Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

drkpower

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Murphy planned to kill this woman - he admitted it himself. Only for the two hunters came across him he would have killed her.

Its strange - if some guy gets in a fight at night, spontaneously throws a few punches and kicks; and the other guy dies; the defendant can get life. If someone pre-meditates a murder, but the victim gets lucky in the last second; he serves 10 years and gets out.

Attempted murder can also get life.
Rape can also get life.
Manslaughter can get life.

What you actually get depends on the circumstances; that is not all that strange.

drkpower

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Its what happens in America and its correct where high-risk offenders are involved.

What 'happens' in America?
Please be specific. Point to law or two perhaps. The general level of ignorance on this thread is disappointing.

Danniboo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Like now? We should arrest him and without trial put him into a mental institution for life? Or just for future offenders that do the same as he did? What other crimes should also fall under this punishment? How much will this new form of lifelong incarceration cost us?

We pay tax for everything else in this country, i'd be happy to pay towards something that might actually benefit the public for once. So what would you suggest we wait until he reoffends before taking action.

drkpower

dolliemix wrote: »

You are so sensible and so well read and intelligent! I wish I was like you!

Thanks.

Canis Lupus

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Its what happens in America and its correct where high-risk offenders are involved.

You saying in the states someone can get sent to jail, do the time, be released then upon released be rearrested for the crime they did the time for and get put in an institution for life?


Or are you suggesting the initial punishment is life in an institution?

Danniboo

drkpower wrote: »

What 'happens' in America?
Please be specific. Point to law or two perhaps. The general level of ignorance on this thread is disappointing.

Just because you can quote from a book doesn't make you smart, the level of arrogance is also disappointing. I had no problem understanding what "happens" in America.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

Danniboo wrote: »

Just because you can quote from a book doesn't make you smart, the level of arrogance is also disappointing. I had no problem understanding what "happens" in America.

I understood what Primal Nut claims happens.

But he has no specifics, he hasnt pointed to any laws that supposedly allow this to happen. I am pretty sure he is fundamentaly incorrect.

You seem happy to accept this. I'm not. That's not arrogance, its simply good sense.

A Primal Nut

drkpower wrote: »

Attempted murder can also get life.
Rape can also get life.
Manslaughter can get life.

What you actually get depends on the circumstances; that is not all that strange.

So why didn't he get life? When the hunters came across him he had a plastic bag over the victim's head. My issue is that he only got convicted for the rape. He should have got life for the attempted murder and so would still be in jail for a much longer time.

Danniboo

drkpower wrote: »

I understood what Primal Nut claims happens.

But he has no specifics, he hasnt pointed to any laws that supposedly allow this to happen. I am pretty sure he is fundamentaly incorrect.

You seem happy to accept this. I'm not. That's not arrogance, its simply good sense.

Well, go ahead and quote the law you are so sure makes this fundamentally incorrect. Anyone can say that, can you back it up, i'm actually curious about this becaue we need something like that in place.

And as for when the media hype dies down this will be forgotten about. No it won't thats not gonna change the face Murphy used to work near where I live and one of his victims also lives nearby and the fact he could be anywhere.

A Primal Nut

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You saying in the states someone can get sent to jail, do the time, be released then upon released be rearrested for the crime they did the time for and get put in an institution for life?


Or are you suggesting the initial punishment is life in an institution?

In some states, high risk offenders are transferred to a mental institution after their sentence where some spend the rest of their lives, although conditions are much better than in jail (its more like a hospital). Here's one source from a quick google search - a Louis Theraux program where he goes into one of these institutions (in California, I think) is another source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/062497c.htm

I'm sure I could create a more indepth analysis with actual legal reports if necessary. They are usually legal judgements saying it is allowed, rather than exact legislation. The important point is that it happens.

As far as I'm aware, it is only used for Peodophiles as they can be declared mentally ill. Perhaps it is used too liberally in America, even among sex offenders who aren't at risk to re-offend. But I would support it where police and psychologists agree he is at a high-risk of re-offending.

As for cost, it might be cheaper than this surveillance operation.

HPT

drkpower wrote: »

Two issues there:

1. Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme: I assume you are just venting becasue the guy got released after 10ish years when you feel he deserved longer. I think he deserveed longer too. But the Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme is a good thing, even for the worst offendors; you need to reward good behaviour in prison, otherwise the places will be impossible to run.

We don't reward good behaviour in adult society. I don't believe that prisoners deserve rewards.

Canis Lupus

Danniboo wrote: »

We pay tax for everything else in this country, i'd be happy to pay towards something that might actually benefit the public for once. So what would you suggest we wait until he reoffends before taking action.

Basically yes (assuming he does so). There is nothing we can lawfully do except have him closely monitored.

Canis Lupus

A Primal Nut wrote: »

In some states, high risk offenders are transferred to a mental institution after their sentence where some spend the rest of their lives, although conditions are much better than in jail (its more like a hospital). Here's one source from a quick google search - a Louis Theraux program where he goes into one of these institutions (in California, I think) is another source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/062497c.htm

I'm sure I could create a more indepth analysis with actual legal reports if necessary. They are more legal judgements saying it is allowed, rather than exact legislation. The important point is that it happens.

As far as I'm aware, it is only used for Peodophiles as they can be declared mentally ill. Perhaps it is used too liberally in America, even among sex offenders who aren't at risk to re-offend. But I would support it where police and psychologists agree he is at a high-risk of re-offending.

As for cost, it might be cheaper than this surveillance operation.

Work blocks that link Is the transferral to this institution made clear to the offender(s) as part of the initial punishment or do they spring it on them as a surprise at the end like what would have to happen to Murphy in this case.

Strata

dolliemix wrote: »

Drunk driving is wrong. My friend's mother was killed by a drunk driver so I feel ver strongly about this issue but at the same time, the drunk driver does not intend to kill somebody or make anybody suffer.

I do not equate a person with intent to rape a woman repeatedly while sober and some asshXle who thinks they're above the law who gets into their car drunk.

Its a different issue.


There are no circumstances that can justify a person telling a woman to take off her clothes so he can repeatedly rape her while talking to her about his family and his children and then intend to leave the woman to die.

Why are you trying to equate them? The crime is different and I don't like the way you're trying to compare them as like is like.

I don't care if the media cause a frenzy. Anybody who gets into a car drunk and kills somebody deserves what they get. As does Larry Murphy. I cant believe people are actually concerned for him and the so called 'witch hunt'. It scares me that he is out and about. He tortured a woman physically, and that woman and her family are tortured mentally on a daily basis as a result of that. Why are there people complaining that the media or me or Danniboo are over reacting?

How you can write off a drunk driver killing innocent roadusers as "some asshXle who thinks they're above the law" is beyond me. That's cold blooded murder in my eyes.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

drkpower wrote: »

Two issues there:

1. Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme: I assume you are just venting becasue the guy got released after 10ish years when you feel he deserved longer. I think he deserveed longer too. But the Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme is a good thing, even for the worst offendors; you need to reward good behaviour in prison, otherwise the places will be impossible to run. Your gripe should be with the length of the sentence, not with the 'good behaviour' bit.

Instead of time off for good behaviour how about time added on for bad bahaviour

Why should we reward good behaviour though? Why are prisoners being rewarded for acting like they should in the first place? If they carry out a crime in prison why not prosecute them for that crime and have them serve that sentence on top of their existing one?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Murphy planned to kill this woman - he admitted it himself. Only for the two hunters came across him he would have killed her.

Its strange - if some guy gets in a fight at night, spontaneously throws a few punches and kicks; and the other guy dies; the defendant can get life. If someone pre-meditates a murder, but the victim gets lucky in the last second; he serves 10 years and gets out.

You make it sound like they're only having a bit of fun! If you get in a fight with someone there is a chance you might kill them. Why wouldn't you get a life sentence for beating someone to death?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Its what happens in America and its correct where high-risk offenders are involved.

You think in America that a criminal serves their sentence in jail then is released only to be imprisoned in a mental institution?

Danniboo wrote: »

We pay tax for everything else in this country, i'd be happy to pay towards something that might actually benefit the public for once. So what would you suggest we wait until he reoffends before taking action.

And you're suggesting putting him in a mental institution? On what grounds? Should every criminal released be committed to a mental institution? Do you think Larry Murphy is evil or mentally ill as a matter of interest?

A Primal Nut

HPT wrote: »

We don't reward good behaviour in adult society. I don't believe that prisoners deserve rewards.

The reason is to make prisons easier to run; im sure you can appreciate how difficult a prison guards' job is. This makes it easier and thats a good thing for every law-abiding person in society, not just the prison guards.

The problem is with the initial sentencing, not with the good behaviour reward.

Strata

A Primal Nut wrote: »

So why didn't he get life? When the hunters came across him he had a plastic bag over the victim's head. My issue is that he only got convicted for the rape. He should have got life for the attempted murder and so would still be in jail for a much longer time.

He also got convicted of attempted murder but the sentences run concurrently.

This is a failing of the justice system in this country. Rather than focusing all of your energy on this one particular case why not rail against the sentencing and the criminal justice system? Surely that will be more productive in the long term?

monkeypants

Strata wrote: »

He also got convicted of attempted murder but the sentences run concurrently.

For me, that is the real problem. I don't agree with concurrent sentences and I don't see what they're supposed to achieve.

dolliemix

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank you Donegafella for pointing this out.

I actually don't care whether I get banned or infracted from this disgusting thread.

I am empathising with a woman who was raped repeatedly and left to die.

As a result of this I have been told by

1. Canis Lupus : that I have put no thought into what I'm saying
2. Drkpower: I wont remember this case tomorrow and that I should go back to thinking about shoes and shopping!
3. I reported this post and I was accused of 'silly handbagging' publicly by the moderator as a result ( I assume) of my responses to Canis Lupus and Drkpower!


I am scared as a woman that Larry Murphy is free. I think all the media frenzy is justified. If it is likely that Larry Murphy is going to reoffend then I have a right to know and be aware that if I see this may I should stay well away.

A Primal Nut

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Work blocks that link Is the transferral to this institution made clear to the offender(s) as part of the initial punishment or do they spring it on them as a surprise at the end like what would have to happen to Murphy in this case.

It has been given retrospectively. According to that link:

"The case involves Leroy Hendricks, who had a 30-year history of molesting children and had served a 10-year sentence for his most recent crime of molesting two boys in the electronics shop where he worked. But in a civil hearing, a jury deemed him a "sexually violent predator" and committed him to a mental facility under the new law. Hendricks challenged the statute based on the Constitution's guarantee of due process and protection against double punishment for the same crime. He also said it was unfair to impose on him a sanction greater than the punishment that was on the books at the time his crime was committed."

Hendricks appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court who found in his favour. However, the American Supreme voted 5-to-4 against him, saying that it was constitutional to keep him in a mental institution.

The legal arguments came down to what defined a mental abnormality, which was required to keep someone locked up, with Kansas law preferring a very loose definition, which the American supreme court agreed with.

The original legislation is called Stephanie's law and one of the provisions was that it could be applied retrospectively.

http://sosangels.com/legislation.html

I refer to Kansas because its what came up when I googled for more information. I found the name of the most famous institution - the one Louis Thereax visited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga_State_Hospital

dolliemix

Strata wrote: »

How you can write off a drunk driver killing innocent roadusers as "some asshXle who thinks they're above the law" is beyond me. That's cold blooded murder in my eyes.

I didn't write anybody off! You've just completely trivialised my feelings on the subject by quoting me out of context. I have no time for drunk drivers and you have made light of my views on this.

I said in the exact same post that my mother's friend was killed by a drunk driver and I have very strong views on the issue. I also said drunk driving is wrong.

There is a difference between somebody intentionally raping and torturing somebody and somebody hitting somebody and killing them when drunk driving.

I believe the first crime should have a longer sentence than the second but both should be punished

Canis Lupus

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It has been given retrospectively. According to that link:

"The case involves Leroy Hendricks, who had a 30-year history of molesting children and had served a 10-year sentence for his most recent crime of molesting two boys in the electronics shop where he worked. But in a civil hearing, a jury deemed him a "sexually violent predator" and committed him to a mental facility under the new law. Hendricks challenged the statute based on the Constitution's guarantee of due process and protection against double punishment for the same crime. He also said it was unfair to impose on him a sanction greater than the punishment that was on the books at the time his crime was committed."

Hendricks appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court who found in his favour. However, the American Supreme voted 5-to-4 against him, saying that it was constitutional to keep him in a mental institution.

The legal arguments came down to what defined a mental abnormality, which was required to keep someone locked up, with Kansas law preferring a very loose definition, which the American supreme court agreed with.

The original legislation is called Stephanie's law and one of the provisions was that it could be applied retrospectively.

http://sosangels.com/legislation.html

I refer to Kansas because its what came up when I googled for more information. I found the name of the most famous institution - the one Louis Thereax visited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga_State_Hospital

Wow. I've no love for the criminal but I'd have to side with his opinion that it's not fair to do time only to be punished a second time but then America is crazy.

Dublinman12

drkpower has obviously never had any first hand experience in relation to serious crime, it seems to me like he/she's a keyboard warrior who's just swallowed the constitution. Lots of people on this thread are giving their opinions, knee jerk or whatever you may call it.

Its all well and good coming from a very academic point of view (There is a real world out there), but the system is broken and not just in relation to cases like Larry Murphy. How many people on bail or who have been released early commit serious or petty crime??..

The level of arrogance you are showing on this thread is frightening, people are venting their frustrations with the current system which is obviously not working and the best you can do is state the obvious and recite what the law currently stipulates..

A Primal Nut

You make it sound like they're only having a bit of fun! If you get in a fight with someone there is a chance you might kill them. Why wouldn't you get a life sentence for beating someone to death?

I'm not saying I disagree, however I think it is rediulous that if someone gets into a fight and accidentally kills someone they can get life, yet if someone puts a plastic bag over a woman's head who they has been stalking for a month, and because they are caught in the act before she dies; he only gets a 15-year sentence. I'm using the example of accidental murder for comparison purposes only. For the purpose of sentencing, the judge should have sentenced Murphy as if he had succeeded, which means life.

You think in America that a criminal serves their sentence in jail then is released only to be imprisoned in a mental institution?

Yes, I just woke up one day and this thought entered my mind. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga_State_Hospital

Apparently it holds 950 inmates, and only 13 have been released since it opened in September 2005.

And you're suggesting putting him in a mental institution? On what grounds? Should every criminal released be committed to a mental institution? Do you think Larry Murphy is evil or mentally ill as a matter of interest?

Evil could be considered a form of mental illness. Whether or not they should be locked up is another matter. But in extremely high-risk cases it maybe justified.

A Primal Nut

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Wow. I've no love for the criminal but I'd have to side with his opinion that it's not fair to do time only to be punished a second time but then America is crazy.

I agree that in terms of punishment, its extreme, but if they are evaluated as high-risk it may be justified in the interests of public safety. That said, ensuring a fair risk evaluation process is another matter.

Canis Lupus

Dublinman12 wrote: »

people are venting their frustrations with the current system which is obviously not working and the best you can do is state the obvious and recite what the law currently stipulates

Strange how murderers and rapists get out of jail all the time and until the media pick one case they can make a few headlines on these same people 'venting' are never heard of.

I think there are a few people in this thread who aren't venting at the system but just reading headlines and just having a scream that Larry may rape their cat. To be properly fair this thread has gone completely OT in relation to the OP.

Danniboo

Strata wrote: »

How you can write off a drunk driver killing innocent roadusers as "some asshXle who thinks they're above the law" is beyond me. That's cold blooded murder in my eyes.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Why should we reward good behaviour though? Why are prisoners being rewarded for acting like they should in the first place? If they carry out a crime in prison why not prosecute them for that crime and have them serve that sentence on top of their existing one?



You make it sound like they're only having a bit of fun! If you get in a fight with someone there is a chance you might kill them. Why wouldn't you get a life sentence for beating someone to death?





You think in America that a criminal serves their sentence in jail then is released only to be imprisoned in a mental institution?



And you're suggesting putting him in a mental institution? On what grounds? Should every criminal released be committed to a mental institution? Do you think Larry Murphy is evil or mentally ill as a matter of interest?

Have you actually watched the news or do you know anything about the case. No he's a perfectly sane, rational, human being. :rolleyes:

Danniboo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Strange how murderers and rapists get out of jail all the time and until the media pick one case they can make a few headlines on these same people 'venting' are never heard of.

I think there are a few people in this thread who aren't venting at the system but just reading headlines and just having a scream that Larry may rape their cat. To be properly fair this thread has gone completely OT in relation to the OP.

Why would you make light of the situation with such a statement?

Danniboo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Wow. I've no love for the criminal but I'd have to side with his opinion that it's not fair to do time only to be punished a second time but then America is crazy.

:eek: Really? I'd be siding with the kids he molested, but then I have it all wrong don't I :rolleyes:

It's become clear from this thread why the likes of Larry Murphy are roaming free, because people are all about the criminal and less about the victim. How can people protest against the system when so many people are in agreement with them. If this is the future of the country I can see a lot more people taking the law into their own hands to seek justice.

Strata

dolliemix wrote: »

I didn't write anybody off! You've just completely trivialised my feelings on the subject by quoting me out of context. I have no time for drunk drivers and you have made light of my views on this.

I said in the exact same post that my mother's friend was killed by a drunk driver and I have very strong views on the issue. I also said drunk driving is wrong.

There is a difference between somebody intentionally raping and torturing somebody and somebody intentionally drinking then driving then hitting somebody and killing them when drunk driving.

I believe the first crime should have a longer sentence than the second but both should be punished

I'm not trying to deny the horrendousness of Larry Murphy's crime and I believe he should have received a longer sentence.

Anyway I'm going OT with the drink driving.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not saying I disagree, however I think it is rediulous that if someone gets into a fight and accidentally kills someone they can get life, yet if someone puts a plastic bag over a woman's head who they has been stalking for a month, and because they are caught in the act before she dies; he only gets a 15-year sentence. I'm using the example of accidental murder for comparison purposes only. For the purpose of sentencing, the judge should have sentenced Murphy as if he had succeeded, which means life.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Yes, I just woke up one day and this thought entered my mind. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga_State_Hospital


Evil could be considered a form of mental illness. Whether or not they should be locked up is another matter. But in extremely high-risk cases it maybe justified.

You see I personally don't think you "accidentally" kill someone if you fight with them. You're an adult and should be aware that the consequences of getting into a fight might be murder.

If LM was charged with murder though where do you draw the line in future cases? You can't charge someone with something they didn't do. It'd be like in Minority Report!