|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 16:46:25 GMT -6
perhaps you can explain why Jeffrey Epstein got only 18 months for running a pedophile ring with kidnapped minors, was let out after serving two thirds of it, and got immunity for his clients? From what I read Epstein (a) wasn't a pedophile, since the female was older than 14 and (b) was only convicted of one count of solicitation, for which 18 months is probably appropriate. Where are you getting your information?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 16:59:13 GMT -6
But you aren't in favor of amending the constitution in the name of safety. So what is a good reason to amend? A good reason to amend? That's a good question. Thanks. Maybe you could answer it in future posts. If we confine him permanently as in the documentary, we eliminate the possibility of his breaking the law in the way he likes. I understood your response, at first, to be that this is a disproportionate punishment for a child molester. But then you went on to say you'd happily give them LWOP for interfering with kids a second time. So apparently it isn't a disproportionate response. It's just that you can't stomach it first time around.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 17:04:53 GMT -6
perhaps you can explain why Jeffrey Epstein got only 18 months for running a pedophile ring with kidnapped minors, was let out after serving two thirds of it, and got immunity for his clients? From what I read Epstein (a) wasn't a pedophile, since the female was older than 14 Is this the part where you start distinguishing between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, primarily as a means to showcase your vocabulary? The psychiatrist's definitions don't matter. The legal ones do. The girls were underage. The internet.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 18:14:40 GMT -6
The psychiatrist's definitions don't matter. The legal ones do. The girls were underage. Yes, but the law recognizes the difference between pre- and post-pubescence. Sex with adolescent minors is not punished as harshly, if at all, as sex with a minor less than age 14. Can you be more specific? In any case, the man had excellent legal representation. I actually interviewed Alan Dershowitz back in the 1980s. He's as good as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 18:22:52 GMT -6
If we confine him permanently as in the documentary, we eliminate the possibility of his breaking the law in the way he likes. If the commitment is voluntary, I don't see a problem. I understood your response, at first, to be that this is a disproportionate punishment for a child molester. Yes, if involuntary, unless that is part of a reduced prison sentence. I would give him the choice of doing more time in prison instead. But then you went on to say you'd happily give them LWOP for interfering with kids a second time. So apparently it isn't a disproportionate response. It's just that you can't stomach it first time around. Two- and three-strikes laws are meant to apply to all felonies, not just to sex crimes. I am not singling out child molesters for unique punishment. Sex criminals often do more time than murderers. An attempt to make this the norm puts the lives of children at risk. That is my primary concern.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 19:13:56 GMT -6
You're clearly better informed than I am about this. Which statute makes that distinction? In any case, the man had excellent legal representation. I actually interviewed Alan Dershowitz back in the 1980s. He's as good as it gets. Yes, they don't come much more artful than Dershowitz. Though I wonder why you raise this point. You make it sound as if unequal representation is a virtue of our system.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 19:35:44 GMT -6
Two- and three-strikes laws are meant to apply to all felonies, not just to sex crimes. So you support LWOP for the dumbas$ who uploads Whitney Houston's greatest hits onto bittorrent for his college friends, gets caught and charged with felony copyright infringement, then goes and does it again. Why not death by lethal injection?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 19:42:32 GMT -6
So you support LWOP for the dumbas$ who uploads Whitney Houston's greatest hits onto bittorrent for his college friends, gets caught and charged with felony copyright infringement, then goes and does it again. Why not death by lethal injection? It's currently 25 to life, but LWOP is appropriate, too. You're not from California, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 19:45:03 GMT -6
You're clearly better informed than I am about this. Which statute makes that distinction? California PC Sec. 288. Very well known among high school faculty. they don't come much more artful than Dershowitz. Though I wonder why you raise this point. You make it sound as if unequal representation is a virtue of our system. It is a constitutional right, whether or not it's a virtue. You're the one who claims not to understand why Mr. Epstein wasn't punished as harshly as you feel he deserves.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 19:47:49 GMT -6
So you support LWOP for the dumbas$ who uploads Whitney Houston's greatest hits onto bittorrent for his college friends, gets caught and charged with felony copyright infringement, then goes and does it again. Why not death by lethal injection? It's currently 25 to life, but LWOP is appropriate, too. If you think that LWOP is "appropriate" for two strikes of copyright infringement, you need medical attention. I was not born in California, correct.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 19:51:05 GMT -6
You're clearly better informed than I am about this. Which statute makes that distinction? California PC Sec. 288. Very well known among high school faculty. Which I am not. Very helpful thank you.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 19:58:37 GMT -6
Not sure why you say that. Could you elaborate?
Nonsense. I understand it very well. He's rich and well connected, and his clients were very powerful people. The flight records show President Clinton to be a frequent flier on Epstein's jet. According to the latest allegations, Prince Andrew enjoyed Epstein's underage wares. So, according to the same allegations, did your one-time interviewee Alan Dershowitz.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 20:01:36 GMT -6
If you think that LWOP is "appropriate" for two strikes of copyright infringement Recidivism is the crime, not copyright infringement. It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided. Punish the crime, not the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 2:32:38 GMT -6
"I believe in condign punishment for each crime. Such for murder is either LWOP or death. That is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14." - Joe Phillips. This thread.
"It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." Joe Phillips. this thread.
Make your mind up.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 8:49:09 GMT -6
"I believe in condign punishment for each crime. Such for murder is either LWOP or death. That is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14." - Joe Phillips. This thread. "It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." Joe Phillips. this thread. Make your mind up. You just don't get it, do you. In California, recidivism is ITSELF a crime. It doesn't matter why the criminal chose to reoffend. He was given plenty of incentive not to. We punish CRIMES, not criminals.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 8:56:08 GMT -6
Not sure why you say that. Could you elaborate? It's part of the 6th Amendment's guarantee of legal representation. If you're accused of a crime and want to spend a billion dollars to defend yourself, that's your right. In fact, a court would look with great disdain upon the refusal of an accomplished person to refrain from spending a lot of his money on legal services. It would question his sanity. The flight records show President Clinton to be a frequent flier on Epstein's jet. According to the latest allegations, Prince Andrew enjoyed Epstein's underage wares. So, according to the same allegations, did your one-time interviewee Alan Dershowitz. Again, so what? Anyone is free to allege anything. Sex between consenting adolescents and their partners is nothing new. Whence is your indignation?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 1, 2015 10:30:40 GMT -6
Again, so what? Anyone is free to allege anything. Further, the "litigation exception" disallows any civil action for libel and/or slander in court pleadings. Bummer for Alan, huh?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 13:02:25 GMT -6
"I believe in condign punishment for each crime. Such for murder is either LWOP or death. That is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14." - Joe Phillips. This thread. "It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." Joe Phillips. this thread. Make your mind up. You just don't get it, do you. In California, recidivism is ITSELF a crime. It doesn't matter why the criminal chose to reoffend. He was given plenty of incentive not to. We punish CRIMES, not criminals. Nice try. But when you said "It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided" that's a general philosophy. It doesn't just apply to recidivism. So when you claim "LWOP or death... is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14" YOUR OWN ANSWER should be "It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided."
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 13:10:09 GMT -6
Sex criminals often do more time than murderers. An attempt to make this the norm puts the lives of children at risk. That is my primary concern. I think that this is a problem for your own approach. Under your two-strikes proposal, someone with a pedophile felony on record faces similar penalties whether he kills his latest victim or lets the child live. So he might as well get rid of the witness.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 13:14:12 GMT -6
Not sure why you say that. Could you elaborate? It's part of the 6th Amendment's guarantee of legal representation. If you're accused of a crime and want to spend a billion dollars to defend yourself, that's your right. The 6th protects your right to adequate counsel, not to magnificent counsel. There can't be a right to magnificent counsel, or else the poor would be entitled to it too.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 13:29:53 GMT -6
The flight records show President Clinton to be a frequent flier on Epstein's jet. According to the latest allegations, Prince Andrew enjoyed Epstein's underage wares. So, according to the same allegations, did your one-time interviewee Alan Dershowitz. Again, so what? Anyone is free to allege anything. The allegations may or may not be true. I am in no position to say. However, it is beyond doubt that these people were associates of Epstein's. So we are talking about an extremely well connected man. It strikes me as a general truth, throughout history, that rich well-connected men serve shorter sentences when they are convicted at all. So in answer to your earlier point, that helps me "to understand why Mr. Epstein wasn't punished as harshly as (I) feel he deserves". The fact that his plea agreement includes immunity for his clients---a very unusual addition to a plea agreement---makes me worry that his main bargaining chip was that, if he was made to suffer, some important people were going to suffer with him. But this is speculation on my part. Hopefully the truth will come out in the proper venue, a court of law. Sex with an underage person, particularly, as it is alleged, one who is being detained against her will and who complies out of terror, is illegal. Thence my indignation, should the allegations prove to be true.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 15:27:08 GMT -6
The allegations may or may not be true. I am in no position to say. However, it is beyond doubt that these people were associates of Epstein's. So we are talking about an extremely well connected man. It strikes me as a general truth, throughout history, that rich well-connected men serve shorter sentences when they are convicted at all. So in answer to your earlier point, that helps me "to understand why Mr. Epstein wasn't punished as harshly as (I) feel he deserves". I'm guessing these allegations will never be proven, in or out of court, which makes them moot, like the mud currently being thrown at Bill Cosby. The fact that his plea agreement includes immunity for his clients---a very unusual addition to a plea agreement---makes me worry that his main bargaining chip was that, if he was made to suffer, some important people were going to suffer with him. But this is speculation on my part. Hopefully the truth will come out in the proper venue, a court of law. Sounds like wild speculation, to me. Sex with an underage person, particularly, as it is alleged, one who is being detained against her will and who complies out of terror, is illegal. Again, wild speculation. He was convicted of solicitation. Where is the evidence of anything beyond that?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 15:32:15 GMT -6
The 6th protects your right to adequate counsel, not to magnificent counsel. There can't be a right to magnificent counsel, or else the poor would be entitled to it too. I interpret it to mean that the right can't be abridged, which means you can spend as much as you want.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 15:35:06 GMT -6
Under your two-strikes proposal, someone with a pedophile felony on record faces similar penalties whether he kills his latest victim or lets the child live. So he might as well get rid of the witness. That's a good point, but doing away with the Eighth Amendment opens up some punishment options that aren't currently available. It's currently 25 to life, not LWOP, for three strikes. I believe making it two strikes and 25 to life would be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 15:37:13 GMT -6
LWOP or death... is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14" YOUR OWN ANSWER should be "It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." No, because you're not punishing recidivism, you're punishing the 288.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 15:37:31 GMT -6
I'm guessing these allegations will never be proven, in or out of court, which makes them moot, like the mud currently being thrown at Bill Cosby. I suspect the same thing. Epstein has evaded a number of attempts to nail him to the wall. A cautious bettor would place money on his doing it again. Sounds like wild speculation, to me. But not to me. Um, no. That is an allegation, made by an alleged victim, that comports with what a number of other women have said. Whether or not it's true, it's not "wild speculation" on my part. It's not something that I personally made up.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 15:40:34 GMT -6
The 6th protects your right to adequate counsel, not to magnificent counsel. There can't be a right to magnificent counsel, or else the poor would be entitled to it too. I interpret it to mean that the right can't be abridged, which means you can spend as much as you want. No, it means you can spend as much as is required to get adequate counsel. If you can get adequate counsel for $200 an hour---and you can---then whatever right you have to spend $2000, it is not one that is protected in the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 1, 2015 15:42:40 GMT -6
That is an allegation, made by an alleged victim, that comports with what a number of other women have said. Whether or not it's true, it's not "wild speculation" on my part. It's not something that I personally made up. You might as well have, if nothing is provable. I can't even find where you're getting your information. You obviously have him convicted, in your mind, but to me he's just a guy who likes them young and got caught. He's no different than most of the members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 15:49:16 GMT -6
Under your two-strikes proposal, someone with a pedophile felony on record faces similar penalties whether he kills his latest victim or lets the child live. So he might as well get rid of the witness. That's a good point, but doing away with the Eighth Amendment opens up some punishment options that aren't currently available. It's currently 25 to life, not LWOP, for three strikes. I believe making it two strikes and 25 to life would be acceptable. To a 50 year old pedophile, 25 to life, LWOP and the death penalty (after a couple of decades of appeals) all look pretty similar. Unless he expects the longevity of Noah. If he's on his second strike then he might as well kill the kid and be rid of the only witness.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 15:51:25 GMT -6
LWOP or death... is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14" YOUR OWN ANSWER should be "It's entirely appropriate to punish the crime as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." No, because you're not punishing recidivism, you're punishing the 288. "It's entirely appropriate to punish the 288 as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." --- what Joe would say, if he were consistent.
|
|