regarding the recruiting indoctrinators of sexual immorality.