Man am I ticked OFF!!!

[JATO_RaT]

Patrick as usual, another great post. I've always wondered why folks bring up the part "of course a fair trial, due process etc" isn't that pretty much the way our legal system works? OJ got due process and to his benefit a trial that was fair to him.
The question of whether it is a deterrent or not really is not even a part of the formula, its simply the punishment given the crime. The deterrent part is going to be taken differently by the individual, the thought of handcuffs deters me. If the punishment deters others, we've killed two birds with one stone.. I have no problems with the death penalty provided its as close too 100% sure the fella did the crime, having said that, I have no problem with folks against the sentence of death, heck, my mom was. At times I get so mad about our justice system, my wife, a Lieutenant with the District Attorneys office reminds where I'm wrong, its humbling and she's right. You bring up so many great points. In the 4 points about life imprisonment you talk about the reward system. I agree, should an inmate be rewarded for NOT burning his mattress? Somehow I get the impression he is.
Thanks for all the responses to this post, if in fact they do have the suspect that did this in custody, we can feel better about that. He no less deserves due process. I'd rather set a guilty man go then hang an innocent man. Watch your little ones and big ones too, Rat...

 

[Bird]

I think that's pretty well said, Patrick. I suspect most of us have some ambivalent feelings about capital punishment (or for that matter, other forms of punishment). Personally, yes, I'm in favor of capital punishment as long as I'm absolutely sure of the defendant's guilt and that's a little different from the court standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." In our adversarial system, the defense attorney supposedly represents the defendant and is only interested in acquital or as light a punishment as possible. Some take that very seriously and will do anything they think they can get away with to accomplish that goal, but I've also seen some who couldn't care less what happens to their client. On the other hand, the prosecutor and police supposedly are only interested in the truth and justice. And hopefully, most are, but then human nature comes into play sometimes and they just want to win. Then you have the judge; the all knowing legal mind who's supposed to see that all the rules of the game are followed regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Again in most cases (we hope) this is the case, but in too many (as in Texas) they are politicians who are elected. If you think that doesn't throw a bias in the game, you ain't spent much time around courts and lawyers. And sometimes I've thought Jonathan Swift was right, in Gulliver's Travels, when he wrote about attorneys, that when they become too old and senile to practice law, they make'em judges./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[JATO_RaT]

Bird, that was excellent. Your comment about judges certainly applys to the state of California. I forgot to mention the case of the Menendez brothers who killed their mother and father with a shot gun. While due process was employed, my question of an adequate jury weighing the evidence presented to them vs. the poor boys who will never get to see their mother and father again because they fired several shotgun blasts into each and besides, they where handsome men, never got a fair trial, at least in the eyes of us citizens.
Your statements ring so true, Rat...

 

[knucklehead]

Does the "suspect" have a criminal record? I'll bet money he does, and hasn't been punished significantly. I know this is going to rub a little fur in the wrong direction, and I also acknowledge that it is a gross generalization (or maybe not.....?), but where do the laws protecting criminals at the victim's expense come from? And who puts the lenient judges in place? A local talk radio personality (Howie Carr) said yesterday that Liberalism Kills. Took my breath away. I would add that so does Hypocritical Conservatism. It's not political but moral - Newt was as much of a dirtbag as Bill in his behavior. Notice the difference in their behavior afterwards - one resigned. But I'm getting off track a bit.

We need actively to teach and enforce standards of right and wrong everywhere, and dispense with the foolish talk about what's truth for me and other rationalizations ultimately watering down acceptable moral behavior. This isn't Orwellian talk - it's common sense, [censored]! The end result of the erosion of social & moral standards in the last century is what we are witnessing now - no other conclusion can be sincerely made. People are social beings, and they follow social norms - unfortunately many do so to the lowest common denominator; therefore when the "bar" is lowered, the lowest sink to reprehensible levels.

Why is all this happening - I mean criminals going free to hurt more people? None of us here, including all political persuasions, think this is justice. We need to write and call our local officials, then our Federal Representatives, and demand action to bring common sense and moral guidelines back into the justice sytem and the school system- I mean the Ten Commandments. Simple and basic. Yes, parental responsibility is the isssue, not governmental involvement - I agree wholeheartedly. But we have a crisis of incompetent parents, and basic things are not being taught. We need to cultivate civility and acceptable social behavior in future generations. We also need to help our neighbors - face to face. We need to allow failure - to allow people to experience the consequenses of their sin, not coddle them along with social programs and a lenient, impotent legal system. While we're at it, we need to teach young people how to stand up and resist wrong - not run away and tell someone, like the TV ads are teaching kids to react to bullies (not my kids, though). And we need to remain vigilant, because it is the slow, seemingly innocuous erosion of common sense via knee jerk reaction and legal tunnel vision that yields the unintended consequenses we are witnessing in our nation.

As an example - do you think our poor little 16 year old fellow citizen who was filmed being punched while being restrained by a crowd of cops will find justice? Has anyone heard any mention in the news lately of the reason he was being arrested? Regardless of whether the police lost control of themselves (which they did - and I know it's tough to maintain control, but that's what they are being underpaid for), I seriously doubt he will face any real punishement. You may want to memorize his name, for you will undoubtedly hear it again.

Sorry for the rant; we're in the process of chasing a murder suspect up here, and it's been three days, even though the police were there almost at once. They called off the search at night the first day - why? I'd think you'd want to put dogs on the trail and push him hard. This happened 15 miles from my house - and I was on night shift. Not a comfy feeling with a wife and two kids in the house.

 

[Wingnut]

Jim, I have to agree with you .... it's getting so bad out there, one is afraid to even look at children.
I had no children myself but kinda inherited a family when I remarried and now I have 5 grandchildren. And .... for some reason, the little ones seem to like me. My wife's favorite, her 7 year old garndaughter absolutely dotes on my and always wants to sit in grandpa's lap ... and my first thought always is ... "gosh, is this ok, I mean I've never even had kids ... am I going to be viewed here as a dirty old man because this innocent kid gets a kick out of me?"
Give candy to kids? Not on your life ... I even try to make sure we have something going on Halloween so that we don't have to worry about the potential problems, It's a sad, sad world when one even has to think this way ... but the media keeps pushing statistics that say 1 in 4 (or is it now 3 in 4) children are abused ... and 90%+ of the time it's someone they know.

peter

 

[Wingnut]

I don't know if it's hit your papers yet ... but when I was reading ours this morning, I saw an article about a couple that was just arrested in Kissimmee, FLA. The crime was beating to death and then burning their baby. If I remember correctly, they were from New Jersey ... guy is 27, wife is 20 .... baby was about 7 months. Grandmother called police to say she had not heard from/about grandson since mid-March. Apparently they actually beat the baby to death and then burned the corpse in the fireplace.
Starting to sound very much like the end of "civilization" as we know it .... is society going to last long when we start treating our offspring in this manner?

 

[Wingnut]

ok ... but how do you do that when half the country thinks that the old adage that it's better for 99 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be punished?
Look at how man "chances" we give Charles Ng, Charlie Manson, and the rest. How many of these repeat offenders make parole?
We're never going to stop repeat offenders as long as we continue to allow sociopaths to have any societal rights whatsoever.
JMHO

peter

 

[Ozarker]

Just read in the LA times that the man they arrested Friday, Alejandro Avila, has been tied to the crime with DNA evidence found on the girls body. Should be all over but the guilty plea and sentencing. I'm betting he will try to get a deal where he pleads guilty for life without parole to avoid the death penalty.

 

[Wingnut]

what I found more interesting ... because of my views of the courts ... is that he beat the rap several years ago in a sexual assault on several young girls.

 

[Ozarker]

Yes, they do it over and over until stopped. We have a case locally, no murder, where a guy was convicted of some molestation but was out on bail while his appeal went forward. He is now accused of attempting to kidnap an 11 year old girl last week. She was able to fight him off and run away.

Of course his bail was revoked by my question is why was he out on bail to begin with? He was convicted. What idiot made that decision?