Penn State professor a Texas parolee (for triple murder)

Houston Chronicle ^ | July 25, 2003 | Associated Press

[Between the Lines]

He forced massive early paroles because he found "overcrowding".

The early release program mandated by W.W.Justice prohibited the early release of anyone convicted of a violent crime.

[deport]

In Texas you are eligible for parole on a life sentence in seven years.

---

Not true today, but back then it was a totally different story with Judge William Wayne Justice controlling the Texas Penal system......

[Between the Lines]

This guy has good timing.

It was not timing at all. He was a modle prisoner. The law in Texas at the time he was convicted said that anyone doing a life sentence was eligible for parole every seven years. This was his second time to be up for parole. The "massive early paroles" you speak of were not applicable to convicts with violent offences, muder is a violent offence.

[writmeister]

I meant that he had good timing in that he did not commit these offenses today.

[lonestar]

Thanks for the explanation. And here I thought Texas was rock ribbed conservative back then.

If I remember, we can thank LBJ for Judge William Wayne Justice.

[Spok]

Okay, anybody can make a mistake-alright, 3 mistakes. And I'm sure he was sorry, which is the main thing.
On a related note, there is a lawsuit in Washington state to permit convicts to vote from prison. Can you imagine political candidates pandering to parasites, drugees and perverts...oh, wait a minute...never mind.

[Churchjack]

I'm as hardcore Texan death-penalty advocate as they come. In 1980, I might have said the same about the guy. But...look at the guy's resume and behavior? Looks like he reformed successfully.

[ValerieUSA]

It should be a goal to reform burglars and young people who commit minor crimes - but MURDERERS?? NO! They need to be punished. There is no point in letting a convivcted cold-blooded murderer attend Sam Houston College while serving time- time which ought not end until his death.
This is wrong.

[RGSpincich]

He was 17 when the crime was committed. April 1965.

[wildbill]

Actually, there are several prison units located in Huntsville, not just the death row unit.

[wildbill]

This article brings up several questions:

1. Should all murderers be executed with no exceptions? Should all murders carry a sentence of death or life without parole?

2. Do we accept the theory of rehabilitation or, if you are religious, redemption?

3. Assuming his resume is correct, why shouldn't he be able to work at a job where he can use his professional training--or should he be limited to menial jobs forever as a form of punishment?

4. Would his conviction as a murderer 40 years ago carry over into the classroom, turning his students into murderers, either by osmosis or by diabolical teaching?

5. Even if we assume a miscarriage of justice, should we thank God for his redemption and point him out as a role model for other prisoners so that they can hope for a better life if paroled and if they work hard at reintegrating themselves into society.

[MeekOneGOP]

Wow. What an unusual story. Murdered three folks, putting 40 bullets in them, then got all that education . . .

[Bonaparte]

Just like the murderous Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, the former "weathermen" who got off easy and are today showered with honors in nice, cozy academia. And what about Angela Davis? The list is endless. If there's anything academia loves, it's depraved killers.

[Bonaparte]

"Should all murderers be executed with no exceptions?"

No. For example, a guy who crushes another guy's skull after grabbing a nearby stool during a drunken sports argument in a bar, should serve 20 years. But a guy like Kreuger who cold-bloodedly murders 3 innocent fishermen, pumping no less than 40 bullets into their bodies, deserves the gallows.

"Do we accept the theory of rehabilitation or, if you are religious, redemption?"

Those who choose to rehabilitate (habilitate?) themselves are welcome to do so. But the purpose of the penal system is punishment. That's why it's called "penal." The same goes for accepting redemption. That's up to the individual and can proceed under any and all circumstances. However, the figures for recidivism are not encouraging.

"Assuming his resume is correct, why shouldn't he be able to work at a job where he can use his professional training..."

He has every legal right to do so and the university has every right to hire him. He's has apparently kept out of trouble for 24 years. Some of us may be personally offended by the presence of this cold-blooded (but lucky) killer among us, but it's not much different in that respect from the OJ Simpson situation. Even Cochran knows the guy should have swung, but there he is, putting on some Florida green (when he's not assaulting motorists).

"Would his conviction as a murderer 40 years ago carry over into the classroom...?"

I doubt anybody would seriously maintain this.

"Even if we assume a miscarriage of justice, should we thank God for his redemption and point him out as a role model for other prisoners...?"

I'm not at all sure that he's availed himself of his redemption, not in the sense that he's accepted Jesus as his personal Savior, repented in his heart and turned his life over to Him. But if he's kept himself on the straight and narrow for 24 years, there's no question that he makes a fine example to other convicts. Perhaps he should spend some time to this end, visiting with "matriculees" at his old "alma mater" in Huntsville.

[wildbill]

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Should I mark you down in the column "Mistake was made in not executing him, but it seems to have worked out OK?"

[Bonaparte]

In my view, permitting a cold-hearted multiple killer to walk is not an example of things "working out OK." This was a miscarriage of justice that fortunately has not resulted in re-offense. That's a good thing.

[NittanyLion]

Yikes! Wonder what he taught his students about workforce development?

"Your first task is to motivate employees to better themselves. Failing that, stick a shive in their back to set an example."

[TomB]

"Your first task is to motivate employees to better themselves. Failing that, stick a shive in their back to set an example."

My kind of teacher.

Must've taught Bill Gates. ;-)

[PSUPerspective]

I was a student and advisee of Dr. Krueger. After reading the postings in this forum I feel like someone who actually knows him should have a say.

First let me say that what Dr. Krueger did as a 17 year old adolescent was horrific, as I am sure he would agree. However, a parole board, who I feel certain knew much more than any of us about the situation, felt that Dr. Krueger should be released. Unless you know the entire story, I don't think you should be so quick to judge.

I knew Dr. Krueger and he was an excellent professor and a good person. Did he made a terrible mistake, absolutely! Should he be held responsible and punished for that mistake, absolutely. Was 12 years in prison enough? The parole board thought so...

[NittanyLion]

First let me say that what Dr. Krueger did as a 17 year old adolescent was horrific, as I am sure he would agree.

It's good that you acknowledge that fact. However, I'm not sure how his age enters into the equation. Are you claiming that at 17 he wasn't capable of understanding that pumping 40 bullets into three fisherman is wrong?

However, a parole board, who I feel certain knew much more than any of us about the situation, felt that Dr. Krueger should be released. Unless you know the entire story, I don't think you should be so quick to judge.

What's to know? Did he shoot three fisherman 40 times in self defense? It isn't as though he stumbled upon these three in bed with his wife, you know...

I knew Dr. Krueger and he was an excellent professor and a good person. Did he made a terrible mistake, absolutely! Should he be held responsible and punished for that mistake, absolutely. Was 12 years in prison enough? The parole board thought so...

The parole board thought he wasn't in need of further prison time. That's an entirely different question than the one Penn State needed to make, regarding whether a convicted murderer should be hired instead of someone with a clean record.

At a minimum, university reputation is a good enough reason to automatically exclude anyone with a felony offense from the teaching ranks. Certainly the university has an ethical responsibility to its customers as well.