|
|
||
Judge extends, expands conditions of Darrell Rice's supervised release in Shenandoah biker assault case Date published: 1/19/2008
By PAMELA GOULD CHARLOTTESVILLE-A federal judge yesterday expanded the conditions of Darrell Rice's release, even though he hasn't violated any of the terms imposed when he was freed six months ago. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean Hudson argued that adding a year to the time Rice would be electronically monitored would not only serve the public interest, but protect Rice as well. The state's attorney for Queen Anne's County, Md., where Rice now lives, wrote a Jan. 2 letter to U.S. District Judge Norman Moon supporting the extension. Rice, 40, was released from federal prison on July 17 after completing his sentence for the attempted kidnapping of a woman bicyclist inside Shenandoah National Park a decade earlier. Since then, he has completed substance abuse counseling, attended weekly mental-health counseling, gotten a job and been named employee of the month, according to court testimony and a letter from his probation officer. But the Kent Island, Md., community where Rice lives created an uproar after learning of his presence in September. People made unfounded accusations that he was engaged in a variety of suspicious behaviors, all of which were proven false by the electronic monitors that track his whereabouts. After his July 1997 arrest in the biker case, federal and state officials pursued Rice for three unsolved slayings in central Virginia. In April 2002, he was charged with capital murder in the May 1996 deaths of two female hikers in Shenandoah National Park. But those charges were dropped two years later after forensic tests failed to link him to the crime. DNA from another man was found at the scene and former Spotsylvania County resident and serial killer Richard Marc Evonitz could not be excluded as the source of two key head hairs found there. In addition, Rice was accused of being the so-called Route 29 Stalker, and by extension the killer of 25-year-old Alicia Showalter Reynolds, yet all forensic tests in those cases also ruled him out as the source of evidence. No one has ever been charged in Reynolds' March 1996 abduction and death. No one currently stands charged in the park killings of 24-year-old Julianne Williams and 26-year-old Laura Winans.
I think the best solution is for the government to monitor every criminal for as long as they live...Right? Wouldn't a universal monitoring system where the government kept tabs on every parolee's (rapists, drug dealers, murderers, etc.) every move not only protect the public but also themselves? But why only monitor those who have committed a crime? We want to prevent all crime. So the government should instead monitor everybody every second of every day? Wouldn't this protect the innocent from being wrongfully accused?
I think he's done enough time. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks so. I see how the electronic monitoring can be a hassle for his everyday life, but it also seems to help. The community knows about him now & they're accusing him of things which aren't true (according to the monitor) so it seems to come in handy @ the same time. It's a shame how people are. The man did wrong, he knows. Why must people keep trying to make it seem like he doesn't know? Some people DO change & people deserve second chances!!
This guy did wrong, I think he knows that and we know that. It seems as if he has paid the price and served out his sentence society gave him. It also looks as if he has taken a turn for the better. And now when the community finds out who he is they want to make up false stories. Who is really the criminal now, Mr. Rice has done his time, maybe those in the community that wish to dream up stuff should now have to pay the price and serve some time behind bars.
From all accounts, seems like this guy has been a model prisoner and parolee, but because the community has made false accusations against him, he's being punished by having his monitoring extended? If we're all so concerned about criminals in our midst, why isn't there calls for people convicted of assault, drug use and manslaughter to be registered and monitored. Seems to me like those guys would re-commit crimes as well. Why limit this to 'sex' offenses?
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
