Last week, the Davis Enterprise kindly ran a story about the Vanguard‘s Death Penalty Event on their front page. That apparently was enough to prompt former Judge Jim Stevens to object.
He wrote in a letter to the editor, “Your recent article on the meeting of death penalty opponents was interesting but full of humbug. I respect the right of others to work for and express their opinion but reserve my right to tell them they are full of garbage.”
He then adds, “My personal experience and opinion is that, overall, the criminal courts in California do an excellent job applying our criminal law code to the cases brought before them.”
That is interesting because I have a very different perception of the former judge’s experience in the courts. Jim Stevens, a former mayor of Davis, was appointed to the court by Governor George Deukmejian in 1985, and I would respectfully say he is the last person on earth who should ever call something “full of humbug” or “full of garbage.”
I will get into some factual debunking of Mr. Stevens’ article in a moment.
Mr. Stevens, in fact, nearly drove Yolo County into bankruptcy as the county was forced in the mid-1990s to pay out a rather modest settlement of $666,000 after the judge was accused of sexual harassment after handing a female court stenographer “an ‘overripe’ zucchini and fired her without cause.”
The San Francisco Chronicle carried the bizarre story from February 1996, and they reported, “By most government standards, the settlement amount is not large — but in struggling Yolo County, an agricultural center of 160,000 just west of Sacramento, the award has been devastating.”
Adding to the problem, “The county imposed an immediate hiring freeze and still faces a protracted battle with state officials over who should pay for the settlement. And despite harsh criticism from his fellow judges, Stevens is still on the bench, earning $107,390 a year while the county pays his legal bills.”
One question was why the county would have to pay for the actions of a judge who is presumably a state employee. Mr. Stevens would not “retire” until 1998.
This was not the first problem. He was reprimanded by the county grand jury in 1992 for waving a loaded pistol in court, the Chronicle reported. At the same time, the judge told an attorney objecting to a question about domestic violence: “Oh, come on, we’re all adults here. What’s a little wife-beating?”
The Chronicle reported: “Stevens had a female attorney handcuffed and jailed for contempt for arguing too long, had a juror arrested for returning late from lunch and had a court stenographer jailed for not completing transcripts on time.”
Oh, but there’s more. “In 1993, after an unkempt criminal defendant had been led away,” the Chronicle reported, Judge Stevens allegedly said to female clerks: “Ladies, how would you like to wake up with that naked in your bed?”
In the deposition against Judge Stevens by his alleged victim, she recounted a time when an attractive female lawyer left his court and Judge Stevens remarked: “I’d like to have that in my stable. I’d whip her into shape.”
1996 was a different world, as it appears that there were only six judges in Yolo County at that time. A memo was signed by the other five judges and delivered to him a week after the zucchini incident. “The memo noted that, far from saving money, Stevens’ action wasted court funds because Powers [the recipient of the zucchini] had to be put on paid administrative leave while the incident was investigated.”
“You should be aware that your conduct has caused a considerable amount of distress to other court employees, has possibly subjected the court to a lawsuit, and resulted in a loss of respect to the court by the manner in which you chose to make this regrettable decision,” the judges said.
Judge Stevens, in his defense, “began bringing zucchinis to the courthouse and passing them out in the parking lot. Stevens argued that the act supported his position that there was nothing sexual intended by the vegetable he gave Powers.”
Judge Shockley had a different view, “People were talking about it and feeling he was making light of the situation.”
In my view, given the conduct of Mr. Stevens, it is appalling he could argue that “criminal courts in California do an excellent job applying our criminal law code to the cases brought before them.”
The substance of Mr. Stevens’ argument in favor of the death penalty follows.
He writes, “Our California Legislature has been and is reasonably flexible in making changes to the code as needed. This applies particularly to the death penalty statutes. When this issue has been brought before the court of public opinion and thoroughly thrashed out in the political arena, the public has supported the law.”
He continues, “Opponents of the death penalty drag up cases in Texas or Oklahoma in which they claim defendants were erroneously executed. This is not Texas or Oklahoma.”
He adds, “Also, the evidence used to convict these defendants was tried by jury in a court of law where it was available for scrutiny and cross-examination at a time reasonably current with the alleged crime.”
“The facts alleged to show that the convictions were erroneous were dredged up years later and never brought before a jury for cross-examination. The whole process by which anti-death penalty zealots dig through ancient cases, develop new experts to offer opinions and induce witnesses to change their testimony outside the courtroom is, as I have said, pure garbage.”
To his first point, we will see what happens. The voters in November will have a choice to support Proposition 34 which would convert the death penalty and those sentenced to death to life without parole. Will the voters support that in light of the fact that California has executed just 13 people at tremendous public cost? We will find out.
He is correct that this is not Texas or Oklahoma, but that does not mean that mistakes were not made here.
Compare the crass and reactive view of Mr. Stevens to that of Don Heller, a former prosecutor, who wrote the death penalty initiative for Senator Briggs in 1977, which appeared on the November 1978 ballot.
“When I wrote it, I was absolutely certain beyond any doubt that what I was writing was morally right, was constitutionally sound, and would bring justice to people that deserved to be executed for heinous homicides,” Heller said. “I’ve gone from certainty to change.”
He cited “empirical evidence that the death penalty was not working as intended” as his impetus for changing his views. “It doesn’t work and it costs a fortune,” he added.
Mr. Heller noted that, under the law, we have only executed 13 people at the cost of over $330 million per execution. “We are causing huge expenditures of money for no reason,” he said.
“The process takes years. I never thought it would take that long for an execution. I never thought it would take that much money,” he added.
Don Heller said, “I’ve gone from certainty of the righteousness and correctness of the death penalty to being absolutely convinced by empirical evidence it’s time to abolish it – save a lot of money for our state and use that money to find and prosecute defendants who have committed rapes and murders and also use some of that money for education.”
Mr. Heller said it was a slow process transitioning from support of the death penalty to opposition. “It took the Tommy Thompson execution [in 1998] for me to become very vocal. It was an example of a clear abuse of the death penalty law,” he said.
“I believe that Tommy Thompson was innocent of the rape-murder that he was convicted of and sentenced to death,” Mr. Heller said in response to a question from the Vanguard. “Thompson’s case relied almost exclusively on the testimony of an informant, aptly named Mr. Fink.”
“Mr. Fink was a professional informant, he had actually put several people on death row by people confessing to him in jail, and it just so happened that Mr. Fink always benefitted from this confession that was made to him,” Mr. Heller continued.
“I think that Tommy Thompson was innocent,” he said. “He was executed under the law I wrote and that has stayed with me since 1998 that I participated in the execution of an innocent man.”
That’s not Texas or Oklahoma, that’s one of 13 executions in California. I agree with Mr. Stevens, the Thompson case has never gone to a jury. But a number of cases such as Franky Carrillo who served 20 years of a life sentence before his release, Obie Anthony who served 17 of his, and Maurice Caldwell who served 20 years of his, were all exonerated by the work of the Innocence Project.
Mr. Stevens is right that a jury never evaluated the evidence, but that is because the prosecution dropped the cases.
Mr. Stevens writes, “My opinion on the death penalty is clear. It should be more widely applied. A substantially greater effort, financial and physical, should be made to process and bring the appeals of the convicted before an appropriate court. Justice requires prompt disposition of these cases, the same as all others.”
The problem is that the system does not work. We discover errors in the system all of the time.
In Texas, Carlos de Luna was executed within six years of his conviction. The problem is that it has generally taken 20 years to exonerate some of these people – so yes, you can move cases through the system more swiftly if you deal with the problems of backlog, but at what cost?
There is a reason why increasing numbers of state are getting rid of their death penalty. Will California be next?
Next Thursday you can hear some of the leading experts speak on this issue. The Vanguard will have Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Maurice Possley, who wrote on the wrongful execution of Carlos DeLuna as well as Cameron Todd Willingham, both in Texas; former San Quentin Warden Jeanne Woodford; Don Heller who authored the 1978 ballot measure; Ellen Eggers, a state public defender who handles death penalty appeals; and Franky Carrillo who spent 20 years in prison for a crime that he was exonerated for last year. Tickets are still available click here.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
After personally seeing how the courts failed in the Ajay Dev case, I can say that I do not agree with Judge Stevens that the system in California is just fine.
We know absolutely that the accuser was lying in Ajay’s case because her accusations accused Ajay of raping her while she slept in the bed next to someone or when she was lying on the floor next to someone. The people that were there know this is a lie. These are just a few of the lies told in court. Yet beyond belief, Ajay was still convicted.
The CA legal system may get it right most of the time, but there is still error. When that error leads to the death penalty, then you cannot fix it.
One of my favorite movie quotes fits this argument well:
“Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Another nice tidbit:
[quote]Jim Stevens opposed an anti-discrimination ordinance covering gays and lesbians. Jim stood on the steps of the old City Hall on F Street and expressed his opposition because “I want to be able to discriminate against fags”.[/quote]
I’m not sure why the character assassination of this former judge is necessary to be critical of his arguments for the death penalty. I am certainly not defending the former judge’s behavior, but I don’t see the criticisms relevant to debunking the his arguments on the death penalty. In fact, the Vanguard does not answer many of Stevens’ contentions:
[quote]He writes, “Our California Legislature has been and is reasonably flexible in making changes to the code as needed. This applies particularly to the death penalty statutes. When this issue has been brought before the court of public opinion and thoroughly thrashed out in the political arena, the public has supported the law.”
He continues, “Opponents of the death penalty drag up cases in Texas or Oklahoma in which they claim defendants were erroneously executed. This is not Texas or Oklahoma.”
He adds, “Also, the evidence used to convict these defendants was tried by jury in a court of law where it was available for scrutiny and cross-examination at a time reasonably current with the alleged crime.”
“The facts alleged to show that the convictions were erroneous were dredged up years later and never brought before a jury for cross-examination. The whole process by which anti-death penalty zealots dig through ancient cases, develop new experts to offer opinions and induce witnesses to change their testimony outside the courtroom is, as I have said, pure garbage.”[/quote]
Elaine: He called us full of garbage? And expressed a view of the criminal justice system that did not comport with his own behavior.
You state: ” In fact, the Vanguard does not answer many of Stevens’ contentions”
We actually addressed all of his points.
For example: “He is correct that this is not Texas or Oklahoma, but that does not mean that mistakes were not made here.” We then went on to talk about Don Heller’s contention regarding Tommy Thompson.
Life is in balance, for every “anti-death penalty zealot” there is a pro-death penalty zealot like Judge Stevens.
Whenever reading an opinion it is useful to know a little bit about the provenance of the opinion. The following link [url]http://cjp.ca.gov/res/docs/Public_Reprovals/Stevens_2-14-94.pdf[/url] shares the opinion of the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance about Judge Stevens and some of the other “opinions” he has been a zealot about.
Here is some additional information about Judge Stevens’ reproval from the
[quote]HIGH COST OF JUDICIAL SCANDAL / Harassment Suit Strains Yolo County
William Carlsen, SF Chronicle Staff Writer
Published 04:00 a.m., Tuesday, February 20, 1996
Woodland, Yolo County — It started several years ago as an embarrassing scandal that rocked the old granite-and-marble courthouse at the heart of this quiet Central Valley farm community. Now the sex harassment suit against a local judge has driven the county to the brink of bankruptcy — and local officials are furious.
The county recently settled the lawsuit for $666,000, ending the legal dispute between court stenographer Mary Powers and Superior Court Judge James L. Stevens. Powers accused the judge of sexual harassment, saying he handed her an “overripe” zucchini and fired her without cause.
By most government standards, the settlement amount is not large — but in struggling Yolo County, an agricultural center of 160,000 just west of Sacramento, the award has been devastating.
The county imposed an immediate hiring freeze and still faces a protracted battle with state officials over who should pay for the settlement. And despite harsh criticism from his fellow judges, Stevens is still on the bench, earning $107,390 a year while the county pays his legal bills.
The most infuriating aspect of the settlement, say local officials, is that the county should never have been sued in the first place. “The judge is a state employee,” bristled Tom Stallard, chairman of Yolo County’s Board of Supervisors. He said judges are appointed by the governor, paid from the state treasury and subject to discipline and removal only by the state.[/quote]
Ahhhh… so much for rational discourse… on the topic of someone’s views on the death penalty, the history of allegations (true or untrue are not a matter of ‘proof’) are raised first, then the views of the person expressing an opinion on the death penalty and events to discuss it, are further impugned by the opiner’s alleged prejudices related to homosexuality. All logically tied together. What is the definition of ad hominem, anyhow?
[quote]We actually addressed all of his points. [/quote]
You do not address several of Judge Stevens’ points:
[quote]He adds, “Also, the evidence used to convict these defendants was tried by jury in a court of law where it was available for scrutiny and cross-examination AT A TIME REASONABLY CURRENT WITH THE ALLEGED CRIME.”
“The facts alleged to show that the convictions were erroneous were DREDGED UP YEARS LATER and NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE A JURY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. The whole process by which anti-death penalty zealots dig through ancient cases, develop new experts to offer opinions and INDUCE WITNESSES TO CHANGE THEIR TESTIMONY OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM is, as I have said, pure garbage.[/quote]
The prosecution dropped the cases because years later witnesses have died, don’t remember what happened, will be accused of not remembering something that happened years ago, will be accused of being coached by the prosecution if they do remember, there is no opportunity to look for corroborating evidence years after the fact, the crime scene is extremely stale, etc. The reality is that persons “exonerated” by DNA evidence may have actually committed the crime in question. Suppose they used a condom for instance, when committing the crime? Nor do you address the issue of witnesses being induced to change testimony outside the courtroom after the fact.
PS Had to use all caps bc the bold feature did not work. Sometimes these features work on my browser and sometimes not. Go figure…
[quote]Elaine: He called us full of garbage? And expressed a view of the criminal justice system that did not comport with his own behavior. [/quote]
I don’t see how a character assassination is relevant to the points this man is making, which do have validity, like it or not…
Touche hpierce!
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
[quote]Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made[/quote]
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”PS Had to use all caps bc the bold feature did not work. Sometimes these features work on my browser and sometimes not. Go figure…”[/i]
I run into that problem all the time Elaine. It is much worse when I am using Safari than when I am using Firefox. The workaround is pretty straightforward though. Place your cursor at the front of the area you want bolded and click on the B icon. The characters will be inserted. Then delete the final four of those. Then place your cursor at the end of the area you want bolded and click on the B icon. The characters will again be inserted. Then delete the first three of those. Once those steps are done you will have the bold control characters at the beginning and the end of what you want bolded.
I agree that the comments about Judge Stevens are ad hominem, and that the primary arguments should be a bout the points, but in my opinion Judge Stevens’ past behavior is so egregious that a failure to point that behavior out would be a gross omission of important information.
JMHO
[quote]“Nanny nanny, boo boo,
Stick your face in doo-doo.”[/quote]Great [i]Vanguard[/i] event that will expose some of the immorality of killing our own citizens. Great publicity story in the [i]Enterprise[/i] that might bring a whole new audience to the event to think more about executions and their role in our society.
And, oh, yeah, good job on rebutting Stevens’ support for the death penalty even thought most of the points he lists are the same ones that most reasonable capital punishment advocates make.
But, don’t you think it would have been stronger if you hadn’t buried it in a lengthy personal attack on the person instead of his views? What if you’d limited your personal description of Stevens as a “disgraced Yolo County judge” and provided links to Practical’s Valentine’s Day missive from his colleagues and the [i]Chronicle[/i] article?
The ex-judge’s criticism of the Innocence Project process, that… [quote]“anti-death penalty zealots dig through ancient cases, develop new experts to offer opinions and induce witnesses to change their testimony outside the courtroom is, as I have said, pure garbage.”[/quote]…is fair criticism of a process that claims declared-guilty and executed people “innocent” without the safeguards of our trial system.
Stevens’ point, that…[quote] “the evidence used to convict these defendants was tried by jury in a court of law where it was available for scrutiny and cross-examination at a time reasonably current with the alleged crime….”[/quote]is worthy of consideration in the debate about the way we impose existing laws on the death penalty.
A minor point, but you must realize that accurate reporting strengthens general [i]Vanguard[/i] credibility and support for your own views and commentaries. Stevens [u]did not[/u] call “the ([i]Vanguard[/i]) death penalty dinner…’garbage’.”
Stevens’ contention about where the public stands on the death penalty, most unfortunately, is accurate:[quote]“When this issue has been brought before the court of public opinion and thoroughly thrashed out in the political arena, the public has supported the law.”[/quote]Too bad, but too true. One hopes the work of the “anti-death penalty zealots” will help bring a halt to capital punishment laws.
However, we need to realize how difficult this transformation will be and how the Innocence Project type reporting has real limits in convincing the public by proclaiming a “guilty’ person “innocent” without involvement of our legal process.[quote]“Irrelevant and immaterial!”[/quote] Sometimes [i]Vanguard[/i] stories try way too hard, incorporate every possible thing to support a viewpoint and end up with a batch of stuff that barely contributes to the overall issue.
When this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach gets used, it detracts from your loyal readers contributing meaning comments about your main points. I think this is one of those cases.
The dinner and program will be great, a real contribution to Davis and Yolo County. Thank you for your service.
[quote]Sometimes Vanguard stories try way too hard, incorporate every possible thing to support a viewpoint and end up with a batch of stuff that barely contributes to the overall issue.
When this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach gets used, it detracts from your loyal readers contributing meaning comments about your main points. I think this is one of those cases. [/quote]
To follow up on this point, I would argue the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach lacks [b]focus[/b] and tends to [b]weaken[/b] the arguments made with extraneous irrelevant material. When trying to write persuasive commentary, that has [b]strong credibility[/b], the trick is to address the specific points at issue, and back up one’s contentions with [b]solid facts[/b] and/or logic.
In the above article, the former judge made some very salient points that were never addressed. Instead half the article was nothing but an ad hominem attack on the former judge’s character, that had little if anything to do with the points the former judge was making. Because the Vanguard failed to answer the very valid points the former judge made, it weakened the argument the Vanguard formulated and thereby weakened the Vanguard’s credibility on this subject.
The fact of the matter is that on most issues, there are pros and cons on both sides that have validity. So it is a matter of the weight of those pros and cons. A good persuasive argument will puts one’s own arguments forward, acknowledge the opposition’s arguments, then explain why the opponent’s arguments are of lesser importance than one’s own arguments or based on facts are blatantly invalid. This is the method used in legal briefs, because a judge has to be convinced. Logic, facts, all arguments on the table and addressed. Irrelevant material is not included, and the judge doesn’t want to hear it…
I’m not suggesting the Vanguard write a legal brief (they tend to be dry and boring to anyone else but a lawyer), but lessons can be learned on how best to write a [b]persuasive argument[/b].
Hey Matt, your advice on how to get the bold function to work consistently was brilliant! Thanks!
[quote][b]I agree that the comments about Judge Stevens are ad hominem[/b], and that the primary arguments should be a bout the points, but in my opinion [b]Judge Stevens’ past behavior is so egregious that a failure to point that behavior out would be a gross omission of important information[/b].
[/quote]Which is it? Can a jerk have valid opinions/wisdom or not? I am not opining as to Mr Stevens’ opinions are are what we should act on, but I believe he has a right to them, no matter what his personal foibles are.
FAI,
[i]We know absolutely that the accuser was lying in Ajay’s case because her accusations accused Ajay of raping her while she slept in the bed next to someone or when she was lying on the floor next to someone. [/i]
At the risk of derailing this thread, has it been proven impossible for one to be raped or sexually assaulted while others are within close proximity or right next to the victim? I’ve heard personal stories of victims in which they were awoken and were violated while others slept next or near to them. Just saying.
JS,
[i][b]But, don’t you think it would have been stronger if you hadn’t buried it in a lengthy personal attack on the person instead of his views?[/b] What if you’d limited your personal description of Stevens as a “disgraced Yolo County judge” and provided links to Practical’s Valentine’s Day missive from his colleagues and the Chronicle article? [/i]
I think so. A quick reference and link to the Chronicle article would have been sufficient. To lead, at length, with the former Judge’s scandals takes away from the discussion, IMO.
Ok… and what should society do with someone who, by all accounts, shot over 70 people waiting to watch a movie? He planned the shooting, and booby-trapped the apartment he lived in… free room/board/medical care for life? Don’t have an answer, just asking the question. Find it a bit ironic that some of those who support lifetime medical care for a heinous shooter oppose providing it for public employees who serve for 35 years but retire before they attain the age to receive Medicare.
First, it’s funny that folks complain about how the Vanguard writes, then these same folks get way – and at length – off the topic.
Stevens wrote his letter without divulging his viewpoint being that of a retired judge. I’m so glad David provided this background.
Stevens appears to be someone who talks a lot but doesn’t have his mind in gear, like a lot of politicians, including the one who appointed him.
Stevens’ letter had some knowingly misleading statements. For example, that evidence is scrutinized in court. What about the evidence that a judge rules cannot be submitted, what about evidence that underfunded public defenders don’t obtain, what about evidence that prosecutors wrongly withhold from defense attorneys?
Judge Stevens also knows how easy it is for a Clerk of the Court to add a few people to the jury pool who are paid or coerced to bring in the jury verdict wanted by the DA or County Counsel when there are issues such as county liability, bad publicity, scores to settle.
HP: Re the poor fellow who killed and wounded all those victims at the movie theater — he’s obviously an unhappy, untreated mentally ill person!
Every day the papers are full of “crime” stories that fail to note
that the offender was an untreated MI person. Or a person without drug/alcohol treatment. Providing treatment opportunies should be
a far higher priority or these “crimes” are only going to occur more often.
What the left always does, if they don’t like the message they revert to a character assassination.
What the right always does, if they don’t like the facts, is ignore the facts.
[quote]Re the poor fellow who killed and wounded all those victims at the movie theater [/quote]Ok… am I to understand he is the victim, ‘society’ (or mega corporations, take your pick) are the perpetrators, and the 70+ killed/wounded, their family and friends are the collateral damages? I do not buy that. He was working on his PhD in medicine, had access to all sorts of health care (mental and otherwise) and did not seek treatment? If that is the case he is so “broken”, he cannot be “fixed”.
You’re probably correct, eagle eye, that poor people are shortchanged with public defenders and budget limits (middle class perple are as well) compared to rich folks when they face criminal charges.
You’re probably correct that the movie theater shooter is an unhappy, untreated, mentally ill person, just like lots of those who commit horrendous acts. (We spend lots on ill people, alcoholics and others who have potential to end up charged with crimes, and better to spend more on this than building more and more expensive prison and jail operations.)
However, I’m not convinced about your charge of “how easy it is for a Clerk of the Court to add a few people to the jury pool who are paid or coerced to bring in the jury verdict wanted by the DA or County Counsel when there are issues such as county liability, bad publicity, scores to settle.” I’ve never heard such a charge about our modern legal system, in fact. Do you have specifics of this happening or even that it’s “easy it is” on a hypothetical basis.
“Ok… and what should society do with someone who, by all accounts, shot over 70 people waiting to watch a movie? He planned the shooting, and booby-trapped the apartment he lived in… free room/board/medical care for life?”
Yes. We don’t want him out ever again and we don’t want to pay millions for years of meaningless, fruitless appeals over whether he would get free medical care or get executed. Good question and a difficult one.
[i]Ok… and what should society do with someone who, by all accounts, shot over 70 people waiting to watch a movie? [/i]
I will tell you what those US liberal-loved folks from Norway would do. They would give him a max of 21 years in a prison system that it noted as the world’s nicest. They would hire outside people to be his “friend”, since it is illegal in Norway to keep any prisoner in complete isolation.
That is what will likely happen to Anders Behring Breivik after his lengthy trial where he sits and smirks while prosecutors review every one of the murders of the 69 young people he killed while being heard commenting “oh wow, oh wow!”.
Boy, those Norwegians are sure advanced in their progressive views. They, with most other old-Europe Europeans, look down their noses at our barbarism and violence dealing with the likes of Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad. If I cared what they thought, I might be embarrassed about it.
Here is the problem… they, like most US anti-death penalty folks, do not believe in the existence of evil. To them, all humans – except wealthy capitalists, the military and law enforcement – are worthy of an assessment of victim status. Certainly this guy that shot 71 movie goers and killed 12 must have had a bad childhood. He must have been bullied or depressed. Maybe he was mentally ill. Whatever the story, there has to be something that explains his behavior and causes us to reach out with empathy. For the many of the rest of us, we recognize evil when we see it. We have no qualms about dispatching evil on moral grounds.
We can do better recognizing evil before it kills. Believing in its existence is the first required step. Someone in that movie theater should have been armed and trained to kill that shooter. They should have wiped the smirk off his face just before he sunk into eternal Hell. Thankfully, there is still a chance this will be done since Colorado still has the death penalty.
Jeff, we know Sarah Palin caused James Holmes to do what he did, you know, the targets. He also must of been a Tea Party member. Don’t laugh, ABC had to apologiize for making that claim because they saw that a Jim Holmes on Facebook had just joined the Tea Party. Wrong Holmes, don’t you think they’d have done some investigating before reporting?
Jeff: [i]Someone in that movie theater should have been armed and trained to kill that shooter.
[/i]
Sure. Fire through smoke bombs and tear gas and take out someone wearing a riot helmet, bulletproof vest, bulletproof leggings.
The rest of your post is offensive drivel. I’ve about had it with your disparaging generalizations about people, Jeff.
Don: [i]”The rest of your post is offensive drivel. I’ve about had it with your disparaging generalizations about people, Jeff.”[/i]
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?
You do bring up a good point about this shooter. I wonder though if there are statistics where areas with more lax right to carry laws have fewer incidents of mass shootings. Seems reasonable that an evil person might consider the risk of being shot and killed before he could complete his evil acts.
Rusty49: [i]What the left always does, if they don’t like the message they revert to a character assassination.[/i]
I see your point.
Jeff, LOL, I didn’t think it would be directed at you though.
He was wearing bullet proof protection. So clearly he gave considerable thought to the risk of being shot and killed.
No, I didn’t get up on the wrong side of bed. This incredible tragedy is 24 hours old, and you come in here and post this long disparagement of liberals, Norwegians, Europeans, and death penalty opponents, using straw-man arguments and ridicule.
I doubt that anyone here is urging that we “reach out with empathy” to the shooter. I think, though I’m not a professional, that it goes without saying that he “is mentally ill.”
Don: Read up on the Norwegian trial of Anders Behring Breivik. Certainly my post had some color added, but it was all based on facts. I frankly do not like much of the old-Europe criminal justice system. I look down my nose at it. That is my right, don’t you agree?
[i]”I doubt that anyone here is urging that we “reach out with empathy” to the shooter. I think, though I’m not a professional, that it goes without saying that he “is mentally ill.”[/i]
Ok, maybe empathy was the wrong word. But whatever it is, you prove my point by suggesting he is mentally ill. Our sentencing laws provide softer punishment for criminals deemed mentally ill. Maybe he had dreams about doing a mass shooting since he was little and just then developed the courage and plan to do it. Maybe he was a bad seed. Maybe he was/is evil.
I did hear an early new story that his mother was quoted as saying she was “not surprised”. However, that was one of those early news stories and likely had no basis in fact.
[quote]“Here is the problem… they, like most US anti-death penalty folks, do not believe in the existence of evil.”[/quote]This, of course, is not the problem. The problem is deciding whether it’s right to kill someone evil in the name of justice–someone who is locked up and no longer can hurt anyone and who, incidentally, might not be guilty in the first place. It isn’t that easy a question for a society, although I definitely have answered for myself.
Jury fixing: Yes I have seen it first hand; the case was not in Yolo County. In the case I witnessed, the judge was also involved with the fixing. He helped it happen by removing a seated juror without any legit. reason and putting on the D.A.’s “chosen” juror who would under normal circumstances never have been in the jury pool.
The Clerk of the Court is truly in charge, and hires the assistants.
If a jury staff person is told to add a name or two to the pool, that’s what happens. (In Sac Fed Court, the court is completely out of compliance with its own official jury selection process, and details of its selection process are secret, which violates Fed codes. So far, nothing has been done about this.)
Witnesses secretly paid: I observed 2 cases in which the primary witnesses appeared way too eager to make the DA’s case. Making a long story short, each admitted to me later being secretly paid, and one had at least 8 years possible prison term hanging over his head on charges not filed in the public file, but rather simply held in the DA’s ofc.
In some counties this also happens with defense attorneys whose clients don’t know that their defense attorney is totally compromised: The attorney can lose his client’s big case and all or most of his own charges will evaporate.
A small group of us met with a rep at the Fed Prosecutor’s ofc on these issues. We were told that they also secretly pay witnesses:
“We tell them to tell the jury they aren’t being paid because it isn’t yet known how much they will be paid. It depends on the outcome of the case” – the more charges on which the jury finds guilt, the more the payment.
I cannot adequately describe how utterly devastating this meeting was to my view of the “justice” system. Likewise my first hand info about jury fixing within the court system.
Mental Illness: People don’t choose to be ill. It tends to be, loosely, a genetic problem, and is often brought on, or out, by severe stress.
Our loved one was killed by a person who is obviously mentally ill.
I’m happy he isn’t on the streets with haphazard mental health care, but we did not want the death penalty. And if we knew for sure that meds would work for him – consistently – we’d favor parole rather than his life in prison.
[i]”don’t you think they’d have done some investigating before reporting?”[/i]
Rusty, here is that problem in a nutshell, IMO. There are facts, and there are stories. Facts generally don’t pluck the heart strings. However, stories do. Note that the news media delivers stories these days. Hollyweird has always delivered stories. Note too how the left politicians tend to communicate in stories. This is why they all three get along so well and also why they all three seem so complicit in what appears to be coordinated leftist propaganda.
The news media used to be governed by a code of conduct that valued factual reporting. When we add the fact that employees of news media are much more left-leaning today that ever… to the expanded tendency for them to discount facts over stories that entertain and sell… Houston we have a problem.
From a political perspective, Republicans have to grow their chops telling stories to the voters… appealing to an American Idol pop culture time. They have to learn how to become good actors. This is not in their nature as successful business people… because “actors” rarely make it in the competitive free market unless they also work in the entertainment industry. Reagan was an example.
But politics aside, this move away from fact-based reporting and toward story-telling and entertainment, is troubling. It is troubling because there are still a lot of people that trust the news reports they hear, see and read. Thankfully this is changing precisely because of these types of blatant ABC-type mistakes. The bad news is that now people are turning to sources like Huffington Post and Fox News. But, at least in this case there, is no hiding the bias. I think that is where we are going in society and politics: absolute ideological polarization… red versus blue. However, it will be a better form where our influencers don’t get to deny bias and disingenuously claim the rational middle ground while popping out stories lacking any basis in the facts.
As it realtes to this tragic story, I think we should expect more of the same. I’m sure many lefties and every lefty news reporter was salivating over the possibility that this guy had ties to conservatives and the GOP. Now watch them seeth that it would even be suggested they would think this way. Then go read the Huffington Post and see them blantantly go at it.
Here are the top two comments from the headline story on the HP “news” website:
[quote]I’m shocked, saddened and searching for why conservatives don’t care.
But, I’m sure someone will help with the answer shortly.
[/quote]
[quote]I want to hear all about the right-wing imaginary hero who was there, armed with his trust ankle holster, and how he dove over the seats in the crowded theater, shielding by-standers with his own body, while drawing mid-air, in the dark, in the tear gas, and took down the guy with one pull of the trigger.[/quote]
JB,
[i]Our sentencing laws provide softer punishment for criminals deemed mentally ill.[/i]
I suspect it depends on the crime and mental illness. I don’t believe there is a mandatory sentencing procedure that covers everything in the DSM like-defendant has x mental illness, thus must receive a reduced sentence. I do think mental illness is something considered in sentencing.
Do you believe a defendant’s mental illness should not be considered?
[i]most US anti-death penalty folks, do not believe in the existence of evil.”[/i]
I agree with JS’s response above.
JB,
[i]It is troubling because there are still a lot of people that trust the news reports they hear, see and read. [/i]
Which news sources do you trust or go to for information? Who gets it right or closest to right?
JB,
[i]. I’m sure many lefties and every lefty news reporter was salivating over the possibility that this guy had ties to conservatives and the GOP. [/i]
I have heard of no such reports or speculation anywhere, from “lefties” or anyone else, until reading your post.
Rusty,
[i]Wrong Holmes, don’t you think they’d have done some investigating before reporting?[/i]
I would like this to happen, in general, everywhere…CNN…with their salivating right-wing reporters…Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” as the left-wing news media prefer…Supreme Court ruling and all that.
It is obvious, only political bias is getting in the way of solid and reliable reporting.
Like Jeff I think the now quaint notion of evil may still have some validity; perhaps recast in modern terms as behaviour incorporating elements of sadism and malevolence toward others who have done you no harm; or willing to trample on or kill others purely for what such a person may mistakenly believe is their own gain and glory; like the mass shooters in Norway and Colorado.
Assessing such motivations should be a factor in deciding on whether to apply the death penalty.
But another factor that I would add to the death penalty discussion are notions of honor and paying accounts due. I do think that one who murders another person should face the consequence that his own life will be taken by the state; as a way of balancing the accounts. This is related to quaint old notions like that of honor–remember Socrates, who drank the Hemlock, who disagreed with the specific laws about some forms of free speech in ancient Greece; but acknowledged that he was guilty of breaking that law, and recognized that he was not above the law, and thus as an honorable man must drink the hemlock. As I understand it, it was common practice in ancient Greece (and other societies as well) to give the nobility who were sentenced to death for certain crimes the option of taking their own life (e.g. in their own home with hemlock); of course if they refused the state would then execute them! Also, as I understand it, there have been many on death row in the United States who have agreed that the death penalty was appropriate punishment; I think many of them had a sense of honor and realized that they could help to atone for their heinous crimes by accepting this punishment; demonstrating that they do not necessarily put their own lives above the lives of those they have murdered.
[i]”Which news sources do you trust or go to for information? Who gets it right or closest to right?”[/i]
I think you have to get it from many sources. However, I tend to trust the Wall Street Journal. The news section is balanced. The forum section is right-leaning (althoug I find myself getting pissed more often from the typical left talking points being used).
I get my daily news from (in order of preference):
– WSJ
– Davis Vanguard
– Davis Enterprise
– NY Post & NY Times
– NPR
– Fox News
– Huffington Post
I also listen to Fox talk radio on XM. Favorites are John Gibson, Tom Sullivan and Alan Colmes.
For political satire/news I watch Colbert and Stewart.
Because of my line of work, I read several of the regional Business Journals.
Magazines I subscribe to: Reason, The Economist, Discover, Inc., Computerworld, Cigar Aficionado, Wine Spectator, Cooks Magazine.
Always reading a book on or two.
I like mix it up… watch, read and listen to sources that I tend to disagree with as well as agree with… to help strengthen and adjust my understanding and beliefs. That is why I like Vanguard and Don Shor! =)
But I wish I had more time to read!
[i]”CNN…with their salivating right-wing reporters”[/i]
When did the Communist News Network change their political bias? I might have to start watching again.
David I’m glad you wrote about the character of the judge when writing his opinion. Most people think a retired judge is someone whose opinion can be respected. It helps to know that the person seems to have suffered from major foot in mouth disease, not to mention sever inappropriate behavior. You would think the Davis Enterprise could have found a more sensible person to quote for their story.
JB,
Thanks for posting. I too go to many of the same sources and agree that a variety is best.
[i]I tend to trust the Wall Street Journal. The news section is balanced. [/i]
But most major newspapers’ news sections are not?
[i]When did the Communist News Network change their political bias? I might have to start watching again. [/i]
Though I assume you picked up on my tongue-in-cheek comment, my point is that I don’t think reporting errors, like the one Rusty referred to, are necessarily the result of political bias or a rush to make the other party look bad.
I don’t watch CNN, they could have fewer communists on their news team now.
[quote]Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person’s reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.
[/quote]
For those who portrayed David’s article as “character assassination”, I would like to point out that there is nothing that David said that could have tarnished Judge Steven’s reputation. Judge Stevens had already thoroughly tarnished his reputation himself through his own actions. David’s writing did not represent exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. There was nothing in David’s article that is not previously well documented.
While I agree that the article would probably have been more forceful had it left out the extraneous material about the Judge’s past, it may have been of value to those who were not around when the judge was doing the original “tarnishing”.
[quote]When did the Communist News Network change their political bias? I might have to start watching again. [/quote]About when Fox started to be uber-liberal. I trust neither.
hpierce: I trust Fox News TV a bit more than CNN for a few reasons. 1. The Fox format is point-counter point and not like CNN’s traditional format of talkng heads spewing their stories. 2. They have the rest of the mainstream media and left ready to pounce on anything innacurate. 3. Most of the various anchors and hosts admit they have a political bias.
For reaons I don’t quite understand, many people owning a liberal worldview don’t seem to like being labeled a liberal. However, people that have a conservative worldview don’t care being labeled conservative. Maybe that is why I trust Fox New more… I don’t get the same sense that the reporters are trying to hide someting, or are in denial about their political leanings. I like that even if I don’t agree with them.
Now, Stephen Cobert is an expert at political ambiguity. But that is pure entertainment.
SF Man: Generally I cannot read the NYT or the Sacramento Bee or the Washington Post without my temperature rising. It is a bit like how Don Shor responds to some of my writing; but the bias is more expertly inserted to masqurade as being balanced. It is the “but” reporting (as in “these are the facts, BUT (some obscure irrelevant group) contest those facts saying bla, bla bla.” This versus the WSJ style that more likely starts with the opinion of the obscure group, but then following with “BUT, experts disagree.” The WSJ leaves the reader with a sense of closure for the stronger opinon. The other papers leave you with a sense that the opinion is still in play to a left-leaning benefit. It is the placement of articles… or the lack of reporting on certain topics. It is the headlines chosen. It is a combination of many subtle things that provide a window into an engine of left bias that shapes the stories and the overall editing direction.
I can get a general sense for newspaper bias just how it makes me feel reading it. The WSJ is neutral… some articles steam me, and some cause me to nod in agreement. I was so pissed off reading the Bee. My wife noted that I was grouchy on Sundays after reading it. I canceled it and will never subscribe again. I also think the Davis Enterprise is an excellent small city paper. It is balanced and fair.
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Which is it? Can a jerk have valid opinions/wisdom or not? I am not opining as to Mr Stevens’ opinions are are what we should act on, but I believe he has a right to them, no matter what his personal foibles are.”[/i]
hp, I don’t disagree that he has a right to the opinions. My point was that he is opining about the integrity of something that he has shown considerable personal disregard for . . . one might even say personal distain for.
Are you saying that he can have it both ways?
I see this topic got pretty far off field. There were two reasons I brought up Mr. Stevens past. First, his own behavior in my opinion derails his faith in the court system that he espouses. That’s a point I made early on that no one has addressed.
Second, he didn’t just critique the issues, he called them garbage and I thought that needed context as well.
Elaine you suggested I didn’t address some of his points, but I believe I did. You might not agree with my response.
For instance in Franky Carrillo’s case, the DA decided to drop the charges not only when the witnesses recanted but when their own investigator went out with the judge to the scene and realized in his words “you couldn’t see shit” let alone make an accurate identification – so they decided not to fight the judge dismissing the charges.
In other cases, DNA evidence excludes the convict and points toward someone else, how do you question that?
There may be valid cases where the problem becomes one of witnesses dying or unavailable years later – but I still think Mr. Stevens point there is weak.
SF Man: [i]”Do you believe a defendant’s mental illness should not be considered?”[/i]
I think 85% humans are half nuts and so I worry that we set the bar too low.
“I tend to trust the Wall Street Journal. The news section is balanced.”
Superfluous Man balanced does not mean accurate. News organizations that used to do a good job reporting the news have given up reporting for this “fair and balanced” B.S. Factual news is never balanced.
[quote]“Here is the problem… they, like most US anti-death penalty folks, do not believe in the existence of evil.”[/quote]
[quote]evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, disobeying the commandments of a god or gods, or the rules of society, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence.[1] [/quote]
I think this is a clear case of a lack of understanding of what the thought process of some on the left truly is in favor of a more simplistic view that is easier to impugn. I can indeed be characterized as on the left and do believe in evil, but not in the comic book, devil inspired variety. I certainly do believe in deliberate wrongdoing and believe that it occurs at all levels of our society. However, I put much more stock in prevention of wrong doing than I do in “punishment” which I do not believe serves any purpose at all except possibly to make the person punished more likely to be retributive if they ever are released.
I also do not believe in “settling accounts” by state sanctioned killing. If the taking of a human life by another human is immoral, why is it more moral for 12 humans, randomly selected, to choose to end a human life ? I would like to be shown the proof that 12 randomly selected individuals are more likely to be accurate in their assessment of who has the right to live of die, than is one. Where is the objective, non emotive proof of this accuracy ?
It is not my non belief in evil that makes me an opponent of the death penalty, it is my keen awareness of the fallibility of human beings and my unwillingness to disregard the potential for error.
[quote]If the taking of a human life by another human is immoral…[/quote]I don not believe that the ‘taking’ of a human life is necessarily immoral. If someone in the theater suspected what was about to happen, and attempted to stop the gunman and had to use lethal force to do so, killing the gunman, I would not judge such an act as a crime, nor immoral.
I question a jury’s ability to judge guilt/not guilt as more problematic than the sentencing portion. In the Colorado situation,a not-guilty verdict would be a sign of madness. I do not believe that an “error” of judgment by the shooter/booby-trapper is in “play”. The young man, in my opinion, has completely forfeited his right to live in a free society. Incarceration for life.
It is nice of Jim Stevens to provide the Vanguard with extra publicity for the event. Knowing him as I do, I suspect he would see the humor and irony in this.
I am not a death penalty opponent. But I want it to be used rarely, and only in heinous cases that are airtight. The Colorado case seems like a likely candidate.
As to Jeff’s comments.
[i]I will tell you what those US liberal-loved folks from Norway would do. They would give him a max of 21 years in a prison system that it noted as the world’s nicest. …That is what will likely happen to Anders Behring Breivik after his lengthy trial where he sits and smirks while prosecutors review every one of the murders of the 69 young people he killed while being heard commenting “oh wow, oh wow!”. Boy, those Norwegians are sure advanced in their progressive views. [/i]
Breivik, if he is found [i]insane[/i] in Norway, will spend the rest of his life in a psych ward, just as Charles Manson will live at CMF Vacaville until he dies. If he is found guilty, the sentence maximum is 21 years.
The Norwegians are very proud of how they have come together as a people in response to the tragedy. Support for the death penalty in Norway is in the low teens, something like 15%. Those are their values, and I don’t disparage them. I also don’t necessarily share those values.
[i]Here is the problem… they, like most US anti-death penalty folks, do not believe in the existence of evil. [/i]
And what do you base this on, Jeff? The people I know who are against the death penalty for moral reasons tend to be religious. I think they probably believe in some concept of evil. I think medwoman has addressed this issue.
[i]To them, all humans – except wealthy capitalists, the military and law enforcement – are worthy of an assessment of victim status.[/i]
Why the snark? Why do you completely devalue the opinions of those you disagree with?
[i]Certainly this guy that shot 71 movie goers and killed 12 must have had a bad childhood. He must have been bullied or depressed. Maybe he was mentally ill. Whatever the story, there has to be something that explains his behavior and causes us to reach out with empathy.[/i]
You are trivializing the science of psychology. Maybe he was, in fact, mentally ill If you are going to ‘recognize evil’ (see below) you might wish to know some of the warning signs. All of that would be interesting and useful to know. Do you not think it is useful to try to understand what causes profoundly psychopathic or sociopathic behavior (I don’t know which term, if either applies)?
[i]For the many of the rest of us, we recognize evil when we see it. We have no qualms about dispatching evil on moral grounds. [/i]
Here is where I have a real problem with your comments.
First, it seems to take a position of moral superiority.
Second, ‘recognizing and dispatching evil’ has been at the root of human abuses for centuries. Just in the last few weeks, I’ve seen ‘evil’ as the basis for shooting a young Afghan woman for adultery. Evidently the Taliban recognizes and dispatches evil when they see it. And so do deeply religious people of all stripes. Problem is, we don’t have any generally accepted definition of evil. I consider it a pretty useless term. Are there degrees of evil? Or is it an absolute condition?
In the last few years there have been four such murder sprees that captured wide attention. In each case the most likely outcome is they will spend the rest of their lives in a psych facility.
The prior three:
Army Major Nidal Hassan, 2009: 13 people in Fort Hood. Faces the death penalty or lifetime in a military psych facility.
Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, March 2012: 17 Afghan civilians. Faces the death penalty or lifetime in a military psych facility.
Anders Breivik, July 2011: 77 Norwegians. Psychiatric diagnosis could mean lifetime in a psych facility.
Are they all evil? Equally so? How about a person who shoots a couple of strangers, and doesn’t plan so thoroughly? Is that person evil? How about someone who is mentally retarded, or 14 years old?
Is evil something they are born with, or does it manifest itself later? Do external factors cause evil, or is it innate in these people? Do you think those questions are worth answering? Could you come up with a more accurate descriptor than ‘evil’ for their conditions and behaviors?
Or do you just ‘know’ evil when you see it? Yes, I’m concerned about that kind of thinking as a basis for our criminal justice system and the meting out of punishments. Plenty of examples around the world and in our own history of how well that goes.
[i]We can do better recognizing evil before it kills. Believing in its existence is the first required step.[/i]
How do you propose we ‘recognize evil’? Probably the people best equipped to analyze the behavior of mass murderers and serial killers and their ilk are those who study the science of psychology. But you seem to disparage that.
I am glad organizations exist that point out the flaws with our current death penalty laws and practices. And I respect the views of those I disagree with on this issue. These things are often framed in either/or fashion, but in fact there are shades of grey.
[quote]Jeff Boone: Our sentencing laws provide softer punishment for criminals deemed mentally ill.[/quote]
This statement is not quite accurate. Mental illness goes to the issue of intent/capacity – did the defendant have the mental capacity to know right from wrong/understand the nature of his/her actions? Rarely are defendants found legally insane – John Hinkley (who attempted to assassinate President Reagan) was a rare example. Usually a defendant has to have made no effort to flee to be found mentally insane as well as not capable of understanding the nature of his/her actions. Those who are mentally insane will go to a treatment facility for the criminally insane rather than prison. They will stay there until deemed competent. If they should ever recover, they can then possibly be tried for the crime committed. Also, mental illness can can be used as a partial defense to reduce homicide charges to manslaughter. However, such defenses are difficult to prove…
[quote]dmg: Elaine you suggested I didn’t address some of his points, but I believe I did. You might not agree with my response.[/quote]
I don’t think you responded to the substance of his arguments, which I pointed out to you, to wit:
[quote]The prosecution dropped the cases because years later witnesses have died, don’t remember what happened, will be accused of not remembering something that happened years ago, will be accused of being coached by the prosecution if they do remember, there is no opportunity to look for corroborating evidence years after the fact, the crime scene is extremely stale, etc. The reality is that persons “exonerated” by DNA evidence may have actually committed the crime in question. Suppose they used a condom for instance, when committing the crime? Nor do you address the issue of witnesses being induced to change testimony outside the courtroom after the fact. [/quote]
Unfortunately, these issues are largely unanswerable. There are definite problems/difficulties with bringing forth a stale case many hears old, and trying to “exonerate” a defendant years and years after trial/sentencing/incarceration.
[quote]There were two reasons I brought up Mr. Stevens past. First, his own behavior in my opinion derails his faith in the court system that he espouses. That’s a point I made early on that no one has addressed.
Second, he didn’t just critique the issues, he called them garbage and I thought that needed context as well. [/quote]
None of the former judge’s behaviors in any way detracts from/are relevant to his main points, which are well known…
[quote]Don Shor: I am not a death penalty opponent. But I want it to be used rarely, and only in heinous cases that are airtight. The Colorado case seems like a likely candidate. [/quote]
I would argue there is no such thing as an “airtight” case…
“Unfortunately, these issues are largely unanswerable. There are definite problems/difficulties with bringing forth a stale case many hears old, and trying to “exonerate” a defendant years and years after trial/sentencing/incarceration.”
What would you suggest? If DNA rules them out as a suspect, what should the authorities do in your estimation? Witnesses recanting is more problematic I agree – but I also think we are too eager to convicted on eyewitness accounts anyway.
“None of the former judge’s behaviors in any way detracts from/are relevant to his main points, which are well known… “
I tend to disagree.
“I would argue there is no such thing as an “airtight” case… “
I don’t know about “airtight” but there are cases for sure where guilt and innocence is not in question and the only real question is what the appropriate punishment. Topete is a good example of that.
Like you Elaine, I don’t support the death penalty, but I do think there are cases that are easier calls than others. Topete is one where I’m convinced he did it, no one disputed that he did it, and the only real question was what should the punishment have been.
[i]”Problem is, we don’t have any generally accepted definition of evil.”[/i]
Don, first point… nice post.
With respect to the definition of evil, I believe in moral absolutism when it comes to maliciously harming or killing others.
From Wikipedia, evil is defined as:
[quote]evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, disobeying the commandments of a god or gods, or the rules of society, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence.[/quote]
Certainly, there are risks for pre-assessing evil, just as there are risks with our egalitarian fears preventing us from doing so. I am advocating for more citizen involvement questioning what their neighbors are doing. I am advocating us away from treating all behavior as protected civil liberties. I am advocating that law abiding citizens be allowed to carry. And those with criminal records should be prevented from owning guns. I am advocating stop and frisk laws.
This guy contemplated this mass murder for weeks if not years.
I think this is our only viable solution to reduce the risk of these types of tragic events.
What else can we do?
Note that I also support more mental health services. If this guy was truly mentally ill to the point that he could not contemplate the impacts of his actions, he should have been committed earlier.
Note that as tragic and sad as this mass murder was, the same number of young black males are killed every few days on the streets of Chicago. Evil exists. It really comes down to our courage to deal with it in a way that limits its destructiveness.
Jeff Boone
“What else can we do ?”
Well, we could do what many other similarly developed countries have chosen to do, namely restrict the use of firearms. You will notice that I did not say ban. I said restrict. I have no problem with people owning firearms which they keep for sporting or hunting oases. If that is truly why they have them, they could be kept at sporting clubs and checked out when needed. The same with collections. I have no problem with responsible ownership. My dad was an avid hunter and was teaching me how to shoot prior to his death. However I think we have ample statistical evidence
as you noted in your last paragraph that weapons in the wrong hands contribute to a great deal of evil as you and I have both quoted from Wikipedia. I think one very effective option is in play in other countries. We are just too convinced of our own superiority in all matters to learn from others.
Having said that, I agree that mental illness likely played a role here and the most appropriate place for this troubled man is probably in a mental hospital for life.
JB: “criminals who are mentally ill”
Unfortunately, IMO, our society too often takes the mentally ill and puts them in prison rather than provide adequate treatment services for them in the community.
ERM: I believe when someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are committed to a state hospital for no longer than the maximum sentence for the crime they committed. They are not re-tried – that happened already in the guilt phase of the proceeding. They can sue to have their sanity restored and get a trial to determine that – I’ve always found that a quaint concept: suing to have one’s sanity restored (by a court).
My understanding is that many folks believe that many accused “get off” by claiming insanity at the time of the offense. This is a myth – it is a rarely used defense and rarely succeeds when used.
JB says: “What can we do?”
Well, Australia instituted a gun buy-back program that has reduced the number of gun-related suicides. That’s a start. Reduce the number of guns. Gun suicide is higher than gun homicide in the US.
In 2009, firearm related homicides were 11,493, firearm related suicides were 18,735. In 2009 there were greater than 48,000 non-fatal injuries associated with firearms in the US. Adding all these up, over 30,000 deaths associated with firearms in 2009 and 48,000 non-fatal injuries that makes about 78,000 people. Now, let’s add the number of people who were family members of these folks – let’s be conservative here – two for every one of the 78,000. That makes it about 240,000 (rounding) people in 2009 alone were affected by firearm homicides, suicides, or non-fatal injury.
Simple numbers like these don’t tell the whole story. The CDC also calculates something called Years of Potential Life Lost. For firearm homicide in 2009 the total YPLL before age 85 was 610,450. For firearm suicide it was 660,853. Can you imagine what those lost years of potential could mean if it were reduced by half?
As a society we can reduce these numbers. Reduce the number of guns. Reduce access to them. Ban assault weapon-style guns (AR-15’s for instance). Restrict who can own them. Require serial numbers on bullets.
Who says there isn’t anything we can do to reduce the cost of guns in our society. The single biggest reduction in suicide alone would be to restrict gun availability and ownership.
Don Shor: Charlie Manson used to be at Vacaville but he tried to escape a number of years ago. Then they sent him to Pelican Bay, but that didn’t work out so now he is in a special unit at Corcoran State Prison where he lives with Sirhan Sirhan and other notorious criminals.
There is no correlation between guns per capita and suicides per capita.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country[/url]
The US homicide per capita does not even show up on the list of
[url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita[/url]
Sweden and Finland appear to be quite dangerous places considering their high homicide and suicide rates per capita.
The problem using these rare tragedies of evil or insane people killing others with guns to make a case for stricter gun control is:
1. The US is not any more dangerous per capita even having about twice the guns per capita of any other country.
2. We would need relative draconian gun restrictions to make a big enough dent in US gun ownership to result in any reduction in homicides and suicides per capita.
Gun control is a nonstarter for a solution to this problem.
Jeff,
There is something off in your data. There were 13,756 murders in the US in 2009, the comes to just over 45 per one million. That should be sixth in the world.
JB: I was/am talking about only suicides or homicides by firearm – not all methods, which is what your homicide rankings list. You need to go to THIS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence. It appears that the U.S. ranks up there with the likes of Belarus (who woulda known?), Barbados, Mexico, Columbia, Guatemala, etc. Not exactly peace-loving countries.
I’m not sure why you included the gun ownership page. What’s the point? The U.S. has 88 guns per 100 residents and the next highest country is Serbia (recently in a rather nasty war against some of its citizens) with 59 per 100 residents.
The leading method of suicide in this country is firearms. Between the ages of 15 and 80 years of age, the two leading causes of violent death (any death not attributable to an accident or illness) are firearms. Suicide is first, homicide is second. Firearms lead all causes of violent deaths in this country. In suicide prevention, “means restriction” is a major public health strategy. Google: Australia gun buyback suicide, and learn about reducing suicide rates. For good data on guns and suicide take a look at the website “Means Matter.” For fatal injury data go to the CDC. Educate yourself about how increasing gun safety would reduce suicides. It’s not even a matter of banning guns or “draconian” laws, simple education about gun safety, trigger locks, gun safes, and the like would reduce suicides. Australia reduced their suicide rate by buy and destroying guns.
The rates in this country compared to some others (you cite a couple Scandinavian countries) – South Africa has the highest rate of gun death that I could find on Wikipedia – is in part because we have so many people in the denominator. They have a few deaths by gun but many fewer people, so their rates look higher.
It wouldn’t take “draconian” laws to reduce the violence. Wouldn’t you like to reduce the number of gun suicides and homicides? What is draconian to you, is good public health to me.
Let’s see. Mr. Holmes apparently (according to the police in Colorado) bought several thousand rounds of ammunition via the internet without anyone knowing. In California, as in many other states, if I want to buy an over-the-counter cold medicine called pseudephedrine, I have to ask for it and show my license. Don’t you think it might make a difference if simple controls like that were put on ammunition sales like we do for the precursors of drugs like methamphetamine?
[i]There is something off in your data[/i]
Yes there was. I thought NationMaster was more reliable. I should have questioned it since it did not make sense that the US did not even show up on the list.
Cross that site off my list.
According to this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate[/url]
We do have a higher murder rate per capita (4.8 per 100,000) than Finland (2.1) and Sweden 0.86). Sorry for my mistake Norway and Sweden! =-|
My point still stands that there is no correlation with guns per capita and murders per capita.
rdcanning, that is an interesting statistic about firearms and suicides. I did not know. I lost an 18-year old step sister in 1983 and two brother in-laws more recently to suicide by gun, so I do have interest in this.
A couple of related questions/points…
General suicide rates per capita are much higher in several countries with strict gun control. Don’t you think that people determined to kill themselves would just find other methods?
Also, I make the point that we are a long, long way from the level of gun control gun reduction that would prevent access to firearms used for suicide. Those cats will not go back into the bag without a fight, and there are so many of them it would take decades of Orwellian laws and law enforcement to make a dent. Then there is the fact that we cannot stop people flowing over our borders with products used for crime. I would suspect severe gun control in this country to cause a bonanza for criminals that cause more death even as we try to limit access to law-abiding people.
I don’t get suicide. Never have and never will. We are a unique animal lacking a survival instinct and owning an obsession to kill ourselves. I don’t have any suggestions for reducing suicide, but I think gun control is not the answer. Frankly, I think we will find a virus or some genetic marker responsible for a lack of dopamine production, and/or a lack of innate stress-coping abilities. I view it as a health problem and think we should treat it as one. It is not a social issue that we can fix with top-down laws and regulations, otherwise other more socialist-style countries would have much lower suicide rates. They don’t.
Back to the murder rate and how we can reduce it.
1.Legalize some recreational drugs. Tax them and use the revenue for treatment programs for those developing destructive addictions and habits.
2.Implement stop and frisk in all major metropolitan areas with gang problems and high murder rates.
3.Significantly increase penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and for illegal possession.
4.Increase the amount of people that are licensed to carry.
5.Build a better high-tech fence along our southern border and tell Calderon to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, drugs and weapons or we will start taxing all individual account bank transfers from the US to Mexico and use the revenue to strengthen our border patrol.
6.Fix the problems causing so many fatherless children (this starts with honest dialog about what the root causes are).
7.Reform the education system to better care for and educate boys.
8.Get rid of title-IX.
Why are murder-rates the highest for African Americans in the US, and in Africa in general?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/worldrate.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/victimrate.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/offendingrate.jpg[/img]
I know there are some that point to law enforcement and judical racism being a fact in the over-representation of black in US prisons, but I don’t think one can make a case that racism plays any part in murder rates. The homicide rate for blacks in the US is about 15 per 100,000, compared to 2.6 for whites.
Poverty must be a factor, but there are many areas of poverty where murder rates are low.
The high murder rate in central and parts of south America can be explained by illicit drug trafficing.
Are there studies or reports on this? I frankly did not know until I saw this map… that most of central and southern Africa had such high murder rates.
Jeff
[quote]Back to the murder rate and how we can reduce it.
1.Legalize some recreational drugs. Tax them and use the revenue for treatment programs for those developing destructive addictions and habits.
2.Implement stop and frisk in all major metropolitan areas with gang problems and high murder rates.
3.Significantly increase penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and for illegal possession.
4.Increase the amount of people that are licensed to carry.
5.Build a better high-tech fence along our southern border and tell Calderon to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, drugs and weapons or we will start taxing all individual account bank transfers from the US to Mexico and use the revenue to strengthen our border patrol.
6.Fix the problems causing so many fatherless children (this starts with honest dialog about what the root causes are).
7.Reform the education system to better care for and educate boys.
8.Get rid of title-IX.[/quote]
Some comments and questions
1. Agreed
2. How do you denigrate “top down” solutions when it comes to gun control measures, and yet support
this policy which also potentially violates basic civil rights against arbitrary search and seizure ?
3. How do you significantly increase penalties for gun related crime beyond life imprisonment and or
the death penalty ?
4. Increase the number of people that are licensed to carry. I would like to point out that the Aurora
shooter was, until he opened fire, a “law abiding citizen” who had done nothing illegal to acquire his
arsenal. Do you really suppose that increasing the number of guns available will prevent these types
of actions? Why do you assume only “the good guys” will be amongst those licensed ?
5. A case of “fear of the other” in action, as I posted on another thread.
6. Having a father in the home does not prevent murder as witnessed by two recent cases in the news,
the teen girl who shot her father after he told her that if she didn’t, he would kill them both, and
the case of the 14 year old boy who murdered both of his parents after having his statements that
all he could think about was murder and suicide ignored. It is the quality of the parenting, not the
gender of the parent that is key.
7. Agree, but would expand it to both genders.
8. And….what in the world do you think Title IX has to do with murder rates ? I am truly baffled.
[quote]3. How do you significantly increase penalties for gun related crime beyond life imprisonment and or the death penalty ? [/quote]
In California we have 10-20-life for guns used in the commission of a crime. Ten year enhancement if you have a gun, 20 if you fire it, life if you hit someone. Personally I think it’s ridiculously harsh. You either commit a crime or you don’t, but that’s the law right now.
“You either commit a crime or you don’t, but that’s the law right now.”
And if you use a gun in commission of another crime, you’ve committed yet another crime. The penalies for using a gun are indeed harsh, intentionally, but not ridiculously, because just having a gun while committing a robbery, burglary, carjacking, etc. makes it more likely someone will end up injured or dead.
Given the wide awareness of the penalty’s strictness, I’d guess it’s one of the legal codes more effective deterrents. And it’s so simple to avoid ten years more, just don’t take a gun along to any of one’s crimes.
“And if you use a gun in commission of another crime, you’ve committed yet another crime.”
These are enhancements, so they are not considered an additional crime.
Medwoman,
1. Agreed
[i]Now we are getting somewhere![/i]
2. How do you denigrate “top down” solutions when it comes to gun control measures, and yet support this policy which also potentially violates basic civil rights against arbitrary search and seizure?
[i]That is simple… it is a Constitutional thing… government provides for the safety of its citizens. I absolutely support law enforcement and the military. And, the need for safety comes way before the need to concern ourselves with civil rights impacts that do not cause any material harm. We need to get our hyper sensitivities out of the way so we can solve important problems. Black males are killing each other, so lets stop and frisk those and others that appear suspicious and help save lives. It works in New York City.[/i]
3. How do you significantly increase penalties for gun related crime beyond life imprisonment and or the death penalty ?
[i]I am talking about penalty enhancements. A good example is possession. If you are caught carrying without a permit, then you should do time. Add stop and frisk to this mix, and you would see a big drop in gun related crime. My guess is that you and others could not accept this. So, maybe look into the mirror for a reason we are unable to prevent more gun death. There is a saying “drastic problems require drastic solutions.”[/i]
4. Increase the number of people that are licensed to carry. I would like to point out that the Aurora
shooter was, until he opened fire, a “law abiding citizen” who had done nothing illegal to acquire his
arsenal. Do you really suppose that increasing the number of guns available will prevent these types
of actions? Why do you assume only “the good guys” will be amongst those licensed ?
[i]My ideas are to address the gun homicide rate. If more people were licensed to carry, maybe this apparently extremely intelligent nut job would have had second thoughts carrying out his act. Maybe one or more people in the audience could have taken him out or at least disrupted him so more could escape. Other than that, I think we need a national dialog for how to tap our senses and question the behavior of our neighbors. We also need to be building and staffing more mental health facilities.[/i]
5. A case of “fear of the other” in action, as I posted on another thread.
[i]Ha. You mean a fear of criminals. Yes, I have a fear of criminals poor in over the border. However, my point was to prevent illegal drugs and illegal guns coming across that border. Again, I think hyper sensitivity is preventing us from implementing real solutions. That is a shame, because it is causing people to die.[/i]
6. Having a father in the home does not prevent murder as witnessed by two recent cases in the news,
the teen girl who shot her father after he told her that if she didn’t, he would kill them both, and
the case of the 14 year old boy who murdered both of his parents after having his statements that
all he could think about was murder and suicide ignored. It is the quality of the parenting, not the
gender of the parent that is key.
[i]Actually it is common knowledge that the majority of violent criminals are young males lacking or that lacked a father in their home growing up. You can point out specific incidents that pull heart strings on this, but then again it would be hyper sensitivity preventing society from implementing real solutions[/i]
7. Agree, but would expand it to both genders.
[i]Sure. But, girls are doing fine these days. It is boys that are dropping out and failing to complete their education. The education system has changed over the years to more and more ignore the needs of boys and favor the needs of girls. Just say those boys have ADD and give them drugs. Testosterone is politically incorrect. Again, if you want to reduce the homicide rate, then the schools better focus on the needs of boys and not continue to force them to behave like girls. We have a crisis with boys that is feeding violent crime statitics. What are we going to do about it?[/i]
8. And….what in the world do you think Title IX has to do with murder rates ? I am truly baffled.
[i]See the previous. Title IX eliminated many opportunities for boys to participate in athletics. Females won at the expense of boys… or did they?[/i]
[quote]Siegel: Elaine: Out of curiosity what would you suggest? If DNA rules them out as a suspect, what should the authorities do in your estimation? Witnesses recanting is more problematic I agree – but I also think we are too eager to convicted on eyewitness accounts anyway. But DNA evidence is pretty strong evidence of innocence, wouldn’t you say? How do we speed up the process to avoid the problems you are highlighting? [/quote]
DNA evidence or the lack thereof may mean nothing, e.g. rapist who uses a condom. To avoid the problems of old cases growing stale and all that entails, we need better investigatory techniques at the front end/need to hold prosecutors/law enforcement accountable that misbehave intentionally. This is where dmg and I are in complete agreement.
[quote]Siegel: Like you Elaine, I don’t support the death penalty, but I do think there are cases that are easier calls than others. Topete is one where I’m convinced he did it, no one disputed that he did it, and the only real question was what should the punishment have been.[/quote]
Agreed that some cases are stronger than others, but there are probably few cases that I would consider “airtight” – evidence is almost never “perfect”…
[quote]rdcanning: ERM: I believe when someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are committed to a state hospital for no longer than the maximum sentence for the crime they committed. They are not re-tried – that happened already in the guilt phase of the proceeding. They can sue to have their sanity restored and get a trial to determine that – I’ve always found that a quaint concept: suing to have one’s sanity restored (by a court). [/quote]
I went back a did some research. See [url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/current-application-of-the-insanity-defense.html[/url]
[quote]Distinction Between the Insanity Defense and Competency to Stand Trial
All jurisdictions require that criminal defendants must be competent to stand trial, meaning that defendants understand the nature of the proceedings against them and are able to assist counsel in their defense. A person who is found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial is usually hospitalized for treatment until such time that the person is competent to stand trial. Competency does not address the guilt or innocence of a party, and so competency to stand trial should not be confused with the insanity defense.[/quote]
Elaine: I’m surprised at your argument here, eg: “DNA evidence or the lack thereof may mean nothing, e.g. rapist who uses a condom.”
You have to know there is only one condition under which a conviction would be thrown out – DNA evidence eliminates the suspect. Lack of DNA evidence would not be sufficient. You would need the sperm sample in the rape victim that does not much the suspect and instead matches another suspect.
Under that condition, do you believe Judge Stevens has a valid concern?
“Agreed that some cases are stronger than others, but there are probably few cases that I would consider “airtight” – evidence is almost never “perfect”… “
I think you are arguing just to argue. You know full well there are cases that we know without any doubt who the culprit was. Topete is a clear example.
[quote]Jeff Boone:I don’t get suicide. Never have and never will. We are a unique animal lacking a survival instinct and owning an obsession to kill ourselves. I don’t have any suggestions for reducing suicide, but I think gun control is not the answer. Frankly, I think we will find a virus or some genetic marker responsible for a lack of dopamine production, and/or a lack of innate stress-coping abilities. I view it as a health problem and think we should treat it as one. It is not a social issue that we can fix with top-down laws and regulations, otherwise other more socialist-style countries would have much lower suicide rates. [/quote]
At the time a person is suicidal, often they are not thinking straight/clearly. The particular stress they may be under may be so severe, it warps their thinking. Their sense of perspective is way off. It can be much like the emaciated anorexic, who looks in the mirror, and sees herself/himself as “fat”. The suicidal person may have the feeling that death is preferable to living in agony, whatever their particular situation may be…
[quote]dmg: In California we have 10-20-life for guns used in the commission of a crime. Ten year enhancement if you have a gun, 20 if you fire it, life if you hit someone. Personally I think it’s ridiculously harsh. You either commit a crime or you don’t, but that’s the law right now.[/quote]
It is presumed if a person brings a gun to a crime scene, they have every intention of using it if necessary. The idea is to discourage weapons being used in the commission of a crime…
Why doesn’t punishing the base crime discourage the weapon used? Your logic is a bit odd here in that you presume the crime – “a person brings a gun to a crime scene” – the crime has not been committed yet when the person bring the gun and “discourage weapons being used in the commission of a crime” – why are you presuming the crime?
[quote]DG–“Personally I think it’s ridiculously harsh. You either commit a crime or you don’t.”
JS–“And if you use a gun in commission of another crime, you’ve committed yet another crime.”
DG–“These are enhancements, so they are not considered an additional crime.”[/quote]
A distinction without a difference in my book. I”m not following your issue against the “enhancement”–that the penalties should be half of what they are, that a criminal should get some “free ones” before the penalties start kicking it, that life should come after five increasingly severe terms instead of two?
What’s “ridiculous” about the current enhancement penalties? What should they be?
I also can’t understand your suggestion that punishing a carjacking “base crime” should be adequate regardless of whether a gun is used. Don’t you think it’s in society’s interest to discourage using guns when folks commit crime?
Don’t you think that the clear, well publicized “use a gun, go to prison” law makes some people consider leaving behind their guns when they go off to rob someone? Don’t you think this has saved lives and reduced injuries that might have happened during the commission of crimes?
And, what are you getting at when you talk about “presuming” the crime? I think Elaine is very clear when she notes that people wouldn’t show up at a crime scene with weapons unless they anticipated that they might use them. And that we should try to discourage this (in addition to trying to discourage “base crimes”).
Jeff
1. Well, based on statistics,I guess we couldn’t be on opposite sides of everything forever 😉
2. Yes, it is constitutional. So is the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
So you are saying the just having an XY chromosomal compliment, being of African American descent,
and having the bad fortune to live in a violent neighbor hood means that you don’t get equal protection under the constitution. Sorry, I can’t buy that.
4. Well that’s quite a speculation. Maybe he would have seen it as even more of a challenge and would have prepared even better thereby killing more people. Or maybe these would be Rambos would have killed other innocents panicking and caught in the crossfire. I don’t think we should be making major decisions based on a “what if strategy”, especially when we have data regarding what has worked for others.
5.Interesting comment about hypersensitivity. I think our “hypersensitivity” about some very sensible limitations on gun ownership is preventing our implementing some real solutions such as have worked in other countries.
6. Regarding the issue of unintended pregnancy resulting in single women raising children alone, I have spent my career implementing the most effective real solution to this problem. Namely providing statistically effective contraception to any woman responsible enough to come in and seek it. Exactly what real world solutions do you see to the problem of unintended pregnancy ? And please, no “just say no” responses. We already have demonstrated over and over that that is ineffective. If you have a good idea, believe me I would love to hear it as this has been a major emphasis of my career.
7.I am curious as to how you define the needs of boys vs the needs of girls. In today’s world, boys and girls both need to gain all the skills they will need to support themselves and if need be their children.
Believe me, this I know from personal experience. So just exactly what is a girl need vs a boy need?
8. This comment completely ignores the fact that prior to Title IX, boys sports funding eliminated the possibility of many girls participating in sports. Please explain to me why my daughter, a high school athlete should not have her sport funded to the level of my son, also a high school athlete. If you believe that boys sports are underfunded, then the obvious solution is to promote higher funding for school sports, not to support boys sports to the detriment of the other 50 % of the students.
Sorry, I just realized how very off topic we are.
Banish to the Bulletin Board if you will those who have the power to do so.
JB,
In reference to stricter gun laws and reducing the number of guns on the streets…
[i]there are so many of them [opponents?] it would take decades of [b]Orwellian laws and law enforcement[/b] to make a dent.[/i]
then, in support of “stop and frisk laws”…
[i]That is simple… it is a Constitutional thing… government provides for the safety of its citizens. I absolutely support law enforcement and the military. And, the need for safety comes way before the need to concern ourselves with civil rights impacts that do not cause any material harm.[/i]
Thought those were interesting in juxtaposition. I guess it’s “Orwellian” when the policy, laws, etc. are ones which you disagree with?
JB,
That “Constitutional thing” also protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures…
ERM: Check Penal Code Sec. 1026.5. In California one can spend more time in a state hospital than the maximum term for the offense, but only if under 1026.5 the hospital applies to the court for an extension of the commitment if the person still suffers from the mental disorder and is a danger to public safety.
Restoration of sanity is covered in 1026 proper. As you point out this is different than incompetent to proceed (PC 1368/1370). What is interesting is that if an individual falling under 1370 is found “gravely disabled” they can have the charges dropped and be committed under a civil commitment by the county with annual renewals.
JB [quote]General suicide rates per capita are much higher in several countries with strict gun control. Don’t you think that people determined to kill themselves would just find other methods? [/quote]
The research on suicide suggests that suicidal states wax and wane like most emotional states. A study done many years ago tried to test the hypothesis that those who attempted suicide, if stopped in their attempt, would simply try again soon after. The researcher hung around SF General Hospital, where the CHP would take people they had taken off the Golden Gate Bridge. The researcher, Richard Seiden, recruited many of these people into his study to follow them for a number of years to see what happened to them and to see if they committed suicide soon after being removed from the bridge. Most did not. Although the rate of suicide and violent death among the group was much higher than the average community member, they did not go back to the bridge. Here is the abstract from the article, which appeared in Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior in 1978:
[quote] The Golden Gate Bridge is currently the number one suicide location in the world. From the opening day, May 18, 1937 to April 1, 1978, there have been 625 officially reported suicide deaths and perhaps more than 200 others which have gone unseen and unreported. Proposals for the construction of a hardware antisuicide barrier have been challenged with the untested contention that “they’ll just go someplace else” This research tests the contention by describing and evaluating the long-term mortality experience of the 515 persons who had attempted suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge but were restrained, from the opening day through the year 1971 plus a comparison group of 1-84 persons who made no bridge suicide attempts during 1956-57 and were treated at the emergency room of a large metropolitan hospital and were also followed through the close of 1971. Results of the follow up study are directed toward answering the important question: “Will a person who is prevented from suicide in one location inexorably tend to attempt and commit suicide elsewhere?”[/quote]
The results found that of 515 individual attempters from the bridge, 25 went on the commit suicide but only seven went back to the GGB and jumped to their death. There is more detail in the paper, which you can easily find online via Google.
So, that’s one article but others bear on this same theme. Suicidal states wax and wane and we shouldn’t be hesitant to intervene just because of the myth that if someone tries to kill themselves there is nothing to be done. Most who die by suicide (the research suggests 75-90%) suffer from a major mental illness at the time of their death. In addition, many – some estimates are as high as 75% – are also intoxicated. The point here is that mental disorders are eminently treatable and if we can intervene and treat, the likelihood of another near-term attempt is lessened.
JB: Your point about guns and suicide misses my point. One of the main issues with suicide is access to means. If we can reduce access to lethal means (whether it is odorizing kitchen gas like they did in Britain, making insecticides harder to get in the Third World – where it is a major means of suicide – or putting bridge barriers up to prevent jumpers – as has been done in Toronto, D.C., and in Santa Barbara County) we can have an impact on suicide. Trigger locks, lockable gun cabinets, gun education – all these can make a difference. Australia succeeded with gun buy backs. States with lower gun ownership patterns have fewer firearm and overall suicide rates. Here’s an abstract from the Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care:
[quote]Background: The current investigation explores the association between rates of household firearm ownership and suicide across the 50 states. Prior ecologic research on the relationship between firearm
prevalence and suicide has been criticized for using problematic proxy-based, rather than survey-based, estimates of firearm prevalence and for failing to control for potential psychological risk factors for suicide. We address these two criticisms by using recently available state-level survey-based estimates of household
firearm ownership, serious mental illness, and alcohol/illicit substance use and dependence.
Methods: Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between household firearm ownership rates and rates of firearm, nonfirearm, and overall suicide for both sexes and for four age groups. Analyses controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and drug and alcohol dependence and abuse.
Results: US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms. A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide; rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership.
Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed
suicide.[/quote]
And if we look at areas (states for instance) with stronger gun control laws (particularly handguns) we might see lower firearm suicide rates. And this is actually the case. New York has very tight controls and has a low rate of gun suicide, as does California. States with looser laws, e.g. Wyoming and some states in the South like Louisiana, have relatively higher rates. You can get data about U.S. firearm deaths (whether accidental, homicide or suicide) and other causes of injury and death from the Web-based Injury Statistics and Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) on the CDC website.
[quote]Elaine: I’m surprised at your argument here, eg: “DNA evidence or the lack thereof may mean nothing, e.g. rapist who uses a condom.”
You have to know there is only one condition under which a conviction would be thrown out – DNA evidence eliminates the suspect. Lack of DNA evidence would not be sufficient. You would need the sperm sample in the rape victim that does not much the suspect and instead matches another suspect.
Under that condition, do you believe Judge Stevens has a valid concern?[/quote]
Not following you. Let’s take a specific example, and perhaps that will clear up what I was getting at. Let’s suppose a rapist used a condom. No sperm to convict. However there was eyewitness testimony by the victim and the rapist was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison. However let’s also suppose the rape was violent and the trauma made her memory a bit hazy. Nevertheless the rapist was convicted on her eyewitness testimony. Let’s suppose there was blood evidence on the victim that was never tested. It wasn’t necessary to test it bc she identified the perp. (This happens all the time.) Let’s also suppose that the only blood evidence on her blouse was from a nosebleed – her boyfriend’s nosebleed from the day before the rape. Years later the rapist gets the Innocence Project to look at his case. The Innocence Project demands to have the blood evidence tested. Low and behold it is not the rapists blood – it is the boyfriend’s. The rapist is set free because the victim’s memory is so hazy there is no way she could identify her rapists 15 years later.
The point I am trying to make, if inarticulately, is that stale cases are difficult to prosecute because so many things have changed, memories fade, witnesses die, witnesses don’t remember, existing evidence may be taken out of context, etc. Hope that makes more sense…
[quote]A distinction without a difference in my book. I”m not following your issue against the “enhancement”–that the penalties should be half of what they are, that a criminal should get some “free ones” before the penalties start kicking it, that life should come after five increasingly severe terms instead of two?
What’s “ridiculous” about the current enhancement penalties? What should they be?
I also can’t understand your suggestion that punishing a carjacking “base crime” should be adequate regardless of whether a gun is used. Don’t you think it’s in society’s interest to discourage using guns when folks commit crime?
Don’t you think that the clear, well publicized “use a gun, go to prison” law makes some people consider leaving behind their guns when they go off to rob someone? Don’t you think this has saved lives and reduced injuries that might have happened during the commission of crimes?
And, what are you getting at when you talk about “presuming” the crime? I think Elaine is very clear when she notes that people wouldn’t show up at a crime scene with weapons unless they anticipated that they might use them. And that we should try to discourage this (in addition to trying to discourage “base crimes”).[/quote]
Well said!
To rdcanning: Thanks for the additional info…
JS:
You call it a distinctions without a difference.
You site carjacking. Within California’s carjacking is an element: “The defendant used force or fear to take the vehicle or to prevent that person from resisting”
Clearly the gun would be used as a means to achieve the end of carjacking. So why do you charge the gun separately when it’s part of the crime. Why is it much worse to use a gun to commit the same crime as a knife? It’s the same crime.
And why does merely having the gun, without using it, mean 10 additional years?
Here are some more technical arguments:
You can be sentenced to ten years for “using” a gun even if the gun is inoperable or unloaded.
You can be sentenced to ten years for “using” a gun even if you only use it to strike someone (otherwise referred to as pistol whipping).
You can be sentenced to twenty years for discharging a gun even if the gun misfires or doesn’t discharge a bullet.
You can be sentenced to 25-years-to-life even if it’s not the gunshot wound that kills or injures the alleged victim.
You can be sentenced to 25-years-to-life even if you’re not the one who personally uses the gun if the crime was allegedly gang-related.
More arguments:
[quote]Two issues seem relevant in arguing whether this law is appropriate. First, is it effective? Has the rate of serious crime involving guns been substantially reduced since the law took effect? Violent crimes have diminished in California. However, it is unclear whether a correlation exists between the larger number of individuals receiving extended sentences under this law and the reduced crime rate.
The second issue that should be considered is whether the law is too harsh. Detractors of “use a gun and you’re done” argue that a person can spend ten years behind bars for a gun that was not loaded or didn’t work at all. 20 years can be imposed for a gun that misfires. Indeed, 20 years is seen as a very harsh sentence when the gun does not actually hurt the victim.[/quote]
[quote]You can be sentenced to ten years for “using” a gun even if the gun is inoperable or unloaded.
You can be sentenced to ten years for “using” a gun even if you only use it to strike someone (otherwise referred to as pistol whipping).
You can be sentenced to twenty years for discharging a gun even if the gun misfires or doesn’t discharge a bullet.
You can be sentenced to 25-years-to-life even if it’s not the gunshot wound that kills or injures the alleged victim.
You can be sentenced to 25-years-to-life even if you’re not the one who personally uses the gun if the crime was allegedly gang-related. [/quote]
There are defenses that can be used in cases of inoperable gun.
Pistol whipping can be just as deadly as a bullet.
Even if the gun did not discharge or misfired, the intent was to shoot the gun.
Even if you failed to shoot the intended victim, you intended to shoot someone.
If you are in a gang, and a gun is used in the commission of the crime, you are very much a part of that crime.
The bottom line is that these laws are meant to deter the use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
“The bottom line is that these laws are meant to deter the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. “
No doubt that it true. The question is really whether the use of the gun over and above the crime itself is worth 10, 20, or a life sentence.
“Clearly the gun would be used as a means to achieve the end of carjacking. So why do you charge the gun separately when it’s part of the crime. Why is it much worse to use a gun to commit the same crime as a knife? It’s the same crime. And why does merely having the gun, without using it, mean 10 additional years? “
I think it’s clear that we’re trying to discourage people from taking guns along when they’re planning to do some bad deeds, regardless of the seriousness of the “base crime” in which they’re engaged. Taking guns out of the criminal act setting could save lives, whether the “base crime” is a “serious” one or simply grabbing a bicycle from someone when the only real danger of serious injury is if things “go bad.”
Obviously “using” a gun in commission of a crime isn’t intended require shooting someone. Just having it there accelerates the potential for injury and death, so, leave it home! “Merely having the gun” is what the law sees as NOT a MERE issue when a crime is being committed.
Whether the recent reduction in violent crime has been proven to result directly from the increased “use a gun” sentences is not relevant, in my opinion. Maybe it’ll be shown to have a correlation when it’s adequately researched; maybe it won’t; who cares at this point?
With respect to gun misfires, unloaded guns and “used” but not fired issues, I think some weight must be being given to the PTSD results of gun use. Given what we’re learning about these effects, I don’t thing they can be discounted when these “injuries” when they are caused by gun-trotting criminals.
So, it really gets down to how many years you think are appropriate for the various enhancements. Do you want lesser add-ins or zero years for the added dangers of guns being used in crimes?
This is quite an interesting discussion.
I have to admit that my head is spinning a bit over the arguments from David and others pushing back on tougher sentencing for criminal gun use and possession… while they also demand tougher laws restricting gun ownership. How the hell are we going to restrict gun ownership if we can’t punish those that have and use guns illegally? A slap on the wrist is not going to do it.
Let’s assume we enhance the laws that require prison time for carrying a concealed weapon illegally. Now let’s assume in large cities, we have stop and frisk laws. Guess what? The crooks and gang bangers stop carrying because of the risk the cops can stop and frisk people fitting the profile of crooks and gang bangers. We reduce gun crime.
Those that argue against Stop and Frisk based on Fourth Amendment rights are basically saying they would prefer that we continue to allow current high levels of death by guns in our inner cities only to prevent some people from getting their feeling hurt being stopped and frisked by cops. This is ironic, because it would generally be the same group of people being killed by guns that are at higher risk for being stopped and frisked.
I certainly value Fourth Amendment rights, but these are superseded by the need for safety. An example of this is what we go through in an airport these days. TSA routinely tramples on my Fourth Amendment rights to help ensure I am safe.
Like for air travel after 9-11, we have a crisis in our inner cities. It is a drastic problem… and drastic problems require drastic solutions. Protecting the dignity of a group of people should come after they are prevented from killing or being killed. I don’t think this point is argumentative… it is just common sense.
There seems to be an unrealistic idealistic view that we can prevent access to guns by reducing their numbers while being lenient in our punishment for those that carry and use them illegally. There are 270 million guns in this county. We are damn close to having one gun for every resident of the country. We are not going to be able to reduce this number easily. In fact, I think it is foolish to think we can reduce it at all.
Instead of wasting time on this untenable and hopeless vision that hits the First Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, we should get practical and hit the problem were it will have the greatest probability of improvement. People kill people, not guns. Guns are not the problem; people using guns to commit crimes are the problem. So implement very tough penalties for illegal gun possession and use, and implement stop and frisk in most of our large cities. We all KNOW that this would result in a reduction in gun crime and gun death. Look at the difference between gun crimes in Chicago versus New York City for an example. The challenge is for us to get over our hyper sensitivity over the non-material impacts of hurt feelings versus what should be our outrage that so many people are dying from gun shots in our inner cities.
Think about this… we implement zero tolerance in our schools for students possessing even a pocket knife. The teachers can act like the Gestapo searching and seizing as much as they deem necessary. We allow this to keep our kids safe (even though educators tend to demonstrate a fraction of the common sense law enforcement demonstrates). Why not have the same sentiments for young people living in our inner cities?
“my head is spinning a bit over the arguments from David and others pushing back on tougher sentencing for criminal gun use and possession… while they also demand tougher laws restricting gun ownership.”
Show me a single example of when I pushed for tougher laws restricting gun ownership
No David… you push for more lenient laws and punishment for certain groups of people. Sorry that was not clear in my rambling.
Ok, now I am reading what you asked. You are correct that I cannot find any recent example of your pushing for tougher laws restricting gun ownership. I should not have generalized. You might be unique in this case… being against tougher sentencing and solutions like stop and frisk while also being against stronger restrictions in gun ownership. This only makes my head spin a little since there is no solution in this position that I can understand.
There are plenty of others that are against tougher sentencing and stop and frisk, while also being for stronger laws restricting gun owership. Those are the people that really make my head spin.
I think gun laws and drug laws are both flawed and the expenditure of resources to enforce them are wasteful and misguided. I view the solution in relaxing drug laws, allowing people with felonies who wish to put their lives back in order a chance to do so, and investment in education and job training.
I am with you on investment in education and job training. I am also with you on drug laws. I am not with you on other crimes. However, I do sruggle with the social problem where some mistakes of youth can damage life opportunities for greater happiness and prosperity. Frankly, this is one of my drivers supporting stop and frisk. There is competition out there for a limited number of good jobs that create a good life and the greater opportunities are provided those that make the fewest critical mistakes in judgement. Let’s help these kids understand that they cannot make certain mistakes.
Think about it… a kid carries a gun because members of another gang will likely be carrying a gun. Then if the guns are used, and he is involved, and he is caught… he has a felony record that will plague his future prospects. I think a felony record is justified for gun crime. It is not for drug possession, IMO.
So, lets stop and frisk so that this kid knows there is a much smaller risk that other gang members would be carrying and a greater risk he would be caught carrying so that he makes the right decision that protects his future prospects.
This kid cannot even get into the Army these days with a gun possession or drug possession felony record.
Jeff: [i]”I certainly value Fourth Amendment rights, but these are superseded by the need for safety.”[/i]
I think others might say “I certainly value [s]Fourth[/s] Second Amendment rights, but these are superseded by the need for safety.”
However, I think gun control is an exercise in futility. I do favor any reasonable registration measures that law enforcement officials think will help them carry out their duties.
[quote]Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado reportedly increased more than 41 percent after last week’s Aurora movie massacre. The Denver Post reports that firearm instructors have also seen increased interest in training needed for a concealed-carry permit.
“It’s been insane,” Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker told the newspaper Monday.
Between Friday and Sunday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm — a 43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday and a 39 percent jump over those same days on the first weekend of July.
The biggest spike was on Friday, when there were 1,216 checks, a 43 percent increase over the average number for the previous two Fridays.
On Friday morning, just hours after alleged 24-year-old gunman James Holmes killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora theater, up to 20 people were already waiting outside the store when Meyers arrived, he said.[/quote]
Jeff
“Those that argue against Stop and Frisk based on Fourth Amendment rights are basically saying they would prefer that we continue to allow current high levels of death by guns in our inner cities only to prevent some people from getting their feeling hurt being stopped and frisked by cops. This is ironic, because it would generally be the same group of people being killed by guns that are at higher risk for being stopped and frisked.”
I am certainly not saying that I prefer to continue to allow current high levels of death by guns”
What I am saying is that I believe that the best way to reduce death by guns is to reduce the number of guns floating around. To me this is just a matter of common sense as you are so fond of saying. I know that I would certainly feel safer with less guns available and less in the hands of people with minimal training who think they are somehow capable of being the hero.
Don
I am sure that many people thought that the successful Australian buy back program cited by rdcanning would also be an exercise in futility.
I know many people who said we would not see a health care reform bill passed in our lifetime. Sometimes you just have to have faith and push ahead.
Great, more concealed carry permits. That definitely does not make me feel safer. [url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/24/Texan-accidentally-fires-shot-at-Walmart/UPI-45371343147222/?spt=hs&or=tn[/url]