mivona
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:22:48 PM new
Ok, I can see that the refusal to accept the plea bargain could be an issue, but his mother refused it, didn't she? Or did he, on the advice of his solicitor?
I don't understand... if he was tried as an adult, surely his mother could not determine acceptance or refusal of the plea bargain?
But if his solicitor advised him to not accept the plea bargain, and he and not his mother, followed that advice, then yes, I can see how the solicitor can be seen as incompetent.
Thank you, xardon, for an eloquent and moving post. It is so hard to know where things lie without being there, seeing, and hearing. These cases are truly incomprensible in light of generally expected behaviour of children, and often calls on the nature/nurture debate. Evil or created? Knowing or innocent? It is a tragedy, all around.
edited for ubb
[ edited by mivona on Mar 11, 2001 03:25 PM ]
|
pharlap
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:25:18 PM new
HWJ: Ïf an adult committed this act, he would probably be convicted of manslaughter
Please tell me you're joking...
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:27:33 PM new
According to the Orlando paper, his mother made the decision. She didn't want him to plead guilty because he didn't mean to kill the girl, "he was only playing".
Glad my daughter never had "playmates" like that.
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:28:51 PM new
December3 and Pharlap
My remark about manslaughter assumed that
the adult would be wresling with another adult.
Helen
[ edited by HJW on Mar 11, 2001 03:30 PM ]
|
dubyasdaman
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:29:56 PM new
Neither you, a jury or I can determine if this death was murder. By murder, I mean that the boy intended to kill the playmate.
Since there is that doubt, I don't think that we are justified in sending the boy to jail for the rest of his life.
I disagree. After hearing the evidence, the jury determined that the boy committed first degree murder and that he did in fact know what he was doing. This determination was made after considering the evidence presented. The boy was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the sentence is justified.
All jury decisions are based upon the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. They have to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on that evidence. They did. He's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. He will undoubtably appeal (and rightly so). If the conviction is upheld on appeal he should serve the sentence imposed.
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:32:12 PM new
Even under those circumstances, if he beat the other person to death, not stopping when they begged him to(as that little girl must have done), it would be murder. The "only playing" defense wouldn't play.
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:38:19 PM new
dubyasdaman
I don't have the confidence that you have in
a jury.
Helen
|
dubyasdaman
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:38:25 PM new
mivona:
If the attorney was unable to convey the gravity of the decision about the plea bargain in such a way as to convince the mother OR the defendant to accept it, the attorney was incompetent. It isn't rocket science.
3 years vs life when faced with apparently overwhelming evidence. It should have been easy to talk the mother into accepting the plea bargain after the possible consequences of NOT accepting it were explained.
|
dubyasdaman
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:39:46 PM new
HJW:
Would you rather put your confidence in a judge (the only other real option)?
|
Hepburn
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:50:08 PM new
IF this kid "didnt mean it" and was only "playing" and didnt hear the screams of pain from the little girl, and those here who think its all a bad mistake to put him behind bars for the rest of his sorry life, who here wants to have him in their home to be a "playmate" to their own children and be around their own pets? (to quote what someone else brought up)
Not me.
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 03:50:32 PM new
dubyasdaman
In Florida, it might be a better option.
The case was lost when the prosecutor decided
to charge the 12 year old boy as an adult.
Then he had second thoughts about this decision and offered a plea bargain.
Then the lawyers failed by not accepting
the plea or convincing the mother to do so.
So, everybody in this scenario failed
including the jury.
Helen
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 04:29:38 PM new
There is a very good analysis of the
problem here....
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/02/02/kid_violence/index.html
Helen
[ edited by HJW on Mar 11, 2001 04:31 PM ]
|
xardon
|
posted on March 11, 2001 04:40:32 PM new
There is something telling in a decision to opt for a jury trial in lieu of accepting the verdict of a judge.
A competent judge will typically make an informed decision based on precedent, evidence, and testimony. He (or she, of course) will weigh the arguments on both sides and factor in the mitigating circumstances. If he upholds his oath of office he will act strictly in accordance with the law.
A decent attorney can predict with some certainty a judges decision. If the defense case is solid and the facts speak for themselves most lawyer's will advise a client to opt for the judge.
A jury can be swayed. A good lawyer can play a jury like a violin. A jury can often be relied upon to ignore the law and render a decision based on emotion and subjective values.
When dealing with overwhelming evidence of guilt, a defense attorney may prefer that a client elect to be tried before a jury.
Of course, the latter decision can prove to be a two edged sword. If the prosecution also has an emotional card to play, the jury can just as easily be swayed in the opposite direction.
|
xardon
|
posted on March 11, 2001 04:51:36 PM new
I've read the Salon article and it is compelling. I feel, however, that it is flawed from the outset by the acceptance of opinion as fact. The "media influence" defense is simply that: a defense. I'm sure psychologists could argue both sides of the issue with similar conviction. It may be fact, but then again it might be a clever ploy.
Some may remember the famous "Twinkie" defense in SanFrancisco many years ago. It almost worked.
|
debbielennon
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:00:34 PM new
In response to this question:
Would you rather put your confidence in a judge (the only other real option)?
HJW said:
In Florida, it might be a better option
So now you are making assumptions about every jury in the entire state of Florida, HJW?
Another thing that you are assuming, HJW is that this second version of the boy's story (i.e. that he was practicing wrestling moves) is true. Medical experts stated that his story was not consistent with the girl's injuries. You are basing your whole argument on his story, which has not been proven to be true. Evidence suggests that it likely is not.
|
debbielennon
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:05:10 PM new
One more thing:
HJW said:
Sending children to prison for the rest of their life is unacceptable in a civilized society.
I think that children killing children is unacceptable in a civilized society.
JMHO, of course...
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:07:31 PM new
As I said before, too many kids get off too lightly. Instead of taking what the boy says as the truth, consider some other options. Maybe he is one of the smart, streetwise kids,there are quite a few of them out there you know. Maybe he never considered for a minute he would get more than a slap on the wrist. This idea of trying juveniles as adults is fairly new.
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:19:27 PM new
debbielennon
Not "every" jury, but I don't have a lot of confidence in anything
related to Florida. There was some evidence, for example that
blacks were prevented from voting there. A black child being
judged by people who would interfere
with an election might not get a fair trial.
On your second post, "I think that children killing children is unacceptable in a civilized society."
I agree with that. But in this case, I believe that it was an
accident...not murder.
Helen
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:25:20 PM new
The Salon piece was emotional and full of opinions, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with the charge and the verdict.
Helen, why do you believe it was an accident? Also, assuming it was an accident, what do you feel is an appropriate punishment? Would the plea have been appropriate?
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:38:10 PM new
If we're going to play the race card here, remember, it was a black child he killed.
I also would like to know how you accidently beat someone to death. This little girls injuries were horrific. It was not a case of pushing someone too hard so they fell once. It was a prolonged beating.
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 05:39:10 PM new
James,
Helen, why do you believe it was an accident? Also, assuming it was an accident, what do you feel is an appropriate punishment? Would the plea have been appropriate?
James, I could ask you the same question and other than relying on
the jury's verdict, you would be giving me your opinion...nothing
else, just an opinion.
It is my opinion that this boy did not intend to kill this child.
You can't prove that he intended to kill the child and I can't
prove that he did not.
Since there is this doubt, my suggestion that I made earlier was to
give both the mother and child a complete mental evaluation and
act on the results.
Helen
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:00:12 PM new
I would think, since the mother is a State Trooper she might have already been evaluated at some point.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:03:12 PM new
You haven't raised any doubt inherent in the case. Just your own doubt that his intention was to kill the girl.
Do you feel that first degree murder as a charge should be abolished?
|
Hepburn
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:11:14 PM new
December3...same thing I was thinking, but didnt address. Thanks for bringing it up. One cant bring race into it very easily now, can one?
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:15:57 PM new
december3
I don't understand why the state trooper
mother should be excluded from testing.
After all, she was asleep while she was
supposed to be babysitting. She, apparently
made the decision not to accept the plea
bargain and by doing so knew that she was
risking the boys freedom.
Being a state trooper is not relevant here.
Helen
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:21:51 PM new
The people I've discussed this with, black and white, have told me their sympathies are for the girls family. I have a daughter and grand daughters, I can't imagine one of them dying so horribly.
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:25:11 PM new
It is very relevant. Law enforcement officers as part of their training go through many evaluations. Their mental fitness is very important.
|
HJW
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:26:17 PM new
Jamesoblivion,
You ask,
"Do you feel that first degree murder as a charge should be abolished?"
I don't understand the relevance of this
question.
I am not trying to rewrite the criminal code.
I just think that a 12 year old child should
not go to prison for the rest of his life
for a probable accident.
What about that is so strange to you.
Helen
|
Julesy
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:28:01 PM new
Can someone point me in the direction of whatever info there is on how the prosecution proved intent? Was it strictly on testimony from the coroner?
|
december3
|
posted on March 11, 2001 06:29:19 PM new
And when he has his next little accident?
|
