Leon wrote:

And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places. I blame lax
liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury
decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self
for fear that he might become the victim again.

Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.

Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in
after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go to
trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if he
is
crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.

Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the
remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to
the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and
was
afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an
accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY
FOUND
HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to **** on our shoes
and tell us that is raining.

It's not necessarily the statutes that are at fault. The problem is that
the jury did not find him guilty of crime with which he was charged.
Homicide is not a simple charge--there are degrees of it ranging from
murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter, with each having a
set of criteria for applicability. If the prosecutor chose to apply a
charge for which all the criteria were not met then the jury would be right
to find the defendent not guilty of that charge. The prosecutor's job is
to apply the most stringent charge for which he can get a
conviction--unfortunatley prosecutors have to answer to pointy-haired
bosses who sometimes micromanage the case without knowing the law
themselves and so a charge not supported by the evidence is applied and the
defendant walks. I have been told that juries can convict of a lesser
charge even if it was not brought, but most of them are not informed of
this power--whether they should be is a topic of fairly hot debate.


"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
Reading these posts and watching the
morning news about Scott Petersen is
making me obsess about society and
morality. The term "sociopath" was
defined in connection with the Petersen
case. I never realized it before, but do
you realize that sociopaths are necessary
for the functioning of our society? Where
would John Gotti have gotten without
grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would
the Chicago Carpenter's union survive
without the ability to intimidate people
like my friend with a roofing business,
by sending goons out to drive his own
trucks through his overhead doors and
kill his pet pig, which was the company
mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing
force in society so that in some cases,
at least, a Gotti will end up powerless.
I would like to read a thesis about how the
percentage of remorseless individuals
in society are used to control and
manipulate us. I think the remorseless-
ness begins with the one who is willing
to take what does not belong to them,
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world. Do we all want to live
in New Jersey?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)