Should this man get parole??
FERRANTE
He should of recieved the death penalty.
MArk Ferrante
Mass Murder Figure's Parole Bid Stirs Painful Memories
By CAROLE BURNS
NEW BRITAIN, Conn. -- When Jo Ann Knoblauch's brother was murdered
in 1974 at the Donna Lee Bakery, she avoided learning much about how
he died. Her family was too much in shock to attend the trials or read
the extensive newspapers stories about what remains one of
Connecticut's worst mass murders: six people, herded into a back room
of the bakery, shot and killed.
Twenty-three years later, one of two men convicted of the crime,
Gary B. Schrager, is up for parole. This time, to persuade the state
to keep Schrager in prison, Mrs. Knoblauch forced herself to learn as
much as she could. She looked at photographs of the crime scene. She
found out things she never wanted to know.
"They took a hammer to my brother's head," said Mrs. Knoblauch,
whose brother, William J. Donahue, 27, had stopped at the bakery to
ask for directions. "Here it is -- 23 years later, almost. Now I know
why there was a closed coffin."
Mrs. Knoblauch, who will testify at Schrager's parole hearing
Monday, has no lack of support in this small industrial city of
72,000. The killings are something like New Britain's version of the
John F. Kennedy assassination: everyone remembers where they were when
they heard about the Donna Lee Bakery murders.
The parole board has received about 400 letters from across the
state from people opposing Schrager's parole, from relatives of
victims, elected officials and people with no clear connection to the
case.
No one here can fathom the idea of Schrager's being released, and
the city's Common Council has passed a resolution urging the state to
deny parole.
The measure's sponsor, Alderman Paul Carver, said: "New Britain is a
middle class, blue-collar working town. There's not a lot of
pseudo-intellectual thinking about what's wrong with society. People
think that if someone kills someone else they would pay for it. For
the most part, people don't think he should see the light of day."
Many people in the city also knew the two men convicted of the
crime, Ronald Piskorski and Schrager, who both lived in New Britain.
Piskorski is serving 150 years for convictions on six counts of
murder, and Schrager pleaded guilty to four counts of accessory to
murder and received four concurrent sentences of 20 years to life.
The details of the murder are the stuff of "In Cold Blood": a
botched robbery by two low-level criminals so desperate they even
killed Schrager's uncle. As in the murder described by Truman Capote,
there was no large cache of money to steal, making the crime seem all
the more senseless.
After the murders, the two men walked into a party, laughing, then
went into a bathroom to clean off the guns.
In the Donna Lee Bakery murders, there was also the element of
chance. Schrager's uncle, Michael P. Kron, usually picked up baked
goods on Sunday mornings but decided to stop by the night before so he
could sleep late. A 59-year-old clerk at the bakery, Helen Giansanti,
known as Grandma to the children who visited the bakery, did not
usually work at night.
Even the owner, John Salerni, was not supposed to be at the bakery
when the murders occurred; he decided to drop in early, to check on
Mrs. Giansanti.
The Donna Lee Bakery, named after the owner's daughter, was a
neighborhood place, famous for its Italian cookies, where people
stopped after church, and where parents dispatched their children to
pick up baked goods.
Today, it is East Side Convenience, a run-down but friendly store
where neighbors sometimes pause to talk. On a recent morning, just
yards from where the murders occurred, they shared memories of that
chilly night of Oct. 19, 1974.
Mark Ehmann, 44, still lives about a quarter-mile from the bakery.
He was riding in his cousin's new Corvette when his cousin told him
about the murders. He remembers the moment, the turn in the road when
he heard.
"It's fantastic to me that you can recall it like yesterday," Ehmann
said. "The memories haven't faded or washed away."
The shootings took place between 8:15 and 8:45 that night, a time
partly pinned down by neighbors who remembered hearing gunshots just
after the television show "All in the Family" was ending.
Schrager testified that they entered the bakery when one person was
there -- the clerk, Mrs. Giansanti, whom they brought into the back
office.
In the meantime, Schrager said in the trial, customers kept walking
in: Thomas and Anna Dowling, an older couple who had stopped for
doughnuts, then Donahue, Salerni, Kron. They were each brought to a
back room.
Schrager admitted handing Piskorski a hammer, used to beat several
of the victims. He claimed he stayed in the front, heard five shots,
handed Piskorski a sawed-off shotgun, then heard another shot. He said
he then walked out to the car.
The killers took away about $300, missing $1,100 in Salerni's
pocket.
At the time, law enforcement officials said Schrager's testimony fit
with the evidence. He also passed a lie-detector test. But most people
in New Britain do not believe him.
They also continue to question why Schrager received such a light
sentence.
"Even if he didn't do any of the shooting, he's just as culpable,"
Nick Salerni, the bakery owner's son, said. "And I would feel that way
even if my father wasn't involved."
Schrager's sentence also means that this is the fourth time he has
come up for parole. In his parole hearing in 1992, Schrager, who was
transferred to prison in Minnesota for his protection, said that
education and alcohol treatment programs had changed him. He was also
engaged to be married.
About every five years, the victims' relatives attend parole
hearings, read more newspaper articles and re-live the crime as they
try to insure that he does not get out.
"It's not fair to families, any of them, to have to go through
this," Mrs. Knoblauch said. "You can't just miss them and try to bury
those details."
Death from sickness or old age or even accidents are a part of life,
Mrs. Knoblauch said. "Not this," she said. "There's no closure on this
because every time a parole hearing comes up, you're so afraid they're
going to let him out."
Copyright 1997 The New York Times
Gumby1618
I am against the death penalty, And I feel that any person who murders
should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
This man should not be paroled. This man should spend the rest of his
days locked behind bars.
rasputin
gumb...@aol.com (Gumby1618) wrote:
Shoulda fried him when they had the chance!
The Mad Monk says
"This ain't no party
This ain't no disco
This ain't no fooling around"
Talking Heads
cn
rasputin <rasp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
No, I think public hanging would be more suitable than the electric
chair.
Charles Cole
In <33EFFF...@ix.netcom.com> "B. Allen" <dig...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Obviously the people of that state think that there are circumstances
>in which murderers should be paroled or they would not keep having
>parole hearings.
Do you actually think the "people" are the ones who established that
state's system of parole? Come now!!
>Suppose there were two people up for parole and because of prison
>overcrowding, one of them had to be released. Suppose further that
>they had both committed a murder....
Well, now. Let's consider another alternative -- let out a minor,
non-violent offender rather than a murderer!!!! Make sense? Ya think?
>Naturally, everyone is going to say, "Keep them both in prison" or
>"Fry them both". But play along. If one of them had to be paroled,
>which one would you as a law-abiding tax payer, want paroled.
Neither one. Again, let some lowgrade junkie out -- one without a
history for violence.
>I want the criteria to be based on the performance of the inmate and
>not on the desires of the victim's family.
Well, I hope for your sake that a member of your family is never
murdered by one of these dudes, because I suspect you might change your
tune considerably. For me, I want the criteria to be, "You did the
crime, now do the time". Period. Basta. Oh, I know, the apologists
(RAG, Hilty, et al) will bemoan this as "simplistic" and "unscientific"
but I think we've already seen where their foolishness has led us over
the past 30+ years.
C. Cole
RevJimS
In article <1997081313205084511@[208.18.161.132]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>Of course it doesn't deter crime. When someone is given the death
>penalty and then never executed there is no reason for it to deter
>anyone. If it costs $80,000/year to keep an inmate on death row, which
>I have no doubt that it does, then let's give them a maximum of one year
>for all appeals. After which time the execution would take place. This
>would probably start to have an effect on deterrence and also save
>taxpayers a lot of money, and open up bed space.<
But, even in Texas and Florida, the two most aggressive states to execute
inmates, there is no evidence of the death penalty being a deterant. BTW,
I agree that the appeal process is way too long, but it has recently been
cut significantly. I am not sure if this was done under Ohio law or
federal law, but a state prisoner in Ohio now can only appeal to the
appellate court and the state supreme court -- they can no longer appeal
through the federal courts. Even so, Ohio has not executed anyone since 1963.
>> I also, in my opinion, have a problem with the death penalty. The Bible
>> states, very clearly, God's Commandment that "Thou shall not kill." It
>> does NOT say "Thou shall not kill unless convicted by a jury of one's
>> peers, and having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Killing is
>> killing, whether or not it is done by Joe Schmoe, or by the state. I do
>> not know of an alternative solution other than life imprisonment, which is
>> not cost effective, and has many drawbacks of its own.
>>
>>
>Fine, but there are many different religions. And some of them do
>believe in executing the guilty. So, even if yours doesn't, mine may.>>
>
>That's quite possibly true. I am assuming that a significant portion of
the world's religious persons are Christians, and as such follow the Bible,
wherein we are told to not kill. However, I do not yet know how this issue
is addressed in Islam, Judiaism, Hindu, etc. Can someone offer some info
on this ?
>------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!news.spri
ntisp.com!nntp.sprintmail.com!newsfeed.nacamar.de!infeed1.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.97.64.9!news.kiva.net!cn
>From: c...@cn.com (cn)
>Newsgroups: alt.prisons
>Subject: Re: Should this man get parole??
>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:20:50 -0600
>Organization: .....
>Lines: 33
>Message-ID: <1997081313205084511@[208.18.161.132]>
>References: <33f05922...@news.primenet.com> <199708112328
Rev. James M. Sutter, D.D., D.B., C.P.M.
Pastor, Doers of the Word Baptist Fellowship Church
Pastor, ULC of Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
WEB site at http://members.aol.com/RevJimS/index.html (Revised and
updated 6/97)
Comments always welcome.
cn
RevJimS <rev...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <19970812012311199439@[208.18.161.137]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>
> >> Shoulda fried him when they had the chance!
> >>
>
> And yet, study after study has shown that the death penalty has no
> deterrant effect whatsoever. In OHIO, (standard disclaimer) a death
> penalty trial costs upwards of 1 million dollars. Maintaining a prisoner
> on death row, IN OHIO, costs approximately $80,000 a year !
>
Of course it doesn't deter crime. When someone is given the death
penalty and then never executed there is no reason for it to deter
anyone. If it costs $80,000/year to keep an inmate on death row, which
I have no doubt that it does, then let's give them a maximum of one year
for all appeals. After which time the execution would take place. This
would probably start to have an effect on deterrence and also save
taxpayers a lot of money, and open up bed space.
> I also, in my opinion, have a problem with the death penalty. The Bible
RevJimS
In article <19970812012311199439@[208.18.161.137]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>> Shoulda fried him when they had the chance!
>>
And yet, study after study has shown that the death penalty has no
deterrant effect whatsoever. In OHIO, (standard disclaimer) a death
penalty trial costs upwards of 1 million dollars. Maintaining a prisoner
on death row, IN OHIO, costs approximately $80,000 a year !
I also, in my opinion, have a problem with the death penalty. The Bible
states, very clearly, God's Commandment that "Thou shall not kill." It
does NOT say "Thou shall not kill unless convicted by a jury of one's
peers, and having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Killing is
killing, whether or not it is done by Joe Schmoe, or by the state. I do
not know of an alternative solution other than life imprisonment, which is
not cost effective, and has many drawbacks of its own.
Rev. James M. Sutter, D.D., D.B., C.P.M.
cn
RevJimS <rev...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <5stm3e$4...@cletus.bright.net>, zoffo <zo...@bright.net> writes:
>
> >The death penalty doesnt work because it is not used. If you got the death
> >Penalty and that very day it was carried out. It would be a deterent. But
> >bleeding hearts
> > let them do appeal after appeal and 20 years later a million dollars are
> >spent.
> > A bullet costs about 25 cents. or lethal injection maybe a couple hundred
> >lots less then keeping
> >a inmate locked up for years.
> > Just my thoughts zoffo
>
> But even where the death penalty is used very often, as in Texas, it has
> not been shwon to be a deterrant to violent crime.
>
Maybe not, but it sure in hell keeps that inmate from committing any
more crimes, in or out of prison.
FreedomLink, Inc.
One point I would like to make in regard to this thread:
Parole Boards, for the most part, and in most states, are merely puppets
for the Governor of that state. In CA., Gov. Wilson made the statement he
thought was politically correct, meaning that he assumed it was what voters
wanted, when he said NO lifer would get parole while he is in office. So,
when the Board appears for a parole hearing of a lifer ( and I refer to the
infamous as well as the unknown), their determination to deny parole is
already formed before they get there. The commissioners will deny this of
course, but all one needs to do is watch a CA. parole hearing on Court TV,
and this is quite obvious.
Parole hearings are supposed to be conducted to judge parole suitability,
not to retry the crime. In the cases I've dealt with, retrying the crime is
ALL they do.
B. Allen <dig...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<33F147...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > Well, I hope for your sake that a member of your family is never
> > murdered by one of these dudes, because I suspect you might change your
> > tune considerably. For me, I want the criteria to be, "You did the
> > crime, now do the time". Period. Basta. Oh, I know, the apologists
> > (RAG, Hilty, et al) will bemoan this as "simplistic" and "unscientific"
> > but I think we've already seen where their foolishness has led us over
> > the past 30+ years.
> >
> > C. Cole
>
> I am not a skilled writer and did not express my ideas very well. Let
> me try again with a different example.
>
> Suppose two bicycle thieves had been sentanced to the maximum of 2 years
> to life and both were up for parole. One bike thief had worked hard and
> got an education, got married, had the promise of a job and appeared to
> be a good candidate for parole. The other bike thief had done nothing
> to improve himself, had become involved in gang activity and, though had
> committed no infractions, was not a good candidate for parole.
>
> Suppose further that the first bike thief was hated by his community
> because he stole the bike of a very popular person. The community came
> out en masse to protest his parole. The second bike thief was a virtual
> unknown and no one came to protest his parole.
>
> Question: Who would be more likely to get paroled? Who should be more
> likely to get parole.
>
> I think most parole boards would parole the second bike thief and not
> the first. I would rather that they look to a broad public purpose than
> the narrow concerns of a few.
>
> Now if either one of them had stolen MY bike, I would want the Parole
> Board to rip their legs off as a condition of parole. Maybe those bike
> thieves would think twice then before they stole another bike.
>
>
RevJimS
>The death penalty doesnt work because it is not used. If you got the death
>Penalty and that very day it was carried out. It would be a deterent. But
>bleeding hearts
> let them do appeal after appeal and 20 years later a million dollars are
>spent.
> A bullet costs about 25 cents. or lethal injection maybe a couple hundred
>lots less then keeping
>a inmate locked up for years.
> Just my thoughts zoffo
But even where the death penalty is used very often, as in Texas, it has
not been shwon to be a deterrant to violent crime.
cn
RevJimS <rev...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <19970814190805104717@[208.18.161.136]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>
> >>
> >> But even where the death penalty is used very often, as in Texas, it has
> >> not been shwon to be a deterrant to violent crime.
> >>
> >Maybe not, but it sure in hell keeps that inmate from committing any
> >more crimes, in or out of prison.
> >
> >
>
> But is it an effective use of our tax dollars ? And how can we justify
> what is basically state sanctioned murder of the inmate ? (I had this same
> discussion this afternoon with my senior pastor who is in favor of the
> death penalty). The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill", period, end of
> story. Just as the inmate killed (if that's his offense), the state then
> kills the inmate. Is murder any less heinous just because it's state
> sanctioned ? Is it any less a sin because the judge said the inmate gets
> to die ? I don't claim to have an answer for this, in my personal opinion
> the death penalty is wrong, but I don't have a viable alternative. This
> issue does cause a lot of spirited discussions amoung the clergy. Oh,
> well, if only it was a perfect world.....
>
>
Personally, I'd much rather have my tax dollars going towards the
execution, of those who have been convicted and sentenced to death, than
towards housing, feeding, medicating, and coddleing for years and years.
Someone said that it costs around $80,000 per year to keep a convict on
death row. A .357 round of ammunition cost less than a dollar. Sounds
like quite a savings to me.
RevJimS
In article <1997081509515833721@[208.18.161.137]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>Personally, I'd much rather have my tax dollars going towards the
>execution, of those who have been convicted and sentenced to death, than
>towards housing, feeding, medicating, and coddleing for years and years.
>Someone said that it costs around $80,000 per year to keep a convict on
>death row. A .357 round of ammunition cost less than a dollar. Sounds
>like quite a savings to me.
>
>
OK, but then how do we reconcile with "Thou shalt not kill" ?
cn
RevJimS <rev...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1997081509515833721@[208.18.161.137]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>
> >Personally, I'd much rather have my tax dollars going towards the
> >execution, of those who have been convicted and sentenced to death, than
> >towards housing, feeding, medicating, and coddleing for years and years.
> >Someone said that it costs around $80,000 per year to keep a convict on
> >death row. A .357 round of ammunition cost less than a dollar. Sounds
> >like quite a savings to me.
> >
> >
>
> OK, but then how do we reconcile with "Thou shalt not kill" ?
>
>
>
> Rev. James M. Sutter, D.D., D.B., C.P.M.
I see nothing to reconcile. For I place more emphasis on common sense
and economics than I do on quotes from your bible.
RevJimS
In article <19970817015954330502@[208.18.161.132]>, c...@cn.com (cn) writes:
>I see nothing to reconcile. For I place more emphasis on common sense
>and economics than I do on quotes from your bible.
>
Actually, it's mankind's Bible, or God's Bible, depending on how one looks
at it. If you do not care about the consequences of disobeying God's
commandments, that is your choice, and, hopefully, you understand the
potential consequences.
Rev. James M. Sutter, D.D., D.B., C.P.M.
jabba...@gmail.com
The biggest benefit to the death penalty is the fact that the victims families will have peace of mind knowing the one who murdered their loved one is gone from this earth forever, and they can now focus on living as normal a life as possible without worrying if the murderer will ever be paroled & set loose again. THAT is justice....well...as best as it can be arranged