Michael Skakel will appeal to the Supreme Court. Debate.

[DawnCt1]

Michael Skakel, relative of the Kennedys, was convicted of murder and sentences 20 years to life. He committed the murder at the age of 15 but wasn't convicted until 25 years later. His lawyer will appeal to the SC based on the statute of limitations. (I didn't think that there was a statute of limitations on murder) However, that is not what I want to talk about. If Skakel had turned himself in at the age of 15, instead of being hidden away, sent to private school, etc by his father, he would have been tried as a juvinile as that was the Ct. law at the time, and been released at the age of 21, probably only serving 4 to 5 years, due to the length of time the case would have taken to make it through the court system. Instead, once the evidence pointed to him as the reasonable suspect, at the age of 45, he was arrested as charged as an adult, as the juvinile court rejected his case. If no law existed in Connecticut allowing juveniles to be tried as an adult, should he have been tried and judged as an adult and sentenced to 20 years to life? I don't don't have any love loss for the Kennedys, and certainly not for murderers, but I have to say that this conviction seems legally unjust. Believe me, I have utmost sympathy for the Moxleys and I appreciate that Martha never had the chance to live her life, but, it does seem that he is being held to "today's standards" when he committed the crime as a child by yesterday's standards. Any opinions?

 

[CapeCodTenor]

That's a tough one. One the one hand, you have someone who has committed murder and should be punished for it, as he is going to be. But on the other hand you want to make sure the law is applied fairly and evenly. If Connecticut had no law allowing for a junenile to be tried as an adult for murder, and the murder happened before the the laws were changed, then, IMHO, the defendant should be tried as a juvenile. The grandfather clause? But in a murder case who knows.

 

[dcentity2000]

If you kill someone with intent to GBH or worse, you should be in prison for a loooong time, IMO.

Further to this, there should be only partial defences to the act such as:

• Provocation - killing where there is no self control
• Diminished Responsibility - such as mental handicap
• Suicide Pacts - I know very little of this

If the defendant can rely upon one of these partial defences, his verdict should be reduced from murder to manslaughter and his sentence reduced.

As for prison sentence, there should be "tariff periods", or minimum imprisonment times before parole.

That's pretty much how we have it in the UK and I believe that we have a good, well established system that has stood the test of the centuries, evolving over time.

However, I do believe that sentences over here are too weak - murder is a serious charge that results in an automatic life sentence, but all to often people are released from prison far too early for th public good and sometimes thaey even go on to re-offend, although this is not as common a problem as the press would make out.

The question is whether a 15 year old person should qualify for "diminished responsibility", which is usually used in pleas of insanity.



Rich::

 

[wvrevy]

If you kill someone with intent to GBH or worse, you should be in prison for a loooong time, IMO.

Further to this, there should be only partial defences to the act such as:

• Provocation - killing where there is no self control
• Diminished Responsibility - such as mental handicap
• Suicide Pacts - I know very little of this

If the defendant can rely upon one of these partial defences, his verdict should be reduced from murder to manslaughter and his sentence reduced.

As for prison sentence, there should be "tariff periods", or minimum imprisonment times before parole.

That's pretty much how we have it in the UK and I believe that we have a good, well established system that has stood the test of the centuries, evolving over time.

However, I do believe that sentences over here are too weak - murder is a serious charge that results in an automatic life sentence, but all to often people are released from prison far too early for th public good and sometimes thaey even go on to re-offend, although this is not as common a problem as the press would make out.

The question is whether a 15 year old person should qualify for "diminished responsibility", which is usually used in pleas of insanity.



Rich::

Very well stated, Rich!

Not sure where I fall on this. I could not care less if his name was "Kennedy" or "Reagan", this is simply an interesting case for the reasons stated so eloquently by Rich above and by Dawn in the original post.

Personal opinion: If he would have been tried as a minor, take a good look at what he has done with his life since that point. If it seems worthy to allow him to continue living it, then reduce the sentence to time served (as he would have already served roughly the same time he would have spent had he been convicted at the time of the crime). If he has a further criminal history or appears to be more of a burden to society than a benefit, let him serve the full, adult sentence.

I realize that may be a bit of a strange opinion, but I think looking at how he has lived since he "got away with" the original crime (at least, for quite a while) is justified in this rare instance. I'm also not completely sold on my own opinion, so I'd love to hear some other argument.

 

[MouseWorshipin]

I'm not old enough to understand why that generation has such a weird fascination with the Kennedys.

I'm no lawyer, but IMHO - he killed that girl and ought to pay for it. It is amazing that a man who murdered someone and then spent many years enjoying his life without so much as an "I'm sorry," is now going to complain about fairness and justice.

I cannot believe the Supreme Court will hear that case.

 

[dcentity2000]

Very good points, wvrevy!

Imprisonment and indeed execution are primarily aimed at preventing future crimes by segregating those who have shown criminal intent from the rest of society.

As wvrevy said, we must "take a good look at what he has done with his life since that point [the murder]". He has had a good amount of time to demonstrate his capacity to re-offend and we should take heed of that.



Rich::

 

[MouseWorshipin]

whoopsies!

 

[MouseWorshipin]

He has had a good amount of time to demonstrate his capacity to re-offend

For all we know, may have re-offended. He may have killed others and gotten away with those murders, too.

Even if he didn't do it AGAIN, isn't one murder enough?

 

[brerrabbit]

I don't disagree with the previous posters who said take a look at what he has done with his life since the murder and take that into consideration in sentencing. However, most of the time jurists don't get the benifit of being able to see someones life so many years after the crime. I also agree with wvrevy that I don't care what the guys name is, justice should be blind to that fact. In this case I think that given his age at the time of the crime, that point should be factored into the equation thus lessening the sentence somewhat. I fully believe he needs to pay for his crime. The idea that he was a minor at that time versus today should not play as big a roll as some think. In todays world numerous minors are being tried as adults because of the nature of their crimes. However back when this crime was commited it did not happen very often. I think a lesser charge of diminished capacity resulting in a Manslaughter charge with a 8 to 10 year sentence would be appropriate in this case. Just my opinion.

 

[dcentity2000]

For all we know, may have re-offended. He may have killed others and gotten away with those murders, too.

Even if he didn't do it AGAIN, isn't one murder enough?

If he has other offences then a) he should be tried for them and b) they should, in my opinion, be taken into account when considering the sentence in his homicide trial. The latter is controversial and is currently against the law as it raises the question of judicial bias - the argument is that a person should be tried for each crime separately and independently.

Call me a realist, but I DO like to taken EVERYTHING into account. His subsequent behaviour can demonstrate either his willingness to re-offend or his absolute repentance of crime and this certainly should be taken into account.

After all, the law exists to protect the innocent first and to punish the wicked second.



Rich::

 

[MouseWorshipin]

If he has other offences then a) he should be tried for them and b) they should, in my opinion, be taken into account when considering the sentence in his homicide trial. The latter is controversial and is currently against the law as it raises the question of judicial bias - the argument is that a person should be tried for each crime separately and independently.

Call me a realist, but I DO like to taken EVERYTHING into account. His subsequent behaviour can demonstrate either his willingness to re-offend or his absolute repentance of crime and this certainly should be taken into account.

After all, the law exists to protect the innocent first and to punish the wicked second.



Rich::

My point was simply that we don't know what his subsequent behavior has been. He may have killed other people, too. But, again, I don't think he has to do it AGAIN in order to be punished for the first one.

As for repentance, he never repented. He didn't turn himself in because his conscience was haunting him or anything. No mea culpas there.

The fact that he has killed a person takes him out of the "innocent" category. He doesn't need to be protected. Martha Moxley needed to be protected.

 

[dcentity2000]

My point was simply that we don't know what his subsequent behavior has been. He may have killed other people, too. But, again, I don't think he has to do it AGAIN in order to be punished for the first one.

As for repentance, he never repented. He didn't turn himself in because his conscience was haunting him or anything. No mea culpas there.

The fact that he has killed a person takes him out of the "innocent" category. He doesn't need to be protected. Martha Moxley needed to be protected.

Oh indeed, I totally agree.

We don't know what it subsequent behaviour has been like (I wonder how the courts will look on it);

his crimes should ALL be accounted for;

his failure to turn himself in should be taken into account.



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

The question is whether a 15 year old person should qualify for "diminished responsibility", which is usually used in pleas of insanity.



Rich::[/FONT]

I understand you arguement in the current climate. But 25 years ago, he wouldn't have had to qualify for 'diminished responsbility", it would have automatically been given due to his age. The fact that they didn't solve the case until 25 years later changes everything; the court in which he was tried and the severity of the sentence.

 

[HaleyB]

While looking at his life after the crime and up to the point where he got caught would seem like a good idea it is unfair. Other people do not get this chance, why should he get special treatment because he choose to hide, lie, and not come forward at the time of the crime. It is not allowed anyway, but I do not agree that it "should" be.

Sorry, but if he were truely sorry he should have come forward. He thought he could get away with it, so he did not. Nothing he has done since then can make up for his faluire to come forward. He was tried as an adult because he choose not to come forward as a minor. If he had this issue would not have come up.

 

[DawnCt1]

My point was simply that we don't know what his subsequent behavior has been. He may have killed other people, too. But, again, I don't think he has to do it AGAIN in order to be punished for the first one.

As for repentance, he never repented. He didn't turn himself in because his conscience was haunting him or anything. No mea culpas there.

.

Well, we actually do know what his subsequent behavior has been, as much as we could know about anyone. Since Martha Moxley, he hasn't been suspected or convicted of any other crime and has gone on to live a productive, responsible life after emerging from his very rough teenage years. As for repentence, that is always problematic for someone who pleads "not guilty" and plans appeals. How can you appeal if you apologize for the crime?

 

[dcentity2000]

I understand you arguement in the current climate. But 15 years ago, he wouldn't have had to qualify for 'diminished responsbility", it would have automatically been given due to his age. The fact that they didn't solve the case until 25 years later changes everything; the court in which he was tried and the severity of the sentence.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Put quite simply, I don't know when it comes to this case - I'm not even sure enough to advance an opinion!

It will be interesting see what the courts decide; it will resonate across the legal world.



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm not old enough to understand why that generation has such a weird fascination with the Kennedys.

I'm no lawyer, but IMHO - he killed that girl and ought to pay for it. It is amazing that a man who murdered someone and then spent many years enjoying his life without so much as an "I'm sorry," is now going to complain about fairness and justice.

I cannot believe the Supreme Court will hear that case.

It's not a fascination with the Kennedy's so much as its an interesting set of circumstances. I agree that he killed the girl and ought to pay for it. However if he paid for it in his youth, he would have been done paying for it at the age of 21. While it would have been "nice" if he had turned himself in at the time, he had a very forceful father who no doubt called all of the shots and was probably the primary person who kept him insulated from the law.
There is a saying; "Justic Delayed is Justice Denied". In this case is he "another victim" because the delay has resulted in a sentence that he would have never faced as a youthful offender. I think his sentence should have been reduced to manslaughter with a 5 to 10 year sentence, given that is the time he would haved served otherwise.