I keep resolving to refrain from posting about the facts of individual murder cases, because after reading about one atrocity even more ghastly than the last, it just becomes redundant. My resolve starts to slip, however, when I survey the unending excuses the defense bar can come up with, no matter how grotesque the crime (see, e.g., any three days' worth of comments on Sentencing Law & Policy). It slips over the edge when I see a story like this.
To sum it up briefly, which is all my stomach can take, a fellow named Michael Woodmansee butchered a five year-old because he wanted to see "'what it would be like' to kill someone. He thought it would be easy, easy to get away with it, and some form of fun..." After he killed the kid, he cannibalized the body, keeping the skull for a souvenir.
The crime went unsolved for several years, but started to unravel when Woodmansee tried it again, this time with a 14 year-old. Unfortunately for him, 14 year-old's can fight back.
Anyway, Woodmansee apparently is about to be released because of a fatuously generous "good behavior" rule that was in effect at the time of his conviction. The little boy's father says that, if the release goes forward, he'll kill him.
CJLF does not condone murder in any form whatever, and neither do I. But if the law mocks the grief and suffering of victims, what, other than vigilantism, do we expect?