Discussion in 'Los Angeles DODGERS' started by irish, Apr 1, 2013.
you clearly haven't watched seinfeld
Give that guy life in gen pop. Hell be begging for the death penalty.
Hah! A very small handful of states actually do have Good Samaritan statutes. But, because they're almost never enforced and only count as a misdemeanor, they're effectively useless.
that will be a brief and painful life.
Shaw, thank you for the reasoned reply, I'm sure that your legal arguments are valid in the court system. I respectfully disagree with your stance of opposing the death penalty in all cases and could offer no finer example of the lunacy of that position than this particular case.
In the ivory tower realm where law benders use legalese to pick apart any and all common use of our language to obstruct or twist the intent of written laws I find it far beyond the grasp of any 'reasonable' juror to NOT see that a drunk fucking an infant as both purposeful and premeditated.
He was raping an infant. All rapes are purposeful. All homicides are purposeful (else they'd be manslaughter, right?).
Therefore it matters not an iota if he killed the infant while fucking her or fucked the infant while killing her. Either are ONLY the whining protestations of a deranged killer as both are felonies.
I'm with Diablo... cull these genes from the pool at once. If the state of Ohio allows law benders to assist law breaking scum to live out his natural life it will be a gross travesty of justice.
In all fairness I'd wonder about the mental faculties of someone who would argue otherwise.
I understand where you're coming from, but terms are frequently used differently in law than everyday-speech. Legislatures need to be precise when crafting the law. For example, we may view Case X as particularly reprehensible, but if we allow that to qualify for Punishment A, then it may very well open the door for lesser crimes to qualify.
Although the Model Penal Code is not the law, it has been persuasive in many legislatures (e.g., NY has adopted much of it in their penal code).
In this case, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was his conscious object to kill another person.
Not all rapes are purposeful. For example, in some states (the minority), the defendant doesn't need to have actual knowledge of the lack of consent. If they genuinely believe that the other person is consenting, that is no excuse -- they will still be convicted of rape so long as the other elements of the crime are established.
Likewise, not all murders are purposeful. The MPC only requires that the act was committed purposely OR knowingly. In the latter case, this means that the actor is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause the death of another human being, but it was not his intent. For example, a terrorist may attach a bomb to an airplane, with the purpose of bringing that airplane down (maybe it is carrying supplies, and they want to stop the shipment of supplies). He knows that his conduct is practically certain to cause the death of the pilot, but it wasn't his conscious object to cause the death of the pilot. It's a subtle, but important difference.
Moreover, the MPC also allows for a showing of murder when the actor has committed the homicide recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Recklessness is when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk (e.g., there was a case where two friends played Russian roulette together). It's clear that even though he can be found liable for murder, he hasn't acted purposefully to kill someone.
Murders can also be knocked down to manslaughter when it was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
Your law bending words are well noted...
Thank you for providing such a clear example of this "important difference" but I fail to see the point nor any difference whatsoever.
Drunk or sober we are responsible for our actions.
He was drunk and he raped an infant. Not an adult. Not a child. An infant.
A reasonable adult is expected to know, without any shred of doubt, that raping an infant would cause grievous bodily harm, internal organ damage and by applying a strangulation hold during the act of rape he knew without a doubt that he was harming this infant.
The infant died during the act of rape.
He intended the brutal rape of an infant and he then caused the death during the rape act. How much more clear must it be?
And you propose that it was not the terrorists conscious object to kill the pilot? Bullshit. Pure legal hypocrisy trying to avoid the plain truth.
I guess that I'll stick to engineering and leave the law bending to others.
This thread is off to a delightful start.
Big Bang Theory. It just simply isn't funny.
ok then, who thinks the merman is gay?
^creepy and gay
Lets just say if I caught him whilst fishing on the dock I would throw him back or cut the line.
Definitely. Everyone would agree with you that a reasonable adult is expected to know that. The problem is the two highest mens rea classifications (purposely and knowingly) have nothing to do with what a reasonable person would do or know. Recklessness involves a [subjective] gross deviation from the standard of care of a law-abiding person (i.e., the actor must be aware that his or her conduct was substantial and unjustifiable), while negligence involves a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person (i.e., the actor should have known better).
Even if he did know that it was practically certain that the infant would die as a result of his rape, it doesn't mean it was his conscious object to kill the infant (it very well could have, but the article excerpt doesn't provide us with sufficient facts to make that determination). As you stated above, it was his conscious object to rape the infant.
Because of how the Ohio Penal Code was drafted, this would make him ineligible for the death penalty.
How exactly is that hypocrisy? It's the age-old problem of rules versus standards. Rules, while more rigid than standards, allow actors, ex ante, to know what actions are and aren't prohibited and what the consequences of those actions are. As Justice Holmes famously said:
We can't bend the rules of law to fit idiosyncratic moral conceptions.
any doubts now?
Boring show with lame jokes. Never understood why it remains on TV.
don't care what the law says
dude should die for what he did
Fuck the law. If I ever caught anyone raping a girl, let alone a 6 month old, I would stomp on his head until I see brains. Chances are the at least 2/12 people in the jury would agree with my decision and I would walk free and be given a medal. Fuck the law, that cunt needs a slow painful death.
I wouldn't turn it down by a long shot... But I dunno man, kind of Olsen Twin syndrome. You watch a bitch turn up on tele as a little girl as an adult, I find it a little hard to dig them later on in life.
I guess she might have been similar ages to some of you guys in Harry Potter which makes it different for most here.
Who is that?
Separate names with a comma.