My board is bigger than your board

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Cite?

www.untiemysash.com
and
www.ashleylikescookies.net

or something like that...




[spree: I have no idea, but I wouldn't click them]

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
www.untiemysash.com
and
www.ashleylikescookies.net

or something like that...

Tease!


edited to add: although putting "untie" and "my sash" into google yields some fertile results, no pun intended. Weird that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

(atticus):
So some dude in the PNW pled guilty today to 48 murders in exchange for the prosecutor's promise to forego the death penalty. I repeat: forty-eight murders. All women.

Maybe this is for the PB,* but does anyone else wonder about the dubious morality of vowing to seek the death penalty up to the moment the defendant pleads guilty?

Doesn't it create a troubling incentive for you to waive your right to a jury trial on innocence or guilt in order to save your life?

And doesn't it cheapen the profound difference between death and LWOP if the state's willing to waive death in order to avoid the expense of a trial?

*This is the kind of legal policy discussion we used to have on the Big Board, FWIW.

Why is the morality dubious, separate from the question of whether the death penalty is morally dubious? The same argument can be made with any maximum penalty: a prosecutor will vow to seek punishment to the maximum extent allowable by law, and then back off for a plea agreement. IF the maximum sentence was LwoP, then pros. would vow to seek that, and a plea bargain might well allow for the possibility of parole (however theoretical, esp. in this case) in a guilty plea. In short: when do you ever see a settlement (which is what a plea bargain is) at the amount of either party's initial offer? Never. (unless you concoct some additional cost, like a counterclaim that would give negative value to a plaintiff's lawsuit).

Why is the incentive troubling? again, apart from the morality of the death penalty. FWIW, I'm not sure I see a great personal difference between LwoP and death. I might choose the latter.

The only thing cheap here is that with 48 murders, surely one jury would have returned a death sentence. IF this wasn't a case for the death penalty, what is?

And it certainly gains something for the many families who have gone 20 years without an answer to what happened to their daughter/mother/wife.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

The only thing cheap here is that with 48 murders, surely one jury would have returned a death sentence. IF this wasn't a case for the death penalty, what is?

And it certainly gains something for the many families who have gone 20 years without an answer to what happened to their daughter/mother/wife.

The implication from the CNN article is that a lesser penalty was traded for the ability to locate, identify and bury some of the victims, perhaps giving those families some comfort. It raises an interesting question about WHAT gives families comfort - seeing a conviction, getting back a body, knowing the death penalty is inflicted? Setting aside all the political issues relating to death penalty, victims rights, etc., what would give someone comfort in such a situation?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The implication from the CNN article is that a lesser penalty was traded for the ability to locate, identify and bury some of the victims, perhaps giving those families some comfort. It raises an interesting question about WHAT gives families comfort - seeing a conviction, getting back a body, knowing the death penalty is inflicted? Setting aside all the political issues relating to death penalty, victims rights, etc., what would give someone comfort in such a situation?

I don't know the answer to that, and I would guess it differs. And probably differs even for each person at a given time. My guess is that the first priority for most families is confirmation of death and location of remains, followed by ensuring "it never happens again" followed by as much pain for the defendant.

Of course, the families with remains that have already been found probably have a different perspective than those who merely suspect their wife (etc.) was a victim. Which makes it even tougher for the prosecutor to balance.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In short: when do you ever see a settlement (which is what a plea bargain is) at the amount of either party's initial offer? Never. (unless you concoct some additional cost, like a counterclaim that would give negative value to a plaintiff's lawsuit).

I see little else to quibble with in your argument, but civil litigation is a very inapt analogy. It does not function in our society as a truth-finding enterprise. The criminal law does, or is supposed to. Civil litigation also requires relatively precise proof of the penalty to be levied; both sides go into trial knowing their damages case. We do not allow the penalty simply to be a gut-feeling guess about the badness of the conduct.

Thus, "accede to this judgment, or we'll put you to death" results in an especially heavy-handed way to convince a defendant to surrender potentially meritorious but difficult to reliably predict defenses (e.g., mental state) going to the elements of the offense in a way quite unlike "pay us X, or we'll get a jury to award punitives."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Thus, "accede to this judgment, or we'll put you to death" results in an especially heavy-handed way to convince a defendant to surrender potentially meritorious but difficult to reliably predict defenses (e.g., mental state) going to the elements of the offense in a way quite unlike "pay us X, or we'll get a jury to award punitives."

Fair enough to strike civil cases, but the more general point stands: even in the plea bargain process, you can't get the maximum or let the defendant go free--you end up somewhere in between. Why would either party accept the maximum w/o risk when the worst is the maximum with risk?

And I think that your objection is principally informed by your objection to the death penalty (or concerns, if I may assume that is the case). Your argument is essentially that the death penalty is orders worse than the maximum sentence, and it's therefore unfair to have it in the mix for plea bargaining, because the defendant "saves" so much by accepting a deal that avoids the death penalty. AS a result, the argument is somehow different than, say, a maximum penalty of 15 years instead of 10 on a plea bargain, which is just as "coercive" except that it's five years, not a life, that hangs in the balance.

As for fact finding/truth reaching, I don't really buy the concern: any plea bargain has the same potential result. The defendant is giving up possible defenses that might work in order to avoid the worst-case scenario, which is guilt at the maximum sentence. IF we're genuinely worried about the truth -seeking function, shouldn't we ban all plea bargains? Or at least all plea-bargains in murder cases (perhaps we can accept some untruth in robbery cases)?

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The implication from the CNN article is that a lesser penalty was traded for the ability to locate, identify and bury some of the victims, perhaps giving those families some comfort. It raises an interesting question about WHAT gives families comfort - seeing a conviction, getting back a body, knowing the death penalty is inflicted? Setting aside all the political issues relating to death penalty, victims rights, etc., what would give someone comfort in such a situation?

I can'be believe I'm getting sucked into this but....

The Green River Killer is the second most notorious serial killer in the area. His killing spree lasted for decades (at least 2 maybe 3). His victims were all hookers from the same strip. Most of the presumed victims have been missing for so long, that they will most likely never be found without his help.

Remembering that a lot of hookers are runaways, their families would like to know if their daughters, cousins, nieces, etc. are actually dead/murdered or simply just missing. There was pressure from the families to get him to confess/reveal locations of the bodies. It is this that the prosecutors are responding to and are thus giving him the deal.

This guy picked areas around the Green River which, even though close to urban areas, is still very secluded and runs for miles. He was smart enough to live in the area and not be caught, there is probably no way to know exactly how many victims he killed.
This is not a deal that he requested, more that it's a deal that the families can live with if only to get closure.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
I can'be believe I'm getting sucked into this but....

The Green River Killer is the second most notorious serial killer in the area. His killing spree lasted for decades (at least 2 maybe 3). His victims were all hookers from the same strip. Most of the presumed victims have been missing for so long, that they will most likely never be found without his help.

Remembering that a lot of hookers are runaways, their families would like to know if their daughters, cousins, nieces, etc. are actually dead/murdered or simply just missing. There was pressure from the families to get him to confess/reveal locations of the bodies. It is this that the prosecutors are responding to and are thus giving him the deal.

This guy picked areas around the Green River which, even though close to urban areas, is still very secluded and runs for miles. He was smart enough to live in the area and not be caught, there is probably no way to know exactly how many victims he killed.
This is not a deal that he requested, more that it's a deal that the families can live with if only to get closure.

In other words, these aren't people already known to be dead, but rather confirmation that death has occurred.

Very sad, but I can see the deal being done for this reason.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In other words, these aren't people already known to be dead, but rather confirmation that death has occurred.

Very sad, but I can see the deal being done for this reason.

Yes. Very sad. He plead guilty to 48 murders today, but my source says that the actual number could be in the 80's.

"Since signing off on the deal, Ridgway has worked with investigators to recover still-missing remains of some victims.


The Green River Killer's murderous frenzy began in 1982, targeting women in the Seattle area, mainly runaways and prostitutes. The first victims turned up in the Green River, giving the killer his name. Other bodies were found near ravines, airports and freeways.
He said he had several reasons for preying on prostitutes.

"I hate most prostitutes and I did not want to pay them for sex," he said. "I also picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...river_killings

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng said he spent three weeks considering the plea deal before agreeing to spare Ridgway's life. But in the end, he decided that trying Ridgway for a few murders would leave too many questions unresolved, and too many families wondering about the fate of their loved ones. These were "young women who had troubles to be sure, that's part of the human condition, but who also had hopes, aspirations and dreams...

"Their families deserved to know the truth... That is why we entered into this agreement."

While some of the families of the victims opposed the agreement, Baird noted that the deal "contains the name of 41 victims who would not be the subject of state v. Ridgway if it were not for the plea agreement."

One of the victims never on the Green River list was Marta Reeves, 36, a married mother of four who was found dead in 1990 after disappearing from a Seattle street.

Yesterday her family sent a statement to the sheriff's office, approving of the plea deal:

"The Family of Marta Reeves wishes to express its gratitude to the Green River Task Force for their efforts finally to bring this tragic episode to a certain conclusion," husband Hal Reeves said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ridgway05.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
The Green River Killer is the second most notorious serial killer in the area.

OK, I'll bite. Who's number one?

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OK, I'll bite. Who's number one?

Come on - you know this one.

Ted Bundy. And now he's #2 on the rank of numbers killed at 36.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Come on - you know this one.

Ted Bundy. And now he's #2 on the rank of numbers killed at 36.

I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank after Al Bundy. I guess I'm not a serial-killer maven.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank after Al Bundy. I guess I'm not a serial-killer maven.

You tend to pay more attention to serial killers who've killed their victims in the neighborhoods in which you live. And where your friends live.
And where you go drinking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Has anyone heard a rumor that Pennie & Edmonds is breaking up?