Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Judges know the law, and 97% of the time the rulings they make are in favor of the defendant.

Can you back this up? Does this mean that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate?

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by case

Can you back this up? Does this mean that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate?

No, I'm not saying that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate. I'm saying that the defendant is rightly given all opportunity to be seen in a positive light (ie, you can't tell the jury that he's been convicted of assault in the past to prove that he's guilty of assault now--that can only be used in the penalty phase).

And as my mother was a legal secretary, and I grew up around lawyers and judges, I can say that most of the judges I knew had been lawyers before they became judges. Therefore, I'm presuming that they know the law and how it is applied.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

And if they admit it--sorry. If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.

Wow. That's one of the most ignorant things I've seen written on the cellar... Especially in the context of a thread about the juvenile death penalty.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.

I find this very interesting that, of all things, you're mentioning this regarding juvenille cases. You are obviously not at all aware of the countless cases, the majority of them serious, in which a minor has admitted to crimes they did not commit when under pressure during an police interview.

"He sounded so sure of himself that I started to doubt my son," Rick Sr. said. "I started to wonder if Ricky really had done this awful thing. I couldn't understand why Danny would say he'd done it if he hadn't."

Mother Nature, indeed.

Why are you certain of the death penalty and yet so blind to the process, the flaws of the process, and the reasons why the process is in place? This world is not so black and white.

[Kitsune]

[retracted]

[jaguar]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Mahatma Gandhi

[Catwoman]

I understand the act of settling on a point and then arguing from it without explaining. It can get tiring repeating your 'workings' and you can forget them somtimes ('I know this is my point of view I just can't remember why').

Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.'

Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error.

If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.'

Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error.

If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice.

I DO realize that all crimes are not the same. I don't consider killing in self-defense or the defense of another to be cold-blooded murder. We have the right and the duty to protect ourselves against an unprovoked attack. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I'm talking about serial murderers, spree killers, mass murderers, child killers, child rapists....people who are in and out of jail for the same thing over and over and over and who present an ongoing threat to society.

I know that crime is not black and white, but neither is it ALWAYS gray. If you have a guy who has a lengthy history of child molestation, then he should never, EVER be released. Obviously he cannot be rehabilitated, and the next time he may decide that it would be better to kill the victim so he wouldn't get caught. What then? Or a rapist who's in and out of jail on rape charges may decide the same thing. Kill the victim, and they can't tell on you.

I'm all in favor of mandatory DNA testing. I feel bad for the people who've spent years in jail only to be proven innocent on DNA. That's why I think it should be mandatory for all capital cases. Any kind of testing that may prove a defendant in a capital case innocent should be used, even if the court must pay for it. I also think that the jury should be able to hear ALL of the evidence, including past history of the defendent, so that they can determine propensity. The jury too often only hears certain parts of evidence, so they don't have all the information that they need to make a fair decision.

Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.

If a woman kills her rapist, good for her...she saved the state some money. Give her a medal for helping to protect society and send her on her way. Too many times, the victim is put on trial and dragged through the mud by a lawyer who doesn't care about anything except winning cases. Where's the morality there? Just because OJ had the best lawyers and a biased jury doesn't mean he's NOT guilty. Just because Robert Blake was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it. They may never do it again. But they did it once, and that was enough to destroy two families. What about them?

Our justice system is biased in favor of the accused. The courts lean over backwards to ensure that the accused gets as fair a trial as possible so that a higher court won't reverse their decision.

For instance, if a juvenile has a history of assault, as soon as he becomes an adult, his record is sealed. Therefore, if he assaults again, or rapes, or kills, the prosecutor cannot give the jury all of the information that they need to make a fair decision. He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair? The jury lets the guy off with a light sentence, IF they find him guilty, because they think it's his first offense, when actually it's not.

And rape or murder? A defense lawyer can drag the victim through the mud, (this happens a lot in murder cases, and the victim is not there to defend themselves) but a prosecutor cannot do the same with regards to the accused's history. How is THAT fair?

No, I know that crime isn't black and white. But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt, I think that they should be punished, whether you want to call it societal retribution or justice--I consider them the same thing--according to the severity of their crime.

Vandalism? Get a fine, maybe spend a night in jail if it was extremely destructive. Rape? Put you in a cell with Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in thirty years, and let you see how you like it. Child molestation? Put you in a cage and never let you out. Rot in there for all I care. Child abuse? Fix you like an animal so that you can't create more little ready-made victims. Put you on a list so that you can never adopt or babysit or teach or have any access to kids. Murder? A life for a life.

I think that's fair.


Sidhe

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair?

Funny, you answered yourself right here:

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.

History means nothing when you are on trial for a crime because you are being tried based on evidence, not your previous actions. Previous actions bias juries to the point of finding the innocent guilty. That is why the judge takes the defendant's history into account during the sentencing portion of the trial, not during the actual trial, itself.

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt

You're insisting this evidence is always rock-solid. It is not, even admission of guilt as I noted above.

[mrnoodle]

I really really don't want to resurrect the relativism thing, but how can anyone get anything done if they spend their entire lives wringing their hands and saying "what do we dooooooo?!?! There's no black and white! We can't decide!" The world keeps spinning while we flail around in a perfectly grey puddle of indecision and angst. The kid will die of natural causes before anyone can agree on whether he needs rehabilitation more than the world needs to be rid of him.

Happy Monkey has it right. Let out the weed growers and there will be plenty of room to keep the murderers while we decide what to do with them. But please, someone decide SOMETHING. While the life of a murderer might have equal intrinsic value to the life of anyone else, it does NOT have the same value as the scores of potential victims he will create if he's not kept out of society forever.

[Catwoman]

Agh. Please read my post, someone. What makes you think he'll do it again? There have only ever been a handful of serial killers (not counting presidents and prime ministers). Stop. Basing. Arguments. On. The. Doings. Of. An. Extreme. Minority.

: pulling hair out :

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Agh. Please read my post, someone. What makes you think he'll do it again? There have only ever been a handful of serial killers (not counting presidents and prime ministers). Stop. Basing. Arguments. On. The. Doings. Of. An. Extreme. Minority.

: pulling hair out :

http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research395.html

"Only about 1% of the population are serial killers. Yet the number of identified serial killers has risen dramatically in the last 20 years or so. Whether this is an increase in the actual number of offenders or whether it is due to better police work is unknown. Whatever the reason, the serial homicide rate has risen tenfold.

The FBI estimates that there are currently 500 serial killers at large. Other estimates are much lower, around 35 - 100 serial killers currently committing crimes. In 1983, they estimated that 5000 Americans, or 15 people a day were killed by strangers. Every year, between 3500 - 5000 people in America are the victims of serial killers. In the past 20 years, 160 serial killers have been identified or captured, and 120 of them were in the United States. "

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.002/hinch.html

"It has been estimated that between 10 and 500 serial killers are active at any time in the United States (Egger 1990a; Kiger 1990; O'Reilly- Fleming 1996). In Canada, estimates range from 5 to 30 (Ratner 1996). The variation in these estimates can be attributed to a variety of problems with data sources: arbitrary definitions; small samples; samples biased toward only known/apprehended serial killers; and samples relying upon secondary sources such as biographies or newspapers. These alternative data sources have been used primarily because official data are not reliable.

For example, the FBI collects data from law enforcement agencies across the United States and publishes it in the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR). The Supplemental Homicide Report(SHR), part of the UCR, provides additional information about victims, offenders and circumstances. The intention is to reflect all criminal offenses that come to the attention of the police.

The data, however, are incomplete and unreliable. First, because reporting is voluntary, the information is incomplete (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Second, there may be organizational pressures within particular police jurisdictions not to alarm the public about the possible existence of a serial killer in that area. This may prevent reporting and/or effect homicide classification procedures (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Third, homicide data records only those crimes known to the police. Missing persons and undiscovered bodies are excluded."

Hm. Only a handful. I'd hate to see what you consider a significant number.


Sidhe

[mrnoodle]

yes, let's not project the actions of one child rapist on the scores of decent, hardworking child rapists who might not re-offend. How narrow of me.

[Lady Sidhe]

Keep in mind that pedophiles typically will have molested 10 kids before they get caught, and that many victims do not come forward, for lots of reasons.

And not every woman who is raped comes forward, for many reasons.

**A victimization survey conducted by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and Statistics Canada discovered that only 38% of females who had experienced a sexual assault during 1981 reported their victimizations to police. The survey estimated that 15,100 women above the age of sixteen (or about 6 women per 1000 in the population under study) experienced some form of sexual assault during a one year period in the seven Canadian cities that were surveyed.

For you stat/research-wanters, here's some stuff I found:


**To examine differences in recidivism rates across sex offender type, we separated the offenders into three groups: incest offenders, pedophiles and rapists (see Table 2). This revealed that among newly released sex offenders, rapists had the highest rates of general, violent and sexual recidivism relative to any other group. In contrast, incest offenders demonstrated the lowest rates of general, violent and sexual recidivism relative to pedophiles or rapists, regardless of whether they belonged to the caseload or newly released samples. It is notable that the pedophile group on caseload had the highest rate of sexual recidivism relative to incest offenders or rapists. One exception to this trend involves homosexual pedophiles. These offenders are considerably more likely to reoffend than are heterosexual pedophiles.



**http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.htm
Studies of Sex Offenders of all types, and recidivism rates

**Is chemical castration an acceptable punishment for male sex offenders?
Resources used to support "yes"
Sex offenders, such as rapists, pedophiles, and exhibitionists, are among the highest reoccurring offense populations in the United States probation system. These offenders commit crimes that put fear into the general public and pose a threat to people that live in their neighborhoods. These offenders should be punished and not let off or forgiven of their crime(s) just because they have gone through a treatment program, most or which cannot show a significant success rate.

Chemical castration is an ideal punishment for sex offenders. When Depo-Provera is administerd, recidivism rates fall to 5%. Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. Although men administered this drug are capable of having sexual intercourse, many people argue that chemical castration is cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is countered by the fact that sex offenders are required to get injections only once a month. What is "cruel and unusual" is allowing sex offenders to attack innocent women and children. This effective therapy will protect future victims. It is an "offender friendly" way of reducing sexual violence. [LaLaunie Hayes.]

(I have no problem with chemical castration, if it works. But if it doesn't work and s/he reoffends, THEN can we kill them?)

**Researchers admit that existing studies provide only limited estimates of the number of reoffences committed by sex offenders. Most recidivism studies report on reconvictions that take place within a two to three year period following convictions for sex offences. However studies that have tracked sex offenders over extended follow-up periods have found higher recidivism rates. Another problem with recidivism rates is that figures based on reconvictions only provide information on offenders who have been officially detected.


**http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/.../e011i_e.shtml
Research on Sex Offenders


**Reoffense rates tend to increase over the years and, around the ten year mark, reoffense rates among treated offenders is nearly the same as among untreated offenders.



So, let's say, just for shits and giggles, that a sex offender, of whatever type, gets out of jail...he hasn't seen a woman/man/child for however long he's been in. Now, considering that straight men who get out of jail probably head for the nearest piece they can find, what makes you think that this guy won't?

So we let this guy out, and say, "Oh...he's been in treatment. He's safe." And he goes out and the first thing he does is get him some from somebody who doesn't want to give it. What do you say THEN?? "OOpsie...we fucked up. Sorry about that, miss. Sorry this guy raped you and your little girl, then beat you both and threw you in a dumpster and left you for dead. Our mistake. You know how it goes."??

ONE victim that could have been saved is worth it. Letting him out and giving him the benefit of the doubt may sound nice, but it doesn't mean jack to the next person he harms. It all comes down to choice. He chooses to engage in his behavior. I think we should choose to punish his ass as severely as possible. This isn't breaking a window or boosting a car. Sex crimes are the ultimate INVASION. Victims never really feel safe again. How does someone pay for THAT??

And before someone slams me about the "choice" issue, check this out:

I read in this in Time magazine a few years ago, and this stuck with me because I admired what this man did...The story was about this priest who was caught messing with kids. This man was so remorseful that he voluntarily gave up his collar and went to live in the friggin' MOUNTAINS. He lives in a cabin in the mountains, and he only comes down once a month to get supplies and to give talks to other priests. He refuses to be around children at ALL.

Now THAT'S remorse. THAT'S rehabilitation. That's choosing NOT to engage in, or even put oneself into a situation to engage in the behavior.

That's what crime comes down to. It's not your mommy's fault, it's not your daddy's fault, and it's not society's fault. It's YOUR fault. Choice.


Sidhe

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

So we let this guy out, and say, "Oh...he's been in treatment. He's safe." And he goes out and the first thing he does is get him some from somebody who doesn't want to give it. What do you say THEN?? "OOpsie...we fucked up. Sorry about that, miss.

Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.

You have no right to expect extreme protection. You only have the right to expect protection as best available - and still protect others rights. A percentage of all murders who get out will murder again. That is expected and cannot be avoided. So therefore we should fry all murders. I appreciate your fear. But life is about risk. Deal with the logic. Your fears are not relevant.

We do the best we can to minimize your risks. But that does not justify the frying of all murders, pedophiles or rapists. And yet with all the emotion in your post, that is exactly what you advocate. It is what happens when fear replaces logic.