Reptile & Amphibian Forums

In the thread below regarding the International Crime Court some of you said that they would only trust the U.S. justice system and the constitutional rights.

As a former police officer I am very familiar with the German law and the law of adjourning European countries.

I must admit that I only know the U.S. justic from the medias and from hear-say.

But the things that I have seen and heard makes me glad that I am not subject to the U.S. system of justice.

First of all it is the death penalty that should not be part of the justice of a democratic country. Nothing can justify the death of innocent people (yes, that happens).

The second point is that for instance shop-lifters can get a prison sentence of several years when they did it the third time (I have heard). I can only describe such a punishment as draconian.

On the other hand people like Michael Jackson can buy them out of an indictment by paying money to the victim in order to gag him. In Germany the abuse of children is a felony which would lead to the immediate detention of the suspect regardless of how much money he has. A bail would be impossible in such a case.

The next thing is that adolescents and even minors can get long-term prison sentences although they may have had not the maturity to see the consequences of their actions.

With such a justice system the U.S. is even more stringent than Slovakia which is not known to be lenient.

Mental ill persons are sent to prison instead of hospital and also get capital punishment.

And with such a justice system you fear the international crime court?

This can only mean that the government does not intend to prosecute cruelty to POW's unless it is uncovered by the medias.

I appreciate the admitted lack of 1st hand knowledge about the US justice system. Couple of points that need to be addressed:
1) the death penalty - many people don't like it, I personally am in favor of it for criminals who have committed heinous crimes & if there is DNA evidence or other indisputable evidence PROVING they are guilty. Also, in most cases a person pleading guilty to even a really bad crime is spared the death penalty in agreement for their admission of guilt. If I did it & I knew there was evidence that would convict me, I would cope a plea as fast as I could! Too bad most criminals aren't bright enough to know when they have been totally busted!
2) The 3 strikes law - a few states have this law, it applies to criminals who have been convicted of at least a crime like rape, child molestation, murder, or any number of other not so nice offenses. If they get caught committing a lessor crime later down the road, then the 3 strikes law could be used to get them a life sentence (no parole). Once again, keep your dumba$$ out of trouble & this law won't apply to you. If crime is a way of life for you...then you need to live out your life away from people who could be your potential victims.
3) $ & justice - Those with the resources can get the best attorney(s) money can buy...that is for sure. Just ask O.J. (whole new thread there!) As far as Michael Jackson, he is still in court over the allegations of child molestation. Innocent until proven guilty! And hmmmm...wasn't he in Germany when he dangled his infant son over the rail at a hotel. There is video of that everywhere, why didn't German officials go after him for child endangerment? I may be mistaken on the location but I do know it was in some country in Europe. By the way our prisons are getting full of stupid rich people as well, Martha Stewart (very soon), sports figures (who knows how many of those!), former CEOs etc...
4) Juvenile crime - laws were enacted to stiffen penalties for juvenile offenders because many serious crimes were being committed by juveniles who figured they would be able to get away with their crimes because of their youth. Many of them will spend the better part of their teens, 20's & maybe longer in big boy & big girl prisons. Do I feel this is a terrible travesty? HELL NO! Commit an adult crime, do adult time. There are kids that come into where I work (YMCA) to try to commit crimes, some serious: rape, assault/battery, drug deals etc... they carry knives, guns or other weapons. Please believe a 14 year old with a gun can shoot you just as dead as a 30 year old. Do they know what they are doing is wrong...HMMM, let me think, they know they don't want to get caught, is that an indication that they know what they are doing is wrong? I think so!
5) Mental illness - a person can plead innocent to a crime by reason of mental illness. As you can probably guess, this is a nice way to try to get out of jail time, so we have measures in place to test the mental capacity of persons to ascertain their "mental fitness".
As far as crimes like the video of the prisoner abuse, at least the media has the freedom to investigate & report alleged offenses & crimes. I would say that many countries don't allow that because the media is controlled by the government. Once again, no justice system is infallible, but I sure as hell would trust one of my own to decide my guilt or innocence rather than a court of people who may harbor a severe dislike/hatred for America or Americans.

A clarification. Mikeal Jackson did not go through our court system when he bribed his victim. That is totaly illeagal. Our laws allow for some disputes to be settled out of court but child abuse is not one of them.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Correct me if I am wrong:

Michael Jackson payd a truckload of money to the child he was accused to have abused. After that there was no indictment.

I claim that exactly this gave him the chance to carry on abusing.

So in this case you can hardly convince me.

Correction, M.J. MAY have paid a large sum of money in order to save himself from paying more in legal fees. It is extremely expensive to pay for a good defense in a criminal or civil trial. It may have just been cheaper to pay the kid off, it was still the child's (or his crooked sorry parent's) who made the decision to take the money & not cooperate with authorities. How much money is pure speculation, that information is sealed. And once again, he was ACCUSED NOT CONVICTED! There is a big difference. We have people make accusations at celebrities in order to get money...its called extortion and sometimes it pays because the bad press & the expense is too much. Is this Michael Jackson story the only piece of information you have to support your statement damning the US legal system? I hope not, it is pretty weak.

As well, how could he have been prosecuted? If you lose your really only star witness in a case, you can't really have much to go on anymore.
-----
Andy Maddox
AIM: SurfAndSkimTx04
MSN: Poloboy32486@hotmail.com
Yahoo:surfandskimtx04
Houston Herp Key
The Reptizone

If you steal in hunger, I will kick you when you try. These stand for me. Name your god and bleed the freak. I'd like to see. How you all would bleed for me.-Alice In Chains

You asked me to correct you!

While it may appear that way to you, that is not at all what happened.

What was done, however, is that Michael paid a large sum of money, in an agreement with the accuser, so that the accuser would not testify in court. When the accuser agreed to this, there was no case to prosecute, since that is all the evidence there was-one person's word against another's. Should prosecutors then bring a case to the courts, when they don't have any evidence to support their case? It's a total waste of time.

This is not a process that is supported or condoned by the court. It leads to future false allegations against the wealthy, since there might be a payoff in the end just to silence the false allegations. It also allows the rich to pay off accusers if the accuser cares more about money than justice.

Again, this is not the courts doing, it is basically bribery (whether a crime occurred or not), and the courts can't force someone to testify if they don't want to.

What do the courts do in Germany, to make someone testify against their will?

Rodney

The courts in Germany can force witnesses (in this case the victim) to testify against his/her will.

There are two kinds of crimes known in the German law system: Minor cases such as damage of property, physical injury or slander (just to name a few) are only prosecuted on application by the victim. These delicts are called application delicts.

All other delicts are prosecuted by the public prosecuter without application of the victim AS SOON AS THE PUBLIC PROSECUTER HAS LEARNED OF THE OFFENCE.

The victim has no possibility to refuse a statement. Even detention can be ordered to make him testify before court. The victim is treated like a witness.

These delicts are called official delicts.

The advantage of this system is that rich delinquents have no chance to buy them out or violent persons have no chance to intimidate their victims and make them refuse a testimony.

Let us suppose that MJ has abused the child then. In this case there would have been a trial in Germany then. And there would have been an excellent chance that further abuses would have been prevented (when someone is doing 6 years he can not abuse children during this time).

This is what I find astonishing in the U.S. law system: Stringent to the excess on one side and lenient on the other side.

However, they can't force someone to testify. They can hold them in contempt of court, and jail them, but with millions of dollars on the line, most victims won't pass up the money (over the jail time).

The victim has no possibility to refuse a statement. Even detention can be ordered to make him testify before court. The victim is treated like a witness.

I don't see how your justice system is any different. Just because they try to get someone to make a statement, by threatening, or following up with jail time, how can they force it?

Unfortunately, the public here finds putting a 10 year old "victim" in jail for refusing to testify about his "abuse" very distasteful, thus it is rarely done by prosecutors---due to public pressure.

Rodney

"On the other hand people like Michael Jackson can buy them out of an indictment by paying money to the victim in order to gag him. In Germany the abuse of children is a felony which would lead to the immediate detention of the suspect regardless of how much money he has. A bail would be impossible in such a case."

**Yep, M.J. did the baby dangle trick in Berlin. Why wasn't he "detained" without bail?

... you need to find out what kind of law and paragraph would have applied on this action in the U.S.

I seriously doubt that his stupid action is punishable even in the U.S. as long as no harm on the child is done and as long as it doesn't happen all the time.

Moreover, let me tell you that if Michael Jackson would be a German citizen he wouldn't have had the chance to dangle the baby because of the lack of it.

If in Germany a father is judged guilty of child abuse the youth welfare department is withdrawing the custody for his children.
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web

Reckless endangerment. Either way it is definatly not something we (US citizens) thought of as a good way to introduce your child to adoring fans! My question still stands, why wasn't he apprehended? The video shows him holding a baby over a balcony several stories high from the street. There are witnesses & video, or are Germans too afraid to arrest an American celebrity? Although really, many of us aren't that fond of him, which is why he is often called "wacko jacko".

I insinuate you are neither a lawyer nor you have much experience in law. Many people without knowledge of the law consider something punishable that does not fulfil the demand of the corresponding paragraph of the law that they consider applicable.

The dangle-the-child thing was very stupid. Here we agree. I am also not a lawyer but I have a certain amount of experience in law because of my job as police officer. Our training is much more detailled than that of the police officers in the U.S., but that's a different topic.

To my knowledge MJ has not violated a German law because the baby did not fall.

If it would have fallen he would have been prosecuted with physical injury resulting from negligence or (in case of a dead baby) culpable homicide.

If stunts like that would have been common with MJ then things would look different, though.

Please...a parent can be arrested for child endangerment if they have a child, unrestrained, in the front seat of a vehicle. Parents can be arrested for child endangerment if they manufacture drugs in their house with children present, parents can be arrested for leaving children at home unsupervised etc... Do not even try to argue that I am not a lawyer...neither are you, I however, have a better understanding of US law. Your country is civil because you do not prosecute parents unless something terrible happens to their children? I would not brag about that severe lapse in common sense in your law! Once again...do you have any other evidence other than some horsecrap argument about Michael Jackson? By the way, 6 years for child molesting? Wow, more astonishing legal facts about Germany that makes me thankful I don't live there!
Come on Hermann, you can come up with better!

Leaving a child unstrapped in the front of the car would cost the parents a fine of 40 Euro = about $50 here (§ 24 StVG).

You get arrested in the U.S. therefore? That makes sense when I take a look at your capital punishment.

Regarding the drugs you are right. That would be a good thing to introduce here also.

Child Molesters in this country are given fairly lenient sentences, but are subject to beatings and murder once they get there. But, they get released and once again "Rehabilitated" and released into communities chock full of kids.

My opnion: For verifiable offenses, life sentence MANDATORY first time. No if ands or . No second chance, no early parole, and no chance to ruins a childs life ever again. Ever.

Rehabilitation is not the gal of the state. Punishment is. Which means that these men/women, released into society, proven to harm children are given second and third opportunities to do so. Many are victimes themselves of molestation. Which is sad and wrong, but they still must be dealth with. By theway, my opinion is that peole that are involved in INTERNET child ography should serve similar sentences as those that and molest children. Life. Without the possiblity of parole.

Michael Jackson? He hasnt been to court yet, the media has crucified him. BEFORE sentencing. He is STRANGE behond strange...but the courts can mete out if he did what they say he did. If he did it, his money may buy him a leaner sentence, if not, theres going to be an awfull lot of people apologizing for crucifying him. And as far as dangling his kid. Im not so sure on that one, like I said, hes weird, even by U.S. standards.
lol

Fred Albury

THIS waS THE TITLE OF THE ABOVE POST.

For your reading pleasure:
New York State Consolidated Laws : Penal

ARTICLE 260
OFFENSES RELATING TO CHILDREN AND INCOMPETENTS
Section 260.00 Abandonment of a child.
260.05 Non-support of a child in the second degree.
260.06 Non-support of a child in the first degree.
260.10 Endangering the welfare of a child.
260.11 Endangering the welfare of a child; corroboration.
260.15 Endangering the welfare of a child; defense.
260.20 Unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree.
260.21 Unlawfully dealing with a child in the second degree.
260.25 Endangering the welfare of an incompetent person.

S 260.10 Endangering the welfare of a child.
A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when:
1. He knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical,
mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs
or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial
risk of danger to his life or health; or
2. Being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the
care or custody of a child less than eighteen years old, he fails or
refuses to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to
prevent him from becoming an "abused child," a "neglected child," a
"juvenile delinquent" or a "person in need of supervision," as those terms
are defined in articles ten, three and seven of the family court act.
Endangering the welfare of a child is a class A misdemeanor.

S 260.11 Endangering the welfare of a child; corroboration.
A person shall not be convicted of endangering the welfare of a
child, or of an attempt to commit the same, upon the testimony of
a victim who is incapable of consent because of mental defect or
mental incapacity as to conduct that constitutes an offense or an
attempt to commit an offense referred to in section 130.16,
without additional evidence sufficient pursuant to section 130.16
to sustain a conviction of an offense referred to in section
130.16, or of an attempt to commit the same.

S 260.15 Endangering the welfare of a child; defense.
In any prosecution for endangering the welfare of a child, pursuant to
section 260.10, based upon an alleged failure or refusal to provide proper
medical care or treatment to an ill child, it is an affirmative defense
that the defendant (a) is a parent, guardian or other person legally
charged with the care or custody of such chlid; and (b) is a member or
adherent of an organized church or religious group the tenets of which
prescribe prayer as the principal treatment for illness; and (c) treated or
caused such ill child to be treated in accordance with such tenets.

Moreover, let me tell you that if Michael Jackson would be a German citizen he wouldn't have had the chance to dangle the baby because of the lack of it.

If in Germany a father is judged guilty of child abuse the youth welfare department is withdrawing the custody for his children.

Would the German court system take someone's children, when that person has never been convicted of child abuse, but only accused of it? That sounds like a terrible justice system to me! All you need to do is accuse someone you don't like, and you can ruin their life.

Or did I miss something? Do you think Michael has already been convicted of something? If he has, its news to me!

And yes, child endangerment means endangering a child's life. Whether the child is actually hurt by the negligent act or not, the crime of endangering them has already been committed.

Rodney

... when the U.S. law system gives him the chance to buy himself out?

Folks,

I wont go pint by point but will comment on the post made before concerning U.S. laws.

The United States has the HIGHEST per capita INCARCERATION rate of any civilized country in the WORLD.

Prisons are BUILT to create REVENUE, not to rehabiliate prisoners. Ask any ex-con and he will tell you that rehabilitation is crap,prisons are constructed to:

a)Creat jobs
b)Punish offenders
c)Keep and charge the state for maintaining offenders.
d)Release said offender onto the public after he or she has had a thorough "jailhouse" education that can only lead to more crime.
f)Lock them back up when they commit more crimes.Keep the inn full.

Basically,it is a joke. In this country if you have money you can get out of spending anytime in prison, witness the CEO scandals and corporate heads that are dodging and sliding by LARGE blocks of time, simply because they have money.

Well, boy and s, if HAVEING money pretty much insures (in most cases) that you will have no prison sentence, or a short prison sentence, due to in part the fact that you had $$$$$ to pay a COMPETENT attorney who is motivated to serve you(Motivation=$$$$)
THEN:

NOT haveing money pretty much insures that you will get legal representation that isnt as good, and that you will be viewed by the courts as some how less desirable than the afflunet CEO, Michael Jackson, OJ or anyone else that has lots of money and political ties that go with it. So...you could end up doing a considerable amount of prison time for a seemingly small offense.
I am currently reading a book about a woman , who dealt crack cocaine ONE time, with NO prior history of having done so, and no criminal record, a mother of 5, and she got 17 YEARS in prison for it.And the quantity was tiny. So, she basically got more than some of the guys in the ENRON scandal that bilked Millions of dolars out of investors and the public. Why? Because she was a woman, because she was black, and because she didnt have Money.Haveing money made all the diffrence though.

THE DEATH PENALTY is meeted out this same way. MOST of the inmates on dath roow are overwhelmingly BLACK or non white. This means that most of them arent as affluent as O.J. or the Enron executives, and they were at the mercy of the court system to provide them with a MOTIVATED attorney.Which they dont get. So...the death penailty is ovewhelmingly racist in nature. How can a small minoritiy of of people be responsible for ALL the serious crime? Answer:They cant. Its about the money.Fool.

THREE STRIKES:

Overwhelmingly, the people being sucked into the THREE strikes laws are minorities, and the THIRD strike could be somethign as stupid and insignificant as stealing a pizza. Once again...the executives didnt do much if any prison time for ruining hundreds of peoples lives, but this poor wretch, he gets 25 years to life for stealing apizza and makeing some really bad choices.
By the way, the first two strikes could have been for misdemeaner drug charges, posessions, sales. And this includes being under the influence. so the person gets sent to prison for life, or for 8-10 years, becasue of an addiction.

OUR prisons are chock full of small time petty marijuanna users, and small time cocaine dealers that never really made any money. Meanwhile, the governement has actually brought cocaine INTO the U.S. to help fund the contras. Nice huh?

The most civilized nation in the world, with the biggest per capita income/wealth, and the largest most well manned military..and we have the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the world.

"Gotta keep the hotels full"

Sincerely,

Fred Albury

Was thinking about your "rasist comment". I live in an area S. Florida)where White Americans are a minority. Over 77% of Dade and 55% of Broward has non native born citizens.

Naturally it is uncommon for crimes in our area to be commited by White people. We have a lot of video survelliance here so we often see who does the crimes (usually Blacks or Hispanics) In fact, our last 4 serial rapists were black....except for one from South America.

I can't say that the law is racist here. Money does count though. William KENNEDY Smith beat a rape charge in Palm Beach.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

To clarify:

Once again, Black Americans represent one of the smallest minorities in our society, yet they make up a a disproportionate number of the inmates that are incarcerated in our prisons.

This is not by sheer chance or because of some type of pathology for African Americans to commit crimes.An awfull lot of it has to do with CLASS structure in this country, which emanated from slavery.

Blacks also represent a majority of the people on death row. Again, this is not because of some type of pathology of blacks to commite heineous crimes against humanity. Most black crime is focused on other black people.

The legal system allows those that have money(Predominately white males, allthough not exclusively so) to get more lenient sentencing, better legal representation, and judges that arent biased against them because of a difference in skin color. Sentecnes are meeted out that often dont reflect the severity of the crime, especially if it involves the takeing of funds or money from multiple people, in affect ruining their lives.

The biggest growing minoirty is prison are now Mexican or Hispanic. They make up a huge piece of the pie. Once again, no affluence, no money and not white. They dont have a prayer.

The legal system isnt fair and balanced. If you have money, lots o fmoney, no matter what race you are, you are going to be treated well. It just so happens that these two groups(Blacks and Hispanics) dont wield a lot of economic clout. And they suffer for it..over and over again....

And it goes on and on and one...

Fred

There is a bit more than money going on here. We have two successful black atheletes on charges right now down here. One for drugs the other for wife beating and attacking police (this is after being aquited on an arson charge). Going back to Mercury Morris we have seen several monied Black men and women commit crimes here.

What seems to be omitted in the liberal logic is that these people are in jail because they were convicted of a crime. That others can buy their way out is the problem.

Anyhow this whole line about disproportionate populations in jail makes me ask it I should go out and commit a crime so I can even up the demographics.......Hey I'm white and I'm not rich!!!

Try this logic. Maybe white Americans are less likely to commit crimes.

Political correctness my----!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

has been totally twisted by the liberal media. The three strikes law was written to help out our strangling legal system. People that have a 20 page rap sheet are being arrested and let out of jail on a daily basis. This wastes an enormous amount of man power and tax dollars. (Police, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, the cost to the victims of the crimes, etc.) What's the point of letting someone out of jail that has committed crimes and been convicted many, many times, when you know they will be back in prison next week? If they are dangerous, (because they have committed at least one violent crime) and constantly repeate their criminal behavior, why not leave then in prison, and let the police/courts free up some time to deal with other cases?

If a rabid dog bites 10 people, why would you trust it to not bite again? There comes a time when continued efforts are just a waste of time and money. Ever heard the saying, "Throwing good money after bad"?

I have never been charged with a crime, and I am over 40 years old. I can't even imagine being charged with a crime, much less being convicted. And if I ever was, I can guarantee you that I would straighten up pretty fast! And there are people walking the streets with 40, 60, 100 convictions. Why should money be wasted prosecuting them again and again and again?

Rodney

The intent is to keep the hotel full. Rehabilitation means nothing to the state, so the first "two or three" go aroundw would result in the person going to prison, staying, getting a GREAT criminal education and then being released, without viable job skills into a public that is ripe for destruction.

Heres your irony Rodahm, since the three strikes law has been enacted it hasnt slwoed down RECIDIVISM of released inmates no has it reduced violent crime. Nope. In fact it has made it even MORe dangerous for law enofrcemnt officers as when they are aresting a potential felon or suspect that has this three stikes law hanging over his head, they are dealing with someone who has virtually nothing to lose. Which means that they are VERY very dangerous. Which can cost a policemen his or her life.

This is yet more misinformation from the left.

The three strikes laws are not intended to prevent crime! Normal laws are intended to do that. The three strikes laws are intended to prevent us from constantly spinning our wheels.

Here's your irony. You say the three strikes law doesn't change recidivism rates, but that is impossible unless it isn't being enforced. Under the three strikes law, there is ZERO recidivism of offenders! The recidivism rate is brought from the upper 90% range (for three time or more offenders) down to 0%! Those given life sentences will never be let out, or reconvicted again! That's the whole point! Recidivism rates are brought to ZERO for these repeat offenders. Many criminals are constantly being arrested and re-arrested, so they have already shown that they will not be rehabilitated. This constant cycle of letting them out, re-arresting them, trials, etc., is costing society an enormous amount of resources, far more than keeping them in prison does. Why waste the money when it could be spent on something constructive? (Recidivism rates may not change for those that this law does not effect, but who cares about that?) Talk to a police officer. They will tell you how frustrating it is to arrest/convict someone of a crime, just to arrest/convict that same person next week, and again next week, and again, etc....

As for it making it more dangerous for law enforcement officers, that is true, in the short run. The criminal is more dangerous if he is on his third strike, but by taking him off the street permanently, I believe it is safer for the officer (and more importantly, the public) in the long run. You are comparing a one time "high" risk to multiple "lower" risks. I don't know which is more dangerous, but I suspect that if a criminal is constantly being arrested, each arrest brings with it some danger of flight or fight, and a one time risk is much better than many many risks.

This is one problem I see with many liberal arguments. They are usually concerned about what happens in the short term, while conservatives are usually concerned about the long term. The liberals compare what happened yesterday (before a change was made) to today, to see if the change was good or not. This is very flawed. Many changes bring short term benefits and long term costs, or short term costs and long term benefits. Comparing yesterday to today is bogus when trying to figure out if a change was good or not. You must compare "tommorow" with "yesterdey" to see if the change was beneficial or not. After all, it is the long term benefits for everyone's future that is more important isn't it? It is to me. (Unfortunatly, many people don't want to wait a sufficient time, to see the long term effects, to see if change actually was good or not.)

Rodney

here in the US is free to do 1 of 2 things:
1) Leave. I hear France & England both have very lenient immigration laws.
2) Do something constructive. For instance, run for public office & try to change things, campaign for a politician you believe will help, volunteer to work with people who are trying to change their lives.

It is far move convenient to sit in your lazyboy & b!tch than make an unpopular or uncomfortable decision. Ahhh...apathy!
As far as I can tell, if you are just whining about the problems instead of helping with a solution, then YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! And, in case you are wondering, YEAH...I do volunteer work with juvenile (10-14 yeare old) offenders. I run a recreation program to try to keep them from MAKING THOSE CHOICES that got them where they are now!

a bunch of people that you don't know...

What assumptions did I make? It was spelled out quite clearly...if you are just complaining & not participating in helping find a solution, you're part of the problem. That is not an assumption...it's a fact!