CommenTerry

PREA Doesn’t Go Far Enough

I’m glad to hear that the Obama Administration has decided to step up its enforcement of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA). This is a major step towards reducing and eventually eliminating the sexual assault of inmates in all of our nation’s prisons. Sexual assault of prisoners in our country is far too common, with one in ten being a victim of this heinous crime at the hands of other prisoners and even guards.

One of the problems, of course, is that many people don’t take this crime seriously. Some even joke about prison rape. Hollywood has made “comedies” about it, even though it’s no laughing matter. The mentality here is that people who commit crimes that send them to prison deserve whatever they get. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted.

However, the stepped-up enforcement of PREA is not enough. While the goal of PREA is basically to remove the offenders from the venue where they have harmed others, they are not punished severely enough. As a result, they are likely to have a high recidivism rate, and therefore offend again, where they end up.

Any prisoner who is convicted of raping a fellow inmate should have his sentence automatically converted to life in solitary confinement without the possibility of parole. Any guard accused of such crime against a prisoner should immediately be removed from the job, and if convicted, face a long sentence in a maximum security prison.

Detention of California Rape Victim Is Completely Outrageous

She’s the victim, yet she’s being treated like a criminal. A 17-year-old California foster child is being held in a juvenile detention center in Sacramento after reporting that she was raped by an older man. The prosecutor justifies her detention, which has been upheld by several lower courts, based on the fact that she has a history of being a runaway. He fears that she may runaway again and jeopardize the case against the suspect, who is believed to have possibly committed several other rapes in the area.

I think the decision to detain her is completely outrageous. For one thing, it will discourage other rape victims from coming forward, for fear of being treated like a criminal. As a consequence, more rapists will go free. But the real issue here that people who have not been charged with or suspected of a crime should never be detained or held against their will any way, shape, or form. This includes so-called “material witnesses” that are sometimes detained. That kind of thing goes against everything we believe as Americans, and is an insult our Founding Fathers.

While it might not technically be unconstitutional, it should be. It defies the spirit, if not the letter, of our Constitution principles and ideals. We should immediately get to work on crafting a new amendment to forbid the detention of anyone, for any length of time, other than someone who has been convicted of a crime, charged with a crime, or is justifiably suspected of having committed a crime. This is America, not Communist China, for cripes sake. Let’s live free or die.

To Protect the Guilty and Harass the Innocent

The Supreme Court came down on the wrong side of both of its most recent rulings. First, it ruled in favor of protecting the guilty in upholding civil immunity for grand jury witnesses who deliberately lie. It said that someone who is harmed by the fact that another person told a lie to a grand jury could not sue the liar. This flies in the face of our Judeo-Christian values that teach us that bearing false witness is a serious matter. Someone who does this should not be allowed to escape justice of any kind.

Then the High Court added insult to injury by allowing jails to continue to perform strip searches on people who should probably not even be in those jails in the first place. This is, more or less, a ruling in favor of harassing people who are, at most, guilty of only minor infractions. And in the case the Court actually ruled on, the person who was strip searched wasn’t guilty of anything. He was picked up and taken to jail because the cops had mistakenly thought he had some unpaid fines. The Justices could have, at a minimum, prohibited strip searches of people who are taken to jail by mistake.

Case Against Jury Duty Avoider Would Be Easy to Defend

A 57-year-old Denver woman is being charged with perjury after bragging to a radio talk show host that she lied to avoid jury duty. Unfortunately for her, the judge in the case happened to be listening to the show the day she made her comments and remembered her. Among other things, she had claimed PTSD from having been in the military, although her military records had been “lost”. An NBC legal analyst who assisted in reporting the story says her case will be difficult to defend. Baloney! I have never attended one day of law school but I can see where this case would be fairly easy to defend, provided the client cooperated.

If she says she was telling the truth in court and lying to the talk show host, what could they do, unless someone could prove otherwise? Remember, this would be a criminal case, not a civil case, so the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, a judge or jury couldn’t convict her simply because they didn’t believe her. And it’s no inherent crime to lie to a talk show host. Liars are protected by the First Amendment, unless they are under oath and/or the lie rises to the level of something like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So, if she stuck with her story, the prosecuting attorney the one with his work cut out for him.

No Self-Defense Claim When You’re the Aggressor

The case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, has stirred up a great deal of controversy lately. Much of that debate has centered around the question of whether the shooter, George Zimmerman, was racially motivated. However, from the information that I have gathered from the case, I doubt that his shooting of Martin had anything to do with race.

So far, Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime, but Florida’s attorney general has recently announced that this case will now go to a grand jury to determine if he should be prosecuted for anything. Zimmerman is claiming that he was motivated by self-defense, but that doesn’t seem to be consistent with the facts that have come to light.

Witnesses have stated that Zimmerman chased Martin prior to the shooting. In the tape of Zimmerman’s call to 911, Zimmerman admits that he is beginning to pursue the teen, although the 911 dispatcher advises him against such action. Zimmerman says he shot Martin after he noticed that he was reaching into the waistband of his pants. Zimmerman said he feared that Martin may have been going for a gun. It was later revealed that Martin was unarmed and was probably reaching for a pack of Skittles.

It is my opinion that Zimmerman should not be allowed to use the self-defense claim. He, not Martin, was the aggressor in this case. He took it upon himself to pursue Martin, even though the teen had not attempted to steal anything and had not acted in a hostile manner. When someone other than a duly-authorized officer of the law assumes the role of aggressor in any matter, he or she forfeits any right to a self-defense claim from that point on, even if the other person subsequently turns the table on them. Therefore, even if Trayvon Martin had actually been going for a gun, Mr. Zimmerman should still not be able to legally claim self-defense.

Woman Who Beat Drug Dealer Deserves Prosecution

Fox News is now taking up for a woman who beat her son’s drug dealer with a baseball bat. The St Louis Missouri mother has been charged with third degree assault for the incident. Fox News considers her a hero and disagrees with the fact that she is being charged with anything at all. I respectfully disagree with Fox. While this woman had every right to be angry with the heroin dealer who provided drugs to her son despite all of best efforts to protect him and keep him away for this guy, she took the law into her own hands and became a vigilante. She obviously knew who the guy was and had the goods on him. She could just as easily have turned him in to the authorities and presented them the evidence she had collected. The guy would probably have been convicted without much effort.

Instead, she let her frustration get the best of her. She followed this dealer to his house one night to confront him. During the confrontation, she claims that he turned his back to her and went to get something out of his car. That’s when she used the bat that she had brought with her and beat him with it. She says she panicked when he reached into his car, thinking that he might have been going for a gun. Therefore, she is pleading self-defense. However, that claim doesn’t pass the smell test. If she hadn’t intended to beat him when she went to his home, why did she bring a bat with her? Also, if she really thought he was reaching for a gun, why didn’t she run as fast as she could, like most people would do? Clearly, she was the aggressor here and should have to pay for her actions. I don’t care what Fox or anyone else says.

Skakel Should Be Out of Prison by Now

Michael Skakel, a cousin of the late President John F. Kennedy and his famous siblings, is now a serving a prison sentence of 20-years-to-life for the murder of Martha Moxley when they both were teens. Specifically, Skakel was 15 at the time of the murder, which occurred in 1975. However, he wasn’t convicted of the crime until 2002, when was 42. To this day, he still denies having murdered Moxley.

Skakel’s lawyer is now appealing the sentence to a panel of judges, arguing that it was excessive and that he should have been out of prison by now. The basis of the appeal is that Skakel was a juvenile at the time of the crime and that, if he had been charged then, he would have been tried in juvenile court, where the maximum sentence would have been four years. Skakel has now served nearly ten years.

I completely agree with Skakel’s lawyer, and hope the judges deciding this case will free Mr. Skakel as soon as possible. While I have difficulty sympathizing with Skakel, and I believe the crime he committed was both despicable and vile, my sense of fairness tells me he’s been in prison long enough. Almost any 15-year-old who committed a murder in 1975 would have been freed long ago.

The fact that Skakel wasn’t convicted until he was 42 is completely irrelevant here. That doesn’t change the fact that he was just 15 when he murdered that girl. Obviously, his age at the time of the murder is not an excuse. He was old enough to know right from wrong. But the fact remains that he should have been tried in juvenile court – even at the age of 42 – where a conviction would have kept him detained no longer than four years. Why should he be treated any differently than anyone else under the same set of circumstances?

They Do Have a Choice to Not Shoot an Armed Suspect

“We had no choice but to shoot him.” That’s what you’ll often after police open fire on an armed suspect. But is this always true? I don’t think it is in all cases. When a suspect brandishes some kind of weapon, and/or refuses to drop it, the police do not automatically have to fire at him. This is especially true when he is armed with a something like a knife instead of a firearm.

If he is threatening no one else but the police, then why can’t they just back away from him and leave the scene? Do they ever consider that? This would prevent a completely unnecessary loss of life – the suspect’s and one or more the police officers’. That doesn’t mean he would be getting off the hook. The cops could always keep a watch on him and nab him later at a time when was unsuspecting and unarmed.

People Shot by the Police Have Had Their Punishment

If some is shot and wounded by the police while committing a violent crime and/or while becoming dangerously aggressive towards those officers of the law, they have gotten their just desserts. However, if and when they are found guilty in a court of law, their wounding should be taken in consideration at their sentencing. The way I see it, they have already received a portion of the punishment.

For example, let’s say the perpetrator was shot and permanently paralyzed while committing an armed robbery. Let’s also assume that the sentence for that particular crime would normally be 25 years in prison. However, I would say that being permanently paralyzed is a punishment equal to at least 20 of those years behind bars. Therefore, that person should not have to serve more than five years.

Police Are Not Paid to Think

Ever notice how there is monument after monument to police officers who have murdered in the line of duty, but not a single monument to those who have been murdered by police. Don’t get wrong, I believe most police officers are honorable public servants. However, there are some rogues within almost every police force that present a clear and present danger to society. These people are looking for any excuse they can to justify maiming or killing someone.

While I don’t believe we should disarm our cops like some countries have done, I do believe we need to change some of the rules of engagement. Specifically, all police departments should enact a rule that forbids officers from pointing a loaded weapon at someone who is unarmed. The first violation of this rule should result in a one-suspension without pay. The second should result in termination from the force.

But what about those cases when a suspect is unarmed, but a cop thinks he is armed? Shouldn’t that be an exception? Absolutely not. We do not pay our police to think. They are supposed to know for sure someone is armed before pointed a loaded weapon at them. This is something we should get serious about if we want to reduce the number of people killed by police each year.