Delusions of the Damned

Reading about the chilling testimony of psychopath and sexual deviant Dennis Rader (he seems to enjoy being referred to by his self-dubbed, acronymic nickname so I won’t do him that honor) this week as he matter-of-factly boasted about the details of his heinous crimes inevitably causes people to wonder how such individuals can live with themselves after committing such acts. I couldn’t begin to understand what is going on inside his twisted mess of a mind, but a very good story in the SJ-R today by Sarah Antonacci reveals how other less deranged but still despicable individuals cope when faced with the consequences of their actions.

The appropriately named Doris Lush came before the judge to accept sentencing for killing a woman in a traffic accident in which a soused Lush (tautology acknowledged) ran a red light. She didn’t come to court to accept blame.

In a letter to the judge she portrays herself as a heroic figure who overcame substance abuse and now stands martyred before the court. She is a victim, in her mind, of incompetent traffic engineers, unreliable eye-witnesses, false lab reports, the health industry’s failure to define moderate when advocating the health benefits of red wine, and the victim’s disregard for vehicle safety apparatuses. This tangle of seemingly random events have conspired to take away her freedom.

I have little doubt that Lush feels that she has been wronged, with the trauma of the case contributing heavily to her warped view of reality. The trauma to her, however, wasn’t that she caused the death of another person, but that she is facing extended prison time. To some, compassion is wasted on others.

To take another, more famous case: How does O.J. manage to swing a golf club with such ease when the weight of two murders are bearing down on him? The weight isn’t there. I honestly believe that he honestly believes that he didn’t do it. The mind is a very strong thing but can be a deceptive arbitrator of truth when the facts threaten to overwhelm the individual to whom it owes allegiance. Contributing to the cause in O.J.’s case was the situation in which several very intelligent people, his attorneys, fought long and hard to convince a jury of his innocence, repeating over and over that Mr. Simpson isn’t responsible (the glove don’t fit). At some point, he believed them.

I would say that a convicted person’s denial of responsibility is inconsequential as long as justice is served. But such denials cast indignity upon the victim’s family and are seen as treasonous to the bonds of humanity by most everyone. Antonacci did a good job of demonstrating that point in her reporting and I’m sure that it stirred a lot of emotion within readers today.