Just because a crime was committed many years ago doesn't make it any less heinous, right? That's the question a judge in Wisconsin is likely currently considering while hearing the case of 76-year-old Ruby Klokow, who was charged with second-degree murder in the 1957 death of her 6-month old daughter, Jeaneen. Klokow's crime was unknown until her son came forward in 2008 with horrible stories of childhood abuse. It's enough to make your skin crawl ...
Klokow has pleaded no contest, and she could serve 45 days in jail and 10 years' probation in the girls' death. I KNOW -- you're probably thinking, That's all? (And isn't that what LiLo and Paris Hilton served for much more minor offenses?!) And yet, Klokow's attorney seems to want to get his client out of just that.
District Attorney Joe De Cecco says her advanced age and health are factors that should be considered when looking at the recommended plea deal. Plus, he says, Klokow is remorseful and "dealing with a lot of heartache."
I'm sure that's the case, but that doesn't mean this woman shouldn't serve time for the crime if she is indeed found guilty. In fact, I can't understand why the possible sentence is so minor ... Yes, the crime took place almost half a century ago. But does that really matter?
In the case of something like a theft or a drunk driving incident in which no one was injured or killed, maybe I could see the court shrugging it off. But in the case of a murdered infant -- no matter when it took place -- there's NO WAY the judge can turn a blind eye. What would that say to murderers, to society? "Sure, go ahead, do the crime, and if you can hide it for a few decades, you're off the hook!" It's crazy.
Klokow's age and health is absolutely no excuse. It doesn't matter how much time has gone by ... If found guilty, she must serve hers.
Here's a news story on the case ...
Do you think Klokow should go free?
Pens, pencils, markers, etc.