To be fair to Mr. Spiess, while he was originally charged with malicious wounding (a Class 3 felony), he was convicted of the lesser-included felony offense of unlawful wounding, a Class 6 felony, by the Lancaster County Circuit Court on July 22, 1994 (Offense Date: October 16, 1993). According to information provided to me, the victim in that case was Mr. Spiess’ father-in-law at the time.

Regarding Mr. Spiess’ dog incident, he was convicted of maliciously administering poison to an animal, a misdemeanor, by a jury of the Lancaster County Circuit Court on September 22, 2000 (Offense Date: February 7, 1999, well after Mr. Spiess stopped “inhal[ing] with the drugs”). While Mr. Spiess accurately notes that the jury fined him $1.00 as his punishment, the reason “the judge told [the jury that Spiess] could not use self defense” is likely because the allegation in the case was that Spiess used strychnine to poison two dogs belonging to his neighbor, resulting in the death of one. Kind of different from shooting a pitbull as it lunges after your small child (though, as a convicted felon, if he had done that he would have been facing a mandatory five years in the penitentiary for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony). Doesn’t diminish the cowardliness of the act, though.

As those on my e-mail list will recall, it’s similar to the distinction I made between inadvertantly writing a bad check because one has transposed numbers in his checkbook versus intentionally writing a check (for the filing fee for the 99th District Republican nomination, for example) knowing that one lacks sufficient money in one’s account to cover it, but relying upon one’s “overdraft protection” to cover it. That’s fundamentally dishonest.

Context is important.

Anyone who have watched our courts in action knows this fact of our current system. Those who have large financial resources can get a lawyer and mitigate charges. Those without great resources are typically convinced to plead guilty to a supposed “lesser charge” even when they are guilty of nothing. They plead guilty simply to stop the pain, with most not knowing that the conviction will follow them forever afterward.

I don’t know about Mr. Spiess, but apparently he served whatever sentence that was meted out and having done so, should be restored in his rights as a citizen. Once someone has been punished by our system, we as a society, must not continue to punish the man for mistakes he may, or may not, have made in the past.

While your intent was to smear Mr. Spiess, you have unwittingly illuminated an ongoing problem with our “justice” system, in that, once a debt to society is paid, such men and women must be restored as full citizens, and treated as valued contributors to our country.