ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th January 2019, 03:42 PM   #121
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,638
OK, enough with the gavel bangin'. Was there a lawyer present when he confessed? It doesn't seem to be something that they would tell him to do.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 04:37 PM   #122
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,147
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Pretty sure when you're a public defender, you don't get to pick and choose clients who seem innocent or less bad. Somebody's going to get stuck with the "undeniably guilty as hell of a total atrocity" cases sometimes.

If you believe that everyone deserves a lawyer because of the principal of the matter, it's something you're just have to figure out how to deal with.

......
And it seems to me that nearly ALL defense lawyers are "public defenders"*. Because even my southern California house wouldn't me a defense. And I also suspect most defendants are of the lower economic class.

*Anybody hear of any stats? What percentage of felony suspects are defended by public defenders? Also, are public defenders ALL pro bono? I've that a certain amount of lawyer's time has to be pro bono work.

eta: I think they are sentenced to it as part of their parole agreement. I mean Bar rules.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 15th January 2019 at 04:40 PM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 04:50 PM   #123
BowlOfRed
Graduate Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Also, are public defenders ALL pro bono? I've that a certain amount of lawyer's time has to be pro bono work.
Public defenders work for the public. They are paid for their work (just not by the defendant).

The ABA recommends (not requires) that lawyers try to do a certain amount of pro bono work every year. But just the prep work on a court case could be well in excess of that amount.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 05:02 PM   #124
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,030
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In the UK, as I understand it, they have a different view of our Miranda rule. Defendants are warned that they don't have to talk to the police, but if they don't tell their alibi to the cops -- "I wasn't there," "I was defending myself," "It's really my money," "Martians made me do it," -- it's hard to offer it later. Defendants can't keep revising their defense as they find out what evidence there is against them.


https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights
OFF TOPIC
Slight difference though, in that in the US Miranda is read before questioning begins, whereas in the UK, Australia, NZ etc, the equivalent is read as, or after, the suspect is arrested.

In the UK, you may refuse to answer any questions, and this does not impact on you in any legal way

I can relate a personal experience with this, which I will link here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=919

...as I do not wish to derail the thread any further
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th January 2019 at 05:07 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 06:26 PM   #125
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,744
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

In the UK, you may refuse to answer any questions, and this does not impact on you in any legal way

No comment.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 12:18 PM   #126
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
So there was a $50,000 reward for information leading to her rescue.

Quote:
The FBI offered a $25,000 reward for any information leading to her rescue. In addition, the Jennie-O Turkey Store, the employer of her parents, Denise and James Closs, added another $25,000 to that reward.

A couple who called 911 and alerted authorities that Jayme Closs was at their home said they did not want a $50,000 reward for providing information on the abducted girl's whereabouts.

Kristin Kasinskas said that she and her husband, Peter, had not been approached by officials about the reward or where it may go. Still, they said if anyone does receive the reward, it should be Jayme. "Because she got herself out," Kasinskas said.
I suspect the only way Jayme Cross is going to see any of that money is if the Kasinskas family accepts the reward and gifts it to her.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 16th January 2019 at 12:20 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 02:11 PM   #127
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,741
What are the odds that this was Patterson's first attack?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 02:23 PM   #128
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
What are the odds that this was Patterson's first attack?
Probably pretty low. It wasn't even his first (attempted) attack on her.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 02:26 PM   #129
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Jayme Closs rescued herself. Should she get the $50,000 reward money?

Quote:
(CNN) - A couple who called 911 and alerted authorities that Jayme Closs was at their home said they did not want a $50,000 reward for providing information on the abducted girl's whereabouts.

Kristin Kasinskas said that she and her husband, Peter, had not been approached by officials about the reward or where it may go. Still, they said if anyone does receive the reward, it should be Jayme.

"Because she got herself out," Kasinskas said.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/ja...nds/index.html
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 02:52 PM   #130
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,239
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
So there was a $50,000 reward for information leading to her rescue.


I suspect the only way Jayme Cross is going to see any of that money is if the Kasinskas family accepts the reward and gifts it to her.
....

Why shouldn't she get it? The money's already on the table. Half of it is from her parents' employer. The bad PR from keeping it would cost more than it's worth. And the FBI half is "for information leading to the whereabouts" of Jayme Closs. It doesn't say "....unless she escapes and says here I am."
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/jayme-closs

I hope her family sets up a 529 plan for her and deposits donations there. She and they probably don't need a lot of money right now, but they certainly will down the road when it's time for college.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 03:48 PM   #131
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Why shouldn't she get it?....
I think she should. But I'm not sure the FBI is that altruistic.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 04:00 PM   #132
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,082
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And the FBI half is "for information leading to the whereabouts" of Jayme Closs. It doesn't say "....unless she escapes and says here I am."
It also doesn't say they won't pay the perp if he were to provide the information, but that would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think she should. But I'm not sure the FBI is that altruistic.
I understand the sentiment of course, but that's not what this money is for. They should hold on to it for the next time they need it.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 16th January 2019 at 04:04 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 04:13 PM   #133
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,239
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
It also doesn't say they won't pay the perp if he were to provide the information, but that would be wrong.
.....

They don't have to. Basic common law is that you can't be allowed to benefit from committing a crime.

But they could give it to the woman who helped her or the couple who made the 911 call, who after all did provide the report to law enforcement, and they could pass it to her. The FBI has plenty of money for "the next time."

Last edited by Bob001; 16th January 2019 at 04:15 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 04:36 PM   #134
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,735
I'm not too concerned about the FBI tip reward. Given that Jayme Closs is still quite young and has been orphaned by this crime, it's very likely those in her community or elsewhere will take some initiative to crowdfund some financial support to help her get by, either immediately or in trust until she's an adult.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 04:43 PM   #135
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,239
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I'm not too concerned about the FBI tip reward. Given that Jayme Closs is still quite young and has been orphaned by this crime, it's very likely those in her community or elsewhere will take some initiative to crowdfund some financial support to help her get by, either immediately or in trust until she's an adult.

There are already such funds, and scammers may be trying to get a piece. That doesn't mean the reward shouldn't be paid to somebody.
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...us/2571678002/
https://superiortelegram.com/news/cr...rt-jayme-closs

As I said, I hope they set up a 529 college fund for her. Handing a family a big bucket of money suddenly doesn't always work out well.

Last edited by Bob001; 16th January 2019 at 04:47 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 08:20 AM   #136
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
They don't have to. Basic common law is that you can't be allowed to benefit from committing a crime.
Basic common law nothing try "basic common sense."

This is like asking why the court wasn't more lenient on the Manendez Brothers because they were orphans.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 12:14 PM   #137
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,239
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Basic common law nothing try "basic common sense."

This is like asking why the court wasn't more lenient on the Manendez Brothers because they were orphans.
Sometimes the law and common sense diverge. One of the first cases in the area was when someone who murdered his grandfather demanded to inherit his estate, arguing that there was no law against it. The judge said "Not so fast..." The laws have since been revised.
https://www.straightdope.com/columns...-their-crimes/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 12:27 PM   #138
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,239
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
This is getting close to Bobbing the thread. That is, it is taking a commonly accepted standard and pushing it into the grey area where philosophical speculation can run rampant.

A person could get charged with two tickets. The court would probably find that it is one offense. Or maybe not. It wouldn't likely go further than that.

There are cases that have serious questions over whether the particular and peculiar events of the situation are one or more separate crimes. Those questions are resolved based on the particular circumstance of those events. Those peculiarities don't change the basic standards.

Chaining her up every time he leaves is not a new crime and is only an extension of a single crime and each event would be considered in sentencing.

We could get into wild discussions on what constitutes a continuous crime and what constitutes a separate crime. If she escaped back to her family and was there for three months and then he kidnapped her again, wouldn't that be another crime? What if it was three weeks? Or three days? Or three hours? Or three minutes? Or three seconds? Ay, conundrums! There obviously is no one simple specific answer. The answer is that the law and the courts have a whole bunch of standards and theories and principals and case law that are applied in specific situations are they are raised. When the questions are raised, they are addressed with reason and precedent. Attempting to provide a specific answer to speculative hypothetical is essentially frivolous.
.....

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole here, but if every act subsequent to the initial kidnapping can be folded into that one charge, it means that a kidnapper has no incentive to treat a victim better. If he assaults her every day, threatens her every day, chains her up in a freezer, he's no worse off than if he provides luxury accommodations, gourmet meals, daily housekeeping and HBO. That can't be justice. Sure, there's a limit to how much you can punish him, and in Wisconsin life without parole is the max. But separate charges for separate acts would be a way of establishing a complete record of everything he did in case he somehow gets a parole hearing 30 years down the road.

There are people arguing today that "life without parole" is a cruel and unusual sentence. Handing down that sentence today doesn't guarantee that a future generation won't say "Aww, he's been punished enough, turn him loose." Compiling a record of dozens, even hundreds of specific crimes gives a potential future parole board plenty of food for thought.

Here's one notorious murder case where "life without parole" might not be.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6a733f5f2d17
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 10:56 PM   #139
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not to go too far down the rabbit hole here, but if every act subsequent to the initial kidnapping can be folded into that one charge, it means that a kidnapper has no incentive to treat a victim better. If he assaults her every day, threatens her every day, chains her up in a freezer, he's no worse off than if he provides luxury accommodations, gourmet meals, daily housekeeping and HBO. That can't be justice. Sure, there's a limit to how much you can punish him, and in Wisconsin life without parole is the max. But separate charges for separate acts would be a way of establishing a complete record of everything he did in case he somehow gets a parole hearing 30 years down the road.
If there was assault, that would be a separate charge. It could even be multiple charges. But there was only one kidnapping.

Those other factors do not introduce new charges, but would be considered at sentencing. Those factors would determine whether the person gets a short or long sentence. The nature of the crime is recorded and would be available to a parole board.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 12:49 PM   #140
Bouncing Bettys
Scholar
 
Bouncing Bettys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Bowen Island, British Columbia
Posts: 117
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The suspect killed her parents and either let her go or she escaped?


Hmm mmm.....
It wouldn't be the first time someone killed a family in order to take a child for themselves.

I am reminded of a case, which reached almost legendary status in my neck of the woods and camping/tourism industry took a huge hit the following year as the suspect and the victim's truck/camper were still at large. In 1982, David Shearing stalked and murdered 6 people, 3 generations of a family, including two girls 13 and 11, as they camped. He claimed he did so in order to take their possessions, but the arresting officer wasn't buying it.
Quote:
For all intents and purposes, the case was over, but Sgt. Eastham, who had lived with this case for almost two years, couldn't believe that Shearing had taken six lives because he coveted the possessions of his victims. Before Shearing's trial, Eastham made a deal with him. When the trial was over, he wanted the truth from the convicted killer. Eastham let Shearing know that he would be writing a parole report, which would follow him throughout his stay in prison.

At their meeting, Shearing admitted it was the two girls who had attracted him to the campsite. After killing the four adults, he had sexually attacked the girls. No one will ever know what torments the children suffered during the two days they were with Shearing after the death of their parents and grandparents.
I'm glad this case had a much better outcome, but can't imagine the physical and emotional scars she will have to live with.
Bouncing Bettys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 01:18 PM   #141
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,194
There aren't any sex-related charges?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 02:25 PM   #142
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,679
Possible since the existing charges would put him away for the rest of his life, that she was offered to not testify and they would not charge him with that, so she wouldn't have to relive the ordeal.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 02:39 PM   #143
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,194
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Possible since the existing charges would put him away for the rest of his life, that she was offered to not testify and they would not charge him with that, so she wouldn't have to relive the ordeal.
Something seems odd about that. It would then seem that charges against child rapists would be rare because all of them require the child to relive the ordeal. Maybe I'm missing something.

Another possibility is that he didn't commit any sexual crimes against her and she said that to the investigators. It's hard to believe that the kidnapping and confinement didn't include sex crime, but it has to be a possibility.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 03:01 PM   #144
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,735
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Something seems odd about that. It would then seem that charges against child rapists would be rare because all of them require the child to relive the ordeal. Maybe I'm missing something.
I would say most child rapists don't have a double-murder they've already copped to that will put them in prison for the rest of their lives regardless of what other crimes they are charged with.

But generally speaking, plea deals involving reduced charges for sex offenders aren't uncommon at all, and the typically-stated motive of prosecutors for seeking these deals is that they get the offender into jail without the child victim having to endure a trial.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 03:19 PM   #145
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,194
I would think that the citizens of Wisconsin would always want their government to charge a child rapist with child rape if it occurred. If they deliberately skip sex charges then there is no public record at all about a horrible crime that occurred in Wisconsin.

It would seem to cause outrage because it skews statistics on child abuse when governments intentionally do not charge some child rapists for rape.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 03:27 PM   #146
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,580
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
There aren't any sex-related charges?
Early days yet. The current charges were filed in the county he killed the parents in. The sex charges would probably be filed in the county he took her to.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 03:49 PM   #147
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,194
There seems to be three different hypotheses here as to why there are no sex crime charges.

1. There were sex crimes but the government has chosen not to bring those charges.

2. There were sex crimes but the county of occurrence has not yet brought the charges.

3. There were no sex crimes.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 04:03 PM   #148
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,638
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
There seems to be three different hypotheses here as to why there are no sex crime charges.

1. There were sex crimes but the government has chosen not to bring those charges.

2. There were sex crimes but the county of occurrence has not yet brought the charges.

3. There were no sex crimes.
There may be sex crimes pending and we'll all have to wait.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 08:22 PM   #149
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,741
Would the child actually need to be present at the trial? I think they can do a lot to shield a minor from directly participating in the trial.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2019, 10:43 PM   #150
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,735
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Would the child actually need to be present at the trial? I think they can do a lot to shield a minor from directly participating in the trial.
Unfortunately, yes they need to be, because an accused person has a constitutional right to confront his/her accuser in court. Some courts have allowed victims to testify via teleconference, to avoid their having to be in the same room as the accuser if there is fear that the accuser's presence will frighten the victim into not being able to answer questions. But my understanding is that not all courts agree that this is constitutionally permissible...and in any case, the child witness must still be subjected to cross-examination.

And it's potentially more the cross-examination than having to "relive the experience" that poses the greatest danger or hardship for the child, because it's the accused counsel's job to discredit the child's testimony in the minds of the jury, and some defense attorneys take a by-any-means approach to this job. So this can go anywhere from accusing the child of lying, accusing them of faking distress, characterizing their abuse as a consensual "relationship" or otherwise accusing the child of initiating or being responsible for what happened, gish-galloping and confusing the child into giving conflicting answers, all the way to outright yelling at them. And yes, you could probably expect the judge to curtail things when they get too "out of hand"; but the questions and insinuations alone can be highly damaging to a person who's just begun recovering from trauma.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:47 PM   #151
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,741
Suspect Jake Thomas Patterson hosted a Christmas gathering while Jayme Closs was imprisoned in the same house, sources say

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ve/2625431002/

Not known for certain, but it seems likely.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:14 PM   #152
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,536
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Unfortunately, yes they need to be, because an accused person has a constitutional right to confront his/her accuser in court. Some courts have allowed victims to testify via teleconference, to avoid their having to be in the same room as the accuser if there is fear that the accuser's presence will frighten the victim into not being able to answer questions. But my understanding is that not all courts agree that this is constitutionally permissible...and in any case, the child witness must still be subjected to cross-examination.

And it's potentially more the cross-examination than having to "relive the experience" that poses the greatest danger or hardship for the child, because it's the accused counsel's job to discredit the child's testimony in the minds of the jury, and some defense attorneys take a by-any-means approach to this job. So this can go anywhere from accusing the child of lying, accusing them of faking distress, characterizing their abuse as a consensual "relationship" or otherwise accusing the child of initiating or being responsible for what happened, gish-galloping and confusing the child into giving conflicting answers, all the way to outright yelling at them. And yes, you could probably expect the judge to curtail things when they get too "out of hand"; but the questions and insinuations alone can be highly damaging to a person who's just begun recovering from trauma.
There are pretty robust practises here preventing that sort of thing. Children are cross examined by a third party (not the defense counsel), and generally by live video-link. They are allowed an adult chaperone.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:21 PM   #153
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,194
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Suspect Jake Thomas Patterson hosted a Christmas gathering while Jayme Closs was imprisoned in the same house, sources say

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ve/2625431002/

Not known for certain, but it seems likely.
Daily Mail reported that last week. Did you stop reading tabloids?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:24 PM   #154
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Daily Mail reported that last week. Did you stop reading tabloids?
I only read what I can see in line at the grocery store checkout.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:45 PM   #155
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,580
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
There are pretty robust practises here preventing that sort of thing. Children are cross examined by a third party (not the defense counsel), and generally by live video-link. They are allowed an adult chaperone.
Well, that's just silly. How can you sufficiently shame the victims that way?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:49 PM   #156
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,641
In terms of "face their accuser" isn't it the case that criminal trials are brought by the state? The state is the one accusing the guy of crimes, and so he has the right to face them and their evidence.

If they call her to testify, the defense can cross-ex, but they don't have to call her unless they want. In most cases, sure they want the victim testimony, but not always
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:56 PM   #157
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,735
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
If they call her to testify, the defense can cross-ex, but they don't have to call her unless they want. In most cases, sure they want the victim testimony, but not always
That's true - that's the reason why many are suspecting the sex charges, if any such offenses occurred, are being left out. The state could probably make an effective case for the murders and the kidnapping without needing Closs's testimony. If they wanted to charge him for anything that took place while he was holding Closs at his house, she would probably have to testify because she was the only witness. The exception would be if say investigators had found video or tape recordings of illegal activity when they searched his place; then they could use those instead of having her testify directly.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; Yesterday at 02:58 PM.
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.