literally america posted:

Please tell me these people aren't forced to work in there...

quote:

When he was first presented to court Brown was made to wear shackles around his wrists and ankles.

Gorilla Salad posted:

Boy accused of murder when he was 11 years old faces life without possibility of parole

Naturally, the state is also trying him as an adult. Certainly, when I think of an 11 year old I think of a mature adult.

In the entire world, only the US and Somalia sentence children to life without possibility of parole. In Pennsylvania, all children are tried as adults by default unless a judge orders otherwise.

And because you can't have this sort of case happen without some sadistic icing on the cake:



Look at him, how could you even explain to someone that young what "the rest of your life" means?

Gorilla Salad posted:

Boy accused of murder when he was 11 years old faces life without possibility of parole

Naturally, the state is also trying him as an adult. Certainly, when I think of an 11 year old I think of a mature adult.

In the entire world, only the US and Somalia sentence children to life without possibility of parole. In Pennsylvania, all children are tried as adults by default unless a judge orders otherwise.

And because you can't have this sort of case happen without some sadistic icing on the cake:



Look at him, how could you even explain to someone that young what "the rest of your life" means?

nm posted:

The quote in that article is exactly why we should ignore victims families.

quote:

In a decision released today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling that officials who retaliated against a prisoner when she reported being raped by a prison staff member were immune from litigation. Speaking for the Court in Ortiz v. Jordan, Justice Ginsberg highlighted pre-existing law establishing that officials can be held liable for failing to protect an inmate who they know is at risk of harm.

"The right of inmates to be free from abuse, and the duty of officials to protect this right, should be apparent," said Melissa Rothstein, Senior Program Director at Just Detention International. "All too often, however, courts are unable or unwilling to hold officials accountable when they disregard their duty."

Michelle Ortiz was raped on two consecutive nights by a prison official. She reported the first rape to case manager Paula Jordan, who did nothing to prevent the second rape. Ortiz reported the second rape and, in retaliation, prison investigator Rebecca Bright placed her in solitary confinement, shackled and handcuffed, without sufficient heat, clothing, or bedding. In a 1994 case (Farmer v. Brennan), the Supreme Court recognized the duty of officials to take reasonable measures to protect inmates who they know or should know are at risk of abuse.

Prior to trial, Bright and Jordan asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that they should not be held responsible for the second rape or the punitive conditions imposed on Ortiz. The trial court rejected this argument and a full jury found Jordan and Bright guilty of violating Ortiz's constitutional rights. After the trial, the defendants did not raise the question of their immunity from the lawsuit with the judge -- as procedurally required if they wished to make that argument on appeal, which they did. Nonetheless, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit overturned the jury verdict, ruling that the defendants were not legally responsible. Today's Supreme Court reversed that decision, confirming that the defendants failed to follow court rules for appealing after a trial.

"This is a technical case, but an important one. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, inmates who bring civil rights cases must meet strict procedural rules that tend to be both unrealistic and confusing. Courts consistently hold inmates to these requirements," Rothstein said. "Ortiz was brave and capable enough to succeed in bringing her case to trial. Under those circumstances, it's unconscionable for a court to allow prison officials to ignore procedural rules that apply to them. The Supreme Court's ruling today is important in demanding prison staff accountability."

quote:

RICHMOND, Va. - A Virginia legislator is renewing his push to allow castration of sex offenders as an alternative to the increasing costs of detaining and treating them after they've served their prison sentence.

Sen. Emmett Hanger's bill would require the state to study the use of physical castration as an alternative to costly civil commitment for those deemed sexually violent predators. The General Assembly approved similar legislation four years ago, but then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine vetoed it.

While opponents call the procedure barbaric and the proposal heavy-handed, Hanger argues castration is cost-effective for the state and could provide a cure for some offenders.

PTBrennan posted:

That's what I'm talking about, castration!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/lawmaker-pushes-sex-offender-castration-012611


Ohh well it's cost effective so who cares! They're just disgusting child molesters so why do we care about their ability to reproduce? It's not as if you can be a sex offender and not be a child molester, right?

Madman Theory posted:

This is it, people, we're now living in the Gilded Age.

baquerd posted:

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. We've only got the political corruption, none of the good aspects.

baquerd posted:

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. We've only got the political corruption, none of the good aspects.

Gorilla Salad posted:

Boy accused of murder when he was 11 years old faces life without possibility of parole

Naturally, the state is also trying him as an adult. Certainly, when I think of an 11 year old I think of a mature adult.

In the entire world, only the US and Somalia sentence children to life without possibility of parole. In Pennsylvania, all children are tried as adults by default unless a judge orders otherwise.

And because you can't have this sort of case happen without some sadistic icing on the cake:



Look at him, how could you even explain to someone that young what "the rest of your life" means?

quote:

Human rights campaigners are protesting the treatment of Brown as an adult. Amnesty International said the move would be a violation of international law. "It is shocking that anyone this young could face life imprisonment without parole, let alone in a country which labels itself as a progressive force for human rights," said Susan Lee, head of the campaign's Americas operation.

quote:

Since when has the U.S. ever labeled itself as a progressive force for human rights when it comes to prison? I'm pretty sure we have spent a lot of time and energy specifically labeling ourselves the opposite. As in, it's a conscious choice we make to label ourselves as not progressive.

BigHead posted:

Since when has the U.S. ever labeled itself as a progressive force for human rights when it comes to prison? I'm pretty sure we have spent a lot of time and energy specifically labeling ourselves the opposite. As in, it's a conscious choice we make to label ourselves as not progressive.

PTBrennan posted:

That's what I'm talking about, castration!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/lawmaker-pushes-sex-offender-castration-012611


Ohh well it's cost effective so who cares! They're just disgusting child molesters so why do we care about their ability to reproduce? It's not as if you can be a sex offender and not be a child molester, right?

nsaP posted:

There's a case in the Cincinnati area that's been going on a few years, and it's getting to the point where it looks like the prosecution is getting desperate. I wouldn't be too surprised if some backlash ends up coming back on them. The person in question is Ryan Widmer. His family's site for him gives a decent rundown:


Now, there have been many updates since this time. First off, his original conviction was overturned because of jury misconduct. They brought him back for a second trial, and some new things came to light. For one, the testimony of the 911 operator was incorrect on some details. For another, it was discovered that there were multiple police reports of the drowning, with different details on them. Most of the reports of the scene show no struggle.

The case went to trial again after Widmer was released, and with some new defense witnesses and some of this coming to light, a mistrial was eventually declared after the jury couldn't come to a verdict (unofficial reportings were 10-2 guilty).

Well, if you made it thru all of that shortened backstory...

Now the prosecution had to decide whether to prosecute again. Their case seemed to be getting weaker, and weaker, but they were resolved in their feeling that Widmer was guilty. Well, they chose to prosecute again, and the third trial will be coming up soon. Here's where the highlights of our bullshit legal system come out.

The now-bankrupt Widmer, after going thru two trials, requests some money for expert witnesses. In our usual fashion of trying people until they're destitute, they approved money for some of the witnesses but not all.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110103/NEWS010702/101040325/Widmer-will-get-some-funds-for-experts

And even better, guess what the prosecution has this time around? A surprise witness! Surprise!
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110112/NEWS010702/301120041/Mystery-Widmer-witness-withheld

Ah yes, of course. Now that we're in our third trial, a mysterious witness has surfaced who says not only "Widmer says he did it" but "Widmer promised hurt on me if I told anyone", so they've kept his/her identity secret.

In the first trial there was a lot of trial by media and I think the majority of people around the city believed he was guilty. As the time goes on, this has changed and I think many more people around the city are doubting.

Personally I don't think he did it, although there is still doubt there. I think the prosecution definitely lacks the evidence to convict, so even if he did do it, legally he should be okay.

The way this case has gone though, I just see it ending badly for the city. I could be wrong with the whole "surprise witness" and "trying him till he's broke" thing, but to me it looks like Widmer is going to be free eventually and maybe even entitled to some compensation for his time spent in jail and his money spent on trial. He might not get it, but again, our legal system.

Cincinnati.com posted:

Website reveals witness e-mails

Who is Jennifer Jean Crew, the “mystery” witness in the third murder trial of Ryan Widmer who allegedly heard him, in a 2009 phone call, confess to killing his wife?

According to court records, Crew is 36, a former manager of a gentleman’s club in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, spent two years in jail for theft, and is an occasional community college student.

Prosecutors say she learned about Widmer’s case by watching a nationally televised broadcast of “Dateline NBC.”

Mike Mayleben, founder of the website FreeRyanWidmer.com, posted two e-mails from a “Jennifer C” on the group’s Facebook page Tuesday that he said came from Crew in 2009, including one that read “My heart went out to you. It is a travisty (sic) that you were convicted.”

The first e-mail Mayleben posted says it was sent at 10:26 p.m. Sept. 18, 2009.

That’s the night that “Dateline NBC” nationally televised an hourlong program on Widmer’s case. The message concludes, “Please let me know if there is anything I personally can do to assist you and your family.”

Mayleben said he fielded that original e-mail on Widmer’s behalf.

A second e-mail, sent about three hours later, says, “I cannot sleep I am so upset. You sat in that jail for so long an innocent man. I wish there was something more I could do ... you seem like a great man and were a wonderful husband. You seem like you are really good with children. I hope all this is behind you soon so you can continue with your life and sue that stupid county you live in ... the only thing you could possibly be guilty of is being a Bengels (sic) Fan. Ha ha.”

The woman also says, “I have fallen assleep (sic) in the tub before. It can be done. GOD BLESS!”

Based on court filings, Crew has been charged seven cases in Johnson County, Henry County, Des Moines County and Linn County, all in Iowa, from 1992, when she was 18, to 2007, when she was 32. The 2007 case was for fourth-degree theft, for shoplifting at a Cedar Rapids store.

Past charges against her include burglary, aiding and abetting burglary, theft, fraud practices, contempt and a driving violation. Some charges were dismissed or reduced, but Crew was convicted several times and spent two years in jail after a 1999 theft conviction, court documents show.

She visits a methadone clinic for counseling and receives the drug to help her recover from an addiction to pain pills.

Crew has been “intermittently enrolled” at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids since the fall of 2007, according to Steve Carpenter, who works in the college’s marketing department.

A national records search shows possible previous addresses in Iowa and Wisconsin, and possible aliases or former names of Jennifer P. Crew, Jennifer Cruw, Jennifer Jean Waterman, Jennifer J. Menadue and Jennifer Mosbarger.

Staff writer Paul McKibben contributed.

PTBrennan posted:

That's what I'm talking about, castration!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/lawmaker-pushes-sex-offender-castration-012611


Ohh well it's cost effective so who cares! They're just disgusting child molesters so why do we care about their ability to reproduce? It's not as if you can be a sex offender and not be a child molester, right?

PTBrennan posted:

That's her point. The United States does put forth a front of caring about human rights and condemns any country who violates them but then turn around and treat their own citizens in a similar fashion. It's being hypocritical and the world is starting to finally notice because it's much easier to get out information the United States doesn't want other people to know. We are not a progressive human rights country, we are a progressive capitalism country. We don't care about our people, we care about the bottom line and status quo being met. It's all about money, power, ego and greed.

Why do you think they are treating Manning so horribly about the leaks?
It's not that he caused any deaths or serious security threats, it's he made the United States look bad by showing the world that what we say and what we do are two completely different things.

Ninja Edit: I know you were probably being sarcastic but wanted to use your post as the lead in.

Nuclearmonkee posted:

Do we do it chemically, or go in with a knife and a blender?

quote:

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being genuine My point was that, as far as I can tell, we quite literally do not label ourselves as progress when it comes to prisons. Our politicians, media, and everyone else have never used the words "We are progressive in our prison system." Instead, they use the words "We are not progressive when it comes to our prison system."

Gorilla Salad posted:

Protocol 5 posted:

You must be this tall to ride the lightning.

Truly appalling, even if he's found not guilty the trial alone will probably cause permanent emotional trauma.

CQC posted:

but what do you do when a child commits a major crime, if not a trial?

CQC posted:

I agree that a trial can probably be an emotionally challenging experience to children, but what do you do when a child commits a major crime, if not a trial? Certainly, it should be a juvenile trial in a juvenile court with a judge that knows how to handle cases involving young offenders, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a kid should walk away from shooting someone in the back of the head; more lamenting the fact that he's going to go to prison for life and not get the help he very likely needs as a result of a mistake he made as a young child.

Mikser posted:

I'm not sure why there's such a fixation on a trial in the first place. In the Finnish judicial system, a child below the age of 15 cannot be held criminally responsible, and hence cannot be arrested, tried nor sentenced. It is up to the social workers to determine how to best lead the child away from the path of crime and to ensure their healthy mental and moral development.

Mikser posted:

I'm not sure why there's such a fixation on a trial in the first place. In the Finnish judicial system, a child below the age of 15 cannot be held criminally responsible, and hence cannot be arrested, tried nor sentenced. It is up to the social workers to determine how to best lead the child away from the path of crime and to ensure their healthy mental and moral development.

Mikser posted:

I'm not sure why there's such a fixation on a trial in the first place. In the Finnish judicial system, a child below the age of 15 cannot be held criminally responsible, and hence cannot be arrested, tried nor sentenced. It is up to the social workers to determine how to best lead the child away from the path of crime and to ensure their healthy mental and moral development.

CQC posted:

That would work for me. I was speaking of juvenile courts as more of an idealized entity that would essentially accomplish the same thing, and I guess in the of the American court system that's patently untrue. I was sort of imagining a system in which a judge would look at the circumstances of an offense and make the appropriate recommendations for therapy and placement (a group home? a mental hospital?), but I guess in effect that would be "refer them to a doctor."

With regard to a practical effect in America, you are going to have a lot better luck trying to reform youth courts than establish a trial-less system, and I don't think a properly structured juvenile court would be that much different than the system Mikser just described. If you have qualifications for specialized judges that address the psychological demands of a child who murders someone, I don't care if you call them a judge or not, as long as the kid is getting help. Frankly, if we could be sure that we had responsible, well-minded judges, I'd go so far as to say that having someone knowledgable of the law would be good, in order to ensure the child's legal rights are protected. Hell, gimme a panel-based system that includes mental health/human development professionals, social workers, and a judge. I'm not suggesting a juvenile court should be Court Light or something; I don't imagine trial by jury, I don't imagine parading the victim's family on the stand so they can talk about how bad the accused is, and I don't imagine sending most people off to a juvenile detention center and onto prison as a result of the proceedings.

CQC posted:

You will never, ever, ever sell America on the idea that someone who commits a crime should not be subject to a trial, so why not make sure the trial they are getting is what they actually need?

PTBrennan posted:

That's what I'm talking about, castration!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/lawmaker-pushes-sex-offender-castration-012611


Ohh well it's cost effective so who cares! They're just disgusting child molesters so why do we care about their ability to reproduce? It's not as if you can be a sex offender and not be a child molester, right?

joat mon posted:

This is pretty much how juvenile courts in the US are intended to work, generally for kids under 18. This has been the case since the 19-teens to 20s. However, over the last 10-15 years, legislatures have lost sight of that purpose and have started to think of juvenile courts as "Court Light." As a result, they have applied the same stupid, short-sighted get-tough-on-crime, never forget, zero tolerance B.S. that has makes up a substantial part of the injustices in the adult system. This mentality has also led to lowering the age of juvenile-ness for serious crimes.


America was sold on the idea for about 60 years. (No, it didn't/ doesn't work perfectly)

joat mon posted:

This is pretty much how juvenile courts in the US are intended to work, generally for kids under 18. This has been the case since the 19-teens to 20s. However, over the last 10-15 years, legislatures have lost sight of that purpose and have started to think of juvenile courts as "Court Light." As a result, they have applied the same stupid, short-sighted get-tough-on-crime, never forget, zero tolerance B.S. that has makes up a substantial part of the injustices in the adult system. This mentality has also led to lowering the age of juvenile-ness for serious crimes.

HELLO THERE posted:

Anybody want to point me to a free PDF hosting place so I can post this?

dr.gigolo posted:

When a juvenile is charged with an adult crime, their court proceedings take place in adult criminal courts. It really depends on the crime, but the cases I see where juveniles are taken to adult court usually is something pretty serious such as attempted murder, murder or rape. They are usually housed in a juvenile detention facility until or even after their sentencing until the age of 18 as young offenders are often taken advantage of in adult facilities.

joat mon posted:

It may vary by state. Here, if you're charged as an adult, you're jailed as an adult in the county jail, (though you're put in segregation) If at some point you get reverse certified as a juvenile, only then do you go to juvie. If you're sentenced as an adult, you're imprisoned as an adult in an adult prison.

Dreylad posted:

Someone further up the page makes a good point: is part of the problem listening to the victim?

Now the victim is directly affected by the crime so obviously respect is important but it seems like this is taken to a strange degree. If you want to pay respect to impartial justice (which is a ridiculous notion, but beside the point) why would the victim's views have any impact on the sentencing at all? Victims are not saints, but it seems like in the desire to construct a compelling narrative they become sacrosanct.

Protocol 5 posted:

You must be this tall to ride the lightning.

Truly appalling, even if he's found not guilty the trial alone will probably cause permanent emotional trauma.

Napoleon I posted:

I think it's a bit late for that, considering he blew her brains out with a shotgun while she slept, then got on the school bus like everything was cool.

Which is disturbingly like the other juvenile LWOP case I am familiar with, where a 14 year old walked into an elderly couple's house, shot them both in the head as they slept, stole their jar of change, and was arrested walking down the street after the convenience store clerk called police when he, splattered with blood, stopped in and bought a liter of Mt. Dew.

quote:

It does make you wonder if the kid has some severe cognitive disorder, as at his age that would seriously gently caress up most kids. It could be some sort of sociopath-type thing, or he's developmentally disabled in some other way. Either way, he needs some help, not prison.