Serial Killers Reach Out From Death Row Via the Internet
By Jay Reeves associated press for The Cincinnati Enquirer

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.- Mary Kate Gach thought she had heard the last of Jack Trawick when he went to dreath row for murdering her daughter in 1992.
Instead, Trawick's twisted writings about how he beat, strangled and stabbed Stephanie Gach and killed other women are available to anyone who wants to read them on the Internet. Many of the writings were put there by a one-time pen pal and admirer of Trawick's.
The killer even taunts Mary Kate Gach by name.
"I'm mad as hell," she said. "Those people don't even have a right to speak my name or my child's name. There's got to be a way to keep them from funneling this stuff out of prisons."

Posted by intermediaries

Around the country, dozens of U.S. death row inmates have gotten their letters and artwork posted on the Internet, a practice that torments the victims' grieving friends and relatives.
"It's going on all over," said Nancy Ruhe, executive director of Parents of Murdered Children in Cincinnati. "People say to me all the time, 'When are these (victims) going to get over it?' They can't."
Experts say little can be done about Web sites featuring the writings of killers.
"It's the First Amendment," Ruhe acknowledged.
Typically, material from inmates makes it onto the Internet through an intermediary. Prisoners send letters to people or companies on the outside, where it is then posted online.
Alabama prison officials say it appears Trawick stopped sending out new stories about murder after Gach's mother and other complained last year. But Trawick's old writings are still on the Web, along with gruesome drawings of murdered women.
In one letter posted on the Internet, Trawick reveled in the Gach slaying. "I would do the whole thing again knowing death row was waiting for me," Trawick, 56, wrote from Holman Prison.
Trawick confessed to kidnapping Gach, 21, from a Birmingham area shopping mall in 1992. He took her to an isolated area, where he beat her with a hammer, strangled her and stabbed her through the heart. Gach's body was thrown off an embankment, where it was found the next day. Trawick was convicted in 1994, and he was convicted the next year in the slaying of Aileen Pruitt, 27, killed about four months before Gach.
Trawick has yet to exhaust his appeals, and no date for his execution has been set.

'Bad opinions not a crime'

Free-speech protections prevent prison officials from blocking inmates' outgoing mail unless it presents a security risk or involves a crime in progress, said Amy Fettig, an attorney in Washington with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project.
"Just saying nasty things or having bad opinions is not a crime," she said.
In one test of inmates' rights, a federal judge in May struck down as unconstitutional an Arizona law that made it illegal for state inmates to send out material to be posted on Web sites. The judge ruled the law was not "rationally related to legitimate penological objectives."
In Alabama, Gach and other victims' relatives met with the state prisoner commissioner last year to protest inmate Web sites. Trawick's mail was screened extra closely for a time, but his writings have appeared in new postings in recent weeks.

_________________________________________________

Here's my opinion upfront:

When tried, convicted and sent to jail...you have FORFEITED your rights. The only rights you have are the basic human rights: the right to food, shelter, and to not get your butt beat.

A prisoner is removed from society, the jail is a place outside of society. That is the point of jail: to remove an undesirable person from society either permanately or until they can become rehabilitated.

The other point to imprisoning a person is to make sure they do NOT hurt others. That's why they're there! To be prevented from causing injury to others.

I don't believe the First Amendment applies to prisoners. You are being punished for your crimes. Society tried you and found you wanting, and as a result of your crimes you are sentenced to living a life outside and separated from society.

Some of you may say that you can't do that, that a person is a person is a person.

You're right...prisoners are people...people who committed a crime like smashing another person's head in with a hammer.

And now that victim's family is being forced to be reminded of what happened to their child over and over again. Their daughter's picture is on the internet...drawings of her death are on the internet put there by her murderer with the intention of boasting about the deed and to encourage others in thinking that this type of activity is "worth it". Their names are posted on the internet, and they most likely get mail about the site all the time. This is a type of injury.

Whose right here deserves the most to be honored? The inmate's right to benefit from the murder (other inmates write books and sell them talking about how they did it and why and how you can do it) or the victim's family and friend's right to protect and shelter their loved one's memory and bring a certain amount of justice and dignity to their violent death?

:edited to correct spelling mistakes and to clarify a point:

in my opinion, anyone has a right to get his opinion heard. It doesn't matter that a death row inmate's opinion might be offensive. I could describe someone else's murder from police reports, and I could gloat over it even if I didn't commit the murder. the relatives would certainly be offended. If I have the right to describe a murder (even speaking as if I were the murderer... as long as I called it fiction) why can't the real murderer do it? he's not getting any meaningful profit because he's stuck in prison til he dies. yeah it may be sick, but the option remains for anyone who doesn't want to hear it not to listen. would I speak differently if it were one of my own relatives? nahh... I'd still admit the legal rights of the inmate. if he weren't on death row, I might bypass the legal system and have him killed (if he really offended me for some reason) and of course face the consequences of that action, but if he were on death row I wouldn't let it bother me. I mean he's only got another decade or so to live :kundor:

I understand that people have the right to say whatever they will. And you as unconvicted criminal (double meaning??? perhaps...:mischief: :lol:) still retain your rights under the First Amendment.

My point is that once you are rejected by society from society you lose all rights and priveleges under that society; excluding basic human rights. And any right under the First Amendment should also be striped from you because you have been proven irresponsible to the extreme.

My other point is that this convicted criminal who admits straight-up to this murder and others with PRIDE is causing undue pain to the victim's families and friends. It's pain they should not have to go through. Consider it compensation. You killed this loved one, now you go sit in your rat hole and shut the f*** up.

This type of thing goes way beyond "offensive". "Offensive" is too mild a term here.

The family also may not have the option to "not hear it". As I said, they most likely get reminded of it everyday by whackos who write to them asking for details or something. And think about if the victim was your daughter. You said you would not be upset enough to agree with me and my side...but think if it was your daughter who was kidnapped and brutally killed. And then her murderer helps design a site dedicated to her demise and glorifying it. Would you not want them to stop? Would you not find it upsetting that drawings of your dead or near dead daughter was being put up by her murderer or by people who ADMIRE her murderer and being seen by people who do not see her as somebody's daughter-your daughter-but as some bitch who deserves to die worse than an animal?

Is that not disrespectful of the dead? Is that not painful? Is that fair? Just? Is it morally correct to put a murderer's right to boast about your dead daughter before your right to have your daughter's past life and memory carefully perserved and respected? Is it morally correct to put other people's pleasures being satisfied by looking at drawings and reading articles all about her violent death before your right to heal?

I find it disgusting enough that jails and prisons are being turned into boarding homes and places that people purposefully commit crimes to get in to without putting a self-admitted serial murder's "rights" before decent, average day people's rights.

but think of the implications of taking the 1st amendment from convicted criminals! it takes away the right of a wrongly convicted man to defend his innocence.

:hmm2:

:lol:

restricting a prisoner's mail from sending out things about their crimes to unknown people hardly keeps them from appealing their case ;).

Fine, I'll amend my statement: they should be restricted from discussing their crimes with unofficial peoples but may retain the right to discuss their crimes with people such as lawyers, judges, juries, etc.

edit: I really...lol...made an amusing statement there...heh...it's fixed now.

well then you're restricting free press :unsure:

it allows someone to be put to death without the public seeing that it's justified.

in any case, prisoners don't "forfit rights" as far as contact with the outside world goes. complete isolation would fit into the category of cruel and unusual.

I'm not calling for complete isolation. I know that in order to ensure the security guards' and the other inmates' safety, the prison system must allow some kind of a break such as contact with family and friends or catching some news on tv or something.

And I am not restricting the free press. As long as the courtroom's doors are not closed to media and observers then the "free press" can report on whatever they like as long as their public retains interest. Also, as long as the defendant and victim are not minors (and in this case neither were) then the case must be made public upon request. Although I am told that there are rare instances where the judge closes doors and files...um...but I don't know in which instances, so don't quote me.

Anyway, I should also make clear my stance on the Death Penalty: I am against it with what i think are logical and sound reasons.

I'm not going to bother to read this whole thread, but I'd just like to point out that if we censored the writings of people in prisons, then the theories of Thoreau, a basis of modern American social structure, and the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr, could never have occured. Both instigated radical social change while they were in prison -- it's easy to argue that they shouldn't have been in prison, but until the social change they instigated happened, nobody would have said that.

<urge to ban Kundor...rising...>

Actually, I may decide to just delete your post. If you read the thread you would find that my argument is against a MURDERER being able to inflict further pain and suffering on the victim's family and friends.

Thoreau and MLK Jr were not murderers and their letters were not written to attack any ONE person or to cause pain and suffering. Their time in jail was political and their messages were ones of peace.

Their call for radical social change should never have landed them in jail b/c they were covered by the First Amendment. A murder is NOT covered by the First Amendment and it is correct to put a person into jail for a murder.

The point is still perfectly valid. There's no way to prove that anyone deserves to be where they've been jailed, beyond what judges have decided -- and if they have a valid argument to change that, it needs to be heard. They WERE put in jail for perfectly valid reasons -- at the time. Whether they're a murderer or not, which 13 times out of 13 death row inmates turned out NOT to be in illinois, they can have important things to say.

Nobody is forcing the family of victims to read this stuff. And criminals being willing to detail exactly what they did is rare and to be valued -- honesty can greatly help law enforcement in this case and in future ones.

Nick, the fact that you can equate a brutal murder with 2 social revolutionist's messages of peace is outstanding. Any letter sent out by MLK Jr. and Thoreau would not cause pain on level with the pain associated with being reminded of a loved one's violent death.

Also, the laws that were in place then are different from now-moreso in Thoreau's case. While a person can still be sent to jail for refusing to pay taxes I doubt many people would be offended or injured if that person were to write news letters about why they did it. Because the letters were not personal. They were targeting the government. They were making statements about present day politics and social norms. Which is and should always be protected under the First Amendment.

A murder of an innocent woman is not a statement about present day politics and social norms. Not any rational ones anyway.

I understand that people even today get sent to jail for making political statements but that is not relevant to this discussion. Those people didn't commit a crime on level with murder so the case could be argued in their favor as long as they didn't do something stupid like burn a cross in somebody's yard.

So, please...pick a more reasonable example with which to compare this situation with. It's like trying to prove that a towel is wet by showing the that the cats have been fed. No relation.

And nobody is forcing the family? You are obviously not well acquainted with the world of sickos. And you are obviously not well acquainted with the idea of people bringing reality a little bit closer.

Do you know that after national disasters that result in violent deaths like the Oklahoma City Bombing or 9-11 or any other well documented by way of tv or such sensational stories that there are whack jobs out there *and if you reply with another "i didn't read that and I won't" i'll delete your post because this is a discussion and you are not being respectful to it or me or Omi who have read everything and considered everything and based everything we say on the relevant information* who take pleasure in contacting families and friends involved and getting in on the pain? They feed off of it b/c it causes them pleasure. That's the mark of serial killers. For some it's not the actual killing that is the real pleasure, although they do enjoy it...the process and care and the feeling of mortality vs. their own "immortality"...but the pain, confusion, havoc, fear and suffering their killings cause.

So they send letters. Create websites. Make phone calls. Get press spots and taunt the families over national television. Write books. True, the families don't have to open any mail that isn't bills or from people they don't know. They can find out when and where the murderer will be on tv or in the newspapers or wherever so that they can avoid him. But that's not healing and that is not moving on. Each avoidance, each try at avoiding just brings up the pain and sense of loss all over again. That murderer is prolonging their pain and suffering.

That family has to live knowing that sickos have pictures of their daughter on the internet where people can celebrate and take pleasure from her death. And that the drawings and writings are coming from the man who took her away from them. He took her LIFE. And you think it's okay for him to reach celebrity status amongst certain individuals based off of what he did to her.

The law cannot control what others get a hold of and what they say, but the law is supposed to spare people undue pain. And the law is failing in this case. That man killed her. The least the world could do for that family is to make sure he never hurts anyone again.

There are ways that he can be honest other than emotionally captializing on the murder that he committed.

1) The man committed the murder
2) because he admitted it
3) and he provided evidence
4)and again: restricting an inmate's discussions to things not specifically related to the crime and to not discussing it with people other than authorities, lawyers, judges, juries, counselors, psychiatrist/psychologist, etc will in no way inhibit their chance of getting any information that may help them out.

It is not necessary or critical to that man's future by drawing pictures of the dead woman and how he enjoyed it and would do it again and then sending it off to some random person to post on the internet.

That man will never get an appeal.

To wrap up, I'd like to repeat one of my original statements: When somebody commits a crime that is seen as repulsive by society such as murder, rape, etc. then they automatically forfeit their rights of that society. I would say the rights given to human beings but that would contradict what I said about every person deserving basic human rights, regardless. Anyway, to revoke rights is a punishment. If you are a serial killer like Trawick up there, you are being punished. You will not be rehabilitated. You will not get out on parole. You will not enjoy a jacuzzi in Reno with 2 hookers and an ice cream sundae. You will sit in your cell and pay with your life the life you took.

That's not fair, you say? You reap what you sow. Ask Gach's daughter if what he did to her was fair. He gets to keep his life, though, for much longer than she did her's.

Merin, that's ridiculous. society can see any crime as terrible. a person can be wrongly convicted. oddly enough, if you take away someone's right to describe his or her crime from prison you'd actually be outlawing confessions :kundor:

the problem is that the justice system cannot be specific enough to censor only harmful speech. try to write out the wording of a law to do that right here. I will then point out all sorts of potentially positive things it would outlaw and potentially negative things it would permit :hmm: Once you start censoring things, it's pretty damn hard to make the process stop where it has to. a pretty clear example of similar legislation gone horribly wrong is Canada's effort to outlaw "hate speech"

edit: describing a crime to the media may be necessary if your description differs significantly from the official one, for instance, and casts some major doubt on how correct the sentencing of the trial really was. in this instance, I would argue that any criminal has the right to try to raise some public outrage in his favor. if he really gets any would depend on the exact situation, of course.

It would be easy to censor. No information about the crime is allowed to leave the jail unless it is going to official peoples. If the criminal wants to raise public awareness they can do so through their lawyer. Or, if they want to they can get a reporter in under a Judge's ruling as long as guidelines are set...guidelines including enforcing good taste. Meaning, the reporter is not allowed to record excessive things like all the pleasure the killer got from the crime. A simple comment like "he doesn't regret it" would suffice. Kundor would object to that saying what the criminal is saying is important to the world and should be "valued". The only people who would value those words are maniacs and profilers whose job it is to pick through the brains of these kinds of people to prevent future crimes or at least to help pin other killers. And those "valued" words do not have to be found on a website. They can be obtained in other ways.

Now, if you want to argue that a good number of people in jails are issued crappy lawyers who won't honor their client's wishes, you can ;). In which case I'd have to forward my opinion that I think state issued lawyers are a joke and should be brought up on criminal charges if it can be proven that they did not take the job professionally and pretty much mishandled it. Or at least shoot for a mistrial.

But again...the point of jails is to keep convicted people from hurting other people. And the jail is failing in this. The jail and system is allowing this convicted person to continue hurting people. I can't say much for people not in jail wanting to write about such crimes as though they were examples of high living...all I can say is that it's disgusting and I hope they die young :s...or at least soon :P.