FDP Home Page / FDP Forum / FAQ's

The FDP is made possible by the following companies and individual members like you.
Please use the links below to show them we value their sponsorship.

Musician's Friend

Sweetwater

Apex Tube Matching

WD Music

Guitar Center

Amplified Parts

MOD KITS DIY

Yellowjackets Tube Converters

Advertise here

Jensen Loudspeakers

Antique Electronics Supply


* God bless America and our men and women in uniform *

* Illegitimi non carborundum! *

If you benefit and learn from the FDP and enjoy our site, please help support us and become a Contributing Member or make a Donation today! The FDP counts on YOU to help keep the site going with an annual contribution. It's quick and easy with PayPal. Please do it TODAY!

Chris Greene, Host & Founder

LOST YOUR PASSWORD?

......................................................................

   
FDP Jam
Calendar
Find musicians
in your area!
  Search the Forums  

FDP Forum / Moe's Tavern (_8^(I) / Menendez Brothers...does the punishment fit the crime?

Next 20 Messages  
mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 07:01 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I’ve been watching a ton of stuff on the Menendez Brothers case. I can’t help but to feel that life without parole was too harsh a sentence in this case.

I say this as a firm believer in both life without parole AND the death penalty. In fact, I believe I would hand out the death penalty more than any state does.

I guess my opinion is based on the fact that those two were clearly mentally, emotionally, physically and sexually abused. Having watched a lot of the first trial when it was televised, and having watched the A&E documentary that’s been airing, I believe the abuse 100%. I find the story to be far too involved, and corroborated by numerous family members and their tennis coach.

On the other hand, there was a clear plan thought out and executed. It was obviously not in the heat of the moment.

How do the rest of you feel about this case all these years later? Are these the kind of people that should be locked up forever?

And PLEASE, let’s not do the FDP thing and turn this into a gun/anti gun thread. These guys did kill people, they used guns that were legally purchased to do it. Those are the facts, but I don’t find the manner of the killing to be relevant to my question, beyond the planning/obtaining of the instrumentality part. I have no interest in how it could have been prevented (or not), nor whether they should have been able to buy guns (or not). The law permitted them to do so, they did, end of inquiry for purposes of this thread, please.

K4
Contributing Member
**********
**********
**

Being defenseless

does not make you more safe
Dec 29th, 2017 07:12 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I don't know anything about that case, but I will interject, they could have used a kitchen knife just as easily. Parents were sleeping, correct?

MJB
Contributing Member
**********
**

Who's we sucka?

Smith, Wesson and me.
Dec 29th, 2017 07:16 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I don't think murderers should ever be back on the street. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

jefe46
Contributing Member
**********
****

State of Jefferson

Dec 29th, 2017 07:22 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I believe that if this case went to trial today there would be a different outcome.



mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 07:23 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

“I don't know anything about that case, but I will interject, they could have used a kitchen knife just as easily. Parents were sleeping, correct?”

No they were awake and watching TV. But sure, they could have used knives and it would still be essentially the same crime to an extent.

BUT, if one believes they were abused as they said they were, it would argue against the use of knives as a weapon. You wouldn’t expect them to use a weapon with a lower success rate and which they would have to get more “up close” to their accused abusers if they were truly afraid as the claimed.

Of course, grabbing a knife from the kitchen would also argue more for the crime being spur of the moment rather than driving out of town to obtain the weapons used three days prior to the crime.

(This message was last edited by mfitz804 at 09:26 PM, Dec 29th, 2017)

K4
Contributing Member
**********
**********
**

Being defenseless

does not make you more safe
Dec 29th, 2017 07:28 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

Told ya I didn't know anything about it.

:)

mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 07:30 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

“I don't think murderers should ever be back on the street. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.”

That’s usually my default position. But, we all know it doesn’t work that way in practice. And I don’t see why these guys in particular received that sentence where many others, without their history, do not.

mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 07:31 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

“Told ya I didn't know anything about it.”

Yes, you did. :)

Taildragger
Contributing Member
**********

USA

an acquired taste some may never acquire
Dec 29th, 2017 07:49 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

Two things:

•Explanation and justification are two very different things.

•IMHO, the primary function of the judicial system's use of incarceration should be to protect the law-abiding public at large from further misdeeds perpetrated by those convicted, not to extract vengeance or to attempt redemption. The latter, while both desirable and admirable, should be a secondary concern.

K4
Contributing Member
**********
**********
**

Being defenseless

does not make you more safe
Dec 29th, 2017 07:55 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I agree with that 100%

If a person is not a danger to society, they should not be locked up.

mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 08:08 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

And based on the facts, I don't believe these guys are a danger to anyone.

I truly am conflicted on the sentence, which is why I thought I’d throw it out for FDP discussion. There’s arguments on both sides, obviously.

FlyonNylon
Contributing Member
*

East Tennessee

Dec 29th, 2017 08:10 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

They committed a premeditated double murder.

Events after the crime indicate the crime was committed for financial gain.

Regardless of the allegations of abuse, this type of person is not safe to be in society.

The parents are conveniently no longer able to defend themselves against these allegations, and it makes sense for the brothers to use this tactic, true or not. Even if true it's still premeditated murder by two adults.

Logic seems to indicate they committed a double murder for financial gain. Lock em up.

mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 08:37 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

There’s almost zero evidence that the crime was committed for financial gain. They spent some money after the deaths that was somewhat questionable, but they were rich kids and according to analysis of their spending patterns, buying a couple suits, watches and cars wasn’t altogether out of whack with their normal spending habits. They had no shortage of money nor ability to spend before the deaths.

Having studied it as I have, I don’t buy for a second that the crime was based on financial motives. The evidence just doesn’t support it, it was a theory the prosecution put forth simply because the victims were rich and they had nothing else.

mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 29th, 2017 08:41 PM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I would add, if they were trying to get away with the crime and the money, killing them in their own home in such a brutal fashion probably wouldn’t be the best idea.

No doubt the murders were premeditated, and no doubt they are guilty of them.



MJB
Contributing Member
**********
**

Who's we sucka?

Smith, Wesson and me.
Dec 30th, 2017 05:58 AM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

"No doubt the murders were premeditated, and no doubt they are guilty of them. "

I wouldn't want to roll the dice on the hope they would not be a danger to society. I also would not want to set a precedent for future murderers to walk.

IANAL but this is just how I feel about this.

mfitz804
Contributing Member
**********
**********
***

Staten Island, NY

Our resident rational liberal
Dec 30th, 2017 07:06 AM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

“I wouldn't want to roll the dice on the hope they would not be a danger to society. I also would not want to set a precedent for future murderers to walk.”

The precedent you speak of already exists, as not every murderer receives the death penalty or life without parole; murderers are released back into society all the time. Whether that’s right or not is a whole other question, and if you’re arguing every murderer should be incarcerated for life without parole, there’s certainly arguments in favor of that. But that is not what exists today.

The question is, why did THESE murderers receive the first or second harshest possible penalty given the circumstances, where others did not?

jefe46
Contributing Member
**********
****

State of Jefferson

Dec 30th, 2017 07:11 AM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

Wealth envy ?

MJB
Contributing Member
**********
**

Who's we sucka?

Smith, Wesson and me.
Dec 30th, 2017 07:48 AM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

"The question is, why did THESE murderers receive the first or second harshest possible penalty given the circumstances, where others did not?"

Am I correct in understanding that the jury decided the penalty?

If so then I suppose they would be the only ones to provide an accurate answer to your question.

budg
Contributing Member
**********
****

ohio

Home of the Goodyear blimp
Dec 30th, 2017 07:55 AM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

I don’t really watch documentaries and form opinions based on those documentaries. The reason is that they are usually biased and have a tendency to conveniently leave things out.

If I recall the jury convicted them based on the case the evidence presented at the trial. They believed they murdered their parents to have total access to their wealth. Yes they lived a life of privilege, but they couldn’t spend money at will. It’s one thing to have an allowance,it’s another to have the whole shebang. They spent around 700k from the time of the murders until their arrests.

The sexual abuse theory was not proven to be a factor during the trials and was rejected by the juriy during the penalty phase. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court as well.

The idea that these 2 are not a threat to society is a reach imo and something that I don’t think can be guaranteed. Keeping society safe AND dishing out justice is what the judicial and penal system does. Do we let people out that killed their spouses because we don’t think they would ever kill again? No of course not. Whatever caused them to justify murdering their parents and trying to deceive everyone for months is still alive and well inside the Menendez Brothers. Fortunately for us they will never be allowed to walk free again.


(This message was last edited by budg at 10:44 AM, Dec 30th, 2017)

Peegoo
Contributing Member
**********
**********
******

Curled up

in the fecal position
Dec 30th, 2017 08:21 AM   Edit   Profile   Print Topic   Search Topic

"I don't believe these guys are a danger to anyone."

Neither did their parents, apparently.

While I can appreciate hating a person enough to want to kill them for something they committed in the past, I cannot understand taking a person's life outside of self defense at the time a crime is being committed.

And I do understand the concept of self defense to prevent continued abuse. But they were 18 and 21 at the time they killed their parents. They were grown-up young men.

They had other options besides murder.

Next 20 Messages  

FDP Forum / Moe's Tavern (_8^(I) / Menendez Brothers...does the punishment fit the crime?




Reply to this Topic
Display my email address             Lost your password?
Your Message:
Link Address (URL):
Link Title:




Moderators: Chris Greene  Iron Man  reverendrob  

FDP, LLC Privacy Policy: Your real name, username, and email
are held in confidence and not disclosed to any third parties, sold, or
used for anything other than FDP Forum registration unless you specifically authorize disclosure.

Furtkamp.com 
Internet Application Development

Copyright © 1999-2018 Fender Discussion Page, LLC   All Rights Reserved