Darren Mack and the Presumption of Innocence
February 24th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: I've written about Darren Mack, who stands accused of murder and also attempted murder, on numerous occasions, including Thomas Jefferson Murdered Women? and others. I recently referred to Mack as a "despicable Nevada father who, unhappy with his family law case, stabbed and murdered his estranged wife and attempted to murder a judge."
George and Lary, two readers, are unhappy with some of what I've written. George writes:
"You have judged Darren Mack before any trial. As a published journalist for profit you have acted in the most sensational manner in reckless disregard for fairness. The time to condemn Mr. Mack is after the trial, not before, even if he is convicted. You were once a history teacher [but] you ignore the fundamental right of presumed innocence...you need to take a look at the yellow journalism which you seem to be practicing."
Lary writes:
"According to all the actual news reports that are publicly available, Darren Mack is accused of murder and attempted murder. He has neither been tried or convicted in either case yet...Regardless of personal feelings on a subject, one should maintain a level of objectivity to prevent disseminating false information...Please adjust your articles to present accurate information. It is still quite possible to disassociate yourself or present your dissatisfaction with an action or set of actions without presenting the unproven as fact."
Like many, George and Lary misunderstand the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a legal right--it has little to do with how I, an opinion columnist, am supposed to judge him. I've little doubt that Darren Mack committed the crimes I've mentioned. If it somehow turns out that he is innocent, I will of course correct myself and apologize. News stories will say a crime is "alleged" until there's a conviction, but I'm not a news reporter, I'm a columnist. I go with the best evidence, and the best evidence is that Mack is guilty.
"));
19 queries. 0.368 seconds.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:09 am
It doesn't matter how bad things were for Mack with respect to his pending divorce and its consequences. It doesn't matter that a small fraction of the men facing divorce will do what he did. (I believe that a higher percentage commit suicide.)
When you commit 1st degree murder, you should (at least) go to prison for the rest of your life.
I personally do not like the death penalty under any circumstances because I believe that the justice system is imperfect. Even if the justice system "gets it right" 99% of the time, how many executions does it take before the probability is 50% that a legally-guilty, but actually-innocent person is executed? The death penalty is also unevenly applied and its efficacy as a means of deterrence and as a means of closure for victims' families is debatable.
If society decides to ban executions of criminals, many issues go away. If you are going to execute people, why shouldn't their organs be harvested? Borderline cases regarding the age and state of mind of the criminal are no longer issues. Potential changes in the criminal after the murder are no longer an issue. (Currently, the truly remorseful are still executed, while a sociopath who suffers severe brain damage because he was beat up while in custody, is not.)
I do respect other opinions on this issue, however.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Ok, so the guy is a slimeball, for illustrative purposes.
When is the literati going to understand the "risk premium" that current laws have built in? Normal humans can snap, when backed into a corner, with no way out. Most are suicides, but some, like Lee Malvo and John whatshisname, will go nuts, and folks will die.
No thanks to the Tacoma-Pierce County YWCA, who counseled his wife......to claim DV, and take his kid away.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:29 am
"Normal humans can snap, when backed into a corner, with no way out. "
He's not normal. IMO, policy should not be based on extreme cases like this, but it is.
Most parents are competent and should not have more than half custody taken away from them by elected government officials. However, some mothers get away with a claim that the father is dangerous and could "snap." Even without evidence, some judges prefer to "err on the side of caution" and take more than half custody away from a parent that they know little about. Nevermind that statistics show that the safety of children would increase by giving more custody to fathers.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
And this is what should be the uniting effort of this column, that the current laws are driving some men to this madness. Government has zero place in the lives of a family.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:24 am
If others do not understand presumtion of innocence. You do not understand evidence. If the police and media "say it" ,that does not mean it is evidence.
Defense attorney's for decades have complained about police and DA trying a case in the media while they are silenced by a gag order. Planting evidence seeding the media is taught at the police academy. The media Shoving the presumtion of innocence into a dark hole has become big sport for many. Considering the assualt on men and fathers I believe Mack derserves a very wide presumtion.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Hate to say I agree with these comments Glenn. Since when are the police to be trusted? Give the man his day in court.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Perhaps Glenn is trying to be politically correct, but I believe his point that Darren Mack should automatically be put away for life could be a bit misplaced (and unjust). Specifically, the argument ignores two rules of society and humanity:
1) The legal concept of insanity (even if temporary) ... although I agree that killing others should be punished with ultimate severity, even though it would never be considered psychologically "normal", why should that apply only to men? Would a mother be jailed for life, for killing her husband in a fit of rage (or would she be eligible for parole in ten years, like Clara Harris)? What is the legal and moral standard that suggests that women are "pushed over the edge", while men are merely "violent" and "indifferent"?
2) "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose" (according to one semi-great sixties philosopher, who happened to be a woman). Speaking of being "pushed over the edge", when might that apply to men? Could legal sexism be contributing to such psychological distress?
It seems that most respondents here have bumped up against similar issues of equality. Perhaps affirmative action should exist for men in family law, since they have historically received the short end of the stick. Perhaps the legal eagles should scrap the "best interests of the child" excuse, since the family courts rarely even see a child, let alone consider a child's emotional needs. Perhaps the law should support fatherhood, instead of punishing it. Perhaps the law should empower both parents, to ensure that neither one has incentive to abuse the other, or their child, whether by marginalization or by violence. With that fixed, THEN you would be in a better position to argue that the one who was unable to walk away (instead of becoming violent) deserves full punishment, including forfeiture of parental rights, regardless of gender.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Effin' brilliant, Mike. Eloquent, and spot on, unlike our host, who sometimes "manginas-out" on us, so that he can get his sheyt published by the MSM.
I would rather be like the early day feminists, who did a little bomb throwing (Note to Homeland Security: That is a figure of speach) and beehive and anthill kickin' in order to be noticed.
The Geez
February 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
If Darren can show, as he claims, that he killed his wife with the knife with which she attacked him, then he is not guilty of first degree murder, but of a manslaughter charge. However, he should be severely punished for trying to kill the judge with a piss-ant .223, instead of using a 7 Millimeter Magnum!
March 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Wow Darren Mack, You just saved the world ( Not ). You do not represent any other Fathers
in America or any other Members of society, you represent only yourself and absolutly nobody else.
Darren Mack is just another O.J. Simpson. However this trial won't get near the attention
that O.J. got and Darren can't afford the legal team O.J. had. The simularities are that in both
cases there is a mountain of evidence showing guilt way beyond a reasonable doubt . Darren
mack is a man who was out of control, and he thought he could take the Law into his own hands. His problems
from drug use and Couple swinging amoungst many others just kept piling up to the point where no
women in the world would tolerate it. The only thing i blame his wife for is not leaving him earlier, cause
this Dude was a big Loser who was completly Waco. When they hand down the guilty verdict, the next
step is the punishment decision. His attempt to kill a Judge should automatically get him the dealth
penalty, but of course we live in a weak society so somebody will of course try to save him. Chances are we
will all have to pay big money to keep this Loser locked up for the rest of his Life. Lets just hope he dies early
from a Guilty Mind. My heart goes out to the little Girl, her mother is Dead and her Dad is a Killer. I sure hope
that she gets placed inside a family that can give her a lot Love and attention and can help guide her to have a nice
family of her own. The Hell with Darren Mack.
March 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Yes, people must be held accountable for their actions.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Hi Glenn,
Although this topic is 'old' I just read your response to those that claim you have 'jumped the gun', ie: you have already declared and found the man guilty??
Although you are correct in that the presumption of innocence is a 'legal' assumption, it should not mean to infer that you as a "columnist" should not also adhere to or hold yourself to the same identical standard. If we lived in society in which law enforcement and the judicial system (along with journalists/columnists) were never wrong, then you wouldn't have a column and none of out here would be in the positions we are in.
You, like all journalists have a following (including me) who read what you write about with the notion you are being forthright and accurate. At the first sign of 'opinion', your writings and positions become tainted. You become not much different from those who accuse us in the situations we write about.
Your position in your letter that you and your position are somehow 'different' and unlike the journalists you occupy space with, you are and should be allowed to state whatever you desire??
I find your position interesting because you accuse the Arnold Group and other advertising execs of the same position you take in this situation, that of: defensiveness and justifying your position because it benefits you......unable to admit that possible you/they are the culprit?
I enjoy reading your column, but possibly you should 'listen' to what others have to say and admit that on occassion your position is incorrect (wrong) lest you fall into the same category as those you choose to villify.
Thanks
scott uhrmann
June 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
People, please! The man is a sociopath, clearly. He wants people to pity him (a classic sociopathic trait). Also, he says he is standing up for fathers. What about standing up for his children? What kind of father who loves his children leaves them motherless? None, that's who.
Sociopaths marry and have children to have a "looking good" family. Darryl Mack clearly did this. His is also a control freak.
His family is so hypnotized by his charms that they are paying for his lawyers. It's sad.
Read "The Sociopath Next Door". It will give you a better picture of this conscienceless (sp?) man.