Women who kill get light sentences in Tennessee. Read this and decide if it's becoming a trend.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 1:39 PM
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Ask Dr. Helen: Are Hybrid Owners All That?
- Where's my refund?
- The Jewish/Israeli Carnival is up--go take a look.
- Is There Really Such a Thing As "Positive Discrimi...
- Picking Locks and Minds
- Are Women Always More Empathetic?
- Are You a Generation Xer?
- Neo's mom takes a walk.
- Michelle Obama: Men are Selfish and a Mess
- Ask Dr. Helen: When Wife Out-Earns Hubby
15 Comments:
"Becoming"?
As to their question: No good deed...
I've never checked into it, but I suspect that women have always received lighter punishments for crime.
...not saying that's necessarily a good thing.
Such thoroughly modern honor killings we have these days....
Christy Osborne, the woman who was convicted of attempted child neglect for starving her teenage stepson down to 49 pounds, got 6 years. Her husband got an extra year for not stopping her.
Kill a man, get 17 months?
Amazing and frightening.
Trey
Repeating Perigrine John, "becoming?"
Also, not just Tennessee, Ohio (Gov. Celeste) and Kentucky (Gov. B. Jones) have both
conducted mass releases of convicted female murders because they claimed abuse. Some of the cases had no evidence of abuse. And, as mentioned, they were all already convicted and sentenced.
Kudos to Michael Silence for bringing this up at the News-Sentinel.
Another dead man-- convicted of his own murder !
A.
The classic line of outrage uttered by ganster Micky Cohen when Lana Turner and daughter were not even indicted for the murder of John Stompanato, but at a televised coroner's inquest in 1958, the killing was ruled a ' justifiable homicide", with the "Sweatergirl" discovered at Schawb's giving the acting performance of her life ( actually the only acting performance of her life ).
Strangely-- the police did not arrive at the 'crime" scene until 1 1/2 hours after the killing- as Lana brought her family and lawyer in and his PI and the bedroom was laundered and their stories were practiced to perfection. There was very little blood around the body, oddly since he was stabbed to death... the body had been moved... and the knife was in the bathroom-- with unidentifiable prints.... and the 14 year old daughter was the killer-- saving her lovely Mom from a brutal attack by hot lover Johnny . Right .
Rumour was that Giesler, her lawyer, called the PI to get there because " the bed looked like someone butchered a hog in it ."
B.
So a clever lawyer then, in 1958--- before feminism per se-- knew how to create a scenario were a woman could kill a man and get away with it.
Allege domestic violence ( but love letters Cohen had leaked to the press revealed a hot temptuous relationship, with Lana no innocent-- and no victim)-- and a CHILD rescuing her mother from an ONGOING assault.
It helped that the woman was hotbody Lana Turner and Johnny had gang ties.( Lana was into that kind of stuff-- as she went through 8 husbands and four times that many lovers.)
C.
Now-- things are much easier for the woman who desires to kill her husband/boyfriend/father/uncle/son/date/ male stranger
And-- black women --who are more likely to kill their husbands than black men are to kill their wives-- have benefitted also.
It just takes
1.a woman saying " I was abused"-- no corroboration is needed-- even contradictory evidence is ignored. If A WOman SAYS IT- it must be true.
2. a hired female whore of the court ( psychologist/psychiatrist) who thinks all killing of men by women is justified and will lie through her teeth to invent all kinds of psychobaable excusing murder. Such women are easy to find.
3. A judge-- hopefully female, as here-- who allows such bullshit testimony from a psuedoscience like forensic psychiatry/psychology.
-- " Battered Woman Syndrome" as exculpatory for murder is a complete fiction-- with no scientific support whatever. But then what does forensic testinmoy from a "mental health professional" have to do with science ?
( see-- the basis for Involuntary Commitment thoughout the USA is dangerousness to self or others-- but research has shown for over 25 years that no one can predict whether a person will be dangerous or not in the future. No one-- for virtually anybody .
Yet psychiatrists and forensic psychologists/psychiatrists go into court everyday and do just that-- and people are locked up on the word of known chalatans.
The rape of the "mentally ill" by psychiatrists and their "mental health professional" cronies working for the state is so pervasive that psychiatry is the only "medical" field ( being generous ) whose ex-patients are organized AGAINST IT.
End rant.
4. Enough women on the jury to hang it-- to hold out for acquittal no matter what. Rational people like men and a few women may want a serious conviction and penalty-- but to get some kind of punishment-- they yield.
And you get irrational" compromise verdicts" that make no sense ( like "voluntary manslaghter" in the Winkler murder case )
D.
1.
In the case mentioned-- shot six times, once in the back of the head and three times in the back-- then loaded into a car and taken to another apartment-- no rational person could possibly do anything but convict of premeditated murder.
2.
Not So fast-- Whats wrong with that ? say most women.
Since women are perfect, he must have done something to her to make her kill him. Since women are perfect-- it must have been very, very bad. So he is an evil man. He deserved to die. I am glad he is dead. Why did we put her through a trial after what she has already been through. Damn men ! The legal system is biased against women!
3. But here we are talking about 5 women on the jury.
The vast majority of women will not punish another woman for killing a man-- men's lives are not important to women. Watch what women do.
So we get a compromise verdict. The sane people-- men -- would not let her just go free. The women refused to allow any serious punishment -- so the men agree to any kind of conviction.
And so we get
" reckless homicide'-- which is absurd.
4.
Reckless homicide refers to-- cases where an amusemnt park owner was aware of a problem, didn't fix it, and someone died because of a mechanical failure. He did not intend to kill anyone, but he was so indifferent to the risk, he did nothing.
Or killing someone while speeding.. or driving drunk.
typically , you killed total stangers and had no intent to nor did you want to, but you were acting so recklessly that you ignored the serious risk to others.
Its a bad type of negligence -- but not intentional.
So the verdict of "reckless homicde" : here is ridiculous.
The women on the jury wanted her to walk out and then have a party for her to celebrate killing a man.
The men wanted first degree murder.
To get any punishment the men agreed to this verdict.
E.
Belford Bax complained in his awesome " The Legal Subjection of Men " and the "Fraud of Feminism" around 1915-- that women always got away with murdering men. And that would have been with male juries.
Yes-- it tells you much about men that when in power, even out of mistaken chivalry, they are easier on women than men .
But its different now.
Killing men is a political act now for women.
And no set of facts will ever get them to convict women. Its not a trial based on facts for women.
Women are trying all men, proclaiming them all guilty -- and allowing men to be killed by women as an act of dissent.
It's pretty obvious that feminists seem to think that when something is slanted (or an outright landslide) in their favor, they think it is fine as is. However, if they are behind by a fraction of a percent, they start a crusade.
I am not sure that the court whore has to be female. It might be more effective if the whore in question was a man.
Trey
We're leaving tomorrow for a week in NYC.
"( see-- the basis for Involuntary Commitment thoughout the USA is dangerousness to self or others-- but research has shown for over 25 years that no one can predict whether a person will be dangerous or not in the future. No one-- for virtually anybody .
Yet psychiatrists and forensic psychologists/psychiatrists go into court everyday and do just that-- and people are locked up on the word of known chalatans.
The rape of the "mentally ill" by psychiatrists and their "mental health professional" cronies working for the state is so pervasive that psychiatry is the only "medical" field ( being generous ) whose ex-patients are organized AGAINST IT."
-------------------
I think our host here is a forensic psychologist, and she might personally do good work, but I tend to agree with the sentiment above.
Psychologists are notorious for being resistant to objective tests of their methods / success. The few related studies I have seen, for instance the ability of people on a parole board to predict behavior vis-a-vis chance, show that you may as well parole people based on lottery.
What you could do is open up psychiatrists and psychologists to liability - if their prediction is off, and that results in injury/damage to someone, psychologist pays for it. If they are so sure of themselves, it shouldn't be a problem. I suspect, though, that the arrogant pronouncements on their part would immediately dry up. They'd find a new line of work.
jg, I think you are conflating two issues. One is the mumbo jumbo that is passed off as clinical science, the other is deinstitutionalization.
Clearly, the field of psychology is a flake magnet. Sad, but I think true. And we are full of arrogant know nothings. I recall that I come off as smug sometimes to you as well. (I still am anxious to see what I wrote that came off that way and would appreciate the feedback.) My hope is that the rapid growth in functional neurology will help the field with measurabe, visible data concerning brain functioning and repair. At present, the scans are expensive, but that does not have to last.
As for institutionalizing someone, liability for shrinks when the people they let go would drastically increase inappropriate institutionalization, something none of us want to happen.
And I think a lot of the organized resistance against the mental health professionals is the scientology against the psychiatrists brouhaha.
I remain interested in your thoughts.
Trey
"I've never checked into it, but I suspect that women have always received lighter punishments for crime."
Read Warren Farrell's "Myth of Male Power" and you will discover that in addition to being given lighter sentences for crimes they commit, women are the truly empowered gender- contrary to popular myth.
@cavedriver
I actually read some of Farrell's work earlier today. He said something that stuck with me.
He wrote about speaking to a woman at a conference who said to him "I wish my husband was more like you because you are so in touch with your feelings." Farell replied "I'm not showing any signs of being in touch with my feelings, you think that because I'm in touch with your feelings." He further told her that "the fact that his husband is not in touch with his feelings is what enables her to air her feelings 100%."
In any case, back to the story, women have more of a presumption of goodness and innocence which plays into the "there must be some underlying cause" bias that lets many off the hook. Those who give them lighter sentences probably have good intentions, but they are harming us all.
My opinions may be wrong, but i certainly hope they are not miscontrued as sexist.
Happy Easter. :)
After my experiences in TN, a place I otherwise love, I packed up and left, never to return.
I will always miss it.
聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜視訊ggo聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園視訊交友高雄網視訊交友聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室交友
Post a Comment
<< Home