Comments on: Breaking: Nixzmary Brown’s Stepfather Convicted of Manslaughter

By: ant

ant — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:09:14 +0000

their should have been no trial for this evil man, who had no regard for human life, especially a child. they should have taken it back to ancient times when people were hung or got there heads cut off by the guillotine.

By: misskate7511

misskate7511 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:32:12 +0000

“Jurors said afterward that most of them wanted to convict Mr. Rodriguez of second-degree murder but that several holdouts said prosecutors had not proved that Mr. Rodriguez acted with “depraved indifference to human life,” the standard for second-degree murder in this case.”

So, could someone please tell me, if this man’s conduct was not ‘depraved indifference,’ what in the name of gods IS ‘depraved indifference’? Referring to what Rodriguez did as any form of indifference is an understatement at best.

I’m sorry if I’ve repeated what others have said. It’s just… well… this blows my mind a bit much. Where did they find the a jury that would ever go so lightly on such a monster? My humanity is reeling.

And I thought the last two elections tested my faith in our species. Well, shit.

By: sara

sara — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:14:14 +0000

Parole is also essentially the only way to exert some control over the prison population. If criminals know that they have no chance of getting out early for behaving themselves on the inside, then they won’t behave and our prisons will be even more anarchic than they already are.

Dont get me wrong. I’m not saying parole should be abolished. I’m talking about getting out early due to good behavior thats not because of parole. Many states have statutes that prisoners get time shaved off their sentence for good behavior. They get out early WITHOUT ANY PAROLE HEARING, WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE VICTIM’S FAMILIES.

Thats what I’m most pissed about. At least with a parole hearing its public information and victims can go to the parole board and let their voices be heard. But this behind the scenes “time off for good behavior” bullshit is entirely secret and its not accounted for when juries decide sentences. Juries should be aware of what the “time shaving” rules are so they can take that into account.

As for me personally, I believe that violent offenders should NEVER get parole and serve their full sentences. If we need to let all the drug users and drug dealers out of prison to make room for holding the violent offenders longer, then so be it.

When a jury sentences somebody to 50 years in prison, they need to be aware that he has a chance at parole every X years, and that he gets Z years shaved off his term for good behavior. I believe that first degree murder convictions should carry an automatic life with no parole sentence.

By: keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:05:11 +0000

how sad is our justice system when we have to depend on the people it has put away to dole out the justice?

I actually think it’s kind of funny, not the existence of in-prison abuse per se, but just the fact that criminals have taken up the mantle of giving abusers and murderers of children their just desserts.

I’m so sick of fucking lawyers hiding behind this “its glorious to defend a scumbag because we’re all about seeking justice.” Thats crap. Lawyers care nothin about justice, only about WINNING THE CASE.

I hate to break it to you, sara, but that’s how the system works and how it’s meant to work. The real issue is why do jurors reward attorneys for that behavior.

By: sara

sara — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:44:58 +0000

We live in a lovely world of scumbag lawyers who will do anything including lying and making up preposterous BS to get their client off.

This defense attorney is a newcomer nobody who is trying to bust his nut on a big case and get famous. Thats why he’s appealing and why he’s using these ridiculous arguments that that the little girl deserved what she got.

I’m so sick of fucking lawyers hiding behind this “its glorious to defend a scumbag because we’re all about seeking justice.” Thats crap. Lawyers care nothin about justice, only about WINNING THE CASE.

New York has very liberal policies for parole as well as time off for good behavior too. You are fooling yourself if you think this asshole is really going to serve 25 years. I bet he’ll be out in 15. Even if he doesnt get parole, he’s eligible to get up to HALF HIS FUCKING SENTENCE SHAVED OFF FOR “GOOD BEHAVIOR”

Its time for a federal truth in sentencing act in which the only way criminals get cut short their sentence is by parole dates SET AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING AND NOT LATER. I’m sick of victims families being notified that the punk who murdered their daughter was originally sentenced to 40 years, but got out in 20 because he was secretly accruing “good behavior bonus time off.” The prison doesnt even notify the victims what is going on and they usually hear about it in the paper. totally outrageous.

By: Jen

Jen — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:29:56 +0000

I showed this article to the attorney I’m interning with. She was appalled. She claims that her firm has dealt with over two hundred or so rape and child abuse crimes, around fifty or so of which she came into contact with the victim to prepare them for cross-examination. Of all those people, she said that the firm only knows of one women or child that was lying about or exaggerating their abuse… even though the courts only convicted around 15% of the abusers that were tried.

My question is, what kind of sick world do we live in where the first response to someone calling rape or abuse is that they are lying? How can we possibly justify further victimizing the victims of these sick crimes, when statistically, it’s highly unlikely that they have done anything wrong?

By: Feminist Avatar

Feminist Avatar — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:44:00 +0000

Konstanze: I think it is because when people are in a position of power over another social group (as all adults are over all children in our culture) they have a sense of unease about its legitimacy. This unease translates into a fear about the fact that their power could be questioned, and thus they could be accused of a crime, and so they choose not to believe the whole oppressed class to protect themselves.

By: konstanze

konstanze — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:20:32 +0000

A recent survey commissioned by one of the child protection groups discovered that 49% of people surveyed said they would not believe a child if they said they were being abused and more than half of those that would believe it would remain skeptical even so.

What? Why not? Are people just that cynical?

By: Roy

Roy — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:01:14 +0000

He’s going for appeal? For reals?
That’s… wow. That’s both dumb, and glorious. I hope he gets his appeal, and they convict him of the higher charge.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:50:53 +0000

A recent survey commissioned by one of the child protection groups discovered that 49% of people surveyed said they would not believe a child if they said they were being abused and more than half of those that would believe it would remain skeptical even so.