Reamond
|
posted on September 8, 2002 12:57:49 AM new
I recall no one suggesting changing the law when there was a black child on trial as an adult for killing a young girl while acting out the wrestling he saw on TV. But when we have two "angelic" looking white kids on trial for beating the brains out of their father with a baseball bat and then setting the house on fire, it's now time to consider changing the law.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020907_1310.html
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 8, 2002 02:58:42 AM new
Mornin'
I didn't hear anyone doing so either. But according the Senator Skip Campbell's website, he was speaking out about cases like Lionel Tate and Nathaniel Brazill's in May of 2001.
And the only other person in the article that spoke to changing the law was the preacher, a black man.
I don't think this is about whether or not it's a black or white child.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 8, 2002 05:58:16 AM new
I don't think this is about whether or not it's a black or white child.
What do you think it's about?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 8, 2002 06:17:16 AM new
About people who don't think any child should be tried in adult court.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 8, 2002 06:28:46 AM new
At 12 most people are not capable of standing up to a bullying manipulation. They are rarely taught like my parents taught me to stand up to people. Especially people in authority. They are already in an authoritarian environment all day long in school and if not actively taught are able to learn on their own that nobody there cares about anything but obedience. They will agree to what they know is a lie because they do it every day at school to survive. Otherwise the teachers and administrators will make their life hell. To expect them to see that the new situation when they are in trouble with the law is different is asking them to make a leap of understanding across a huge gap. The fact the the father was a strict makes it worse not better. The fact that they were involved with this other adult would be something to cover at all cost to avoid the father's rage. The idea that they will grow up and leave in the future is so far away that in their mind they are permenantly trapped. 18 is so far away it is not a reality at all. You have to just deal with the present with no thought to years ahead.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 8, 2002 06:46:02 AM new
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=74165&id=74165
Linda, It's amazing how race plays a role in what is considered justice for children.
A lot of people here thought that the Tate boy was being treated fairly.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 8, 2002 06:47 AM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 8, 2002 07:12:07 AM new
Helen - I see things through different glasses I guess. I feel there are some who will try and make everything about race. [This happened because they were black.] I have more faith in humanity than that. It's my belief that most people's opinions wouldn't change one bit, it Lionel Tate and the little girl he killed were white. They'd still think/feel the same way.
And gravid, you are so right. I was in an abusive home and it was a day to day struggle to survive sometimes. It did at times seem like there was no way out, no way to change my circumstances. And it did feel like 18 would never get there. Thanks to the encouragement of a loving mother, I made it through but can sure understand those children who aren't able to.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 8, 2002 07:32:53 AM new
Sentences of blacks are generally more severe. If this boy had the "angelic" white boy appearance he might have been convicted of a lesser offence.
While most 14-year-olds have the rest of their lives to look forward to, Lionel Tate will be spending the rest of his in prison.
Unlike most boys his age, Tate was convicted of first-degree murder after imitating professional wrestling moves led to the death of his 6-year-old friend, Tiffany Eunick.
Following a state law that requires convicted first-degree murderers to receive a life sentence without parole, Judge Joel T. Lazarus handed the sentence to the teen — prompting a national public outcry that the sentence was too harsh given the defendant's age.
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 8, 2002 01:23:45 PM new
I can't find any other reason but racism for these verdicts and public outcry.
The Tate child showed no premeditation or malice in the death of his friend, and gets convicted of First Degree Murder, which is mandatory life without parole.
Now we have two white kids that commit premeditated murder and arson to mask the crime and are convicted of second degree murder, which is 22 years to life and the judge can lower the sentence as there is no mandatory sentence. When the white kids are convicted the governor chimes in that the law should be changed.
Three children, one black, two white. The black child kills his playmate with no evidence of premeditation or malice and gets life without parole, the two white kids with evidence of premeditation and malice as well as arson to hide the crime get second degree murder with the possibility of a lighter sentence and parole.
The black child committed manslaughter at best and gets convicted of first degree murder, the two white kids commit a classic case of first degree murder and get charged with second degree murder with parole and a chance of alighter sentence.
Same ages, same charges, different skin color, different outcomes.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 8, 2002 02:40:07 PM new
Okay...let me ask you this, Reamond.
If Tate was convicted of 1st degree murder of his playmate only because he was black, and you believe these two boys were found guilty of 2nd degree murder only because they were white, then why did Nathaniel Brazill's [who is black] jury find him guilty of second degree murder too, when he was charged with 1st degree? Or am I mis-understanding you?
Reamond...where do you get "that the governer chimes in that the law should be changed"? Did you read that somewhere other than your article? Because it said, "Gov. Jeb Bush acknowledges being uncomfortable with some prosecutions of children as adults. "I do think prosecutors ought to have the flexibility to determine the jurisdiction, whether it's juvenile or adult, Bush said."
To me each case has to be looked at on it's own. Like: the Tate boy would have been charged with a lesser crime, if his mother had followed the recommendations of his attorney. I put most of the blame in his case on her stubborn shoulders. In the case of the two boys and their father, what I got from your article was the jury forewoman said they didn't feel the boys committed the crime, but had let Chavis in so played a part in the 'plan'. In the Tate case, there was no other person who 'might' have committed the crime. In the boys case there was/is doubt as to who killed the father. In the Brazill his attornies conceded he killed his teacher, but said it was accidental...thus the 2nd degree conviction rather than the 1st degree.
I don't see [from your article] the "outcry" you speak of. To me it was about whether or not these children [black or white] should be tried as adults or juveniles.
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 8, 2002 02:52:48 PM new
Not accepting a plea bargain is no reason to charge or convict for First Degree murder. Rejecting a plea bargain is not an element of First Degree murder nor any murder charge for that matter.
Brazill's actions were on tape, so there could be no speculation by the prosecuter or the jury regarding the actions that led to the gun discharging. Just as being beaten by the police, if you're black you better have it on tape.
The jury didn't "feel" that the two "angelic" white boys committed the crime ? All evidence implicted the boys, including their confessions. There was no evidence that the acquitted adult was ever in the house. The murder of their father was premeditated, and the house was set on fire to hide the crime. It was a classic premeditated act and the arson and ballbat make it aggravated murder.
[ edited by Reamond on Sep 8, 2002 02:55 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 8, 2002 03:05:24 PM new
Anyone who really believes that black children are treated the same as white children in Florida courts must be living in an ivory tower or have rocks in their head for brains. The Tate child who was very large for his age was 12 years old when he accidentally killed his playmate by using wrestling moves that he had seen on TV. There was no finding of premeditation and there was no arson involved. Yet he was sentenced to life because he was black.
This case was also tried in the state of Florida and Jebb Bush was Governor. Bush refused to consider clemency for the life sentence, a judgement that is cruel and unusual for a 12 year old child.
Helen
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 8, 2002 04:13:04 PM new
The "wrestling moves" was a defense story. In statements to police he killed her in different ways. Her injuries were the equivalent of a fall from a 3rd story, including a fractured skull, lacerated liver, broken rib, internal hemorrhaging and cuts and bruises.
The prosecutor offered a 3 yr deal and the lawyers figured they could take it to the press. The jury saw it as a very heinous crime indeed.
All 3 should go away for life.
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 8, 2002 05:23:10 PM new
The jury saw it as a very "heinous" crime committed by a BLACK child.
Beating one's sleeping father to death with a baseball bat and then setting the house on fire isn't "heinous"? I suppose the the father's injuries could be compared to falling from 5 stories and landing on your face and then being burned? But alas, it was committed by two white children.
The issue isn't how much punishment these children should recieve, but why the disparity?
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 8, 2002 05:38:49 PM new
The jury did not provide the sentence and did not agree with it, nor did the prosecutor. The sentence was determined by the judge, who may or may not have acted under pressure from the family of the victim.
Just don't compare the 2 complaining one murder was "accidental".
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 8, 2002 06:07:03 PM new
There was no evidence of malice or intent in the case of the black child that the jury convicted of First Degree murder. The judge did not set the sentence for the black child and he couldn't if he wanted to- it was MANDATORY life without parole for First Degree murder, which the prosecuter and judge and jury knew would be the case for a First Degree murder comviction.
The two white kids admitted to premeditation and intent to kill as well as setting the house on fire to hide the crime. There were classic First Degree murder elements, yet no conviction for First Degree murder.
It will be very interesting to see how much time the judge actually gives the two white kids.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 8, 2002 11:07:22 PM new
They just had a report of an interview with the jury foreman. Basically what she said was called by the prosecutor a "judicial pardon". It's when the jury believes the 2 were involved in the crime (hence guilty under the law) but did not actually wield the bat. The forewoman said the jury reached the verdict believing the pedophile was the bat wielder and was amazed at his being cleared. There is no way you can compare these 2 cases.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 9, 2002 06:37:26 AM new
I really don't understand how a little girls body can be smashed like it had been in a severe auto wreck and anyone could come to the conclusion there was no malice.
However if there was no malice I still have to worry about the next person that will be on the recieving end of such action even if it IS without malice. Perhaps it is even scarier if there was no malice. That sort of suggests complete and frightening indifference rather than any comforting conclusion. At the very least lacking in any empathy or feeling at all.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 9, 2002 08:05:57 AM new
Exactly. In the first case the jury was sure he did it and the "wrestling moves" defense or the "hit her head on the stairwell" idea didn't jibe.
In the second case the jury felt they were guilty by association but the brutality was committed by the pedophile.
A jury is always going to be harder on somebody they can visualize thrashing the victim.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 9, 2002 08:21:38 AM new
A jury is always going to be harder on somebody they can visualize thrashing the victim.
Do you think that race contributes to this "visualization"?
|
gravid
|
posted on September 9, 2002 09:25:52 AM new
Depends on the person visualizing.
Some will find it easier to picture from prejudice - some will be an apologist due to reverse prejudice.
And don't give me any crap about how minorities are incapable of racist because they are powerless. If they have the power to just be rude to me because I am white they are empowered enough to practice racist. I have had to leave retaurants where I was not welcome because of my appearance, and I could not get waited on. I was just invisable. Stupid spitefulness to do to someone without knowing their nature at all. Turning down my money is it's own punishment.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 9, 2002 09:48:52 AM new
My daughter was thinking about an audition at a music school in NY. They had a policy of putting the student behind a curtain so that their decision would not be influenced by appearance.
Maybe, since it's clear that juries are influenced by appearance that it would be a good idea to adopt that practice by hiding the defendant. LOL!!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 9, 2002 10:37:36 AM new
In the Tate case the jury didn't "buy" the black childs defence. In the second case the jury did "buy" the white kids defence.
The white kids defence was that an adult did it. But this "story" was forwarded after the two white kids confessed to doing it themselves and after the adult was acquited of committing the murder.
The jury believed the white kids even after they told a completely different story, and they couldn't believe the black child.
And race had nothing to do with it.... yeah right.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 9, 2002 10:47:03 AM new
Really isn't complicated. With the 2 white kids, the bat could have been used by the kid or the pervert. Jury doesn't know which but convicts because they're all guilty.
With the black kid there was no pervert to share blame. They KNEW who did it. These cases are not remotely similar other than for age, and I can't see a basis to compare the two.
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 9, 2002 11:25:54 AM new
You're right, the two white kids were guilty of First Degree murder, but the two white kids were only convicted of Second Degree murder.
The black kid gets mandatory life without possibility of parole, the two white kids get 22 years to life with possibility of parole, and it is not mandatory, and the judge can lesson the sentence.
The jury believed the white kids story, even after they had told a completely different story.
The two white kids premeditated the murder and burned the house to cover it up. The black kid showed no premeditation and when he found out the girl had died asked if he could move in with her mother and have her toys.
These cases are quite different. One is manslaughter and one is First Degree murder, except the black gets convicted of First Degree murder and the whites do not.
|
pclady
|
posted on September 9, 2002 04:51:49 PM new
PENSACOLA, Fla., Sept. 7 — A day after a verdict in an unusual murder case involving two trials and multiple defendants, the forewoman of the jury that convicted two brothers of second-degree murder said the panel believed the boys did not kill their father themselves, but simply let the killer into the house. The jurors, she said, thought a family friend carried out the slaying, and were “shocked” when they learned he was acquitted in his separate trial.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/802762.asp?0si=-
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 9, 2002 05:40:25 PM new
Who could believe that two angelic looking white kids would beat their sleeping father to death with a baseball bat ?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 9, 2002 06:31:09 PM new
...even after they confessed and set the house on fire with their dead father inside.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 9, 2002 06:32:38 PM new
Lots of people. But of course there obviously were a few on the jury that had a "reasonable doubt" about the pervert.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 9, 2002 06:45:08 PM new
And it broke the jury's hearts to sentence these lily white kids to manslaughter for killing their father with a baseball bat and setting the house on fire.
If the kids were black they would be in jail with the Tate kid for the rest of their life.
BTW...Not all "perverts" are murderers.
Helen
|
