Indiana man accused of raping estranged wife slays her in front of their two children

[redqueen]

before suicide: police

An Indiana man charged with raping his estranged wife slaughtered the woman outside a Catholic school as their two horrified teenaged children looked on, police said.

Remanard Castro, 55, then fled the murder scene and shot himself in the head as cops moved to apprehend him outside his Gary, Ind. home.

The tragic shooting Monday afternoon is a “sad reminder that no community is immune to domestic violence,” Griffith Police Chief Greg Mance told reporters, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

...

The deranged rapist posted $90,000 bail and was released from jail after charges of rape and criminal confinement were filed in February.

...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-accused-raping-estranged-wife-slays-front-children-killing-police-article-1.1765299

[darkangel218]

1. That is why rapists ahould be denied bond IMHO.

I know some of you may say: theyre just alleged rapists, the haven't been found guilty yet. But why take the chance?? Anyone who commits rape does not have any consideration for its victim's life or well being. I would deny them bond and let the trial sort it out.

[redqueen]

2. It's a complicated issue.

But I definitely think when the aggressor is an ex spouse, that the ex who left should be assumed to be in great danger, and their safety should come first. These kinds of crimes are tragically common.

[Shandris]

7. Barring some sort of Witness Protection, how can we accomplish that?

Not that WP is necessarily a bad idea, but with social media it seems to be on its way out in usefulness (not to mention it requires a woman to ditch her entire life, friends, family, and everything else simply because the man is an aggressor which is patently and grossly unfair).

The reason I ask is that, eventually, unless the man dies in prison he will eventually be free again. And the vast majority of men who break up with someone aren't going to cause problems in the first place; charges aren't guaranteed to be pursued, even by the State.

I'm at a loss for an equitable response, or even a direction to start to look in that promises an equitable response. I suppose bodyguard services could bear some temporary usefulness (particularly if gained at no expense), but all one would have to do is wait out the term of the service agreement.

[redqueen]

11. How about no bail, since they pose a danger to others? nt

[The Straight Story]

12. In every case/call?

If so:

Outside of the potential for abuse (and some most certainly would abuse it) I look at it from a more practical/racial side (ie, a different lens).

Back when I was a deputy our inmate population was nothing like the real world. The poor and minorities were in jail far more often than other groups (as were males). Society/cops/DA/etc tend to not treat those with money, good jobs, white, female the same in the justice system (and I am speaking here of arrests - not other areas of that system).

Two people get drunk, call the cops, both say the other hit them and...what, the cops lock them both away without bail for many months on end? Kids are in foster homes. House gets foreclosed on. Jobs get lost. And if you are a poor black male chances are you will end up in that situation more than someone else who calls and the cops 'work it out'.

They have to make those judgments every day on the job. If you add in no bail across the board you create a whole set of new issues (which is why I asked if you meant for every case/call).

If you know the cops responding will arrest you and you won't get bail based of the word of someone else you might just as well claim they did the same thing to you and cause further harm - which, to me, would make someone less likely to involve law enforcement at all.

[Shandris]

13. And if we take this route, what do we do about the preponderance of evidence?

What level of evidence is required to put someone in jail for a charge that may never be pursued (requiring further legal rewriting, and the challenges that will go along with it as well as the ones who will invariably fall through the cracks), with no legal recourse and no ability to get out? For what other crimes do we make this the proper answer? After all, revenge is a powerful motivator and -any- crime can carry with it the danger of revenge (although some carry more danger than others obviously, at what point do we draw that line?).

Remember that whatever you make possible, you will make likely as a precondition to dealing with human beings, a group of beings who do not, as a general rule, have the benefit of any others outside of their immediate social gathering in mind?

No, I don't think this is a good idea at all.

[stevenleser]

23. See my #22 below. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Why take the chance on anyone, and not just lock them all up?

Assuming that people are guilty before they have been tried is not a suggestion I think is worth even considering seriously, I'm afraid - I think it's obviously a bad, illiberal and unethical suggestion.

[darkangel218]

20. Its not unethical at all.

Judges do deny bail in certain murder cases already. Why not include rape too, and leave it up to the judge?

[stevenleser]

22. I get where you are coming from. I think the solution is twofold

#1 - Remand (denial of bond) should be reserved for capital crimes like 1st degree murder and 1st degree rape/sexual assault (where it should be automatic) and the most violent assaults or battery on judges discretion.

#2 - If someone is remanded and found not guilty, they should be entitled to significant compensation to include attorney's fees, lost wages, and significant pain and suffering fees. That should cut down on the frivolous remands.

[BRAS]

17. Any other crimes that you want to remove the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?"

[darkangel218]

19. No.

Welcome to DU.

[stevenleser]

21. I agree, depending on the degree of charge like murder. Capital crime should = remand.

1st degree murder/rape/sexual assault charge should equal remand (no bail).

I'm open to the idea that anyone so remanded should be monetarily compensated if found not guilty.

[shenmue]

3. No words

[redqueen]

4. It is heartbreaking.

This is why I cannot stand comments like 'she should just leave'. Of course it is better to not be with abusive spouses. But it is not such a simple thing, and so many women die trying to get away. Sometimes the children, too.

[mattclearing]

5. Strikes me as really poor journalism to refer to the accused as, "the deranged rapist."

Clearly, this guy was not right, and did unthinkable things, but I'm constantly amazed at the way major papers disregard the rules of objectivity and fact.

[redqueen]

6. Strikes me as really odd focus to comment only on how wrong it is for the journalist

to use that label for him.

[The Straight Story]

8. Another view (and a rant on the issue):

I find it odd that a reporter is labeling the person deranged (and others have done so, but usually, from what I seen, preceded by 'cops say' or something like that). In this case the reporter added it as almost an afterthought/personal assessment (which isn't reporting, it is editorializing).

One does not have to comment/focus on the obvious (that the acts were terrible). I have posted many a threads where fellow DU'ers have talked more about the style of reporting than the actual story.

My thoughts on the story itself:

Such things like this happen too often and we lack the will to do more about such situations. One could attack the story as 'well, if we banned guns' but that wouldn't begin to address the underlying issues (and would do nothing but to move the cause to something other than the person). If the person was on drugs/alcohol we could label it as well.

But the more we drill down the more we see some people are just assholes and they endanger others and how do we take people like him and keep them from doing the evil crap he did?

The police were no help. They don't prevent things, they respond.

Most people don't do this sort of thing so we can't blame movies/games/etc.

What we can do, as a society, is offer people more choices and safe places to go. Conservatives, of course, will argue that people will lie just to have a place to stay - so they will oppose any sort of aid (cause they are dicks).

I let a lady and her kids stay with me after some problems she encountered at home. She had no where else to stay. I am not in a position to do that currently - and I think while that is a great option (staying with friends) it should not be the only option for a plethora of reasons.

We have a wall up in our society to such problems. We think people can just work them out, rely on friends/family, not our business, etc. And yet we see this crap happen all the time. You leave - the other person has all of your stuff there, your pets, heirlooms, etc and so on. You have no place to go, no help, no resources....and yet we are one of the wealthiest countries on the planet.

Some wonder why others want to buy a gun for self protection, this is exhibit A. You can't count on cops, government, anyone most the time to be there to protect you from idiots who want to harm you. Would have it helped her here? Probably not, but might have before or others. We need more help for those in fear but society will poo-poo it and just tell people to work it out, we all go through crap, etc - never taking into account all the hell that can come from leaving such a relationship. I know first hand about being abused by someone and not reaching out for help (and pretty sure I wouldn't have found any if I had).

/rant off. For now.

[mattclearing]

15. Thanks for your understanding.

Last edited Sat Apr 26, 2014, 03:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I think the important thing is focus on prevention, teaching people proper respect for one another from an early age and continuing to re-inforce that through societal consensus.

There are still too many people who believe that rape cannot exist within a marriage, mental illness is still too stigmatized, and people have been raised to treat one another with differing levels of deference based on traditional gender roles which are increasingly unbecoming an equitable and fair society.

The more we work to ensure that people can get the help they need and learn how to interact with one another acceptably, the less likely we are to see things spiral into a worst-case scenario such as this.

[mattclearing]

14. I understood when I posted it that I might seem to be overlooking the content of the report.

In my defense, it seemed like there were plenty of justly horrified responses to the events of the story.

That said, media bias and reporting protocol interest me, so when a major publication refers to an accused person in this manner I take note. It speaks to a general and continuing eroding of standards.

[redqueen]

16. There were only two responses. The thousands of women murdered by their current or former partners

is simply so much background nose to most people, apparently.

Look at the replies to this thread. It says it all, really.

Anyway, thanks for your other posts. I agree with your suggestions on how to curb this.

[mattclearing]

18. I didn't want to use the frequency of this sort of thing as an excuse.

But I gave the impression of being jaded by it nonetheless. I apologize for that.

Violence against women, or anyone, for that matter, but especially against women given the historical and ongoing societal tolerance for and enabling of it, is utterly unacceptable.

The tragedy, the alleged rape, the murder, the kids' trauma, and the suicide are horrific beyond words.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Other than gun control, there's basically nothing you can do about this sort of thing, I think.

If someone is going to kill themself afterwards, no form of deterrence will work on them.

And since messy breakups are probably going to be a fact of life permanently, there will probably continue to be people who decide to murder their ex and themselves (and often their children as well).

Sane gun control would help a bit - it's harder and more traumatic to stab someone else or yourself than it is to shoot them.

Jail sentences for domestic abuse might also help a little, but I think that predicting who is going to do things like this is hard enough that you'd need to put an awful lot of people in prison for an awfully long time per life you'd save (I think that stricter sentences for domestic abuse *would* probably help reduce less serious but still bad forms of violence, but I don't think they'd do much against murder-suicides).