My new (famous) neighbor

off-topic conversation unrelated to Jane's Addiction
Post Reply
Message
Author
ragdoll
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:59 pm

My new (famous) neighbor

#1 Post by ragdoll » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:21 am

In 1998, forty minutes from where I live now a grandmother and her 6 year old granddaughter were brutally raped, the grandmother murdered and the little girl left for dead strangled and beaten.

I remember the story on the news like it was yesterday. It was a huge news story around here.

The man convicted and sent to life in prison was a guy named Clarence Elkins. The Uncle to the little girl and the son-in-law to the grandmother. The little girl told police that the killer "looked" like her Uncle Clarence. Nothing else linked him to the crime other than a distraught little six year old's word.

The wife, now ex-wife (MY NEIGHBOR) knew in her heart that her husband could never do such a thing as to hurt her own mother and niece so she set out to prove her husbands innocents. During the first 6 1/2 years he spent in prison Melinda, the wife would watch every episode of shows like Forensic Files and learn how to "catch a killer" she read and taught herself how to be a investigator, how to collect DNA. With a list she had compiled of suspects she thought could have done this she put herself in many dangerous situations such as finding these suspects at the bars and becoming friends with them, sweet talking, flirting whatever she had to do to get their DNA. She even had the bar maids working with her to save the beer bottles or cigarette butts that might contain their DNA. After spending her own money to get six DNA test done there was no match.

A part of the story is that there was some sort of DNA (a pubic hair, and sperm) left on the victim and it did NOT match Clarence but the judge said the hair could of came from anyone that entered the house and so it did not exclude Clarence.

Years later the little girl saw a picture of her Uncle Clarence realizing he had blue eyes and she remembered the killer as having green eyes. She reached out to her Aunt( my neighbor) who had been shunned from the family for sticking by her husband, and told her that she remembers the killer having green eyes. That gave Melinda even more ammunition to keep looking for the real killer. She remembered the next door neighbor that her niece had ran to their house the next morning after she awoke from being left for dead. She started to realize some very disturbing facts from the little girls testimony. She ran to the neighbors house and instead of the woman letting the girl in and calling 911 she left the girl on the steps for 45mins then took her home claiming to the girls mother that the girl says her grandmother was killed. So Melinda wanted to know more about this woman. Turns out she was the common law wife to a convicted child rapist and she was charged as well for aiding and abetting in his crimes. They lived within feet of the crime scene. Earl Mann also looked very identical to Clarence, except for the eye color. And at the time he was living in the home on a 15 day window from and then back to prison.

Earl Mann had been sent to prison for other un-related rape charges. He was also sharing the same pod with Clarence!!!!! Clarence with the instructions from his wife carried around a tissue in his pocket waiting for the chance to collect Earls DNA. As they are sitting in the court yard Clarence watches Earl put out a cigarette. He collects it, sends it to his wife sealed in a plastic bag. She and by this time she has the "Innocents Project" working with her as well as a team of lawyers get the cig butt tested and it comes back a match!!

In 2005, 6 1/2 years later Clarence was exonerated of all charges and released from prison. Their marriage was already on the rocks before all this happened and it did not last after Clarence came home for Im sure many reasons but she is re-married and lives right beside me. Now her husband works with my boyfriend and they are new bestfriends, drinking buddies. :bs:

There is a award winning Doc made about this, dateline, forensic files, this show, that show, they have let us borrow all the dvds of the shows, some of you have probably seen them, books and now a major big screen movie is in the works, the producer is bringing her the screenplay next week and she wants me to do her hair. :kv: :fear: this is just too much!!

She is a public speaker against the death penalty, she is trying to get it abolished. She is one hell of a woman, breast cancer survivor and also a "Hicks Baby" yes, she was sold out of a black market adoption clinic in Georgia in the 50's. By a Dr. Hicks (google it) who sold these babies for a $1000 to anyone who wanted one. They know out of about 200 babies 49 were sold to family's in the Akron, Ohio area. My neighbor being one of them. Her mother that was murdered was her adoptive mother. They appeared on Maury's talk show together talking about this just a couple months before she was murdered.

crazy shit man!



http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... Elkins.php

http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry ... HICKS1.htm

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#2 Post by Larry B. » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:46 am

Holy shit, what a story! What kind of stupid police investigation can't even catch the fact that there are certain types of criminals living right next door? :facepalm:

Quite a stubborn woman, I must say... and it's lovely that she trusted her husband under that circumstances. I'd have said that she was just being naive... but god damn'.

BTW, if they ever need Spanish subtitles for a release, let me know :nod: I'd apply an ANR special discount.

ragdoll
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#3 Post by ragdoll » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:57 am

Larry B. wrote:Holy shit, what a story! What kind of stupid police investigation can't even catch the fact that there are certain types of criminals living right next door? :facepalm:
Barberton, Ohio police. That town is scum and the police have always been known as "shady"
Larry B. wrote:Quite a stubborn woman, I must say... and it's lovely that she trusted her husband under that circumstances. I'd have said that she was just being naive... but god damn'.
when this all happened she was all over the news, she was made out to of course be the bad guy for sticking by her husband. I was one of the people that just couldn't believe a woman could stick by her man after he had been convicted or accused of doing something so horrible. And then in 2005 when the story came back into the news I was shocked that they found him innocent and I was wrong for judging her or him.
Larry B. wrote: BTW, if they ever need Spanish subtitles for a release, let me know :nod: I'd apply an ANR special discount.
haha!! thanks for the offer, I'll mention it to the producer coming in from Canada next week to her house. She invited me over to meet him....

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#4 Post by Hype » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:53 pm

Really interesting. I am against the death penalty for such reasons as this, among other reasons (I also think retributive justice is a stupid idea to begin with, but apparently that is, in the Academy, like, soooooo 1970s.. :confused: )

User avatar
dali
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#5 Post by dali » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:42 am

ragdoll wrote: A part of the story is that there was some sort of DNA (a pubic hair, and sperm) left on the victim and it did NOT match Clarence but the judge said the hair could of came from anyone that entered the house and so it did not exclude Clarence
Really judge, anyone? So it's not out of the question to image that all the cops and investigators were having a circle jerk at the crime scene?

Moreover, it said left "on" the victim.

I am the only one who caught that this logic by the judge is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of?

Think about it, how the fuck are pubic hair and sperm gonna come from "anyone". When you walk into a residence do you randomly leave your pubic hair and sperm all over of the place? (Larry B., you don't have to answer that last question :lol: )

ragdoll
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#6 Post by ragdoll » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:26 am

dali wrote:
ragdoll wrote: A part of the story is that there was some sort of DNA (a pubic hair, and sperm) left on the victim and it did NOT match Clarence but the judge said the hair could of came from anyone that entered the house and so it did not exclude Clarence
Really judge, anyone? So it's not out of the question to image that all the cops and investigators were having a circle jerk at the crime scene?

Moreover, it said left "on" the victim.

I am the only one who caught that this logic by the judge is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of?

Think about it, how the fuck are pubic hair and sperm gonna come from "anyone". When you walk into a residence do you randomly leave your pubic hair and sperm all over of the place? (Larry B., you don't have to answer that last question :lol: )
Clarence received $1.1 million and I believe that they are still suing the County.
http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDo ... NOH.htm/qx

Melinda told me that Earl Mann(the real killer) had wrote to her offering his help :crazy: in helping her sue the County. Being that he watched from his living room window the cops over look evidence and he said he knows the cops left the crime scene unattended for 45 mins. :no:
Wife's Detective Work Frees Hubby (NEWS VIDEO)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/ ... 0199.shtml

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#7 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:21 am

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Really interesting. I am against the death penalty for such reasons as this, among other reasons (I also think retributive justice is a stupid idea to begin with, but apparently that is, in the Academy, like, soooooo 1970s.. :confused: )
I kind of know where you're coming from, but on the other hand part of me is all for the death penalty. Sometimes I wish we had it in the UK. I think out of the 30 odd states in the US that have it only about 16 perform executions. And in Utah you can have a firing squad if you wish.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#8 Post by Hype » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:58 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:Really interesting. I am against the death penalty for such reasons as this, among other reasons (I also think retributive justice is a stupid idea to begin with, but apparently that is, in the Academy, like, soooooo 1970s.. :confused: )
I kind of know where you're coming from, but on the other hand part of me is all for the death penalty. Sometimes I wish we had it in the UK. I think out of the 30 odd states in the US that have it only about 16 perform executions. And in Utah you can have a firing squad if you wish.
Well, it's just an empirical fact that it doesn't function as a deterrent. So what other reasons could there be for it? Cost? No, that can't be it, it's cheaper to get life in prison than it is to execute someone. (And anyway, why would cost matter? It would be cheaper not to have prisons and to just leave all criminals on an island somewhere, like Australia... but that would be cruel and unusual and violate all sorts of conventions). Placating the victims or their families? No, that can't be it either, because in many cases, these people don't want the criminal killed, and so it can't be a necessary punishment. It's really not clear what good this kind of retributive punishment actually does. Nonetheless it is very clear what harm it does: innocent people ARE killed by it.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#9 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:16 am

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:Really interesting. I am against the death penalty for such reasons as this, among other reasons (I also think retributive justice is a stupid idea to begin with, but apparently that is, in the Academy, like, soooooo 1970s.. :confused: )
I kind of know where you're coming from, but on the other hand part of me is all for the death penalty. Sometimes I wish we had it in the UK. I think out of the 30 odd states in the US that have it only about 16 perform executions. And in Utah you can have a firing squad if you wish.
Well, it's just an empirical fact that it doesn't function as a deterrent. So what other reasons could there be for it? Cost? No, that can't be it, it's cheaper to get life in prison than it is to execute someone. (And anyway, why would cost matter? It would be cheaper not to have prisons and to just leave all criminals on an island somewhere, like Australia... but that would be cruel and unusual and violate all sorts of conventions). Placating the victims or their families? No, that can't be it either, because in many cases, these people don't want the criminal killed, and so it can't be a necessary punishment. It's really not clear what good this kind of retributive punishment actually does. Nonetheless it is very clear what harm it does: innocent people ARE killed by it.
You're right, it has never functioned a deterrent. Cost? I don't know the ins and outs of the state cost to keep someone alive or killing them. Do you? Is it available to see? I also think that you're assuming when you say "in many cases". I'm not sure of cases in the US but I do not know of one recent high profile UK case (which could warrant the death penalty) where someone has been WRONGLY convicted. I guess retributive punishment is sought by some and not by others. It most likely boils down to 'morals' at the end of the day.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#10 Post by Hype » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:55 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:Really interesting. I am against the death penalty for such reasons as this, among other reasons (I also think retributive justice is a stupid idea to begin with, but apparently that is, in the Academy, like, soooooo 1970s.. :confused: )
I kind of know where you're coming from, but on the other hand part of me is all for the death penalty. Sometimes I wish we had it in the UK. I think out of the 30 odd states in the US that have it only about 16 perform executions. And in Utah you can have a firing squad if you wish.
Well, it's just an empirical fact that it doesn't function as a deterrent. So what other reasons could there be for it? Cost? No, that can't be it, it's cheaper to get life in prison than it is to execute someone. (And anyway, why would cost matter? It would be cheaper not to have prisons and to just leave all criminals on an island somewhere, like Australia... but that would be cruel and unusual and violate all sorts of conventions). Placating the victims or their families? No, that can't be it either, because in many cases, these people don't want the criminal killed, and so it can't be a necessary punishment. It's really not clear what good this kind of retributive punishment actually does. Nonetheless it is very clear what harm it does: innocent people ARE killed by it.
You're right, it has never functioned a deterrent. Cost? I don't know the ins and outs of the state cost to keep someone alive or killing them. Do you? Is it available to see? I also think that you're assuming when you say "in many cases". I'm not sure of cases in the US but I do not know of one recent high profile UK case (which could warrant the death penalty) where someone has been WRONGLY convicted. I guess retributive punishment is sought by some and not by others. It most likely boils down to 'morals' at the end of the day.
The following link will, more or less, cover two of the issues you raise at once:

http://www.good.is/post/weighing-the-de ... ut-parole/
A new California senate bill hopes to simplify the equation: End the death penalty in California in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Supporters of the bill say the death penalty is too expensive (it costs the state an extra $1 billion every five years) and error-prone (the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date) to maintain.
In Canada, there have been several high profile wrongful convictions for murder and other horrific crimes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overturned ... _in_Canada ), and given the similarities in the legal systems, it is reasonable to think that the rate of wrongful conviction is about the same in other countries.

Even if I concede that "many cases" was overreaching (and perhaps it is), it doesn't matter, because there simply isn't a necessary connection between what the victims want and what the state does. Therefore that, itself, can't be a principled reason for the state to perform executions.

By the way, I'm at one of the top schools in the world for Political Philosophy, and I have several colleagues working on retributive theories of justice. One of them is working on showing that retributive theories just can't work. I don't work on this stuff directly, but my own views are informed by my work on causality. Anyway, your last sentence is an interesting one, because you accept some sort of weird relativism about "morals". In moral philosophy, though, there is no such thing. Relativism is absurd on its face. We are concerned with what is RIGHT, and JUST, not what people think is right or just, though it may turn out that what most people who are given the right tools think is right or just turns out to be so -- but this requires reasons (that anyone can accept) in support of it.

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#11 Post by Hokahey » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:24 am

It's very difficult to see how people can be for the death penalty when you hear of so many caes such as this one.

However, as much as I understand it's not a deterrant, and some victim's families don't want it, I'm all for leaving it on the table as an option under the right circumstances. Perhaps (and just a thought) if there is clear DNA and multiple witnesses, and the victim's family wants it, give it to them.

If someone ever ended my son's life maliciously, and the state was not going to kill them, I would kill them myself (Perhaps even if the state was going to kill them). That's not internet bravado. It's how I know I would react, for better or worse.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#12 Post by Hype » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:40 am

hokahey wrote:It's very difficult to see how people can be for the death penalty when you hear of so many caes such as this one.

However, as much as I understand it's not a deterrant, and some victim's families don't want it, I'm all for leaving it on the table as an option under the right circumstances. Perhaps (and just a thought) if there is clear DNA and multiple witnesses, and the victim's family wants it, give it to them.
The problem with that is, I think, that you make the Law selective/relativized. But the whole purpose of law is to be universally applicable within a jurisdiction. In order to justify a kind of subjective-context-sensitive law like that (the punishment of a criminal depends on the desires of victims or relatives of the victim...), you'd have to have criterion for the justifiability of desires as reasons to harm someone else. But these can't be reasons, because some members of a family may desire death for the criminal, and others may not, and who gets precedence? Further, people may change their desires over time, and come to regret their earlier desires. This cannot be a solid legal criterion for applicability of punishment. However, punitive models do sometimes take into account what would be in some way 'objectively fair' to the victims of the crime (so, for example, it would seem manifestly unfair for criminals to be made better off by their punishment, than the families of victims... or whatever).

As for clear DNA and multiple witnesses, well the former isn't necessarily a knockdown piece of evidence (even if it is portrayed that way by the media/TV), since people get other people's DNA on and in them constantly, just from casual contact, and establishing a direct correlation between a crime and the existence of DNA on or in the body of a victim is much more difficult than it first seems (e.g., semen may have gotten there consensually; blood accidentally; urine... okay urine I can't explain... so maybe then). Second, "multiple witnesses" is actually a criterion in Islamic jurisprudence. In the Qu'ran, the death penalty is merited in lots of cases, but in quite a few cases is only permitted if there is a threshold of witnesses (they call them "reliable witnesses", which usually means they have standing in the community, which is ridiculous in itself). But the concept of a 'witness' is tricky. It leaves open the possibility of collusion among enemies of a person to pin the blame on them.

So really, it's just not possible to stipulate "the right circumstances", even ideally.
If someone ever ended my son's life maliciously, and the state was not going to kill them, I would kill them myself (Perhaps even if the state was going to kill them). That's not internet bravado. It's how I know I would react, for better or worse.
While feelings such as these are understandable, this is simply not how the state should react. The state should be objective, calm, and rational.

User avatar
dali
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#13 Post by dali » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:52 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote: So what other reasons could there be for it? Cost? No, that can't be it, it's cheaper to get life in prison than it is to execute someone.
Bandit72 wrote: Cost? I don't know the ins and outs of the state cost to keep someone alive or killing them. Do you? Is it available to see?
Yes, in CA it cost ~$60,000/year to incarcerate someone, so lets says, for example, a person gets life in prison and spends 30 years there before he dies of natural causes. That's $1,800,000 it would cost to incarcerate him for life. Where are you Hyper getting a "fact" that it cost MORE than $1,800,000 to execute someone? :crazy:

User avatar
farrellgirl99
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: Queens

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#14 Post by farrellgirl99 » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:57 pm

dali wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote: So what other reasons could there be for it? Cost? No, that can't be it, it's cheaper to get life in prison than it is to execute someone.
Bandit72 wrote: Cost? I don't know the ins and outs of the state cost to keep someone alive or killing them. Do you? Is it available to see?
Yes, in CA it cost ~$60,000/year to incarcerate someone, so lets says, for example, a person gets life in prison and spends 30 years there before he dies of natural causes. That's $1,800,000 it would cost to incarcerate him for life. Where are you Hyper getting a "fact" that it cost MORE than $1,800,000 to execute someone? :crazy:
im talking off the top of my head, but i think it gets so expensive to execute people because of all the court cases/legal issues etc. i could be wrong

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#15 Post by Hype » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:02 pm

dali wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote: So what other reasons could there be for it? Cost? No, that can't be it, it's cheaper to get life in prison than it is to execute someone.
Bandit72 wrote: Cost? I don't know the ins and outs of the state cost to keep someone alive or killing them. Do you? Is it available to see?
Yes, in CA it cost ~$60,000/year to incarcerate someone, so lets says, for example, a person gets life in prison and spends 30 years there before he dies of natural causes. That's $1,800,000 it would cost to incarcerate him for life. Where are you Hyper getting a "fact" that it cost MORE than $1,800,000 to execute someone? :crazy:
See my post above where I give some evidence that it is more costly:
From above wrote:End the death penalty in California in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Supporters of the bill say the death penalty is too expensive (it costs the state an extra $1 billion every five years)
Here's a more general link:
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.ans ... nID=001000

Read it and judge for yourself. I should note that on the "PRO" side of that link (i.e., death penalty is cheaper), some of it says stuff like "It would be cheaper, if....", which is a red herring, since we don't do those cheaper things, and there are good reasons why we don't, and anyway, the costs have more to do with making sure things are done properly (and allowing for appeals... which seems like a sane thing to do, given that 138 wrongful executions have been committed)....

User avatar
farrellgirl99
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: Queens

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#16 Post by farrellgirl99 » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:05 pm

If you go to http://www.deathpenaltyfocus.org they have some facts about the costs of death penalty trials (in California).
California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.
California death penalty trials have cost as much as $10.9 million.

User avatar
dali
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#17 Post by dali » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:47 pm

farrellgirl99 wrote: im talking off the top of my head, but i think it gets so expensive to execute people because of all the court cases/legal issues etc. i could be wrong
I agree, but isn't the logic there a little whack?

It's like saying if we are going to execute someone than we must spend a lot to make sure we are correct but if we are just going to give them "life" in prison (without possibility of parole) than we don't have to spend as much to make sure we are correct, even though getting life in prison (without possibility of parole) IS essentially the same thing as the death penalty because anyone who's ever been to prison certainly wouldn't call it "having a life".
I know the courts mean "life" in emperical terms (live or die) but being in prison for life (without possibility of parole) is basically the same thing as getting the death penaly so why should the cost or procedure be any different?

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#18 Post by Bandit72 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:02 am

We are concerned with what is RIGHT, and JUST, not what people think is right or just, though it may turn out that what most people who are given the right tools think is right or just turns out to be so -- but this requires reasons (that anyone can accept) in support of it.
That's the thing though. What is RIGHT and JUST for someone who has just shot an entire family? Or what is RIGHT and JUST for a megalomaniac who ordered the slaughter of 6 million Jews in concentration camps?

25 years in jail with a nice rehabilitation program? Do me a favour. Yes it can work, but for everyone?

With regards to the costing. Who is actually paying for this? Isn't California bankrupt yet?
A new California senate bill hopes to simplify the equation: End the death penalty in California in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Supporters of the bill say the death penalty is too expensive (it costs the state an extra $1 billion every five years) and error-prone (the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date) to maintain. But the downgrade to the next harshest penalty isn't that simple.
With regards to one case in the UK. Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were convicted of the murder of a 2 year old back in 1993. They were just children at the time and served NOTHING in the way of a sentence. What followed were new identities and new lives at a massive cost to the state and of course the inevitable RE-OFFEND happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Two 11 year olds commit a heinous crime and we get the "they were too young, they didn't know what they were doing" line. :essence:

User avatar
dali
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#19 Post by dali » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:47 am

Bandit72 wrote:
With regards to the costing. Who is actually paying for this? Isn't California bankrupt yet?
US taxpayers are paying for this. Didn't you know that the biggest industry in CA is incarcerating people? :crazy:

I once read a statistic that at any given time there are ~1/3 of CA's population involved in the penal system in one form or another. Everything from cops, courts, inmates, prison guards, prsion construction, paroles, parole agents, etc, etc.

They should have a t-shirt for CA that says, "I came here for the sunshine and all I got was this lousy prison industry".

ragdoll
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#20 Post by ragdoll » Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:15 am

there's a huge part of me that wants to believe an eye for an eye. Specially for ones who commit unthinkable crimes against children and the elderly who I guess in my eyes are 100% defenseless The people that hurt children and elderly to me are the sickest of the sick. But then there is a part of me that look s at those people as victims too. I mean why does a person do something so horrendous? I just can't help but think something awful, I mean really awful must of happened to them probably when they were young, perhaps? The sickness that goes on behind closed doors to children is just beyond belief! It is a vicious cycle that is not talked about. And I'm not saying by any means that if you were abused as a child you will abuse as you get older but some are tortured so badly as kids they have to have tremendous pain and they need help! But never get it!!

So this brings me to the only solution I have on this matter and that is to protect our children from the beginning of their lives and make sure they are being nurtured the right way so they are healthy, mentally and physically.

idk....are people wired to be killers or is it society that makes them that way? because if it's society then there are solutions that could prevent crimes and then we would have a world with no prison system and to the government that would be like a world without drugs...now we wouldn't want that would we :waits: :essence: :no:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#21 Post by Hype » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:04 pm

Bandit72 wrote:
We are concerned with what is RIGHT, and JUST, not what people think is right or just, though it may turn out that what most people who are given the right tools think is right or just turns out to be so -- but this requires reasons (that anyone can accept) in support of it.
That's the thing though. What is RIGHT and JUST for someone who has just shot an entire family? Or what is RIGHT and JUST for a megalomaniac who ordered the slaughter of 6 million Jews in concentration camps?

25 years in jail with a nice rehabilitation program? Do me a favour. Yes it can work, but for everyone?

With regards to the costing. Who is actually paying for this? Isn't California bankrupt yet?
A new California senate bill hopes to simplify the equation: End the death penalty in California in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Supporters of the bill say the death penalty is too expensive (it costs the state an extra $1 billion every five years) and error-prone (the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date) to maintain. But the downgrade to the next harshest penalty isn't that simple.
With regards to one case in the UK. Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were convicted of the murder of a 2 year old back in 1993. They were just children at the time and served NOTHING in the way of a sentence. What followed were new identities and new lives at a massive cost to the state and of course the inevitable RE-OFFEND happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Two 11 year olds commit a heinous crime and we get the "they were too young, they didn't know what they were doing" line. :essence:
This is good. I like your thoughts here. There is a lot of stuff that could be addressed. The first thing that jumps out at me is that you seem to think that the alternative to a purely retributive justice system (i.e., capital and corporal punishments that "fit the crime" and get retribution for the victims), is a rehabilitative one. This is a false dichotomy because it needn't follow from saying that justice shouldn't be (purely) retributive (exemplified best, perhaps, in the Code of Hammurabi, Lex talionis: "eye for an eye" -- that's right, they had it first..) that justice is thereby (purely) rehabilitative. There are alternatives. (this first paragraph also responds to the other poster on the previous page who mentioned "eye for an eye"... it is helpful to remember that that phrase is from early in our history as civilized beings, 3500 years ago now... before the dawn of Western philosophy.)

For one, the fact that rehabilitation doesn't always work, and the fact that there is no foolproof method of ensuring that it does work, is a good reason to believe that in many cases, imprisonment is not meant to be retributive or rehabilitative, but simply a practical matter of keeping those who would harm us from doing it again in the most effective way.

The last three words are key. What is the most effective way of keeping criminals from recidivism? Well, the capital punishment argument might say, killing them is the most effective because it's the most guaranteed way. But wait, why should effectiveness be tied just to what is guaranteed to work? A guaranteed method for stopping your kids from fighting in the backseat on a long car ride might be to beat them unconscious, gag them, tie them up and put them in the trunk, but that's clearly not the most effective way in any useful sense (i.e., 'effective' presupposes CONDITIONS under which we want things to obtain, not merely some independent PER SE fact that would generate what we want).

So what we really want is a way of dealing with criminality that fits with all our other values, and with what we see the purpose of a just society to be. From this, I argue, we can say that capital punishment simply doesn't fit with our other beliefs, e.g., about human error, about the possibility of rehabilitation or value to society (see Stan "Tookie" Williams), or about whether the right way to treat those who wrong us is to act the same way they do.

Hopefully I've said something interesting and comprehensible here.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#22 Post by Bandit72 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:04 am

What you say is very interesting and very comprehensible! :thumb: I always like reading your posts and your reasoning. It's like being back at University, and that's not meant to sound patronising!

I was thinking yesterday. Ignoring the financial aspect for a moment, I wonder if a similar argument can be put forward for people who want to end their own lives through assisted suicide? Is it the best way? Is their decision any more relevant or just than a states decision to execute someone? Can one compare the two? In America a state can kill you but it is illegal to kill yourself.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#23 Post by Hype » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:09 am

Bandit72 wrote:What you say is very interesting and very comprehensible! :thumb: I always like reading your posts and your reasoning. It's like being back at University, and that's not meant to sound patronising!

I was thinking yesterday. Ignoring the financial aspect for a moment, I wonder if a similar argument can be put forward for people who want to end their own lives through assisted suicide? Is it the best way? Is their decision any more relevant or just than a states decision to execute someone? Can one compare the two? In America a state can kill you but it is illegal to kill yourself.
Yes. That is incongruous. One of my colleagues is a fairly well known bioethicist who chaired a panel for the Royal Society of Canada on "End of Life Care" in Canada (I mentioned this once before), and they recommended that voluntary euthanasia (a much more humane phrasing than 'assisted suicide'!) be legalized for a whole slew of reasons (not least of which is that it's already done, but never "officially", and so we have no direct control over it). Of course, it's also true that Canada doesn't have the death penalty for criminals.

There are some interesting ways to compare the two though. In the case of voluntary euthanasia, in most places where it is legalized, in order to qualify, the person must be competent (i.e., not in a vegetative state, not mentally challenged, not coerced or confused by others into doing it), hence "voluntary". But a lot of people who are terminally ill will at some point lose 'competence' (and, of course, there are strict rules about how and when life support can be removed or not removed at such times. Cf. Terry Schiavo and similar cases).

Likewise, in order for the state to capitally punish a criminal, they are supposed to be competent. This can be incredibly difficult to judge (the reason mentally ill criminals can be treated differently is that they are judged to be incompetent), especially in cases of borderline non-genetic mental retardation. It seems arbitrary to kill men who are just over the line of competence based on IQ (not sure what this line would be, but let's say 75), and not kill those just under it, because that score may change +/- 5 or whatever in different circumstances (also, why not just "play dumb", as it were?)

Anyway, that might be another reason not to have the death penalty.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3470
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: My new (famous) neighbor

#24 Post by mockbee » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:13 pm

I recently read this article by David Brooks, and thought it had very interesting points much like this discussion.
Op-Ed Columnist
Respect the Future
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 2, 2012


Last fall I asked readers over 70 to send me “Life Reports” — essays evaluating their own lives. Charles Darwin Snelling responded with a remarkable 5,000-word reflection.

Snelling was a successful entrepreneur who spent decades serving his community. He was redeemed, he reported, six years ago when his beloved wife, Adrienne, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. “She took care of me in every possible way she could for 55 years. The last six years have been my turn,” Snelling wrote.

“We continue to make a life together, living together in the full sense of the word; going about our life, hand in hand, with everyone lending a hand, as though nothing was wrong at all,” he continued.

He believed that caring for his wife made him a richer, fuller human being: “It’s not noble, it’s not sacrificial and it’s not painful. It’s just right in the scheme of things. ... Sixty-one years ago, a partner to our marriage who knew how to nurture, nurtured a partner who needed nurturing. Now, 61 years later, a partner who is learning how to nurture is nurturing a partner who needs nurturing.”

On March 29, less than four months after we published his essay online, Snelling killed his wife and then himself.

The comments responding to Matt Flegenheimer’s news article on this event make for fascinating reading. The majority support or sympathize with Snelling’s double-killing.

Many of the correspondents have cared for a loved one with Alzheimer’s. “It is like a slow horror show,” a woman from Texas wrote. These writers felt nothing but sympathy for the pain and despair Snelling must have endured. Several argued that people in these circumstances should be able to end their spouse’s life legally, so they don’t then feel compelled to end their own.

Others were impressed by the Romeo-and-Juliet-style ending that Snelling created. “This was as fine an ending as the Snellings’ love story deserved,” a man from Virginia wrote. “Their bodies gave out — their hearts never did.”

This sentiment was echoed by the Snelling family, which released a statement that began, “This is a total shock to everyone in the family, but we know he acted out of deep devotion and profound love.”

Others, more likely women than men, were upset by Snelling’s decision. A woman from Canada who has spent 25 years nursing Alzheimer’s patients, argued that none of us have the right to decide that another person’s life is worthless. Some argued that the nurturing process at the end of life, like the nurturing process at the beginning, requires patience and that those who are desperate should seek help, not a firearm.

Everyone approaches this case with sadness and trepidation. But I can come to only one conclusion: Either Snelling was so overcome that he lost control of his faculties, or he made a lamentable mistake. I won’t rehearse the religious arguments against murder and suicide, many of which are based on the supposition that a life is a gift from God. Our job is not to determine who is worthy of life, but how to make the most of the life we have been given.

I would just refer you to the essay Snelling himself wrote. Only a few months ago, Snelling wrote that his life as his wife’s caretaker was rich and humanizing. By last week, he apparently no longer believed that.

But who is to say how Snelling would have felt four months from now? The fact is, we are all terrible at imagining how we will feel in the future. We exaggerate how much the future will be like the present. We underestimate the power of temperament to gradually pull us up from the lowest lows. And if our capacities for imagining the future are bad in normal times, they are horrible in moments of stress and suffering.

Given these weaknesses, it seems wrong to make a decision that will foreclose future thinking. It seems wrong to imagine that you have mastery over everything you will feel and believe. It’s better to respect the future, to remain humbly open to your own unfolding.

Furthermore, I bought the arguments that Snelling made in that essay: that his wife’s illness had become a call for him to exercise virtue and to serve as an example for others; that people are joined by suffering, and that the life of a community is enriched by the hard tasks placed before it; that dependency is the normal state of affairs.

If you look at life through the calculus of autonomy, then maybe Snelling made the right call. Maybe his moments of pain from here on out would have outnumbered his moments of pleasure. But if you look at a life as one element within a mysterious flow, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Charles and Adrienne Snelling still had a few ripples to create.

Post Reply