Justice U.S. Style

[DOXXP29 5]

This is long. You'll read it and hate the guy. The crime was horrible and he acts like the scum of the earth. BUT...does the U.S. justice system have the right to create new laws and dust off old, unused ones to keep a guy like this locked up? This is a strange case with a strange aftermath. Here's a guy that should've been out in 5 years. Now he's looking at 2020 before he can be released. I'd like to hear your comments.

Juvenile Serial Killer Remains in Prison

By HELEN O'NEILL, AP
6 hours ago

WARWICK, R.I. — 

They called him Iron Man, a hulking teenage football player with a baby face and winsome smile who lived with his parents in a small ranch house in the Buttonwoods section of town.

Then, one summer night in 1987, Craig Price crept across his neighbor's yard, broke into a little brown house on Inez Avenue and stabbed Rebecca Spencer 58 times. She was a 27-year-old mother of two.

He was 13.

Two years passed before Price struck again.

Joan Heaton, 39, was butchered with the kitchen knives she had bought earlier that day. The bodies of her daughters, Jennifer 10, and Melissa 8, were found in pools of blood, pieces of knives broken off in their bones; Jennifer had been stabbed 62 times.

Buttonwoods was paralyzed. Police combed the streets. Neighbors padlocked their doors. The Heaton house was just a few hundred yards from the Spencer home and the question hung thick over the tidy, working-class neighborhood: What kind of monster was living in their midst?

The answer came two weeks later.

Price was a wisecracking 15-year-old who had been in minor trouble for petty burglaries _ "thieving" he called it _ but who seemed friendly to neighbors and was always surrounded by friends.

Police had become suspicious after Price lied about a deep gash on his finger. They knew from the crime scene that the killer had cut himself. A bloody sock-print matched Price's size-13 feet. They found the knives in his backyard shed.

At the police station, his mother sobbing softly beside him, Price calmly confessed to the four murders.

Yet even as police and prosecutors celebrated the capture of Rhode Island's most notorious serial killer, they were reminded of a grim reality.

In five years, Price would be free to kill again.

Price was a month shy of his 16th birthday. As a juvenile, he would be released from the youth correctional center when he turned 21 _ the maximum penalty under Rhode Island law at the time. His records would be sealed. The 5-foot-10 inch, 240-pound killer would be free to resume his life as if the murders had never occurred.

The law was on his side and Price knew it.

"When I get out I'm going to smoke a bomber," Price yelled to the crowd, as he was led, handcuffed, from the courthouse.

Jeffrey Pine, then assistant attorney general, said he had never felt such frustration or disgust. "There was something fundamentally wrong with a system that allowed someone who killed four people to simply go free at 21," Pine said.

And so Pine and others embarked on a remarkable mission. They would change the system so that future young murderers could be locked up for life. At the same time they would do their best to ensure that Price himself would stay behind bars long past his 21st birthday.

It was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary case and it involved every level of government, from the governor's and attorney general's offices to the state legislature, the police and the courts.

In effect, the legal system would be

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Extra ordinary case, extra ordinary results.

In Canada, I think, considering his in-corrections behavior, he could be declared a dangerous offender and held indefinitely, subject to biennial review.  I don't think this has ever been applied to anyone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but there is always a first time.

[patriots_1228 51]

In this guys case, he should be locked up forever.

however, not all young murderers should be given this punishment.

If it were a situation like in Lincoln, massachusetts, last year, where a special needs boy accidentally stabbed a boy once and the boy died, i think he should be allowed to leave when he's served his time. If it was one incident that went haywire and ended up in an accidental killing, and then the killer showed remorse and sorrow, he should be let go when the law says so.

However, this case, the kid is too dangerous to let lose, hasnt shown any remorse or regret, and, if i understood the quote right, would kill again if he were let out.

[Explodingsims 3]

This Guy clearly needs to be locked up for as long as possible.

I agree with Patriots, if the murder is truly accidental, and the "killer" is sorry and willing to serve his time or whatever, then he dosen't deserve this.

But in this guys case, he was a psyco killer who had no remorse, and was proud of what he did.

But this has to be my favorite part:

"The media has once again done a good job of creating a monster," he said, his voice thundering through the stunned courtroom. "Not just a bogeyman, but a black bogeyman."quote>

Yes, not minding the fact that you slashed several people, your not a monster....

[Duke87 1,070]

*sigh* I hate it when laws are selectively enforced or applied to cases which they usually aren't just for the sake of charging someone with something.

Yeah, in this case it's about a serial killer, so it's with good intentions, but let's face it, if they can do it to a serial killer, that's only a tiny baby step from being able to do it to someone who's preaching unpopular opinions that the governement feels threatened by... oh wait, they've already done that.

Look, there's a reason kids are free to go upon becoming adults- as kids they're nowhere near fully matured and thus you really can't hold those things against them as adults. So you let them go to give them a chance to prove they've matured beyond they're criminal ways to a proper adult. And trying minors as adults in order to bypass this is also sickening and wrong.

You say he'd only kill again if he was let go- well, this isn't Minority Report. We can't charge people for crimes they haven't committed yet but assume they're going to. Yeah, it really looks like he'd kill again if he was released, but there's still a chance (albeit a small one) that he'd go straight, and it would only be fair to give him that chance. And if he does kill again, then by all means go ahead and lock him up for life. But stop trumping up charges out of your own insane paranoia.

It's become acceptable to lock people up not because they deserve it but because we're afraid of might happen if they were allowed to stay out in public.

Land of the free incarcerated

Home of the brave paranoid

Damn it people, why have we so forgotten what this county is supposed to be about?

[your_adress_here 11]

Quite an interesting fellow, that Price.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Eh, someone should have killed him with a broom in prison and then we could be done with it. The kid was a sociopath, sociopathy has no cure, and yes, he would have killed again, regardless of whatever "Minority Report" nonsense you may be thinking. Instead of thinking about the killer as a victim of the system, think about the four people he brutally murdered. No sympathy should be given to him. Miscarriage of justice you say? Karma I say. He earned his sentence.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87 *

 And if he does kill again, then by all means go ahead and lock him up for life.

quote>

 

So  how do you explain to the familys of the people he kills, that you let him out

when you  can keep him in?

It dosent say but, why did they not try him as an adult in 1989?

 

[baystatebill 2]

In this case I have no issue in changing or writting new laws to address a specific person. Although it appears that new charges for new crimes also occured here. I know is some states, my state of Massachuetts included, there are dangerousness laws in place. There are several pending cases where sex offenders have served their sentences and should of been released, but in each case it was decided that the offender would rape again, so they were determined to be a danger to society and were ordered held in jail and are given a hearing every couple of years. They have also used these laws to deal with repeat drunk drivers. They do their sentenes, hav failed to complete alcohol treatments and are determined to repeat and are being held as a danger to society. I love these laws. Helps make up for some of the errors in our sentencing guidelines.

[gml_josea 2]

That idiot got what he earned. He deserves to be in jail for his life, suffering.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: gml_josea That idiot got what he earned. He deserves to be in jail for his life, suffering.quote>

Justice has nothing to do with "what you deserve".

[Meg 368]

Balancing the "needs of the many" versus the "needs of the one" can be tricky.   Each society choses a slightly different point as the optimal balance point.   Well, "optimal" isn't the right word; it's more like the best balance point they can manage considering all of the factors.

Generally, the USA tends to put more weight on the "needs of the one" than many other societies.  For instance, Singapore gathers a DNA sample from everyone so even those who have never been accused of a crime are in the database, something that hasn't happened (yet) in the USA.

I find that I, once again, agree with Duke:  I hate it when laws are selectively enforced or applied to cases which they usually aren't just for the sake of charging someone with something.  Even with all of our rights and legal protections, there is only so much a regular citizen can do when the government is out to "get" them.   and, yes, that does happen; sometimes justifiably, sometimes not.   

Would I have wanted this guy to be released?  Of course not.  On some level, the question boils down to:  what should society do with a psychopathic minor?   Better legal minds than mine have addressed that question and not come up with a good answer.

I was wondering how other cultures deal with people like this.  Then I read:

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

In Canada, I think, considering his in-corrections behavior, he could be declared a dangerous offender and held indefinitely, subject to biennial review.  I don't think this has ever been applied to anyone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but there is always a first time.quote>

On one level, that sounds logical.  On other, it just gives me the creeps.  There aren't many government officials who I have enough faith in to feel comfortable with them having the power to put anyone on indefinite hold.  (and, yes, I know the US government is keeping people on indefinite hold and no, I don't like it.  Everyone deserves their day in court.)

Originally posted by: Duke87

Yeah, in this case it's about a serial killer, so it's with good intentions, but let's face it, if they can do it to a serial killer, that's only a tiny baby step from being able to do it to someone who's preaching unpopular opinions that the governement feels threatened by... oh wait, they've already done that. quote>

That's what bothers me.

It's become acceptable to lock people up not because they deserve it but because we're afraid of might happen if they were allowed to stay out in public.

Land of the free incarcerated

Home of the brave paranoid

Damn it people, why have we so forgotten what this county is supposed to be about?quote>

Fear.  Plain and simple:  it's fear.

One of my Brit friends is convinced that the US government and news media actively work together to keep the American people in a state of fear.    She claims it's obvious from where she sits.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

In Canada, I think, considering his in-corrections behavior, he could be declared a dangerous offender and held indefinitely, subject to biennial review.  I don't think this has ever been applied to anyone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but there is always a first time.quote>

On one level, that sounds logical.  On other, it just gives me the creeps.  There aren't many government officials who I have enough faith in to feel comfortable with them having the power to put anyone on indefinite hold.  (and, yes, I know the US government is keeping people on indefinite hold and no, I don't like it.  Everyone deserves their day in court.)quote>

The dangerous offender legislation requires a Lieutenant Governor's warrant and is only good for two years at a time.  A full review is conducted every two years by Corrections Canada and a penel of the judiciary.  The Lieutenant Governor (the Queen's representative in the Province) must concur and sign a new warrant.  I can't think of any other way to review this that might work as well.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body The dangerous offender legislation requires a Lieutenant Governor's warrant and is only good for two years at a time.  A full review is conducted every two years by Corrections Canada and a penel of the judiciary.  The Lieutenant Governor (the Queen's representative in the Province) must concur and sign a new warrant.  I can't think of any other way to review this that might work as well.

quote>

Isn't there a psychiatrist present in the boards? The maximum penalty in Norway is 21 years, but it's possible to sentence someone to confinement. Ex. being sentenced to 21 years in prison and at least ten years in confinement means life if you've committed a cruel murder and being a dangerous person. Your subject to the same biannual reviews, but if deemed dangerous, you'll stay inside until you've gotten better, if it's possible.

[Duke87 1,070]

Here's another way of looking at it: this guy suffers from a mental disorder. It's not his fault that he has these psychopathic desires. Given that, I'd say he'd be better suited to a padded room in a mental hospital, on medication and continually seeing a shrink; not a prison cell.

I actually pity the guy. Having my own mental issues, I can understand the kind of things he must go through. He's as much a victim as the people he killed- a victim not only of the state but also of an incurable disease. And, well, the latter nobody is to blame for.

If you're going to treat him as a criminal, you have to treat him fairly s a criminal. If you consider him as a psychopath, prison is not the place for him.

[mkaustin 1]

indefinite confinement with periodic review has been adopted in Wisconsin to deal with sexual predators. So, once convicted, an offender serves out his/her prison term, and with six months of imprisonment remaining, a psychological review is conducted. If the offender is diagnosed as a sexually dangerous person, the offender is still confined, I believe in a psychiatric ward, rather than prison. There is a periodic review; the offender is confined until the diagnosis is no longer that the person is sexually dangerous. So the offender can be confined forever, potentially. It survives constitutional scrutiny because it is not "punishment."

My personal belief on this particular law is that a case could be made for unconstitutionality. Time will tell. I believe the law is too recent for there to have been enough case development to be sure one way or the other.

EDIT: Duke87 posted while I was typing my lengthy post.  In response, IMO there is a very fine line between treating someone as a criminal and treating someone as mentally ill, as demonstrated by my post.  You can veil it, one way or the other.  IMO the Wisconsin law is thinly veiled punishment, but it is only my opinion.  I dont have a solution.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Here's another way of looking at it: this guy suffers from a mental disorder. It's not his fault that he has these psychopathic desires. Given that, I'd say he'd be better suited to a padded room in a mental hospital, on medication and continually seeing a shrink; not a prison cell.quote>

That's the problem. In the US (or at least in VA) you can't send someone to a mental institution without their consent. Problem: most mentally unstable people don't think that they are so (and of they do, probably don't agree about the severity). They will mostlikely not commit themselves to a mental instituion.

[Jman47 0]

these crimes are probably some of the most hanus ive heard of, and his lack of remorse makes it even more disgusting. this 'person' if you can call him that, id think of him more as a like a dog with rabies, should be put down for good. there is no reason anyones tax dollars should have to pay for any form of treatment for scum like this. he is not worth the money or effort, and should just get the needle so we can all be done with this peice of trash. he is no better than historical figures such as Stalin or Hitler, he just didnt have the power to massacre even more innocents. i dont care how old he was when he commited the crimes, he is clearly of no worth to a functioning society.

dont get me wrong i dont think every person who kills should get such a punishment, but in this case, there should be a law allowing it. prison is for people who might actually have a chance of being rehabilitated, not remorsless sociopathic trash like this.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Fear.  Plain and simple:  it's fear.

One of my Brit friends is convinced that the US government and news media actively work together to keep the American people in a state of fear.    She claims it's obvious from where she sits.quote>

I have to agree on this, our society just keeps the public in fear so they can get away with things, like, the Iraq War. I don't think the media does it for the government's sake (maybe Faux News, but that's a different story) but rather to make more money. We have to face it... we love sensational stories. And when there's a sensational story, we watch it.

I think this kid should stay as long as possible in jail, since he seems to be a threat to others around him....

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mkaustin 1]

the American justice system has more people incarcerated than most other Western countries, yet we show the highest incidence of many crimes in the Western world. This is because we do not help our criminals to reformquote>

I am not so sure that this is completely true, that is to say, I think that America would still have some of the highest crime rates even if there was more focus on reform. It isn't that I don't think we should try to reform criminals, but I think that is only part of the story of American crime. I think one of the largest factors is that American culture promotes crime indirectly more than the rest of the developed world. Our uber-capitalism, "get paid or die," having things is more important than having character - mentality.

So, I agree that penal reform is important, but I think crime in America will be at unacceptable levels until there is a change in our societal mind-set.

EDIT: to clarify - I dont think my statements apply to the serial killer in the article, but crime in America generally. 

[confused04 14]

I find it nearly impossible to have any sympathy for this kinda criminal. I for one am a strict interpretor of the Constitution and a bastion of moderate thinking at my university and I usually would say things along the lines that restricts the overbearing judicial arm of the government (or any arm for that matter). However wrong it may seem to enforce selective laws on this person to keep him in prison, the government is caught in a catch 22 and they are only taking the least risky way out. You guys are claiming that we are putting him in jail for crimes yet committed, but lets weigh the solutions.

There are only two out comes of releasing such a fiend at 21, he murders or he doesn't. If he doesn't murder, than all is well and forgotten. If he does murder, however, then the government is blamed for a lack of foresight knowing this person's condition. We all want to make sure the government doesn't overstep its boundaries into our lives, but we are all failing to take into account the ONE undeniable purpose of government, to protect the citizens it represents, a central theme to the constitution. By letting such a risky fellow go, we are just asking for trouble and in the end more money spent on another trial and perhaps civil suits if any new victims' families decide to sue the government for negligence. This move is logical and, in my books, right.

It might be fear, but I bet if its your kid, your mother, your brother, you will NOT feel the same. Its one thing to take the "constitutional" or "political" road, but if this happens to you, its unlikely you will feel the same. This is basic risk assesment, the risk is too great. I for one don't believe in the immediate release of minors at 18/21 regardless of the crime. I think this law should be scrapped from the books, at the very least for crimes such as murder. All kids in this country are taught that harming someone physically or ending their life is wrong from day one, there is no excuse for murder and claiming "immaturity" is a joke. Throw out this archaic law. Judge each case on an individual basis and decide that for this kinda murder, maybe 20 years isn't enough. Sorry, the kid screwed up his life, I'm not willing to allow him to screw up another innocent persons life. Call it fear if you wish, I call it right.

[fukuda 351]

I agree with Barbarossa, Duke and Skigeek

[projectadam 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Here's another way of looking at it: this guy suffers from a mental disorder. It's not his fault that he has these psychopathic desires. Given that, I'd say he'd be better suited to a padded room in a mental hospital, on medication and continually seeing a shrink; not a prison cell.

I actually pity the guy. Having my own mental issues, I can understand the kind of things he must go through. He's as much a victim as the people he killed- a victim not only of the state but also of an incurable disease. And, well, the latter nobody is to blame for.

If you're going to treat him as a criminal, you have to treat him fairly s a criminal. If you consider him as a psychopath, prison is not the place for him.quote>

 

Feeling pity for the guy???  I do not know what issues you have Duke but I am guessing you have not brutally stabbed several people 50+ whatever times it was while biting their faces.  I find it really hard for you to understand what he must go through...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: projectadam Feeling pity for the guy???  I do not know what issues you have Duke but I am guessing you have not brutally stabbed several people 50+ whatever times it was while biting their faces.  I find it really hard for you to understand what he must go through...quote>

What I mean is that I know the feeling of having something seem perfectly fine to me but completely despicable to the rest of the world, and having to behave in a way I don't want to behave - that's not "me" - in order to meet that. What motivates me is the potential consequences of not doing it (which this guy obviously isn't all that concerned about). Trying to see the other side of the story before drawing a conclusion is also an immensely helpful exercise.

[mkaustin 1]

I agree, Duke87. I read a lot of posts on this sight, and others, that makes me wonder how many people try to see things from a different point of view than their gut reaction. I can easily see both sides to this. It is a difficult problem without an easy and obvious answer.

[Joesocwork 4]

This is a nerve-wracking instance of deciding on using terrible means to avoid even more terrible ends.