Bell vs. Woodward--justice?
Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry. And people wonder why the militia movement is gaining strength every day. The au pair Louise Woodward will serve less time in jail than Jim Bell will. While Bell languishes in a Washington state jail, awaiting (for almost 7 months!!) his sentence, the convicted babykiller is now free. I guess having a couple of fake SS tattoos, er, "numbers," and possibly opening a vial of mercaptin where some people would smell it, is a more serious crime than shaking a baby to death. Only in Amerika. Lock and load. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On lun 10 nov 1997 à 01:06:08PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
I just read the judge statement and found it rather good. It seems to me that he explains quite well the motivations of his decisions and so on. Now, wether he would have taken time to deeply think about the issue if the whole thing was taking place in a small american town with a babysitter from the neighborhood and no big media coverage, we don't know. It seems that the only thing which can be argued is wether the final sentence is appropriate or not. I guess the media will provide us with statistics on "how long you have to stay in prison when you have been convicted of manslaughter". I would expect a few years. She finally spent a little bit more than one year. Ok. Still, from what we have seen of the american justice system in the past few years, I feel like this is an improvement, where common sense takes over money, racial issues, politics, etc. Or am I fooled by the media ;-) ?
The au pair Louise Woodward will serve less time in jail than Jim Bell will. While Bell languishes in a Washington state jail, awaiting (for almost 7 months!!) his sentence, the convicted babykiller is now free.
As I said, she served some time waiting for her trial, too. Don't you think you are shooting the wrong target here ? I mean, I certainly agree that what's happening to Jim Bell seems like a parody of justice (and you have Mitnick, too, and other examples can be found), but why to make a comparaison between the two (or, let me rephrase it, as you have actually all the rights to make a comparaison, it terms of how long did the procedure take, and so on), why would you say "as the judicial system is not working with Jim Bell, it shouldn't be working with the babysitter" ? or explain why you think it would be a fair sentence to let her in jail for the rest of her life ? (well, ok, at least 15 years before parole) F. -- Fabrice Planchon (ph) 609/258-6495 Applied Math Program, 210 Fine Hall (fax) 609/258-1735
At 6:09 PM -0700 11/10/97, Fabrice Planchon wrote:
On lun 10 nov 1997 à 01:06:08PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
I just read the judge statement and found it rather good. It seems to me that he explains quite well the motivations of his decisions and so on. Now, wether he would have taken time to deeply think about the issue if the whole thing was taking place in a small american town with a babysitter from the neighborhood and no big media coverage, we don't know. It seems that the only thing which can be argued is wether the final sentence is appropriate or not. I guess the media will provide us with statistics on "how long you have to stay in prison when you have been convicted of manslaughter". I would expect a few years. She finally spent a little bit more than one year. Ok. Still, from what we have seen
279 days.
of the american justice system in the past few years, I feel like this is an improvement, where common sense takes over money, racial issues, politics, etc. Or am I fooled by the media ;-) ?
You were fooled by the "pathos pendulum." The media started treating her as poor little Louise Woodward, innocent au pair from Merrye Olde England, being oppressed by the patriarchal colonials. (Watch for the pendulum to now swing in the other direction.)
As I said, she served some time waiting for her trial, too. Don't you
279 days. Yes, this is well known to those who followed it.
think you are shooting the wrong target here ? I mean, I certainly agree
No, else I wouldn't have written what I wrote. I said in two different posts that my main point was about Bell spending more time in jail than a convicted baby killer. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
Apparently so, I must say in this particular case I see a cause for an aquittal based on reasonable doubt, but I`m not a juror so I didn`t see all the evidence so my opinion is not really valid. The general principle concerning sentencing length still holds. I don`t know the spin in the US media on the Woodward story, I understand it was sympathetic to the defendant, the UK press has basically done what is usual whenever a high profile case is tried in a foreign court (eg. Deborah Parry and Lucille McLaughlin, the 2 nurses tried in saudi arabia for the murder of Yvonne Guildford, the UK media spin was that the saudi court was a crude inhuman system whereby public beheadings were handed out at the drop of a hat), and most UK papers were ranting about the "inhumanity" of giving a 19 year old a life sentence for murder, hell, if she did it, kill the bitch.
The au pair Louise Woodward will serve less time in jail than Jim Bell will. While Bell languishes in a Washington state jail, awaiting (for almost 7 months!!) his sentence, the convicted babykiller is now free.
Ah yes, but don`t forget Tim that in Amerika (The land of the free, remember?) the life of a child is of less value than the security of the state. It makes a mockery of the judicial system that a judge can overturn a verdict like Zobel has done in the Woodward case, sure, allow her to appeal, but giving an appointed official the power to decide a verdict makes me sick, and a sentence of 279 days for manslaughter is a joke. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
On 11 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have commented thusly:
Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
Apparently so, I must say in this particular case I see a cause for an aquittal based on reasonable doubt, but I`m not a juror so I didn`t see all the evidence so my opinion is not really valid. The general principle
The question is why she shook the baby at all. If you have a sick baby, you call the emergency medical services, period! And especially if the child is not your own. This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for child care activities. I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year olds and less should be licensed. The requirements for the license would be minimal. It just merely shows that you understand that babies less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take care of themselves. The licensing procedure might also be a way of checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and small children. I frankly think the 19 year-old is guilty of negligent homicide (that is, causing the death of the baby because of ignorance of proper baby care). I could go on and on about my idea of proper parenting (and baby care), but I don't think the people on this list would like the drift.
It makes a mockery of the judicial system that a judge can overturn a verdict like Zobel has done in the Woodward case, sure, allow her to appeal, but giving an appointed official the power to decide a verdict makes me sick, and a sentence of 279 days for manslaughter is a joke.
Having lived on the outside of America now for some time, I know that those who are not Americans have a hard time figuring out our justice system. But although each state has its own set of penal codes, they are pretty much uniform in their agreement about trial procedure regarding disposition of felonies. I think there is a reasonable argument that the prosecution should be interested in justice or in being a representative of The People of the State of ...: does the prosecutor really believe that the accused committed the crime, or is there a district attorney election coming up and this murder rap has to go down soon? What about the judge? His first purpose is to make sure the law is followed, especially with respect to trial procedure. But with the law is JUSTICE! It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of these sacred occasions is justice. In California--from where I come and a state which often leads in setting standards of jurisprudence--the judge has the absolute right to overturn a guilty verdict or modify it in some way rather than let it go to an appellate court and make those guys mad. The judge in this case never overturned the verdict (an action appealable in any case) but said she was guilty of the crime of shaking the baby to death, but not intentionally. Since the 19 year old doesn't deny shaking or "rough handling" the baby, there is no reasonable doubt. In my state, she is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. I also would have sentenced her to receive instruction on how to be a better parent and how to "chill out" whenever a baby cries. gawdhelpusall, but one day this woman may be a mother! I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just to get a fix on cultural differences. Mitch Halloran Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch@duzen.com.tr
This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for child care activities.
Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.
I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year olds and less should be licensed. The requirements for the license would be minimal. It just merely shows that you understand that babies less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take care of themselves.
Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell. I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory licensing is wrong.
The licensing procedure might also be a way of checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and small children.
No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited to caring for children. I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?
What about the judge? His first purpose is to make sure the law is followed, especially with respect to trial procedure. But with the law is JUSTICE! It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of these sacred occasions is justice.
And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically letting a convicted felon go free.
I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just to get a fix on cultural differences.
The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so. Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards. I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high sentence, of course in this case it had little effect. I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
On 13 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have commented thusly:
This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for child care activities.
Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.
I'd say it was entirely the question (or perhaps you can tell me the specific question you are addressing). She was in court because there are certain people in this world whether it is appropriate to be physical in any manner--even when attempting to be (medically) helpful--with an infant, small child, perhaps even a minor.
I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year olds and less should be licensed. The requirements for the license would be minimal. It just merely shows that you understand that babies less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take care of themselves.
Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell. I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory licensing is wrong.
Don't get me wrong...I am no socialist who is saying that govt is there to do everything for us. You didn't read in any of my messages that I took away the ultimate responsibility from the parents, who are the last word in securing the best interests of their children. I currently live in a society which might be an anarchist's dream in certain respects: there is virtually no licensing whatsoever of the things you take for granted: child care, operating a motor vehicle. (Actually there is a licensing system for drivers, but a law is only a law if it is enforced, and since enforcement is virtually nil or at the least haphazard). I will support a mandatory licensing scheme for child care as long as the govt involves itself with licensing other less important matters that themselves supposedly require licensing: such as the practice of medicine or the practice of law or the practice of plumbing. Licensing--in my eyes, is but a simple barrier to leap yet tough enough to show that you are serious about getting into this business. I care less that barbers & surgeons & physicians & various other bloodletters, as well as the guy who knows that shit runs downhill and Friday is payday (the common electrician's joke about plumbers) are licensed than that someone (or some nongovt organization) has taken the first step for me and is willing to endorse the smiling face at my door who is to be entrusted with my spawn. Throw out ALL licensing schemes and then I'll consider de-regulation of barriers to child killers and molesters.
The licensing procedure might also be a way of checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and small children.
No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited to caring for children. I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?
I was overreaching when I said that the licensing procedure would involve a psychoanalysis or something like that. The licensing procedure would only involve a simple test wherein you are asked questions about baby care and how you might respond to certain situations. It might not even flunk the test-taker who said "If I see an incessantly screaming baby, I am most like to throw it through the wall." The licensing procedure would be a way of informing or reminding someone about to undertake this task just what their liabilities are if something goes wrong and they were ignorant of the things they should have done. In this case, the "check" on temperment is an inquiry into "how much do you really understand about what you are going to do?" The licensing of medicine and law and plumbing is really nothing but an acknowledgement that you know how to conform to standard practice and are aware of the heresies of tradition and convention. You might undertake to do something radical and unacceptable to your colleagues or the standards set by your professional society, but you are warned that you assume the blame if something goes wrong.
What about the judge? His first purpose is to make sure the law is followed, especially with respect to trial procedure. But with the law is JUSTICE! It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of these sacred occasions is justice.
And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically letting a convicted felon go free.
Are you saying wisdom and justice can only be had when we put the decision to a larger number of people, presuming an appellate court is not itself the purview of a SINGLE appellate court justice? Some anarchist on this list must have mentioned the principle of AMERICAN justice: it is better to let nine guilty men go free than let one innocent man go to prison. For better or worse, that is the American way. You will note that an American judge (Roy Bean excepted) can overturn a guilty verdict, but not an acquittal. It is rarely done anyway, since CNN's cameras are not in every courtroom and few foreign nationals get led in chains to American docks. Do I think justice was done? How the hell should I know!? I was not in the courtroom, although I do admit to having made a judgement (guilty of involuntary manslaughter; I correct an earlier statement where I said 'voluntary manslaughter'). The burden of this entire matter is now on the judge's shoulders, and if there is a God, may this God show as much mercy to the judge as he showed to Woodward. (The parents can go to hell.)
I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just to get a fix on cultural differences.
The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so.
The answer to the poll question probably is meant to reflect: "did she shake the child TO DEATH?" and the masses are probably replying in this light.
Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards. I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high sentence, of course in this case it had little effect.
Despite what foreign nationals might believe, 99.9% of American judges (i.e., those not in the United States Supreme Court and in the federal court system) make it their duty to insulate themselves from public pressure on these matters. Most of them truly don't give a damn what the American public thinks about them or that they may be reversed on appeal, assuming the judge truly believes in what he/she is doing. I think the judge in the Woodward case saw through all the public relations campaigning and press offensive. He knows how media-intensive the open American criminal and civil justice has become, especially if he has been on the bench 10 or more years, and he knows that the baby is dead and cannot be resurrected and he wants to see Woodward understand what happened and realize if she had any responsibility and also important, whether she is remoresful if she is to shoulder some of the blame. I suspect he looked for all these things, and figured that Woodward has been sufficiently punished, truly guilty or not. As for Americans not quite impressed with the "stiff upper lip": I know quite a few Englishmen here who think that the reserved one is me. I think "the stiff upper lip" is something the British tourism industry likes to promote, and that Prince Charles is told to maintain despite it going against his nature.
I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal.
I wasn't privy to the media blitz in the states (I can't even get CNN International here!) during the trial, but I rather suspect this crap also sickens quite a few Americans. Not every black person in America wanted to set OJ free just because he was 'a bruh thuh goin' agin' the system.' And not every white guy wanted to hang the double murderer either. I know in the end however, that a British jury would set their minds on the case of an American defendant, not voting innocent just 'cause the parents want to preen before the national press (and make book deals), and not voting guilty just cause American culture, if it exists, turns their stomach. Mitch Halloran Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch@duzen.com.tr
participants (4)
-
Fabrice Planchon -
Paul Bradley -
S. M. Halloran -
Tim May