CHILD THRILL KILLERS

If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.

~Author unknown

       

According to the Equal Justice Initiative, thousands of children have been sentenced as adults and sent to adult prisons. Nearly 3000 children nationwide have been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Children as young as 13 years old have been tried as adults and sentenced to spend the remainder of their lives in prison.

Is this really a moral or ethical problem, or is this simply the natural evolution of punishment caused by the desensitization of our American youth?

When I was a kid, we handled problems much differently from the youth of today. If we had a fight, we met after school behind the gym, some punches may have been thrown, or more often than not, there was a lot of pushing and shoving.  Very little serious harm was ever inflicted. Afterwards, we would all go to school the next day and life went on. We never tried to kill each other with guns or knives. That thought simply did not exist.

We accepted what our teachers and parents said, even if we did so reluctantly and did not agree. If we had problems in school, our parents met with our teachers, and issues were worked out.  We never dreamed of doing harm to our teachers or others. We knew if we did something way out of line that there would be severe consequences to our actions.  Those consequences actually mattered to us.

It appears that consequences do not matter so much anymore.

Something is happening to our children. The understanding of death and the value of life has become skewed.  I really do not know how this happened. Is it all of the violence on television, movies, and video games? Is it the angst caused by the breakdown of the family? Is it a lack of attention, discipline, or an ever increasing sense of entitlement?  Or, is it simply a mix of a lot of factors that have dangerously lowered the threshold of what acts children now find acceptable?  Honestly, will we really ever know?

The issue raised in this post is whether children who commit heinous acts should be charged as adults for their crimes? In the recent past, children were given more leniency regarding the crimes they committed. However, there appears to be a change in this trend because of the highly publicized brutal and senseless murders that we seem to be hearing about on a daily basis.

It may help to start this discussion with a bit of sad history. In 1944 the youngest person in the past 100 years in the United States was executed. He was a 14 year old African-American child. His name was George Stinney. His death came at the hands of overzealous and very likely racist law enforcement officials in South Carolina who charged him with the beating deaths of two children. The evidence against him was minimal and highly conflicting.

He was executed 84 days after the children were found murdered. At 95 pounds, it has been reported that the straps to keep him in the electric chair didn't fit around his small frame, and an electrode was too big for his leg. Executing teens was not uncommon at that time. Florida put a 16-year-old boy to death for rape in 1944, and Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio and Texas executed 17-year-olds that year.

As a symbolic gesture, lawyers for Stinney’s family are seeking a new trial based on a lack of evidence. Most legal experts believe that, in South Carolina, the verdict will never be overturned.

Back to the present.

A 24 year old Massachusetts high school math teacher was sexually assaulted with an object and murdered by a 14 year old student. He also robbed her of her credit cards and an Iphone. He removed her underwear and took it with him after the murder.

The teacher’s name was Colleen Ritzer.

Her alleged killer, Phillip Chism, was being held without bail after he was charged by the Essex County district attorney as an adult during his arraignment at Salem District Court.

Chism pleaded not guilty. His defense attorney argued for the proceedings to be closed and her client to be allowed to stay hidden because of his age. The judge denied the request. 

Sources say that Chism admitted to police that he had followed Ritzer into a women's bathroom at the school, punched her in the face, and slashed her throat open with a box cutter. He butchered her.  Chism then allegedly put his teacher's body in a recycling bin and brought it to the woods near the school. 

On to Nevada.

Sources state that a 12-year-old student armed with a handgun shot and killed a math teacher and critically wounded two classmates before killing himself at his Nevada middle school shortly before classes were due to begin

Witnesses described a chaotic scene at the school in the northwestern Nevada town of Sparks, located just east of Reno, after the gunfire erupted in an outdoor area as students were arriving for the school day.

"A kid started getting mad and he pulled out a gun and shoots my friend, one of my friends at least," a seventh-grade student identified as Andrew told local KOLO-TV. "And then he walked up to a teacher and says back up, the teacher started backing up and he pulled the trigger."

"The teacher was just lying there and he was limp, he didn't know what to do, he was just in a lot of pain," he told KOLO.

"And me and five other friends went to him and said come on we've got to get him to safety. We picked him up, carried him a little bit far and we left him because our vice principal came along and said go, go, go get to safety, get to safety. So we left the teacher there and we went to safety," Andrew said.

The slain teacher was identified by his family as 45-year-old math teacher Michael Landsberry.

On to Florida.

In Florida, 14-year-old Nathaniel Brazill was tried as an adult and found guilty of second-degree murder for killing his English teacher. According to sources, he “got off lucky” for the shocking murder because a life sentence had been requested from the court. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison.

Another Florida jury sentenced 14-year-old Lionel Tate, who allegedly killed a younger girl by smashing her body, to life in prison without parole. He said he was practicing wrestling moves on her.

The above are just a miniscule sample of instances of savage crimes that have been committed by very young children.

What to make of all of the above? Spend a few minutes researching on the Internet and the hair on your back of your neck will stand up.  Brutal, cruel, and vile crimes committed by juveniles appear everywhere. It has been claimed by some sources, that violent crime is actually on the decline.  If this is true, it really does not feel like it with more and more monstrous crimes being reported daily.

I will leave it to you to make your decision regarding whether you think juveniles should be tried as adults and receive sentences comparable to adults. On the one hand, vicious and savage criminals should pay for their crimes. If they happen to be young, that does not justify dishonoring and disregarding the victims who spend their last minutes on this earth dying painfully and violently. Nor, should the eternal heartbreak of their families be disregarded as well.

On the other hand, if you see juvenile criminals as pure products of their environment, lacking the capacity to understand the seriousness of their actions, or simply undeserving of the punishment that an adult would receive for a comparable crime, then your opinion of adequate punishment will obviously be influenced in another direction.

That being said, the execution of a child, such that happened to George Stinney, is unspeakable and inhumane. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this can no longer occur. In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the minimum age at the time of crime to be subject to the death penalty is 18, thereby ending execution as a punishment for juvenile offenders.  At the time of the Roper v. Simmons decision, there were 71 juvenile offenders awaiting execution on death row.

My opinion is that if any person, juvenile or adult, purposefully ends someone’s life or injures them with no regard for the sanctity of life, that person should be punished in a manner consistent with their actions. We must not allow life to become a depreciating asset whose value is solely dependent upon the age of a sadistic criminal----- regardless of what known or unknown societal changes are causing certain younger members of our world to become deviant monsters.

-Leonardo G. Renaud

UPDATE: THE VIOLENT SHADOW OF THE CHEATING SPOUSE

And I’m here to remind you

Of the mess you left when you went away

It’s not fair to deny me

Of the cross I bear that you gave to me

You, you, you oughta know

~Alanis Morissett

The following is an update to my previous post concerning women who unleash their rage upon the men who cheat on them. As you may have read in my prior post (“Kicked to the Curb: Blood In Blood Out,” June 28, 2013), one must first be reminded that those who we love the most, can easily turn into the person we hate the most.  The second thing to be reminded of is it is generally not considered a good idea to cheat on a murderous wife. Too bad this second lesson always seems to be learned a little too late.

According to correspondent, Michelle Mondo, Francis Hall battled rumors of her husband's infidelity more than two years ago by posting a message on her Facebook page.

Apparently responding to some sort of rumor concerning her marriage, she wrote the following venomous filled passage:

“There's no black eyes or legal” counsel, she wrote in February 2011. “Wishful thinking on all your (expletive) hearts. Look at your own miserable life before you judge mine. There's a lot of skeletons in your closets.”

Her opinion concerning the apparent strength of her marriage drastically changed this past week.  

Yet again, the deadly love affair ends in death.

Officials deemed a traffic crash that killed her husband Thursday a homicide, due to an alleged love triangle among Frances and her now deceased husband, Bill Hall Jr., both 50, and a woman described by authorities as his “girlfriend” hit the public spotlight.

Frances Hall was married for 32 years to Bill Hall.

She has now been charged with murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in the death of her husband by running his motorcycle off the road. Sources say that, she has also been accused her of ramming her vehicle into an SUV driven by his girlfriend, who lucky for her,  wasn't injured and whose name and age was not released.

Frances posted bond on a combined $225,000 bail but was being fitted with an ankle monitor before release, which was scheduled for this past Saturday morning.Officials say Frances was driving her black Cadillac Escalade less than 2 miles from the family owned “Bill Hall Jr. Trucking Ltd.” headquarters.


After learning of her husband’s sexcapades, an enraged Frances began chasing her husband and his girlfriend, who was driving a black Range Rover owned by Bill Hall. One can only imagine the seething anger of seeing your spouse’s lover driving your husband’s car!

Frances is claimed to have purposefully collided with the Range Rover, forcing it into another lane and then struck her husband's motorcycle, forcing him to lose control and crash. Frances certainly did not stop to help. She continued to chase her husband's girlfriend.

On the surface, the couple seemed happy and content. They owned and operated Bill Hall Jr. Trucking Ltd. since 1989, which by all accounts was a very successful business. The website for the company indicates that it has a fleet of 130 trucks and offices in two Texas cities.

Investigators weren't clear on the status of the Halls' marriage. Public records showed the couple got married, both at the age of 18, in March, 1982. No divorce records were on file, the district clerk's office reports.

Sources say that in the two years since Frances Hall angrily attempted to dispute rumors of an affair in her Facebook page, the couple appeared happy in photos, often seen smiling together.

The happy photographs and smiles were only a thin veil of the turmoil lurking beneath their smiling faces. Recently, she included a new Facebook post — an image that appeared to be a message either to or from her husband.

The message says, “A pretty face gets old ... A nice body will change ... But a good woman will always be a good woman.”

Perhaps the following should have been added, “However, a cheating husband better not ride a motorcycle in front of his wife, while his girlfriend drives his truck.”

~Leonardo G. Renaud

UPDATE ON MARIJUANA POLICY: When is the law, “THE” law?

Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation.

~Edward R. Murrow 

This post is an update to my previous articles where I discuss the inherent legal issues between states such as Colorado and Washington that allow the use and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal use, versus the Department of Justice’s stance that drugs, such as marijuana, are classified as an illegal drug—and subject to prosecution under current federal law. While readers may imply that I am pro-this or pro-that, this is not the case. The truth is that the strange way that the federal government and the states are cooperating to effectively ignore federal drug laws is simply a story that is too tempting for me to resist.

It was just a matter of time that either the Department of Justice would be compelled to sue all of the states that allow for the sale of marijuana for breaking federal law or adapt its policy concerning the recreational and medical use of marijuana. There are 20 states, plus the District of Columbia who have laws allowing marijuana use for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The Department of Justice decided not to cross the line in the sand and has now opted for the latter position.

Last Thursday, on August 29, 2013, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, spoke with the Governors of both Colorado and Washington and notified them that the federal government will not be prosecuting recreational and medicinal marijuana users in states who allow the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana.  This policy will apply to the remaining 18 states and the District of Columbia as well.

The new federal guidelines do not change marijuana's classification as an illegal drug according to federal law; however, it discourages the pursuit of individual non-violent marijuana users who have no links to criminal gangs or cartel operations.

The bottom line of the federal government’s position is as follows:

"While the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, the president and the administration believe that targeting individual marijuana users, especially those with serious illnesses and their caregivers, is not the best allocation of federal government resources,'' White House spokesman Josh Earnest said last Wednesday.

President Barack Obama said after the two Western states legalized recreational pot use that his administration did not view the prosecution of users in those states as “a top priority.” "We've got bigger fish to fry," Obama said last year. "It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal."

The new federal guidelines contain a list of eight new federal enforcement priorities, which is expected to guide federal authorities when weighing decisions on marijuana prosecutions. It also notifies state authorities that the federal government reserves the right to intervene if the states do not enact appropriate regulations to protect federal interests, including guarding against the distribution of marijuana to minors.

According to the new directive, federal authorities still will prosecute individuals or entities involved in:

·   The distribution of marijuana to minors.

·   Directing revenue from marijuana sales to gangs and cartels.

·   Diverting marijuana from states where it is legal to other states where there are no laws allowing for marijuana use.

·   Using legal sales as cover for trafficking operations.

·   Using violence and or firearms in marijuana cultivation and distribution.

·   Driving under the influence of marijuana.

·   Growing marijuana on public lands.

·   Possessing marijuana or using on federal property.

Not surprisingly, there are those who are angrily opposed to the Department

of Justice’s new stance.

"We are very disappointed that Eric Holder's not doing his job,'' said Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation."It is his job to enforce our nation's laws.

"He has created what will become a tsunami that will most likely result in far too many young people becoming victims of chemical slavery,'' she said. "And it's really unforgivable. … He should be fired."

Peter Bensinger, former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Holder's action amounted to a violation of the law.

"He's not just abandoning the law,'' Bensinger said, "he's breaking the law...He's putting the people of Washington and Colorado at risk. He's violating the treaty obligations of this country. He's telling the world we don't really follow the law here."

“This sends the wrong message,” says former Representative Patrick J. Kennedy--who is a recovering prescription drug addict---and a founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a policy group. “Are we going to send up the white flag altogether and surrender and say ‘have at it’? Or are we going to try to reduce the availability and accessibility of drugs and alcohol? That should be our mission.”

Others applaud the Department of Justice’s new stance and indicate that it is long overdue to stop punishing and expending vast amounts of legal, prison overcrowding, monetary, and law enforcement resources prosecuting non-violent small quantity recreational users, as well as those who use marijuana for such ailments as chronic pain.  Simply put, federal law enforcement is more concerned with those criminals who commit terrorist attacks, murders, shootings, kidnappings, and other violent crimes.  The old hippy who smokes a joint in the backyard, or the cancer patient who smokes to lessen chronic pain, are simply not public enemy number one anymore.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he "welcomed'' the guidance that has been "long-awaited and in short supply.''

"The Justice Department should focus on countering and prosecuting violent crime, while respecting the will of the states whose people have voted to legalize small amounts of marijuana for personal and medical use,'' Leahy said.

"We received good news this morning when Attorney General Eric Holder told the governor the federal government would not pre-empt Washington and Colorado as the states implement a highly regulated legalized market for marijuana," Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

“It’s a relief,” said Representative Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat. “It’ll get the criminal element out of the marijuana trade. It’ll provide legitimate business opportunities for everything from farmers to processors to retail store owners.”

"In my lifetime, it was by far the most important change in marijuana federal policy on the federal level," said Keith Stroup, founder and legal counsel at the non-profit National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)."All of sudden, they have decided to let the states experiment with different levels of legalization. That's precisely what happened at the end of alcohol prohibition."

As with all new policies, there are always questions that remain, such as:

How are medical and recreational marijuana businesses going to get loans for their business or deposit money in banks earned from sales? The announcement by the Attorney General concerning not prosecuting recreational users and medical users does not address the financial hurdles facing marijuana dispensaries and growing operations----like their access to business loans, keeping bank accounts from the proceeds of sales, and other banking services.

Banks are reluctant to do business with marijuana growers and sellers, based on the obvious fear of violating federal laws.  The uncertainty due to the strict regulations of federal bank lending laws, the interpretation of tax laws, and the ability of marijuana dispensaries to operate their business is no doubt going to lead to further prosecutions concerning how “marijuana money” will flow through the federal banking and IRS systems, especially since federal law still officially classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.  This again is a legal contradiction between federal laws and state laws that is sure to create a whole new set of disputes about the regulation of funds related to the selling of marijuana.

Perhaps the most significant future issue likely to come very soon, is that the Department of Justice has reserved the right to intervene if the states do not enact appropriate regulations to protect federal interests, including guarding against the distribution of marijuana to minors.  What exactly an “appropriate regulation” is has not been defined by the Department of Justice. U.S. Attorneys will individually be responsible for interpreting the federal guidelines and how they apply to a case they intend to prosecute.  Prosecutors generally are inclined to put people in prison if given the option. This means that there could still be many prosecutions carried out by aggressive U.S. Attorneys who interpret cases it determines are not protected by the Department of Justice’s guidelines.

What we now know for sure is that the general public’s votes to regulate their own marijuana state laws have had a strong impact on the federal government because it is now actively and openly finding a way to “work around” current federal drug laws.

~Leonardo G. Renaud