Parents of slain Marine stunned by vote to release white supremacist

Tony · 30th July 2004, 10:18 AM

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2709539 ...full article

Quote:

The parents of a U.S. Marine who returned to Houston from dangerous tours of duty in Panama and the Persian Gulf, only to be killed by teenage white supremacists, plan to protest the parole of one of their son's killers. But they'll have to do it after the fact.

Dorothy Dixon said Thursday she and her husband, Andrew, were to be notified when their son's killers came up for parole review. Instead, Dixon was shocked to learn Thursday that Donald Riley's parole was approved last month, without any input from the Dixon family.

Anyone besides me angry about this?

CapelDodger · 30th July 2004, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Dorothy Dixon said Thursday she and her husband, Andrew, were to be notified when their son's killers came up for parole review.

If the Dixons were given to understand that they would be notified, this is infuriating. Either they were told a lie - perhaps just to keep them quiet, and couched in careful legalese to give the impression without saying it - or the system is culpably incompetent.

I have a question: would the Dixons actually have had any input to the parole hearing, or would they only have been allowed to observe? Observing the proceedings would at least have been better than learning about it after the event. At least they would have seen the parolee as the person he is now, however much they might continue to despise him.

jj · 30th July 2004, 11:17 AM

That is both sad and infuriating on many levels, not the least of which is the original crime.

Rob Lister · 30th July 2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If the Dixons were given to understand that they would be notified, this is infuriating. Either they were told a lie - perhaps just to keep them quiet, and couched in careful legalese to give the impression without saying it - or the system is culpably incompetent.

I have a question: would the Dixons actually have had any input to the parole hearing, or would they only have been allowed to observe? Observing the proceedings would at least have been better than learning about it after the event. At least they would have seen the parolee as the person he is now, however much they might continue to despise him.

It is unlikely that the parole board ever laid eyes on the guy. According to their website, the Texas Board only needs to see the prisoner's file.

Ref: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/what...ole/page_8.htm

LostAngeles · 30th July 2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
That is both sad and infuriating on many levels, not the least of which is the original crime.

Indeed. What makes it worse is wondering how that happened, then finding out that this is in Texas and your brain going, "Oh. I get it now."

(No offense meant to Texans. Your state has a reputation for such attitudes, much like you'd expect me to be waving crystals, be a Mexican, and eating tofu, due to my location.)

Ladewig · 30th July 2004, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If the Dixons were given to understand that they would be notified, this is infuriating. Either they were told a lie - perhaps just to keep them quiet, and couched in careful legalese to give the impression without saying it - or the system is culpably incompetent.

I have a question: would the Dixons actually have had any input to the parole hearing, or would they only have been allowed to observe? Observing the proceedings would at least have been better than learning about it after the event. At least they would have seen the parolee as the person he is now, however much they might continue to despise him.

The page after the page that Rob Lister posted (Page 9) shows that the Parole Board must meet with victims if the victims request a meeting. The law requires victims to be notified.
----------------------------------------

Part of the problem is that the Texas criminal justice system<sup>1</sup> does not have "life without possibility of parole." The lack of such an option helps prosecuters acheive Texas's record levels of executions. They tell juries that any decision other than lethal injection will result in the criminal having a chance to get out of prison.

1) After Kansas added the option this year, New Mexico and New Jersey are the only other states with a death penalty and no option of life without parole.

Bjorn · 30th July 2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
The page after the page that Rob Lister posted (Page 9) shows that the Parole Board must meet with victims if the victims request a meeting. The law requires victims to be notified.

But not the victim's relatives, I guess - isn't the victim dead in this case?

The Fool · 30th July 2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
But not the victim's relatives, I guess - isn't the victim dead in this case?

Dig them up to inform them?

I have a problem with the whole concept of "victim impact" statements from relatives... I think it is a major concern to have the determination of sentences based on the relative oratory skills of the victims family and/or the victims relative "niceness" factor. Why should your sentence be extended or shortened depending on how nice/loved/virtuous/upstanding the victim is. Murder a Nun or Murder a Junkie, its still murder.

I think this family have a valid point if they were given some promise that they would be told about any release but if the victims families end up influencing sentence duration then that guy that scratched my car is going to be inside for years if my views are taken into consideration.

WildCat · 31st July 2004, 08:49 AM

Interesting that in Texas a life sentence is 60 years for parole purposes, while marijuana possession gets you 99 years.

I'm glad to see that Texans priorities are in order. Gotta let loose those racist murderers to make room for the pot smokers!

Skeptic · 31st July 2004, 09:44 AM

Why should your sentence be extended or shortened depending on how nice/loved/virtuous/upstanding the victim is.

I take it that you oppose parole in general, then?

After all, why should the sentence be shortened depending on how nice the criminal can look to the parole board?

Oh wait. It's perfectly OK for the CRIMINAL to try and ingratiate himself with the parole board in order to shorten a sentence he was given, but it's evil and interfering for the stupid, worthless VICTIM to say anything that might make the criminal actually serve out his whole term.

31st July 2004, 10:02 AM

Yeah, well, what's the life of one black marine, Tarron Dixon, who served his country, against the life of one worthless white racist good ol' boy?

http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol63/96/Campu...8/9622098.html

Quote:

For almost seven years, Dorothy Dixon has avoided an area only one block from her home because she says every day, on that spot, she sees her husband holding her son's dying body.

On the evening of June 7, 1991, four men followed, shot and killed Tarron Dixon while he was walking home alone. The next day his mother had planned a party to celebrate Tarron's return home from Operation Desert Storm where he served as a military officer.

"(The killer) was getting a tattoo for a (skinhead) gang, and he had to shoot a black man to get brotherhood (into the gang)," Ms. Dixon said at the Hate Crime Conference held Thursday at the University of Houston Law Center.

Apparently, Houston values the actions of its skinheads, and desires more of the same activities. After all, if you can get caught participating in a murder and only get a few years behind bars, it sends a clear message to others.

Other stories that mention him...
http://www.jfa.net/VOJ/Feb95.html
http://www.performative.com/hosts/ha.../articles.html

Of course, in Texas, if a black had killed a white guy, he'd have been much more likely to receive the death penalty. There are more blacks on death row than whites, yet only 11.5% of the population, while whites are 71.0% of the population.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Ladewig · 31st July 2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
But not the victim's relatives, I guess - isn't the victim dead in this case?

I was assuming that there was an implied inference that the victim's family would take the place of the victim in murder cases.

Bjorn · 31st July 2004, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I was assuming that there was an implied inference that the victim's family would take the place of the victim in murder cases.

And you could be totally right for all I know - I just couldn't find anything there saying so.

corplinx · 31st July 2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
Of course, in Texas, if a black had killed a white guy, he'd have been much more likely to receive the death penalty. There are more blacks on death row than whites, yet only 11.5% of the population, while whites are 71.0% of the population.

Trying being a skeptic for a change. What is the ratio of black to whites indicted for crimes that can receive the death penalty as punishment?

At least try to provide evidence of your claim. Your assertion could be true, but the evidence you provided only could only be useful if the indictment rate matches the general population numbers.

Tricky · 31st July 2004, 02:51 PM

Parole in hate-crime killing delayed.

Looks like we may have jumped the gun a bit here. He's not being released yet. Of course, there is still the possibility that he may not be guilty.

Quote:

Meanwhile, a hearing is set for Oct. 14 on a writ of habeas corpus filed by Riley's attorneys seeking to overturn his conviction based on newly discovered evidence they said indicates he did not commit the crime.

Actually, the most surprising thing about this thread is Tony's anger. This is the same guy who once thought it was okay to kill cops, and that the police weren't necessary. Apparently he thinks prisons are necessary, but how he intends to get the criminals to voluntarily enter prison is somewhat unclear.

Tony · 31st July 2004, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
Actually, the most surprising thing about this thread is Tony's anger. This is the same guy who once thought it was okay to kill cops, and that the police weren't necessary. Apparently he thinks prisons are necessary, but how he intends to get the criminals to voluntarily enter prison is somewhat unclear.

I'm not surprised that you're surprised. No one on this board has misunderstood me more than you.

Tricky · 1st August 2004, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
I'm not surprised that you're surprised. No one on this board has misunderstood me more than you.

Except maybe yourself.

TragicMonkey · 1st August 2004, 08:16 AM

Well, of course they didn't give him the death penalty. Texas only executes the retarded, don't they?

I don't really understand the point of parole. If you're sentenced for a length of time, you go to prison, then you get to argue your way out of it? Why not just sentence them to shorter terms if you're going to let them out early? And the decision is based off what, behavior in prison? "I haven't robbed a single liquor store in the five years I've been locked up in here, which proves I'm reformed and deserve to skip the rest of my sentence." ?

Tricky · 1st August 2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, of course they didn't give him the death penalty. Texas only executes the retarded, don't they?

Yeah, but in Texas, that's pretty much everybody.

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I don't really understand the point of parole. If you're sentenced for a length of time, you go to prison, then you get to argue your way out of it? Why not just sentence them to shorter terms if you're going to let them out early? And the decision is based off what, behavior in prison? "I haven't robbed a single liquor store in the five years I've been locked up in here, which proves I'm reformed and deserve to skip the rest of my sentence." ?

One of the best "behaviors" you can adopt is to come to Jesus. This can be a very important factor in getting out early. It's one reason why the prisons of America are populated almost entirely by Christians.

Tony · 1st August 2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
Except maybe yourself.

Lame.

Art Vandelay · 1st August 2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh wait. It's perfectly OK for the CRIMINAL to try and ingratiate himself with the parole board in order to shorten a sentence he was given, but it's evil and interfering for the stupid, worthless VICTIM to say anything that might make the criminal actually serve out his whole term.

Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified and reflects very poorly on your character.

corplinx

Quote:

At least try to provide evidence of your claim. Your assertion could be true, but the evidence you provided only could only be useful if the indictment rate matches the general population numbers.

How so? Are you saying that all murderers have the same chance of being indicted?

The Fool · 1st August 2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified and reflects very poorly on your character.

Thanks for your support Art but after a long long history of this sort of thing directed at me and many others by "skeptic" I now simply ignore him..Pointing out his dishonesty is a waste of breath..

but thanks anyway

Skeptic · 1st August 2004, 09:39 PM

Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified

Experience. Judging from the posts on this forum, "The Fool" had never met a liberal dogma he didn't like. He's for parole and against victim statements. Ask him if you don't believe me...

richardm · 2nd August 2004, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
I take it that you oppose parole in general, then?

After all, why should the sentence be shortened depending on how nice the criminal can look to the parole board?

Oh wait. It's perfectly OK for the CRIMINAL to try and ingratiate himself with the parole board in order to shorten a sentence he was given, but it's evil and interfering for the stupid, worthless VICTIM to say anything that might make the criminal actually serve out his whole term.

I suppose it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is. At one end of the continuum are people who think all criminals are merely misunderstood unfortunates. At the other are people who think that prison was a retrograde step, and all criminals should be hanged immediately upon conviction (if not before).

Speaking as someone closer to the "unfortunate" end of opinion, I believe that prison should offer an opportunity for a criminal to be rehabilitated into society. If they hit that target, then obviously they should be considered for an earlier release. It's not so much a case of "ingratiating" as showing that you are reformed.

If I was someone closer to the "hang 'em" end of opinion, obviously I'd think that the victims and their families should be given every opportunity to make it known that they are still annoyed with the criminal - even though in the vast majority of cases it's going to be blindingly obvious that they are.

(If it was common for victims to be given a meaningful say in parole hearings, I wonder if there would be cases of "victim nobbling", where victims are harrassed and intimidated into saying positive things?)

Abdul Alhazred · 2nd August 2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Indeed. What makes it worse is wondering how that happened, then finding out that this is in Texas and your brain going, "Oh. I get it now."

(No offense meant to Texans. Your state has a reputation for such attitudes, much like you'd expect me to be waving crystals, be a Mexican, and eating tofu, due to my location.)

Texas is also known for death sentences, as in the case of the "white supremacist" murderers of James Byrd.

Why not in this case

Tony · 2nd August 2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Texas is also known for death sentences, as in the case of the "white supremacist" murderers of James Byrd.

Why not in this case

That's one of the things that really piss me off about this. He didn't get the death penalty, ok, but he at least should have received life in prison without parole. It's fuct up that he only served 13 years for killing a dude in cold blood for no other reason than the color of his skin. In the meantime, some drug dealer is serving a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence. What ever happened to "liberty and justice for all"?

jj · 2nd August 2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified

Experience. Judging from the posts on this forum, "The Fool" had never met a liberal dogma he didn't like. He's for parole and against victim statements. Ask him if you don't believe me...

Let me get this right, because you don't agree with "The Fool"'s politics, you think it's ok to put any words you want in his mouth?

Is this an example of neo-conservative ethics in action?

30th July 2004, 10:18 AM	#1
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,768	Parents of slain Marine stunned by vote to release white supremacist http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2709539 ...full article Quote: The parents of a U.S. Marine who returned to Houston from dangerous tours of duty in Panama and the Persian Gulf, only to be killed by teenage white supremacists, plan to protest the parole of one of their son's killers. But they'll have to do it after the fact. Dorothy Dixon said Thursday she and her husband, Andrew, were to be notified when their son's killers came up for parole review. Instead, Dixon was shocked to learn Thursday that Donald Riley's parole was approved last month, without any input from the Dixon family. Anyone besides me angry about this?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

30th July 2004, 10:40 AM	#2
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Quote: Dorothy Dixon said Thursday she and her husband, Andrew, were to be notified when their son's killers came up for parole review. If the Dixons were given to understand that they would be notified, this is infuriating. Either they were told a lie - perhaps just to keep them quiet, and couched in careful legalese to give the impression without saying it - or the system is culpably incompetent. I have a question: would the Dixons actually have had any input to the parole hearing, or would they only have been allowed to observe? Observing the proceedings would at least have been better than learning about it after the event. At least they would have seen the parolee as the person he is now, however much they might continue to despise him.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

30th July 2004, 11:17 AM	#3
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	That is both sad and infuriating on many levels, not the least of which is the original crime.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

30th July 2004, 11:27 AM	#5
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Quote: Originally posted by jj That is both sad and infuriating on many levels, not the least of which is the original crime. Indeed. What makes it worse is wondering how that happened, then finding out that this is in Texas and your brain going, "Oh. I get it now." (No offense meant to Texans. Your state has a reputation for such attitudes, much like you'd expect me to be waving crystals, be a Mexican, and eating tofu, due to my location.)
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

30th July 2004, 12:03 PM	#6
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	Quote: Originally posted by CapelDodger If the Dixons were given to understand that they would be notified, this is infuriating. Either they were told a lie - perhaps just to keep them quiet, and couched in careful legalese to give the impression without saying it - or the system is culpably incompetent. I have a question: would the Dixons actually have had any input to the parole hearing, or would they only have been allowed to observe? Observing the proceedings would at least have been better than learning about it after the event. At least they would have seen the parolee as the person he is now, however much they might continue to despise him. The page after the page that Rob Lister posted (Page 9) shows that the Parole Board must meet with victims if the victims request a meeting. The law requires victims to be notified. ---------------------------------------- Part of the problem is that the Texas criminal justice system<sup>1</sup> does not have "life without possibility of parole." The lack of such an option helps prosecuters acheive Texas's record levels of executions. They tell juries that any decision other than lethal injection will result in the criminal having a chance to get out of prison. 1) After Kansas added the option this year, New Mexico and New Jersey are the only other states with a death penalty and no option of life without parole.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

30th July 2004, 11:26 AM	#4
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by CapelDodger If the Dixons were given to understand that they would be notified, this is infuriating. Either they were told a lie - perhaps just to keep them quiet, and couched in careful legalese to give the impression without saying it - or the system is culpably incompetent. I have a question: would the Dixons actually have had any input to the parole hearing, or would they only have been allowed to observe? Observing the proceedings would at least have been better than learning about it after the event. At least they would have seen the parolee as the person he is now, however much they might continue to despise him. It is unlikely that the parole board ever laid eyes on the guy. According to their website, the Texas Board only needs to see the prisoner's file. Ref: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/what...ole/page_8.htm

30th July 2004, 01:19 PM	#7
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by Ladewig The page after the page that Rob Lister posted (Page 9) shows that the Parole Board must meet with victims if the victims request a meeting. The law requires victims to be notified. But not the victim's relatives, I guess - isn't the victim dead in this case?
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

30th July 2004, 04:28 PM	#8
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn But not the victim's relatives, I guess - isn't the victim dead in this case? Dig them up to inform them? I have a problem with the whole concept of "victim impact" statements from relatives... I think it is a major concern to have the determination of sentences based on the relative oratory skills of the victims family and/or the victims relative "niceness" factor. Why should your sentence be extended or shortened depending on how nice/loved/virtuous/upstanding the victim is. Murder a Nun or Murder a Junkie, its still murder. I think this family have a valid point if they were given some promise that they would be told about any release but if the victims families end up influencing sentence duration then that guy that scratched my car is going to be inside for years if my views are taken into consideration.
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

31st July 2004, 08:49 AM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,146	Interesting that in Texas a life sentence is 60 years for parole purposes, while marijuana possession gets you 99 years. I'm glad to see that Texans priorities are in order. Gotta let loose those racist murderers to make room for the pot smokers!

31st July 2004, 09:44 AM	#10
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Why should your sentence be extended or shortened depending on how nice/loved/virtuous/upstanding the victim is. I take it that you oppose parole in general, then? After all, why should the sentence be shortened depending on how nice the criminal can look to the parole board? Oh wait. It's perfectly OK for the CRIMINAL to try and ingratiate himself with the parole board in order to shorten a sentence he was given, but it's evil and interfering for the stupid, worthless VICTIM to say anything that might make the criminal actually serve out his whole term.

31st July 2004, 10:02 AM	#11
evildave Guest Posts: n/a	Yeah, well, what's the life of one black marine, Tarron Dixon, who served his country, against the life of one worthless white racist good ol' boy? http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol63/96/Campu...8/9622098.html Quote: For almost seven years, Dorothy Dixon has avoided an area only one block from her home because she says every day, on that spot, she sees her husband holding her son's dying body. On the evening of June 7, 1991, four men followed, shot and killed Tarron Dixon while he was walking home alone. The next day his mother had planned a party to celebrate Tarron's return home from Operation Desert Storm where he served as a military officer. "(The killer) was getting a tattoo for a (skinhead) gang, and he had to shoot a black man to get brotherhood (into the gang)," Ms. Dixon said at the Hate Crime Conference held Thursday at the University of Houston Law Center. Apparently, Houston values the actions of its skinheads, and desires more of the same activities. After all, if you can get caught participating in a murder and only get a few years behind bars, it sends a clear message to others. Other stories that mention him... http://www.jfa.net/VOJ/Feb95.html http://www.performative.com/hosts/ha.../articles.html Of course, in Texas, if a black had killed a white guy, he'd have been much more likely to receive the death penalty. There are more blacks on death row than whites, yet only 11.5% of the population, while whites are 71.0% of the population. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
evildave Guest Posts: n/a

31st July 2004, 10:44 AM	#12
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn But not the victim's relatives, I guess - isn't the victim dead in this case? I was assuming that there was an implied inference that the victim's family would take the place of the victim in murder cases.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

31st July 2004, 10:59 AM	#13
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by Ladewig I was assuming that there was an implied inference that the victim's family would take the place of the victim in murder cases. And you could be totally right for all I know - I just couldn't find anything there saying so.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

31st July 2004, 02:42 PM	#14
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by evildave Of course, in Texas, if a black had killed a white guy, he'd have been much more likely to receive the death penalty. There are more blacks on death row than whites, yet only 11.5% of the population, while whites are 71.0% of the population. Trying being a skeptic for a change. What is the ratio of black to whites indicted for crimes that can receive the death penalty as punishment? At least try to provide evidence of your claim. Your assertion could be true, but the evidence you provided only could only be useful if the indictment rate matches the general population numbers.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

31st July 2004, 02:51 PM	#15
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,374	update Parole in hate-crime killing delayed. Looks like we may have jumped the gun a bit here. He's not being released yet. Of course, there is still the possibility that he may not be guilty. Quote: Meanwhile, a hearing is set for Oct. 14 on a writ of habeas corpus filed by Riley's attorneys seeking to overturn his conviction based on newly discovered evidence they said indicates he did not commit the crime. Actually, the most surprising thing about this thread is Tony's anger. This is the same guy who once thought it was okay to kill cops, and that the police weren't necessary. Apparently he thinks prisons are necessary, but how he intends to get the criminals to voluntarily enter prison is somewhat unclear.

31st July 2004, 06:21 PM	#16
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,768	Re: update Quote: Originally posted by Tricky Actually, the most surprising thing about this thread is Tony's anger. This is the same guy who once thought it was okay to kill cops, and that the police weren't necessary. Apparently he thinks prisons are necessary, but how he intends to get the criminals to voluntarily enter prison is somewhat unclear. I'm not surprised that you're surprised. No one on this board has misunderstood me more than you.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

1st August 2004, 05:23 AM	#17
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,374	Re: Re: update Quote: Originally posted by Tony I'm not surprised that you're surprised. No one on this board has misunderstood me more than you. Except maybe yourself.

1st August 2004, 08:16 AM	#18
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,114	Well, of course they didn't give him the death penalty. Texas only executes the retarded, don't they? I don't really understand the point of parole. If you're sentenced for a length of time, you go to prison, then you get to argue your way out of it? Why not just sentence them to shorter terms if you're going to let them out early? And the decision is based off what, behavior in prison? "I haven't robbed a single liquor store in the five years I've been locked up in here, which proves I'm reformed and deserve to skip the rest of my sentence." ?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

1st August 2004, 10:11 AM	#19
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,374	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey Well, of course they didn't give him the death penalty. Texas only executes the retarded, don't they? Yeah, but in Texas, that's pretty much everybody. Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey I don't really understand the point of parole. If you're sentenced for a length of time, you go to prison, then you get to argue your way out of it? Why not just sentence them to shorter terms if you're going to let them out early? And the decision is based off what, behavior in prison? "I haven't robbed a single liquor store in the five years I've been locked up in here, which proves I'm reformed and deserve to skip the rest of my sentence." ? One of the best "behaviors" you can adopt is to come to Jesus. This can be a very important factor in getting out early. It's one reason why the prisons of America are populated almost entirely by Christians.

1st August 2004, 11:11 AM	#20
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,768	Re: Re: Re: update Quote: Originally posted by Tricky Except maybe yourself. Lame.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

1st August 2004, 09:08 PM	#21
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Quote: Originally posted by Skeptic Oh wait. It's perfectly OK for the CRIMINAL to try and ingratiate himself with the parole board in order to shorten a sentence he was given, but it's evil and interfering for the stupid, worthless VICTIM to say anything that might make the criminal actually serve out his whole term. Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified and reflects very poorly on your character. corplinx Quote: At least try to provide evidence of your claim. Your assertion could be true, but the evidence you provided only could only be useful if the indictment rate matches the general population numbers. How so? Are you saying that all murderers have the same chance of being indicted?

1st August 2004, 09:35 PM	#22
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Quote: Originally posted by Art Vandelay Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified and reflects very poorly on your character. Thanks for your support Art but after a long long history of this sort of thing directed at me and many others by "skeptic" I now simply ignore him..Pointing out his dishonesty is a waste of breath.. but thanks anyway
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

1st August 2004, 09:39 PM	#23
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified Experience. Judging from the posts on this forum, "The Fool" had never met a liberal dogma he didn't like. He's for parole and against victim statements. Ask him if you don't believe me...

2nd August 2004, 01:57 AM	#24
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Quote: Originally posted by Skeptic I take it that you oppose parole in general, then? After all, why should the sentence be shortened depending on how nice the criminal can look to the parole board? Oh wait. It's perfectly OK for the CRIMINAL to try and ingratiate himself with the parole board in order to shorten a sentence he was given, but it's evil and interfering for the stupid, worthless VICTIM to say anything that might make the criminal actually serve out his whole term. I suppose it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is. At one end of the continuum are people who think all criminals are merely misunderstood unfortunates. At the other are people who think that prison was a retrograde step, and all criminals should be hanged immediately upon conviction (if not before). Speaking as someone closer to the "unfortunate" end of opinion, I believe that prison should offer an opportunity for a criminal to be rehabilitated into society. If they hit that target, then obviously they should be considered for an earlier release. It's not so much a case of "ingratiating" as showing that you are reformed. If I was someone closer to the "hang 'em" end of opinion, obviously I'd think that the victims and their families should be given every opportunity to make it known that they are still annoyed with the criminal - even though in the vast majority of cases it's going to be blindingly obvious that they are. (If it was common for victims to be given a meaningful say in parole hearings, I wonder if there would be cases of "victim nobbling", where victims are harrassed and intimidated into saying positive things?)
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

2nd August 2004, 04:38 PM	#25
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Quote: Originally posted by LostAngeles Indeed. What makes it worse is wondering how that happened, then finding out that this is in Texas and your brain going, "Oh. I get it now." (No offense meant to Texans. Your state has a reputation for such attitudes, much like you'd expect me to be waving crystals, be a Mexican, and eating tofu, due to my location.) Texas is also known for death sentences, as in the case of the "white supremacist" murderers of James Byrd. Why not in this case
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

2nd August 2004, 04:50 PM	#26
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,768	Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred Texas is also known for death sentences, as in the case of the "white supremacist" murderers of James Byrd. Why not in this case That's one of the things that really piss me off about this. He didn't get the death penalty, ok, but he at least should have received life in prison without parole. It's fuct up that he only served 13 years for killing a dude in cold blood for no other reason than the color of his skin. In the meantime, some drug dealer is serving a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence. What ever happened to "liberty and justice for all"?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

2nd August 2004, 05:41 PM	#27
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Quote: Originally posted by Skeptic Your putting words in The Fool's mouth is completely unjustified Experience. Judging from the posts on this forum, "The Fool" had never met a liberal dogma he didn't like. He's for parole and against victim statements. Ask him if you don't believe me... Let me get this right, because you don't agree with "The Fool"'s politics, you think it's ok to put any words you want in his mouth? Is this an example of neo-conservative ethics in action?
	__________________ The Power to Quit