He’s a teenager. Defense attorneys try to have a good relationship with their clients, including plenty of people whose most awful act is still not the whole measure of who they are.
That kid was abused in the womb and for the rest of his life failed by all the most important adults who could have made a difference in his life, including many in the system at all levels. Now he’ll rot in prison for the rest of his natural life unless he is murdered inside first. And yes his crime was abhorrent but he is clearly seriously mentally ill, and has been for years. He is also developmentally delayed so juvenile humor connects with him and puts him at ease.
She shouldn’t have risked that gesture in a setting where it could be seen by court or other parties, I agree. Is it disbarrable and disembowelable? Hardly.
99.8% of the people in that courtroom wanted to see him put to death and were making no secret of their murderous loathing of him. He deserved to have a couple of friends in the room as he faced the determination whether he would live the rest of his life in constant fear in prison, or be executed.
As to your judgment of the competence of his legal team - they saved his life after he carried out a horrific school shooting in law and order Florida. That’s fucking miraculous, quite frankly. Just about the epitome of defense practice accomplishments to save a defendant facing the death penalty on facts like those from Parkland. Bless the jurors who held the line.
Meade I’d love to hear what you have to say on this subject. In my understanding of Christianity, this kid is someone we are compelled to love and forgive. The families of the victims of the Emanuel AME Church shooting are the only ones who have really gotten this right. It’s sad that we have become a society where such keeping of faith is so shocking to most of us.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
I wonder if many others think as I do. I'd much rather see someone like him be sentenced to prison for the length of his life rather than to have him executed. The death penalty doesn't seem like the worst punishment, in my opinion. I understand why people want him dead but I don't see justice in it.
I was joking about disbarment and disembowelment for the finger-flipping defense lawyer. She has to be stupid to think it wouldn't be put on the internet at some point and if that's her way of creating a good relationship with her client, she needs to find another job. Maybe she could become a comedian and entertain Trump supporters at his rallies.
In my understanding of Christianity, this kid is someone we are compelled to love and forgive. The families of the victims of the Emanuel AME Church shooting are the only ones who have really gotten this right. It’s sad that we have become a society where such keeping of faith is so shocking to most of us.
I don't have a right to "forgive" the man for doing what he did - I'm not a victim or a relative of same. The families of the victims have that right, to forgive him for the pain he caused them. If they are able to do that, then more power to them. Love is something else. Perhaps such forgiveness is the expression of that love. I wonder how I'd do if I were a relative, and hope I never have the opportunity to find out.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Matthew 5:43–44
Last edited by BoSoxGal on Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
I understand your point Meade, ad I'm not sure I could forgive him if I were a family member (even though I realize that carrying around that hate and resentment punishes me more than him), but then this is why our justice system relies on the judgment of citizens not directly involved in the crime rather than the families. In this case, I can understand why the family would want to see him executed (although I am more in line with Joe Guy in thinking that LWOP might be a far greater punishment), but I am also encouraged to see that cooler heads on the jury prevailed and took his personal demons into account when determining the punishment--that is what they are there to do.
. . . our justice system relies on the judgment of citizens not directly involved in the crime rather than the families.
I've lived in countries such as Saudi Arabia where 'blood money' is the system. If the murderer coughs up an amount of money satisfactory to the victim's family, he can go free or have his sentence to some extent reduced. A good justice system recognizes that in fact often society as a whole is affected far more by a crime than the direct victim(s): and punishment is meant to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime on others, by physically restraining him or by retraining him (or shedding his inner demons) or by discouraging others who might be tempted to a similar offense.
In many ways I think justice might be improved if we did not have 'victim impact statements.'
In many ways I think justice might be improved if we did not have 'victim impact statements.'
We have to balance the interests, and I believe that victims deserve a voice and opportunity to express the pain and consequences of what they have endured.
Good judges can listen to the victim impact statement and balance the interests. But there are definitely bad judges who don’t, who are looking ahead to their next election and putting self interest ahead of the interests of justice. The solution to that is to do away with an elected judiciary in favor of appointing judges by a commission.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
BSG--your position makes sense if the statements are given before the sentence is imposed, but my understanding is that the jury reached the decision of LWOP previously (before the statements were delivered), and the judge could not change that. I am unsure of what value the impact statements were in light of this.
BSG--your position makes sense if the statements are given before the sentence is imposed, but my understanding is that the jury reached the decision of LWOP previously (before the statements were delivered), and the judge could not change that. I am unsure of what value the impact statements were in light of this.
I can only hope that you didn’t think through your statement. There are many sentences in criminal law that are mandatory, leaving little or no discretion for the judge in what is imposed. The victim impact statement isn’t all about influencing the sentence, it’s much more about giving the victim an opportunity for the catharsis and healing that can come from being heard - by the court, by the defendant, by the community. There is value in that for some individual victims - some want nothing to do with it and that’s okay too, it’s not mandatory.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
BSG--your position makes sense if the statements are given before the sentence is imposed, but my understanding is that the jury reached the decision of LWOP previously (before the statements were delivered), and the judge could not change that. I am unsure of what value the impact statements were in light of this.
I can only hope that you didn’t think through your statement. There are many sentences in criminal law that are mandatory, leaving little or no discretion for the judge in what is imposed. The victim impact statement isn’t all about influencing the sentence, it’s much more about giving the victim an opportunity for the catharsis and healing that can come from being heard - by the court, by the defendant, by the community. There is value in that for some individual victims - some want nothing to do with it and that’s okay too, it’s not mandatory.
Point taken, but you were talking about the judge "balancing" interests, which I thought involved taking the impact into account for sentencing. Otherwise, I'm not sure what is balanced.
I agree for some it can be a catharsis, but I really don't get how my yelling at a guy in a public setting would make me feel any better--especially when he's just sitting there smirking. But to each his own. I have no problem with having the statements given,
