The US Criminal Justice System

[Kerfuffle]

She is guilty of conspiracy to commit or accessory prior to the fact, whatever the proper terminology is.



Also, you seem to forget, innocent until proven guilty, and punishment should mete the crime...165 years for conspiring in a robbery she helped plan but did not participate in, does not fit.

People died though in the course of the felony that she was in on. Whether that was the plan or not is irrelevant. Let me give a couple examples.



Let's say you have a crew that robs banks. I work at the city bank and I tip you off as a buddy of mine that security sucks at the bank and that's all I give you. You then go on to rob the bank and everyone gets arrested. Am I guilty? Shouldn't be. Not in this case.



Now let's take the same scenario but change a couple things. This time around I not only tell you that security sucks, but I also point out that there is no guard on duty from 9am-10am and the vault is unlocked at that time and there's a million in cash sitting out in plain view every Wednesday. I tell you that this is a perfect opportunity and give you the layout of the bank, the number of security cameras and the best place to park the getaway car. And that's the end of my role. You then rob the bank with your crew but unsuspectingly a customer in there turns out to be a local cop and you get into a firing match with him. You kill the cop along with 2 other innoncent bystanders that get caught in the hail of bullets. You and your crew get pinched by the swat team and the whole thing goes down with me arrested as well. Am I guilty of murder in this case? I should be - the information I gave you clearly was a part of what happened and without it you would not have committed the crime and no one would be dead. So in this situation I should be charged with murder as well. Manslaughter at a minimum. But definitely not get off scott free because I "wasn't there". That's how I see it.

 

[MassHavoc]

People died though in the course of the felony that she was in on. Whether that was the plan or not is irrelevant. Let me give a couple examples.



Let's say you have a crew that robs banks. I work at the city bank and I tip you off as a buddy of mine that security sucks at the bank and that's all I give you. You then go on to rob the bank and everyone gets arrested. Am I guilty? Shouldn't be. Not in this case.



Now let's take the same scenario but change a couple things. This time around I not only tell you that security sucks, but I also point out that there is no guard on duty from 9am-10am and the vault is unlocked at that time and there's a million in cash sitting out in plain view every Wednesday. I tell you that this is a perfect opportunity and give you the layout of the bank, the number of security cameras and the best place to park the getaway car. And that's the end of my role. You then rob the bank with your crew but unsuspectingly a customer in there turns out to be a local cop and you get into a firing match with him. You kill the cop along with 2 other innoncent bystanders that get caught in the hail of bullets. You and your crew get pinched by the swat team and the whole thing goes down with me arrested as well. Am I guilty of murder in this case? I should be - the information I gave you clearly was a part of what happened and without it you would not have committed the crime and no one would be dead. So in this situation I should be charged with murder as well. Manslaughter at a minimum. But definitely not get off scott free because I "wasn't there". That's how I see it.

Who is saying she should get off scott free?

 

[Kerfuffle]

Who is saying she should get off scott free?

BigPete's quote --> "But a woman planning a crime, not gaining anything from it, and not being present for it is not guilty of anything but poor judgement." Post #46 above.

 

[TSD]

Who is saying she should get off scott free?

I know right.





and kerfluffle, the girl in Pauls documentary didnt get off scott free either. She served 7 years which in my opinion is adequate for her participation.

 

[Kerfuffle]

I know right.





and kerfluffle, the girl in Pauls documentary didnt get off scott free either. She served 7 years which in my opinion is adequate for her participation.

The whole point of the documentary as being discussed here is the travesty of justice for this woman and why she shouldn't have served 165 years and why 7 was so harsh. That's where the disagreement is. I believe she got off easy and should have served life for murder.

 

[TSD]

The whole point of the documentary as being discussed here is the travesty of justice for this woman and why she shouldn't have served 165 years and why 7 was so harsh. That's where the disagreement is. I believe she got off easy and should have served life for murder.

I am aware that is your opinion, but I disagree and don't think her role warrants a life sentence. I dont disagree with what she served though. It wasnt too long but long enough in my opinion that I don't think she is the type that will be breaking the law again. She was a stupid kid that had a dramatically bad error in judgement.





When i was a kid(17) we fucking stole a stop sign my friend wanted to hang up in his room. In my opinion what I did there was worse than what this girl did had an accident occurred that resulted in someones death, because I would have been directly responsible. I was a stupid kid, and realize now how dangerous that was, but when you are young you don't think that far ahead. killing someone first hand is completely different from committing one crime but being completely unaware of the ripple effect you may have caused.



I've done alot of things that I didnt get caught for as a young adult that someones death could have resulted from, but I didn't think that far ahead. I don't think i'm some trash that deserves to be rotting in prison for the rest of my life, because as I grew up I learned from my mistakes. So because I look at myself objectively I will do the same for others.





If someone actually kills someone, throw the book at them. When someone makes an error in judgement that has a consequence they didnt forsee, punish them but realize they didn't intend the result and do what the prison system is supposed to be for, rehabilitation.

 

[puckjim]

On topic, but in a different direction, I'm against the death penalty.



I think.



I fail to see how it's justice to kill someone, even if they killed someone.



But I could be wrong.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

People died though in the course of the felony that she was in on. Whether that was the plan or not is irrelevant. Let me give a couple examples.



Let's say you have a crew that robs banks. I work at the city bank and I tip you off as a buddy of mine that security sucks at the bank and that's all I give you. You then go on to rob the bank and everyone gets arrested. Am I guilty? Shouldn't be. Not in this case.



Now let's take the same scenario but change a couple things. This time around I not only tell you that security sucks, but I also point out that there is no guard on duty from 9am-10am and the vault is unlocked at that time and there's a million in cash sitting out in plain view every Wednesday. I tell you that this is a perfect opportunity and give you the layout of the bank, the number of security cameras and the best place to park the getaway car. And that's the end of my role. You then rob the bank with your crew but unsuspectingly a customer in there turns out to be a local cop and you get into a firing match with him. You kill the cop along with 2 other innoncent bystanders that get caught in the hail of bullets. You and your crew get pinched by the swat team and the whole thing goes down with me arrested as well. Am I guilty of murder in this case? I should be - the information I gave you clearly was a part of what happened and without it you would not have committed the crime and no one would be dead. So in this situation I should be charged with murder as well. Manslaughter at a minimum. But definitely not get off scott free because I "wasn't there". That's how I see it.

See that is where you and I will disagree, yes you're guilty of conspiracy, But I do not agree with the murder charge. Nowhere in the example you gave did you discuss actually carrying a weapon or ho wmany people to take, or the wearing of masks or things of that nature. Everyone physically present during the heist, yes, should be charged wit murder. You gave them details inside the bank only, not how to go in and act. Like I said accessory or conspiracy.



TSD, we did the same thing, stole a stop sign, caused an accident w/severe injuries, no death.

 

[MassHavoc]

On topic, but in a different direction, I'm allowed to the death penalty.



I think.



I fail to see how it's justice to kill someone, even if they killed someone.



But I could be wrong.

Allowed? I believe you mean against? In any case, to me, the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it takes to long to institute and for some reason cost a shitload of money.



I'm not saying hand it out willy nilly, but I think it would go a long way toward curving crime to have swift dealth penalty justice for cases with indisputable evidence and confessions.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Should he be investigated by FBI and local authorities to see if he fits the evidence for a child molestation or abduction? Sure. But what crime did he commit by writing a book?



Here's a good example of someone being personally but indirectly involved in a crime and needing to be brought to justice: Usama Bin Laden. He planned AND provided funding for the 9/11 hijackers BUT he was not present on any of the planes. This means he is guilty of that crime.



But a woman planning a crime, not gaining anything from it, and not being present for it is not guilty of anything but poor judgement.

No, I agree with you. The guy who wrote the book didn't break any laws by writing a book. I was just using this as an example of why writing a book shouldn't have gotten so many panties in a wad.

 

[Ymono37]

If someone actually kills someone, throw the book at them. When someone makes an error in judgement that has a consequence they didnt forsee, punish them but realize they didn't intend the result and do what the prison system is supposed to be for, rehabilitation.

It's been quite a few years since my Criminal Justice course in college, but (and maybe Tbird's Hatchling can chime in with some more knowledgeable info) I think intent is supposed to be one of the major influences in charging/sentencing a crime.

 

[TSD]

It's been quite a few years since my Criminal Justice course in college, but (and maybe Tbird's Hatchling can chime in with some more knowledgeable info) I think intent is supposed to be one of the major influences in charging/sentencing a crime.

The only thing I remember from criminal justice in college was that Municipalities were not sovereign governments and thus cannot make laws or ordniances, even though they do.



and if you are feeling squirrly you can probably get any parking ticket, etc. etc. issued by the city thrown out.

 

[BigPete]

See that is where you and I will disagree, yes you're guilty of conspiracy, But I do not agree with the murder charge. Nowhere in the example you gave did you discuss actually carrying a weapon or ho wmany people to take, or the wearing of masks or things of that nature. Everyone physically present during the heist, yes, should be charged wit murder. You gave them details inside the bank only, not how to go in and act. Like I said accessory or conspiracy.



TSD, we did the same thing, stole a stop sign, caused an accident w/severe injuries, no death.

This speaks a little more to my point but doesn't exactly hit the nail on the head (to bolster my point that is).



Unless there is something we don't know from Paul's posts, this woman did not FORCE or pay the perpetrators of the crime. So all she did was tell them how she would do it if she was going to do it which she did not do. Clear as mud?



Take OJs book for instance. Can he be charged with a crime now that he suedo-admitted to killing Ron and Nicole? No, and not just because of double jeapordy and statute of limitations...you devil's advocates...



Conspiracy to committ is all subjective in my opinion. If I was on the jury I would want something more compelling like the planner expecting a cut of the take.

 

[TSD]

This speaks a little more to my point but doesn't exactly hit the nail on the head (to bolster my point that is).



Unless there is something we don't know from Paul's posts, this woman did not FORCE or pay the perpetrators of the crime. So all she did was tell them how she would do it if she was going to do it which she did not do. Clear as mud?



Take OJs book for instance. Can he be charged with a crime now that he suedo-admitted to killing Ron and Nicole? No, and not just because of double jeapordy and statute of limitations...you devil's advocates...



Conspiracy to committ is all subjective in my opinion. If I was on the jury I would want something more compelling like the planner expecting a cut of the take.

Im under the impression (although we will have to wait for the full documentary). That she had planned and maybe intended to participate, but for some reason or another didn't.



Which is different than me say, telling a friend how I would rob a particular bank but never having the intention of doing or even associating myself with someone that would, then my friend goes out robs the bank and kills a bunch of people.

 

[BigPete]

I understand and don't disagree with you Tim. I am just going off the fact that she wasn't there. To me this greatly limits her invovlement and culpability. But there is probably more to the story.