Crime and Punishment

We have several threads that evolved to this topic, so I figured I'd just start a thread for it.

Today's situation:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/…151942957.html

A grand jury in Texas has decided not to indict a father who beat to death a man he found allegedly sexually abusing his young daughter.

"Under the law, deadly force is justified to stop a sexual assault," Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn said on Tuesday at a press conference announcing the grand jury's decision. "All the evidence presented by the sheriff's department and the Texas Rangers indicated that was in fact what was occurring when the victim's father arrived at the scene."

Indict? Hell, we should give the guy a medal.

Absolutely. I would have done the same thing only I don't think I would have been able to stop hitting until somebody tackled me or the police arrived.

Sounds fair to me!!

The news and those who hear the case can see it as romantic justice, but juridically laws are meant to be followed as it's their consistency that makes them reliable. Most likely this is also what happened in this case, which sounds like a regular self-defense. Many states allows you to kill in order to protect someone else from harm.

If this was truly to protect the life of his daughter, then I think it's an appropriate ruling.

I read about that this morning. I think in the particular case the ruling is fair and correct. Of course I would fight tooth and nail for my own daughter as well, and there seems to be no evidence that the father went beyond what I (as a layman) would consider beyond fair use of force in self defense, and he was distraught by the outcome himself.

It would have been different from my perspective, if, e.g. they would have beat him to death after effictively already having him neutralized (e.g. two farmhands holding him down and the father beating him to death then).

Sounds fair. In Sweden the opposite happens all the time, the perp is let free and the person who was trying to stop him is arrested. Seems like people even get away with killing their kids nowadays without getting a sentence (does not apply to white people or swedes, obviously - not that we usually kill our kids ).

We have something in our laws here that is called a "Notwehr". In English it would be "emergency self-defense".

I'm ot sure, but I think this law has emerged in the wake of the Nazi regime somewhen in the late 40s or early 50s, I think. It basically says if someone is defending his or her own life against someone else (criminals, for example), then death of the attacker's death won't be punished if the attacker dies because of this "emergency self-defense".

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I'm ot sure, but I think this law has emerged in the wake of the Nazi regime somewhen in the late 40s or early 50s, I think.

No, historically our law (like the law of most of the non-Anglican world) is based on Roman law. The right to self defense (German Notwehr) is derived from the old Roman principle Vim vi repellere licet which means that it is legit to respond to violence with an act of violence.

Originally Posted by JemyM
The news and those who hear the case can see it as romantic justice, but juridically laws are meant to be followed as it's their consistency that makes them reliable. Most likely this is also what happened in this case, which sounds like a regular self-defense. Many states allows you to kill in order to protect someone else from harm.

This. Depending on the nature of what you are defending against you are allowed to use extensive, even lethal, force to defend yourself. This goes for countries way "softer" on crime than the US.

There tends to be some proportionality requirement, but sexual assault probably ranks right up there with the worst types of assaults.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/…174732753.html

A Kentucky girl who was sexually assaulted could face contempt of court charges after she tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers.

Savannah Dietrich, the 17-year-old victim, was frustrated by a plea deal reached late last month by the two boys who assaulted her, and took to Twitter to expose them—violating a court order to keep their names confidential.

Well, I sure am glad we've protected those poor boys from any consequences. As long as they can be rehabilitated, we don't need to worry about the actual victim, right? Can't unbreak the egg and all, so might as well just move on, right?

Originally Posted by dteowner
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/…174732753.html

Well, I sure am glad we've protected those poor boys from any consequences. As long as they can be rehabilitated, we don't need to worry about the actual victim, right? Can't unbreak the egg and all, so might as well just move on, right?

Clearly you just don't understand progressive justice.

Good for her for standing up for herself. The boys that attacked her should be forced to wear "Sex Offender" signs in public for the next 10 years.

Interesting. What's more important. Justice? or plea-bargaining? or free-speech?

We all know that the concept of "justice" is fuzzy at best. Seems a poor argument.

Plea-bargaining is only really important when you are trying to turn one defendant on another or if the case is not strong enough to be a slam dunk and not weak enough to get dismissed. Based on there being video evidence, I'd say it leaned towards the slam dunk side. Someone was just trying to cut these boys a break.

Where is the information on video evidence? Also the plea bargaining could be for another crime, but I see no info on the plea bargain.

My mistake, photos, just as bad though:

Dietrich was assaulted by the pair after passing out at a party. They later shared photos of the assault with friends.

That's the rub, the record on the plea bargain is sealed. Could be on another crime as well, but doesn't seem likely to me.

Ah photos, well that nails them, ignoring photoshopping possibilities. Still I guess we will never know what the plea-bargain was actually about.

Good for her outing them. Any system which doesn't put the victims ahead of the perps, is both flawed and to some extent (IMO) corrupt!!

Instead of making another thread i thoguht i will post this here.

Death Penalty

Pros

Deserving punishment for crimes
Gets scum off the streets


Cons
Costs a lot by the tiem the person gets killed iirc
Makes it more dangerous on victims because a person is more inclined to clean their trail if they are going to die anyway or close to death.
Makes it more dangerous for the police who go and arrest them because the criminals have nothign to lsoe when they kill the police


Is it worth the price to pay for the death penalty in a country?