Kidnapped girl in FL found dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
all for the purpose of seeing to it that killers go free because they were out of sorts in their mental state

I see, so is it fair to assume that you do not recognize defenses of diminished capacity, mental retardation and insanity? I assume further that you would not see those as mitigating factors in a punishment phase even if not applicable in the guilt phase...

Hey maybe when one of you or one of relatives gets cuaght DWI or maybe fallin asleep at the wheel and killin somebody, god forbid, you too will have your own "liar" to represent your interests...

wouldyoupulltheleverwithconviction?" Or "wouldyouwaitforGodtostrikehimdown

I would never take a job as an executioner, not my cup of chai. I would condemn someone to death if on a jury and appropriate circumstances were laid before it. I wouldnt go on a meassge Board and shout gleefully that "hey I hung the bastid", or "the dirty rotten snipe deserved it" while punctuating my remarks with cutie smilies such as:cuss: and:fire: and I doubt real executioners, saddled with a solemn duty that probably takes a lot out of em, would do so either.

WildwherearethevaluesAlaska
 
Every time I see thne video of the abduction of that little girl I am so very thankful that we had boys. As long as Michael Jackson doesn't get to my little part of Florida they will be safe. Just kidding, they are both too old to be of interest to a pervert.

Not that it will give any comfort to the victims parents, but child molesters have a decidedly shortened life span in prison. "Short Eyes" I believe the term is are hated and despised just as much by the Normal criminals as by you and I only they have nothing to lose by offing a worthless piece of dog crap like this one. Like so many others I just think its a damn shame the Judge who refused to jail the scum can't be sentenced right along with him.

Bring back public executions in the town square at high noon, sell food and drink and give the proceeds to the victims family.
 
I will agree that Mr. Joseph Smith deserves a fair and impartial trial. That being said, if he is found competent to stand trial and, he is found guilty of the murder of that INNOCENT LITTLE GIRL by a preponderance of the evidence, then I have no problem with him being drawn and quartered. If however he is found to be of diminished capacity, then he should be locked away for the rest of his natural life period. He has shown himself to be a career criminal and in my opinion (and as a person of decent moral values and the ability to reason, I have a right to an opinion) this miscreant has earned the privilege of never being allowed to socialize publicly.

















4570scumbagcriminalsareathreattosocietyRick
 
I see, so is it fair to assume that you do not recognize defenses of diminished capacity, mental retardation and insanity? I assume further that you would not see those as mitigating factors in a punishment phase even if not applicable in the guilt phase...
There are occasions when those arguments could be made. Roughly 1 case in about 500,000, maybe, if that.

The original legal principle behind what is commonly known as "the insanity defense" is that the accused is rendered incapable of material participation in their own defense by the effects of their alleged mental illness/incapacity.

Today's courts have perverted that principle for reasons of expediency. If a person is truly incapable of participating in their own defense, then they should be voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental health care facility until such time that they are deemed by the medical profession to have recovered sufficiently to then participate in their own defense. That is currently not the case. In today's courts, malfeasance is the order of the day in that the accused in these cases are never tried in order to determine whether or not the accused did in fact commit/not commit their alleged crime. Perhaps most ironic of all is that murder cases - more so than most other cases - would accomodate even the longest of committment terms since there is no statute of limitations on MURDER.

But justice is not what is sought in these cases. Justice doesn't seem to be sought anywhere any more. Justice would demand that reasonable people understand that a person capable of stalking, abducting, murdering, and doing God only knows whatthehellelse to a child, while evading all but the most sophisticated means of detection, is in no way a candidate for a diminished capacity defense. A reasonable person already understands that people who are truly unaware, people incapable of the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) would also be totally incapable of stealth and cunning. By definition those suspects would be completely incapable of understanding the need for those things.

The death of this sweet child is sad, but most tragic of all is that there will be a thousand more where she came from because virtually no one cares that the law has been so horribly perverted. And of that pathetic rabble, there are those who will immediately leap to the defense of killers of the innocent, no matter how flagrant their crime. No matter how unspeakable their acts.

Not even when they see it with their own eyes.
 
Crime and punishment...

WildAlaska: I see, so while you could vote to convict/execute someone, you don't have the werewhithall to do the deed yourself after conviction? Hmmm.... I do believe that there is a term for one who holds such a position, but its not spoken in polite society.

:scrutiny:

As for diminished mental capicity and capital punishment. We as a society will 'put down' a mad dog, or even a dog that behiaves like a dog and defends his food, but not a 'human' who has proven themselves to be untrustworthy and a danger to others. This has puzzled me to no end since I was a kid.

The accused in this sad case has a long, documented history of anti-social behaivor and predatory actions on his own species, yet time after time he was let loose to walk the streets and indulge his urges. This infuriates and sickens me to no end.
 
WildwherearethevaluesAlaska

If the man is guilty, I'd have no problem in pulling the lever and would feel good about having helped society.


I see, so is it fair to assume that you do not recognize defenses of diminished capacity, mental retardation and insanity? I assume further that you would not see those as mitigating factors in a punishment phase even if not applicable in the guilt phase...

I'm going to assume this girl was sexually assaulted before (and/or after?) being murdered, since these kinds of persons need more than killing to satisfy their sick urges. If this is the case, I don't see how any defense can explain away premeditation. I'd also argue that this person may be, make that IS, insane. So was Ted Bundy, but not to the exclusion of their grasp that what they were doing was wrong. Insanity doesn't seem to be a defense that would sway most juries when the prosecutor presents photos of wounds and bite marks on the victim or shows the RFLP autorad of the defendant's DNA, the victim's DNA and the Killer's DNA (which matches the defendant), as collected from vaginal swabs.
 
Rick
I will agree that Mr. Joseph Smith deserves a fair and impartial trial. That being said, if he is found competent to stand trial and, he is found guilty of the murder of that INNOCENT LITTLE GIRL by a preponderance of the evidence, then I have no problem with him being drawn and quartered. If however he is found to be of diminished capacity, then he should be locked away for the rest of his natural life period.

The standard is reasonable doubt, not preponderance.

Dont you think that we are a bit more civilized than doing "drawing and quartering"??? Or are we to sink, as a society, to the level of those we excoriate.

Hunter gatherer:

There are occasions when those arguments could be made. Roughly 1 case in about 500,000, maybe, if that.

O really? got some stats or facts to back up that statement?

The original legal principle behind what is commonly known as "the insanity defense" is that the accused is rendered incapable of material participation in their own defense by the effects of their alleged mental illness/incapacity.

Sorry that is wrong.

If a person is truly incapable of participating in their own defense, then they should be voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental health care facility until such time that they are deemed by the medical profession to have recovered sufficiently to then participate in their own defense. That is currently not the case.

That is also completely erroneus.

Sindawe
WildAlaska: I see, so while you could vote to convict/execute someone, you don't have the werewhithall to do the deed yourself after conviction? Hmmm.... I do believe that there is a term for one who holds such a position, but its not spoken in polite society.

There is also a term for someone who would eagerly seek out the chance to kill another human being isnt there....

We as a society will 'put down' a mad dog, or even a dog that behiaves like a dog and defends his food, but not a 'human' who has proven themselves to be untrustworthy and a danger to others. This has puzzled me to no end since I was a kid.

Puzzles PETA too, they dont see any difference between men and animals.

Bill

If the man is guilty, I'd have no problem in pulling the lever and would feel good about having helped society.

Would ya really? Really Bill, not a twinge of conscience? How would ya feel if ya pulled the switch and the person was later found innocent?


WildgooddebatesofarexceptforsomeflamersAlaska
 
Okay, enough of this. Here's the background on what constitutes or does not constitute legal instanity in the state of Florida.

http://www.chackoforensicpsychiatry.com/news/2003/news_06.htm

What is the Florida Test for Criminal Insanity?

The test of legal insanity in Florida is taken from the M'Naghten rule, derived from England's M'Naghten law of 1843. To establish an insanity defense under the M'Naghten rule, a defendant must prove that at the time of the criminal act, he was "laboring under such a defect of reason from mental illness as not to know the nature and quality of the act or not to know that the act was wrong." Florida has followed the M'Naghten rule since the Florida Supreme Court decided Davis v. State, (Fla. 1902), a century ago.

The Florida Standard Jury Instructions tells the jury "A person is considered to be insane when (1) he had a mental infirmity, disease or defect and (2) because of this condition he did not know what he was doing or its consequences or, although he knew what he was doing and its consequences, he did not know it was wrong."
 
How would ya feel if ya pulled the switch and the person was later found innocent?

If the perp has left DNA or dental evidence behind, or has the victim's hair and fiber evidence in his vehicle as well as the videotape of him and, perhaps, matching shoeprints at the scene, then I'd hardly think that his innocence is much of an issue. Eyewitness testimony is another matter.


Really Bill, not a twinge of conscience?

Same twinge I get when stepping on a roach.
 
Wildalaska, I don't think I'm particularly mean or hard hearted. I'm kinda laid back and easy going. I basically like people, mostly.

That said, I grew up with the notion that "Some folks just need killin'." I figure that if somebody acts in such a manner as to deny their own humanity, the "step on a roach" comment is quite apropos. This doesn't mean I'm all slobbery over the opportunity to be an executioner, but it's sorta hard to get excited against the job.

:), Art
 
I don't believe in the idea of "not guilty by reason of insanity". If you're mentally ill to the point of commiting a crime, you're just as great a threat to society as you would be if you had willfully and knowingly committed the same crime.
 
I grew up with the notion that "Some folks just need killin'."
Art .. I agree. And I say that as a VERY peace lovin guy .. I have little wish to cause harm to anyone ... almost too 'soft'' some might say.

But .. in certain cases I am afraid I do think like this .. when facts prove beyond doubt that a perp ''did it'' ....... and when it is something like this, then I feel the perp has rescinded all right to life on this small and ever more over crowded rock we live on.

Harsh maybe, but ........
 
Edited for the benefit of Wildalaska

I will agree that Mr. Joseph Smith deserves a fair and impartial trial. That being said, if he is found competent to stand trial and, he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of that INNOCENT LITTLE GIRL, then I have no problem with him being drawn and quartered. If however he is found to be of diminished capacity, then he should be locked away for the rest of his natural life period. He has shown himself to be a career criminal and in my opinion (and as a person of decent moral values and the ability to reason, I have a right to an opinion) this miscreant has earned the privilege of never being allowed to socialize publicly.

I hope this is more to the liking of Wild. The point I was making is this. If Joe Smith is found to have caused the death of an 11 year old child, he in essence, mentally disturbed or not, has by his actions, relinquished his rights to freedom now and forever.

As for the drawn and quartered remark, it is a metaphor for "Let the state of Florida put him to death by whatever means they deem appropriate, beit old sparky, old ropy, old gassy, or old needley.
 
Last edited:
WildAlaska: I'm not looking for every opportunity to kill another human being. I just will not ask of another person something that I am not willing to do myself. With respect to the manner of execution in our society, IMHO it has become far too 'sanitary'. Killing another person is a great and terrible thing, something not to be taken lightly, and those in whos name the killing is done need to know, in the core of their being the magnitite of the act. Executions behind closed doors, by chemical injection makes it far too easy for those not directly involved to pretend it does not effect them, and that they are not party to it.

Art/VNgo/P95: My thoughts exactly
 
It's you tax payers who are at fault, you won't spend the money to build the prisons to keep these monsters locked-up and you don't have the stomach to put them to death. What do you expect? Judges are given sentencing guidelines based on the amount of space available in the jails and prisons. It is NOT uncommon for a jail or prison to refuse a sentenced inmate due to a lack of room. You get what you pay for and we have nothing more than a part-time penal system.
 
I do believe in insanity as a defense. Insanity means that you do not know right from wrong. It is not a temporary condition. It is a mental inadequacy, and it is as scarce as dinosaur feathers and bear eggs. If a person does not know right from wrong, someone has been caring for them, seeing that they eat, and wear a coat when it is cold, and taking care of their medical needs. In that case there is a secondary responsibility with the person caring for them. If they have been working and supporting themselves, they understand right and wrong, and are not insane.

If there is a conviction in this case I think the killer should be executed. If there is a problem finding an executioner, I will hitchhike to florida and do it for them. I would not mind facing god with his execution on my conscience.

I think the criminal justice system that let him walk the streets is criminal and is a system, but it is not just.
 
telewinz

I agree. A few years ago, Orange County wanted to build a jail in Santa Ana. The NIMBY's went balistic, saying it would be dangerous to have jail inmates so close to residential neighborhoods. So instead, they roam the streets for lack of facilities to confine them.:fire:
 
And to raise those mob like animalistic cries makes us no better than the beasts we seek to keep away from our homes and families
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WA, are you able to make evaluative judgements? I mean, other than about the worthiness of your kindred here on TFL. The man is caught on tape. There are distinguishing characteristics. He has a record as long as your arm. An 11-year old child is dead, and her community grieves. What does it take for you to draw a conclusion of "guilty as charged"? Also, what difference does his mental state make? If he has the mental capacity to carry out such a crime, he has the responsibility to be punished accordingly.

There ARE moral absolutes. This man violated numero uno. He should die, at the hands of the State.
 
How about a little perspective about this guy's long "rap sheet?"

A complete news story detailing his record is below. Here are excerpts.

Smith's first brush with Florida's criminal justice system was a 1993 arrest for attacking a woman on a street in Sarasota, breaking her nose with a motorcycle helmet. He plead no contest to aggravated battery and served 60 days in jail followed by two years on probation.

So far so good?

In 1997, he was put on one year's probation on a concealed weapons charge for carrying a five-inch knife hidden in the waistband of his shorts.

Aren't most of us in favor of removing licensing for concealed carry? Don't many of us advocate carrying protection regardless of the law? So isn't this guy on our side?

In 1999, he was arrested for heroin possession and was put on probation for 18 months. A month later, he was arrested for prescription fraud, but the charge was dropped.

Ah, yes, The War on Some Drugs. Don't many here advocate decriminalizing victimless "crimes" like drug abuse and letting people poison themselves if they wish?

The next year, he was arrested again for prescription fraud and sentenced to six months of house arrest followed by a year on probation.
...
In 2001, Smith was arrested for prescription fraud, and that time he did land in prison. He served about 13 months of a 16-month sentence and was released on New Year's Day 2003.

Eight days later, deputies found Smith passed out in his car with drugs on the seat beside him.

He could have gone to prison for five years, but a scoring system that judges use to determine sentencing didn't add up to enough to put Smith in prison, records showed. Instead, he was put on probation for three more years.

Here's the thing: With the exception of whacking a chick with a helmet ten years ago, for which he served his time, the guy hadn't committed a violent crime.

This is not a "revolving door" case. Yes, he might be a bad guy, but the system, correctly, decided to put other, presumably worse bad guys into the already-full-to-overflowing prison.

The prisons, we know, wouldn't be nearly so full if drugs were decriminalized. But if they were, he still wouldn't be in.

Unfortunately, we can't see into people's hearts. If we could, this guy might have been locked up. But the system did not substantially fail us in this particular case. We just had no way of knowing that this guy would turn out to be a kidnapping murderer.

This sucks, but unfortunately I see very little that could have been done differently.


http://www.startribune.com/stories/670/4364901.html
Slain Girl's Kin Question Justice System
By VICKIE CHACHERE, Associated Press Writer

Published February 8, 2004 0208AP-ABDUCTION-FIL



SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) - For the better part of a decade, the man suspected of killing an 11-year-old girl whose abduction was caught on videotape had been under the supervision of Florida's criminal justice system. But despite his many brushes with the law, Joseph P. Smith never spent long behind bars.

Now, Carlie Brucia's grieving family is demanding to know why Smith - a drug addict who admitted attacking one woman and was accused of trying to kidnap another - was a free man.

The longest Smith has ever spent in prison is less than 14 months. He was acquitted of the most serious crime on his rap sheet, an attempted kidnapping, after telling jurors he meant the woman no harm.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said Saturday that his office already was reviewing whether the state's probation laws need to be toughened to deal with offenders like Smith.

"You can't help but think some of the statutes are too permissive," Crist told The Associated Press. "I think it's important we review putting more teeth into our statutes."

Crist said the laws being reviewed deal with probation violators and the options judges are given to punish them.

That review took on new intensity Friday when Joe Brucia, Carlie's father, called on Gov. Jeb Bush for an investigation of why Smith had served relatively little time in prison despite more than a dozen arrests.

"The system failed Joe, and it failed that little girl," Smith's friend and former business partner, Ed Dinyes, told the St. Petersburg Times.

Dinyes, who said he called police after recognizing Smith in video images broadcast soon after the abduction, told the AP that although he's struggling with the idea that Smith could be Carlie's killer, his friend should have been locked up because of his repeated crimes.

"Joe is the one who must pay the price for this, but the state of Florida has to take a good long look at the probation department and find out what went wrong," Dinyes said.

Carlie was abducted Feb. 1 while walking home from a friend's house, and videotape from a security camera at a car wash showed her being led away by a man police say was Smith. The girl's body was found Friday in a church parking lot.

Sarasota Circuit Judge Harry Rapkin, the latest judge to have handled Smith's case, said Friday he was not at fault for not putting Smith in jail when the unemployed mechanic failed to pay court costs and fines in December.

There's no "debtor's prison" in Florida and Smith wouldn't have been held simply for not paying a bill, the judge said.

Rapkin has been receiving threatening telephone calls for his handling of the case, even though he never even saw Smith in his courtroom.

Smith's first brush with Florida's criminal justice system was a 1993 arrest for attacking a woman on a street in Sarasota, breaking her nose with a motorcycle helmet. He plead no contest to aggravated battery and served 60 days in jail followed by two years on probation.

Since then, Smith has been on probation almost continually.

In 1997, he was put on one year's probation on a concealed weapons charge for carrying a five-inch knife hidden in the waistband of his shorts.

In 1999, he was arrested for heroin possession and was put on probation for 18 months. A month later, he was arrested for prescription fraud, but the charge was dropped.

The next year, he was arrested again for prescription fraud and sentenced to six months of house arrest followed by a year on probation.

According to court records, his probation officer said it was impossible to tell if a positive drug test result was from an illegal drug or a legitimate prescription of Oxycontin for severe, chronic back pain.

"Needs long term residential treatment ... prison if necessary," the probation officer wrote in a report that's now a part of Smith's court file.

As the newest judge on Smith's case, Rapkin said he's never seen that report or others on Smith's crimes throughout the years.

In 2001, Smith was arrested for prescription fraud, and that time he did land in prison. He served about 13 months of a 16-month sentence and was released on New Year's Day 2003.

Eight days later, deputies found Smith passed out in his car with drugs on the seat beside him.

He could have gone to prison for five years, but a scoring system that judges use to determine sentencing didn't add up to enough to put Smith in prison, records showed. Instead, he was put on probation for three more years.

State Sen. Victor Crist, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and a leading legislator in anti-crime initiatives for the past decade, said it is ultimately the judge's decision when not to use the full measure of punishment allowed by the law.

"The laws are there," Crist said. "We can always tweak them, we can always make tougher penalties, but the bottom line is we have tough penalties, we just don't enforce them."
© Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

[edit: sticky space bar! Added spaces at "hadnoway"]
 
Last edited:
Art:

This doesn't mean I'm all slobbery over the opportunity to be an executioner, but it's sorta hard to get excited against the job.

We are in agreement then...I cant say that I oppose death...but ya aint gonna see me getting all slobbery and excited over it.

Bill
If the perp has left DNA or dental evidence behind, or has the victim's hair and fiber evidence in his vehicle as well as the videotape of him and, perhaps, matching shoeprints at the scene, then I'd hardly think that his innocence is much of an issue.

Hmm..according to the FBI forensic labs, such evidence doesnt lie....does it? :)

Hutch
The man is caught on tape. There are distinguishing characteristics. He has a record as long as your arm. An 11-year old child is dead, and her community grieves. What does it take for you to draw a conclusion of "guilty as charged"? Also, what difference does his mental state make? If he has the mental capacity to carry out such a crime, he has the responsibility to be punished accordingly.

As to record, see Mpaynes answer....

As to what it takes for me to draw a conclusion of guilty as charged...I will never do that..I will however defer to the decsion of the jury who hears all the evidence....

And what difference does his mental state make? Arent there sceanrios where a person is not insane under the terms of the Mcnaughton rule but are still mentally ill? Guilty yes, but should they die if their mental illness is the root casue of their crime?

WilquestionsquestionsAlaska
 
here be yet another reason i am going to buy my girlfriend (soon to be fiance) whatever piece fits her as soon as she gets her ccw. nothing says i love you like a little .357, right?:D
 
With the exception of whacking a chick with a helmet ten years ago, for which he served his time, the guy hadn't committed a violent crime.

Correction, wasn't CONVICTED of a violent crime. Attempted kidnapping sure qualifies.

I wonder what he wanted with that young woman?

Hmm..according to the FBI forensic labs, such evidence doesnt lie....does it?

The evidence doesn't, but those working with it might. I'd want it to be available for independent analysis by the defense.
 
Guilty yes, but should they die if their mental illness is the root casue of their crime?

Yes. I would go so far as to say someone who commits a capital crime due to insanity should always be executed, since there is little chance of rehabilitation and it would be an utter waste of taxpayer money to try.
 
With the exception of whacking a chick with a helmet ten years ago, for which he served his time, the guy hadn't committed a violent crime.
Correction, wasn't CONVICTED of a violent crime. Attempted kidnapping sure qualifies.

Qualifies as what? He was acquitted.

This is, again, what the news article said:
He was acquitted of the most serious crime on his rap sheet, an attempted kidnapping, after telling jurors he meant the woman no harm.

This sentence from the article is written in a very biased manner.

He was acquitted. Therefore it certainly is NOT a "crime" on his "rap sheet" any more than anyone else arrested, charged and found not guilty. It's the way our system works. It should have read:

He was acquitted of the most serious charge on his rap sheet, an alleged attempted kidnapping, after successfully convincing jurors he meant the woman no harm.

Maybe he really wasn't guilty of attempted kidnaping in that instance. In any case, he was judged and acquitted by a jury of his peers. The system worked just like it was supposed to.

This whole event was a horrible tragedy, but there is really no one to blame except the sicko who did the crime.

No change in the criminal justice system, short of "damn the trials -- shoot all suspects" would have made a difference.

If anything at all can be taken away from this, it is to better train and more closely guard your children.
 
Guilty yes, but should they die if their mental illness is the root casue of their crime?
If it would be unjust to put them to death for their crime, would it not then be unjust to incarcerate them? You say that their illness is "the root cause" are they not then absolved? Taking a person's liberty is nothing to be considered lightly.

If illness caused their crime, and they are not responsible for the illness, how then can they be expected to pay - in any fashion - for said crime?

In any case, the most common thread that invariably runs through the litany of legal fictions called "the insanity defense" or "the McNaughton rule" (from English common law BTW) is that these bastards are insane enough for their lawyers to plead it, but not so insane as to avoid slinking back under their rock in the aftermath of the mayhem they inflict. Yeah, they don't know right from wrong. It's simply a coincidence that they do double-back handsprings to hide their crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top