Whoever gets to define words gets to control society...

Donald Moeller was convicted in 1997 of raping and killing a 9-year-old girl. Moeller was sentenced to death, in South Dakota.

Last year, Moeller filed (yet) another appeal. This time, his reasoning was, "The State's insistent use of the term predator and repeated characterization of the crime as a butchering went far beyond 'the facts surrounding the murder' ... [and its] persistent use of the terms 'predator' and 'butchered' painted a vivid picture of Mr. Moeller as a continuing threat to society and elevated the presentation of evidence beyond mere descriptions of the crime." And the example they used to illustrate the point?

[The word predator] has an interesting and rather contorted history. During the 1980s the word was used in a sexual sense in the literature of serial murder, both crime fiction and true crime, where it appears in book titles alongside phrases implying primitivism, animal savagery, stalking and hunting. Particularly influential in this regard were popular crime writers like Andrew Vacss [sic] who regularly used the word in his novels and newspaper columns, often in the context of revealing pseudo-scientific language. In a typical passage, he argued that:


Chronic sexual predators have crossed an osmotic membrane. They can't step back to the other side-our side. And they don't want to. If we don't kill them or release them, we have but one choice. Call them monsters and isolate them . . . I've spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism—an endangerment of our species. (Vachss 1993)


Moeller's appeal was denied. And if you want to read the complete filing, click here.
 •  3 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 01, 2012 04:16 Tags: child-abuse, death-row
Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by James (new)

James DeSalvo I think appeals are the only reason I don't like the death penalty. That's why I'm glad that my sister's killer took life in prison. Some of the people he killed had children. They shouldn't have to go through shit this every few years.
Personally, I have no problem with these predators being put down like roaches. Put them out of our misery.


message 2: by Andrew (new)

Andrew Vachss Andrew Vachss received a similar comment during an online chat several years ago, James. His response, we think, applies as well to your righteous comment: "I respect your grief, and even respect any desire you may have for vengeance. It's very easy for someone at a distance to pontificate. It's much harder to live the pain as you are. But that being said, there's no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. There IS evidence that the death penalty has been racially biased, economically biased, class biased, and the old adage that no one can name a rich man who was executed still holds true. But most important of all, reality is that the death penalty in America takes about 14 years to actually come into play in any given case. The death penalty has made media darlings out of serial killers. The death penalty has caused a tremendous drain of legal resourses, which could be applied to protect our children. If this humaoid to whom you refer had not been given the death penalty and simply been given life without parole, he couldn't get anyone's attention. I think when you add all this up, and you accept the reality that it's possible to make a fatal mistake, and the further reality that very few countries that are not fascist actually use the death penalty, and that many states don't, it's too much like a lottery to me to call it justice."


message 3: by James (new)

James DeSalvo Thanks. At least I was able to do some good with the anger and volunteer as a Crime Victim Advocate for victims of violent crime. Besides, I'm too old and fat to become Batman!


back to top