Chicagoist: Sliwinski Gets Off Too Easily

Mac

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:19:21 -0600

Wow, I'm glad people are ignoring this Spook character. He's lost it. Tankboy's post was nicely done. This is not a newspaper so I don't see how stripping posts of feelings of sorrow is necessary. Certainly the protestors' responses aren't devoid of feeling either. And it's not like Tankboy is doing any special pleading here. After a history of endangering other drivers (three speeding violations, which are not easy to get these days) the convict was definitely not devoid of reason. She deserved a harsher penalty. No one is calling for "blood" here, only some acknowledgment that no sentence could ever be just. One of the speakers at the victim impact statement was right when he was concerned for the safety of others when she gets out. If she endangered others before, she will do it again, given the sorry state of our psychiatric system. "She got 8 out of a possible 10 year sentence. What is everyone complaining about? ... Get over it." Actually the possible sentence was 30 ... the 10-year-limit was multiplied three times over. Yes, I can get over the injustice, and since it's a been while now my comments are probably pointless. But I resent the implication that we should all get over what happened, the crime itself.

Spook

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:58:10 -0600

Tanky has a cause!

Tankboy

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:09:20 -0600

I think the judge carries a lot of the blame for this too, so I think the idea of making sure he doesn't hold on to his bench in next election is grand.

Ferdy

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:35:40 -0600

Simple Creature - I stand corrected. I still don't think Murder 1 would have been the right charge, but reckless homicide for sure isn't enough.

johan

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:03:35 -0600

I'll go down as 'Seems a little light.' But as mentioned above, I'm not sure that much more than an additional couple years would serve any purpose. I just hope she gets the help she needs or it'll all be a complete waste.

Spook

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:49:05 -0600

From the Spook- who “always plays the race card”. It would be nice if Ta-Tank Man- and other folks -outside the three departed musicians’ immediate families could engage a real conversation about mental illness. As opposed to a hang, kill her like a cock roach, lock her body away and burn the key to ashes, mentality. It’s so many mentally sick people folk around, so instead of sounding like them, what about our resident indie leader Tank Man, and other indie leaders speaking out on this as opposed to creating a culture where men ware tight black jeans? I bet this is what these departed musicians would want. And perhaps their parents? Instead of knowing that Tank Man is ranting on an on about this women. Yea her being white and “pretty” probably helped, but does it negate the fact that she could have a very serious mental illness? And that a long jail sentence could be counter productive and a waste of tax payer’s money? I hope her “pretty” whiteness translates to her being at least a passive silent spokes person about untreated mental illness. And yea Tanky, maybe the disparity in criminal sentencing pisses you off. But you seem to have tossed this argument at us after being cornered about your incessant hateful rant. And as I can’t remember you ever writing about serious issues of miscarriages of justice, and certainly didn’t know we are neighbors, as I too live close to that other departed soul shot down on a play ground at Funston School. So did you write a formal post on Chicagoistabout it as a neighbor? Did you attend the marches? Did you thank the two cops that caught the two killers? Because it sure seems like it’s more about you bellowing angrily on behalf of the indie musician crowd as opposed to adding thing intellectually productive. Perhaps you should consider using your indie star power to establish a music scholarship named after the men, that could go to a youth at risk of getting a disproportionate sentences based on social factors outside their control if you care so much about these justice issues? But I guess to attack the women at each opportunity is easier

simplecreature

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:37:12 -0600

Ferdy: The DA charged her with First-degree murder, but the judge found her guilty of reckless homicide. The DA even tried to get her 20 years, but again the Judge mitigated and gave her less than the maximum for the reduced charged. I'm curious why this didn't go before a jury. That may be where her lawyer was most savvy. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/668272,CST-NWS-sent27.article She's getting "credit" for time she's already served as well. Seems she's getting all the breaks here. I'm not a "throw the book at them" type. But when three people die from an act of unspeakable selfishness (and a physically healthy 23 year old woman of means with access to mental healthcare at the dialing of a phone killing herself is unbelievably selfish) should be met with the full weight of the judicial system.

Ferdy

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:22:20 -0600

With all due respect, Simple Creature, the D.A. is the one toward whom you should direct your anger. The D.A. is the one who decides what charge to bring. With a maximum of 10 years, and 2 years already "served," the judge gave her the most that he could. Besides, she probably had a hell of a lawyer who ensured she couldn't be charged with Murder 1.

simplecreature

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:38:08 -0600

Everyone attacking Tankboy: Where on the Chicagoist does it say "This site will be completely nuetral in all things"? How dare the editors on this blog show any kind of personal feelings or human feeling! I come here simply to read data, no emotions, no perpspective, just give me the time, the tempature and the sunrise/sunset. Everything else is just "personal feelings". Bloody nonsense. By their very nature blogs are selective. Either by topic, geography or some other variable. You're getting a slice of what the editors find interesting. If you don't agree or think there's another side, you're more than welcome to start your own blog, that's the beauty of the system. Unlike newspapers or tv stations, the tools of production in right there under your fingertips. So coming in and carping that Tankboy is in the wrong for his choice and words in posting is missing the point of blogging entirely. Agree or disagree, but don't simply say that he's wrong for choosing to speak on the topic. That's nonsense. This woman murdered three young, talented men who had nothing to do with her madnesss. She wanted to die and for that I feel terrible for her. Depression is a horrid and ugly mental illness I've experienced and gone through with loved ones. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, cliche as that sounds. But when I felt like ending it all, I got help. When a friend of mine tried to take her life, she took a bottle of painkillers. Neither of us got in a car, chose to drive around the city and look for a chance to drive into on-coming traffic. She made a number of choices long before she got in that car, choices that she should be held accountable for, and eight years is a paltry amount of time considering those choices. This judge should be ashamed of himself and when 2008 elections come up I'll be damn sure his rival gets my vote.

huckeyes

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:05:03 -0600

Oh, I read it, even the part where you say-"Plus, I purposely kept the post above short, because I think the focus should be on the length of the sentence, and not my personal feelings." And then I reread this part from the original post "...but suffice it to say that we think this sentence is pitiful." And then I counted 2 whole sentences on the post, and realized that HALF of it is on YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS even though you say you dont want the post to be on your personal feelings. Then I re-read the orginal original post from 10/15 and realize that yet again the majority of it is YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS, just as you admit in the above that "We've already put in more than our two cents on this issue" regarding the post of the 15th. So, as to how you are NOT pushing the story because of your feelings, the evidence points to the opposite. This is beyond ridiculous at this point. Yes, its a newsworthy story worth a mention. But there are new developments in the U of Chicago killing over the past day I haven't seen updates on it, and there are updates in the Peterson case and I haven't seen updates on it; both of which have been commented on here in the past. If your motivation is to keep abreast of important news updates as you imply, why haven't we seen updates on these??

Tankboy

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:50:05 -0600

You're right huckeyes, I'm pushing the story just because of that. So if that's my motivation, why was it leading off last night's newscasts, and pushed as "breaking news" on most major news websites yesterday, and it still being discussed in the MSM today? And I have commented on this story in the past ... though had you actually read through that whole response you would have figured out what I meant by the "not commented on this sort of story before." At least I can agree with your last sentence.

huckeyes

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:44:55 -0600

Navin; If you cared enough to be accurate, you would see I have no probablem with TankBoy bitching about the sentence, I agreed it was light. The point you seem to be missing (which is what some of us are trying to emphasize, completely unrelated to the question of the sentence) is how tankboy is really pushing his personal feelings on this story; and its obvious its because of the victims (for some reason he even says he has never commented on a story like this before), they were musicians and held a different place than most victims do to tankboy and others here, and it is obvious he is pushing this story becuase of that. To me, that is the only reason I commented in the first place. But again, since you didnt care to read my post; I think the sentence was light, I usually advocate MUCH harsher sentences; regardless if they victims were musicians.

TonyB

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:40:39 -0600

She got 8 out of a possible 10 year sentence. What is everyone complaining about? You get one day for every day served if there's good behavior. That's the law. She's already spent two years in county jail. Get over it.

sparky

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:40:27 -0600

"SHE DROVE 90 MPH DOWN A STREET WITH DENSE TRAFFIC TRYING TO KILL HERSELF. How is this action in any way ambiguous, and how can anyone possibly argue against the fact that she got off serving so little time?" You made the key point yourself: "TRYING TO KILL HERSELF". She is mentally ill. It is horrible and sad that your friends died, and I am sorry, but it sounds like you wanted her to be charged for murder, and that simply is not the case. Her sentencing fits the charge.

Ferdy

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:39:02 -0600

But if these three musicians were, say, three kids on the south side, there wouldn't be any discussion at all on this site. This is absolutely untrue. There have been a number of murders of minorities reported on this site with comments of concern. This particular crime may get a bit more traffic because people in the reading audience actually knew them or saw them play. BTW, I live in Skokie. Everyone I know in the extremely diverse (45% minority) Skokie community is aware of and concerned about this horrible tragedy.

matilda

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:29:30 -0600

"But let's be clear, the men's profession has nothing to do with us believing there's a great sense of injustice in the sentencing here." I'll believe that when you devote equal attention to other sentencing injustices, and when you display as much emotion as you do here. I am sure you can find some. The injustice isn't in the sentencing--she was sentenced according to the charge. The apparent injustice is in the charge, at least according to the argument you are trying to make. Again, what is your idea of justice in this situation, Tankboy? You say the situation sucks. Fine. What is the ideal outcome, then?

Navin

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:24:53 -0600

Want me to go on? I could rail about D. Peterson, or that scumbag that shot a little girl on a playground a few blocks from my house, or that college kid who killed a whole bunch of people driving the wrong way down the expressway ... and those people all come from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Don't bother pointing out the obvious to 'whymustiregister' and 'huckeyes' tankboy, those two have a raging dose of falling down/angry little white man syndrome. As for this woman the sentence does seem light but it also seems like she's probably mentally ill and needs to maybe be put in a facility. The irony here is that she'd have probably gotten 5 years if she'd just been caught buying drugs somewhere.

Tankboy

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:02:31 -0600

We did complain about the charge, and have admitted we're torn on the issue of what constitutes an appropriate punishment. But let's be clear, the men's profession has nothing to do with us believing there's a great sense of injustice in the sentencing here. And, duh, it's pretty obvious that our justice system is badly broken when a woman that kills 3 men gets out in under 3 years, while some dude that deals pot serves 25. I guess I'm just confused by how many people seem willing to argue on Silinski's behalf? This isn't a drunk driving charge, or even an accident caused by spilling coffee while driving and talking on a cell phone. SHE DROVE 90 MPH DOWN A STREET WITH DENSE TRAFFIC TRYING TO KILL HERSELF. How is this action in any way ambiguous, and how can anyone possibly argue against the fact that she got off serving so little time?

matilda

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:47:09 -0600

Sparky, let's be honest here: People care because they were musicians, and some of the people here probably knew them. That is why Tankboy calls for a greater sentence. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's at least be honest about what's going on. And, as far as I know, the max she could get was 10 years, so apparently people should complain about the charge and not the sentence.

sparky

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:31:55 -0600

Tankboy: There are injustices in sentencing everywhere. Keep in mind that the judge found Sliwinski guilty but mentally ill. Is it terrible that three people died as a result of her mentally ill state and selfish recklessness? Yes. But if these three musicians were, say, three kids on the south side, there wouldn't be any discussion at all on this site. It is clear that you have strong opinions about this. What would be a just sentence, in your opinion, given that the woman was clearly deemed mentally ill? What if the circumstances were different, say it was a complete accident--slipping on a patch of ice--or the woman was drunk? Would your opinion change then? While there are people only serving 8 years for reckless homicide, there are people serving 25 to life for drug possession. There are injustices going on all of the time. Which one is worse?

Mr_Smith

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:35:01 -0600

And not to throw another log on this fire, but she could be out less than two years from now for good behavior and time served. I don't think someone has to be for "truth in sentencing" in the past for one's opinion on the length of a sentence for a convicted felon (and let's not muddy the issue by comparing how this issue is being written about vs. cases where there has been no conviction) to be valid. Especially since even those who objecting to portions of the post are usually following it up with "but yeah I think the sentence is too light."

Hugh G Rection

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:23:49 -0600

I can see how someone might find eight years to be far too short a sentence. I'm wondering, however, what would constitute a "just" sentence? If not eight, then how many? According to the Sun-Times the max. under the law is ten. Would ten have been enough? Where's the justice benchmark?

Jeff Cagle

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:49:34 -0600

Maybe this is one of those few instances that Chicagoist should drop the editorial "we" since it differs so greatly from the norm or since TB has such strong feelings about it? I know the "we" topic has been argued ad nauseam, but this just seems like one of those posts...

Kfunk

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:35:37 -0600

You have to consider that she was/is mentally ill and was trying to kill herself at the time. I don't think they convicted her of Murder. I believe the charge was Reckless Homicide. It is a tragedy, but throwing her in the slammer forever is not going to bring anyone back.

Ward Up

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:30:14 -0600

The Tribune describes her as "...former model." Puh-leeze. To have that moniker someone should have made their living that way for a few years. Getting a few head shots taken and getting a couple of jobs does not make one a model. I have met a couple of "...models" in this town who actually had other occupations or were unemployed. This reminds me of the "...rapper..." with a gun who was killed on the west side earlier this month. The fact is that he had never made a living as a rapper. I am not worked up about this, mind you. It's just that newspapers should be accurate. Heck, I can call myself an astronaut. I would like the Tribune to announce "...brilliant astronaut makes comment on Chicagoist about a former model."

Tankboy

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:22:51 -0600

Freak_Deaky, I meant that THIS subject -- Sliwinski -- is the only one I've opined about as far as legal outcomes.

Caroline Roberts

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:12:43 -0600

My emotions tell me that sentence is way too short. But my head tells me it is too short as well. Say she serves 8 years. If she is mentally ill (and evidence indicates that she is), then what will they do with her when she gets out?

Freak_Deaky

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:10:56 -0600

Tankboy; I'm really sorry for the loss of life of these gentleman, but for you to say this is the first time you've opinied one way or another is plain out wrong. Please refer to your Chicagoist post on Oct 15 of this year. "The question was actually asked by Paul Dahlquist, father of one of three musicians brutally murdered* by Jeanette Sliwinski almost 2 1/2 years ago." and at the end of the post: "*Yes, that's incendiary, and no, we don't care." I read that like an opinion, you really need to stop pretending you're a journalist Link: "http://chicagoist.com/2007/10/15/if_this_woman_g.php

Tankboy

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:37:07 -0600

Before this gets too sidetracked, I'd like to point out that this is the first time I've opined one way or another on a subject such as this. Want me to go on? I could rail about D. Peterson, or that scumbag that shot a little girl on a playground a few blocks from my house, or that college kid who killed a whole bunch of people driving the wrong way down the expressway ... and those people all come from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Plus, I purposely kept the post above short, because I think the focus should be on the length of the sentence, and not my personal feelings. Those are already public, and obviously meaningless in the grand scheme of things. However I think there's a valid conversation to be had about whether the length of the sentence, in this instance, is just.

huckeyes

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:28:53 -0600

I agree with Matilda. I don't EVER recall anybody on Chicagoist calling for harsher penalties on anybody, for any crime. It's always 'innocent until proven guilty...' and 'let's not prematurely convict...' type of commentary. And the comments are usually even less Victim oriented. I too really wonder if these three men were not musicians you cared about, but IT or Legal proffesionals, if you would have even noticed, or been so mad. But I do think 8 years is way too light, I usually advocate the chair in such circumstances.

j_am

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:07:14 -0600

Matilda - I see where you're coming from, but unless you're on the jury (or, in this case, are the judge) objectivity isn't required to talk about something like this. Opinions - which the "we think" leads me to believe this is - are, by nature, judgmental and non-objective. Anyway, I do believe her sentence was much too lenient. Only 8 years (less for good behavior?) for being directly responsible for the deaths of three people, regardless of mental state, doesn't seem appropriate to me.

whymustiregister

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:07:09 -0600

She's white and middle class and pretty, so she isn't a sympathetic perpetrator. She should know better. If she were poor and black, Chicagoist would be all sympathetic, assuming they didn't know better. Just for the record, 8 years for killing 3 people is a total joke. If he is up for retention in 2008, throw Garritt Howard out on his ass.

Tankboy

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:05:54 -0600

My personal feelings aside, do you really think that, under any circumstance, spending 8 years in prison is due justice for killing three men? I'm not calling for a public lynching. I wasn't even calling for the death penalty (once I realized that that response was a truly emotional and irrational one since I'm against the death penatly), but this sentence is unfair to the scores of victims left in Sliwinski's wake.

matilda

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:56:11 -0600

I wonder how much of your desire for blood in this case has to do with your personal feelings and how much has to do with a more objective sense of justice served or not served. For instance, I cannot remember an instance where you or your fellow writers ever called for greater sentences for other convicted felons. Perhaps I am wrong? I generally think that harsher punishment is due in most felony cases, and that most convicted felons get off too easily, especially those who have taken or ruined life. I was a firebreather regarding George Ryan and what I consider his overly merciful sentence, for instance. But I hope my personal emotions about Ryan did not taint my judgment, and I hope that is not happening with you in this case. If so, that takes you further away from the ideals of "justice" and closer to rank populism or even a mob mentality.