To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Concerning William Heirens, his crime and punishment [August 25]: first, a little piece of historical detail. I was coming home with my mother and father from Farwell beach when my Dad heard shouts for help from, we learned later, a janitor and another man pursuing William Heirens. I recall my mother asking my Dad if he didn’t want to get his gun–he was barefoot, in swimming trunks–but he was gone, up the street. Shots were heard, then nothing. What we couldn’t see happening on a second floor rear porch was that young Heirens had overpowered a detective, Tiffin Constance, and was banging his head on the floor. Coming up the stairs my Dad grabbed the first thing in reach, a stack of flowerpots, and beaned young Heirens with it. By the way, Mr. McClory, my father was proud of the fact he never before or after had to use a club, gun, or anything else in his 29 year career as a policeman. He was also a lawyer and firmly believed the evidence was more than sufficient to establish Heirens as the murderer of Susan Degnan and the other women.
Sure, as a social worker, I believe in rehabilitation, which I agree is the point–not guilt or innocence. Neither do I dispute the intelligence of this particular University of Chicago student, although I think there should be even-handed punishment of the dumb and the bright alike. However, though I never attended that institution famous for its existentialist murderers as well as its fascist economists, I think I recall that, in Dostoyevsky’s famous novel on crime and punishment, we are engaged in the hope for a new life for a rehabilitated murderer precisely because of his grappling with his guilt. Mr. Heirens has never admitted his crime and thus has not taken the very crucial first step of rehabilitation in any program for personal change.
