There are only 2 unique characteristics to this crime story:
1. The body count in such a short time-frame.
2. The continuous exposure to tv moving image media of the central protagonsts and the case so as to constitute as a cultural event.
Beyond that, important factors have not been reviewed or understood.
1. Child killers, inclduing females, are not a unique phenomina in the USA. In fact there are 100s of cases of juveniles tried and found guilty of murder.
2. Juveniles tried as adults for gun related crimes is very common across the US. Is it right ? Many would say no, it's a distorted form of gun control, where juveniles are tried as children for almost every other crime they commit.
3. Being found guilty of first degree murder by association within a homicide context but where you did not actually commit the homicide itself is far from unique, being common in many states in the US. Is it fair ? Many would say no, but still it prevails.
4. The sentence of lfe without the possiblity of parole for juveniles was common for homicide related crimes until 2016, when the supreme court ruled it unlawful. However, the review of all existing cases has not seen a blanket application of parole applied to juveniles tried before 2016. In many conservative southern states, the now obligatory review of such cases typically finds the guilty party not suitable for parole at review. In some states this finding has been as high as 80%.
With those 4 important observations stated, lets now look at the case of Caril Ann Fugate as re-visited in this documentary:
1. Caril Ann Fugate's sentence compared to many juveniles across the US and considering the killing spree she witnessed had a high body count and also included her entire family; is actually very lean. She was granted life with parole, during a progressive era of prison reform and never served a full life term.
2. The documentary repeatedly incorrectly states that if this crime has occured today she would have been treated differently but this is entirely untrue. The only difference is that it would not have occured as a media event from inception. As with all other juveniles commiting similar offences today, she could have been tried as an adult and for first degree murder by association with the event context. In fact, given the extreme nature of the murder spree, she may well have been given 2 life sentences and the possibility of parole may have been subject to an extreme delay or rejection upon review.
Other points to observe: 1. Caril Ann Fugate is not different from any other notorious criminal exposed to the media, in that she has used it to court and manipulate it to her own interests. What's apparent is that Caril Ann Fugate is primarily obsessed with her own guilt. She sees the laws as about her own injustice alone. She alters the narrative repeatedly over time. She amplifies the original Folie a Deux M. O. which was one of a desire to manifest an absolute sense of freedom in the face of the status quo. By then end of the documentary the seeking of a pardon is exactly that sentiment made manifest a 2nd time.
The question here is why would have Caril Ann Fugate qualified for a pardon when many in her situation and who recieve worse sentences do not ? What is the pardon for exactly, given the manner in which the law continues to exist ?
The documentary is uncannily unspecific in exacting what the argument being applied is. A post me-too lens is evoked suggesting a degree of total innocence buy lieu of the fact she was an under aged female subject to an extreme form of male control and abuse. But a folie a deux dynamic is also evident and at a prior point both culprits were equally qualified as juveniles widely acknowldged by their community as in a lawful relationship.
Caril Ann Fugate was tried and given, in the end and relative to similar like her, a light sentence for the moral failure of not acting to appeal, intervene or place herself in any kind of compromising position in the face of acting as witness to a brutal string of murders.
Would every 14 year old girl in the same position have been so passive ? This is the primary question and the judgement in the end decides the answer is no. Fugate's choices and degree of culpability were to an extent unique to her. Every one is different and another in the same place may have saught to intervene. It's a horrible dilemma and clearly one Caril Ann Fugate was never able to come to terms with.
What this documentary failed to do was reframe the entire media circus in a historical examination and compare the case to similar in the US. It should have argued that the law continues to be applied in the same state and distort the nature of culpability and then promoted a debate for reform.
Instead the series simply continued with the media circus, spinning it through yet another round of self obsessed insularity which in the end argued that Caril Ann Fugate had no culpability.
Such a conclusion is simply the logical outcome of an endless playing out of criminal judgement as cultural entertainment, where all reason becomes fogged and the accused is given a controlling voice to re-shape the narrative.
Caril Ann Fugate had degree of culpability and was tried, as many others still are, by the law as it existed then across the US and still does today. The time she served was far less than many like her served since the events of the case.
It's a travesty of intellect that still after 70 years of media exposure, the real issue of the state and terms of the law as it is applied across the USA is still not subject to a wider public debate.
2. The continuous exposure to tv moving image media of the central protagonsts and the case so as to constitute as a cultural event.
Beyond that, important factors have not been reviewed or understood.
1. Child killers, inclduing females, are not a unique phenomina in the USA. In fact there are 100s of cases of juveniles tried and found guilty of murder.
2. Juveniles tried as adults for gun related crimes is very common across the US. Is it right ? Many would say no, it's a distorted form of gun control, where juveniles are tried as children for almost every other crime they commit.
3. Being found guilty of first degree murder by association within a homicide context but where you did not actually commit the homicide itself is far from unique, being common in many states in the US. Is it fair ? Many would say no, but still it prevails.
4. The sentence of lfe without the possiblity of parole for juveniles was common for homicide related crimes until 2016, when the supreme court ruled it unlawful. However, the review of all existing cases has not seen a blanket application of parole applied to juveniles tried before 2016. In many conservative southern states, the now obligatory review of such cases typically finds the guilty party not suitable for parole at review. In some states this finding has been as high as 80%.
With those 4 important observations stated, lets now look at the case of Caril Ann Fugate as re-visited in this documentary:
1. Caril Ann Fugate's sentence compared to many juveniles across the US and considering the killing spree she witnessed had a high body count and also included her entire family; is actually very lean. She was granted life with parole, during a progressive era of prison reform and never served a full life term.
2. The documentary repeatedly incorrectly states that if this crime has occured today she would have been treated differently but this is entirely untrue. The only difference is that it would not have occured as a media event from inception. As with all other juveniles commiting similar offences today, she could have been tried as an adult and for first degree murder by association with the event context. In fact, given the extreme nature of the murder spree, she may well have been given 2 life sentences and the possibility of parole may have been subject to an extreme delay or rejection upon review.
Other points to observe: 1. Caril Ann Fugate is not different from any other notorious criminal exposed to the media, in that she has used it to court and manipulate it to her own interests. What's apparent is that Caril Ann Fugate is primarily obsessed with her own guilt. She sees the laws as about her own injustice alone. She alters the narrative repeatedly over time. She amplifies the original Folie a Deux M. O. which was one of a desire to manifest an absolute sense of freedom in the face of the status quo. By then end of the documentary the seeking of a pardon is exactly that sentiment made manifest a 2nd time.
The question here is why would have Caril Ann Fugate qualified for a pardon when many in her situation and who recieve worse sentences do not ? What is the pardon for exactly, given the manner in which the law continues to exist ?
The documentary is uncannily unspecific in exacting what the argument being applied is. A post me-too lens is evoked suggesting a degree of total innocence buy lieu of the fact she was an under aged female subject to an extreme form of male control and abuse. But a folie a deux dynamic is also evident and at a prior point both culprits were equally qualified as juveniles widely acknowldged by their community as in a lawful relationship.
Caril Ann Fugate was tried and given, in the end and relative to similar like her, a light sentence for the moral failure of not acting to appeal, intervene or place herself in any kind of compromising position in the face of acting as witness to a brutal string of murders.
Would every 14 year old girl in the same position have been so passive ? This is the primary question and the judgement in the end decides the answer is no. Fugate's choices and degree of culpability were to an extent unique to her. Every one is different and another in the same place may have saught to intervene. It's a horrible dilemma and clearly one Caril Ann Fugate was never able to come to terms with.
What this documentary failed to do was reframe the entire media circus in a historical examination and compare the case to similar in the US. It should have argued that the law continues to be applied in the same state and distort the nature of culpability and then promoted a debate for reform.
Instead the series simply continued with the media circus, spinning it through yet another round of self obsessed insularity which in the end argued that Caril Ann Fugate had no culpability.
Such a conclusion is simply the logical outcome of an endless playing out of criminal judgement as cultural entertainment, where all reason becomes fogged and the accused is given a controlling voice to re-shape the narrative.
Caril Ann Fugate had degree of culpability and was tried, as many others still are, by the law as it existed then across the US and still does today. The time she served was far less than many like her served since the events of the case.
It's a travesty of intellect that still after 70 years of media exposure, the real issue of the state and terms of the law as it is applied across the USA is still not subject to a wider public debate.