I would like to thank Catherine Greig’s attorney for setting women back about three decades today. Greig is Whitey Bulger’s long time girlfriend, the one that fled with Whitey and hid with him for sixteen years while the federal authorities supposedly looked for him. (I find this whole claim a bit dubious because of Whitey’s previous involvement with the FBI. It seems to me impossible that he could hide out for 16 years, many of those years in Santa Monica, California, while Osama Bin Laden was caught in less time. But that conspiracy theory is a digression). Greig pled guilty to several crimes, including harboring a fugitive, and was sentenced today. She chose not to speak, which is interesting on so many levels, given the level of hatred that was directed toward her by the families of Whitey’s victims. After the sentencing, her lawyer said this:
“Catherine Greig fell in love with Mr. Bulger, and that’s why she was in the situation she was in,” Reddington said. “Miss Greig did not believe that Mr. Bulger was capable of these homicides.”
Another lawyer said, “She doesn’t buy that, doesn’t believe it, and absolutely stands by her man,” Carney said.
I am not kidding. She stands by her man? She loves him, so we should just ignore the fact that she hid him from the authorities, or helped him hide, for 16 years? And now she has no regrets?
Does anyone else find this “Love Defense” perplexing, and a teeny bit sexist? What lawyer would say that his male client did something because he loved his girlfriend? You never hear that the defendant was just “standing by his woman.” Are women so malleable that we bend at the whim of our significant others, willing to anything, even commit 16 years of federal crimes? Ugh.
As a lawyer, I get that this was either the truth (pathetic), or the best defense available to his client. Greig’s lawyer merely doing his job, finding the best explanation for chain of bad decisions. But I happened to be in front of the TV for the press conferences after the sentencing, and seeing and hearing this lawyer utter the words “stands by her man” made me nearly choke on my lunch.
My friends and I were talking about the Love Defense tonight, as I wondered aloud whether I am a heartless jerk. Maybe it isn’t so pathetic to love someone so much you will literally do anything for that person. I do love my husband a lot, but what if that love conflicts with my values? What about my kids? Would I help my kids become fugitives, or turn them in? For an interesting contrast, consider the case of the brother of the Unabomber. If you are too young to remember, in the 80’s and 90’s there was a series of mail bombs sent to people around the U.S. In total, three people died and many others suffered terrible injuries. When Ted Kaczynski’s brother read about the letters included with the bomb, he expected his brother, who had lived in the woods and acted erratically for many years. The brother made the heart-breaking decision to turn Ted in, and he was prosecuted with a promise to his brother that the federal prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.
Getting back to Catherine Greig, the Love Defense didn’t work. She was sentenced to 96 months in federal prison, with the Court specifically citing the importance of the general deterrence effect of a harsh sentence in a case like this one. True love does not conquer all, it seems.
8 Comments
Patrick Anderson posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:38 am
I think that even if it was true that this woman was “blinded by love,” its a bit irrelevant to the law. The law, in general, is designed to protect our life, liberty, and justice. Love isnt really one of those, so while it may be romantic she would love him so much as to commit a crime, it doesnt really matter. If you kill your husband’s mistress, its still murder. And on an ethical note, I would venture that if you really love someone, you do what is right for them, not what always makes them happiest at the moment. In this case, that is forcing them to face the consequences of their actions.
Jenny Rozenzaft posted on June 14, 2012 at 8:20 am
I agree with the above comment. The only defense for her aid to his crimes would be some form of insanity, and apparently she was not insane or temporarily insane… since this occurred over a period of 16 years. Acts of love do not trump the law; men and women killing their spouses’ lovers for infidelity (maybe I’ve watched too many movies) still go to prison, despite having been overcome by love. As Patrick stated, if she had truly loved him, she would have turned him in. That would have been the action of a reasonable, ethical person (such as the Unabomber’s brother). But, clearly, she is not ethical and a criminal in her own right. The “Love Defense” is not valid.
Nick Li posted on June 18, 2012 at 1:12 am
You pretty much summed it up yourself. She really had no defense and this was the best defense the lawyer could give. I know it’s their job, but it’s utterly ridiculous how far lawyers go to defend or get more lenient terms for their clients who are clearly guilty. I was watching the CNN law analysis of the ongoing Sandusky case and his lawyer apparently claimed that his victims were lying and paid by the police to testify against him. Absolute BS and I hope the judge, persecutors, and jurors ridicule him
David Han posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm
I agree completely with the above statements, but want to offer a position of “devil’s advocate.”
In the most complicated hypothetical scenario, would it be too crazy to consider a “love defense” to be as inherently controversial as a defense regarding insanity? I hope I don’t sound awful when I say that I could imagine one being so internally conflicted if indeed in love, and therefore unable to logically consider consequences of criminally being a bystander.
Patrick Anderson posted on June 19, 2012 at 11:03 am
I see your point, and I don’t know the technical definition for the insanity defense. However, I would speculate that the mental health issues are often caused by something more tangible-a chemical imbalance, or some issue with brain development, that actually stops a person from thinking rationally. But in this case, plenty of people in love are still capable of behaving rationally. It was more a case of poor judgement than anything else, which I don’t think would qualify insanity.
Tania posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:14 pm
I think that it is nice to see that that strong of a love still exists. If Bulger truly loves Creig, why did he include his girlfriend into his crimes and endangering her , knowing that it might result with her being sentenced to jail or even worst. People would not want to put their loved ones in danger would they? Creig really was blinded by love.
Peter H posted on June 24, 2012 at 10:18 pm
I agree with those above me in that the defense she gave was the only possible defense she could have, as pathetic as it was. Overall, what she did was wrong and I agree with the judge sentencing her to 96 months. Just because she loves a fugitive doesn’t mean she can harbor one. I strongly disagree with people who commit crimes with the intention of helping others commit crimes. On the surface, maybe he “brainwashed” her into thinking that he wasn’t doing anything THAT illegal, however I do believe that she probably never knew the extent of her husbands crimes. Finally, I agree with Patrick above in that it was probably poor judgement more than anything else.
Anisha Vellodi posted on June 27, 2012 at 9:28 pm
I think the Love Defense is bogus. I understand the idea of loving someone unconditionally, or loving someone so much you’re willing to do anything for them. But when people say that I think in very few cases they actually mean ANYTHING. I think people would bend their values maybe a little bit for the person they loved but not to this point. Furthermore, when it is an issue that affects multiple other people, love is not an excuse. I agree with Peter above that perhaps she was brainwashed into harboring a fugitive, but that does not make her any less guilty. She also knew what she was getting herself into from the start as well as during all sixteen years of hiding she did with him, so she chose her involvement and sentencing, thus the 96 months proves fair. Also to the point that Osama was found earlier, how does that even happen?! I’m sure all thousand whatever of his wives loved him but even they couldn’t hide him well enough! How did it take Whitey so long to get caught!?