Brent from Law and Disorder posted this:
For those of you who have followed the news, 8 year-old Shasta Groene was found in Idaho following her kidnapping and the murders of her mother, her mother's boyfriend, and her 15 year-old brother. Her nine year-old brother, Dylan, is missing and considered dead. Joseph Duncan, a 42 year-old pedophile, was arrested. If you are interested in reading some of Duncan's thoughts about himself and his reflections on his life and crimes (he was arrested at the age of 16 for raping a 14 year old boy), you can read his blog here.
UPDATE: WARNING: According to the Talkleft comments, the archives on the site might carry a virus. I don't know about these things, it didn't set off any whistles on my setup and I've got the latest definitions and everything, but I can't swear it doesn't have a bug. Please be careful.
I've got a few more links to add to that:
The stories on the Groene murder/kidnapping.
Note the last sentences in this article - he had been set free on bail at the time.
The sex offender registry website for Fargo, which lists Joseph E. Duncan III:
Offense Background: On January 24, 1980, in the City of Tacoma, Washington, Joseph E. Duncan, age 16, committed a burglary of a neighbor's home. Duncan stole four handguns and ammunition. That same evening Duncan abducted a 14 year-old boy. The boy had been walking in Duncan's neighborhood. Duncan sexually assaulted the boy two times at gun point. He was arrested shortly after the incident.
Duncan was transferred into adult court at the age of 17. There Duncan pleaded guilty to Rape in the First Degree for the abduction and sexual assault of the 14 year-old boy. Duncan was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
An excerpt from the blog:
I was in prison for over 18 years, since the age of 17. . . . All those years I dreamed of getting out...And getting even. . . . I got out and I got even, but did not get caught. So, I got even again, and again did not get caught. So, I figured, well, I got even twice (actually more, but that's here nor there), even if I'm the only one who knows, so now what? . . . . I met a bunch of really great people . . . who were willing to give me a chance despite my past. They were willing to accept me and be my friend, something that was new for me . . . But the problem was those demons. The ones who "got even" for me. They kept reminding me that if my new "friends" knew about them (and what they, I, had done to even), then so much for their friendship. . . .
Catch that? He's basically teasing us with the knowledge he's done something to "get even" multiple times, something he blames on "the demons," something that would cause him to be shunned. But that's not the scariest stuff. A site called "The Dark Side" points out:
This is where it gets even stranger. Where I have no idea what to make of what I'm seeing. In a blog entry written on January 26th of this year titled, simply, Sasha, Duncan gives us this link -- The Panda Conspiracy.
In the entry written just after that, titled Reborn Laptop, Joseph Duncan says the following about that entry:
I have a new fan, Jerry, who thinks I should make a documentary about my experiences. I think he is right, I should, but not until I am ready I think. Jerry sounds like a really neat guy, he has a great blog (see "Sasha" entry below) that I think I understand. Keep your eyes on the air waves, Jerry, I could be famous sooner than you think, but hopefully not too soon...The last sentence, written on January 30, 2005, seems ominous now. But what about "Jerry" and the Panda Conspiracy? Frankly, I have no idea. Okay, I looked at that "panda conspiracy" . . . it's very scary. I hope the police track that one.
A prosecutor has been fired for blogging. The post that did it is here.
Friday's Iowa Supreme Court opinions are up. The one that interested me:
STATE v. KNIGHT
Facts
A parent called the Marshalltown police department and reported their sixteen-year-old daughter had been having sex with the thirty-one-year-old defendant. In executing a warrant, the police found photographs of young females participating in sex acts with the defendant, and a journal detailing the defendant’s sexual relationships with minor girls. They also found many digital images and videotapes of the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with minors.
Procedure
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant entered an Alford plea to one count of lascivious acts with a child and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor; the State agreed to dismiss the other charges. At the later sentencing hearing, the State introduced the following evidence: the defendant worked as a DJ at a local bowling alley, where he would meet vulnerable young girls. Promising to manage them in modeling or singing careers, he would lure them to his apartment for sex. He kept a journal of his sexual conquests, which revealed that the defendant was fixated on having sex with minor girls. The state used this evidence to argue he was a danger to the community.
The defendant’s trial counsel responded by asserting that, while the charges were serious, “no physical harm per se was done to these young women,” and that the defendant always treated the girls kindly. The attorney urged the court to place the defendant on probation with placement in a halfway house where the defendant could be rehabilitated. The defendant agreed with this recommendation, discussing his elderly mother and the fact he had a child on the way.
The district court didn't follow that recommendation: it noted the defendant’s age, his prior felony conviction, his prior successful probation, his steady employment, his family circumstances, and his undisputed cooperation with the authorities. But in view of the nature of the offenses, the ages of the victims, and the premeditated manner in which the crimes were committed, the court expressed concern for the defendant’s ability to be rehabilitated. In addition, the court noted, the defendant had not shown any remorse: “There’s no apology. There’s no sign of remorse here whatsoever.” In light of these factors, the court sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms of incarceration.
Issue
An Alford plea essentially says: "I'm not saying guilty, but I think you have enough evidence to prove me guilty, and I'd have to be an idiot to take my chances at trial, so I'm going to take the plea deal even though I still maintain my innocence." Sometimes it's used for legitimately innocent defendants to avoid heavy sentences when they think there's enough evidence for a wrongful conviction. Other times it's used for defendants who just don't want to admit they did anything wrong. In this case, as they've got video and pictures of him having sex with minors, along with a journal he used to plan these crimes, I'm guessing it's the latter. Ya think?
Anyway, the defendant felt it was a violation of his rights to penalize him for not showing remorse despite allowing him to enter an Alford plea.
Analysis and Holding
A sentencing court may consider the existence or absence of remorse by the defendant in assessing the defendant’s need for rehabilitation, as well as the likelihood that a defendant may reoffend. A trial court must carefully avoid any suggestions in its comments at the sentencing stage that it was taking into account the fact defendant had not pleaded guilty but had put the prosecution to its proof, but this prohibition does not preclude a sentencing court from finding a lack of remorse based on facts other than the defendant’s failure to plead guilty. A defendant’s lack of remorse can be discerned “by any admissible statement made by the defendant pre-trial, at trial, or post-trial,” or by “other competent evidence properly admitted at the sentencing hearing.”
The Court examined the Alford decision, which held that the Constitution permits a defendant to voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime. The Court noted this passage in the Alford decision:
Our holding does not mean that a trial judge must accept every constitutionally valid guilty plea merely because a defendant wishes so to plead. A criminal defendant does not have an absolute right under the Constitution to have his guilty plea accepted by the court, although the States may by statute or otherwise confer such a right. Likewise, the States may bar their courts from accepting guilty pleas from any defendants who assert their innocence.
The Court found nothing in the US Supreme Court’s reasoning in Alford that would require a court to treat a defendant who entered an Alford plea any differently for purposes of sentencing than a defendant who has pled not guilty.
It found that a sentencing court may properly consider a defendant’s lack of remorse when choosing a sentence, so long as the court’s finding is not based on the defendant’s decision to stand trial, even when the defendant professes his innocence by entry of an Alford plea.
The Des Moines Register ran its share of fireworks horror stories, to convince us the state knows best:
Tyson Wells admits that of all the flashbacks he endures, the unlikeliest haunts him the most.
It isn't feeling the skin burn away from his arms after he jumped from a flaming Chevy Blazer ignited by fireworks.
Nor is it hearing the screams of his fiancee, whose once shoulder-length hair was reduced to nothing but smoke.
Nor is it seeing the rear window of the flaming wreck shatter from the heat and knowing that 15-year-old Shunntae Averette was still inside.
. . .
Doug Wells' lip quivers as he talks quickly about that day, mostly because he still feels guilty. He said he had talked Tyson into purchasing three grocery bags and a crate of fireworks in Missouri that morning. Later that night, it was Doug and Tyson Wells who were shooting the fireworks from the car.
"I was just a kid," he said. "I wanted the fireworks, everybody had them, and the neighborhood was literally a war zone."
On Friday, Doug Wells and some relatives of Averette tied balloons and flowers to the pole where she died. Doug Wells wants to remember her, but he doesn't like to hang around to find out whether the neighborhood learned its lesson from the accident. He usually leaves town on the holiday, and neither he nor his brother can bear the sounds of fireworks going off.
Today, Tyson Wells said he feels a range of emotions, topped with guilt and pain. But now, he just wants others to take on a less-painful lesson. Once he gets released from prison, Wells said he wants to talk to children in elementary schools about the dangers of fireworks.
The scars should speak for themselves.
"I can't put anger there. It made me learn. I learned from it," he said. "The only person I can be mad at is myself for playing a silly game. I put a lot of people at risk."
The Register left out a little detail though: this lawsuit by the Wells' against Enterprise Rent-A-Car, claiming it was somehow responsible for this accident. I blogged it earlier here.
Yep. It was the car's fault. Umm-hmmm.
Doonesbury thinks blogging is for angry, semi-employed losers who are too untalented or too lazy to get real jobs in journalism. Because, he argues, if the market really valued what we had to say, we could get someone to pay us for our opinions.
My take: So, then, wouldn't it completely eviscerate your argument if the bloggers in question did have legitimate, full-time jobs in which they were highly paid for their expert opinions. Like, maybe, lawyers . . .?
UPDATE:
Nick Stewart of The Last Call responds.
No comments:
Post a Comment