[angelize56]

Sometimes the law just works for the WRONG people....this man a great example!! Truly frightening this pervert walks free to do who knows what now to another victim!!! What do you think of this??? Take care. angel

Molester serving life sentence freed
Accuser committed suicide before trial
Wednesday, April 14, 2004 Posted: 10:58 AM EDT (1458 GMT)

"It is appalling to me that a person with his criminal history has been released".-Susan Stokes, sister of Edward Harvey Stokes

SANTA ANA, California (AP) -- A convicted child molester serving a life sentence was freed after an appeals court ruled he never had a chance to confront his accuser -- a teenager who committed suicide before the man's trial. :down:

To the chagrin of prosecutors and even his sister, Edward Harvey Stokes was released from jail last week, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. Officials believe he has left the state. (God have mercy on the children of the state he ends up in!)

"We worked extremely hard to make sure he would spend the rest of his life in prison," Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy said.

John Barnett, an attorney for Stokes, said the 4th District Court of Appeals ruling was fair because defendants have a right to cross-examine their accusers.

"Aside from the victim's testimony, little evidence existed to support the charges against the defendant," the court wrote. (What a tragic shame!!!)

Blue Karak, the alleged 16-year-old victim, was a runaway who police said Stokes met in a Seattle coffeehouse in 1996. According to court testimony, Stokes lured the boy to Disneyland and forced the boy to drink tequila and take LSD in a motel room before assaulting him. Stokes had been arrested for parole violation and released on $25,000 bail just days earlier.

Karak escaped, but he committed suicide several months before Stokes went on trial. Stokes was sentenced to life in prison under California's "one-strike" sexual assault law, which allows for a life term in aggravated cases.

The appeals court overturned Stokes' conviction in November.

Criminal history

"It is appalling to me that a person with his criminal history has been released," said Stokes' sister, Susan Stokes, in an e-mail to the Times. "He is dangerous." (SHE should know!)

Stokes was first arrested in 1974 and had been convicted at least five times in Washington and Oregon on rape, sodomy and kidnapping charges. In July 1995, he completed a three-year sentence in Oregon for sex abuse and sodomy. (And he walks free!!!!) :down:

According to police and court records, Stokes targeted runaways and other troubled youth because they typically did not tell authorities. He often gave his victims alcohol and drugs, with some victims waking up in handcuffs and leg shackles.

In a letter to a therapist in the early 1990s, Stokes said he had molested 212 victims and felt like a monster. (And he walks a free pervert!!!! Damn the law sometimes!!!)

"I am angry at myself and others but I still seek out the weak and the unsuspecting as my victims," he wrote then. (Again...this monster walks free!!)

 

[Izme]

The judicial system is in disarray Angel
and our prisons are spilling over
they are talking of more tent camps ect.

I remember a story my Grandfather told me about a freak rapist in the olden day's that was chased into the mountains by a team of Sherrifs ect.

this guy parked his old rig by the side of the road and took off on foot. And everyone was after him. One old Mountain man stayed at the car up on the hillside with his 30-06 and waited for the freak to double back to his car. Surely he did and the mountain man gave him lead poisoning and dissappeared back into the woods. Alittle down home justice!

Killers spend ten years on death row and appeal away.

alot even get out

What is wrong with this picture?

The whole system is messed up and overflowing with muderers ect. a product of a modern society.

 

[bassetman]

I thought you already knew Arnie was out?

 

[Rep]

So....what is the solution?

 

[RSM123]

Plead guilty and with mitigation get life without possibility of parole.

Plead not guilty and if found guilty receive the death penalty.

- For those who say thats too harsh, I say lets have a referendum on what do with such people.

Politicians here in Britain won't as they know what the outcome would be.

 

[Rep]

So....what is the solution?

RSM - I should have expanded my original question. According to the article Angel posted, a man was set free because he was unable to face his accuser at trial.

Certainly the crimes this person committed are horrendous. But what, if any solution can be found to the legal dilema of not being able to face ones accuser?

 

[RSM123]

Rep.

There is no easy answer in this case ... here in the UK allowing children to give evidence on cctv is relatively new, as is the idea of barristers andthe judge dispensing with their wig and gowns to make themselves look less intimidating to a child.

Yet - the cocept of innocent till proven guilty notwithstanding - there seems to be an overemphasis on ensuring the accused has every advantage possible. Clearly a child who thinks the person 'can get them' will be traumatised by such thoughts, as would anyone giving evidence against a hardcore criminal ie who would have wanted to testify against John Paul Gotti - then go back to that neighbourhood - regardless of the verdict ? Its all very well saying that we have the right to face our accuser - but I think that in certain instances there should be a mechanism in place whereby the evidence can be put by a barrister (if need be once the judge has been shown details of the source in camera.)

Sadly (IMO) we have no facility to impose the death penalty here in UK, or for that matter 'life without possibility of parole'. The European Court forbids both on 'moral' grounds.


Richard.

 

[~Candy~]

Rep, my two Mexican centavos here, if I may, his past convictions should speak for something of his character, not to mention his own confessions.

 

[RSM123]

Not sure about in the US - but can past convictions be taken into account ? Here the jury is not told about a defendants previous record until after they have reached a verdict.

There is however a proposal to start doing this here.

 

[LANMaster]

Plead guilty and with mitigation get life without possibility of parole.

Plead not guilty and if found guilty receive the death penalty.

- For those who say thats too harsh, I say lets have a referendum on what do with such people.

Politicians here in Britain won't as they know what the outcome would be.

I am recently a convert on the Death Penalty in the US. I am now against it, because Death is too final if someone turns out to be innocent.

RSM, how about reversing your proposal?

Plead guilty/found guilty then perhaps the DP (makes sense)
Plead innocent and found guilty then life in prison.

 

[~Candy~]

And LAN, if you find them with the gun in their hand standing over the dead body, is that guilty enough for you Take for example the Luby's gunman, many witnesses, not sure whatever happened to him, but shouldn't that be a prime example for the death penalty? and justly so?

I think OJ proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone with enough money and lawyers can get off

 

[RSM123]

Lan,

The concession of mitigation for those who plead guilty is viewed as liberal concession to those who freely acknowledge their guilt, rather than maintaining the pretense of being innocent. It counts in 'lesser' crimes than murder eg a rapist who admits he is guilty, spares his victims the trauma of having to relive their ordeal on the stand. Thereby getting a reduced sentence.

 

[angelize56]

Candy: :up: And his OWN sister is shocked to see him walk free!!! Maybe the victims can make a tape of what happened with the police AS SOON as they report the crime and then should the victim die the tape could be used in court??? This man should be in jail FOREVER! What does one say to his NEXT victim/victims....and judging by his record there WILL be a next victim! It should be announced WHERE this perv is living now! Take care! angel

 

[Rep]

Rep.

There is no easy answer in this case ... here in the UK allowing children to give evidence on cctv is relatively new, as is the idea of barristers andthe judge dispensing with their wig and gowns to make themselves look less intimidating to a child.

Yet - the cocept of innocent till proven guilty notwithstanding - there seems to be an overemphasis on ensuring the accused has every advantage possible. Clearly a child who thinks the person 'can get them' will be traumatised by such thoughts, as would anyone giving evidence against a hardcore criminal ie who would have wanted to testify against John Paul Gotti - then go back to that neighbourhood - regardless of the verdict ? Its all very well saying that we have the right to face our accuser - but I think that in certain instances there should be a mechanism in place whereby the evidence can be put by a barrister (if need be once the judge has been shown details of the source in camera.)

Sadly (IMO) we have no facility to impose the death penalty here in UK, or for that matter 'life without possibility of parole'. The European Court forbids both on 'moral' grounds.

Richard.

RSM - I am not an attorney. Maybe someone that is can provide better information than I am able.

I believe the appeal process does not take into account the actual facts of the case, or the history of the convicted. Rather, I think the appellate court examines the process by which the person was convicted.

If, what I say is true, and again, I caution you on the validity of my opinion, the court found that he was convicted without the right to face his accuser.

I also believe that our court system, in special cases allows minors to testifiy via video. But in this case, apparently that could not be done. I would imagine that in all cases some sort of cross examination to clarify testimony is appropriate.

If we through that concept out, then what becomes the order of law? What becomes the new standard of law? Do we lower that standard to make us feel better? In this case, I would not mind doing so. But, once we allow that what will happen to the rest of us that that right was brought into play to protect us? Could the government then begin to apply a lesser standard upon more and more of us?

I think that is the question. At times we allow things to happen that we may not like to happen but in the end it is to protect more of us.

 

[~Candy~]

You said:

Could the government then begin to apply a lesser standard upon more and more of us?




Lol, Rep, have you not yet read the Patriot Act? That certainly earned us more protections, didn't it? More like lesser standards Some day folks will realize that, but unfortunately, it will be too late.

Unfortunately, from what I have witnessed in my lifetime, the criminals have more rights than the victims.

Just try being on the right side of the law and you'll find that out quickly.

 

[GoneForNow]

RSM......Funny that you would "protest" a protection afforded the accused which started in your own country. I won't bore everyone with the history and reason for requiring that the accused be allowed to confront his accusers. But it doesn't literally mean "confront" as stand in front of, it means you had the opportunity to cross examine the witness against you. Satisfying the right to confront doesn't have to happen at trial, it could happen at a preliminary hearing.

In the particular case being reported, the accused never got the chance to cross-examine the witness against him therefore any prior evidence from that witness couldn't be used against the accused. In this reported case the only witness against the accused killed himself before the accused had the opportunity to test the veracity of the witness. You need to also remember that a person can not be convicted upon his or her confession alone.


Prior convictions, generally, can be used to impeach the credibility of the witness, including the accused, assuming he or she testifies. Prior convictions, however, can not be used to convict someone on a current criminal charge.

 

[EarthTech]

Here is a good example of a little justice.

Repeat offender sentenced

By DAVE CRUZ, News-Topic Staff Writer, [email protected]

A Lenoir man received a stiff sentence in Burke County Superior Court last week related to sexual assaults on a 13-year-old Burke County girl. And the law isn't finished with Charles Otis Setzer yet.

Setzer, 49, is also charged with three counts of statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child and has also been indicted for being a habitual offender in connection with sex offenses that alleged occurred in Caldwell County between April 2000 and September 2001.

During the 2002 Republican Primary and General Election, District Attorney James "Jay" Gaither Jr. promised voters in the 25th Judicial District that he was going to be tough on sex offenders. On several occasions he used Setzer as an example of how the previous administration was soft of prosecuting sexual predators.

The law did come down hard on Setzer when the defendant was in Burke County Superior Court last week on indictments for four counts of statutory rape, five counts of taking indecent liberties and a single count of statutory sex offense. Setzer was sentenced to a prison term of not less than 36 years and no more than 44 years.

"It gave him enough years to secure what is in effect a life sentence," said Gaither. "Our main goal was to take him out of public forever."

The victim in the Burke County case was also one of the two victims in which Setzer is charged with raping and fondling in the Caldwell County indictments. Those 2002 indictments as well as an indictment for being a habitual felon are still pending in Caldwell County Superior Court.

The prior convictions used to obtain the habitual felon indictment were a 1980 conviction for voluntary manslaughter in Indiana, 1988 conviction in Illinois for aggravated criminal sexual abuse and a 1998 conviction in Caldwell County for taking indecent liberties with a minor.

Back in 1998, Setzer was indicted for statutory rape, crime against nature and three counts of indecent liberties. The prosecution dismissed the more serious indictments in exchange for Setzer's pleas of guilty to the indecent liberties charges. Setzer received a prison sentence of no less than 19 months and no more than 23 months on one of the pleas and 60 months probation on the remaining two. He was on probation when he sexually assaulted the Burke County victim and allegedly sexually assaulted the two victims named in the Caldwell County indictments.

In his election campaign, Gaither said that Setzer was able to molest the two girls in 2000 and 2001 because of he was not prosecuted to the full extent of the law back in 1998. Given the defendant's prior convictions for homicide and aggravated sexual assault, Gaither said the plea agreement should not have been offered to Setzer.

Gaither argued that, if Setzer was convicted of the more serious charges, he still would have been in prison in 2000 and 2001 when Setzer's two alleged victims were sexually assaulted.

"This is the type of result in child sex offense cases that office of the district attorney works so hard to achieve," Gaither said of Setzer's conviction and sentence in Burke County last week. "There are other cases like this one that we are working on. And we hope the case of Charles Otis Setzer serves as a warning to all child sex offenders of the punishment that is waiting for them.

 

[angelize56]

ET: Thanks for the article! :up: One down...who knows how many to go!

This isn't really along the exact lines of the first two articles...but it is heart breaking nonetheless! I would hope no adult would supply children liquor. Take care! angel

No charges in sixth-graders' liquor deaths
Thursday, April 15, 2004 Posted: 4:24 PM EDT (2024 GMT)

POLSON, Montana (AP) -- Authorities will not bring charges in the deaths of two sixth-graders whose frozen bodies were found in a snowy field after they guzzled large amounts of vodka, investigators said Wednesday.

The sheriff's department investigated suspicions that an adult supplied the liquor to Justin Benoist and Frankie Nicolai III, both 11. But authorities have closed the case after failing to find any evidence to charge anyone, the department said Wednesday.

Almost from the time their bodies were found March 1, there were claims the boys may have stolen the liquor from area homes. "We cannot disprove that at this point," detective Jay Doyle said.

Alcohol poisoning killed Frankie, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.50 percent, more than six times the drunken-driving threshold in Montana. Justin, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.20 percent, died from a combination of alcohol poisoning and hypothermia.

The deaths stunned people in this rural area of Montana and beyond. The boys went missing after they skipped afternoon classes at Ronan Middle School on February 27. Another boy found their bodies three days later.

 

[~Candy~]

All I will add to that Marlene, is the key word there is probably 'stolen.'

Someone will probably want to make it a crime to have liquor in your home so that little brats can't break in and steal it.

Sorry, I feel bad for what happened, but....what's the solution in that case?

 

[Rep]

You said:

Could the government then begin to apply a lesser standard upon more and more of us?

Lol, Rep, have you not yet read the Patriot Act? That certainly earned us more protections, didn't it? More like lesser standards Some day folks will realize that, but unfortunately, it will be too late.

Unfortunately, from what I have witnessed in my lifetime, the criminals have more rights than the victims.

Just try being on the right side of the law and you'll find that out quickly.

Actually AcaCandy, the patriot act did come to mind....as well as the prisoners we hold in cuba. But, I did not want to cloud the issue or take te thread off topic.

It may at times appear that criminals have more rights than those of us that are not criminals. (Boy, given my profession, I sure opened myself up there, didn't I? ) But without legal processes, what would we have? Lynch mobs?