Plea bargain for 20 years when you know you haven't committed a crime? Forget it.

>> ^Xax:
Plea bargain for 20 years when you know you haven't committed a crime? Forget it.


right, because you woulda been the real stoic "hero" and taken the full 25 to life outta principle?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^Xax:
Plea bargain for 20 years when you know you haven't committed a crime? Forget it.

right, because you woulda been the real stoic "hero" and taken the full 25 to life outta principle?


Being a hero has nothing to do with it. 20 years is a long time for not having done anything wrong, so I'd take my chances. On the other hand, it seems like so many stupid fucking idiots don't seem to understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

^reasonable doubt only works if you have a good enough lawyer to sell that. When you are in that chair for child murder with two former assaults...you don't start with a lot of sympathy from the jury. Ideally, they are supposed to only listen to facts and evidence, but get real, they are people first and jurors second. It was likely a capital offense if he didn't plea; and unfortunately, if you are a black, repeat, male offender that can't afford Johnny Cochran, it is better to plea.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^reasonable doubt only works if you have a good enough lawyer to sell that. When you are in that chair for child murder with two former assaults...you don't start with a lot of sympathy from the jury. Ideally, they are supposed to only listen to facts and evidence, but get real, they are people first and jurors second. It was likely a capital offense if he didn't plea; and unfortunately, if you are a black, repeat, male offender that can't afford Johnny Cochran, it is better to plea.


I suppose you may be right. I was thinking of my own self if I had been in his position, but I don't have a history of assault. Still, assuming those assaults were not on children, I would have a hard time convicting the guy based on what little I know from the video.

He did do something wrong, though. According to himself he dropped his child, which led to the child receiving injuries so bad that it later on died from them. I don't know the American terms for that kind of crime, but where I'm from you can be liable for indirect murder if, for instance, you drive and crash your car and survive while the other passengers are killed.
When a baby is involved it's even worse, since you're supposed to save the child from harm, not just avoid causing it yourself. It's that adolescent innocence and helplessness combined with his particular role as guardian which makes the situation worse. That he didn't mean for any of that to happen is of course mitigating compared to if he had premeditated the act, but it doesn't change the fact that his actions directly caused the incident.

Also, we don't know if his story is the truth and the court and jury's is wrong. Maybe I'm not cynical in that way, but do you think they made up evidence to give him a much harsher sentence? They do say in the video that there was evidence of physical abuse, which is what the guy had been sentenced for in the past, twice.
However, getting raped is not part of the prison sentence and is a practice that seems to be easily preventable. It probably boils down to the perception of prisoners as sub-human, as worth less and not having the same rights as the rest of us. To change that perception and to break up the gang culture which seems to run rampant at the moment would solve alot of problems I think, but sadly it's much easier said than done. Stuff like this goes on all over the world.

>> ^Kreegath:
He did do something wrong, though. According to himself he dropped his child, which led to the child receiving injuries so bad that it later on died from them. I don't know the American terms for that kind of crime, but where I'm from you can be liable for indirect murder if, for instance, you drive and crash your car and survive while the other passengers are killed.
When a baby is involved it's even worse, since you're supposed to save the child from harm, not just avoid causing it yourself. It's that adolescent innocence and helplessness combined with his particular role as guardian which makes the situation worse. That he didn't mean for any of that to happen is of course mitigating compared to if he had premeditated the act, but it doesn't change the fact that his actions directly caused the incident.
Also, we don't know if his story is the truth and the court and jury's is wrong. Maybe I'm not cynical in that way, but do you think they made up evidence to give him a much harsher sentence? They do say in the video that there was evidence of physical abuse, which is what the guy had been sentenced for in the past, twice.
However, getting raped is not part of the prison sentence and is a practice that seems to be easily preventable. It probably boils down to the perception of prisoners as sub-human, as worth less and not having the same rights as the rest of us. To change that perception and to break up the gang culture which seems to run rampant at the moment would solve alot of problems I think, but sadly it's much easier said than done. Stuff like this goes on all over the world.


A plea means there was not trail or jury, only a sentence most likely determined by a judge and mandatory sentencing rules because it was his third felony. In this case, even if the death was completely an accident, the fact it was his third felon makes that point moot on sentencing.

Mandatory sentencing is a mockery to justice and a result of the futile drug war here in the US. Accidental death should never carry a life sentence or be a capital offense.

>> ^Kreegath:
He did do something wrong, though. According to himself he dropped his child, which led to the child receiving injuries so bad that it later on died from them. I don't know the American terms for that kind of crime, but where I'm from you can be liable for indirect murder if, for instance, you drive and crash your car and survive while the other passengers are killed.

Shit happens, doesn't mean somebody has to pay.

Obviously I don't know the specifics either. But, in my book, and I'm quite confident in the eyes of the law: an accident is an accident. For example, woman drops baby at airport from second story over railing, baby dies.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091123/fatal_pearson_091123/20091123/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Terrible tragedy. However, they determined that it was not intentional and that the railing was not a safety hazard. Put plainly: sometimes bad stuff happens and that sucks; nobody necessarily should go to jail because of it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Mandatory sentencing is a mockery to justice and a result of the futile drug war here in the US. Accidental death should never carry a life sentence or be a capital offense.


And here we finally find something we agree on!

Mandatory sentencing, and the "zero-tolerance laws" are horrifically flawed attempts by politicians to make sure people know they're "taking action against crime". There's no evidence that they actually help, and plenty of examples where they've caused clear miscarriages of justice.

>> ^Kreegath:
He did do something wrong, though. According to himself he dropped his child, which led to the child receiving injuries so bad that it later on died from them. I don't know the American terms for that kind of crime, but where I'm from you can be liable for indirect murder if, for instance, you drive and crash your car and survive while the other passengers are killed.

The consequences were extraordinarily severe, absolutely, but I can't believe anyone with a sliver of humanity would expect someone to pay for their mistake by being imprisoned. That's just terrible. I don't know that this case was a mistake, but accidents do happen. It's not quite like leaving a loaded gun in a crib.

I'm not saying the punishment wasn't too severe, but what I am saying is that we seem to be working under the assumption that the man is completely innocent. Now, I agree with you that the actual sentence he got was inhumane. However, it sounded to me like you were saying that because the system of punishment is needlessly severe, he must somehow be exempt from the law. That's what I reacted to.

You can be held responsible for reckless behaviour and child endangerment, and while I'm not claiming he did wantonly endanger his child, I'm saying that it apparently appeared to the court that he did. That's why I don't feel comfortable to arbitrarily side with him because the punishment turned out to be disproportional, when there's still quite a case built up against him. And let's not forget that it's still quite possible that the man did in fact commit a crime.

>> ^Kreegath:
I'm not saying the punishment wasn't too severe, but what I am saying is that we seem to be working under the assumption that the man is completely innocent. Now, I agree with you that the actual sentence he got was inhumane. However, it sounded to me like you were saying that because the system of punishment is needlessly severe, he must somehow be exempt from the law. That's what I reacted to.
You can be held responsible for reckless behaviour and child endangerment, and while I'm not claiming he did wantonly endanger his child, I'm saying that it apparently appeared to the court that he did. That's why I don't feel comfortable to arbitrarily side with him because the punishment turned out to be disproportional, when there's still quite a case built up against him. And let's not forget that it's still quite possible that the man did in fact commit a crime.


There was no court, only the pressure of the DA saying confess or get the chair. I understand and respect your sentiment, but many people confess to things they didn't do because of the fear instigated in them by the DA during plea bargaining time. When faced with a bar-b-Q in your honor, you can be convinced to do things that, to a rational person, seem foolish.

Ummmm... I feel bad for the guy, but part of that newspaper article mentions "bilateral retinal hemorrhages" which is virtually pathognomonic for child abuse AKA shaken baby syndrome. This type of injury would be highly unusual for accidental trauma and my guess is that a pediatrician specializing in non-accidental trauma or a coroner testified as much during his trial. Retinal hemorrhage occurs with multiple rapid acceleration/deceleration events, not a single fall.

>> ^nock:
Ummmm... I feel bad for the guy, but part of that newspaper article mentions "bilateral retinal hemorrhages" which is virtually pathognomonic for child abuse AKA shaken baby syndrome. This type of injury would be highly unusual for accidental trauma and my guess is that a pediatrician specializing in non-accidental trauma or a coroner testified as much during his trial. Retinal hemorrhage occurs with multiple rapid acceleration/deceleration events, not a single fall.


You have a linky?

It's usually termed "involuntary <insert charge>". That covers when something you did incorrectly causes harm to somebody but was not intentional. If he had a strong involuntary manslaughter case, he'd probably have taken that. I can't see him doing more than 10. Given his past, though, it'd be a hard sell.>> ^Kreegath:
He did do something wrong, though. According to himself he dropped his child, which led to the child receiving injuries so bad that it later on died from them. I don't know the American terms for that kind of crime, but where I'm from you can be liable for indirect murder if, for instance, you drive and crash your car and survive while the other passengers are killed.
When a baby is involved it's even worse, since you're supposed to save the child from harm, not just avoid causing it yourself. It's that adolescent innocence and helplessness combined with his particular role as guardian which makes the situation worse. That he didn't mean for any of that to happen is of course mitigating compared to if he had premeditated the act, but it doesn't change the fact that his actions directly caused the incident.
Also, we don't know if his story is the truth and the court and jury's is wrong. Maybe I'm not cynical in that way, but do you think they made up evidence to give him a much harsher sentence? They do say in the video that there was evidence of physical abuse, which is what the guy had been sentenced for in the past, twice.
However, getting raped is not part of the prison sentence and is a practice that seems to be easily preventable. It probably boils down to the perception of prisoners as sub-human, as worth less and not having the same rights as the rest of us. To change that perception and to break up the gang culture which seems to run rampant at the moment would solve alot of problems I think, but sadly it's much easier said than done. Stuff like this goes on all over the world.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'prison, victim, rape, booty wrestle, xp, prisoner' to 'prison, prisoner, jail, victim, rape, sexual assault, booty wrestle, xp' - edited by calvados

Well we obviously have a somewhat broken justice system. Where people are encouraged to take deals and plea out so district attorneys can keep their conviction rates up and look hard on crime. I don't agree with it, I understand it somewhat......especially in cases where the person on trial is wealthy enough to defend himself forever or where someone is obviously guilty and it would just be a waste of time to go to trial.

But what I can't agree with is this implicit understanding that when you go to prison rape is part of your punishment. Not only rape, but just the constant threat of rape or violence against you....even while you sleep. That's not an environment where anyone is going to come out mentally sound from. And chances are most people would join a gang in prison just to have some piece of mind.....someone there looking out for them. Because the guards and prison authorities surely aren't there to keep you safe......they are there to keep you subdued and on the premises.

Prison in itself should be enough punishment, but the extra bullying, constant threat of violence/rape, and having to be careful that you never get caught speaking to guards, or the many other things......it's going to break something inside most people who go in. And chances are that after that, there is no helping them. And you've just created a situation where the guy has to remain locked up forever, or he'll be dangerous until he's dead.

Well i'd never admit to something i didn't do. Never. Couldn't do it.

And this whole "sometimes things happen and that's a bad thing" is something that a lot of people need to come to terms with and i hope FAST. Because the effects of blame culture are dispicable and far reaching to society. And soon you end up with people afraid to do anything further than exactly what is required of them in case going any further makes them liable.

It's already going that way in britain. A country that was once known for it's polite helpful togetherness is becoming a blind ignorant machine. Giving fines to parents whose babies drop some chocolate out of their mouths, fining the parents for littering EVEN THOUGH they pick it up. The people issuing the fines don't dare to make an exception in case they come to blame for it. We just pass any risk on down the line, pass it on to the next poor bastard. Not my problem, i don't want to get in any trouble. I'll robotically do what i'm told i should do regardless of any mitigation, because that way the rules are to blame, not me. Fucking pathetic, i don't want to live in that world.

And we do it to ourselves. (/radiohead)

^"Well i'd never admit to something i didn't do. Never. Couldn't do it."

I understand that statement as I sit fat and happy behind my computer monitor on my nice chair. The decision isn't nearly as easy when you face the death penalty, and some overworked public defender that is most likely saying you should take the plea. That situation happens a lot. The public defender in most cases tries his best to never go to court...not because he is a bad person but because he is playing the odds. Odds are that if his client goes to trial and loses he dies. He is a public defender so he can't exactly drop all his other cases and focus on this one; so truly, it would be better to lie and go to jail then to die for his client.

I used to have my own overzealous idea of the justice system and how I would behave in it. But once you are behind those bars, and the cold slam of metal clanks behind you and you take your perch on the cold scared concrete floor next to other inmates who scare the living ship out of you; you experience a whole new paradigm. Make no mistake, jail/prison is a horrible, miserable place. When you get there it would take a marvel of a person to remain in their rational mind. The fear, stress, and panic deep in the hallows of your mind are nearly tearing you apart. The DA knows this, and uses it to their full advantage, as do the officers and other inmates. You may think you know how you will act in hell, but until you have been there I wouldn't be so hasty to sum up your actions.

Seriously, guys? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, he did kill his kid? Or is everybody in prison innocent because they say they are?

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Seriously, guys? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, he did kill his kid? Or is everybody in prison innocent because they say they are?


The problem is that it works both ways. There are both innocent people in prison as well as guilty people. Just as there is innocent and guilty people who get off from their charges and aren't in prison.

The system isn't perfect and pretty much can't be in realistic terms. We have checks and balances, but ultimately it may just be a persons opinion that sends someone to jail. I was on a jury last year and have to say that it was one of the most frightening things I've witnessed. The amount of assumption, racism, and outright stupidity made me shudder of the idea of every needing to get a "fair" trial. Is it possible? Sure, but it is definitely not a guarantee...

Pause the video at 42 seconds -- the article talks about how the child had the bilateral retinal issues as well as a collapsed lung, which would lead me to believe that 1)there was a lot of baby shaking going on before the "drop", and 2)since there was no open wound noted, there was trauma to the child's back or chest so hard that a rib broke and punctured his lung. Gents -- this is child abuse. Period.

On top of that, the article says the articulate prisoner told the police the child "fell off the couch", when his statement in the video indicates another scenario entirely.

Methinks someone is full of crap, and I find it hard to think there is anything other than a special place in hell for what he did...

I tried to find ANY information on this and came up empty handed. The article they showed was hardly conclusive of anything, and more over it was just an arrest warrant affidavit. Meaning they believed a crime was committed and they believe it was him; but everyone who gets arrested gets one of these and not everyone that gets arrested is guilty of the crime. This is completely one sided viewpoint of the prosecution, and without cross examination of the evidence. In other words, you only see why he was arrested and no real evidence or how that evidence could be misconstrued.

However, he could be right out guilty for all I know...I can't find anything on this case.

So, it leaves the Top 15 with 69 votes. Appropriate somehow.