Mark Byron's Facebook Posts About Estranged Wife Lead To Odd Choice

First I want to state that I am personally not in agreement with any of what has happened regarding this issue and completely sympathize with your logic. I believe that Mark Byron displayed nothing more than poor judgment. However laws are written in “specific content” and not “implied content”. Laws relating to the internet are still evolving within the judicial system for various reasons, privacy issues being at the top.



Most everyone should be aware of the fact that privacy on Facebook is a complete oxymoron, even more so now that Facebook has introduced ‘Frictionless Apps’ with their new Timeline. The greatest fallacy concerning Facebook is the belief that Mark Zuckerberg created it as a Social Networking Site. It is nothing more than a tool devised as a means of herding the general population toward any marketer looking for a potential customer base.



The flipside of this issue is that blocked or not, all Byron’s ex-wife had to do was Google him and she could very well have been able to pull up his Facebook page and read it for herself; which in my opinion puts her in contempt of the same court order. Google your own name, see what comes up.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mark Byron's Facebook Posts About Estranged Wife Lead To Odd Choice

I realize that the greater majority of us have at least once or twice heard the old saying “Say it Forget It – Write it Regret It.”



While I personally feel that an individuals’ Facebook page should have the same privacy rights as does a piece of mail sent via the U.S. Postal Service. I also feel that the invasion of an individual Facebook page should be protected under the same ‘search and seizure’ laws as described in the Fourth Amendment.



Simply because if I take the time to read all of their rules, regulations, requirements and what nots concerning how to properly use my privacy settings to include deactivating the ‘friend feed’ which is new, then I have clearly stated that this is not ‘for public consumption’ period. But it is not that way.



Facebook itself has not been as cooperative [in my opinion] as they should be in regards to the privacy settings that are constantly changing, a fact that warranted an investigation by the FCC. Unfortunately Facebook was not, is not and never will be anything more than a money making tool for Zuckerberg and nothing else.



There is only one way to get this barefoot CEO to listen is to stop using Facebook. Even if it was just for one week, he would lose more money in that week than most of us will see in our life time.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jessica Hardin, Accused Of Forcing Step-Daughter To Run To Death, Gives Birth In Custody

“There's more to this story, I'm sure. A healthy 9-year-old body should be resilient enough to withstand a great deal of physical activity. If a child is regularly denied nourishment and hydration, it would result in a weakened condition for the child. Before anyone jumps on me about jumping to conclusions, this is just me trynna figure out how a child of that age could die from a 3 hour run.”

The above comment by minerva117 on the Huffington Posts coverage of this event caught my attention.  I can agree with only the first line because I also believe that there is always ‘more to the story’ than is reported regardless of the subject.

Personally I believe that this individual’s comment was not quite so well thought out prior to posting it because the overall ignorance of what is actually required of the body to run for a three hour period [regardless of age] is brilliantly presented.  However, I decided to actually attempt some form of basic explanation that would fit within the maximum 250 word count allowed for comments made on the Huffington Post.  The posted comment is as follows:

“One point that comes to my mind after reading this article is that she was being ‘punished’ for eating chocolate because of a bladder condition that was irritated by the caffeine.  Unfortunately the other problem that I’m sure they [the step-mother and grandmother] were not aware of is that caffeine is also a culprit for adverse effects in physical activity, especially running.

In the early days of my military service we were all told to avoid certain types of foods at least a day [12 hours] prior to any serious physical fitness training.  The Fitness Test administered once a year only required a 2 mile run with a time limit that varied based on sex and age.  The same with the push-ups and sit-ups, the time frame of 2 minutes was standard across the board; however the required repetitions varied based on the soldiers sex and age.

My point referencing this article is that this young girl had consumed chocolate which contains caffeine and was allegedly punished by having to run for 3 hours.  Caffeine is at the top of the list of things to avoid consuming prior to any serious physical exercise.  The Fitness Test required by the Army if completed within the required time frame took less than 30 minutes.  Running for 3 hours straight goes beyond serious physical training.

Therefore my personal opinion on this situation is that this young girl was ‘punished to death’ even though it was because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the participants.”

However, as usual I have so much more to say on this topic than is allowed based on the [understandable] restrains in place by Huffington Post.

I’m not going to do it for anyone, interested parties can look it up for themselves on the web; however there are numerous accounts of young athletes that have suffered irreparable physical damage an even death due to their participation in scheduled scholastic athletic events.  These are individuals who were active participants in programs that required them to perform a certain amount of physical activity on a regularly scheduled basis.  They are not individuals who just went out one day and decided to run for three hours straight.

Regardless of any additional health factors, children’s bodies are not developed enough to withstand the physical rigors of strenuous training.  Even older, more experienced athletes would not attempt to run for a three hour period without some form of ‘buildup’ time.

In my opinion what these women allegedly forced this young girl to do went well above and beyond the realm of punishment.  This was flat out torturous abuse on a level that must be addressed as such.

I will continue to follow this article, if for nothing else to shake my head for the comments posted by the likes of minerva117.

About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Paul Pfeifer, Ohio Judge, Rejects Death Penalty Law He Wrote

It is quite obvious that Judge Pfeifer’s view on the Death Penalty has changed since he participated in the writing of Ohio’s Death Penalty Law 30 years ago.  It is not unusual as [the Ohio Law] has undergone a few changes since then from other legal actions.  Regardless, as the article pointed out that it is not uncommon for ‘sitting’ judges to change their minds when it comes to the Death Penalty, the only thing that makes this situation so unique is that this judge is now opposing the same law he helped to write.

The article relates that he is not completely opposed to the use of the Death Penalty, inferring that he feels that prosecutors are ‘over seeking’ this sentence.  Judge Pfeifer’s position on this sentence is that it should be “reserved for those committing what the state views as the most heinous of murders” but the article does not go into what Ohio classifies as ‘most heinous’ crimes.

The two cases cited in the article, in his opinion did not warrant the Death Penalty.  Based on my understanding of Ohio Laws regarding what constitutes a Death Penalty sentence, these cases were neither aggravated nor particularly gruesome.  These are the elements of the homicides which I believe are the reasons why he opposed the death penalty in those particular cases.

The article further relates that in 2001 Judge Pfeifer disagreed with the death sentence in two cases and upheld the sentence in five other cases although he disagreed on certain aspects of the sentences in four of those five cases.  The fact that he does support the death penalty in cases where it is clearly ‘viewed as the most heinous of murders’ was demonstrated in December of 2012 where he actually set the execution date and signed the order for a man who raped and killed his girlfriends’ three year old daughter.  The age of the victim in this case is what established this crime as ‘most heinous’ in the eyes of the court.

As a judge on the Supreme Court it is his job to make decisions and to take positions that are intended to make the laws better.  Following every murder trial, regardless of what state or how high the case moves through the court system, all Supreme Court Judges will release an ‘Opinion’ which can be compared to a ‘summary view’ of the case that will always make references to previous cases.  These opinions serve many purposes such as establishing the legal facts of the case and whether the actions of the court were in conjunction with current laws governing such a decision or ruling.  These opinions also lay the groundwork for new laws such as was seen in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona which now requires that every person who is arrested must clearly understand their rights under the constitution.

Judges, regardless of their position within the court system are entitled to their opinions just as anyone.  It is only when they allow their personal opinions to influence their decisions.  Judge Pfeifer has apparently been successful in the legal aspect of keeping his personal opinion out of his decisions based on the fact that Ohio’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has stated that she is comfortable that Pfeifer is following the law and not showing his bias.  This fact is demonstrated in the cases where he upheld the death sentences even though he did not agree with the totality of the cases.

My personal opinion regarding these facts when it comes to Judge Pfeifer and his position on the death penalty is that when the jury convicts and recommends the death sentence, if the law allows him do to so then Judge Pfeifer will opt for the life without parole over the death penalty in cases where the crime was not by legal definition a ‘most heinous’ crime.

That is why I posted that although juries may recommend the death sentence, judges have the option to not follow that recommendation.  There have been cases in the past where the jury has recommended life without parole and the judge has gone with the maximum sentence of death.  In fact, Ohio judges have gone against the jury recommendation of the death penalty seven times since the sentence was reinstated back in 1981.  So it goes both ways.

Read full story on The Huffington Post:

Paul Pfeifer, Ohio Judge, Rejects Death Penalty Law He Wrote

 

Opinion: Judge Paul Pfeifer's Stance on Ohio's Death Penalty Law

As an avid reader of various crime publications, this particular blog is primarily dedicated to those I have read through the Huffington Post and decided to comment on.  My initial comment on this article is as follows:

Unfortunately the Death Penalty has lost the power it once had and is no longer a deterrent of any kind.  During my research for my thesis on the Felony Murder Rule, I discovered interestingly enough that the average time from arrest to the court room is approximately 3 to 6 years depending on the state and the evidence.   Further findings revealed that across the nation the average wait on Death Row following a conviction is approximately 10 – 11 years. 

I personally support the Death Penalty, however I do feel that it should be reserved for homicides that can be proven by the prosecution to be premeditated and carried out in a particularly grotesque or heinous manner.  This would require that the forensic evidence was abundant [not necessarily massive], clear and that it indisputably implicated the defendant in the case.

Although stated in various ways and by various individuals, I do have to agree that “It is better that 10 guilty go free that to have convicted one innocent.”  I don’t believe that the Death Penalty will ever have the same power it once had in this country.  Pretty much all of Europe has abolished it, which is why we have so much difficulty getting them to agree to extradition as long as the Death Penalty is on the table.

About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kevin Barwell, Retired Correctional Officer, Blasts Conditions At Albion Prison Where Dennis Austin Died

I am not commenting on this article because I am defending the criminal himself in this case rather the U.S. Constitution.

However, after discussing this article and some of the comments with a colleague I have to admit that he made an interesting point.  Observing not just the comments on the article, he noted that for a society that claims to be based on the Christian faith, there are a great many that also appear to support retributive justice.  Further into the discussion on the subject he compared this to the way certain Christians have a habit of pulling specific passages from the Bible in order to make a point.  The same can be said for those who pull specific sections of the U.S. Constitution in order to defend specific actions.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:  “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”

Regardless of the crimes committed, criminals have been brought before a court of law.  They have been tried, convicted by a jury and sentenced in accordance with that finding.  As a society we don’t necessarily have to approve of the results of that process, our entire social structure on the values laid out in that document.

A fact that I did find very interesting as I proceeded to continue reading various comments on this particular article.  While an individual using the pseudo name of ‘Blue Knight’ seems to think that what has happened in this case is ‘justified simply because this man was a convicted criminal’ which is completely absurd in my opinion.

In one post Blue Knight stated simply [quote] The bible states ‘tooth for a tooth’ & ‘eye for an eye’  [end quote]

I believe this is what my colleague was speaking of during our conversation about some of the comments on this article when he stated that certain Christians have a habit of pulling specific passages from the Bible in order to make a point.

The entire scripture reads:  “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:  But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smith thee on thy right cheek, to him the other also” Matthew 5:38-39

And for further reading:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.  Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:19-21

As I continued to read additional comments, curiously enough the Biblical logic continues with this comment from Jason McMahon:  [quote] – Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”  Thats the bible telling you its fun to stone your child...ca­nt really trust every passage in the bible. [end quote]

My response to this was simple:

Interesting.  That particular passage [Psalm 137:9] is in reality the writer speaking of the vengeance the Lord will take upon the Babylonians.  The terminology is symbolic, not literal.  The entire 137^th Psalm is a song of lament that was written during the time period that the Hebrews were held captive by the Babylonians from about 586 to 538 B.C.

I will continue to follow this article.

About Skin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Society, The Justice System & The Jodi Arias Case

The purpose of this post concerns the number of opinions that have been expressed on the Huffington Post regarding the Jodi Arias case and the fact that the defendant is female. Complicate­d by the apparent view that if there are females on the jury panel the courts run the risk that sympathy will play a role in these jurors ability to follow the judicial instructio­ns that guilt or innocence is to based entirely on the evidence presented by the prosecutio­n and nothing else.

I am personally offended at the implicatio­n that women are not strong enough of mind and judgment to know that individual­s who commit crimes of this heinous level simply cannot be allowed the opportunit­y to continue to live among a civilized society. I believe that violent women has always existed, the trend of women who commit violent acts whether they are Domestic Violence or otherwise are growing at an alarming rate in this country. Thankfully it is not being ignored by those who have the power to do something about it. Unfortunat­ely not everyone is aware of this fact.
 

Respectfully, my continued posts in matters of this nature and regardless of the article concerned are made in opposition to ‘knee jerk generalizations’ when making comments.  As a full time Criminal Justice student, studying the law is what I do for approximately 8 – 10 hours a day for at least 4 – 5 days a week.  While I am an active participant in these matters within my home state, my studies are on a federal thus a national level.

It is interesting how things change.

A review of English Common Law which is the foundation of the American Criminal Justice System, historically it was socially acceptable for a man to literally beat his wife, thus the origin of the saying “Rule of Thumb” which means that as long as the husband used a stick that was no thicker than his thumb the beating was acceptable.  Also, in the case of a married woman being raped, if she was not dead or very seriously injured in the course of her defending herself the courts ruled that she was a willing participant because she did not put up enough fight to defend her chastity.

The face of crime is changing drastically in this country and it is not something that is going unnoticed by everyone.  While there are many in our society that maintain that men commit more violent crimes than do women, realistic reports can be an eye opener.  Statistics provided by the Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics show a clear rise in female perpetrated criminal activity.  

More and more teenaged girls are not just joining forces with male gangs, they are forming their own.  These girls are no longer willing to sit on the sidelines and are responsible for committing 2 percent of gang related homicides in this country.   Bullying both face to face and through the internet has become a serious concern across this country and statistic show that girls perpetrate as many incidents as their boy counterparts.  However once they reach high school the incidents of girl perpetrated bullying nearly doubles that of those perpetrated by boys.

Crimes committed by females throughout this county are rising at alarming rates.  Beginning as young as 11 years old, these girls are learning that violence is a way to get or be what they want.  Many of them carry this ideology on into adulthood which accounts for the rapidly increasing numbers of women within the nations prisons and jails.

According to the FBI statistics for arrests during the period 2004 through 2008, female arrests increased by 5.1 percent whereas male arrests only increased 0.6 percent.  Even incarceration statistics demonstrate skyrocketing rate of convictions for women offenders displaying a 33 percent increase during the first half of 2008.  Female juvenile offenders have also seen a dramatic increase in crime statistics.  In 1980 statistics revealed that females represented only 11 percent of violent crimes, by 2000 that proportion had grown to 18 percent and then escalated to a 30 percent increase by 2004.

Quoting the source above:  “We believe that the statistics on women offenders and prior physical and sexual abuse is shocking and is widely ignored by society.”

Source:  http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/03/15/female-involvement-in-crime-growing-crime-news/

Additionally, the statistics on a national level for incarceration period of 2000 – 2010 show that female incarceration percentages increased by 2.2 whereas the male population only increased by 1.6 percent, showing nearly double the incarceration of female offenders verses male offenders.

Source:   http://www.corrections.com/news/article/30166-statistics-on-women-offenders

Concerning the possibility that this woman could be sentenced with the Death Penalty is of no consequence to me in light of various information and statistics.  The crime that was perpetrated against Travis Alexander [regardless of who] is a very heinous crime, one that in my opinion is deserving of a death sentence even if it was Jodi Arias who committed the crime.

Regardless, currently 16 states have abolished the Death Penalty, leaving only 34 who still carry this punishment books.   Although I am personally in support of the death penalty where the forensic science evidence is not only quality but of a substantial amount to convince a reasonably sound person that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime for which they have been charged; the Death Penalty has lost its power of deterrence.  This is not due to fear of the sentence but the knowledge that the sentence [if carried out at all] will not become a reality for many years.

This particular fact is made clear when reviewing the fact surrounding the Murder Felony Rule.  I totally agree with the essence of the Felony Murder Rule and the purpose behind it.  The ideology should be that the idea or threat of being sentenced to death would create an unwillingness to participate in or to commit these types of crimes.  Individuals who go out and commit or participate in heinous crimes of this nature should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  My observations in doing some outside research regarding this topic for my Criminal Justice Thesis is that unfortunately laws vary from state to state because as we know each state has the right to either adopt or abandon a law completely or merely certain specifics of those laws.

Unfortunately because of the current ‘social atmosphere’ regarding the death penalty I believe that it has lost enough of its power that the purpose and affect behind even the Felony Murder Rule has been similarly affected.  Additionally there is the equation of the number of convicted death row inmates that have been found innocent due to new technology I feel strongly that although it is considered by many to be waste of tax dollars to allow convicted criminals their constitutional rights to appeal their convictions, this is an essential part of our justice system.  We do this ensure that only the guilty are punished and especially when the Death Penalty in on the table.

The following example is provided entirely for the purpose of supporting not only my point that the death penalty [thus the Felony Murder Rule] has lost the power [of deterrence] it once had but that there is nothing to fear at all in too many cases.  While these inmates are in no way being sent to ‘Club Med’ Death Row inmates are held in private cells and therefore not subjected to the hardships suffered by other prisoners who are housed in the general prison population.

Article title:  Death Row Inmate’s Life of ‘Leisure’: Danny Robbie Hembree Writes Shocking Letter.  This convicted murderer actually taunts the parents of the daughter her murdered by talking about the [many] benefits he is now enjoying on Death Row.  Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/death-row-inmate-letter_n_1233890.html

Additionally, Encyclopedia.com reports that:

 “It can be a long wait on death row. Table 6.7 shows the average length of time prisoners spent under the sentence of death before they were executed between 1977 and 2005. The average time between the imposition of the death sentence and the execution was 125 months (10 years and 5 months). White prisoners waited an average of 123 months (10 years and 3 months) and African-American prisoners waited an average of 131 months (10 years and 11 months) before their execution. Snell indicates that of the 60 inmates executed in 2005, the average length of time they had been on death row was 128 months (10 years and 8 months).
Table 6.8 lists the average number of years inmates spent on death row in various states as of December 31,2005. The longest time reported was in Idaho (13.7 years), followed by Nevada (13.2 years), Florida (12.7 years), Tennessee (12.5 years), and California (12 years). Snell reports that Idaho had eighteen prisoners under the sentence of death at the end of 2005. Of the three states with the highest death row populations at year-end 2005—California, Texas, and Florida—Texas reported the shortest average number of years under the sentence of death (8.8 years).”

Statistics: Death Sentences, Capital Case Costs, And Executions, (2008), Capital Punishment: Cruel and Unusual? Retrieved January 30, 2012 from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3078400012.html

The statistics above reflect the entire number of inmates housed on Death Row across the nation and do not distinguish between male or female.  Regardless the period of time between sentencing and execution is the same.  The above statistics do not show the time period between the arrest and conviction which can take approximately 4 to 6 years just to reach the court room.  

Therefore the idea of the possibility that this woman could be given the death penalty if convicted would have no bearing on my personal decision of guilt or innocence if I were to be a part of the jury.  It is the evidence and the prosecutors’ ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this woman committed this crime.  The requirement is not ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ but rather to present enough facts that a ‘reasonable prudent person can see no other means by which this crime could have been committed’ and that is what a great many people do not understand.

There is a quiet war going on at the Supreme Court level regarding the Death Penalty.  More and more states are reviewing their stand on this issue due to the constitutionality of it.  Based on the ideology of the Eight Amendment concerning  concept that the ‘punishment should fit the crime’ many legislators are proposing that the death penalty be completely abolished in this country as it has already been in so many other countries throughout Europe.  The European Convention of Human Rights has successfully convinced all 47 countries that comprise the European Council to abolish the Death Penalty.  This plays a vital factor in extradition negotiations for American criminals who flee to European countries, the do not extradite as long as there is a possibility that the offender will face the Death Penalty.

Source:  http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/coe-portal/what-we-do/human-rights/death-penalty

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost