Martha Elliot is stupid in the way that only very educated people can be.
The thesis of this book is that Michael Ross, Connecticut’s most well-known rapist and serial killer, should not have been given the death penalty.
Why? Because he was mentally ill.
And what was his mental illness, you may ask?
Sexual sadism, which is when you take pleasure in raping, degrading, and killing women.
Elliot repeats over and over how this supposed mental illness “caused” Ross to kill because he was an “automaton” who had “no control” over his actions.
Where to begin with this?
Well, let’s agree—for a moment—with the absurd and detestable idea that serial killers and rapists have no control over their actions. The logical next question is this: How does a man being unable to control the urge to rape and kill make it less reasonable to execute him?
Rabid dogs don’t control their urges, either, but the state still puts them down.
In what world does Michael Ross deserve to be treated better than a rabid dog?
The dog didn’t know any better. Michael Ross did.
Ross is an Ivy-League-educated man who knows the difference between right and wrong. Yet Martha Elliot insists on babying him. Over and over again, she repeats his lies and encourages the reader to feel sorry for him. He was beaten by his dad. His mom was very mean and made him put down his blind dog. Poor, poor Michael Ross.
Except, plenty of people have awful childhoods and do not use their experiences as excuses to rape and murder. Shockingly enough, it turns out that human beings can own up to responsibility for their own actions.
It may sound like I am exaggerating how much Martha Elliot excuses Michael Ross’s behaviors. I am not.
She repeats how Ross had “no control” over the rapes and murders on practically every page of her book (53, 58, 141, 147). She claims that the hormone replacement therapy Ross received in prison cured his sexual sadism… even as he sends her letters fantasizing about raping lonely, defenseless, and vulnerable women to death.
But let me provide a more specific example of Martha Elliot’s revolting excuse-making:
There is a section in the book about how Michael treated his college girlfriend, Betsy. Michael grew to resent Betsy because she didn’t want to move back to Michael’s hometown to tend his family farm. So, what did he do? He beat her savagely. He “demanded sex,” and when she would refuse, “he would force sex on her” as a “way of punishing her.” A way “to hurt” and “degrade a woman” by reminding her of a rape she experienced earlier in life.
And how does Elliot finish off this section of her book? With this sentence:
“[Michael Ross] depended on [Betsy] and needed her, yet she was making him miserable” (120).
That’s right, she was making him miserable. Because she didn’t want to be a farm-wife. You got that? Nothing the rapist does is really the rapist’s fault. He’s just “mentally ill,” you know?
The idea that the “mental illness” of sexual sadism lessens the severity of rape and murder is absurd, and it leads Martha Elliot to commit herself to worse absurdities as the book goes on. At one point (134), Elliot becomes worried when she discovers that Michael Ross might not have raped 14-year-old Leslie Shelley before he strangled her to death.
Why? Why the hell would it be troubling to imagine that a little girl was NOT raped before she was strangled to death?
Well, if Michael did not rape her, then the murder was not motivated by sexual sadism, Michael’s “mental illness.”
In other words, Elliot’s defense of poor old Mikey Ross would be better off if he HAD raped the child—because that would make him look more sexually sadistic, and being sexually sadistic means you don’t control your own actions… apparently.
To call this logic stupid or grotesque would be an understatement.
Throughout the book, Martha Elliot waxes poetic about how “barbaric” the death penalty is, and at one point, she notes out how executioners traditionally put a hood over the criminal’s face before killing them. That’s because, as Elliot puts it, “No one wants to see the panic in the face of the condemned or the gruesome, distorted face of the corpse” (33).
No one? Really? I can think of at least one person who likes to see the twisted, pained faces of vulnerable people as they suffer and die. Can you guess who it is?
But this fact—that people like Michael Ross feel joy when they see fear in the eyes of women and children being raped, strangled, and humiliated—does not matter to Ms. Elliot.
She admits throughout the book that, given the opportunity, Ross would have raped and strangled her or her daughters and enjoyed doing it. And yet, what’s truly “barbaric” to Martha Elliot is eliminating people like Michael Ross from our society.
Elliot’s children, by the way, are who the book is dedicated to. “For my children,” the dedication says.
Then there’s a space.
Then… “And for the eight women whose lives were so tragically cut short.”
She could not even be bothered to list those poor and vulnerable girls’ names on the dedication page. The victims—both figuratively and literally—always come second to Ms. Elliot.
Perhaps Martha Elliot should reevaluate who she extends her sympathy to, and who in our society deserves protection from evil and barbarism.