Review of "Intoxicated" (Tuesday, March 29, 2005 NBC Episode of "SVU")
Walt Parker
First, a reminder that this episode should repeat on Sunday, April 10
at 11:00 PM ET/PT on USA Network (no episode is currently listed for
that slot on USA's site). See below for more:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The episode opened with a young couple making out in bed when the
girl's mother Denise Eldrige (Cathy Moriarity-Gentile) walks in,
calling the cops, claiming it was statutory rape while taking his
clothes so he could not leave. Denise's daughter Carrie (Danielle
Panabaker) is talking with Olivia when the find the man (Justin Sharp)
who was with the beau outside wearing only a blanket.
Carrie is at SVU headquarters with Olivia and Elliot as is Justin (the
boy), with both claiming they didn't have sex. Denise was concerned
because she remembered her own situation when she was pregnant, which
is what she told Don, while Carrie was talking to Olivia, with Carrie
saying how she really loved Justin. Carrie and Denise are then arguing
in SVU headquarters with Denise then forcing Carrie to go to the
hospital to take a rape test. Meanwhile, Carrie hires her own attorney
(Simone Brice), who arrives at the hospital before Carrie can take a
rape kit. Like how after this Olivia and Elliott are arguing about what
this would be like when Don asks why Olivia called in Simone for Carrie
when Denise then walks in showing "evidence" that Carrie was raped.
Casey then was upset with Elliot and Olivia after Denise went to see
her before realizing that it was too weak to prosecute, with the
Detectives then going back to talk to Denise, only to find her brutally
murdered (in a twist that was known from the promos), using a lamp to
brutally beat her. Justin's coat was found on Carrie's bed, and it was
realized that Justin killed Denise and kidnapped Carrie. After a chase
noted that it was friends of Justin, Olivia has a major argument with
Simone over what happened, with Simone claiming priviledge while Olivia
talks to Casey. Once luds are given on the cell phone. That leads them
upstate to a summer home that Justin's parents have, with Justin
arrested for kidnapping even though Carrie claimed she was not
kidnapped.
Like how Elliot then was all over Justin while his lawyer was all over
him at the same time, with Justin then saying it was not Carrie's idea,
but then it was Simone's idea. Olivia is then with Carrie and Simone,
with Carrie then denying that Justin did anything.
Munch and Fin are then with the principal at Carrie's school, noting
that Carrie's mother didn't care if clothes had been torn and the like,
but when she cut school was all furious. It was then discovered via a
web cam that Carrie had blood all over her shirt and it was discovered
Carrie murdered her mother. Carrie then said she admitted she killed
her mother, but it was Justin's idea to have the murder rap fall on
him. Carrie was furious and went after Olivia before being restrained
after she realized Olivia lied about what happened.
Olivia is then in the precint with Elliot talking about what happened
when Casey walks in with a notice that Carrie was claiming a PMVD
defense (through Simone). Like how next, Simone was talking with Huang
about the PMVD case, with her mother saying to her that she was a drama
queen about it, forced to go to school in spite of serious cramps.
Carrie then claimed her mother never wanted her to be happy, including
with Justin, then thinking that was why she killed her mother. Huang
then warns Casey that this defense might work.
At trial, Justin noted Carrie's mood swings while trying to get her
away from her home. Justin is then silent when Casey asks him if she
admitted Carrie killed her mother, with Justin found in contempt. Like
how Warner then tells Olivia that Denise had a serious condition
related to alcohol that would have killed her within two years had she
not been killed, with Olivia then going back to Denise's home and
finding bottles of vodka hidden all over the place, which reminded
Olivia about her and her mother. Elliot walked in on Olivia, when they
discovered she used birth control pills, and after hitting Carrie with
the facts, she said that Justin was afraid of Carrie's mother. Carrie
then admitted killing her mother because of that, noting that she had
been slapped by her mother before that when her mother was drinking,
being slapped repeatedly with her losing it and hitting her in the head
with a lamp. Olivia then walks out and Simone then notes to her that
Carrie never told her about it.
We then see Casey at a bar with Olivia, admitting that she was in the
very same position as Carrie when she was 16, ready to marry a student
of her mother's English class in college. Olivia admitted to Casey she
was truly scared at that point, and that was how she knew Simone Brice.
At that point, Casey agrees to a plea with Carrie of Manslaughter with
a five-year sentence. As it turned out, Casey would have had her
convivcted of second degree murder had she not agreed to the plea, but
Casey realized where Olivia was coming from.
Yet another great episode.
Walt
Diva Phyllis
of the 4 L&O shows.
Phyllis
GG2...@webtv.net
Great episode, great acting. I hope Hargitay gets that Emmy this year.
Meloni looked bored most of the episode.
mavman
"Like how"? you keep saying "Like how". What does that mean?
mavman
>when Casey walks in with a notice that Carrie was claiming a PMVD
>defense (through Simone)
What is PMVD?
Robin
I think the poster meant PMDD, which stands for Pre-Menstrual Dysphoric
Disorder. It's a relatively new diagnosis that, in contrast to plain ol'
PMS, may involve mood swings, hallucinations and delusion.
Great episode last night. I always like getting more backstory on Benson.
(Uh, hi, I'm new, and I promise to stay resolutely silent about my opinions
on persistent vegetative states.)
/r
IndyHazle
thing wasn't compelling for me because I didn't like the couple and of
course hated the Mom.
Then Mariska Hargitay saved the episode with another incredible
performance! She just gets better and better. I know the L&O purists
don't like character personal background coming into Law & Order, but
these tidbits are what make SVU stand so tall above the other L&O
shows.
David / Amicus
cancelled.
wps
news:1112155100.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> To all:
>
> First, a reminder that this episode should repeat on Sunday,
> April 10
> at 11:00 PM ET/PT on USA Network (no episode is currently listed for
> that slot on USA's site). See below for more:
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
>
This episode brought out something that has always bothered me. The
government says that since the girl is only 15 she is too young to
consent to having sex with a 21 year old. But the same government says
she's old enough to be tried as an adult for murdering her mother.
Of course this is the same government that says an 18 year old is old
enough to fight and die in Iraq, but too young to buy a beer.
Nelson Lu
wps <my_por...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This episode brought out something that has always bothered me. The
>government says that since the girl is only 15 she is too young to
>consent to having sex with a 21 year old. But the same government says
>she's old enough to be tried as an adult for murdering her mother.
I am, obviously, against the trend of trying more-and-more-and-younger
juveniles as adults -- but it should be noted that the comparison here is
comparing apples and oranges.
The intent of the laws against sex with juveniles is not to punish the
juveniles for having sex with adults; it's to punish the adults for having sex
with juveniles, thus, presumptively, sexually exploiting them. The laws that
allow juveniles to be tried as adults, however, have a different purpose; it's
to punish the juveniles for committing crimes that took them out of the sphere
of juvenile justice. (I disagree with that purpose, as noted, but that doesn't
mean that it wasn't the purpose.)
MrBud...@aol.com
One teeny reservation on my part: I should think that Benson, as the
daughter of an alcoholic mother, would be very quick to spot another
alcoholic mother, without having to pull all those bottles out of those
hiding places in the dead woman's apartment.
GG2...@webtv.net
not quite cry, but was holding it in while she was talking about abuse.
wow/
Diva Phyllis
><Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 4:14am (EST+5) From:
>my_por...@yahoo.com (wps) wrote This
>always bothered me. The government says
>that since the girl is only 15 she is too young
>to consent to having sex with a 21 year old.
>But the same government says she's old
>enough to be tried as an adult for murdering
>her mother.
>Of course this is the same government that
>says an 18 year old is old enough to fight and
>die in Iraq, but too young to buy a beer.>
That's true,and if charges had been filed against the boy, he could have
been labled a sex offender and have to register as such because he had
consensual sex with his girlfriend. Phyllis
Diva Phyllis
><Wed, Mar 30, 2005, 10:22pm (EST-3) From:
>MrBud...@aol.comwrote
>One teeny reservation on my part: I should
>think that Benson, as the daughter of an
>alcoholic mother, would be very quick to spot
>another alcoholic mother, without having to
>pull all those bottles out of those hiding places
>in the dead woman's apartment>.
Maybe that's why she didn't recognize it. She may not have wanted to
think that the mother was an alcoholic because she knew what a horror it
was like living with an alcoholic parent and she didn't want to think
that was the case with this girl. Besides, every person is different
and that means every alcoholic acts differently. Maybe Olivia didn't
recognize the signs of the mother because her mother had behaved
differently. Anyway, sometimes the things that are the most obvious are
the hardest to see.
Phyllis
Nelson Lu
Diva Phyllis <pah...@webtv.net> wrote:
>That's true,and if charges had been filed against the boy, he could have
>been labled a sex offender and have to register as such because he had
>consensual sex with his girlfriend. Phyllis
Not in California -- if the only kind of sex they had was sexual intercourse.
If he's charged with (and found guilty of) any other kind of sex, he'd have to
register. (That part of the law is currently being considered with regard to
constitutionality in the California Supreme Court.)
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
> That's true,and if charges had been filed against the boy, he could have
> been labled a sex offender and have to register as such because he had
> consensual sex with his girlfriend.
There was no proof they ever had sex.
Sparky Spartacus
> Walt Parker wrote:
>
>>To all:
>>
>> First, a reminder that this episode should repeat on Sunday, April
>
> 10
>
>>at 11:00 PM ET/PT on USA Network (no episode is currently listed for
>>that slot on USA's site). See below for more:
>>
>>S
>>
>>P
>>
>>O
>>
>>I
>>
>>L
>>
>>E
>>
>>R
>>
>>
>>S
>>
>>P
>>
>>A
>>
>>C
>>
>>E
>>
<snipped>
Am I the only one who's tired of the convenient back stories like this
one? I recently saw an SVU repeat in which Munch revealed that his dad
committed suicide after they'd argued. Seems to me there have been
others, as well, especially Olivia.
Sparky Spartacus
Your argument falls apart here because it's the federal govt which says
someone's old enough to have adventures in Iraq, but it's the state govt
which says no beer until you're 21 (at least that's how I understand it).
Sparky Spartacus
So let's hope the prosecution's case was weak enough not to convince the
kid to accept a plea.
KL
Ahhh yes, but the federal gov't was the one who said to the states that they
would not provide funding for repairing and building of freeways and
highways if the states didn't raise the drinking age to 21.
--
KL
Your argument is sound, nothing but sound. -Benjamin Franklin
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
IndyHazle <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Munch confessions seemed to come out of nowhere.
Actually that came from real life - Richard Belzer's father killed
himself.
Hunter
Mind you I am ignorant about what police in general and NYPD policy is
in particular about searching victim's houses if they are found dead
within so I have to ask why didn't they find all those bottles in the
house at the time of the discovery of the mother's body? They were
almost in plain site, all the cops and CSU had to to was open a
cupboard.
---->Hunter
Hunter
I think they have been doing that for a while now. It has been about 8
years ago if not longer we found out about Lennie's alcholism, his
divorce and of course the drug addiction and subsequent overdose death
of his daughter.
They work the personal into the show in measured drops, some small,
some large. What they still don't do is follow them home often. We have
seen a LOT of Stabler's home life though in comparison to all the other
L&O franchise characters past and present to the point he would be more
at home in "NYPD Blue". On the other hand we knew almost nothing about
Sotherlyn's personal life history and present untill literally the last
second. One thing we did learn (that I remember anyway) pryor to that
relevation was that she still had affection for the far older man she
dated when she was 16. Other than that anything else?
It maybe a Relatively new thing to get into some character's private
life because I do believe it was not done very often if at all during
the Stone/Robinette era of the program, at least compared to today.
Like watching the TNT repeats I learned that Stone's grandmother was
Irish who idolized an Irish patriot/terrorist (depending on your point
of view, Micheal Collins I think it was) during an early '90s episode
during the Greevy/Logan era about international terrorism.
I guess these relevations are done if the plot calls for it. We won't
know if McCoy has a girlfriend or not-is he married?-unless the plot
calls for it. In "NYPD Blue" or "Hillstreet Blues" we would have seen
him on several dates by now. We do know he has a strange
affection-IIRC-for The Clash. And how is Lt. Van Buren's two boys
doing? I haven't seen them since their mother shot two muggers while
she was being held up at an ATM. I haven't seen all the episodes in
between now and then unfortunately.
----->Hunter
Hunter
That inconsistancy has always bothered me. They are correct to say that
an adult having sex with a 15 year old is wrong because a 15 year old
cannot quite yet grasp the possible consequences of a sexual
relationship, but would try as an adult a 11 year old, never mind a 15
year old because they feel that an 11 year old can fully apreciate the
act of murder. I have this debate before in alt.true-crime , some
neantherthals over there (including some who say they are cops,
emphisis on "they say") demand to see such a young perpetrator
executed! Thank God common sense has come to the law in the form of a
recent Supreme Court ruling that we will no longer execute a say 25
year old felon for a murder he commited when he was say 13. Just like
common sense finally ruled when they ruled a few years ago against
executing mentally retarded felons (and I feel because in both
instances the likelihood of innocence is far greater in either group,
especially with the phenomena of false confession), at least those
retarded convicts with IQs of 80 or below. Both are a form of
deminished capacity, the former for lack of maturty and life
experience, the latter because of a brain dysfunction. And both are
sort of related. Mentally retarded adults often are as impulsive and
function at the level of children after all and like them often cannot
fully understand the consequences of their actions. "Boston Legal" had
a plot a few weeks ago about a murder convict being up for execution
despite having an 80 IQ and, to me overwhelming evidence of his
possible innocence, including a questionable witness ID and exculpatory
DNA evidence and an incompetant defense attorney, not to mention a
possible false confession and the convict not even sure if he did it or
not. He was executed anyway; it was Texas after all).
>
> Of course this is the same government that says an 18 year old is old
> enough to fight and die in Iraq, but too young to buy a beer.
----
That is another contradiction, but it has been shown that teenagers are
more reckless than twenty somethings and older, because they lack
judgement. Perhaps we should bar licences to people under 18.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are elderly people who should
not drive anymore, they are the second largest age group responsible
for traffic fatalities. They often, understandably don't want to give
up that independance, even if their judgement should tell them
otherwise when their sight, reflexes and other facilties start to
deteriourate. They often go into self-denial when this happens. I don't
want a blanket bar to elderly drivers but after say the age of 70 a
yearly driving test should be mandatory due to the general diminushed
capacity in both mind and body of the group.
---->Hunter
Hunter
But in both instances the idea of culpabilty is at the root of the
matter. We punish adults for having sex with juveniles because they
lack the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions
involving sex, so we rightfully put the onis on adults to stay away.
But as you say we punish juveniles for committing crimes that took them
out of the shphere of juvenile justice. However, they may have commited
those crimes for the very reason we do not allow adults to have sexual
relations with juveniles namely they are impulsive, lack judgement and
easily manipulated. Is a 12 year old culpable like say a 42 year old?
Lets say a 12 year old is goaded into robing a store with a gun because
his friends say he is a "Scardy Cat". The owner of the store makes a
wrong move. The kid in his fright pulls the trigger. He murders the
store owner. Is he as culpable as a 42 year old (who isn't retarded or
mentally ill) who friends "goad" him by saying he lacks "balls" into
robbing that same store and shoots the owner because both of them are
twitchy? I say no. That 42 year old is presumed to have the maturity to
resist such pressures. The 12 year old is presumed not to have the
maturity to resist such pressures. Should both face the same justice
even if the circumstances and results are exactly the same? No. They
both murdered the shopkeeper, but the mindsets are different, and now
the Supreme Court has finally, to me, injected some commonsense into
the law by barring the execution of felons who committed their crimes
as children. I am not saying the children should not be punished for
their crimes, but it should be tailored to the assumption that we are
teaching them right from wrong while punishing them, with adult felons
it is assumed that they do.
I just don't like the trend in treating children like adults in the
matter of law, including unsealing of juvenile records and holding it
against them. It is borne out of frustration with juvenile crime, but
we are making the same mistake we made 20 years ago when we started
handing out mandatory drug sentences for the posesession of crack, the
individual circumstance of the offender be damned. If juveniles are
incompetant to have sex with an adult, then they are incompetant to be
treated the same as an adult in everything else. I know many criminals
use children because they know that the kids are not going to face the
same penalties as adults would, but I say, instead of punishing the
kids, I say increase the penalties against adults who use kids in
criminal activity, like using them as drug couriers jumping them into
gangs and look out for "Five-O", perhaps to the same level we reserve
for child molesters and abusers (hell, you join many gangs by being
beaten up and get out-if it is possible to leave-by being beaten up.
That should be child abuse right there if the gang leaders are 18 and
older), after all they are setting these kids up to be killed by the
police or other criminals by setting them on the road of a life of
crime. In both cases, in being culpable for crime and sex, the onis
would be on the adult. Common Sense.
----->Hunter
Nelson Lu
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>executed! Thank God common sense has come to the law in the form of a
>recent Supreme Court ruling that we will no longer execute a say 25
>year old felon for a murder he commited when he was say 13. Just like
The prohibition against the death penalty in that factual scenario is not new;
the recent case Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d
1 (2005) prohibited execution for crimes committed as 16 or 17-year-olds. The
prohibition against execution for crimes committed as even younger teenagers
was already in place in 16 years ago, in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815,
108 S. Ct. 2687, 101 L. Ed. 2d 702 (1988).
RETIRED NOW
found.......
RETIRED NOW
drivers tests for those over 70 .......i dont know if this is legal and
it is definitely discriminatory ......wouldnt you say??????
Buck Turgidson
"Walt Parker" <Free...@juno.com> wrote:
> Yet another great episode.
Gotta disagree with you, Walt (and most of the other posters). This was
one of the worst-written episodes of the series because so many elements
of it were ludicrous. While I agree that humans have a great capacity to
be raging loons, I thought the mother's reaction was so improbable as to
be ridiculous. The backstory of Benson's mother was also ridiculous,
especially given the episode USA just aired tonight in which she is
sitting over dinner with her mother, having wine (!), and briefly
discussing their relationship as if it were utterly normal (with the
exception of Benson's mother being raped). As another poster mentioned,
the scene of Benson going through the apartment and finding all the
bottles was silly. Actually, it was more than silly, it was beyond
belief: are we to think that CSU would go over a bloody crime scene and
somehow miss dozens of bottles of vodka stored on the premises?
This episode was all roller-coaster, unbased emotion and no logic.
--
Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember." --David Mamet
--------
"Truth is just truth. You can't have opinions about truth."--Peter Schickele
Sparky Spartacus
Thanks, wasn't aware of that - the old $$$$ cudgel.
Sparky Spartacus
> wps wrote:
<snip>
>>Of course this is the same government that says an 18 year old is old
>>enough to fight and die in Iraq, but too young to buy a beer.
>
> ----
> That is another contradiction, but it has been shown that teenagers are
> more reckless than twenty somethings and older, because they lack
> judgement. Perhaps we should bar licences to people under 18.
>
> On the other end of the spectrum, there are elderly people who should
> not drive anymore, they are the second largest age group responsible
> for traffic fatalities. They often, understandably don't want to give
> up that independance, even if their judgement should tell them
> otherwise when their sight, reflexes and other facilties start to
> deteriourate. They often go into self-denial when this happens. I don't
> want a blanket bar to elderly drivers but after say the age of 70 a
> yearly driving test should be mandatory due to the general diminushed
> capacity in both mind and body of the group.
A vision check would probably be a good idea as well. OTOH, the elderly
are much better organized politically than teens and wield a lot of clout.
Sparky Spartacus
How is it discriminatory? If you say it discriminates based on age, the
law does that all the time, e.g., minimum age to drive/drink, someone
has to be 30 to be in the Senate & 35 to be president. Police depts &
the military don't take people over an age limit, etc.
I think a yearly driver's test would be overkill, not to mention very
expensive; but a vision check would pick up a lot of problems.
Sparky Spartacus
> The Munch confessions seemed to come out of nowhere. But Olivia's
> backstory was always known to be complex.
Right, but the entire boyfriend business just materialized like a deus
ex machina. :)
Dawnie
wrote:
>>MrBud...@aol.com wrote
All possibilities. Remember how Olivia told Novak that the girl
didn't want to tell anyone because then the abuse becomes real. If
you keep quiet, you can pretend that it's not. Perhaps Olivia
subconsciously didn't want to see it in the mother either.
When Olivia met Warner outside the courthouse, was there any reason
for Warner to keep quiet about what she was about to testify in court
regarding the mother's liver condition?
It was good seeing Cathy Moriarty again. The last time we saw her in
L&O was in season 12 "For Love Or Money" (airdate Oct 2001) playing
Lorraine Cobin, with Katherine Moennig as her daughter.
(OT: I notice you've been quoting using the ">" character just like
the rest of us, did you find out if WebTV had that setting after all?)
Dawnie
wrote:
>Then Mariska Hargitay saved the episode with another incredible
>performance! She just gets better and better. I know the L&O purists
>don't like character personal background coming into Law & Order, but
>these tidbits are what make SVU stand so tall above the other L&O
>shows.
Yup, I have to say that Benson's personal background has added more to
the episodes than detracted from them IMHO. I'm not much for a lot of
background, but in this case the writers have developed hers with a
depth that makes me want to know more about her and how she deals with
these issues in her work. Mariska Hargitay is doing a great job!
Michael Black
RETIRED NOW (SSI...@webtv.net) writes:
> i also wondered why the bottles werent found when bodies were
> found.......
>
than going through the person's belongings.
The detectives aren't busybodies, looking through the apartment for
the sake of poking into her life. They look at the body, they look
at the area surrounding the body, may look for things pointed to by
those things, but there is no reason to generally poke until
they have further information.
SHe had further information, and with that in mind (and the experience
of her mother) Olivia Benson was able to go back to the apartment and
find those bottles because she knew where someone like that would
hide them.
The mother was hiding those bottles, no matter how ineptly. I imagine
some of them may have been seen when they were there before, but not
the pattern behind them. If there was no reason to look under the
cusions on the couch, then nodoby would find them there, though
finding them there is indicative of the state of the mother.
Note the apartment was still marked as a crime scene. The point of that
is that they didn't want it tampered with until they were sure they
had taken care of all the details.
Michael
Diva Phyllis
><Sat, Apr 2, 2005, 4:59am From:
>Spa...@spartacus.galaxy.org
>(Sparky Spartacus) wrote
>Hunter wrote:
>wps wrote:
><snip>
> On the other end of the spectrum, there are
>elderly people who should not drive anymore,
>they are the second largest age group
>responsible for traffic fatalities. They often,
>understandably don't want to give up that
>independance, even if their judgement should
>tell them otherwise when their sight, reflexes
>and other facilties start to deteriourate. They
>often go into self-denial when this happens. I
>don't want a blanket bar to elderly drivers but
>after say the age of 70 a yearly driving test
>should be mandatory due to the general
>diminushed capacity in both mind and body of
>the group.
>A vision check would probably be a good idea
>as well. OTOH, the elderly are much better
>organized politically than teens and wield a lot
>of clout. >
Here in FL senior citizens who are over 70 or 75, I'm not sure what the
age is, have to present a certificate from an eye Dr stating what their
vision is and what glasses they wear to correct it so they can renew
their license. I think that some older folks shouldn't be driving but
they still do. I feel an actual driving test after people get to be a
certain age wouldn't be a bad idea. A lot of older people won't give up
their driving privileges because they stubbornly refuse to relinquish
their independence. I feel this is selfish on their part because if
they do have an accident, they could hurt themselves and hurt or kill
someone else.
Phyllis
Diva Phyllis
><Sat, Apr 2, 2005, 5:04am From:
>Spa...@spartacus.galaxy.org
>(Sparky Spartacus) wrote
>SNIP
>I think a yearly driver's test would be overkill,
>not to mention very expensive; but a vision
>check would pick up a lot of problems.>
I didn't mention in my last post, the senior citizens in FL can just
mail the form from the eye Dr in and get their license that way. They
don't have to go to the DMV at all. So it helps some, but not much. As
long as they wear corrective lenses and have 20/20 vision with them,
they can drive. It doesn't matter if the have bad reflexes or can't
hear, or have any other problem that would impair their driviing, they
can get their license. Phyllis
Diva Phyllis
><Sun, Apr 3, 2005, 1:51am (EST+13) From:
>siok...@gmail.com (Dawnie) wrote
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:02:18 -0500,
>pah...@webtv.net (Diva Phyllis) wrote:
>MrBud...@aol.com wrote
>SNIP
>(OT: I notice you've been quoting using the ">"
>character just like the rest of us, did you find
>out if WebTV had that setting after all?) >
Thanks, another webtv poster from this group sent me instrutions on how
to do that function with web tv. Phyllis
ienj...@yahoo.com
FX's The Shield especially in light of those two mafia cops recently
exposed. their lawyers say they are innocent but it's hogwash.
Hunter
OK, then what did that Supreme Court decision that was news in the
press a few weeks ago cover that these prior rulings did not?
---->Hunter
Nelson Lu
I'm sure that Thompson got its own press back in 1988.
But another reason why Roper got press coverage is that it was virtually the
first time that the United States Supreme Court considered international
standards in deciding what is cruel and unusual punishment and what is not.
Justice Kennedy's opinion discussed the fact that very few countries in the
world execute persons for crimes they committed as juveniles and made that a
substantial part of his analysis. That's not been done, basically, before,
directly, although a good number of opinions mentioned international standards.
Ralph
"Nelson Lu" <n...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:d2p1gs$ff9$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
I am not a big advocate of the death penality. In fact I would not object to
seeing the death penality in NY state abolished if it meant real life in
prison for most murder cases. I am not thrilled of executing minors also.
THat being said, the SUpreme court had no business listening to
international law when deciding the case. European bleeding hearts with
respect to criminal justice make US bleeding hearts look conservative. If
the courts want to rule that executing a minor is cruel and unususal
punishment fine, just don't use international law.
THis ruleing also worries me because, based on the wording of the ruling,
you might start seeing mandatory lighter sentencing over minor. Meaning, a
young person can comit atrocities with impunity until they are 21.
RLD
theget
I hope they don't start considering international standards when it
comes to things like free speech, freedom of religion, presumption of
innocence and more.
Theget
Nelson Lu
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>Nelson Lu wrote:
>> But another reason why Roper got press coverage is that it was
>virtually the
>> first time that the United States Supreme Court considered
>international
>> standards in deciding what is cruel and unusual punishment and what
>is not.
>> Justice Kennedy's opinion discussed the fact that very few countries
>in the
>> world execute persons for crimes they committed as juveniles and made
>that a
>> substantial part of his analysis. That's not been done, basically,
>before,
>> directly, although a good number of opinions mentioned international
>standards.
>
>I hope they don't start considering international standards when it
>comes to things like free speech, freedom of religion, presumption of
>innocence and more.
Not likely at all. As I noted, the reason why I think applying international
standards is the right thing to do here is that it is relevant as to whether
the penalty is *unusual*.
(But I must admit, I'd like to see them apply international standards to the
*Second Amendment*.)
Nelson Lu
Ralph <rda...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Nelson Lu" <n...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:d2p1gs$ff9$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
>> But another reason why Roper got press coverage is that it was virtually
>the
>> first time that the United States Supreme Court considered international
>> standards in deciding what is cruel and unusual punishment and what is
>not.
>> Justice Kennedy's opinion discussed the fact that very few countries in
>the
>> world execute persons for crimes they committed as juveniles and made that
>a
>> substantial part of his analysis. That's not been done, basically,
>before,
>> directly, although a good number of opinions mentioned international
>standards.
>This is why I have a problem with the ruling.
>I am not a big advocate of the death penality. In fact I would not object to
>seeing the death penality in NY state abolished if it meant real life in
>prison for most murder cases. I am not thrilled of executing minors also.
>
>THat being said, the SUpreme court had no business listening to
>international law when deciding the case. European bleeding hearts with
This is not "international law"; international law is a whole different
animal. This deals as whether the *national* laws of other nations is
persuasive authority on what is cruel and *unusual*. (Note emphasis.) If the
United States is the only nation that imposes the death penalty on people whose
crimes were commited as juveniles (which it wasn't -- but it was close to being
the such), I'd argue that that's pretty strong evidence that the penalty is
*unusual*. This means, of course, if the penalty is also cruel, then it is
cruel and unusual.
(And note that this is not a matter of "European bleeding hearts"; Asian
democracies, which actually tend to impose the death penalty a bit more than
most American states, also all abolished the death penalty for crimes
committed as juveniles. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence that the
penalty is unusual. As Roper noted, there are only seven nations that executed
people for crimes committed as juveniles since 1990 -- Iran, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo (former Zaire), and China. 543 U.S. at ___,
125 S. Ct. at 1199, 161 L. Ed. 2d at 26. None of these countries (with the
possible exception of Yemen), in my opinion, can be considered a democratic
state, and even they, as Roper noted, have either abolished such executions
or publicly disavowed them. You can hardly characterize this situation as
"European bleeding hearts.")
>respect to criminal justice make US bleeding hearts look conservative. If
>the courts want to rule that executing a minor is cruel and unususal
>punishment fine, just don't use international law.
>THis ruleing also worries me because, based on the wording of the ruling,
>you might start seeing mandatory lighter sentencing over minor. Meaning, a
>young person can comit atrocities with impunity until they are 21.
That has never happened and will never happened. If anything, sentencing on
juvenile crimes has gotten tougher and tougher the last few decades -- in my
opinion, very unjustifiably so.
Hunter
Yes, but it is justifyable discrimination. Unlike racial and ethinic
disicriminations, there are good reasons for it. People do deteriorate
with age, some slower, some faster, but they will, no matter how well
they take care of themselves. You don't see any 80 year olds playing
major league baseball or setting records for the 100 yard dash. This
deterioration affects endurance and dexterity and the senses, things
you need driving. People start to really slide in their faculties and
abilities around 70 years of age, therefore testing for driver
competence should begin about there. Perhaps yearly would be much for
the ten year period between 70 and 80. Perhaps once every two years
during that period, with yearly test beginning at 80, but it has to be
done IMHO.
------>Hunter
theget
BTW, I don't recall where, but I remember reading someplace that the
phrase "cruel and unusual" was meant to refer to some specific
punishment, maybe involving removal of a limb, and maybe involving the
branding given for benefit of clergy. But sorry, I don't have any
reference for that.
In any case, I can't say how strongly I disagree with you. While I
think the idea of executing minors (and as you've pointed out elsewhere
in this thread, punishment for minors seems to have become unreasonably
excessive) is wrong for reasons that are based on _our_ legal system, I
think this decision puts us a little further down the slippery slope of
ignoring the constitution.
> (But I must admit, I'd like to see them apply international standards
to the
> *Second Amendment*.)
Gosh, I think that indicates that you tend to agree with (but don't
like) my interpretation of the 2nd! I think you've nicely demonstrated
whats wrong with applying international standards to US law.
Theget
Nelson Lu
>> Not likely at all. As I noted, the reason why I think applying
>international
>> standards is the right thing to do here is that it is relevant as to
>whether
>> the penalty is *unusual*.
>
>
>BTW, I don't recall where, but I remember reading someplace that the
>phrase "cruel and unusual" was meant to refer to some specific
>punishment, maybe involving removal of a limb, and maybe involving the
>branding given for benefit of clergy. But sorry, I don't have any
>reference for that.
This is the first I've heard of it. But even if, arguendo, that was true, that
has clearly not been the standard the United States Supreme Court had been
interpreting that clause from day 1. The first reference to the prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment (which did not really decide any issue
with regard to the clause) was in Menard v. Aspasia, 30 U.S. 505, 8 L. Ed. 207
(1831), which ruled that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to return a
woman to slavery, who had been born to a slave mother but was born in free
territory although she lived much of her life in a slave state. The Menard
court flirted with the idea of declaring her slavery as cruel and unusual
punishment but ultimately ruled that it had no jurisdiction because there had
been no statute conferring jurisdiction on it. Certainly there was no idea
presented in Menard that the clause was limited tearing of limbs.
The next reference to the clause was in Spalding v. New York, 45 U.S. 21,
11 L. Ed. 858 (1845), where a defendant who was arrested for failing to pay his
bills to a creditor appealed based on, inter alia, cruel and unusual
punishment. The New York judgment was upheld, but neither Chief Justice
Taney's announcement of decision nor dissenting justices McLean and Wayne gave
*any* reasons. (Back then, apparently, if the justices in the majority
disagreed to reasoning, then they don't issue written opinions. Id. at 36,
11 L. Ed. at 865.
The next reference to the clause was in Wilkes v. Dinsman, 48 U.S. 89, 12
L. Ed. 618 (1849). Apparently, back then, the law required that if a marine's
term of enlistment had expired, he could not be held outside the country. In
this case, the marine was court martialed for refusing to continue to follow
his orders immediately after his enlistment expired. He raised, again, inter
alia, cruel and unusual punishment. He prevailed on other grounds, however,
and the clause was not interpreted. A somewhat similar issue arose in Ex parte
Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866), where a military tribunal was ruled
to be improperly constituted and had no jurisdiction to try the defendant, so
the case was disposed of on due process grounds, with the cruel and unusual
punishment ground again not reached.
The first case that actually disposed of a cruel and unusual punishment issue
on its merits was Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475, 18 L. Ed. 608 (1866),
where a defendant sentenced to three months in jail for maintaining a bar
without a license claimed, inter alia, cruel and unusual punishment. The
Supreme Court ruled that this was not cruel and unusual punishment, but in its
ananlysis, it did not give even a single hint that punishment needs to involve
detaching a limb to be cruel and unusual; it just ruled that the sentence given
was not excessive and therefore not cruel and unusual.
I think you'd be hardpressed to make a case out of the idea that cruel and
unusual punishment required anything more than a disproportionate and unduly
harsh sentence. It would run against nearly two centuries of jurisprudence.
Further, if your statement made sense at any time during American history, it
would render many states' prohibitions against cruel *or* unusual punishment
meaningless -- would that involve tearing up a partial limb? Those states
have generally held that their prohibitions are more expansive than the federal
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and that that was the intent
for their constitutions to prohibit cruel *or* unusual punishment.
>In any case, I can't say how strongly I disagree with you. While I
>think the idea of executing minors (and as you've pointed out elsewhere
>in this thread, punishment for minors seems to have become unreasonably
>excessive) is wrong for reasons that are based on _our_ legal system, I
>think this decision puts us a little further down the slippery slope of
>ignoring the constitution.
Again, it only goes to the unusual nature of the punishment. There's no
slippery slope here. (And the argument that all doctrines have to be based on
just *our* legal system doesn't carry water in that no sane court will dispute
the fact that British decisions are relevant.)