|
Post by mikemarshall on Dec 12, 2009 11:52:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 12, 2009 16:26:07 GMT
she probably shouldn't have gotten lwop. ten years for the murder would have been more than sufficient. while her childhood, nor anyone else's, is extenuating circumstances for murder, the fact that this piece of shyt was molesting her IS.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2009 17:44:20 GMT
Jumbo, doesn't that go to show there are no moral absolutes, after all - no black and white, only shades of grey?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 13, 2009 13:21:45 GMT
Jumbo, doesn't that go to show there are no moral absolutes, after all - no black and white, only shades of grey? huh uh. morally, she could kill him in self defense. MORALLY, that would not be murder, if she did it when he was molesting her. legally, it would not be murder either. unfortunately, you can't legally kill a piece of shyt before or after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 13, 2009 13:23:02 GMT
realistically, if everything is true, the sentence will get tossed, although it's not likely that the conviction will
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2009 14:12:34 GMT
Jumbo, doesn't that go to show there are no moral absolutes, after all - no black and white, only shades of grey? huh uh. morally, she could kill him in self defense. MORALLY, that would not be murder, if she did it when he was molesting her. legally, it would not be murder either. unfortunately, you can't legally kill a piece of shyt before or after the fact. Yes, it wasn't self defence. The story doesn't detail the proecution case, but I hope you are not going down the road of advocating that guilt, or even sentences, should be determined on whether the victim was or was not a "piece of shyt". But I would think it fair to discriminate between an adult who deliberately kills a total stranger in an unprovoked attack, and a 16-year-old who kills the man who abused her and led her into child prostitution.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 13, 2009 23:55:17 GMT
huh uh. morally, she could kill him in self defense. MORALLY, that would not be murder, if she did it when he was molesting her. legally, it would not be murder either. unfortunately, you can't legally kill a piece of shyt before or after the fact. Yes, it wasn't self defence. The story doesn't detail the proecution case, but I hope you are not going down the road of advocating that guilt, or even sentences, should be determined on whether the victim was or was not a "piece of shyt". But I would think it fair to discriminate between an adult who deliberately kills a total stranger in an unprovoked attack, and a 16-year-old who kills the man who abused her and led her into child prostitution. the worth of a victim can never be a determination of guilt or innocence, and should never have any relevance to the sentence. unfortunately, it usually is. an example is that of a child murderer. as heinious as child murder is, realistically it is no different than outright murdering the piece of shyt in this story. had this girl exterminated this piece of shyt when he was molesting her, she would have done nothing wrong, either morally or legally. it was wrong in both cases to murder it when she did.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2009 7:14:15 GMT
For once, you and I are in agreement, jumbo; mitigating circumstances amount to no more than a sentencing tool.
But I don't understand why the "no parole" ruling was imposed on this girl. The story doesn't suggest that it was mandatory at that time, so there must have been other factors.
Even so , it is tantamount to saying that there are some teenagers incapable of growing into good citizens with the right support and help, and I find that idea hard to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 16, 2009 12:42:50 GMT
For once, you and I are in agreement, jumbo; mitigating circumstances amount to no more than a sentencing tool. But I don't understand why the "no parole" ruling was imposed on this girl. The story doesn't suggest that it was mandatory at that time, so there must have been other factors. Even so , it is tantamount to saying that there are some teenagers incapable of growing into good citizens with the right support and help, and I find that idea hard to swallow. given the circumstances, there was NO justification for the without parole. that's why it's not likely to stand on appeal. still, the FACT is that there ARE some teenagers incapable of growing into good citizens. no amount of support will help them, because THEY refuse to be helped. i have had to deal with too many of these pieces of shyt to ever think otherwise. my ol' lady's daughter is one of them
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 19:34:54 GMT
Maybe it is true that there are teenagers who will remain a danger forever and ever, even when they are older and wiser.
But I refuse to believe that anyone can condemn them with certainty while they are still 16, especially if they have led the kind of rotten life this girl has.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Dec 19, 2009 8:50:27 GMT
I think a "temporary insanity" defense should get Sara Kruzan acquitted. And yes "victim impact" plays a role here too! The murder of an innocent child is infinitely more evil than a crime victim striking back at a heinous, unrepentant criminal with lethal force! Sara Kruzan was violated and raped and struck back just as Joe Horn gunned down the robber thugs.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 11:35:17 GMT
Maybe it is true that there are teenagers who will remain a danger forever and ever, even when they are older and wiser. But I refuse to believe that anyone can condemn them with certainty while they are still 16, especially if they have led the kind of rotten life this girl has. well hon, i've said several times that this sentence is wrong, essentially for the same reason that convicting marriane bachmeier was wrong. i was talking about "kids" such as the 14 year old here, who tried to rob a store and murdered the old lady behind the counter because she shot at him, and unfortunately missed. this totally worthless piece of shyt could conceivably be walking the streets when it is 54, and that is NOT satisfactory. it should NEVER see daylight again, because it conclusively proved that there is nothing good that can be said about it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 11:36:23 GMT
I think a "temporary insanity" defense should get Sara Kruzan acquitted. And yes "victim impact" plays a role here too! The murder of an innocent child is infinitely more evil than a crime victim striking back at a heinous, unrepentant criminal with lethal force! Sara Kruzan was violated and raped and struck back just as Joe Horn gunned down the robber thugs. and of course, you are quite correct
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 17:37:20 GMT
"Insanity" is a very limited defence and applies only when the accused didn't know what she was doing. There's no suggerstion of that.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 18:32:56 GMT
"Insanity" is a very limited defence and applies only when the accused didn't know what she was doing. There's no suggerstion of that. that's very true, but, a case could be made that the trash had so damaged her, that when she was in his presence, the fear of him caused her to really not be aware of what she was doing
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 7:26:16 GMT
Unless that was really the case she deserved some kind of sentence; moreover, with access to proper care and education in custody, she might have emerged a stronger, well-adjusted person. It happens.
Because she got life without parole, she was given no rehabilitation; that is the biggest shame of all.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 20, 2009 12:46:10 GMT
Unless that was really the case she deserved some kind of sentence; moreover, with access to proper care and education in custody, she might have emerged a stronger, well-adjusted person. It happens. Because she got life without parole, she was given no rehabilitation; that is the biggest shame of all. well hon, i said a case COULD be made for it, not that it would fly. also, it doesn't appear that it was tried. if it weren't, it can't be brought up now. you cannot appeal anything that wasn't brought up at trial. i will still count on the fact that i am certain that the conviction will be upheld, but that it is at least better than 50-50 that the sentence will be reduced
|
|