|
Post by Tony on Sept 22, 2005 8:54:24 GMT -6
Protest Against Parole
Send letters protesting the parole of Stephen Metz.
Mr. Metz has a October 10th date with the Paole Board so time is running short. All letters MUST be at the Parole Office no later than September 27th. Please act quickly.
Background
After years of abusing, his wife Catherine Hocker, on April 2, 1989 Stephen Metz beat her to death at their home in Augusta, Georgia. She was so badly beaten that her family couldn't recognize her face. Broken ribs, broken nose and internal bleeding. After this took place, he then proceeded to "cover up". He placed Catherine's body in the trunk of the car and drove to a nearby mall and threw her body in a dumpster.
He then went home, cleaned up and called her employer to tell them she had left him.
It didn't take long for the lead investigator to figure out Mr. Metz committed this crime. The lead investigator told Catherine's daughter that this was the most brutal crime committed in the state of Georgia (he had ever seen).
Metz was convicted of premeditated murder and originally sentenced to life - without parole. He appealed was given life with parole.
He has been incarcerated since 1989. Recently his sentence was reduced from life to 99 years.
What You Can Do!
Write letters of protest against the parole of Stephen Metz. U.S. Parole Commission Attn: John Fehlner (unit manager) 5550 Friendship Boulevard Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815
Please send copies of your written protests to us so that we can send them to the victims' family -- see contact info below.
SAMPLE LETTER
U.S. Parole Commission Attn: John Fehlner (unit manager) 5550 Friendship Boulevard Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815
Re: Stephen Metz ID No: 11472-045
Dear Mr. Fehlner,
Please DO NOT grant parole to Stephen Metz. As a considered citizen, I am writing to protest the projected parole. On April 2, 1989 Stephen Metz viscously beat his wife Catherine Hocker to death. Her body was so badly beaten that her family couldn't even recognize her face. After he beat her to death he proceed to dispose of her body in a dumpster at a nearby mall.
He then returned home to clean up.
The lead investigator of crime said it was the most brutal crime he'd ever seen in Georgia.
Due to the heinous nature and the brutality of this crime Justice demands that Metz be made to spend the rest of his entire sentence in prison.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
For more information, please contact: Texans for Equal Justice P.O. Box 241 Willis, TX 77378 Phone: (936) 441-4711 Fax: (936) 494-0311 E-mail: tej@texansforequaljustice.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting footnote, notice how the animal was originally sentenced to LWOP, appealed that sentence and punishment was reduced to life with parole!!!!
So I guess Life Without the Possibility of Parole is a big lie.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Sept 24, 2005 7:25:56 GMT -6
I support this Parole Protest.
Has anyone got an e-mail address.
It will take too long from the UK.
Chazz
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Sept 24, 2005 7:27:22 GMT -6
Protest Against Parole Interesting footnote, notice how the animal was originally sentenced to LWOP, appealed that sentence and punishment was reduced to life with parole!!!! So I guess Life Without the Possibility of Parole is a big lie. Not really if it was a DP case it could of just of easily been appealed. Furthermore, there tend to be many more appeal avenues for those who get the DP. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Sept 24, 2005 7:33:21 GMT -6
Protest Against Parole He has been incarcerated since 1989. Recently his sentence was reduced from life to 99 years. What is the Parole system like in America? How much of a sentence, generally, has to be served before a prisoner is eligible for Parole? Here in Britain the minimum before a person is paroled is generally half. For Murder there is a mandatory life sentence in which the Judge gives a "tariff" (i.e. a minimum time to serve before possibility of Parole). This means that it is possible for a prisoner to be considered unsuitable for parole if they are deemed at the date in which they would of been paroled a danger to the public. However, everyone has the chance to reform and can make a valid contribution to society. It seems to be the best of both worlds system: the system tries its best to ensure that those who are a danger to the community aren't released but also ensure that Criminal Rehabilitation is given a fair chance. It should be noted that on of the best advocates for the DP, in my opinion at least, RED, has said he feels in certain cases a prisoner can be rehabilitated. However, that being said, solely based on Tony's comments, I don't feel that this man has served enough time in prison before being released. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 24, 2005 9:27:10 GMT -6
It should be noted that on of the best advocates for the DP, in my opinion at least, RED, has said he feels in certain cases a prisoner can be rehabilitated. Yes, well, RED's wrong, isn't he. The time for rehabilitation is before someone is murdered, not after. Rehabilitation without atonement is meaningless, and the murderer cannot atone, by definition.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Sept 24, 2005 14:47:22 GMT -6
It should be noted that on of the best advocates for the DP, in my opinion at least, RED, has said he feels in certain cases a prisoner can be rehabilitated. Yes, well, RED's wrong, isn't he. The time for rehabilitation is before someone is murdered, not after. Rehabilitation without atonement is meaningless, and the murderer cannot atone, by definition. No its not. Lack of atonement, does not render rehabilitation meaningless. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Sept 24, 2005 14:48:36 GMT -6
No sign of an e-mail address?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 24, 2005 16:09:47 GMT -6
Lack of atonement, does not render rehabilitation meaningless. I would put that to a vote, and I'd be you'd lose, Chazz. Rehabilitation, at least in California, is pointless if no attempt at all is made to make the victim whole. Otherwise, what exactly is "rehabilitation?" It's clear where you stand on victims, Chazz. That's a shame.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Sept 24, 2005 18:26:22 GMT -6
Lack of atonement, does not render rehabilitation meaningless. I would put that to a vote, and I'd be you'd lose, Chazz. Rehabilitation, at least in California, is pointless if no attempt at all is made to make the victim whole. Otherwise, what exactly is "rehabilitation?" It's clear where you stand on victims, Chazz. That's a shame. Exactly, rehabilitation without the participation and buy-in from the subject is about as effective as those torturing and forcing folks to convert to catholicism during the spanish inquisition. Of course the catholics killed them once they "converted." if you are suggesting that with murderers, well then . . . ;D
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 24, 2005 19:45:22 GMT -6
Exactly, rehabilitation without the participation and buy-in from the subject is about as effective as those torturing and forcing folks to convert to catholicism during the spanish inquisition. Of course the catholics killed them once they "converted." if you are suggesting that with murderers, well then . . . ;D You can attempt to atone for any wrong, short of murder. It may take a lifetime to make the person(s) you wronged whole again, and maybe it's not entirely possible, but there is that chance. The murderer, however, has extinguished a human being who cannot be brought back. To the anti, this extinguishing means absolutely nothing, as though murder were merely a property crime. They don't reduce their summation of murder to this exact phrase, but it would be honest of them if one of them did: "Oh, well." I can appreciate that this cavalier attitude toward murder victims is forced upon someone bent on sparing the lives of brutal killers. Their primary goal is to take away any appeal to emotion in the pro-DP/anti-DP debate, so that we can all focus on improving the human condition, as predicated by the humane treatment of our most inhuman citizens. It makes the do-gooders feel better to spare a murderer's life. As for me, I feel a lot better after he's been put down, thank you very much.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Sept 26, 2005 12:15:38 GMT -6
Exactly, rehabilitation without the participation and buy-in from the subject is about as effective as those torturing and forcing folks to convert to catholicism during the spanish inquisition. Of course the catholics killed them once they "converted." if you are suggesting that with murderers, well then . . . ;D You can attempt to atone for any wrong, short of murder. It may take a lifetime to make the person(s) you wronged whole again, and maybe it's not entirely possible, but there is that chance. The murderer, however, has extinguished a human being who cannot be brought back. To the anti, this extinguishing means absolutely nothing, as though murder were merely a property crime. They don't reduce their summation of murder to this exact phrase, but it would be honest of them if one of them did: "Oh, well." I can appreciate that this cavalier attitude toward murder victims is forced upon someone bent on sparing the lives of brutal killers. Their primary goal is to take away any appeal to emotion in the pro-DP/anti-DP debate, so that we can all focus on improving the human condition, as predicated by the humane treatment of our most inhuman citizens. It makes the do-gooders feel better to spare a murderer's life. As for me, I feel a lot better after he's been put down, thank you very much. A murdered can try, their best to compensate the victims family for their horrific loss. If that involves apportioning of earnings; working for them, etc. Using your reasoning Joseph you cannot rehabilitate someone guilty of Manslaughter because atonement cannot occur which would, further using your reasoning, indicate that the defendant should receive DP/LWOP for perhaps being negligent. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 26, 2005 12:25:31 GMT -6
Using your reasoning Joseph you cannot rehabilitate someone guilty of Manslaughter because atonement cannot occur which would, further using your reasoning, indicate that the defendant should receive DP/LWOP for perhaps being negligent. I can't rightfully sentence someone to death for unintentionally killing someone. Fortunately the line between manslaughter and murder is clear, at least to me. Although the manslaughterer can't atone, the retributive value of capital punishment is lost upon executing him. If the punishment is to fit the crime, and be assessed upon it, we can't make the penalties for manslaughter and murder the same. Someone who is provoked into an act of violence and then immediately seeks recovery of the harmed victim isn't the one that has abandoned all moral restraint. Until a murder victim can directly forgive or be made whole by its murderer, the murderer has got to go.
|
|
|
Post by limbololly on Sept 26, 2005 19:40:20 GMT -6
josephdphillips, you say you "can't rightfully sentence to death someone for unintentionally killing someone" -- Aren't you just as dead as someone who was murdered intentionally?? So therefore any death that is not "natual" should be considered murder if you look at it that way.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 26, 2005 20:42:56 GMT -6
josephdphillips, you say you "can't rightfully sentence to death someone for unintentionally killing someone" -- Aren't you just as dead as someone who was murdered intentionally?? So therefore any death that is not "natual" should be considered murder if you look at it that way. Nope, there is a clear demarcation between murder and manslaughter. The former involves both premeditation and malice. The latter lacks either. The former evidences an abandonment of all moral restraint. The latter does not. The former needs no provocation. The later requires provocation.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Oct 1, 2005 1:57:20 GMT -6
The former involves both premeditation and malice. The latter lacks either. requires provocation. The same applies to Vehicular Manslaughter which you want to try as Capital Murder. Chaz\
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 1, 2005 12:19:07 GMT -6
The same applies to Vehicular Manslaughter which you want to try as Capital Murder. That would depend on the level of intoxication, and whether a reasonable person would foresee the death of someone caused by the drinking driver. I have no problem sending to its death the murderer who simply chooses a combination of alcohol and a motor vehicle to kill people, rather than a pistol or a knife.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Oct 2, 2005 10:03:04 GMT -6
The same applies to Vehicular Manslaughter which you want to try as Capital Murder. That would depend on the level of intoxication, and whether a reasonable person would foresee the death of someone caused by the drinking driver. I have no problem sending to its death the murderer who simply chooses a combination of alcohol and a motor vehicle to kill people, rather than a pistol or a knife. A "murderer", who kills someone while intoxicated and driving dangerously due to the toxication. Does not CHOSE to kill. The act of killing is an accident. The act act of drinking alcohol is deliberate. Also if you care to look at the Califronia Penal Code sections 187 - 190, as you cite them so often to back up your point of view, you will notice this: 190. (a) Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. The penalty to be applied shall be determined as provided in Sections 190.1, 190.2, 190.3, 190.4, and 190.5.
You will further notice that in a case of vehicular manslaughter, unless the victim is a state/federal official, judge, etc, the conditions of the crime could never be used to show CAPITAL Murder, even using your interpretation. This is because none of the aggravating factors, defined in some/all of the aforementioned sections, that promotes First Degree murder to CAPITAL murder are present. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 2, 2005 10:17:26 GMT -6
You will further notice that in a case of vehicular manslaughter, unless the victim is a state/federal official, judge, etc, the conditions of the crime could never be used to show CAPITAL Murder, even using your interpretation. This is because none of the aggravating factors, defined in some/all of the aforementioned sections, that promotes First Degree murder to CAPITAL murder are present. If you read the entire section, you'll notice no mention of either intent or the necessity for explicit malice. Malice may be implied. There have been first degree prosecutions of murderers who did not mean to kill their victims, initially. The only requirement is premeditation, which is shown by the act of deliberate intoxication and operation of a vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Oct 2, 2005 16:14:19 GMT -6
You will further notice that in a case of vehicular manslaughter, unless the victim is a state/federal official, judge, etc, the conditions of the crime could never be used to show CAPITAL Murder, even using your interpretation. This is because none of the aggravating factors, defined in some/all of the aforementioned sections, that promotes First Degree murder to CAPITAL murder are present. If you read the entire section, you'll notice no mention of either intent or the necessity for explicit malice. Malice may be implied. There have been first degree prosecutions of murderers who did not mean to kill their victims, initially. The only requirement is premeditation, which is shown by the act of deliberate intoxication and operation of a vehicle. I am not arguing that, BY YOUR DEFINITION, of first degree murder that the bill would fit. Subject of cause to whether the consumption of alcohol could be shown to pre-meditation. However, none of the conditions to make it CAPITAL murder (defined in 190.2 I think) exist in the case of Vehicular Manslaughter. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 2, 2005 16:18:04 GMT -6
I am not arguing that, BY YOUR DEFINITION, of first degree murder that the bill would fit. Subject of cause to whether the consumption of alcohol could be shown to pre-meditation. However, none of the conditions to make it CAPITAL murder (defined in 190.2 I think) exist in the case of Vehicular Manslaughter. You mean first-degree murder involving alcohol and a motor vehicle. We already have 22 special circumstances qualifying a murder as a capital crime. Adding a 23rd shouldn't pose much of a political problem here.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Oct 2, 2005 16:36:44 GMT -6
I am not arguing that, BY YOUR DEFINITION, of first degree murder that the bill would fit. Subject of cause to whether the consumption of alcohol could be shown to pre-meditation. However, none of the conditions to make it CAPITAL murder (defined in 190.2 I think) exist in the case of Vehicular Manslaughter. You mean first-degree murder involving alcohol and a motor vehicle. We already have 22 special circumstances qualifying a murder as a capital crime. Adding a 23rd shouldn't pose much of a political problem here. What do you think the public response would be? Chazz
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 2, 2005 16:52:28 GMT -6
What do you think the public response would be? He#ll, I don't know. Americans in general are ambivalent about drunk driving, except for the ones whose family members were murdered by drunk drivers. I drink responsibly. I don't understand why others don't.
|
|
|
Post by resenbrink on Oct 3, 2005 0:16:59 GMT -6
Posted by: josephdphillips
If only it were all that simple.
I guess for you it is.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Oct 3, 2005 0:44:58 GMT -6
Posted by: josephdphillips If only it were all that simple. I guess for you it is. It is that simple. Don't murder anybody. Sorry that such a simple concept is difficult for you to understand.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2005 8:39:09 GMT -6
Posted by: josephdphillips If only it were all that simple. I guess for you it is. Blakely summed it up nicely. You didn't murder. He didn't murder. I didn't murder. So what's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Oct 4, 2005 12:52:23 GMT -6
What do you think the public response would be? He#ll, I don't know. Americans in general are ambivalent about drunk driving, except for the ones whose family members were murdered by drunk drivers. I drink responsibly. I don't understand why others don't. Joseph, you, judging by your posts, seem to be very able to control yourself, drink sensibly, hide frustration, think you decisions through sensibly, etc, etc. It seems because you are, or so it would appear, a model citizen, you can't understand why others aren't. I suppose you just have to realise that we are all different and have our different qualities and skills. Chazz
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 4, 2005 13:09:51 GMT -6
It seems because you are, or so it would appear, a model citizen, you can't understand why others aren't. I suppose you just have to realise that we are all different and have our different qualities and skills. Moral restraint is not a "quality" or a matter of skill, Chazz. It's an attitude, a matter of respect. There's nothing particularly noble or noteworthy in any of my qualities or skills. Like 99.9995% of the population, I choose not to murder. What is obvious to most people is extremely elusive to someone as yourself, someone whose sanguine faith in human nature requires a supporting belief that human beings are simply amoral machines whose actions are dictated by external forces. Unencumbered by this need to believe in the perfectability of human nature, I see people the way they are, not the way I want them to be. I really, truly, could not possibly care less why murderers kill people. They just do. They always have and they always will. It's not their environment. It's not their lack of intelligence. It's not the prevalence of guns in our society. It's just a very bad attitude, an arrogant will-to-power no one, and no society, can correct. That's why the murderer has got to go. NEXT! go#ddamit.
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Oct 5, 2005 11:15:48 GMT -6
It seems because you are, or so it would appear, a model citizen, you can't understand why others aren't. I suppose you just have to realise that we are all different and have our different qualities and skills. Moral restraint is not a "quality" or a matter of skill, Chazz. It's an attitude, a matter of respect. There's nothing particularly noble or noteworthy in any of my qualities or skills. Like 99.9995% of the population, I choose not to murder. Its not the actual fact that you don't murder. The fact that you drink sensibly and don't drink and drive is quite unusual in Britain. I was under the impression that drink driving was a problem in the good ol' US of A. You consider the killing of a person in a motor accident while being intoxicated as being capital murder. I believe that this would mean a lot of people could find themselves facing the DP. Chazz Chazz
|
|
tricky
Inactive
Pro Death Penalty
Posts: 135
|
Post by tricky on Oct 18, 2005 0:29:31 GMT -6
Anyone know what happened with his parol hearing?
|
|