Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I do not do and I hope that no one else would do is say that the conduct is justifiable particularly within the confines of a court.
I don't know the particulars of this case, so I can't comment on it. While a court obviously can't say that it's okay to attack defendants in it, I also believe that if someone rapes and murders your mother, and it's obvious that they're guilty, that you're definitely morally justified in not just attacking them, but killing them as well. You're obviously not legally justified, though.
Justice and revenge are not mutually exclusive. And since when is revenge necessarily a bad thing, anyway?
Revenge is about making someone feel better. Justice is about making things right. Only through justice can we actually address crime in a sensible way. We can understand the roots of crime and how to keep past criminals for reoffending or prevent future crimes. Revenge is just someone acting out of emotion and fear.
One creates beneficial results, the other makes someone feel good about themselves, likely for doing a bad thing.
This link is to a video of a man who could not restrain himself in court. I feel terribly sympathetic to him because the man who was charged with raping and strangling his mother was appearing in court. He couldn't control himself and fought through three court bailiffs to physically attack the perpetrator of the crime. In my heart, I suppose I agree with him.
The problem is that we cannot let our hearts rule our actions. We must use our heads and brains. A courtroom would quickly become a place of anarchy and chaos if we allowed victims (and families of victims) to physically take revenge on those who perpetrate crimes. The whole purpose of a justice system is so that problems like crime can be dealt with in a manner appropriate for a society that believes in the rule of law.
If a victim or a member of their family does not believe they can conduct themselves peacefully in a courtroom than they have no place there. They should stay home and out of the presence of the perpetrator.
So, reluctantly, I take the position that those who can restrain themselves in court should be charged with a crime. In many cases, a sentence of probation may be appropriate. However, there must be some sanction to stop such behavior and maintain order in our courts.
I would have done the same thing. Mofo needed a beatdown. Give me a record, IDGAS.
So, I guess this means that anytime someone wants to assault someone charged with a crime in the courts that's ok with you?
Don't give me a bunch of crap this is limited to one case or a few cases. If its going to be allowed at all, you can't pick and choose who gets a "beat down". What happens next time when the guy charged with a crime is actually innocent and is almost killed in this fashion? Do we let the guy who did it say "gee I'm sorry" and forget about it?
Honestly, with that attitude we might as well not have courts at all.
Are you in the habit of giving opinions before you think about them?
So some serial killer ( according to the dramatic voice over) has his lawyers whining about how he is being held without bail and is residing in "extreme confinement"?
The heck is wrong with this legal system? Poor serial killer.
ONE of the multiple victim's sons gives the serial killer what he deserves (a little less than), and would probably get worse if he was let out in to gen pop while in jail.
I don't blame the visceral reaction this man had to seeing the person who RAPED and MURDERED his MOTHER standing less than 10 feet away from him.
At that point, he was presumed innocent, and that presumption of innocence is the very basis of our criminal justice system. I don't see a problem with his attorney arguing for bail and more comfortable confinement. Any good defense attorney would and should.
You are using words like "raped" and "murdered," when, at that time, he had only been accused of those crimes. In the eyes of the law of this land, he was innocent.
In case anyone is wondering, I will save you the Google time...Gaynor later admitted to the murders and is believed to have murdered nine women. That doesn't change the fact that he was presumed innocent during that initial hearing. If you want to change the system, feel free to make that case.
Perhaps one solution to this problem would be to have the accused held in a separate secure room, and use a video camera connection to the courtroom. We do that here in Canada , to maintain security, and to cut down on prisoner transportation costs.
Jim B. In Toronto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
