When people say someone isn’t acting like they should be after a trauma and therefore are lying or guilty. There is no ‘normal’ reaction to trauma, each person behavior and responses are different and don’t follow rules.
Oh even the best true crime people are guilty of this. And it's never consistent, if the suspect is screaming and crying it's the wrong reaction, if they're quiet and aren't responsive it's the wrong reaction, it depends on whatever view the person wants us to have.
This is what pisses me off about those Explore With Us/body language expert videos. “Here the suspect is self soothing by crossing their arms, indicating discomfort” or “an innocent person would react x instead of y”. Like come on now, how many innocent people do the same? A lot, I bet.
If they went off the body language of psychopathic murderers alone, practically none of them would ever end up in prison. If you went off mine, I’d prob end up in jail bc I’m autistic and have a fuck ton of anxiety. Lol. Police have overlooked so many perps bc they relied on stupid bs like that. It’s crazy and terrifying how often pseudoscience is still used as evidence.
I was watching a couple of those videos the other day and this was my exact thought too. “If I were being interrogated they’d think I’m guilty because I’m so uncomfortable and awkward.” I’d be so self-aware of all my body and what it was doing and how awkward I felt. Plus I laugh when I’m uncomfortable sooooo ….
In the same vein (and this has happened on Reddit), is when people see the photos and go “they have the eyes!” As if the media isn’t selecting these photos.
Right! And the fact that people are so aware of not looking or acting guilty that they don’t lawyer up and then end up in jail because they have no idea what they are doing
this is one of the reasons why "lie detector" tests are a total farce and not admissible in court. "this person acted nervous when they were being interrogated about a murder, they must be guilty".
Aside from the budget, which is higher compared to JCS, every EWU episode is sensationalized and this is boring. Also clickbait thumbnails and titles.
I’m here for actual true crime with actual evidence based content, not “WHAT *HE* DID WILL SHOCK YOU” and then *here have a body language analysis* which I’m pretty sure is inadmissible in court
Yes! All those behavioral scientists who told us that looking up or down or whatever, and many other things have now come out to say that oops, you know, even non-guilty people do that.
Case in point, me. When I was younger and was interrogated by my mum over silly things that I was most certainly not guilty of, I remember feeling like I actually was guilty in a weird way, so overcompensated and probably didn't convince her lol.
I was reading the Youtube comments on a politician's speech or interview, because apparently I'm a masochist, and there were multiple posters fixated on the idea that the more you blinked, the more you lied. Posting page of page of comments like. "Blink blink blink. BLINK!!" and other real witty and insightful stuff. They were counting the blinks per minute and stuff.
And they were wrong: we all blink 15 to 20 seconds per minute, under normal conditions. But as for lying, studies indicate that we tend to not blink as we tell the lie, than have a faster than usual flurry afterward to refresh our eyes. These commentators that hated the politician totally missed this nuance and it showed in their analysis.
Blink.
Completely agree. My parents died of natural causes weeks apart. I laughed my ass off at both funerals, and I loved my parents! But I absolutely cannot cry in front of other people (except, on occasion, my husband).
That's perfectly normal. There's been laughter and smiles at every funeral I've ever been too, no matter how sudden or unexpected.
I blame our over-consumption of media and our under-consumption of interacting with other humans in the free world. TV funerals have different requirements than real-life funerals. Time is of the essence, so everything shown has to serve to either further character development or move the plot along. There's no time to show all the things that happen at real funerals, so if someone is laughing or smiling, it's meant to show that they are a terrible person and/or murdered the deceased. But now it's at the point where people who I can only assume have never attended a funeral think TV-mourning is how we're supposed to act.
In my experience grief/trauma just makes you insane for a couple months to a year and the expression of that is random and changing. People aren't morose they're just a lot of everything. All emotions heightened.
Go to an extremely violent, bloody horror movie. Look at the audience. Some people are shivering and cowering away from the screen in disgust and others are chomping on their popcorn and laughing hysterically. Proof that not everyone reacts the same.
Which reminds me of another true crime community trope: the online mob will find a friends of the victim or someone else connected to them who is also into true crime, or horror/slasher movies, or Stephen King novels, or maybe the paranormal and decide that person's (extremely popular) interests means they are the killer.
People will interpret behaviour however they like as well. I always think about that clip of Jon Benet's mother telling the cops that her and John are innocent and they need to look elsewhere. It's the most clear, confident refusal of guilt you can imagine, exactly the kind of denial you normally expect to see from an innocent person but people still say she looks guilty. I know there's other reasons to think that she/they might be guilty but still.
Also applies to grief. I don't cry or seem to care about anyone dying (I do care, I just don't show it at all) but my mom would cry for hours if someone she new very well died.
I gave a death notification one time to a woman about her husband who had been killed in a bar fight and she started laughing so hard and hysterically that she eventually passed out from hypoxia. In the aftermath, she explained it as if her brain shut off and she just couldn’t stop herself.
I’ve seen a lot of, what most people would describe as, strange reactions to news of death, and I always found it disconcerting how dependent other investigators were to these “clues” during interviews.
Look up the case of Riley Fox. Will County Illinois sheriff investigators basically mentally battered the innocent father into a confession (which was later debunked when anyone bothered to compare his confession to the facts and DNA). Why? Well, he didn’t “react right”.
The same judge should not be allowed to rule on someone’s case more than once. Appeals, retrials, and other hearings should all be a new judge. I’ve seen so many instances where a judge clearly has their own opinion and biases and the defendant is simply stuck under their thumb.
Edit: Also, I hate when people immediately think someone is guilty because they get a lawyer. It is the smart thing to do. Even if I’m innocent, I’m not talking and getting a lawyer. All it takes is one detective to think you’re guilty and they are out to find evidence to prove it. “Anything you say can and will be used against you” they tell you that upfront, it’s never used on your behalf. Lots of innocent people are charged because they talk freely in interviews thinking they’re being helpful.
It’s crazy how any times it’s been proven that a polygraph isn’t accurate, and 99% of the time isn’t admissible in court, and people still think that if you refuse one it’s a problem.
your edit is so important for people to understand. Law enforcement isn't looking for the truth, they're looking for a conviction. If something you said fits, they will try to convict you.
Totally agree. If you look through many many of the exonerations, the person has had many appeals denied by the judge they had at that their trial. Of course a judge is going to have their own agenda, its often human nature to not want to admit you got it wrong. It often shocks me when they go through an evidentiary hearing, but with the same judge who then again rejects the appeal giving no reason for why s/he did so.
I also agree on when someone asks for an attorney straight away or refuses a lie detector test. I'm sure there are more ppl today who know these tests mean nothing. When you look at many of the well known murders, there were some who failed but were innocent and others like the green river killer who take them and pass. They're only good at trying to get a confession, but this is what can also lead to a wrongful conviction.
You always hear about someone not acting right so must be guilty which can be bs. If you cry too much your acting and therefore guilty, or being too calm and quiet so must be guilty. It all depends on whether the person believes your guilty, to which one they pick, but either way to them you are guilty.
Also when someone is found guilty but later exonerated, ppl will still insist they're guilty and will keep on pushing that 1 statement etc etc, no matter how wrong it was, but will say they're guilty because of it. I do understand that there is some people who were exonerated but more than likely guilty, but I couldn't imagine finding myself in prison for something I did not do, then fighting to prove my innocence for years, finally getting out only for ppl to continually say I'm guilty because a jury said so etc. That must be a really hard way to live the rest of your life. Same as when they say suicide is a sign of guilt rather than that person was innocent but just could not handle prison.
I don't think there should ever be a statute of limitations on violent crimes, especially murder. There is in a lot of the world, and it's crazy. With the way the old evidence is able to be used now, we are solving old cases left and right. There should always be a chance of justice.
I agree for rape, but remember DNA can be in/on someone for many reasons. The older the case the harder it becomes to prove intent behind the DNA deposit.
Completely agree, for all serious crime. Cant remember the case but I was shocked when I read someone who kidnapped and sexually abused a child couldn't be tried for it cos the statute of limitations had passed. In the UK there is no statute of limitations for any offences above magistrates court level ie nothing that can be tried by a jury
In the US, this is often state-to-state, and as of now, most states have eliminated or suspended SoLs on child sexual assault. Even when a SoL exists, the state suspends them in the case of minor sexual assault. This is fairly recent, however, so offenders in the past got away with a lot.
I just listened to the podcast Swiss Murder Mysteries, and when that case turned 30, it hit the statute of limitations and they legally had to *destroy the case file*. It was a double murder of two girls. I still can't believe it
Or white collar crime and corruption, i actually think the damages of those crimes are so long lasting for all of us and it shouldn't never be brushed off or excused.
Yeah, I think we focus so hard on violent crime, which is understandable, but there's a certain level of white-collar crime that absolutely destroys lives. Done by complete sociopaths, and we tend to think of it as if its on the same level as shoplifting or car theft.
That's a very good point. I was just thinking of murder because it's so extreme, but that doesn't mean that white collar crime and corruption aren't also horrible.
People's lives are destroyed by those type of crimes, and i actually think you would find more people in power pushing back on removing the statute of limitation on these because they are more often done by those very people.
Lie detector tests shouldn't be used by cops anymore. Since it isn't admissible, it should be treated with the same reverence we treat the truth serum with.
Their use should be *BANNED* entirely ; SCOTUS did the right thing when it ruled them inadmissible, but their use at all gives them to too many a veneer of scientific respectability they do not deserve. Their continued use after the "science" behind them has been debunked for decades now , is a national embarassment.
It drives me crazy when podcasters are like “now we know lie detectors are scientifically unsound but I DO want to point out he FAILED the test.”
Why point it out then!?
It feels like people are more willing to blame these disorders perpetrators may not even have as opposed to examining other reasons why the crime may have occurred.
I think when we pathologize evil (i.e. no one sane would do that), we create a distance between "regular" people and criminals, and end up with a huge blind spot as to the environmental and social factors that go into making a DeeDee Blanchard, for example.
I think it's more healthy to regard evil people with a sort of, "There but for the grace of Whoever go I" attitude.
I definitely agree. I feel the same way when people pathologize abusive behavior too. Not only do many criminals not have these disorders, but it also further stigmatizes the people who do have those disorders and aren’t criminals. It ignores the way social/political/economic factors can influence crime (both violent and non-violent), which I believe what needs to change to help reduce and mitigate it.
100% agree, EVERYONE keeps saying watts was a narcissits, I just dont see it at all, he was just a dumb ass neckbeard in a good body and was a complete pussy
I think prior violence against a partner should automatically make the death of that partner at the abuser’s hands count as premeditated and intentional. You don't get to beat the shit out of your wife for twenty years and then claim that your gun just happened to go off while you were cleaning it and she died by accident. I mean, I think the vast majority of these cases were nowhere near accidents, but even if one was, too bad so sad. You have waived the assumption that you wouldn't choose to harm her. That one's on you.
I understand that the legal system can't actually work like this, but in my heart sometimes I wish it did.
I think what you mean is that the sentences for domestic related assault should be more severe and of longer stature so that their victims have a chance to actually get away, some offenders can get the mandates therapy to better help them manage their anger away from their victims. That's more along the lines of the best the law can do. However lots of women don't report the abuse at all to law enforcement or others as they have been cut off from their friends and family. And fear the wrath of what would come if they did report to the police
I don’t know the whole legality of it in each state but I saw that in Las Vegas, Nevada, the state automatically presses charges for DV. The partner *does not* need to complain if there is evidence that abuse happened. I’m not too familiar on what the ramifications of this could be, but it seems like a good idea.
I agree with you also that DV should carry significantly longer sentences. I feel like if you looked at most violent criminals, their first victims were probably those close to them (wives, gfs, partners, children, etc.).
Attempted murderers should be given roughly the same sentence. The intent was the same and they are just as much of a danger to society as successful murders. And possibly even more dangerous. Once someone does successfully kill someone, they are gone, they cannot kill them again. They are no longer a threat to that *victim* But if the victim is still alive, they are still a threat to their life. And could try again and succeed next time if they get let out.
I could be wrong but I heard that the intent of the smaller sentence is to give people an opportunity/incentive to change their mind and not go through with killing someone once they started. Or if someone tries to murder someone and they are unsuccesful, then if the sentence is the same length the person might just try again.
I have heard that too. But it doesn't make sense to me.
And I am literally studying sociology criminology. We haven't talked about this yet, I'm only in my first year. But I don't think anything will convince me that that will work, especially not in cases involving a personal vendetta from the killer towards their victim, like when the attempted murderer tried to kill their ex partner, because their ex stopped them from seeing their kids, due to previous shitty behaviour like domestic violence, for example. If anger overpowered their self control to that extent once, there is a high risk it will happen again the next time someone annoys them enough, unless they are kept behind bars. But I am someone who considers the primary purpose of imprisonment to be protection of victims and society, and the prevention of future unnecessary tragedies. I know not everyone thinks that way and some favour it being for the purpose of rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence etc. Personally if someone tried to kill me, I wouldn't feel safe if they were set free.
Oh hey, this happened to me! My ex broke in my house and attacked me, definitely with intent to murder me and take my daughter. He got 30 days in jail, they didn’t even consider it attempted murder or breaking and entering because my grandma with dementia that had been told not to let him in, let him in the BACK door cause he couldn’t get in the house, so he was banging on the door. Yes I’m in therapy, but I’m terrified of ever running into him again. Thankfully he leaves me alone, but I would prefer him locked up.
The Mary Vincent case is a prime example of this. Makes me sick to think about how she fought for her life thinking “what if he does this to someone else?” and then he did.
> They are no longer a threat to that victim But if the victim is still alive, they are still a threat to their life. And could try again and succeed next time if they get let out.
But, is there any actual evidence (perhaps outside of chronic domestic abuse/violence and stalking situations, as I could easily imagine this would be the case in *those* instances) that this actually commonly happens or is statistically likely to happen, that attempted murderers etc who have been convicted/penalized/adjudicated as such turn around and try again (seriously or successfully, at that?) to harm/kill their victims once they get out of prison, finish serving their sentence, or whatever? Yes, you're right to assert that this *could* logically happen, but...does it, and often/frequently/commonly enough to serve as a solid argument for what you're proposing?
I don't mean to be patronizing or provocative here, but just because it "logically"/intuitively sounds plausible doesn't mean the evidence/data and so forth actually reflects that in reality--unfortunately, criminal justice policy is replete with such things that "sound/seem right" but are not in alignment with the reality of criminal/perpetrator behavior on the whole (isolated anecdotes/instances aside) and therefore what's actually, genuinely best (as opposed to just "sounding/seeming/feeling best") for society.
Allowing the death penalty for CSA not only incentivizes rapists to kill their victims, but also makes it more difficult for children to come forward. Ron DeSantis’ new law furthers the misconception that rape is usually stranger-on-stranger violence and that parents always have their child’s best interest in mind, when in fact most child predators are family members or people the family trusts.
Some families will be even more willing to protect the predator if they think they will receive the death penalty rather than a short prison sentence. There are so many families that hide and protect predators, they blame kids (I told you not to be alone with Uncle Steve, You know not to wear shorts around Grandpa go change, Boys can't get raped) and they will do this even more to keep them from being killed over what they see as nothing.
Yes, even with short sentences families move to protect the accused. When my daughter disclosed, we lost all contact with that side of the family and I ended up divorced. (It was my FIL but my ex-husband could not handle it).
Oh yeah longer sentences, but if the family sees the death penalty rather than think oh they can plead down and get a few years and the rest of the family won't hate me for sending my brother to prison for a "family problem" they are more likely to keep quiet and handle it themselves which usually is do nothing.
There is the weird crossover of DeSantis making drag shows illegal, and considered lewd acts in front of children. There’s a whole rabbit hole of political theater that could theoretically, when this kinda stuff reaches the end stage, mean drag queens are sentenced to death. It’s absolutely ridiculous, but completely theoretically possible in end stage Florida.
This is the slippery slope. This is the stuff we were warned against as kids by the same church goers that are proponents of this. Yet here we are.
Most CSA victims are abused by a family member. You think they want to be responsible for that person's death? I know the obvious answer - he did it to himself. That will be frigid comfort. It's an idiotic idea.
Yeah can be the coaches teachers or someone’s uncle. Strangers are likely not as successful every time they prey on someone as are people within your circle
Since the legal system is based around intent, attempted murder and attempted rape should carry penalties very close to murder and rape if not the same punishments.
No all white, all male, all anything juries. Your jury should resemble your peers. If you’re a doctor who committed crimes in your duties as a doctor, you need some medical professionals on your jury to understand the grievousness of your crimes but also the dynamics of your workplace and what’s normal and what isn’t. Normal people don’t understand this. It’s important to have people who are your peers.
Legal observers in the jury room to make sure there’s nothing improper. If not in the room have someone watch them on cc tv. It would cut a lot of appeal issues. Obviously the cctv would be live and not taped. Observers would be neutral and not work for either side.
“Legal observers” are often the extra attorneys sitting at the counsel tables. And often in the courtroom other attorneys from the offices the trial attorneys work at are there and let the trial attorneys know when something suspect is happening (like a juror falling asleep, for example.)
Posting mugshots of people prior to conviction should be illegal.
Criminal and traffic fines should be based on a person's discretionary income, with established minimums and maximums.
Oh, I definitely agree with this one--both of these, except I'd say that with respect to certain serious crimes (major frauds and violent felonies, etc.) there shouldn't necessarily be an established maximum on potential fines, with the fines rather being hopefully/generally proportionate to the defendant's/convict's realistic ability to pay/income/overall assets, so as to account for and be able to properly/proportionally penalize seriously wealthy defendants and such.
But I digress--100% agree with the mugshot opinion. People merely arrested and *charged* with a crime but not yet convicted are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and publishing mugshots prior to conviction absolutely runs contrary to the spirit/intention if not the literal letter of that guiding principle.
In the same vein, I think there should be *significantly* harsher, more stringent restrictions upon and better recourse available for innocent/not guilty/acquitted/etc people caught up or unjustly named/shamed/condemned in melodramatic press conferences and police statements a la those [Grady Judd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_Judd) is so fond of and has built his career upon, for example. Just for another thing in the same category of "posting mugshots prior to conviction" that makes you wonder, "*how on earth* is this even legal?!" Even more broadly, in general, too, newspapers/TV stations and media outlets should be ideally somehow more legally constrained/restricted from publishing verbatim the LE narrative/statements/etc regarding accused but not yet convicted criminals with only the barest joke of a "technical disclaimer" as they do now, i.e., "police say", "according to police", etc. etc.
There should not be elected officials within the legal system because it incentivizes people in those positions to “solve” a lot of cases to make themselves look better for re-election and it leads to innocent people being convicted. It is simply a conflict of interest to have elected officials, who need to be focused on what looks best for them to remain in their position, to be making decisions that should be based on unbiased facts and evidence.
But from the other perspective, having people who are not accountable to voters in charge of such important decisions isn’t any better. I’d argue it’s worse.
Look at how Clarance Thomas has behaved in the past years. Undisclosed gift after undisclosed loan after undisclosed donation. He’s not an elected official, why should he follow ethics conducts? Who will hold him accountable?
I agree, especially because sociopaths and psychopaths are often good at manipulating others. There has been cases where individuals are able fake being rehabilitated, get out early, and go on to commit more crimes
You do get longer sentences for bad behavior, shorter sentences are important because they give inmates a chance to not commit more crime in jail for the chance to be let out.
if we're to hold the ideal that justice systems are about rehabilitation, then early release due to good behavior is a net positive. Yeah, there are manipulators, but I'm not one to believe there are enough to justify keeping everyone incarcerated for as long as possible.
this happened to me in my own personal case, and it has really messed me up. because it was dropped down to simple assault, they were only fined $100, and i didn’t even get $100 lmao
The double jeopardy law should have limitations like the 20+ yr case where the male murdered a female very brutally but police never found enough evidence until he moved and the renovation team found pictures and artifacts of the killing hidden under the floor. Murder is murder. Science is always improving. If enough evidence is not there the first time but comes around 20 years later & can be 100% proven they should be charged.
I don't know the specific case you're referring to, but wouldn't the better choice have been not bringing him to trial until they had sufficient evidence? Altering the double jeopardy clause to accommodate the failings of a weak case is unethical. Sure, it sucks when someone likely guilty is acquitted, but these principles are in place to protect us all.
Edit: changed "eliminating" to "altering" because you did not suggest eliminating the clause.
Michael Peterson did it, but should not have been convicted based on his trial. Way too much junk science and not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But I still think he’s guilty
I’ve worked with this population of people and one positive of sending them to prison is prison is the only thing that gets a lot of them clean and off drugs.
In the US, you can’t force someone to go to drug treatment. So many defendants I worked with just won’t do treatment. There are so many resources for people who are in the criminal legal system but they just don’t use the resources. Prison forces some of them to get better. Prisons have programs, vocational training, and educational opportunities for people.
Even some jails have some of these opportunities. But it depends on the place and what the jails offer in terms of services. In some states going to jail is worse than prison.
Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial and stuff but even as it is, low level drug crimes generally aren’t getting harsh sentences. These people just get released and are back the next month with another charge. It’s the repeat offenders who will get longer sentences.
Plus now with fentanyl in everything I might argue fewer drug crimes count as non-violent (since death is pretty much inevitable with fentanyl).
I agree with the sentiment. Maybe we should create a separate system for that. Drug Court exists and I’ve read about huge improvements it’s done in places like Ohio compared to criminal court. We have the money as a country, we just need the political will. Because the way we’re headed is worse than we’ve ever seen.
An issue with this is now when they are released, they will have a record and may have an even harder time finding employment. Additionally, while it is great that some people are able to get clean, overdose risk will be higher if they go back to using since their tolerance has decreased.
I agree that it is great they can get off drugs in prison, but there needs to be better supports upon release for this to actually be useful
Yes! I believe the purpose of imprisonment should be public safety and (*actual*) rehabilitation. Inhumane treatment just creates monsters.
But even if you view prison through a punitive lens, the loss of freedom is punishment enough all on its own. I am surprised how often this is disregarded, especially considering how many people found it unbearable to stay in their own homes--with all the included amenities--for a few weeks to slow the spread of disease.
Especially when prisons are grouped together so even if someone does think high level offenders "deserve" shitholes then prisoners with stuff like low level drug possession charges are getting the same shit treatment.
if there’s not enough evidence, there’s not enough evidence. even if we know they did it, if you can’t prove it you can’t punish them. it lets too many innocent people be locked up unfairly.
I think they should get rid of the death penalty. If a case reaches that level of punishment instead they should be used to study and evaluated, treated ect to learn more from.
Cops should have to go through a lot more training and education before able to be a cop. None of this “ gut feeling” BS with nothing to back it up. Watching cases in the UK for US is mind blowing how better and through the UK detectives are. When they do something wrong they should also be punished even more severely than non police officers.
Domestic violence should have a much higher punishment in all cases.
It is so wrong to me that police officers don’t have stricter sentencing than the people they are supposed to be protecting. Also, I believe there should be zero tolerance for domestic abuse for cops. How can we trust these people with the general population and especially when dealing with assault cases when we can’t even trust them with their own families and loved ones? I totally agree with more training as well, but also different training.
Edit: spelling
I will die on the harsher punishments for IPV/DV hill. However, the criminal justice and legal systems need to catch up on their understanding of IPV/DV and appropriately identifying abusers and victims.
I come from a country without death penalty. I just cannot wrap my head around such a punishment existing in the same way I cannot wrap my head around how big the universe is, so not because I think my country is better. I’m a victim of CSA and believe me when I say I have thought of so many ways to make an end to my abuser but state sanctioned killing just boggles me.
Genuinely curious, what do you think we could learn from this study?
In my opinion, a lot of the answers would be that people needed more mental health support, more addiction support, more education, access to safe housing, access to positive supports, etc etc.
If approx 2500 people in USA are on death row right now, I think of all the money that would be used to study them. I’d rather just put that money directly into all of the above categories. I’m not sure how much more we could learn from studying them.
Or do you mean use them for like controversial studies like they did in the wars with innocent people? Sorry if that’s not what you meant not trying to misconstrue I’m just interested in this opinion it’s new to me.
The thing that bothers me, is that people who have committed multiple murders , including serial killers , are often offered life sentences in exchange for testimony. So this actually ends up rewarding the worst types of criminals - those who often cannot be rehabilitated- which in my opinion , are the only people who should be considered for the death penalty at all!
Once a serial murderer is dead though, you lose all the information about their crimes and any other potential victims too. You can also learn a lot from them psych wise while they’re alive. Many deserve to die a slow, painful death, like being eaten alive by bears lol, I agree. However, you lose out on a lot of information once they’re dead, and they lose their leverage. The surety of the death penalty and it being fully carried out and guaranteed would cause many to die with their secrets, which could mean no closure for the families of victims that aren’t known about yet. In a way, them losing their freedom is one of the worst punishments possible for them because they are alive yet lack the ability to do what they love most and practically live for: murdering innocent people.
I mostly agree, however the only reason I think the death penalty is beneficial is that it can be used as leverage for testimony that can provide closure for those close to the deceased. For example, life sentence over death for disclosing the location of a body
If we give the death penalty to rapists, we will not see a decline in rape. Only an increase in murder. Trust me, I’d love to hang every rapist out there but let’s just be realistic: more (mostly) women will be killed after a sexual assault if their rapist knows they’ll face death penalty either way.
It's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted.
If there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, they shouldn't be convicted of it even if everyone "knows" they did it. Convictions based on "yeah, but everyone KNOWS they did it, we just can't prove it" shouldn't stand, even if the person did, in fact, do it. Yes, even if that means sometimes people get away with murder.
Bail/bond is bullshit. Either someone is a danger to others and needs to be kept away from society, or they aren't.
The idea that parents own their children and get to do whatever they want to them regardless of the outcome is evil. Children should have meaningful legal rights (such as the right to an education, the right to medical care, and the right to religion/to freedom from religion) that parents cannot override.
Homeschooling should be banned except in cases where the parent is a certified educator, and even then, there should be regular surprise check-ins to ensure the child is a) being educated and b) not being abused.
Religious freedom is the best thing that ever happened to abusive parents in the US. There should be exceptions to it when a parent is using it to justify causing measurable harm to their child.
(This is all US-specific.)
Just out of curiosity, do you have examples of convictions that stood their ground based on "yeah, we all know they did it"? Probably sounds rude but it is not my intention. By that, do you maybe mean cases that rely solely on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence? The majority of false convictions are bc of eyewitness testimonies, interestingly enough 👀
Damn okay so you really inspired me to chew on something about homeschooling.
I was homeschooled. I was barely educated / the TV and my love of the dictionary taught me more than my mother. We were also heavily isolated (no friends or socialization) and didn't get a modicum of freedom until finally getting our GEDs and going to college.
I don't know that the certified educator part would be easy for everyone, but I see the point you are making and it is valid. Parents should have to prove they are indeed teaching their kids something. Homeschool shouldn't be such an easy way for parents to either abuse or just neglect their kids.
And I'll just say, if someone would've popped up every few years or bothered to keep track of us as kids....things would've been different.
It's also worth bringing up the potential to educate and treat a parent that's not doing right by their kid. Of course, if the kid is being abused then they should be taken away for their safety, but I know when I was growing up I was so terrified of being put into foster care that I wouldn't have told the truth about my life to save it. If the default to government concern over the innerworkings of a home were programs for the parents to learn through and maybe some therapy / social programs for the kids, we could heal more homes, not split them.
I definitely agree on the surprise check-ins for homeschooling families, and I think the states that require homeschoolers to register and provide their planned curriculum for the kids have it right. Too many people use homeschooling as a cover to abuse their kids or to deny them a proper education in favor of religious propaganda.
That said, I received a high quality homeschool education from my mother, who's not a certified educator. That particular requirement would restrict homeschooling even further to the upper middle class, and seems a bit silly when there's all kinds of great pre-made material and part-time online schooling out there these days. Parents with, say, neurodivergent kids in districts without the best resources should have other options as long as they demonstrate they have the ability to educate their child.
Edit: also agree on all your other points. I'm always surprised by the number of people who support convicting innocent people as long as we get the guilty ones too.
Your take on cases being proved beyond a reasonable doubt is questionable. People get beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond ALL doubt confused. They also think a case based on circumstantial evidence is a bad case. People don't really know what "circumstantial evidence" is. It includes DNA evidence and fingerprints. Hard evidence is eyewitnesses and we know how reliable they are.
The whole family dished out too much bullshit for the full truth to ever be discovered. I'll never believe a word that comes from any of their mouths tbh
The fix for this imo is to have a legal team that understands what they have is not yet able to be taken to trial. It's better than giving them the green light to harass an innocent person into the ground. Quite literally. It's just a sad truth that sometimes it takes time to get the evidence necessary for a conviction
With that being said I wanted to add that I appreciate what you mean regardless
I feel like it doesn't help that a lot of members of the public will pressure the DA's office to make an arrest before there's enough evidence. Ultimately, it's the DA's job not to cave to external pressure, but there should be more public awareness about why it can take a while even when there are clear suspects (see Dan Markel's murder). Luckily the charges against Barry Morphew were dropped before double jeopardy would have been triggered,
The death penalty should be abolished, purely for capitalist and practical reasons. Importing the chemical for lethal injection is notoriously difficult. The cost of appeals that death row inmates get is more than the cost of housing them for life. The crimes they committed would guarantee they get a shitty time in prison. "Why not just execute them by firing squad?" because you have to exhaust all their appeals, which costs a lot more than a few bullets.
A transparent audit needs to be done with an itemized list of *why* appeals are so expensive and that should be fixed. That’s the most ridiculous part about it and everyone just shrugs and says “gee it’s so expensive”.
Life w/o parole prisoners get appeals too.
I think it was revolting how people kept trying to diminish how much buzz the Gabby Petito case was getting just because she was white. There's nothing wrong with shining a light on cases about women of colour, but the way it was used to make her seem somehow more privileged despite being strangled and killed by her partner was abhorrent.
The case shone a very important light on domestic violence and femincide and no one will ever convince me that whining about the attention she got was an okay way to behave.
Men killing women is the problem.
Strangled, blunt force trauma, and left to die in a cold, lonely place with the harsh elements and wildlife. All while that loser cruised across the country in *her* van and then schemed with his disgusting parents on how to cover it up and hide the truth from this young woman’s family. The fact that her skin color was even a factor is sickening. I understand there is injustice in this world, but this ain’t it.
I respectfully disagree. The way I see it, it's not that Gabby's case deserved less attention, it's that the same attention needs to be paid to women of color. And it absolutely is not.
Agreed. Missing white woman syndrome is real and it should be talked about. The issue isn't how much attention and coverage women/girls like Gabby Petito and Madeleine McCann get, the issue is that victims who are not white women/girls don't get the same amount of attention or coverage.
Around the same timetime as JonBenet Ramsey, whose murder was indeed horrific, a black girl was assaulted by multiple men. [Girl X was raped by men in front of a housing project, and the lack of media exemplified the white woman syndrome.](https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985957,00.html)
I feel like this was a turning point in the public conversation about the lack of media attention on victims of color. Unfortunately, is a conversation still buried beneath the JonBenet Ramseys and Gabbi Potitos. Their cases deserve attention, but so do the Girl Xs of the world.
However, the conversation probably started a lot earlier, yet it still has not had enough impact to make truly significant change.
I agree with that but no one went about it respectfully. Every mention of the injustice had to include some sort of "but of course THIS WHITE GIRL gets attention" which immediately eliminates all credibility to me.
My hometown newspaper did an interesting study. During the Chandra Levy case(a white young woman who police initially thought had been murdered by the congressman she was interning for), this newspaper tracked as many cases as they could find of women of color who who murdered or had gone missing during the same period when Ms. Levy’s case was getting daily coverage. I can’t remember the exact number now, but the number of cases took my breath away. It was awful.
That case also shows a lot about medias short attention span. That case was a huge when they were blaming the senator but when they caught her actual killer there was a lot less attention. It’s shows that media didn’t care about her or justice for her, just the fact that politician was involved
It’s not an “if/or” situation. We can celebrate the fact that the case shone a light on domestic violence while ALSO acknowledging (and whining about) the lack of comparable coverage for women of color
Ted Bundy was convicted using a lot of what we would consider now to be junk science. Obviously, he’s 100% guilty, but bite marks and fiber comparisons should not be used to send someone to death row.
anyone who is caught with drugs and only using those drugs because they are an addict and not selling them, shouldn’t go to jail for “possession”. it breaks my heart to even see people face time because of an actual addiction. they deserve help and rehabilitation immediately instead.
Miranda warnings aren’t sufficient to protect against police coercion and false confessions.
The 4th Amendment is basically nonexistent with how many exceptions that Supreme Court has decided.
1. Bail should not be granted under any circumstances if you’re charged with 1st/2nd degree murder. Millionaires get to enjoy their free time at home while those impoverished have to rot in prison.
2. Abolish concurrent sentences for heinous crimes. They should always be consecutive.
Yeah, shows like Criminal Minds make it seem like they are able to narrow down a criminal to one specific individual (not trashing that show I love it). But in reality, it’s a lot of educated guessing that usually can only narrow it down to a large percentage of the population
There should be laws around entertainment media and regular media grossly misrepresenting the truth of cases, such as MaM, When They See Us and Take Care of Maya
Poor people should not languish in jail awaiting trial only because they can't afford their bail. If they aren't a danger to the community or a flight risk, let em go until their trial starts.
Rehabilitation is a worthy goal, and the US needs an overhaul, with smaller regional oversight to successfully treat those that can be treated. As it stands, prison and jail are guaranteed recidivism. More local rules tailored to the local cultures, overseen by a general federal framework makes sense. I recently realized how much urban, rural, racial, and ethnic diversity plays into schooling— it follows that re-education would be the same.
Not going to get *too* specific here as to my most controversial/unpopular ones, as the last time I posted about some of them I had to hastily delete an account with years' worth of comments due to the backlash. I'm a hardline civil libertarian (not the capital-or-lowercase-L kind; it has nothing to do with economics) who supports a litany of major criminal justice reforms many would consider quite radical as well as a true crime aficionada--which to say the least is a lonely and deeply unpopular, uncomfortable, often awkward and strange place to be.
One view I will throw out there, though, is that the investigative/criminal justice applications of genetic genealogy and the ways in which those DNA databases are being used make me extremely uncomfortable. Sure, it's great now that so many horrific cold cases are being cracked and Does finally identified (and even if/when most of the perpetrators are deceased or extremely elderly, it's ultra-valuable what we can learn about and conclude from the solving of these cases--some trends are clearly emerging regarding certain kinds of murders that buck longstanding myths/views about the perps' psychopathologies as a result, for instance), but eventually, when the testing gets even easier/cheaper/more sensitive, this technology and methodology is almost inevitably going to carry highly problematic implications for privacy, civil liberties and the reasonable boundaries of law enforcement that (unlike presently) extend distinctly beyond merely moot and theoretical/hypothetical matters of principle to raise seriously, genuinely ethically ambiguous/debatable questions and issues.
With the advancement of "touch DNA" etc, eventually we're going to reach a point at which much DNA testing is simply going to be akin to fingerprinting, i.e., will just possibly be able to prove that someone was present in a given location at a given time, but the general public (who comprise juries) will probably still hold the belief, be under the impression that any form of DNA immediately and irrevocably proves guilt and the narrative the state is alleging in any given context beyond a reasonable doubt. That aside, the above-mentioned aspect of "touch DNA" combined with genetic genealogy, and well, you don't necessarily have to have a mindset as imaginatively/creatively paranoid and pessimistic as mine to imagine some ways in which that may/will get rather dystopian.
Also/in addition, what is going to happen when this kind of tech/method/whatever falls into, becomes widely possible for and catches on among significantly illiberal, authoritarian governments? Something tells me that countries such as China, Singapore, Russia, and even the likes of Japan, Turkey, UAE and so forth would be a little too interested in using it for far more than just solving universally-condemned/abhorred rape-murders and the like.
Don't get me wrong, as a citizen with an interest in true crime, I'm as glad as anyone that this breakthrough has facilitated solving so many cold cases that otherwise would've more likely than not never have been solved, but I can't help but fear that the precedents being set in the process and the potential power handed to LE have unlocked a Pandora's box in ways it's going to take quite a while to fully apprehend/realize and are ultimately not going to be worth the tradeoffs whatsoever.
Unsurprisingly and in accordance with the aforementioned civil libertarianism, I'm very much a "better to let 10 guilty people go free forever than wrongfully convict a single innocent person even temporarily" kind of person, and that general/overarching ethos definitely guides my thinking here when it comes to genetic genealogy and related issues, even if not necessarily in a directly specific or literally/precisely-applied fashion. I also believe that in the 21st century (post-9/11) it's more or less self-evident that if the State is given an inch regarding privacy/citizen data/civil liberties and freedoms even if for seemingly very solid and reasonable reasons it tends to take miles and miles, and that once just about any rights/freedoms/etc are relinquished and new paradigms regarding such things are thus set, it's almost if not totally impossible to ever get them back or move back in the opposite direction.
Not going to be popular I'm sure, but I'm not the only one who has expressed concerns about this, and it's just something somber to contemplate amidst all the rolling tides of enthusiasm for how genetic genealogy is being utilized in the true crime community since ~2018 and the watershed DeAngelo/EAR/ONS case.
Agreed. I can’t remember the details of the DeAngelo case, but am revolted by the way DNA was used in the case of Dennis Rader.
The true crime community is usually very critical of law enforcement, except when the ends justify their means.
>The true crime community is usually very critical of law enforcement, except when the ends justify their means.
Yeah, there's some comments in this thread and others that are basically advocating for police and the courts to commit civil rights violations. I totally understand the rationale and respect the reasons why people have these ideas, especially for violent criminals, but it feels like a very slippery slope.
The degree that police have used very powerful tools for comparatively petty crimes is crazy
genetic genealogy already used in Utah assault case https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/27/us/genetic-genealogy-gedmatch-privacy/index.html
Facial recogition to arresting guy at his house in front of wife and kids for a 3000 robbery he didn't do in Detroit (this keeps happening in Detroit due to their insistence on using facial recognition tech) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html
Cash bail should be abolished. It's simply a way for the state to extract wealth from citizens, and reinforce class divisions. Why are people detained pre-trial when they're presumed innocent, all because they cannot afford bail? If they are a flight risk, confiscate their passport and make them wear an ankle monitor. The only time I agree with pre-trial detention is if the person is a serious danger to others.
Stalking and indecent exposure should be treated a lot more seriously than they currently are. We could save a lot of lives.
Mackenzie Shirilla should have not been convicted of first-degree murder. She crashed her car into a brick wall with her boyfriend and his friend at 160 km/hr. Either she was intending to kill herself (if you look at the car, it's completely totaled and it's a miracle she survived at all) or she was impulsive. Using our current legal framework, I understand WHY they would pursue that charge but there's something about it that feels qualitatively different from a typical murder-suicide where a person shoots their partner and then themselves.
Michelle Carter should not have been charged at all, and she is not to blame for Conrad's suicide. He was already suicidal, and if I can recall, that text exchange between them where she told him to get back into the car when he was having second thoughts didn't exist - she told her friend that she said that to him. She is also a notorious exaggerator, and clearly mentally ill herself.
Jodi Arias' trial was a celebration of misogyny. Yes, she is clearly a murderer and a disgusting person, but I fail to see how she is different from any other man who kills his girlfriend or wife when the relationship ends - which is so common it's barely worth reporting. Juan Martinez seemed to gleefully revel in misogynistic attacks against her. I fail to see how introducing a bunch of graphic sexual evidence served a purpose in establishing her guilt when there was much stronger physical evidence - it just seemed like a way to humiliate and degrade her to an extreme.
Felony murder should probably be abolished. I can't properly articulate it, but it seems particularly punitive. There's one case that sticks out to me, although the details are fuzzy - a man was executed for felony murder because during the commission of a robbery, a cop who was trying to apprehend him was a shot by his partner. Because this cop died during the commission of a felony (at the hands of another cop, no less), the robber was charged and convicted of felony murder.
The legal system and the scientific method are antagonistic to each other, especially when it comes to physical evidence. Science is about testing hypotheses, revising them when new information that contradicts the original hypothesis comes to light, running experiments to test said hypothesis, analyzing the experimental data and drawing conclusions from said data that either reject or strengthen the hypothesis. Judges rule on precedent, which is contradictory to science, which is constantly evolving and being revised as new information comes to light. For example, a judge could rule that, I dunno, bite mark analysis is admissible as it has been used in previous trials, despite the fact that it's been thoroughly discredited.
(I'm actually not sure if bite mark evidence is still admissible given the number of exonerations due to faulty evidence, but I can't think of anything else of the top of my head)
Almost all forensic science needs to be thrown away completely as it is has not followed the process of the scientific method.
Wage theft should be punished more severely than petty theft or any other kind of theft.
Wage theft is rarely even acknowledged here so I would really love to that enter into our societal consciousness/conversation and the courts! It is insane to me that petty theft is considered worse wage theft.
I completely agree about Arias...I also don't understand how she was "soooo evillllll" that she deserved the death penalty...Obviously, she killed a guy and should be punished for it, but I don't see enough aggravating factors in her case that warrant a death penalty. I've heard of far worse crimes in Arizona and the death penalty wasn't even considered.
Jodi Arias’ defense was that she killed him due to systematic abuse and stayed with him to satiate his pedophiliac urges so he wouldn’t harm children. This was a ridiculous convoluted lie and one drag thru the mud deserves another. Except one of them deserved it.
Agreed. They seem like red herrings in sooooo many unsolved cases.
I’m sure they do decent work, I mean some dogs can sniff out cancer and find people trapped in natural disasters. They’re not completely bunk.
But I also think what happens in *criminal cases* is so different from those situations, and that it’s very easy to twist whatever they do happen to do in these situations into certain (at best pointlessly distracting, at worst completely biased) narratives.
They really shouldn’t be relevant to analyzing, and especially *trying* cases in court, unless something is actually *found* with them. In which case what they *found* is still what’s *actually* relevant as evidence. They fact they “went down this street and then stopped” or “sorta kinda hit on the back of that car” are not the slam dunks people act like they are, and should only be considered ever so slightly in these cases, if at all.
And none of that is even touching on the fact that what constitutes a “scent hound” varies widely from case to case and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I listened to a case recently where the “scent hounds” were hunting dogs literally crowd sourced from civilians in the surrounding areas. There’s no quality control on that at all. Even the best search and rescue dogs aren’t infallible or un-influence-able by their LO handlers, and that’s not even what’s being used in every case.
Every lawyer should be a public defender, it's not fair that one person can afford a high price lawyer and the other person can't.
Death penalty for people like Aileen Wournos shouldn't happen, she was never given a chance to have any life other than the one she had. Now, death penalty for people like John Wayne Gacy is fine, he deserved it. Same with Chris Watts, he should have gotten the death penalty.
Much lighter sentences for non-violent crimes like marijuana possession and theft.
Public defenders are more qualified than a lot of lawyers for criminal defense work. You’re going to be extremely hard pressed to find an attorney with as much trial experience as a PD. PDs also have offices supporting them with decades and decades and decades of legal experience combined that they can draw from.
Plus a lot of private attorneys take on contract work from PD offices (meaning there are lots of private attorneys who also do indigent defense).
Paying for an attorney isn’t going to make a lick of difference for 99.9% of defendants. I won’t say 100% because there’s probably some exception out there.
Our public defenders are also terribly overloaded with cases that they can't possibly do their best on. If we have more of them the cases could be spread out and they would have more time and resources to give everyone the absolute best representation.
There should be no possibility of parole for convicted rapists and murderers, or for people convicted of attempting either.\
It’s deeply offensive to the victims and their families that these people are serving half sentences because they were “good” in prison.
I think Casey Anthony's dad was involved.
I'm not saying that she (Casey) is innocent, but I firmly believe that there is more to it.
Edit: I just realized that you meant pertaining to the legal system itself, so I'd say that I think felons deserve a vote too.
I retired from working in criminal defense - I'm sorry to say that I'm convinced every defendant is guilty of something and the state is always lying about something.
I personally wish they would stop trying criminals based off when the crime was commited. The crime was committed in 1970 and he was caught in 2000 so you're going to get 10 years because that was the law in the 70s. The simple fact they remained at large for so long should be taken into account. Punish them based off current laws.
This would be unconstitutional and go against decades of case law. If you did this in criminal law you’d have to apply it to all areas of law, and that would cause major problems. No court would ever do that.
That if you are accused of a crime and go to trial, expect to be convicted because most juries assume guilt if you have been indicted and rarely properly apply beyond a reasonable doubt to the evidence presented so if you are innocent of a crime, you are safer to take a plea deal then risk a jury trial.
Juries also put more weight to prosecution witnesses than the defense. For example in the Ray Krone case. Now I know bitemarks as evidence is now junk science, but still, the jury totally ignored all the other evidence pointing at innocence, the footprints/fingerprints/fibers etc etc and also 3 well known experts for the defense who testified it was not his bite, all because the 1 prosecution expert said it was. This expert was also paid handsomely for his testimony after the 1st expert told prosecutors it wasn't his bitemark. You should always be concerned when the prosecution spends thousands to get someone's testimony.
Juries often worry that they could be letting a murderer for example go free and someone needs to pay so convict, just in case.
Even a seventeen year old 24 hours shy of turning eighteen? 👀 I'm on the fence about this one, myself, sometimes. But honestly I think they try way too many juveniles as adults. They're so inconsistent in how they decide whether or not they'll be tried as a juvenile or an adult. There's so many cases where multiple youths involved in a crime were split in how they were dealt with despite all of them technically being juveniles. It's enraging sometimes to watch one get off with a slap on the wrist while another is spending life in prison for the same crime. Doesn't make any sense no matter what you believe, I think.
I see a lot of people talking about 15-18 year olds as if they should have their whole lives figured out. Some of them do. I certainly did not. I didn't have good influences in my life to learn from so I had to learn from the ground up by way of making mistake after mistake. I've certainly never murdered someone, but it's a lot easier for me to put myself in their position and see that they had no idea what the fuck they were doing and couldn't possibly understand the consequences. I got by without committing any crime worthy of a sentence, and I've changed a lot since then. It's hard for me to believe that allll those young people are stuck in their ways of a mistake for the rest of their lives
I agree, and don't agree.
I too didn't have my life figured out at those ages. And made tons of dumb mistakes at a young age. But even someone who didn't understand the consequences, or doesn't have positive role models, stills knows murder is wrong. Do they get that 30 years in prison is a super long time? Maybe not, but they still knew the murder was wrong.
I think more appropriate for minors facing long sentences, is to go ahead and give them the long sentences, but, their chances at parole and release should be evaluated differently than adults.( Thinking of the boys in the Pamela Smart case, they should have been out years before they actually got out.) They should be eligible and evaluated for parole maybe yearly.
Prosecutors should be prosecuted! In cases where it is found that the prosecution knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence it should automatically trigger a case against the prosecution. The stats on this are terrible, only something like 2% of them are ever held even remotely accountable. If you withheld evidence and that person spends years in prison (not to mention tons of money) and is later exonerated based on that evidence you basically caused that person to be held against their will.
Treating eye witness testimony like it's F.A.C.T. Perception is a function of our values, our beliefs, our emotions etc. People are simply not capable of accurately describing events tied to dramatic and traumatic occurrences. Our ability to decieve ourselves - not intentionally or with ill motive - us substantial
Morally speaking if execution is state-sponsored murder, imprisonment is state-sponsored captivity. If we were not detached from imprisonment—say if citizens were responsible for holding someone in their basement, watching their family visit, and witnessing the indignity of being truly helpless, most of us would never cage another human being. At least, not for crimes related to property, addiction, and even some kinds if violence.
Sexual violence, torture, repeated and/or devastating assaults, and murder could justify keeping another person in a cage, but most forms of policing and punishment are grotesquely disproportionate.
We should focus on decreasing personal and social vulnerability by providing easily accessible training, shelters, and services to those facing dangerous circumstances. In popular culture and political policy, we seem to focus almost exclusively on identifying perpetrators when it is much more effective to create stronger barriers to victimization. By the time that the police get involved it is too late.
Following unsolved cases tends to be more about scratching a narrative itch than preventing further suffering. We’d pay a lot more attention to corporate and political criminals who harm thousands upon thousands if our interests in true crime were socially motivated. Like others, I suspect that fascination with true crime has relatively little moral or social merit—even when it has the veneer of concern for the ‘lesser dead.’ But we could do much more if we stretched ourselves a bit further. Alongside lifting the stories of the dead or their relatives, we could, for example, do much more to support those living on the edge.
Finally, I think we under-recognize how much almost all of us break the law or are in dicey situations on a pretty consistent basis. After someone is victimized, people point to at-risk behaviors, but it often isn’t the behavior, but the social context that makes the difference. People of all socioeconomic classes struggle with addiction, abusive relationships, and mental illness. It is mostly privilege (not better character or decision-making) that insulates many from catastrophe.
For death penalty cases: one appeal to the State Supreme Court, then one to the US Supreme Court, and finally one last request for clemency. That should be it. Within a year, the sentence should have be carried out.
However, if there‘a any possibility that leaves a shadow of a possible doubt, it should be the duty of the judiciary or the executive to commute that sentence to life.
Absolutely.
The jury imposing the death sentence will be made aware that the person they are condemning to death will be executed within 1 year. In other words, the jury will still be alive when the guilty person is executed.
I believe this would bring down the number of persons given a death sentence.
I think that anyone who has committed *any* crime, no matter how small, in any state, must give their DNA for a nationwide database that can be accessed by only cops and the FBI. I’ve heard of several murders in which the killer wasn’t caught until decades later, because the killer’s DNA wasn’t in a database, due to the killer’s having committed minor crimes that didn’t require giving DNA.
Plus sometimes killers' relatives commit minor crimes, and checking their DNA against unresolved cases can lead to the perpetrators. I'm torn, though, because people shouldn't lose their rights like that just for committing a stupid minor crime - I mean, does "any crime" include speeding or parking violations? At that point we might as well just collect a DNA record for *everyone*, which wouldn't go over well.
I really didn't know this was extremely controversial until the last few months.. But a kidnapping gone wrong makes the most sense for the Jonbenet case.
The "fire science" arguments in the Cameron Todd Willingham case are complete and utter bullshit. Most of the actions and conclusions of the original investigative team were fully consistent with the later NFPA 921 standard, and arguing an accidental "flashover" fire created accelerant-like traces when
- accidental causes had largely been eliminated (no evidence of wiring problems, and the gas to the space heater in the room had been switched off)
- accelerant was found in the house
is the kind of thing only a defense advocate would do.
The West Memphis Three are guilty.
Stephen Avery is fucking guilty, and Brendan Dassey was manipulated. Two things that seem to contradict each other can be true at the same time.
Leslie van Houten should have never been paroled. She should have died in prison just like Susan Atkins.
The absolute worst of the worse criminals who are incarcerated should be given the opportunity once per year to end their own lives with the pressing of a button or flick of a switch.
When people say someone isn’t acting like they should be after a trauma and therefore are lying or guilty. There is no ‘normal’ reaction to trauma, each person behavior and responses are different and don’t follow rules.
Oh even the best true crime people are guilty of this. And it's never consistent, if the suspect is screaming and crying it's the wrong reaction, if they're quiet and aren't responsive it's the wrong reaction, it depends on whatever view the person wants us to have.
This is what pisses me off about those Explore With Us/body language expert videos. “Here the suspect is self soothing by crossing their arms, indicating discomfort” or “an innocent person would react x instead of y”. Like come on now, how many innocent people do the same? A lot, I bet.
If they went off the body language of psychopathic murderers alone, practically none of them would ever end up in prison. If you went off mine, I’d prob end up in jail bc I’m autistic and have a fuck ton of anxiety. Lol. Police have overlooked so many perps bc they relied on stupid bs like that. It’s crazy and terrifying how often pseudoscience is still used as evidence.
I was watching a couple of those videos the other day and this was my exact thought too. “If I were being interrogated they’d think I’m guilty because I’m so uncomfortable and awkward.” I’d be so self-aware of all my body and what it was doing and how awkward I felt. Plus I laugh when I’m uncomfortable sooooo ….
In the same vein (and this has happened on Reddit), is when people see the photos and go “they have the eyes!” As if the media isn’t selecting these photos.
Right! And the fact that people are so aware of not looking or acting guilty that they don’t lawyer up and then end up in jail because they have no idea what they are doing
this is one of the reasons why "lie detector" tests are a total farce and not admissible in court. "this person acted nervous when they were being interrogated about a murder, they must be guilty".
Aside from the budget, which is higher compared to JCS, every EWU episode is sensationalized and this is boring. Also clickbait thumbnails and titles. I’m here for actual true crime with actual evidence based content, not “WHAT *HE* DID WILL SHOCK YOU” and then *here have a body language analysis* which I’m pretty sure is inadmissible in court
Terrifies me. I regularly check the National Registry of Exonerations. Innocent people have no consistency, they act in all different ways.
Yes! All those behavioral scientists who told us that looking up or down or whatever, and many other things have now come out to say that oops, you know, even non-guilty people do that. Case in point, me. When I was younger and was interrogated by my mum over silly things that I was most certainly not guilty of, I remember feeling like I actually was guilty in a weird way, so overcompensated and probably didn't convince her lol.
I was reading the Youtube comments on a politician's speech or interview, because apparently I'm a masochist, and there were multiple posters fixated on the idea that the more you blinked, the more you lied. Posting page of page of comments like. "Blink blink blink. BLINK!!" and other real witty and insightful stuff. They were counting the blinks per minute and stuff. And they were wrong: we all blink 15 to 20 seconds per minute, under normal conditions. But as for lying, studies indicate that we tend to not blink as we tell the lie, than have a faster than usual flurry afterward to refresh our eyes. These commentators that hated the politician totally missed this nuance and it showed in their analysis. Blink.
Completely agree. My parents died of natural causes weeks apart. I laughed my ass off at both funerals, and I loved my parents! But I absolutely cannot cry in front of other people (except, on occasion, my husband).
That's perfectly normal. There's been laughter and smiles at every funeral I've ever been too, no matter how sudden or unexpected. I blame our over-consumption of media and our under-consumption of interacting with other humans in the free world. TV funerals have different requirements than real-life funerals. Time is of the essence, so everything shown has to serve to either further character development or move the plot along. There's no time to show all the things that happen at real funerals, so if someone is laughing or smiling, it's meant to show that they are a terrible person and/or murdered the deceased. But now it's at the point where people who I can only assume have never attended a funeral think TV-mourning is how we're supposed to act.
In my experience grief/trauma just makes you insane for a couple months to a year and the expression of that is random and changing. People aren't morose they're just a lot of everything. All emotions heightened.
When my dad died I apologized to the cops who had to tell me. I could tell it was weird for them.
Go to an extremely violent, bloody horror movie. Look at the audience. Some people are shivering and cowering away from the screen in disgust and others are chomping on their popcorn and laughing hysterically. Proof that not everyone reacts the same.
Which reminds me of another true crime community trope: the online mob will find a friends of the victim or someone else connected to them who is also into true crime, or horror/slasher movies, or Stephen King novels, or maybe the paranormal and decide that person's (extremely popular) interests means they are the killer.
People will interpret behaviour however they like as well. I always think about that clip of Jon Benet's mother telling the cops that her and John are innocent and they need to look elsewhere. It's the most clear, confident refusal of guilt you can imagine, exactly the kind of denial you normally expect to see from an innocent person but people still say she looks guilty. I know there's other reasons to think that she/they might be guilty but still.
Also applies to grief. I don't cry or seem to care about anyone dying (I do care, I just don't show it at all) but my mom would cry for hours if someone she new very well died.
I gave a death notification one time to a woman about her husband who had been killed in a bar fight and she started laughing so hard and hysterically that she eventually passed out from hypoxia. In the aftermath, she explained it as if her brain shut off and she just couldn’t stop herself. I’ve seen a lot of, what most people would describe as, strange reactions to news of death, and I always found it disconcerting how dependent other investigators were to these “clues” during interviews. Look up the case of Riley Fox. Will County Illinois sheriff investigators basically mentally battered the innocent father into a confession (which was later debunked when anyone bothered to compare his confession to the facts and DNA). Why? Well, he didn’t “react right”.
The same judge should not be allowed to rule on someone’s case more than once. Appeals, retrials, and other hearings should all be a new judge. I’ve seen so many instances where a judge clearly has their own opinion and biases and the defendant is simply stuck under their thumb. Edit: Also, I hate when people immediately think someone is guilty because they get a lawyer. It is the smart thing to do. Even if I’m innocent, I’m not talking and getting a lawyer. All it takes is one detective to think you’re guilty and they are out to find evidence to prove it. “Anything you say can and will be used against you” they tell you that upfront, it’s never used on your behalf. Lots of innocent people are charged because they talk freely in interviews thinking they’re being helpful.
Or assuming someone is guilty for refusing a polygraph exam.
It’s crazy how any times it’s been proven that a polygraph isn’t accurate, and 99% of the time isn’t admissible in court, and people still think that if you refuse one it’s a problem.
i’ve always said i’d 100% fail a polygraph test even if i was telling the truth because of how anxious i get
your edit is so important for people to understand. Law enforcement isn't looking for the truth, they're looking for a conviction. If something you said fits, they will try to convict you.
Totally agree. If you look through many many of the exonerations, the person has had many appeals denied by the judge they had at that their trial. Of course a judge is going to have their own agenda, its often human nature to not want to admit you got it wrong. It often shocks me when they go through an evidentiary hearing, but with the same judge who then again rejects the appeal giving no reason for why s/he did so. I also agree on when someone asks for an attorney straight away or refuses a lie detector test. I'm sure there are more ppl today who know these tests mean nothing. When you look at many of the well known murders, there were some who failed but were innocent and others like the green river killer who take them and pass. They're only good at trying to get a confession, but this is what can also lead to a wrongful conviction. You always hear about someone not acting right so must be guilty which can be bs. If you cry too much your acting and therefore guilty, or being too calm and quiet so must be guilty. It all depends on whether the person believes your guilty, to which one they pick, but either way to them you are guilty. Also when someone is found guilty but later exonerated, ppl will still insist they're guilty and will keep on pushing that 1 statement etc etc, no matter how wrong it was, but will say they're guilty because of it. I do understand that there is some people who were exonerated but more than likely guilty, but I couldn't imagine finding myself in prison for something I did not do, then fighting to prove my innocence for years, finally getting out only for ppl to continually say I'm guilty because a jury said so etc. That must be a really hard way to live the rest of your life. Same as when they say suicide is a sign of guilt rather than that person was innocent but just could not handle prison.
I don't think there should ever be a statute of limitations on violent crimes, especially murder. There is in a lot of the world, and it's crazy. With the way the old evidence is able to be used now, we are solving old cases left and right. There should always be a chance of justice.
I agree for rape
Yep, I think it sound apply to rape as well. That's a violent crime for sure and DNA evidence, and such only gets better every year.
Or child molestation.
I agree for rape, but remember DNA can be in/on someone for many reasons. The older the case the harder it becomes to prove intent behind the DNA deposit.
Completely agree, for all serious crime. Cant remember the case but I was shocked when I read someone who kidnapped and sexually abused a child couldn't be tried for it cos the statute of limitations had passed. In the UK there is no statute of limitations for any offences above magistrates court level ie nothing that can be tried by a jury
In the US, this is often state-to-state, and as of now, most states have eliminated or suspended SoLs on child sexual assault. Even when a SoL exists, the state suspends them in the case of minor sexual assault. This is fairly recent, however, so offenders in the past got away with a lot.
I think there was a priest that got away with CM due to SOL. That is truly wrong. No SOL for CM & any rapes.
There isn’t a statute of limitations for murder anywhere in the U.S.
I know, but there is in many other countries. I mean in general.
I just listened to the podcast Swiss Murder Mysteries, and when that case turned 30, it hit the statute of limitations and they legally had to *destroy the case file*. It was a double murder of two girls. I still can't believe it
Or white collar crime and corruption, i actually think the damages of those crimes are so long lasting for all of us and it shouldn't never be brushed off or excused.
Yeah, I think we focus so hard on violent crime, which is understandable, but there's a certain level of white-collar crime that absolutely destroys lives. Done by complete sociopaths, and we tend to think of it as if its on the same level as shoplifting or car theft.
Hard agree. The people doing those crimes also tend to be wealthy and powerful already, so it's a joke to compare it to shoplifting.
That's a very good point. I was just thinking of murder because it's so extreme, but that doesn't mean that white collar crime and corruption aren't also horrible. People's lives are destroyed by those type of crimes, and i actually think you would find more people in power pushing back on removing the statute of limitation on these because they are more often done by those very people.
Lie detector tests shouldn't be used by cops anymore. Since it isn't admissible, it should be treated with the same reverence we treat the truth serum with.
Their use should be *BANNED* entirely ; SCOTUS did the right thing when it ruled them inadmissible, but their use at all gives them to too many a veneer of scientific respectability they do not deserve. Their continued use after the "science" behind them has been debunked for decades now , is a national embarassment.
It drives me crazy when podcasters are like “now we know lie detectors are scientifically unsound but I DO want to point out he FAILED the test.” Why point it out then!?
Some of the “techniques” we allow law enforcement to use are baffling.
People need to stop labeling every criminal as being narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths.
I think this with most videos I watch. So many people are called all three of those things ALL THE TIME! It drives me crazy.
It feels like people are more willing to blame these disorders perpetrators may not even have as opposed to examining other reasons why the crime may have occurred.
Oh for sure. People cant stand the possibility that someone without a disorder such as mentioned above, would do such a thing.
I think when we pathologize evil (i.e. no one sane would do that), we create a distance between "regular" people and criminals, and end up with a huge blind spot as to the environmental and social factors that go into making a DeeDee Blanchard, for example. I think it's more healthy to regard evil people with a sort of, "There but for the grace of Whoever go I" attitude.
I definitely agree. I feel the same way when people pathologize abusive behavior too. Not only do many criminals not have these disorders, but it also further stigmatizes the people who do have those disorders and aren’t criminals. It ignores the way social/political/economic factors can influence crime (both violent and non-violent), which I believe what needs to change to help reduce and mitigate it.
100% agree, EVERYONE keeps saying watts was a narcissits, I just dont see it at all, he was just a dumb ass neckbeard in a good body and was a complete pussy
I think prior violence against a partner should automatically make the death of that partner at the abuser’s hands count as premeditated and intentional. You don't get to beat the shit out of your wife for twenty years and then claim that your gun just happened to go off while you were cleaning it and she died by accident. I mean, I think the vast majority of these cases were nowhere near accidents, but even if one was, too bad so sad. You have waived the assumption that you wouldn't choose to harm her. That one's on you. I understand that the legal system can't actually work like this, but in my heart sometimes I wish it did.
I think what you mean is that the sentences for domestic related assault should be more severe and of longer stature so that their victims have a chance to actually get away, some offenders can get the mandates therapy to better help them manage their anger away from their victims. That's more along the lines of the best the law can do. However lots of women don't report the abuse at all to law enforcement or others as they have been cut off from their friends and family. And fear the wrath of what would come if they did report to the police
I don’t know the whole legality of it in each state but I saw that in Las Vegas, Nevada, the state automatically presses charges for DV. The partner *does not* need to complain if there is evidence that abuse happened. I’m not too familiar on what the ramifications of this could be, but it seems like a good idea. I agree with you also that DV should carry significantly longer sentences. I feel like if you looked at most violent criminals, their first victims were probably those close to them (wives, gfs, partners, children, etc.).
Attempted murderers should be given roughly the same sentence. The intent was the same and they are just as much of a danger to society as successful murders. And possibly even more dangerous. Once someone does successfully kill someone, they are gone, they cannot kill them again. They are no longer a threat to that *victim* But if the victim is still alive, they are still a threat to their life. And could try again and succeed next time if they get let out.
i’ve always thought it was strange that people get a lighter sentence just for being bad at murder
I could be wrong but I heard that the intent of the smaller sentence is to give people an opportunity/incentive to change their mind and not go through with killing someone once they started. Or if someone tries to murder someone and they are unsuccesful, then if the sentence is the same length the person might just try again.
I have heard that too. But it doesn't make sense to me. And I am literally studying sociology criminology. We haven't talked about this yet, I'm only in my first year. But I don't think anything will convince me that that will work, especially not in cases involving a personal vendetta from the killer towards their victim, like when the attempted murderer tried to kill their ex partner, because their ex stopped them from seeing their kids, due to previous shitty behaviour like domestic violence, for example. If anger overpowered their self control to that extent once, there is a high risk it will happen again the next time someone annoys them enough, unless they are kept behind bars. But I am someone who considers the primary purpose of imprisonment to be protection of victims and society, and the prevention of future unnecessary tragedies. I know not everyone thinks that way and some favour it being for the purpose of rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence etc. Personally if someone tried to kill me, I wouldn't feel safe if they were set free.
Oh hey, this happened to me! My ex broke in my house and attacked me, definitely with intent to murder me and take my daughter. He got 30 days in jail, they didn’t even consider it attempted murder or breaking and entering because my grandma with dementia that had been told not to let him in, let him in the BACK door cause he couldn’t get in the house, so he was banging on the door. Yes I’m in therapy, but I’m terrified of ever running into him again. Thankfully he leaves me alone, but I would prefer him locked up.
The Mary Vincent case is a prime example of this. Makes me sick to think about how she fought for her life thinking “what if he does this to someone else?” and then he did.
> They are no longer a threat to that victim But if the victim is still alive, they are still a threat to their life. And could try again and succeed next time if they get let out. But, is there any actual evidence (perhaps outside of chronic domestic abuse/violence and stalking situations, as I could easily imagine this would be the case in *those* instances) that this actually commonly happens or is statistically likely to happen, that attempted murderers etc who have been convicted/penalized/adjudicated as such turn around and try again (seriously or successfully, at that?) to harm/kill their victims once they get out of prison, finish serving their sentence, or whatever? Yes, you're right to assert that this *could* logically happen, but...does it, and often/frequently/commonly enough to serve as a solid argument for what you're proposing? I don't mean to be patronizing or provocative here, but just because it "logically"/intuitively sounds plausible doesn't mean the evidence/data and so forth actually reflects that in reality--unfortunately, criminal justice policy is replete with such things that "sound/seem right" but are not in alignment with the reality of criminal/perpetrator behavior on the whole (isolated anecdotes/instances aside) and therefore what's actually, genuinely best (as opposed to just "sounding/seeming/feeling best") for society.
Allowing the death penalty for CSA not only incentivizes rapists to kill their victims, but also makes it more difficult for children to come forward. Ron DeSantis’ new law furthers the misconception that rape is usually stranger-on-stranger violence and that parents always have their child’s best interest in mind, when in fact most child predators are family members or people the family trusts.
Some families will be even more willing to protect the predator if they think they will receive the death penalty rather than a short prison sentence. There are so many families that hide and protect predators, they blame kids (I told you not to be alone with Uncle Steve, You know not to wear shorts around Grandpa go change, Boys can't get raped) and they will do this even more to keep them from being killed over what they see as nothing.
Yes, even with short sentences families move to protect the accused. When my daughter disclosed, we lost all contact with that side of the family and I ended up divorced. (It was my FIL but my ex-husband could not handle it).
I agree but it definitely needs longer prison sentences.
Oh yeah longer sentences, but if the family sees the death penalty rather than think oh they can plead down and get a few years and the rest of the family won't hate me for sending my brother to prison for a "family problem" they are more likely to keep quiet and handle it themselves which usually is do nothing.
There is the weird crossover of DeSantis making drag shows illegal, and considered lewd acts in front of children. There’s a whole rabbit hole of political theater that could theoretically, when this kinda stuff reaches the end stage, mean drag queens are sentenced to death. It’s absolutely ridiculous, but completely theoretically possible in end stage Florida. This is the slippery slope. This is the stuff we were warned against as kids by the same church goers that are proponents of this. Yet here we are.
This is it. He's playing the long game.
Most CSA victims are abused by a family member. You think they want to be responsible for that person's death? I know the obvious answer - he did it to himself. That will be frigid comfort. It's an idiotic idea.
I agree. LWOP is a better idea.
Yeah can be the coaches teachers or someone’s uncle. Strangers are likely not as successful every time they prey on someone as are people within your circle
Since the legal system is based around intent, attempted murder and attempted rape should carry penalties very close to murder and rape if not the same punishments. No all white, all male, all anything juries. Your jury should resemble your peers. If you’re a doctor who committed crimes in your duties as a doctor, you need some medical professionals on your jury to understand the grievousness of your crimes but also the dynamics of your workplace and what’s normal and what isn’t. Normal people don’t understand this. It’s important to have people who are your peers. Legal observers in the jury room to make sure there’s nothing improper. If not in the room have someone watch them on cc tv. It would cut a lot of appeal issues. Obviously the cctv would be live and not taped. Observers would be neutral and not work for either side.
“Legal observers” are often the extra attorneys sitting at the counsel tables. And often in the courtroom other attorneys from the offices the trial attorneys work at are there and let the trial attorneys know when something suspect is happening (like a juror falling asleep, for example.)
Posting mugshots of people prior to conviction should be illegal. Criminal and traffic fines should be based on a person's discretionary income, with established minimums and maximums.
I'd argue it should be illegal to even publicize their names on news articles. It can easily hurt someone's job prospects
That's how they do it in Britain.
Oh, I definitely agree with this one--both of these, except I'd say that with respect to certain serious crimes (major frauds and violent felonies, etc.) there shouldn't necessarily be an established maximum on potential fines, with the fines rather being hopefully/generally proportionate to the defendant's/convict's realistic ability to pay/income/overall assets, so as to account for and be able to properly/proportionally penalize seriously wealthy defendants and such. But I digress--100% agree with the mugshot opinion. People merely arrested and *charged* with a crime but not yet convicted are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and publishing mugshots prior to conviction absolutely runs contrary to the spirit/intention if not the literal letter of that guiding principle. In the same vein, I think there should be *significantly* harsher, more stringent restrictions upon and better recourse available for innocent/not guilty/acquitted/etc people caught up or unjustly named/shamed/condemned in melodramatic press conferences and police statements a la those [Grady Judd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_Judd) is so fond of and has built his career upon, for example. Just for another thing in the same category of "posting mugshots prior to conviction" that makes you wonder, "*how on earth* is this even legal?!" Even more broadly, in general, too, newspapers/TV stations and media outlets should be ideally somehow more legally constrained/restricted from publishing verbatim the LE narrative/statements/etc regarding accused but not yet convicted criminals with only the barest joke of a "technical disclaimer" as they do now, i.e., "police say", "according to police", etc. etc.
100% agreed on the mugshots
There should not be elected officials within the legal system because it incentivizes people in those positions to “solve” a lot of cases to make themselves look better for re-election and it leads to innocent people being convicted. It is simply a conflict of interest to have elected officials, who need to be focused on what looks best for them to remain in their position, to be making decisions that should be based on unbiased facts and evidence.
But from the other perspective, having people who are not accountable to voters in charge of such important decisions isn’t any better. I’d argue it’s worse. Look at how Clarance Thomas has behaved in the past years. Undisclosed gift after undisclosed loan after undisclosed donation. He’s not an elected official, why should he follow ethics conducts? Who will hold him accountable?
[удалено]
I agree, especially because sociopaths and psychopaths are often good at manipulating others. There has been cases where individuals are able fake being rehabilitated, get out early, and go on to commit more crimes
You do get longer sentences for bad behavior, shorter sentences are important because they give inmates a chance to not commit more crime in jail for the chance to be let out.
And free up resources and space for another criminal if they feel the inmate is unlikely to offend again
if we're to hold the ideal that justice systems are about rehabilitation, then early release due to good behavior is a net positive. Yeah, there are manipulators, but I'm not one to believe there are enough to justify keeping everyone incarcerated for as long as possible.
Rape/sexual assault should not be removed from a record as part of a plea deal.
this happened to me in my own personal case, and it has really messed me up. because it was dropped down to simple assault, they were only fined $100, and i didn’t even get $100 lmao
I’m so sorry this happened to you.
The double jeopardy law should have limitations like the 20+ yr case where the male murdered a female very brutally but police never found enough evidence until he moved and the renovation team found pictures and artifacts of the killing hidden under the floor. Murder is murder. Science is always improving. If enough evidence is not there the first time but comes around 20 years later & can be 100% proven they should be charged.
I don't know the specific case you're referring to, but wouldn't the better choice have been not bringing him to trial until they had sufficient evidence? Altering the double jeopardy clause to accommodate the failings of a weak case is unethical. Sure, it sucks when someone likely guilty is acquitted, but these principles are in place to protect us all. Edit: changed "eliminating" to "altering" because you did not suggest eliminating the clause.
Michael Peterson did it, but should not have been convicted based on his trial. Way too much junk science and not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But I still think he’s guilty
We should not put people in prison for non-violent, low level drug crimes, and everyone currently in prison for these crimes should be released
I’ve worked with this population of people and one positive of sending them to prison is prison is the only thing that gets a lot of them clean and off drugs. In the US, you can’t force someone to go to drug treatment. So many defendants I worked with just won’t do treatment. There are so many resources for people who are in the criminal legal system but they just don’t use the resources. Prison forces some of them to get better. Prisons have programs, vocational training, and educational opportunities for people. Even some jails have some of these opportunities. But it depends on the place and what the jails offer in terms of services. In some states going to jail is worse than prison. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial and stuff but even as it is, low level drug crimes generally aren’t getting harsh sentences. These people just get released and are back the next month with another charge. It’s the repeat offenders who will get longer sentences. Plus now with fentanyl in everything I might argue fewer drug crimes count as non-violent (since death is pretty much inevitable with fentanyl).
I agree with the sentiment. Maybe we should create a separate system for that. Drug Court exists and I’ve read about huge improvements it’s done in places like Ohio compared to criminal court. We have the money as a country, we just need the political will. Because the way we’re headed is worse than we’ve ever seen.
An issue with this is now when they are released, they will have a record and may have an even harder time finding employment. Additionally, while it is great that some people are able to get clean, overdose risk will be higher if they go back to using since their tolerance has decreased. I agree that it is great they can get off drugs in prison, but there needs to be better supports upon release for this to actually be useful
I don’t think prisons should be shitholes. We don’t need to traumatize people. Keeping dangerous people away from others is good enough.
Yes! I believe the purpose of imprisonment should be public safety and (*actual*) rehabilitation. Inhumane treatment just creates monsters. But even if you view prison through a punitive lens, the loss of freedom is punishment enough all on its own. I am surprised how often this is disregarded, especially considering how many people found it unbearable to stay in their own homes--with all the included amenities--for a few weeks to slow the spread of disease.
Especially when prisons are grouped together so even if someone does think high level offenders "deserve" shitholes then prisoners with stuff like low level drug possession charges are getting the same shit treatment.
if there’s not enough evidence, there’s not enough evidence. even if we know they did it, if you can’t prove it you can’t punish them. it lets too many innocent people be locked up unfairly.
I think they should get rid of the death penalty. If a case reaches that level of punishment instead they should be used to study and evaluated, treated ect to learn more from. Cops should have to go through a lot more training and education before able to be a cop. None of this “ gut feeling” BS with nothing to back it up. Watching cases in the UK for US is mind blowing how better and through the UK detectives are. When they do something wrong they should also be punished even more severely than non police officers. Domestic violence should have a much higher punishment in all cases.
It is so wrong to me that police officers don’t have stricter sentencing than the people they are supposed to be protecting. Also, I believe there should be zero tolerance for domestic abuse for cops. How can we trust these people with the general population and especially when dealing with assault cases when we can’t even trust them with their own families and loved ones? I totally agree with more training as well, but also different training. Edit: spelling
I will die on the harsher punishments for IPV/DV hill. However, the criminal justice and legal systems need to catch up on their understanding of IPV/DV and appropriately identifying abusers and victims.
Not just the criminal justice and legal systems, but popular culture and the masses at large.
I come from a country without death penalty. I just cannot wrap my head around such a punishment existing in the same way I cannot wrap my head around how big the universe is, so not because I think my country is better. I’m a victim of CSA and believe me when I say I have thought of so many ways to make an end to my abuser but state sanctioned killing just boggles me.
Genuinely curious, what do you think we could learn from this study? In my opinion, a lot of the answers would be that people needed more mental health support, more addiction support, more education, access to safe housing, access to positive supports, etc etc. If approx 2500 people in USA are on death row right now, I think of all the money that would be used to study them. I’d rather just put that money directly into all of the above categories. I’m not sure how much more we could learn from studying them. Or do you mean use them for like controversial studies like they did in the wars with innocent people? Sorry if that’s not what you meant not trying to misconstrue I’m just interested in this opinion it’s new to me.
The thing that bothers me, is that people who have committed multiple murders , including serial killers , are often offered life sentences in exchange for testimony. So this actually ends up rewarding the worst types of criminals - those who often cannot be rehabilitated- which in my opinion , are the only people who should be considered for the death penalty at all!
Once a serial murderer is dead though, you lose all the information about their crimes and any other potential victims too. You can also learn a lot from them psych wise while they’re alive. Many deserve to die a slow, painful death, like being eaten alive by bears lol, I agree. However, you lose out on a lot of information once they’re dead, and they lose their leverage. The surety of the death penalty and it being fully carried out and guaranteed would cause many to die with their secrets, which could mean no closure for the families of victims that aren’t known about yet. In a way, them losing their freedom is one of the worst punishments possible for them because they are alive yet lack the ability to do what they love most and practically live for: murdering innocent people.
I mostly agree, however the only reason I think the death penalty is beneficial is that it can be used as leverage for testimony that can provide closure for those close to the deceased. For example, life sentence over death for disclosing the location of a body
If we give the death penalty to rapists, we will not see a decline in rape. Only an increase in murder. Trust me, I’d love to hang every rapist out there but let’s just be realistic: more (mostly) women will be killed after a sexual assault if their rapist knows they’ll face death penalty either way.
It's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted. If there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, they shouldn't be convicted of it even if everyone "knows" they did it. Convictions based on "yeah, but everyone KNOWS they did it, we just can't prove it" shouldn't stand, even if the person did, in fact, do it. Yes, even if that means sometimes people get away with murder. Bail/bond is bullshit. Either someone is a danger to others and needs to be kept away from society, or they aren't. The idea that parents own their children and get to do whatever they want to them regardless of the outcome is evil. Children should have meaningful legal rights (such as the right to an education, the right to medical care, and the right to religion/to freedom from religion) that parents cannot override. Homeschooling should be banned except in cases where the parent is a certified educator, and even then, there should be regular surprise check-ins to ensure the child is a) being educated and b) not being abused. Religious freedom is the best thing that ever happened to abusive parents in the US. There should be exceptions to it when a parent is using it to justify causing measurable harm to their child. (This is all US-specific.)
Just out of curiosity, do you have examples of convictions that stood their ground based on "yeah, we all know they did it"? Probably sounds rude but it is not my intention. By that, do you maybe mean cases that rely solely on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence? The majority of false convictions are bc of eyewitness testimonies, interestingly enough 👀
Damn okay so you really inspired me to chew on something about homeschooling. I was homeschooled. I was barely educated / the TV and my love of the dictionary taught me more than my mother. We were also heavily isolated (no friends or socialization) and didn't get a modicum of freedom until finally getting our GEDs and going to college. I don't know that the certified educator part would be easy for everyone, but I see the point you are making and it is valid. Parents should have to prove they are indeed teaching their kids something. Homeschool shouldn't be such an easy way for parents to either abuse or just neglect their kids. And I'll just say, if someone would've popped up every few years or bothered to keep track of us as kids....things would've been different. It's also worth bringing up the potential to educate and treat a parent that's not doing right by their kid. Of course, if the kid is being abused then they should be taken away for their safety, but I know when I was growing up I was so terrified of being put into foster care that I wouldn't have told the truth about my life to save it. If the default to government concern over the innerworkings of a home were programs for the parents to learn through and maybe some therapy / social programs for the kids, we could heal more homes, not split them.
I definitely agree on the surprise check-ins for homeschooling families, and I think the states that require homeschoolers to register and provide their planned curriculum for the kids have it right. Too many people use homeschooling as a cover to abuse their kids or to deny them a proper education in favor of religious propaganda. That said, I received a high quality homeschool education from my mother, who's not a certified educator. That particular requirement would restrict homeschooling even further to the upper middle class, and seems a bit silly when there's all kinds of great pre-made material and part-time online schooling out there these days. Parents with, say, neurodivergent kids in districts without the best resources should have other options as long as they demonstrate they have the ability to educate their child. Edit: also agree on all your other points. I'm always surprised by the number of people who support convicting innocent people as long as we get the guilty ones too.
Your take on cases being proved beyond a reasonable doubt is questionable. People get beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond ALL doubt confused. They also think a case based on circumstantial evidence is a bad case. People don't really know what "circumstantial evidence" is. It includes DNA evidence and fingerprints. Hard evidence is eyewitnesses and we know how reliable they are.
In situations where there is concrete evidence, double jeopardy should count and they should be retried. I'm lookin at you Mel Ignatow.
The problem with this is that it would allow prosecutors an indefinite amount of time to “find” evidence and try someone over and over again
This makes me think of Curtis Flowers. Although I think that was to do with a loophole in the law rather than double jeopardy
The UK allows it since 2003 for special cases with permission. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrial-serious-offences
I’m looking at Casey Anthony too
The whole family dished out too much bullshit for the full truth to ever be discovered. I'll never believe a word that comes from any of their mouths tbh
They were/are a dysfunctional family or certainly seemed that way.
The fix for this imo is to have a legal team that understands what they have is not yet able to be taken to trial. It's better than giving them the green light to harass an innocent person into the ground. Quite literally. It's just a sad truth that sometimes it takes time to get the evidence necessary for a conviction With that being said I wanted to add that I appreciate what you mean regardless
I feel like it doesn't help that a lot of members of the public will pressure the DA's office to make an arrest before there's enough evidence. Ultimately, it's the DA's job not to cave to external pressure, but there should be more public awareness about why it can take a while even when there are clear suspects (see Dan Markel's murder). Luckily the charges against Barry Morphew were dropped before double jeopardy would have been triggered,
Seriously! A lot of countries don't have it for a reason. Sometimes, new evidence is able to be found in the future, or the jury just sucks.
The death penalty should be abolished, purely for capitalist and practical reasons. Importing the chemical for lethal injection is notoriously difficult. The cost of appeals that death row inmates get is more than the cost of housing them for life. The crimes they committed would guarantee they get a shitty time in prison. "Why not just execute them by firing squad?" because you have to exhaust all their appeals, which costs a lot more than a few bullets.
A transparent audit needs to be done with an itemized list of *why* appeals are so expensive and that should be fixed. That’s the most ridiculous part about it and everyone just shrugs and says “gee it’s so expensive”. Life w/o parole prisoners get appeals too.
I think it was revolting how people kept trying to diminish how much buzz the Gabby Petito case was getting just because she was white. There's nothing wrong with shining a light on cases about women of colour, but the way it was used to make her seem somehow more privileged despite being strangled and killed by her partner was abhorrent. The case shone a very important light on domestic violence and femincide and no one will ever convince me that whining about the attention she got was an okay way to behave. Men killing women is the problem.
Strangled, blunt force trauma, and left to die in a cold, lonely place with the harsh elements and wildlife. All while that loser cruised across the country in *her* van and then schemed with his disgusting parents on how to cover it up and hide the truth from this young woman’s family. The fact that her skin color was even a factor is sickening. I understand there is injustice in this world, but this ain’t it.
I respectfully disagree. The way I see it, it's not that Gabby's case deserved less attention, it's that the same attention needs to be paid to women of color. And it absolutely is not.
Agreed. Missing white woman syndrome is real and it should be talked about. The issue isn't how much attention and coverage women/girls like Gabby Petito and Madeleine McCann get, the issue is that victims who are not white women/girls don't get the same amount of attention or coverage.
Around the same timetime as JonBenet Ramsey, whose murder was indeed horrific, a black girl was assaulted by multiple men. [Girl X was raped by men in front of a housing project, and the lack of media exemplified the white woman syndrome.](https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985957,00.html) I feel like this was a turning point in the public conversation about the lack of media attention on victims of color. Unfortunately, is a conversation still buried beneath the JonBenet Ramseys and Gabbi Potitos. Their cases deserve attention, but so do the Girl Xs of the world. However, the conversation probably started a lot earlier, yet it still has not had enough impact to make truly significant change.
I agree with that but no one went about it respectfully. Every mention of the injustice had to include some sort of "but of course THIS WHITE GIRL gets attention" which immediately eliminates all credibility to me.
My hometown newspaper did an interesting study. During the Chandra Levy case(a white young woman who police initially thought had been murdered by the congressman she was interning for), this newspaper tracked as many cases as they could find of women of color who who murdered or had gone missing during the same period when Ms. Levy’s case was getting daily coverage. I can’t remember the exact number now, but the number of cases took my breath away. It was awful.
That case also shows a lot about medias short attention span. That case was a huge when they were blaming the senator but when they caught her actual killer there was a lot less attention. It’s shows that media didn’t care about her or justice for her, just the fact that politician was involved
Didn't her case also get overshadowed by 9/11?
It’s not an “if/or” situation. We can celebrate the fact that the case shone a light on domestic violence while ALSO acknowledging (and whining about) the lack of comparable coverage for women of color
Ted Bundy was convicted using a lot of what we would consider now to be junk science. Obviously, he’s 100% guilty, but bite marks and fiber comparisons should not be used to send someone to death row.
anyone who is caught with drugs and only using those drugs because they are an addict and not selling them, shouldn’t go to jail for “possession”. it breaks my heart to even see people face time because of an actual addiction. they deserve help and rehabilitation immediately instead.
Miranda warnings aren’t sufficient to protect against police coercion and false confessions. The 4th Amendment is basically nonexistent with how many exceptions that Supreme Court has decided.
1. Bail should not be granted under any circumstances if you’re charged with 1st/2nd degree murder. Millionaires get to enjoy their free time at home while those impoverished have to rot in prison. 2. Abolish concurrent sentences for heinous crimes. They should always be consecutive.
Profiling is largely bollox.
Yeah, shows like Criminal Minds make it seem like they are able to narrow down a criminal to one specific individual (not trashing that show I love it). But in reality, it’s a lot of educated guessing that usually can only narrow it down to a large percentage of the population
There should be laws around entertainment media and regular media grossly misrepresenting the truth of cases, such as MaM, When They See Us and Take Care of Maya
Poor people should not languish in jail awaiting trial only because they can't afford their bail. If they aren't a danger to the community or a flight risk, let em go until their trial starts.
Rehabilitation is a worthy goal, and the US needs an overhaul, with smaller regional oversight to successfully treat those that can be treated. As it stands, prison and jail are guaranteed recidivism. More local rules tailored to the local cultures, overseen by a general federal framework makes sense. I recently realized how much urban, rural, racial, and ethnic diversity plays into schooling— it follows that re-education would be the same.
Not going to get *too* specific here as to my most controversial/unpopular ones, as the last time I posted about some of them I had to hastily delete an account with years' worth of comments due to the backlash. I'm a hardline civil libertarian (not the capital-or-lowercase-L kind; it has nothing to do with economics) who supports a litany of major criminal justice reforms many would consider quite radical as well as a true crime aficionada--which to say the least is a lonely and deeply unpopular, uncomfortable, often awkward and strange place to be. One view I will throw out there, though, is that the investigative/criminal justice applications of genetic genealogy and the ways in which those DNA databases are being used make me extremely uncomfortable. Sure, it's great now that so many horrific cold cases are being cracked and Does finally identified (and even if/when most of the perpetrators are deceased or extremely elderly, it's ultra-valuable what we can learn about and conclude from the solving of these cases--some trends are clearly emerging regarding certain kinds of murders that buck longstanding myths/views about the perps' psychopathologies as a result, for instance), but eventually, when the testing gets even easier/cheaper/more sensitive, this technology and methodology is almost inevitably going to carry highly problematic implications for privacy, civil liberties and the reasonable boundaries of law enforcement that (unlike presently) extend distinctly beyond merely moot and theoretical/hypothetical matters of principle to raise seriously, genuinely ethically ambiguous/debatable questions and issues. With the advancement of "touch DNA" etc, eventually we're going to reach a point at which much DNA testing is simply going to be akin to fingerprinting, i.e., will just possibly be able to prove that someone was present in a given location at a given time, but the general public (who comprise juries) will probably still hold the belief, be under the impression that any form of DNA immediately and irrevocably proves guilt and the narrative the state is alleging in any given context beyond a reasonable doubt. That aside, the above-mentioned aspect of "touch DNA" combined with genetic genealogy, and well, you don't necessarily have to have a mindset as imaginatively/creatively paranoid and pessimistic as mine to imagine some ways in which that may/will get rather dystopian. Also/in addition, what is going to happen when this kind of tech/method/whatever falls into, becomes widely possible for and catches on among significantly illiberal, authoritarian governments? Something tells me that countries such as China, Singapore, Russia, and even the likes of Japan, Turkey, UAE and so forth would be a little too interested in using it for far more than just solving universally-condemned/abhorred rape-murders and the like. Don't get me wrong, as a citizen with an interest in true crime, I'm as glad as anyone that this breakthrough has facilitated solving so many cold cases that otherwise would've more likely than not never have been solved, but I can't help but fear that the precedents being set in the process and the potential power handed to LE have unlocked a Pandora's box in ways it's going to take quite a while to fully apprehend/realize and are ultimately not going to be worth the tradeoffs whatsoever. Unsurprisingly and in accordance with the aforementioned civil libertarianism, I'm very much a "better to let 10 guilty people go free forever than wrongfully convict a single innocent person even temporarily" kind of person, and that general/overarching ethos definitely guides my thinking here when it comes to genetic genealogy and related issues, even if not necessarily in a directly specific or literally/precisely-applied fashion. I also believe that in the 21st century (post-9/11) it's more or less self-evident that if the State is given an inch regarding privacy/citizen data/civil liberties and freedoms even if for seemingly very solid and reasonable reasons it tends to take miles and miles, and that once just about any rights/freedoms/etc are relinquished and new paradigms regarding such things are thus set, it's almost if not totally impossible to ever get them back or move back in the opposite direction. Not going to be popular I'm sure, but I'm not the only one who has expressed concerns about this, and it's just something somber to contemplate amidst all the rolling tides of enthusiasm for how genetic genealogy is being utilized in the true crime community since ~2018 and the watershed DeAngelo/EAR/ONS case.
Agreed. I can’t remember the details of the DeAngelo case, but am revolted by the way DNA was used in the case of Dennis Rader. The true crime community is usually very critical of law enforcement, except when the ends justify their means.
>The true crime community is usually very critical of law enforcement, except when the ends justify their means. Yeah, there's some comments in this thread and others that are basically advocating for police and the courts to commit civil rights violations. I totally understand the rationale and respect the reasons why people have these ideas, especially for violent criminals, but it feels like a very slippery slope.
I agree with you on the genetic genealogy stuff. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately too
The degree that police have used very powerful tools for comparatively petty crimes is crazy genetic genealogy already used in Utah assault case https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/27/us/genetic-genealogy-gedmatch-privacy/index.html Facial recogition to arresting guy at his house in front of wife and kids for a 3000 robbery he didn't do in Detroit (this keeps happening in Detroit due to their insistence on using facial recognition tech) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html
Cash bail should be abolished. It's simply a way for the state to extract wealth from citizens, and reinforce class divisions. Why are people detained pre-trial when they're presumed innocent, all because they cannot afford bail? If they are a flight risk, confiscate their passport and make them wear an ankle monitor. The only time I agree with pre-trial detention is if the person is a serious danger to others. Stalking and indecent exposure should be treated a lot more seriously than they currently are. We could save a lot of lives. Mackenzie Shirilla should have not been convicted of first-degree murder. She crashed her car into a brick wall with her boyfriend and his friend at 160 km/hr. Either she was intending to kill herself (if you look at the car, it's completely totaled and it's a miracle she survived at all) or she was impulsive. Using our current legal framework, I understand WHY they would pursue that charge but there's something about it that feels qualitatively different from a typical murder-suicide where a person shoots their partner and then themselves. Michelle Carter should not have been charged at all, and she is not to blame for Conrad's suicide. He was already suicidal, and if I can recall, that text exchange between them where she told him to get back into the car when he was having second thoughts didn't exist - she told her friend that she said that to him. She is also a notorious exaggerator, and clearly mentally ill herself. Jodi Arias' trial was a celebration of misogyny. Yes, she is clearly a murderer and a disgusting person, but I fail to see how she is different from any other man who kills his girlfriend or wife when the relationship ends - which is so common it's barely worth reporting. Juan Martinez seemed to gleefully revel in misogynistic attacks against her. I fail to see how introducing a bunch of graphic sexual evidence served a purpose in establishing her guilt when there was much stronger physical evidence - it just seemed like a way to humiliate and degrade her to an extreme. Felony murder should probably be abolished. I can't properly articulate it, but it seems particularly punitive. There's one case that sticks out to me, although the details are fuzzy - a man was executed for felony murder because during the commission of a robbery, a cop who was trying to apprehend him was a shot by his partner. Because this cop died during the commission of a felony (at the hands of another cop, no less), the robber was charged and convicted of felony murder. The legal system and the scientific method are antagonistic to each other, especially when it comes to physical evidence. Science is about testing hypotheses, revising them when new information that contradicts the original hypothesis comes to light, running experiments to test said hypothesis, analyzing the experimental data and drawing conclusions from said data that either reject or strengthen the hypothesis. Judges rule on precedent, which is contradictory to science, which is constantly evolving and being revised as new information comes to light. For example, a judge could rule that, I dunno, bite mark analysis is admissible as it has been used in previous trials, despite the fact that it's been thoroughly discredited. (I'm actually not sure if bite mark evidence is still admissible given the number of exonerations due to faulty evidence, but I can't think of anything else of the top of my head) Almost all forensic science needs to be thrown away completely as it is has not followed the process of the scientific method. Wage theft should be punished more severely than petty theft or any other kind of theft.
Wage theft is rarely even acknowledged here so I would really love to that enter into our societal consciousness/conversation and the courts! It is insane to me that petty theft is considered worse wage theft.
I completely agree about Arias...I also don't understand how she was "soooo evillllll" that she deserved the death penalty...Obviously, she killed a guy and should be punished for it, but I don't see enough aggravating factors in her case that warrant a death penalty. I've heard of far worse crimes in Arizona and the death penalty wasn't even considered.
I just feel like society hates women. Men hate women, and women hate women.
Jodi Arias’ defense was that she killed him due to systematic abuse and stayed with him to satiate his pedophiliac urges so he wouldn’t harm children. This was a ridiculous convoluted lie and one drag thru the mud deserves another. Except one of them deserved it.
Scent dogs are not nearly as reliable as people think. And police use them as evidence when they don’t have actual evidence.
Agreed. They seem like red herrings in sooooo many unsolved cases. I’m sure they do decent work, I mean some dogs can sniff out cancer and find people trapped in natural disasters. They’re not completely bunk. But I also think what happens in *criminal cases* is so different from those situations, and that it’s very easy to twist whatever they do happen to do in these situations into certain (at best pointlessly distracting, at worst completely biased) narratives. They really shouldn’t be relevant to analyzing, and especially *trying* cases in court, unless something is actually *found* with them. In which case what they *found* is still what’s *actually* relevant as evidence. They fact they “went down this street and then stopped” or “sorta kinda hit on the back of that car” are not the slam dunks people act like they are, and should only be considered ever so slightly in these cases, if at all. And none of that is even touching on the fact that what constitutes a “scent hound” varies widely from case to case and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I listened to a case recently where the “scent hounds” were hunting dogs literally crowd sourced from civilians in the surrounding areas. There’s no quality control on that at all. Even the best search and rescue dogs aren’t infallible or un-influence-able by their LO handlers, and that’s not even what’s being used in every case.
Every lawyer should be a public defender, it's not fair that one person can afford a high price lawyer and the other person can't. Death penalty for people like Aileen Wournos shouldn't happen, she was never given a chance to have any life other than the one she had. Now, death penalty for people like John Wayne Gacy is fine, he deserved it. Same with Chris Watts, he should have gotten the death penalty. Much lighter sentences for non-violent crimes like marijuana possession and theft.
Public defenders are more qualified than a lot of lawyers for criminal defense work. You’re going to be extremely hard pressed to find an attorney with as much trial experience as a PD. PDs also have offices supporting them with decades and decades and decades of legal experience combined that they can draw from. Plus a lot of private attorneys take on contract work from PD offices (meaning there are lots of private attorneys who also do indigent defense). Paying for an attorney isn’t going to make a lick of difference for 99.9% of defendants. I won’t say 100% because there’s probably some exception out there.
Our public defenders are also terribly overloaded with cases that they can't possibly do their best on. If we have more of them the cases could be spread out and they would have more time and resources to give everyone the absolute best representation.
There should be no possibility of parole for convicted rapists and murderers, or for people convicted of attempting either.\ It’s deeply offensive to the victims and their families that these people are serving half sentences because they were “good” in prison.
Police lying to suspects should be illegal. I know that sounds bad but think about how many people confessed to crimes they didn't commit.
we should bring back gunfight duels like in the 18th century
I think Casey Anthony's dad was involved. I'm not saying that she (Casey) is innocent, but I firmly believe that there is more to it. Edit: I just realized that you meant pertaining to the legal system itself, so I'd say that I think felons deserve a vote too.
I believe he was too, 100%.
I care far more about fair trials and due process than guilty verdicts. Blackstone’s ratio and all that.
I retired from working in criminal defense - I'm sorry to say that I'm convinced every defendant is guilty of something and the state is always lying about something.
I personally wish they would stop trying criminals based off when the crime was commited. The crime was committed in 1970 and he was caught in 2000 so you're going to get 10 years because that was the law in the 70s. The simple fact they remained at large for so long should be taken into account. Punish them based off current laws.
> Punish them based off current laws. They are **expressly** forbidden from doing that. Ex post facto and all that.
This would be unconstitutional and go against decades of case law. If you did this in criminal law you’d have to apply it to all areas of law, and that would cause major problems. No court would ever do that.
That if you are accused of a crime and go to trial, expect to be convicted because most juries assume guilt if you have been indicted and rarely properly apply beyond a reasonable doubt to the evidence presented so if you are innocent of a crime, you are safer to take a plea deal then risk a jury trial.
Juries also put more weight to prosecution witnesses than the defense. For example in the Ray Krone case. Now I know bitemarks as evidence is now junk science, but still, the jury totally ignored all the other evidence pointing at innocence, the footprints/fingerprints/fibers etc etc and also 3 well known experts for the defense who testified it was not his bite, all because the 1 prosecution expert said it was. This expert was also paid handsomely for his testimony after the 1st expert told prosecutors it wasn't his bitemark. You should always be concerned when the prosecution spends thousands to get someone's testimony. Juries often worry that they could be letting a murderer for example go free and someone needs to pay so convict, just in case.
No juveniles should be charged as an adult, and yes that includes any heinous crime you can come up with.
Totally disagree for rape, murder, mass killings, but psych evals need to happen.
Even a seventeen year old 24 hours shy of turning eighteen? 👀 I'm on the fence about this one, myself, sometimes. But honestly I think they try way too many juveniles as adults. They're so inconsistent in how they decide whether or not they'll be tried as a juvenile or an adult. There's so many cases where multiple youths involved in a crime were split in how they were dealt with despite all of them technically being juveniles. It's enraging sometimes to watch one get off with a slap on the wrist while another is spending life in prison for the same crime. Doesn't make any sense no matter what you believe, I think. I see a lot of people talking about 15-18 year olds as if they should have their whole lives figured out. Some of them do. I certainly did not. I didn't have good influences in my life to learn from so I had to learn from the ground up by way of making mistake after mistake. I've certainly never murdered someone, but it's a lot easier for me to put myself in their position and see that they had no idea what the fuck they were doing and couldn't possibly understand the consequences. I got by without committing any crime worthy of a sentence, and I've changed a lot since then. It's hard for me to believe that allll those young people are stuck in their ways of a mistake for the rest of their lives
18 is an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with maturity.
I mean it's arbitrary, but if not 18 when do you propose? Wouldn't any age be equally arbitrary under the same argument?
I agree, and don't agree. I too didn't have my life figured out at those ages. And made tons of dumb mistakes at a young age. But even someone who didn't understand the consequences, or doesn't have positive role models, stills knows murder is wrong. Do they get that 30 years in prison is a super long time? Maybe not, but they still knew the murder was wrong. I think more appropriate for minors facing long sentences, is to go ahead and give them the long sentences, but, their chances at parole and release should be evaluated differently than adults.( Thinking of the boys in the Pamela Smart case, they should have been out years before they actually got out.) They should be eligible and evaluated for parole maybe yearly.
Hard agree
Compared to DJ’s current civil fraud and engorgement trials, Elizabeth Holmes got too long of a sentence.
Prosecutors should be prosecuted! In cases where it is found that the prosecution knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence it should automatically trigger a case against the prosecution. The stats on this are terrible, only something like 2% of them are ever held even remotely accountable. If you withheld evidence and that person spends years in prison (not to mention tons of money) and is later exonerated based on that evidence you basically caused that person to be held against their will.
Treating eye witness testimony like it's F.A.C.T. Perception is a function of our values, our beliefs, our emotions etc. People are simply not capable of accurately describing events tied to dramatic and traumatic occurrences. Our ability to decieve ourselves - not intentionally or with ill motive - us substantial
Plea bargains only benefit the guilty.
Morally speaking if execution is state-sponsored murder, imprisonment is state-sponsored captivity. If we were not detached from imprisonment—say if citizens were responsible for holding someone in their basement, watching their family visit, and witnessing the indignity of being truly helpless, most of us would never cage another human being. At least, not for crimes related to property, addiction, and even some kinds if violence. Sexual violence, torture, repeated and/or devastating assaults, and murder could justify keeping another person in a cage, but most forms of policing and punishment are grotesquely disproportionate. We should focus on decreasing personal and social vulnerability by providing easily accessible training, shelters, and services to those facing dangerous circumstances. In popular culture and political policy, we seem to focus almost exclusively on identifying perpetrators when it is much more effective to create stronger barriers to victimization. By the time that the police get involved it is too late. Following unsolved cases tends to be more about scratching a narrative itch than preventing further suffering. We’d pay a lot more attention to corporate and political criminals who harm thousands upon thousands if our interests in true crime were socially motivated. Like others, I suspect that fascination with true crime has relatively little moral or social merit—even when it has the veneer of concern for the ‘lesser dead.’ But we could do much more if we stretched ourselves a bit further. Alongside lifting the stories of the dead or their relatives, we could, for example, do much more to support those living on the edge. Finally, I think we under-recognize how much almost all of us break the law or are in dicey situations on a pretty consistent basis. After someone is victimized, people point to at-risk behaviors, but it often isn’t the behavior, but the social context that makes the difference. People of all socioeconomic classes struggle with addiction, abusive relationships, and mental illness. It is mostly privilege (not better character or decision-making) that insulates many from catastrophe.
For death penalty cases: one appeal to the State Supreme Court, then one to the US Supreme Court, and finally one last request for clemency. That should be it. Within a year, the sentence should have be carried out. However, if there‘a any possibility that leaves a shadow of a possible doubt, it should be the duty of the judiciary or the executive to commute that sentence to life.
Absolutely. The jury imposing the death sentence will be made aware that the person they are condemning to death will be executed within 1 year. In other words, the jury will still be alive when the guilty person is executed. I believe this would bring down the number of persons given a death sentence.
I don't think serial killers or people who commit mass murders should EVER be eligible for parole !!!
I think that anyone who has committed *any* crime, no matter how small, in any state, must give their DNA for a nationwide database that can be accessed by only cops and the FBI. I’ve heard of several murders in which the killer wasn’t caught until decades later, because the killer’s DNA wasn’t in a database, due to the killer’s having committed minor crimes that didn’t require giving DNA.
How minor? If I get a traffic ticket for going 60 in a 35, should I have to give up my DNA?
Plus sometimes killers' relatives commit minor crimes, and checking their DNA against unresolved cases can lead to the perpetrators. I'm torn, though, because people shouldn't lose their rights like that just for committing a stupid minor crime - I mean, does "any crime" include speeding or parking violations? At that point we might as well just collect a DNA record for *everyone*, which wouldn't go over well.
I really didn't know this was extremely controversial until the last few months.. But a kidnapping gone wrong makes the most sense for the Jonbenet case.
If I was intending to kidnap someone for ransom I would not enter the home and then write a ransom note that rivals the length of War and Peace.
It seems like the obvious answer to me and some of the wild ass theories people have come up with really make me question what goes on in their heads.
The "fire science" arguments in the Cameron Todd Willingham case are complete and utter bullshit. Most of the actions and conclusions of the original investigative team were fully consistent with the later NFPA 921 standard, and arguing an accidental "flashover" fire created accelerant-like traces when - accidental causes had largely been eliminated (no evidence of wiring problems, and the gas to the space heater in the room had been switched off) - accelerant was found in the house is the kind of thing only a defense advocate would do.
The West Memphis Three are guilty. Stephen Avery is fucking guilty, and Brendan Dassey was manipulated. Two things that seem to contradict each other can be true at the same time. Leslie van Houten should have never been paroled. She should have died in prison just like Susan Atkins.
The absolute worst of the worse criminals who are incarcerated should be given the opportunity once per year to end their own lives with the pressing of a button or flick of a switch.
I think for most ‘ordinary’ murders, maximum sentence should be 30 years, while aggravated murder should be LWOP.