To Catch a Predator - Discuss

[carbonmotion]

To Catch a Predator is a reality television show that features a series of hidden camera investigations by the television news-magazine Dateline NBC devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people below the age of consent (or individuals whom they believe to be such) over the Internet for sexual liaisons. Men are lured to meet with a decoy under the pretense of sexual contact. The investigations, many of which have been reported by Dateline correspondent Chris Hansen and producer Lynn Keller, are conducted as an undercover sting operation with the help of online watchdog group Perverted-Justice.

I want to know your thoughts about the show, it's methods, and the men that are caught as well as potential issues regarding the legality of the show's methods.

[bobber205]

The only thing I don't like about the show is the constant painting of the pedophiles at people worth less than trash.

They have major problems and should be treated as victims of a disease not like murderers...

Of course I think what they do is gross but still...

[iJohnHenry]

I'm sure the "enticing" goes well beyond what a child would do, encouraging extraordinary reactions from the "target", and so, IMO becomes entrapment.

Just more commercial sales.

[Schtumple]

The only thing I don't like about the show is the constant painting of the pedophiles at people worth less than trash.

They have major problems and should be treated as victims of a disease not like murderers...

Of course I think what they do is gross but still...

I agree to an extent, I still believe pedophiles can't really be rehabilitated correctly, there's been several instances of sex offenders re-committing the same crimes, they don't learn.

I like the show because I like to think somewhere out there, someone is like, oh *****, that could be me next week...

[iJohnHenry]

Oh, a PSA, then they would not need commercials for support. :rolleyes:

[M. Malone]

The only thing I don't like about the show is the constant painting of the pedophiles at people worth less than trash.

They have major problems and should be treated as victims of a disease not like murderers...

Of course I think what they do is gross but still...

I really have no idea whether it's disease or not.

But personally I see them as scum.

I also see Dateline NBC as bigger scum because their clear intention isn't to catch predators, they just want ratings :rolleyes:

I also think Chris Hansen is a total di** the way he carries his almighty self when he reveals to the pedophile that he's just been punked. He's like that reporter, Richard Thornburg, from Die Hard 1 and 2

[drichards]

Chris Hansen rules. Between him and Angry Vince, Ted doesn't hold a candle to their glory.

Linger longer.

[gilkisson]

I have no sympathy for any drooling sick that harms a child. and molestation is harm of the worst sort.

Inject them with ebola and sulfuric acid, for all I care. Castrate them with a blow torch. Or fire ants.

That being said, Dateline doesn't perform a service to the community. It is commercial titillation of the basest variety. Were the show a deterrent, they wouldn't keep catching these fick suckers who either know the show, or have been on it once already.

Put Hansen to work cleaning kennels at an animal shelter -- at least then he will be making a positive contribution where his ego cannot get in the way.

[iJohnHenry]

Extremely civil of you, old chap.

How about chemical castration as a back-up plan?

[rdowns]

Dateline does this for ratings and it borders on entrapment, if not outright entrapment. The way I see it, they may stop some from acting on their sick impulses and for each one caught, they likely saved a child from a horrific experience.

[gilkisson]

Extremely civil of you, old chap.

How about chemical castration as a back-up plan?

I know and freely admit I am a knuckle-dragging neanderthal on this issue. And I'm not talking about he-is-18-she-is-16 type cases, as have been discussed previously. I'm talking about predators. So yes, chemical castration is an option. So is nailing their junk to a dead tree with a roofing nail, ignite the tree, and hand them a plastic knife. Method of freedom becomes their choice.

[iJohnHenry]

I would normally join you in your lust for vengeance, but it's so much more fun opposing you on this one. :p

[carbonmotion]

I'm sure the "enticing" goes well beyond what a child would do, encouraging extraordinary reactions from the "target", and so, IMO becomes entrapment.

Just more commercial sales.

It's not entrapment because they committed what is known in criminal law as a inchoate crime (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inchoate-crime/).

[rhett7660]

I don't think it is entrapment. What we are not seeing is the pre-conversation with the "child" and suspect. There are fine lines that have been drawn on what can be done etc. There have been a couple of "tests" in the legal realm for which they, they being the police, have to play by.

Carbonmotion: thanks for the link,,,,,, I couldn't think of it at the time I was typing this....

Most of the time Dateline is along for the ride. They just happen to talk to the person prior to them being arrested.

Sure it is about ratings. Why wouldn't it be? I also think if there are enough people watching maybe some of the parents will monitor what there kids do! etc etc.......

[NT1440]

I know and freely admit I am a knuckle-dragging neanderthal on this issue. And I'm not talking about he-is-18-she-is-16 type cases, as have been discussed previously. I'm talking about predators. So yes, chemical castration is an option. So is nailing their junk to a dead tree with a roofing nail, ignite the tree, and hand them a plastic knife. Method of freedom becomes their choice.

You dont think much of the constitution do you?

[iJohnHenry]

Good God, please don't tell Jimmy Carter this.

He's a ********** criminal. He lusted in his heart.

Didn't Tom Cruise get farked in this fashion in a recent movie?? :rolleyes:

[duncyboy]

It's not entrapment because they committed what is known in criminal law as a inchoate crime (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inchoate-crime/).

'You learn something new every day'

...and today it was something worthwhile.

EDIT- If you're reading this thread and haven't seen the film Hard Candy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Candy_(film)) then you might just enjoy it. Good movie.

[gilkisson]

You dont think much of the constitution do you?

Yep. Sure do. and nice try at a derail.

[gilkisson]

I would normally join you in your lust for vengeance, but it's so much more fun opposing you on this one. :p

Then let the debate begin!:D

[NT1440]

Yep. Sure do. and nice try at a derail.

Its not a derail. I beleive theres a section in the constitution (or bill of rights, idk but tahts public schooling for you:p) has a section against "cruel and unusual punishment".

They are still humans, regardless of their crimes, and should be dealt with humanely regardless of the crime.

[gilkisson]

Its not a derail. I beleive theres a section in the constitution (or bill of rights, idk but tahts public schooling for you:p) has a section against "cruel and unusual punishment".

They are still humans, regardless of their crimes, and should be dealt with humanely regardless of the crime.

First, the definition of cruel and unusual has changed and morphed many times since the days of the Founding Fathers. What was commonplace then would be considered total barbarism today.

And second, I already admitted to being less than rational on this issue. I'm not particularly interested in the "rights" of a child predator. What of the rights of the victim? Or the next victim, as these people do not stop hunting children, ever. There's not (AFAIK) a treatment which stops them.

Apart from a few grains of copper-jacketed lead, that is...

[NT1440]

First, the definition of cruel and unusual has changed and morphed many times since the days of the Founding Fathers. What was commonplace then would be considered total barbarism today.

And second, I already admitted to being less than rational on this issue. I'm not particularly interested in the "rights" of a child predator. What of the rights of the victim? Or the next victim, as these people do not stop hunting children, ever. There's not (AFAIK) a treatment which stops them.

Apart from a few grains of copper-jacketed lead, that is...

Yes but thats not how the legal system works, and not how it should work in this country.

What good is it if its just as barbaric as the accused?

[gilkisson]

Yes but thats not how the legal system works, and not how it should work in this country.

What good is it if its just as barbaric as the accused?

I'm sorry, there is very little about the legal system as currently practiced in this country that bears defending.

I wish there was a way to guarantee a predator would never repeat the offense. But even if there were, there is still the issue of justice to be dealt out to the predator for the original offense. Saying "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" does nothing. Nor does putting them in general population for 25-to-life then letting them back out in 4-to-8 for "good behavior".

[.Andy]

I'm sorry, there is very little about the legal system as currently practiced in this country that bears defending.

I wish there was a way to guarantee a predator would never repeat the offense. But even if there were, there is still the issue of justice to be dealt out to the predator for the original offense. Saying "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" does nothing. Nor does putting them in general population for 25-to-life then letting them back out in 4-to-8 for "good behavior".
I'm confused. If your legal system "as currently practiced" is a complete sham how do you know that any "paedophiles" are actually guilty of any alleged crimes?

[NT1440]

I'm sorry, there is very little about the legal system as currently practiced in this country that bears defending.

I wish there was a way to guarantee a predator would never repeat the offense. But even if there were, there is still the issue of justice to be dealt out to the predator for the original offense. Saying "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" does nothing. Nor does putting them in general population for 25-to-life then letting them back out in 4-to-8 for "good behavior".

So talk to your congressmen about upping the guarenteed sentance, dont go spouting sickening suggestions about what you think would be right to do to HUMAN BEINGS.

And don't bother with the "think of what they did to the kid" argument. Its 2008, we SHOULD be past the barbaric ways of an eye for an eye.

[gilkisson]

I'm confused. If your legal system "as currently practiced" is a complete sham how do you know that any "paedophiles" are actually guilty of any alleged crimes?

Good point. Thanks for letting me clarify. The portion of the system involving a jury of one's peers does seem to me to work. Decent people finding and determining guilt. The portion I take issue with, and only in specific relation to this topic, is sentencing and "rehabilitation".

Fair enough?

[Macky-Mac]

at one point this show could have been justified as "news reporting" but now it's become a very bizarre piece of "entertainment" that relies on the idea of sex with children and the public humiliation of those "perverts" caught by the show........all this to sell advertising! What kind of people find this kind of tv show entertaining???? :eek:

[iJohnHenry]

Well, let's just say the dumbing of America continues. ;)

[.Andy]

Good point. Thanks for letting me clarify. The portion of the system involving a jury of one's peers does seem to me to work. Decent people finding and determining guilt.
Or determining innocence.

The portion I take issue with, and only in specific relation to this topic, is sentencing and "rehabilitation".
Do you know the methods of rehabilitation and the success rates? I only ask because I have no idea what is done.

[gilkisson]

Or determining innocence.

Actually, innocence is presumed throughout. Until final sentence, the accused is only the accused. The jury determines guilty, or not.


Do you know the methods of rehabilitation and the success rates? I only ask because I have no idea what is done.

Actually, I don't. I really don't, I'm reacting on a pure gut level. I just find it reprehensible.

[CalBoy]

Or determining innocence.

Actually juries don't determine innocence, they determine guilt.


Actually, I don't. I really don't, I'm reacting on a pure gut level. I just find it reprehensible.

You find sex with children reprehensible right, not the attempts at rehabilitation?


My take on this show generally concurs with the thoughts in this thread. The show does serve a useful purpose in that it lets parents know how predators operate, although it's a bit light in actually telling parents what to do.

On the bigger question of child predators, I think we have a problem that may be exaggerated. Rates of sexual molestation, kidnapping, etc, have been gradually heading down for many years (over 20). Parents are clearly getting better at protecting their children. For those predators who are found guilty, we need a way to control their sexual urges, because they clearly cannot do it on their own.

[Sun Baked]

If I was Chris Hansen, I'd move, too many perverts coming into your kitchen.

And your daughter is a tease. ;)

[NT1440]

If I was Chris Hansen, I'd move, too many perverts coming into your kitchen.

And your daughter is a tease. ;)

WOW, that post was pure win.:D

[gilkisson]

Actually juries don't determine innocence, they determine guilt.


yep.


You find sex with children reprehensible right, not the attempts at rehabilitation?

Well, yes. One is reprehensible, the other futile(?)


My take on this show generally concurs with the thoughts in this thread. The show does serve a useful purpose in that it lets parents know how predators operate, although it's a bit light in actually telling parents what to do.

On the bigger question of child predators, I think we have a problem that may be exaggerated. Rates of sexual molestation, kidnapping, etc, have been gradually heading down for many years (over 20). Parents are clearly getting better at protecting their children. For those predators who are found guilty, we need a way to control their sexual urges, because they clearly cannot do it on their own.

And again, I agree.

[NT1440]

Well, yes. One is reprehensible, the other futile(?)


Based off what?

The few cases here and there you hear about repeat offenders?

[carbonmotion]

I'm sorry, there is very little about the legal system as currently practiced in this country that bears defending.


Laws, Judges, and Courts are but a mere (feeble) human attempt at approximating a god's eye view of fairness. With that said, nobody else has it figured out either better than we, imho.

[gilkisson]

Based off what?

The few cases here and there you hear about repeat offenders?

Pretty much, yes. That, and my complete lack of sympathy for the original offense. I'm not talking about case law, or even rationality or reason here. I'm talking my opinion.

[NT1440]

Pretty much, yes. That, and my complete lack of sympathy for the original offense. I'm not talking about case law, or even rationality or reason here. I'm talking my opinion.

What is an opinion if its admittedly not based off reason?

Arrogance?

[gilkisson]

What is an opinion if its admittedly not based off reason?

Arrogance?

well, I see you are taking a diametrical opposite position. What would you have done? Enroll the child molester in rehab classes? A 12 step program? Teach them to sing kumbaya?

I've repeatedly admitted I am speaking hyperbolically. We're not going to boil predators in carbolic acid... No, we're civilized.

But if our "treatments" allow these predators to repeatedly get to children, then they are ineffective, and only make it worse. Primary goal should be to protect the kids, not protect the predators.

[CalBoy]

Well, yes. One is reprehensible, the other futile(?)

What particularly makes it futile? Perhaps we haven't found an adequate method yet, but that doesn't mean that all rehab is futile for sexual predators.

Experimentation is the key to finding the solution.


Primary goal should be to protect the kids, not protect the predators.

To a point.

We should not take away due process from these people perpetually, and most of the current methods do that.

I know the Morgan's Law lists have been known to attract a lot of negative attention from irate parents who go too far, but I think they are the one of the best ways to protect your children. When you deal with something or someone who is dangerous, it's best to avoid the situation than to come up with a way to change them.

[NT1440]

well, I see you are taking a diametrical opposite position. What would you have done? Enroll the child molester in rehab classes? A 12 step program? Teach them to sing kumbaya?

I've repeatedly admitted I am speaking hyperbolically. We're not going to boil predators in carbolic acid... No, we're civilized.

But if our "treatments" allow these predators to repeatedly get to children, then they are ineffective, and only make it worse. Primary goal should be to protect the kids, not protect the predators.

Let them rot in jail.

Easy as that.

[CalBoy]

Let them rot in jail.

Easy as that.

Why? For the most part they are productive members of society. Might as well let them work and pay taxes instead of spending $40,000/year keeping them in prison.

[NT1440]

Why? For the most part they are productive members of society. Might as well let them work and pay taxes instead of spending $40,000/year keeping them in prison.

Srry, i forget to mention that it depends on the severity of what they've done.

[CalBoy]

Srry, i forget to mention that it depends on the severity of what they've done.

Nonetheless, we only reserve life sentences for the worst crimes (murder).

At some point you have to let the guy out.

[NT1440]

Waits for the "its WORSE than murder comments"....

[carbonmotion]

Let them rot in jail.

Easy as that.
You are voicing a general principles of criminal law.

Retributuvism vs Utilitarianism

RETRIBTUVIST: convicted Defendent is punished simply because he deserves it
• no other exterior motive like deterrence or protecting society
• assigns punishment based on proportional basis so that crimes that cause greater harm receive harsher penalties


UTILITARIANISM: punishment is justifiable only if it is expected to result in a reduction of crime.
• punishment must be proportional to the crime (punishment should be inflicted in the amount required, no more, to satisfy crime prevention goals)

[gilkisson]

Let them rot in jail.

Easy as that.

But do they? When sentenced, do they serve till they rot? Or do they get out on "good behavior" after serving one third of their time or less? And is anything done towards rehab in that time?

If you're going to let them rot in jail, fine. But they don't.

[NT1440]

But do they? When sentenced, do they serve till they rot? Or do they get out on "good behavior" after serving one third of their time or less? And is anything done towards rehab in that time?

If you're going to let them rot in jail, fine. But they don't.

Like I said earlier, the system needs changing, I think the entire justice system needs a good overhaul.

Some "predatory" offenses dont warrant a 15 year prison sentance however.

[gilkisson]

Waits for the "its WORSE than murder comments"....

Well, I don't want to disappoint... sorry I'm late.

Sometimes, it can be worse than murder. The torture within the victim's mind goes on and on. It's like a murder that can take decades to conclude.

And all too often, the disgusting reprobates don't stop with molesting child after child. They molest and kill, molest and kill. Lying in wait, hunting, seeking his victims. Deliberately.

So, yeah. Sometimes it is worse.

[gilkisson]

Like I said earlier, the system needs changing, I think the entire justice system needs a good overhaul.

Some "predatory" offenses dont warrant a 15 year prison sentance however.

And some warrant being bitten to death by ferrets.

I guess it depends on how we're defining "predatory".

[Blue Velvet]

And some warrant being bitten to death by ferrets.

Or weasels.

[gilkisson]

Or weasels.

Indeed. Or even Norwegian Wharf rats, although I'm not in favor of feeding those critters.

I am not a rabid advocate of a general death penalty. I am willing to make an exception in the case of this issue.

[63dot]

Good point. Thanks for letting me clarify. The portion of the system involving a jury of one's peers does seem to me to work. Decent people finding and determining guilt. The portion I take issue with, and only in specific relation to this topic, is sentencing and "rehabilitation".

Fair enough?

I usually find little I agree with you from this particular thread, but heinous, violent criminals getting out early is not something I am a big fan of. Certain crimes should have longer mandatory sentences, and if the act of molestation has a crime time line from premeditation, solicitation, the act of the crime, and the possible addition of assault, battery, and kidnapping, and fleeing from authorities, then that criminal should be held under a sentencing above mere kidnapping or sexual battery but somewhere below homicide (manslaughter 1 or manslaughter 2). At one time in common law in Great Britain in the early 1800s, sexual battery which resulted in serious bodily harm was considered very close to manslaughter 2.

Solicitation alone, as an "incomplete" crime is only the second act in a full chain of events which follows premeditation, and is not to be confused with the act itself of rape/sexual battery.

People get angry at the government, plan an attack, solicit others into their plan, but then never end up carrying out the act. So they wouldn't be, legally speaking, the same as the 9/11 bombers or Tim McVeigh who planned, solicited or conspired, committed the act, and fled from the scene to a safe house. That entire chain produces the full crime from beginning to end.

The child molesters who go through the whole chain of a complete crime all the way up to the violent act (rape/sexual battery are not sex crimes, but the more heinous crimes of violent crimes and sentenced harsher as such), and attempt or succeed in fleeing, may or may not be able to be rehabilitated, but that would be more for a discussion for trained psychologists, not us mac users unless one of us does this line of work for a living.

[gilkisson]

I usually find little I agree with you from this particular thread, but heinous, violent criminals getting out early is not something I am a big fan of. Certain crimes should have longer mandatory sentences, and if the act of molestation has a crime time line from premeditation, solicitation, the act of the crime, and the possible addition of assault, battery, and kidnapping, and fleeing from authorities, then that criminal should be held under a sentencing above mere kidnapping or sexual battery but somewhere below homicide (manslaughter 1 or manslaughter 2). At one time in common law in Great Britain in the early 1800s, sexual battery which resulted in serious bodily harm was considered very close to manslaughter 2.

Solicitation alone, as an "incomplete" crime is only the second act in a full chain of events which follows premeditation, and is not to be confused with the act itself of rape/sexual battery.

People get angry at the government, plan an attack, solicit others into their plan, but then never end up carrying out the act. So they wouldn't be, legally speaking, the same as the 9/11 bombers or Tim McVeigh who planned, solicited or conspired, committed the act, and fled from the scene to a safe house. That entire chain produces the full crime from beginning to end.

The child molesters who go through the whole chain of a complete crime all the way up to the violent act (rape/sexual battery are not sex crimes, but the more heinous crimes of violent crimes and sentenced harsher as such), and attempt or succeed in fleeing, may or may not be able to be rehabilitated, but that would be more for a discussion for trained psychologists, not us mac users unless one of us does this line of work for a living.

I think I can agree with most of this. And I am certainly not trained in psychology or psychiatry, beyond the classes in college lo those many years ago.

When you say:
rape/sexual battery are not sex crimes
do you mean those particular crimes are not "sex crimes" at all? Or that they are sex crimes in addition to being crimes of violence?

As for the subject of child predators, I am not using criminal justice theory, or rehabilitation statistics. Those are thoughts and tools to be used on humans with redeeming characteristics, which I do not believe deliberate child predators possess. I know I'm on the outside with this opinion.

[63dot]

I think I can agree with most of this. And I am certainly not trained in psychology or psychiatry, beyond the classes in college lo those many years ago.

When you say:

do you mean those particular crimes are not "sex crimes" at all? Or that they are sex crimes in addition to being crimes of violence?



They are, from what I learned in law school, the much, much more serious criminal behavior of violent crime which includes battery, manslaughter, and murder. Akin to using a knife, gun, fists/legs, poison, explosives and causing SBH or GBH (serious bodily harm, or gross bodily harm).

If you rape somebody, you commit a violent crime. If you go out to the town square and streak, that's a sex crime. If you batter someone with your fists, legs, or a weapon, poison you commit battery. And if you kill somebody, that's homicide (the two murders and the two manslaughter charges of which one will usually apply in a successful conviction).

[63dot]

And my above post just mentions SBH GBH in criminal law.

In tort law, liability law as some call it, you can commit battery if you are a surgeon and accidentally leave a tool behind in your patient and that act causes harm after the surgery, soon or even quite a bit later. That form of battery, while not as obvious, is still battery, and a form of violence. This form of battery falls under the category of an intentional tort.

An unintentional tort, especially negligence, would be if the hospital didn't dry up a spill, and after the surgery you slipped and fell while you were going to the cafeteria, you could sue for negligence, but not a violent crime against you or for battery. The lines cross here and judges often do not agree. If hot coffee spills on you at, you know where, is that negligence or the violent act of battery against your person? Judges fight over this one.

Again contrast that to being caught having sex with your consenting girlfriend in a parking lot you thought was secluded and the parking lot rent a cop catches the two of you. That's a sex crime.

If you were in the car, and it was w/o consent and you were raping her and the rent a cop caught you, you would be charged with a violent crime, probably aggravated sexual battery.

[63dot]

1) unintentional tort

you are having sex with your girlfriend at your condo and you guys are so loud, you create a nuisance and it bugs the neighbors, that's the tort of nuisance and you could get a ticket/fine

2) intentional tort

you are having sex and your girlfriend ties you up and at a certain point, you are not happy with it anymore and she does not release you in a reasonable amount of time from some S&M contraption you both devised, then it's the tort of false imprisonment, even if you were a willing participant in the beginning and she can possibly be charged with a sex crime against you, and if you throw out your back or prized private part, yikes , it's sexual battery

3) violent crime

you are having rough sex, and you hit her or she hits you, and even though it's with consent, one of both of you lose an eye or a tooth, then that's the violent crime, not sexual crime, of battery, or if really injurious, then aggravated battery

4)

homicide:

you are having rough sex, and though there is full consent, it gets rough and somebody dies, that's probably the violent crime manslaughter

you are having rough sex, then it turns into a fight, it escalates and then one of your shoot the other person with a pistol, then that's the violent crime of murder, probably second degree murder

In the last three hypotheticals, the judge will sentence you under a stricter theory of a "violent" crime which holds a much harsher sentence. TV/Hollywood law and order, like the movie "Basic Instint" is not about a crazy female sex criminal, but about a cold blooded violent murderer.

[carbonmotion]

1) unintentional tort

you are having sex with your girlfriend at your condo and you guys are so loud, you create a nuisance and it bugs the neighbors, that's the tort of nuisance and you could get a ticket/fine

2) intentional tort

you are having sex and your girlfriend ties you up and at a certain point, you are not happy with it anymore and she does not release you in a reasonable amount of time from some S&M contraption you both devised, then it's the tort of false imprisonment, even if you were a willing participant in the beginning and she can possibly be charged with a sex crime against you, and if you throw out your back or prized private part, yikes , it's sexual battery

3) violent crime

you are having rough sex, and you hit her or she hits you, and even though it's with consent, one of both of you lose an eye or a tooth, then that's the violent crime, not sexual crime, of battery, or if really injurious, then aggravated battery

4)

homicide:

you are having rough sex, and though there is full consent, it gets rough and somebody dies, that's probably the violent crime manslaughter

you are having rough sex, then it turns into a fight, it escalates and then one of your shoot the other person with a pistol, then that's the violent crime of murder, probably second degree murder

In the last three hypotheticals, the judge will sentence you under a stricter theory of a "violent" crime which holds a much harsher sentence. TV/Hollywood law and order, like the movie "Basic Instint" is not about a crazy female sex criminal, but about a cold blooded violent murderer.

These descriptions are -to varying degrees- inaccurate...

[63dot]

These descriptions are -to varying degrees- inaccurate...

I am just a first year law student and those are law school textbook definitions.

I assume you are a lawyer, a paralegal, or in a different state, and I am all ears. Where do you put nuisance, negligence, battery, aggravated battery, manslaughter, and murder, in California law, a non Model Penal Code state? If you are not in California, then welcome to Cal Crim definitions.

I do know these Cal Crim definitons will not be verbatim in the 34 Model Penal Code states, so what does your state say? Just curious because I know there are differences. Also where do you practice?

Anyway here's my story.

I took the liberty of giving modern definitions and not the common law definitions as I also have to do on law exams. Much of my studies as a JD/MBA student focuses around the modern definitions of law, especially how it ties into business, so I don't pretend to give the perfect Model Penal Code definition or paraphrase. Some law students don't consider JD/MBA students like me real law students as many MBAs don't consider JD/MBA students real MBAs. It's five years of education crammed into four years of classes so there are definitely gaps in my legal and MBA knowledge and I will be the first to admit that. :)

All I studied was business management theory, accounting, economics, non-profit administration, statistics/quantitative analysis, contracts, torts, and criminal law. It doesn't lend for an extremely detailed mastery of anything. I have my own company and hope to glean some extra, hopefully useful knowledge.

But is there a better theory than to break a wrong from unintentional tort, to tort, to felony manslaughter, to 1 or 2nd murder in my example? Most lawyers I know scoff at us students and most real business people scoff at the MBAs as neither are "real world". I see that since I am 45 and in a career change and I have little tolerance to scholarly theory at times.

But I want to hear a real lawyer's take on these issues even though we are supposed to give the textbook/hornbook answer and not quote real remedies we saw as summer law clerks.

[hexonxonx]

Is this show coming on soon again?

[carbonmotion]

What I meant to say that your hypotheticals are not 100% true in every jurisdiction.

I went to law school, but I don't practice law. In a sense, my work is more business related, it takes me to interesting places with unique problems.

I'm fortunate to have a position that compensates me generously for work that intrigues me.

[atszyman]

I wish there was a way to guarantee a predator would never repeat the offense. But even if there were, there is still the issue of justice to be dealt out to the predator for the original offense. Saying "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" does nothing. Nor does putting them in general population for 25-to-life then letting them back out in 4-to-8 for "good behavior".

Of course if you're going to go the route of permanent fixes you'd have to also ensure 100% positive of guilt.

It would be truly interesting to see the rate of repeat offenders versus the rate of the innocent being found guilty.

You can say that innocence is presumed throughout the trial but in cases where children were the victims, with a jury of human beings it's sometimes hard for everyone not to latch onto a likely target.

As for Dateline, I'm actually awaiting the show where they pull a switcheroo and catch Chris Hansen...That would be good TV.

[63dot]

What I meant to say that your hypotheticals are not 100% true in every jurisdiction.

I went to law school, but I don't practice law. In a sense, my work is more business related, it takes me to interesting places with unique problems.

I'm fortunate to have a position that compensates me generously for work that intrigues me.

I will admit that my hypotheticals are only textbook based, and from Finz, Gilbert's, Multi-State, or bar review questions, not real life.

I was trying, somehow, to help gillikson, and show approximately where a crime crossed over from a "sex crime" to a "crime of violence". Usually, in every case study (IRAC) or casebook case, that I found where a person was raped, they were charged with a violent crime, not a sex crime. It certainly wasn't a victimless crime like some streaker at a football game or some drunk fratboys who thought it would be fun to go up and down the street at Mardi Gras and piss on police cars or the local flasher people ignore in Central Park.

I saw that, while I agreed that the sentences may not be strong enough, I thought he may have been using remedies as hypos from the middle ages, and that was what people may have been thinking he meant and thus attacking his stance.

Going through this thread, there does not seem to be disagreement over crime being bad, but maybe the jail time involved, or lack thereof.

[63dot]

Of course if you're going to go the route of permanent fixes you'd have to also ensure 100% positive of guilt.

It would be truly interesting to see the rate of repeat offenders versus the rate of the innocent being found guilty.

You can say that innocence is presumed throughout the trial but in cases where children were the victims, with a jury of human beings it's sometimes hard for everyone not to latch onto a likely target.

As for Dateline, I'm actually awaiting the show where they pull a switcheroo and catch Chris Hansen...That would be good TV.

This will pull the whole thread into a different territory, but it should relate. Certain races, and poor people regardless of race, are arrested, charged, and convicted more per capita than other groups of people. Some member law schools work for an organization called the "Innocence Project" and work to remedy those who have been put behind bars for crimes they did not commit.

While it is entirely possible for a person to be mistaken for a rapist or child molester, some people do hard time for allegedly robbing a bank, killing the teller/customers/cops, and fleeing from the scene with millions. Sometimes, years later, through the "Innocence Project", a person doing a life sentence is found to be innocent.

anyway, rape cases are common as turnarounds as are faulty circumstantial evidence, but here's the site www.innocenceproject.org

In one rape case, one alleged victim pointed out a man who ended up doing his full 7 years and the woman later confessed to making the whole story up.

[gilkisson]

I will admit that my hypotheticals are only textbook based, and from Finz, Gilbert's, or bar review questions, not real life.

I was trying, somehow, to help gillikson, and show approximately where a crime crossed over from a "sex crime" to a "crime of violence".

I appreciate where you are coming from better now. I'm thinking great, I'm debating law with a friggin' law student/lawyer! And not a kid, either, but one near as old as myself.

I have no doubt that what you say is more or less the case, somewhere, as described in one or more tomes of jurisprudence. But I'm not speaking as a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Just my personal opinions. And yes, we cannot put people on the rack any more, nor can we use the Iron Maiden (either the device or the music, both are torture).

As whether or not rape is or is not a sex crime, I feel it should be. In addition to being a crime of violence. The crimes are additive, should not the penalties be as well? I fail to see how hitting a lady on the head with an iron pipe is equivalent to hitting her with the same pipe and then raping her.

The nicities of law, I will leave to the lawyers and barristers. I don't think I have the stomach for it.

[63dot]

I appreciate where you are coming from better now. I'm thinking great, I'm debating law with a friggin' law student/lawyer! And not a kid, either, but one near as old as myself.

I have no doubt that what you say is more or less the case, somewhere, as described in one or more tomes of jurisprudence. But I'm not speaking as a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Just my personal opinions. And yes, we cannot put people on the rack any more, nor can we use the Iron Maiden (either the device or the music, both are torture).

As whether or not rape is or is not a sex crime, I feel it should be. In addition to being a crime of violence. The crimes are additive, should not the penalties be as well? I fail to see how hitting a lady on the head with an iron pipe is equivalent to hitting her with the same pipe and then raping her.

The nicities of law, I will leave to the lawyers and barristers. I don't think I have the stomach for it.

I totally agree with you on sentencing being too lenient.

But if you go after a "perp", hit them where you know you can get the biggest sentence. A "sex" crime will give them a few years, maybe just probation.

Going after a rapist via a violent crime theory will get him, in California, 20 to life.

Same thing with lawsuits: If you trip over a banana peel in a Wal-Mart and break your wrist, and thus incur a $10,000 dollar medical bill for that broken wrist, will you sue the man you saw eating the banana (who you know to be a co-worker) who makes $10 dollars an hour, sue the grocery store who sold him that banana - and lawyers have tried that - or do you sue Wal-Mart?

Who do you think will pony up the money if you win enough to cover your broken wrist? Unofficially, it's called the deep pocket theory. And in this case, you only have a girlfriend and unofficially her name is "Sue". :)

Unless you have money to pay a lawyer for three separate lawsuits, save you money an go after the one who can pay you for your injury. In some jurisdictions, all three can be found liable, but not all are equally found to lose in court at the same rate, like the grocery store owner. In my town, one coffee shop was sued because the patron burned their tongue on hot soup, which contained animal fat, and was thus hotter than any cup of coffee. The suit went to lower court, but was eventually thrown out. And yes, this happened right after the McDonald's hot coffee in the lap case.

As a joke, one public defender said you have to be on your toes because the deputy DAs are not interested in finding out the truth, they are only interested in department policy, and that policy states, "It's against department policy to lose any case." Some justice system we have. :)

[63dot]

Is this show coming on soon again?

Sorry if we (CalBoy, atszyman, gillikson, me, and others) are all are talking about something distasteful as the rule of law. I suggest you get on a plane and move to a Taliban village. Maybe their lack of seeking out debate and remedies will suit your point of view. :)

And if you are in the Taliban, my apologies, and I hope you don't take offense and bomb my city, thus I never state where I am from.

[gilkisson]

I totally agree with you on sentencing being too lenient.

But if you go after a "perp", hit them where you know you can get the biggest sentence. A "sex" crime will give them a few years, maybe just probation.

Going after a rapist via a violent crime theory will get him, in California, 20 to life.

How can one commit a non-violent rape?:confused: Be it physical force or roofies, it's still...


Same thing with lawsuits: If you trip over a banana peel in a Wal-Mart and break your wrist, and thus incur a $10,000 dollar medical bill for that broken wrist, will you sue the man you saw eating the banana (who you know to be a co-worker) who makes $10 dollars an hour, sue the grocery store who sold him that banana - and lawyers have tried that - or do you sue Wal-Mart?

Who do you think will pony up the money if you win enough to cover your broken wrist? Unofficially, it's called the deep pocket theory. And in this case, you only have a girlfriend and unofficially her name is "Sue". :)

Unless you have money to pay a lawyer for three separate lawsuits, save you money an go after the one who can pay you for your injury. In some jurisdictions, all three can be found liable, but not all are equally found to lose in court at the same rate, like the grocery store owner. In my town, one coffee shop was sued because the patron burned their tongue on hot soup, which contained animal fat, and was thus hotter than any cup of coffee. The suit went to lower court, but was eventually thrown out. And yes, this happened right after the McDonald's hot coffee in the lap case.

As a joke, one public defender said you have to be on your toes because the deputy DAs are not interested in finding out the truth, they are only interested in department policy, and that policy states, "It's against department policy to lose any case." Some justice system we have. :)

Well, there ya go. It is indeed some system. Rape isn't as serious as a punch in the nose, and if you slip on a banana peel, you can legally rape the one with the deepest pockets, no matter how distant.

Small wonder then that Shakespeare has Henry VI spouting off against the legal-beagles...

[63dot]

How can one commit a non-violent rape?:confused: Be it physical force or roofies, it's still...



Well, there ya go. It is indeed some system. Rape isn't as serious as a punch in the nose, and if you slip on a banana peel, you can legally rape the one with the deepest pockets, no matter how distant.

Small wonder then that Shakespeare has Henry VI spouting off against the legal-beagles...

There isn't a non-violent rape, only that all rape that is w/o consent or privilege of law, and causes harm is a violent crime. Violent crime convictions get the biggest sentences. In early England, if a man decided to have rough sex with his wife and raped and beat her, it was legal under common law under the Crown.

Our legal system is not perfect, but thank God we have laws and most people respect them, unlike one above poster, who also seems to believe laws (in false advertising/advertising) are either useless or not to be followed. There are people in modern countries who don't believe in the rule of law, and they should be deported, imho, as they pose the biggest risk to democracy. Countries that don't have a rule of law, pick your favorite, should be changed, even with force. I was all OK with us going in guns ablaze into Afghanistan, because they broke international law by harboring the terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center. But going into Iraq, on any Bush theory, was flat out wrong.

[gilkisson]

There isn't a non-violent rape, only that all rape that is w/o consent or privilege of law, and causes harm is a violent crime. Violent crime convictions get the biggest sentences. In early England, if a man decided to have rough sex with his wife and raped and beat her, it was legal under common law under the Crown.

I don't know if it purely anecdotal (and there is no way in hell I'm going to try it to find out!), but there is a common meme/story that in this state, it is/was legal to beat one's wife, an any Sunday morning, on the steps of the county courthouse, with a wooden rod no bigger around than one's thumb... There are hundreds, I'm sure, of similar stories from our "dark ages"...


Our legal system is not perfect, but thank God we have laws and most people respect them, unlike one above poster, who also seems to believe laws (in false advertising/advertising) are either useless or not to be followed. There are people in modern countries who don't believe in the rule of law, and they should be deported, imho, as they pose the biggest risk to democracy. Countries that don't have a rule of law, pick your favorite, should be changed, even with force. I was all OK with us going in guns ablaze into Afghanistan, because they broke international law by harboring the terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center. But going into Iraq, on any Bush theory, was flat out wrong.

Well, there's a yardstick, but one that goes both ways. Both Japan and Germany had a very well-establish rule of law in place, just not ones we could abide. Their systems were changed, by force. The Soviet Union had very well stated laws (even if their practical application didn't match what was written), yet we collectively (and many of us, myself included, personally) were prepared to defend our system, and if need be, step in to change theirs. So it isn't merely those nation-states without a well-established playbook in place we must be wary of -- it is also those with a system of government which is openly antithetical to Democracy. And there are a lot of those.

In the case of Afghanistan, yes, we did *part* of what we should have done. In the case of Iraq... well, he was a bad man who needed to go away. But so are many others. I feel we screwed the pooch in '92 when we didn't close the deal then and there. Reminded me of that recent unpleasantness in Southeast Asia, made all the papers back in '68... don't armchair quarterback.

Iraq Round II was (in large part) about saving Daddy's face. Or something.

And now we have reaaallllly went off topic...

[kavika411]

Is this show coming on soon again?

Sorry if we (CalBoy, atszyman, gillikson, me, and others) are all are talking about something distasteful as the rule of law. I suggest you get on a plane and move to a Taliban village. Maybe their lack of seeking out debate and remedies will suit your point of view. :)

And if you are in the Taliban, my apologies, and I hope you don't take offense and bomb my city, thus I never state where I am from.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I had the same question as hexonxonx. I had heard that it was being pulled because of the Texas DA that dropped charges on 23 suspects because of alleged foul play.

Otherwise, good thread.

[hayduke]

If there was a way that they could "trap" people before the commit a crime and get them into a treatment program, then something really good would be happening.

As it stands it preys on the weak and panders to millions. They may be ultimately protecting children, but these same men may not go to such extremes without as willing a victim as the show's producer and his cronies.

[gilkisson]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I had the same question as hexonxonx. I had heard that it was being pulled because of the Texas DA that dropped charges on 23 suspects because of alleged foul play.

Otherwise, good thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/ should have everything on Chris Hansen one can wish for/stand.

[63dot]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I had the same question as hexonxonx. I had heard that it was being pulled because of the Texas DA that dropped charges on 23 suspects because of alleged foul play.

Otherwise, good thread.

Either he meant when is that TV show coming, or what I thought he meant which is "Oh no, another stupid thread about law, order, and fairness". But I gleaned that from previous posts he made elsewhere which do not appear to bear any tolerance for rule of law, that's all. But if it's about the "show", then my apologies to him. :)

Over the years, I have met plenty of libertarians, some ultra left, some ultra right (and he may or may not be one of them), and some other right wing republicans or left wing democrats, but the extremes of both parties, who believe there should be no law, or very little law, but if you have no law/few laws, or no fair laws, what you get is the Taliban, the Cultural Revolution in China, and North Korea.

I think one thing we can all agree on is to punish child molesters, rapists, and other violent criminals. They are not sex criminals, but violent, dangerous criminals who need to be taken off the street and either sent to rehab and/or prison, whichever is more appropriate.

If the person is criminally insane, let's say schizophrenic, then prison would not be a good fit. Atascadero State Prison in California is more the place where rehab is more a remedy than jail time.

What people don't understand is that rape, whether of an adult or child, is a violent crime. A sex crime is a prostitute soliciting or her/his john. Big difference. Most states recognize prostitution and their johns as elements of a victimless crime. Rape is a violent crime with harsher consequences. One cannot put a soliciting hooker on the street in the same category of a serial rapist. One may or may not be violent, but the other is "always" violent and dangerous.

[leekohler]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I had the same question as hexonxonx. I had heard that it was being pulled because of the Texas DA that dropped charges on 23 suspects because of alleged foul play.


This show always struck me as entrapment. I mean, anything that gets these people off the street is a good thing in one way, but legally, this has to be a nightmare for a prosecutor.

This show is sick, IMO. I watched it once and nearly lost my dinner.

[63dot]

This show always struck me as entrapment. I mean, anything that gets these people off the street is a good thing in one way, but legally, this has to be a nightmare for a prosecutor.

This show is sick, IMO. I watched it once and nearly lost my dinner.

I saw it once, and no warrant was shown, no miranda rights read, just cuff him and stuff him into the police car. The miranda case, where one has to be read their rights, is key to due process. It always has to be read before a subject is put into the police car/van. This is Due Process.

Due process is the cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the key right. More important than freedom of speech and more important than right to bear arms as per (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Federalist letters as retort to dissenting opinion of the anti-Federalists at the time, of which both eventually signed our Constitution). But all stated rights, key rights and minor rights, in the Constitution, amendments, and bill of rights are important.

What we are talking about is a tv show, and on many shows, semi-reality or Miami Vice, the tiny Miranda part is often left out and this gives Americans a terrible misconception about the legal system and police officers. And Jack Bauer, well he thinks Miranda is an ex-lover he left behind when he took out Salazar (24). :)

anyway, Google Miranda v. Arizona

[leekohler]

I saw it once, and no warrant was shown, no miranda rights read, just cuff him and stuff him into the police car. The miranda case, where one has to be read their rights, is key to due process. It always has to be read before a subject is put into the police car/van. This is Due Process.

Due process is the cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the key right. More important than freedom of speech and more important than right to bear arms as per (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Federalist letters as retort to dissenting opinion of the anti-Federalists at the time, of which both eventually signed our Constitution). But all stated rights, key rights and minor rights, in the Constitution, amendments, and bill of rights are important.

What we are talking about is a tv show, and on many shows, semi-reality or Miami Vice, the tiny Miranda part is often left out and this gives Americans a terrible misconception about the legal system and police officers. And Jack Bauer, well he thinks Miranda is an ex-lover he left behind when he took out Salazar (24). :)

Agreed. Everything about this show makes me ill, from the subject matter to the methods of entrapment. It's all unbelievably disgusting.

[63dot]

Agreed. Everything about this show makes me ill, from the subject matter to the methods of entrapment. It's all unbelievably disgusting.

My emotions tell me any detraction from the due process concept and Miranda is wrong. Until September 11, 2001, due process was alive and well.

Bush Co. changed "some" of that with the Patriot Act and made certain aspects of due process outdated and illegal.

Thus Boumediene v. Bush which turned into United States v. Bush, and recently through long debate, Bush lost. No appeal from this ruling, but I doubt good ole W will do any jail time or pay any fines.

If Bush were to serve another term, which currently can't be done, and he still had a sizable GOP Congress pre-2006, I think he would have made Writ of HC, Due Process, and Miranda a thing of the past.

[gilkisson]

I saw it once, and no warrant was shown, no miranda rights read, just cuff him and stuff him into the police car. The miranda case, where one has to be read their rights, is key to due process. It always has to be read before a subject is put into the police car/van. This is Due Process.

I must have seen a later episode. They were ostentatiously making a point of reading Miranda, front and center of camera.

Correct me if wrong, but wasn't Miranda v. Arizona in 1964/65 (or so)? Miranda therefore cannot be the key part of due process, coming as it does almost 200 years later...?


Due process is the cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the key right. More important than freedom of speech and more important than right to bear arms as per (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Federalist letters as retort to dissenting opinion of the anti-Federalists at the time, of which both eventually signed our Constitution). But all stated rights, key rights and minor rights, in the Constitution, amendments, and bill of rights are important.


Again, tell me to hush if I blather, but "due process" is basically the definition of "follow the letter and spirit of the law"... yes? The Constitution is the "law of the land", and "due process" comes *from* that. In protecting the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of citizens is due process not violated. I'm not saying this well, but.... Due Process in and of itself isn't a defined Right, it is the collective protection of all the Rights. Right?

[és:]

Agreed. Everything about this show makes me ill, from the subject matter to the methods of entrapment. It's all unbelievably disgusting.

I've not actually watched a full episode of this but I'm in two minds. I fear that my demons are shouting down my better angels on this one. If real pedophiles are getting taken off the street, then I find it hard (despite everything in my make up telling me it's wrong) to have too much of a problem with this.

Being made into a TV show is far easier to condemn. I don't like that at all.

[gilkisson]

I've not actually watched a full episode of this but I'm in two minds. I fear that my demons are shouting down my better angels on this one. If real pedophiles are getting taken off the street, then I find it hard (despite everything in my make up telling me it's wrong) to have too much of a problem with this.

Being made into a TV show is far easier to condemn. I don't like that at all.

I can agree, but there is one word that is a fly in the ointment: "if". IF real predators are taken off the streets. What if Hansen's monumental ego and the show's cluster-foobar of any given case guarantees a predator's release back onto the streets?

Would you have even less problems with it, were it a purely law-enforcement sting operation, without the media circus? I know I would. Get them off the streets, and put them under the jail...

[63dot]

I must have seen a later episode. They were ostentatiously making a point of reading Miranda, front and center of camera.

Correct me if wrong, but wasn't Miranda v. Arizona in 1964/65 (or so)? Miranda therefore cannot be the key part of due process, coming as it does almost 200 years later...?



Again, tell me to hush if I blather, but "due process" is basically the definition of "follow the letter and spirit of the law"... yes? The Constitution is the "law of the land", and "due process" comes *from* that. In protecting the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of citizens is due process not violated. I'm not saying this well, but.... Due Process in and of itself isn't a defined Right, it is the collective protection of all the Rights. Right?

Interestingly, you have a great point. Basically due process has such a broad definition that no two people concur word for word.

If you asked an American in 1776 what due process was, they would likely say, "not what King George III is doing to us." Due process as a definition is as broad and unclear as the term "democracy". Soldiers fight and law enforcement puts their lives on the line to protect democracy, the Constitution, and Due Process. My dad did so in world war II. I did helping to catch Soviet spies, he he, but the lack of protection, or to have guns (analysts don't carry guns despite what Jack Ryan did) certainly made me leave the job. :) Anyway, a lot of Americans were put in harm's way, got injured, or even died protecting this Due Process which is the cornerstone of our Constitution as per the framers. Vague, yes, but still important enough to send your sons and daughters in front of a dangerous opponent on some battlefield far away.

We don't exactly agree (ie - Miranda v. Arizona, in re:Winship, NY) what due process is as Americans, but when it's absent, we all know. For instance, toss a grown man behind bars for stealing $112 bucks for several months, but also toss a minor person behind bars for 3-6 years, in the same state for the same crime, then we can say due process was violated.

Believe it or not, some NY appeals judges thought it was OK to throw a man behind bars for a few months, but throw a minor behind bars for 3-6 years, for that same crime. The NY appeals court believed the "extra" time would rehabilitate the child "while there was still time" and change him into an upstanding citizen.

FWIW, I do like the service America's Most Wanted serves. And when a mistake was made, which is rare, the host makes a retraction. In criminal cases, especially in states where circumstantial evidence holds the same weight as direct evidence, then mistakes are bound to be made by AMW, cops, and the FBI. We will never have a perfect justice system, but it's better than most and at the end of the day, we can be proud of America, but also proud that we have a forum to see how far we have yet to do, and fix the system.

When the Constitution was written, slavery was accepted and legal. Only white, male landowners of a certain size of land were allowed to vote. But thank God that the definition of an American voter has expanded to include more people.

There are law students of a conservative group called the Federalist Society who do believe that only men should vote, or that a good remedy for illegal aliens is to make them slaves, unpaid, for a time to gain citizenship, or that Miranda should be overturned. While they are the minority of law students, there are Americans who want to return to a male-only voting system (the way Ann Coulter has suggested/and she went to law school!) or use slavery as a way to boost the economy. I say we are America, and if you like slaves, move to some southeast Asian country where it's legalized, or where teenage prostitutes are regulated by the government to generate income for the state.

[és:]

Would you have even less problems with it, were it a purely law-enforcement sting operation, without the media circus? I know I would. Get them off the streets, and put them under the jail...

Yeah, I'd have much less of a problem if it wasn't 'entertainment'. I've watched some clips on another show that was discussing it. It seems... dirty.

[leekohler]

Yeah, I'd have much less of a problem if it wasn't 'entertainment'. I've watched some clips on another show that was discussing it. It seems... dirty.

Exactly. This show is probably one of the lowest things I've ever seen. It's speaks to our lowest instincts as a species.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

It's interesting that I found this thread while watching Hard Candy.

[gilkisson]

Interestingly, you have a great point. Basically due process has such a broad definition that no two people concur word for word.

If you asked an American in 1776 what due process was, they would likely say, "not what King George III is doing to us." Due process as a definition is as broad and unclear as the term "democracy". Soldiers fight and law enforcement puts their lives on the line to protect democracy, the Constitution, and Due Process. My dad did so in world war II. I did helping to catch Soviet spies, he he, but the lack of protection, or to have guns (analysts don't carry guns despite what Jack Ryan did) certainly made me leave the job. :) Anyway, a lot of Americans were put in harm's way, got injured, or even died protecting this Due Process which is the cornerstone of our Constitution as per the framers. Vague, yes, but still important enough to send your sons and daughters in front of a dangerous opponent on some battlefield far away.

We don't exactly agree (ie - Miranda v. Arizona, in re:Winship, NY) what due process is as Americans, but when it's absent, we all know. For instance, toss a grown man behind bars for stealing $112 bucks for several months, but also toss a minor person behind bars for 3-6 years, in the same state for the same crime, then we can say due process was violated.

Believe it or not, some NY appeals judges thought it was OK to throw a man behind bars for a few months, but throw a minor behind bars for 3-6 years, for that same crime. The NY appeals court believed the "extra" time would rehabilitate the child "while there was still time" and change him into an upstanding citizen.

FWIW, I do like the service America's Most Wanted serves. And when a mistake was made, which is rare, the host makes a retraction. In criminal cases, especially in states where circumstantial evidence holds the same weight as direct evidence, then mistakes are bound to be made by AMW, cops, and the FBI. We will never have a perfect justice system, but it's better than most and at the end of the day, we can be proud of America, but also proud that we have a forum to see how far we have yet to do, and fix the system.

When the Constitution was written, slavery was accepted and legal. Only white, male landowners of a certain size of land were allowed to vote. But thank God that the definition of an American voter has expanded to include more people.

Interesting. I suspect you and I may have been in nearby locales, once upon a time. Ever been in a country which is no longer there?;)

I respect your position on due process for all. I, too, once took an oath in its defense (well, more than once, but the point remains)... I am not suggesting that we dispense with the Constitution, or make it selectively applicable. I know that starts the slippery slope, and where does it stop? Who's next?

I know we cannot do that. That's why we enjoy the longest-existing continuous government in human history. Must be doing something right.

[63dot]

Interesting. I suspect you and I may have been in nearby locales, once upon a time. Ever been in a country which is no longer there?;)


Not old enough to have served in South Vietnam, but worked to "monitor" Soviet literature dispersed in the west, for political and other purposes. I was class of '82 and the youngest I know of in that war graduated in '75 and served in the Navy during the pullout of Saigon and a few later stragglers into 1976.

Basically I was lucky to be born later, so I did paper pushing, not explosions and guns as seen by fellow paper pusher analysts like the very fictional Jack Ryan. But all of us were scared it could happen. The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, but nobody really thought out the impossible logistics of such an episode. :)

Back then Uncle Sam was so scared of the Soviets, that some in the intelligence community thought that Russian newspapers/literature sold in the US had hidden messages for KGB agents living in the US. A kind of Russian spy posing as American/No Way Out-Kevin Costner theory. If we had only known that the Soviets were bankrupting themselves with a huge army with no intention of ever using it, the cold war would not have lasted as long.

At a certain point, we will realize that Al Qaeda is not some 400,000 strong secret standing army dispersed worldwide with ballistic missiles, carriers, F-16s, and tanks, and I put good money on the fact that they will never have the Saudis, Egyptians, Iraq, or Iran stage an all out attack for Allah on the United States. But the Jehovah Witness friend of mine who shows up unannounced from time to time thinks so. :)

[hexonxonx]

Sorry if we (CalBoy, atszyman, gillikson, me, and others) are all are talking about something distasteful as the rule of law. I suggest you get on a plane and move to a Taliban village. Maybe their lack of seeking out debate and remedies will suit your point of view. :)

And if you are in the Taliban, my apologies, and I hope you don't take offense and bomb my city, thus I never state where I am from.

Well, I never considered this from the same point of view as you. This was a television show and I found it highly entertaining. The idiots getting arrested deserved it and I would love to see another round of shows make it to the airwaves.

A radio show that I listen to had Chris Hansen in and they played his cookies and lemonade bit on him as soon as he walked into the studio. I found it amuzing.

I want CHRIS Hanson shows! :D Ok carry on boys.

[63dot]

Well, I never considered this from the same point of view as you. This was a television show and I found it highly entertaining. The idiots getting arrested deserved it and I would love to see another round of shows make it to the airwaves.

A radio show that I listen to had Chris Hansen in and they played his cookies and lemonade bit on him as soon as he walked into the studio. I found it amuzing.

I want CHRIS Hanson shows! :D Ok carry on boys.


HE HE, lmao after I reread it :)

I thought, from the way I first read it, you were one of those, cough, UC Berkeley radicals calling for a utopian anarchy. (the former law dean claims he is one of those who ironically went to a "stan" country to teach rule of law to a formerly lawless region. Life is weird that way.

somebody pointed my post out to me, so I guess the Taliban won't use your services :)