By John Q. Hosedrinker 
You’ve successfully subscribed to the newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is currently being sent, so be sure to check your junk folder if you don’t see it. The next issue of Sunrise will arrive in your inbox shortly. Thank you for your interest.
Read the original article here
“I did it for the victims”: Robert Pickton’s killer tells court during guilty plea. This phrase, seemingly simple on the surface, carries a weight of complexity when considering the actions that led to it. It’s a statement that instantly draws you into a narrative, forcing you to grapple with the aftermath of a heinous crime and the supposed motivation behind its resolution. The act of killing Robert Pickton, the notorious serial killer, might seem like a black and white situation for some – an open and shut case of vengeance. But a closer examination reveals the murkiness of the events, the ripple effects on those seeking justice, and the questionable nature of the killer’s alleged altruism.
The initial reaction to the killer’s plea and his stated reason is likely to be a mixed bag. There would be a sense of closure. The families of Pickton’s victims might find some solace in the news of his demise, perhaps believing a chapter has closed, if not entirely written, in their pursuit of justice. After all, the man responsible for unimaginable suffering is no longer living. However, the reality of the situation is that a court room should hold due process of law and the killer’s statement about the victims, whether genuine or not, is a desperate attempt to find some kind of justification.
The police’s handling of the Pickton case, as many critics rightfully pointed out, was far from perfect. There were accusations of indifference, of turning a blind eye to the plight of vulnerable women. The evidence presented by one of Pickton’s employees, who had seen victims’ belongings on the property, should have raised red flags and accelerated the investigation. The inaction or delayed action of authorities in investigating the disappearances of indigenous sex workers left a sour taste, and led many to believe the investigation was not handled with the diligence required.
The killer’s actions also potentially complicated the situation for families. The opportunity for a more comprehensive investigation into the possibility of Pickton’s accomplices, including his brother, has now been extinguished. Pickton, the key to unlocking a larger web of accountability, is gone. The pursuit of complete justice, which might have led to further arrests and closure for more families, has been dealt a crippling blow. The very individual who could have provided the necessary information for additional charges against accomplices has been silenced.
The notion of the killer being a hero, acting solely for the sake of the victims, is, at best, idealistic. People have a variety of different motivations and a court of law is not the place to determine the truth of them. He was, after all, in prison on other charges, including armed robbery and threats to kill. His act may have been born out of a desire for self-preservation, a desire to make himself look better, or even a warped sense of justice. To believe that the act was purely altruistic feels naive.
Regardless of the killer’s motivations, the murder of Robert Pickton raises some troubling questions. If the justice system had done its job, the families of the victims would have had a chance for a more complete trial. The system’s shortcomings might have made the killing of Pickton seem like an act of deliverance to some. However, that does not make it right. It’s a stark reminder that justice is not always served perfectly, and sometimes the most egregious of crimes are not met with a swift, decisive solution.
It’s a strange predicament. The murder of someone like Pickton can be viewed in a way that feels satisfying for society, due to the heinous crimes. But those responsible, including the killer, can take advantage of that satisfaction. Some will seek to get out of their own time and maybe even seek a position of power, using the “victim” status to their advantage. It’s a complex scenario where empathy and the desire for vengeance clash, making it difficult to find a clear moral line. The killer’s plea, while maybe somewhat satisfying to some, should not be taken at face value.
Ultimately, “I did it for the victims” is a powerful statement with a troubling lack of clarity. It might offer a comforting narrative, especially to those seeking closure, but it does not erase the complexities of the case, the failings of the justice system, or the questionable motivations of the killer. It is a phrase that demands closer examination.