WI v. Jeffrey Dahmer (1992): The Sentencing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Your Honor, it is over now. This has never been a case of trying to get free. I didn't ever want freedom. Frankly, I wanted death for myself. This was a case to tell the world that I did what I did not for reasons of hate. I hated no one. I knew I was sick or evil or both. Now I believe I was sick. The doctors have told me about my sickness and now I have some peace. I know how much harm I have caused. I tried to do the best I could after the arrest to make amends, but no matter what I did, I could not undo the terrible harm I have caused. My attempt to help identify the remains was the best that I could do, and that was hardly anything. I feel so bad for what I did to those poor families, and I understand their rightful hate. I know I will be in prison for the rest of my life. I know that I will have to turn to God to help me get through each day. I should have stayed with God. I tried and failed and created a holocaust. Thank God there will be no more harm that I can do. I believe that only the Lord Jesus Christ can save me for my sins. I have instructed Mr. Boyle to end this matter. I do not want to contest the civil case. I've told Mr. Boyle to try and finalize them if he can. If there is ever any money, I want it to go to the victim's families. I have talked to Mr. Boyle about other things that might help ease my conscience in some way of coming up with ideas on how to make some amends to these families, and I will work with him on that. I want to return to Ohio and quickly end that matter so that I can put all of this behind me and then come right back here to do my sentence. I decided to go through this trial for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was to let the world know that these were not hate crimes. I wanted the world in Milwaukee, which I deeply hurt, to know the truth of what I did. I didn't want unanswered questions. All the questions have now been answered. I wanted to find out just what it was that caused me to be so bad and evil. But, most of all, Mr. Boyle and I decided that maybe there was a way for us to tell the world that if there are people out there with these disorders, maybe they can get some help before they end up being hurt or hurting someone. I think the trial did that. I take all the blame for what I did. I hurt many people. The judge in my earlier case tried to help me and I refused his help and he got hurt by what I did. I hurt those policemen in the Conorac matter and I shall ever regret causing them to lose their jobs. And I hope and pray that they can get their jobs back because I know they did their best and I just plain fooled them. For that, I am so sorry. I know I hurt my probation officer who was really trying to help me. I am so sorry for that and sorry for everyone else that I have hurt. I have hurt my mother and father and stepmother. I love them all so very much. I hope that they will find the same peace I am looking for. Mr. Boyle's associates, Wendy and Ellen, have been wonderful to me helping me through this worst of all times. I want to publicly thank Mr. Boyle. He didn't need to take this case, but when I asked him to help me find the answers and to help others if I could, he stayed with me and went way overboard in trying to help me. Mr. Boyle and I agreed that it was never a matter of trying to get off. It was only a matter of which place I would be housed the rest of my life, not for my comfort, but for trying to study me in the hopes of helping me and learning to help others who might have problems. I know I will be in prison. I pledge to talk to doctors who might be able to find some answers. In closing, I just want to say that I hope God has forgiven me. I know society will never be able to forgive me. I know the families of the victims will never be able to forgive me for what I have done. I promise I will pray each day to ask for their forgiveness when the hurt goes away, if ever. I have seen their tears and if I could give my life right now to bring their loved ones back, I would do it. I am so very sorry. Your Honor, I know that you are about to sentence me. I ask for no consideration. I want you to know that I have been treated perfectly by the deputies who have been in your court and the deputies who work the jail. The deputies have treated me very professionally and I want everyone to know that. They have not given me special treatment. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of who I am the worst. But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive an eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. I know my time in prison will be terrible, but I deserve whatever I get because of what I have done. Thank you, Your Honor, and I am prepared for your sentence, which I know will be the maximum. I ask for no consideration. [00:06:04] Speaker 2: There is nothing else in the defense, all of you please. Okay. Madam, Your Honor, thank you. [00:06:12] Speaker 3: It now becomes the duty of the court to impose sentence in this case. And one of my obligations to set forth on the record the basis for the sentence imposed. In doing that, I'm required to consider the seriousness of the offenses, the needs of the community for protection from the defendant, as well as the needs of the defendant. In doing this, there are some observations that I would like to make. You know, I've spent three weeks listening. And now it's my time to say a few things. One of the things is that real people have been involved in this case and have been affected by it. I thought, you know, the first family statement that I got, which went down and said a little bit about the feelings of each of the family members, I think conveyed that it's real people that have been affected by the crimes that have been committed here. And that doesn't go to just one family. It goes to all the families. But I thought that one was particularly stood out in my mind with the way it was done. However, the victim's families are not the only real people involved in this case. There's the defendant's family. And, you know, this is a court that handles criminal matters on a regular basis. Right now, we're designated as a violent crime court. So it's not unusual for us to see not just the families of victims, but also the families of defendant. You know, time and time again, you see a situation where the defendant comes from a good family. But committed a horrible crime. We must sentence the defendant for committing that crime knowing full well. That. The families of the family of the defendant will also be adversely affected and perhaps did nothing. For which they should be hurt anymore. Than the victim's families did anything for which they should be hurt. A number of you have heard me use the expression before, I wish I had that magic button that I could put things back in place. But I don't have the power to bring people back to life. That's in the hands of somebody else. I can't change what's happened. What I have to do is acknowledge the facts as they are and proceed to a meaningful sentence. We heard a great deal of talk in this case about mental disease. The jury found that a mental disease did not exist. I think correctly so. What I noticed is that many of the participants, including both lawyers, had difficulty using mental disease as a term separate from mental illness. Many times those terms were, I think, unconsciously used interchangeably. Mental disease is a word of art, a legal word of art, defined in the statute book. Some mental conditions or mental illness, by definition, do not constitute a mental disease. And had it become necessary for the court to rule, it would be the ruling of this court that a paraphilia, as a matter of definition, is not a mental disease, as that term is defined in our statute. One of the things that was particularly significant to me when we had our psychiatric and psychological experts on the stand, and they were talking about what was a DSM-3R, the thick book that we had, was that when this term, paraphilia, was coined, it was coined to replace sexual deviate. And it was done so because they were carving out from the definition homosexuality. Because there had been a change in public attitude in regard to that particular situation. It seems to me that in doing so, what the people defining the term were trying to do, not necessarily that they were trying to conform to Wisconsin law, but they were trying to create a term that fits that exception that we have in our statute. which says that an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct does not constitute a mental disease. You see, what the statute's doing is taking some things that constitute a mental condition and say, as we use the term mental disease, that's not included within that language. I say that because I think I owe it to my profession, having heard all the testimony that I've heard, to set forth on the record what my views are as far as that particular situation is concerned, it never became necessary for me specifically to rule on it. As to the seriousness of the offense, I've listened to the testimony the way everybody else has listened to the testimony, the way our 14 jurors listened to the testimony, and I, too, have a view of what's going on or what was going on as far as Mr. Dahmer is concerned. First of all, every witness that examined him told us he was an intelligent man, probably superior intelligence. I agreed that he used that intelligence to manipulate people. I don't think there's any question about it. I believe what we had was a homosexual who could not accept the fact that he was a homosexual. That he, from time to time, involved himself in homosexual activities, and there was never a problem in a situation that he could walk away from and remain, in effect, anonymous. But once he brought somebody to his home, he could no longer remain anonymous, and therefore, he was caught. There's one way to avoid that, destroy the evidence. It's a vicious way to destroy the evidence, but that's my view of what was going on. In terms of what happened to these people, gosh, I was horrified. You know, when we asked the questions in jury selection about, you know, how you react to some of these things, fortunately, nobody gets to ask the judge that question. Nobody gets to ask the judge how you feel about horror movies, because I'll tell you what I do, I turn them off. That's one of the powers that you have when you control the television set. I can go into other things in my background that, well, let's talk about it. There's a time in my life that I made a living in a packing house, and I was a little squeamish in terms of dealing with animals. gosh, no, I got to be squeamish when we talk about doing some of those same things to human beings, real people. I saw Dr. Fosdale on the witness stand. Here's a physician. I don't know if any of you noticed it, but I noticed it, that he got very, very uncomfortable when he was talking about what was done to these human beings. People are looking to me to provide a measure of protection to the community, and I don't think there's only one way that that protection can be provided, and that is to see that this defendant never again has the opportunity to walk the streets of our community as a free man. You know, that really, that's part of judicial discretion, I guess, but it really, in this case, doesn't require a whole lot of discretion. I can't imagine anybody else coming up with any other conclusion, and I think that's been acknowledged by both the defense attorney and the defendant himself. That's the treatment. The needs of the defendant. That's something in what the court does in sentencing that's not within the discretion of the court, but it is within the discretion of the institution where he will be going. As I listened to the parade of psychiatric and psychological experts, I didn't hear anybody say that he was a totally normal individual. I think the opinion is universal, that he has some significant problems, and if he can benefit or society can benefit, from treatment or study, I think that should happen within the institutional system, and there's no reason why it can't. Mr. Dahmer made reference to religion. Anybody have any idea how many defendants find religion when they come before this court for sentencing? do they sincerely find it? I don't know. How do I determine that? Some of them keep that newfound sense of religion all the way until that door over there. Some keep it a lot longer. you know, that's something between God and Mr. Dahmer. And if indeed he's found religion, I hope that he keeps it and I hope it helps him for the rest of his life, which is going to be spent in one of our penal institutions. Now, Mr. McKeon, is it the first two counts on which there's a habitual... I don't have the complaint in front of me. Is that correct? [00:18:26] Speaker 4: It actually attaches to all of them, Your Honor. All counts? But only the first two? No, it attaches to all 15. I addressed specifically the first two because that would add 10 years to what would be the minimum parole release. And on the others, I have the discretion [00:18:44] Speaker 3: because it's under the new statute. The court, clearly, he falls within the habitual criminality statute and the court makes that finding. As to count one, the court will impose the mandatory life sentence plus an additional 10 years on the habitual criminality. Count two, life imprisonment plus 10 years consecutive to count one. Count three, life imprisonment with the date of parole eligibility 70 years from the inception of that particular sentence. I don't have all the numbers that I can't work it out, but it'll be 70 years from the beginning of that sentence which will be consecutive to count two, count four, life imprisonment with a parole eligibility to be 70 years from the commencement of that sentence consecutive. Where am I at on the numbers? Somebody has to... that reporter, what was the last... I should check this off on here, sorry. Last four, four was the last one? Okay. Count five, life imprisonment, parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive [00:20:24] Speaker ?: to be consecutive [00:20:24] Speaker 3: to count four, count six, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count five, count seven, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count six, count eight, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count seven, count nine, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count eight, count ten, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count nine, count eleven, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count ten, count twelve, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count eleven, count thirteen, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count twelve, count fourteen, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count thirteen, count fifteen, life imprisonment with parole eligibility to be 70 years after the inception of that sentence to be consecutive to count fourteen. I believe I have and I intended to follow the recommendation of the state. I could have said something different which would have had the same impact. I really see, nobody gains anything by just to say more and more years. the important point is that the sentence is structured in such a way that this defendant will never again see freedom. That is owed to this community in order to protect the community as well as acknowledgement of the seriousness of the offenses. Those are the reasons. The sentence, of course, is to the state prison system. One thing I didn't provide, all of these sentences are consecutive to the time he's presently serving. There are appellate rights. Mr. Boyle, you'll be reviewing with your client as appellate rights. [00:23:15] Speaker 2: I'd like to indicate to the court that they will be signed in the proper form. The part that will be checked as required is that he is undecided. That's only to preserve the right to move it along the proper way. The final decision will be made within 20 days after we had some settlement here. I don't anticipate there will be an appeal. I only say that because that's what my client wanted me to say. I still want deliberation on that decision and I want to make that a part of the record. Lastly, Your Honor, I am required to ask the court on the record for a 10-minute contact visit with his mother, stepmother and father and I would ask if the court would grant that. Are they present? They're in the... I didn't know they were. They're present in the building is what you're saying. I understand they are. I have not seen them. Any objection to that, [00:23:59] Speaker 3: Mr. Boyle? [00:24:00] Speaker 2: I joined with a request. [00:24:01] Speaker 3: So ordered. Thank you, Your Honor. Anything further for the court? [00:24:06] Speaker 4: No. No, please the court. Thank you. Courts and recess. [00:24:09] Speaker 3: Thank you, guys.