Court upholds death sentence for child rape

[Guest The Architect]

Call it a wicked and unsettling castigation if you will, but I think this guy should rot in jail for life, have his hands permanently hand cuffed, and have his **** cut off and super glued to his head. Isn

[astr0creep]

If the court makes a mistake and gives me the right to do whatever I want with my daughter's allegded rapist and it turns out he's innocent(which would mean my daughter lied, no?)

 

Not necessarily. Perhaps she was mistaken, perhaps someone else entirely wanted to frame him, perhaps a mistake was made somewhere in the process.

 

I would assume the man's parents could not have the same right. Maybe they could kill the Judge or the lawyers?

 

Why would they want to kill the judges or lawyers, when you are the one who sentenced him to death? You could have chosen a lesser punishment, but you chose to believe the justice system got it right.

 

If law makers and enforcers were accountable for such mistakes our justice system would work perfectly.

 

By giving the victim or victims family the right to do what they wish, you are making them a part of the justice system. By deciding how this man should be punished, you have made yourself a part of the system and as such you must be held accountable for the decisions you make. Which means his family gets to kill you, if they wish.

 

I've said what I wanted to say. The details are in common sense, which seems to escape forumites everywhere.

My problem is more with goody-goody people who still believe in the current overly corrupted justice systems and who seem to be willing to accomodate these slimes with leniency(sp).

There will always be mistakes, some innocent person will always be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The point is to not be too nice with the majoraty of the truly guilty ones, just so that one innocent person, sometimes, can be accomodated with a lesser sentence.

 

We might as well empty all jails right now.

[Gorth]

The point is to not be too nice with the majoraty of the truly guilty ones, just so that one innocent person, sometimes, can be accomodated with a lesser sentence.

So, the killing of innocents is perfectly acceptable collateral damage to you?

[Hell Kitty]

The details are in common sense, which seems to escape forumites everywhere.

 

You kill a man you believed to be a rapist and then get killed yourself because it turns out he was innocent? I fail to see the common sense in this system.

 

The point is to not be too nice with the majoraty of the truly guilty ones

 

Sorry bud, but it's guilty or not guilty, not truly guilty, probably guilty or not guilty.

[Blarghagh]

"If that was your daughter would you feel the same way?"

 

I have absolutely no interest in what her parents have to say, and neither should anyone. The girl is the victim here and who we should focus on, and I have to say I'm much more worried about the effect this would have on her. I assume this would make the child only more conflicted in adult life. Not only did she face horrible trauma, but as a result someone was basically killed on her behalf. You're not doing that girl a favor by killing her rapist, people.

Edited May 29, 2007 by TrueNeutral

[Walsingham]

I keep meaning to read that book by the sole survivor of Marc Dutroux's merry band - I choose to live

 

EDIT: Actually not the sole survivor.

 

Can anyone read the following and tell me that the finite resources of the State should be spent on the minimal chance of reforming this character instead of spending the same money on his victims? High security costs tens of thousands a month.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3522367.stm

[Blarghagh]

I suppose that is true. Prevention of someone derailing is more important than fixing someone who has already derailed. However, as I said before, I don't think killing someone on the victim's behalf is going to prevent them from derailing in any way.

 

(Assuming you meant it in that way... I'm not completely sure what your point was.)

[Sand]

I don't see why we should waste money on reformation when most of the time it just doesn't work. I am all in favor of executions. A Single bullet in the back of the head or a good old fashion hanging is good enough for executing a criminal.

[Walsingham]

I suppose that is true. Prevention of someone derailing is more important than fixing someone who has already derailed. However, as I said before, I don't think killing someone on the victim's behalf is going to prevent them from derailing in any way.

 

(Assuming you meant it in that way... I'm not completely sure what your point was.)

 

I am sorry. I should have been more clear. I mean that - assuming execution is cheaper - in certain extreme cases it would make very good sense to complete an execution and use the saved money on alleviating the victims' suffering.

 

By extreme cases I suppose I mean instances where an individual has been convicetd on the strength of multiple strands of evidence, and with a fast track review by a higher court. How DO you define 'bloody obvious he did it'?

[Gorgon]

Execution isen't cheaper though, if you factor in appeals and the extra cost of being a death row inmate, unless you go Texas-style and assembly line the death cases all the way to the chamber, limiting appeals and shortening case time.

 

 

The justice system in most states though moves at the same speed regardless of percieved levels of 'guilty'. An extention of the whole presumed innocence deal I would assume.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Fenghuang]

Actually, a no-longer-with-us poster named alanschu once provided a link that showed the recidivism rate of pedophiles was remakably low.

 

That aside, while I support the death penalty, I think it is too harsh for a rape.

 

alanschu left?

[astr0creep]

Sorry bud, but it's guilty or not guilty, not truly guilty, probably guilty or not guilty.

 

I'm not the one who brought up the "What if he's actually innocent" debate.

 

I only said that the victim and her/his(yes, it happens) family should have a right to decide the guilty's fate, be it death, torture, castration, forgiveness, whatever. It could be a simple veto on a jury's decision, a veto given by the Judge.

 

Being careful and not giving a full sentence, however cruel it may seem, to prevent innocents from paying a very high price gives the opportunity for the real criminals, of rape or other, to often walk through loopholes or live when they should die.

By protecting the occasional innocent, we allow the guilty, the majority(of prisoners) to get lesser sentences.

 

How can men like Robert Pickton and Charles Manson be allowed to live? Because they could be innocent? Because of jurisprudence(sp)? I don't understand. I really don't.

[Gfted1]

Actually, a no-longer-with-us poster named alanschu once provided a link that showed the recidivism rate of pedophiles was remakably low.

 

That aside, while I support the death penalty, I think it is too harsh for a rape.

 

alanschu left?

 

 

I guess hes not gone gone but he sure doesnt post with the frequency he used to.

[Walsingham]

Gorgon, again I was less than clear, although in this case it was because I am trying to keep the size of my posts down. I had also heard that the current cost of execution is higher than incarceration. However, that is a function of the process we use for completing the justice process, not a function of - as Sand so quaintly puts it - moving a nickel chunk of lead through somebody's head.

 

 

Clearly, as others have noted here, the costs associated in the US are a function of our placing a large premium on preventing an innocent from being over-punished. However, what I think we've caught in this discussion is the feeling that we are not placing a high enough premium on the damage caused to innnocents by a subject being under-punished. Thus I would be interesed to compare the number of 'wrongful killings' associated with the UK (i.e. victims of repeat offenders) versus a no-nonsense rough figure of how many 'wrongful killings' occur in the US (i.e. men/women convicted on partial evidence).

[metadigital]

While I think it would be nice (and the benefits are self-evident) to have convictions graded for confidence, judging by the parlous state of the legal system as it stands, I doubt this is a realistic and attainable goal, at least in the short term.

 

Whilst the legal system is subject to ludicrous abuse by the most wealthy, for one, it is only ever going to be a way of removing the poorest convicts. Then again, at least a rich person has more to lose, and might not be so willing to commit said heinous crimes in the future ... a sort of de facto disincentive to recidivism ... although the richest are always going to be above the law.

[Guard Dog]

While I think it would be nice (and the benefits are self-evident) to have convictions graded for confidence, judging by the parlous state of the legal system as it stands, I doubt this is a realistic and attainable goal, at least in the short term.

 

Whilst the legal system is subject to ludicrous abuse by the most wealthy, for one, it is only ever going to be a way of removing the poorest convicts. Then again, at least a rich person has more to lose, and might not be so willing to commit said heinous crimes in the future ... a sort of de facto disincentive to recidivism ... although the richest are always going to be above the law.

 

Cynic.

[Sand]

Well, we do need a some revisions in our courts.

 

How about this to equal things out:

1: Rich or poor, everyone gets a court appointed Attorney. Remove the private lawyers from criminal porceedings altogether.

2: The Jury are in a separate booth outside the courtroom. They get all the information pertinent to the case but they do not have access of the identity of the accused or the accusers. This way they won't be biased by names, race, famous faces, or religion.

[tripleRRR]

Well, we do need a some revisions in our courts.

 

How about this to equal things out:

1: Rich or poor, everyone gets a court appointed Attorney. Remove the private lawyers from criminal porceedings altogether.

2: The Jury are in a separate booth outside the courtroom. They get all the information pertinent to the case but they do not have access of the identity of the accused or the accusers. This way they won't be biased by names, race, famous faces, or religion.

 

Agreed.

[metadigital]

The comments in yellow belong to an attorney friend of mine ...

 

 

Disorder In The Court ...

 

These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by Court Reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

 

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?

 

WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ---GET OFF AND GET OFF!!!!!

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

 

ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?

 

WITNESS: Yes.

 

ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?

 

WITNESS: I forget.

 

ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

 

_____________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?

 

WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"

 

ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?

 

WITNESS: My name is Susan! ---How much do ya wanna bet that this [woman] is testifying at her own murder trial?

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been Involved in voodoo?

 

WITNESS: We both do.

 

ATTORNEY: Voodoo?

 

WITNESS: We do.

 

ATTORNEY: You do?

 

WITNESS: Yes, voodoo. ---Why is that funny? [Fun with rhyming - meta]

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?

 

WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ---Can we say the attorney is a MORON!!???

 

____________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old, how old is he?

 

WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one. --- See above.

 

________________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?

 

WITNESS: Are you [pooping] me? ---Hold me in contempt, cause that would be my answer too!

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?

 

WITNESS: Yes.

 

ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?

 

WITNESS: Uh.... I was gett'in laid! --- Thinking GET OFF AND GET OFF!!!

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?

 

WITNESS: Yes.

 

ATTORNEY: How many were boys?

 

WITNESS: None.

 

ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?

 

WITNESS: Are you [pooping] me? Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? ---Slap the cuffs on me now, cause I'm going to jail before this questioning is over.

 

______________________________________

 

 

 

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?

 

WITNESS: By death.

 

ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?

 

WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it? ---Mine, you see I was in hell and I got a one day pass just to be here for the hearing.

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?

 

WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.

 

ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?

 

WITNESS: Guess.

 

_____________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?

 

WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ---Clearly not competent to stand trial.

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?

 

WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?

 

WITNESS: Oral.

 

______________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?

 

WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.

 

ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?

 

WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!

 

____________________________________________

 

ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

 

WITNESS: Huh....are you qualified to ask that question?

 

______________________________________

 

--- And the best for last: ---

 

 

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

 

WITNESS: No.

 

ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?

 

WITNESS: No.

 

ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?

 

WITNESS: No.

 

ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

 

WITNESS: No.

 

ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

 

WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

 

ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?

 

WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

[Walsingham]

Well, we do need a some revisions in our courts.

 

How about this to equal things out:

1: Rich or poor, everyone gets a court appointed Attorney. Remove the private lawyers from criminal porceedings altogether.

2: The Jury are in a separate booth outside the courtroom. They get all the information pertinent to the case but they do not have access of the identity of the accused or the accusers. This way they won't be biased by names, race, famous faces, or religion.

 

You realise of course that becoming a qualified lawyer takes a lot of time and effort. In order to get people to pursue that career and practice cirminal law tehy have to be induced to do so with money. You are either suggesting teh government spend hundreds of millions on lawyers at current pay rates, or that they draft people to become lawyers.

[Enoch]

Well, we do need a some revisions in our courts.

 

How about this to equal things out:

1: Rich or poor, everyone gets a court appointed Attorney. Remove the private lawyers from criminal porceedings altogether.

2: The Jury are in a separate booth outside the courtroom. They get all the information pertinent to the case but they do not have access of the identity of the accused or the accusers. This way they won't be biased by names, race, famous faces, or religion.

 

You realise of course that becoming a qualified lawyer takes a lot of time and effort. In order to get people to pursue that career and practice cirminal law tehy have to be induced to do so with money. You are either suggesting teh government spend hundreds of millions on lawyers at current pay rates, or that they draft people to become lawyers.

Actually, some states do draft their public defenders. In some smaller states (Idaho is one, I think), every practicing attorney in the state can be called in to serve as a public defender in a criminal trial. I believe they can get around it with a good excuse and a donation to pay for a replacement, but it's an interesting way to make sure that accused criminals get competent defense.

 

That said, I'd say that a better solution is to allow private attorneys, but devote more resources to making sure that court-appointed public defenders are competent, fairly paid, and not overworked. As to Sand's second idea, how is a jury supposed to weigh the credibility of witness testimony if they can't see them?

[Walsingham]

Enoch, thanks for illsutrating how I might be wrong. However, what Sand is advocating is NO private defence counsel. For anyone. Who would pursue criminal law on that basis? Could government even afford it?

 

I agree on the point that it woudl be nice to have juries unbiased by how a witness looks. However if I were standing in court I'd want to be able to convey my innocence by being seen.

[Enoch]

Enoch, thanks for illsutrating how I might be wrong. However, what Sand is advocating is NO private defence counsel. For anyone. Who would pursue criminal law on that basis? Could government even afford it?

 

I agree on the point that it woudl be nice to have juries unbiased by how a witness looks. However if I were standing in court I'd want to be able to convey my innocence by being seen.

Oh, you're right that a system with no private criminal defense attorneys at all would be a failure. My point was something of a tangent about how a few jurisdictions handle representation for the indigent.

 

I think that the best defense against racism/sexism/classism/etc. in the courtroom is a diverse jury pool. As long as there's pressure from the other jurors to keep race/sex/whatever out of the discussion, the effect of a few racist jurors can be minimized.

[Walsingham]

[

I think that the best defense against racism/sexism/classism/etc. in the courtroom is a diverse jury pool. As long as there's pressure from the other jurors to keep race/sex/whatever out of the discussion, the effect of a few racist jurors can be minimized.

 

Good point.

[Volourn]

"How about this to equal things out:

1: Rich or poor, everyone gets a court appointed Attorney. Remove the private lawyers from criminal porceedings altogether."

 

Horrible idea. The defendent should have the right to choose who is going defend them. Afterall, at the very least, it's their freedom on the line.

 

 

"2: The Jury are in a separate booth outside the courtroom. They get all the information pertinent to the case but they do not have access of the identity of the accused or the accusers. This way they won't be biased by names, race, famous faces, or religion."

 

I could live with that; but how will they hear the tisimony that way? Block the witness' faces and alter their voices? Hmm...