Gillmore - "Free too soon?" ... an abomination

[Empty Hands]

Unfortunately here, are you trying to portray this innocent victums into the same category as the one who said he did the rapes, there is a difference between being found guilty by a jury of your peers (and being innocent) compared to admitting you did the rapes and due to time constraints, they no longer apply. A big difference in my view.

No, I made no such intentional conflation. Andy used the term "criminals such as this", which while admittedly non-specific, I took to mean violent felons such as rapists.

Also, a confession is no gold standard of perfect guilt. Sometimes cops will keep specific details out of the press in notorious cases just to be able to tell the crank confessionals and tips from the real ones. Sometimes people will confess to crimes they didn't commit because they are mentally ill, or desire the notoriety (also mentally ill IMO). Also, sometimes, a confession can be coerced - it has happened. Not even beaten out of someone, the cops could tell them they have ironclad proof of their crime (for instance) and they will fry unless they confess. I don't know if these instances are common, but they have happened.

At the end of the day, human behavior is so odd and varied, and the system so flawed and imperfect, that "ventilating" the "obviously guilty" will end up ventilating a lot of guys just like those on the Innocence Project list.

 

[grydth]

The way I read the story, this guy knew those details. There wasn't doubt that he did these rapes, he was only spared via the (too short) statute of limitation.

I question your opinions about "the system". In your original post, you opined the freeing of this child rapist was "how the system works". Now we hear about the " system so flawed". Which is it? Is letting Gillmore out a flaw? Or, is it only considered to be working when springing cannibals like this back into society?

My opinion is that the system is flawed when it either wrongfully convicts the innocent or when it lets wolves back out to prey upon the innocent.

Its never easy with these in real life. I prosecuted individuals like this. One was even trying to lure young girls while awaiting trial on an earlier charge. This crime more than most scars and haunts the victims. One I didn't take to court - wasn't sure he was guilty. Want to guess how many times I've wondered about that one through the years - what if I was wrong?

 

[Empty Hands]

The way I read the story, this guy knew those details. There wasn't doubt that he did these rapes, he was only spared via the (too short) statute of limitation.

That is no doubt true. My comments are not intended to absolve or exonerate this individual.

I question your opinions about "the system". In your original post, you opined the freeing of this child rapist was "how the system works". Now we hear about the " system so flawed". Which is it? Is letting Gillmore out a flaw? Or, is it only considered to be working when springing cannibals like this back into society?

Both. The system works (i.e. is designed) to release people after their sentences are completed, of which parole is part of the system. This cannot be otherwise IMO. The Nazis used to wait outside the prisons for prisoners they wanted to complete their court imposed sentences. Then they carted the newly "freed" prisoners off to concentration camps for further confinement. I would not see such a system duplicated here.

The system is also flawed in both directions on the question of innocence - people will not be convicted of crimes they did commit, and people will be convicted of crimes they did not commit. Since we are not omniscient, these flaws cannot ever be entirely removed, but they can and should be ameliorated to the best of our abilities.

These flaws have become far too pervasive in our system IMO. For instance, and speaking as a laboratory scientist, our criminal science labs are in a general shambles. These sorts of pervasive flaws are what make me against the death penalty as a practical matter, if not in theory. Death can't be undone or compensated for. Imprisonment can. Sometimes this logic even convinces Republicans.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

My opinion is that the system is flawed when it either wrongfully convicts the innocent or when it lets wolves back out to prey upon the innocent.

The problem is, you don't know who the wolves really are. Neither do I. No one does. "Expert" opinions on the matter are mostly guesses. The stats we have available suggest that the majority of such sex criminals do not re-offend.

At the end of the day, how far do you want to take this? Are group statistics enough to confine any felon for their entire lives? I am male, therefore at a much higher risk of committing rape (and many other crimes) than females. Should I be imprisoned just in case? The stats would be with such a decision!

One I didn't take to court - wasn't sure he was guilty. Want to guess how many times I've wondered about that one through the years - what if I was wrong?

You did your best, you can't be faulted for it, even if you were wrong. Better to be cautious and just then turn into this guy:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/nifong.contempt/

 

[grydth]

It is probably better to leave the monstrous Nazi 'justice' system out of the debate. I can debate that system with you at some great extent, but it will lead us far astray. There is a huge difference between confining sex predators in a hospital and trucking them off to an extermination center.

We have spent the better part of 2 generations now hearing the criminals screech," I got rights!"....... but few hear their second, much quieter line," and the rest of you have none."

But the law abiding public does have rights, and as a society we must decide whose are ultimately more important.

The statistics cited are a valid part of any debate.... but we must always keep in mind that, for each recidivist number, there is another woman murdered, another child molested.

I fully agree with New York that there should be no parole for violent felons. They should complete their sentences, and not be released early - that, specifically, is what parole means. Denying parole is not keeping criminals in jail after their sentence - it is mandating that they serve their full sentence.

There is ample evidence that rehabilitation frequently works for nonviolent felons, and examples such as Michael Milken are not hard to find. However, other valid purposes for the criminal justice system come to the fore with serial rapists like the subject in question, Mr Gillmore.....punishment.....deterrence....incapacitation.