Ken Kifer's death -- manslaughter
Mike Kruger
was killed by a drunk driver last year. (If you are not
familiar with his writing, you will do well to visit his
website at www.kenkifer.com)
The driver has pled guilty to manslaughter and driving under
the influence
"Rodgers was sentenced to 20 years in jail. He received a
split sentence and ordered to serve two years. Rodgers will
then have supervised probation for five years after his
release. He was also ordered to pay the Kifer family
restitution of $13,000."
"Kifer's son, Nathan Kifer, and family attorney, Joe Galda,
recommended the sentencing and plea agreement.
"In situations like this, we try to work with the family of
the victim as much as possible," [DA] Perry said. "Nathan
Kifer is a very forgiving man who genuinely wanted Rodgers
to succeed in rehabilitation."
http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?wcd=1089
--
Mike Kruger
If you fall and break your leg, don't come running to me.
mrbubl
A piss poor resolution for a real crime and loss. He [rodgers] gets his
life back and will live to kill again. Sad, very sad.
Scoot
be another like him. He will be missed by all who ever had **any** contact
with him.
My heartfelt sympathies to his family.
RIP Ken!
Fred Hall
"Mike Kruger" <mik...@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
news:1100919177.z++FhKkBv9Yr2+mshPFFRA@teranews...
Somehow, only 2 years in a cell and 7 years total sentence (with 5 years of
that probation) out of an original 20 year sentence, and only $13,000
restitution, doesn't sit well with me...I mean $13,000 for killing
someone??? Cripes, obviously no amount of money will bring him back, but
$13,000??? Where's the future earnings potential, etc?
I loved the online article quote "While on probation, Rodgers will be on a
court ordered referrel program, (drug and alcohol rehabilitation prorgram).
The program will include drug testing and inpatient treatment,"
I say let him go to his court ordered referral program while he's behind
bars getting his butt reamed daily by someone named Bubba for those extra 5
years.
Pete
"Fred Hall" <fha...@twcny.rr.com> wrote
> Somehow, only 2 years in a cell and 7 years total sentence (with 5 years
> of
> that probation) out of an original 20 year sentence, and only $13,000
> restitution, doesn't sit well with me...I mean $13,000 for killing
> someone??? Cripes, obviously no amount of money will bring him back, but
> $13,000??? Where's the future earnings potential, etc?
>
> I loved the online article quote "While on probation, Rodgers will be on a
> court ordered referrel program, (drug and alcohol rehabilitation
> prorgram).
> The program will include drug testing and inpatient treatment,"
>
> I say let him go to his court ordered referral program while he's behind
> bars getting his butt reamed daily by someone named Bubba for those extra
> 5
> years.
And Ken's family wanted otherwise:
"Kifer's son, Nathan Kifer, and family attorney, Joe Galda, recommended the
sentencing and plea agreement."
Whatever happens to this turkey, it won't bring Ken back.
Pete
Hunrobe
wrote:
>And Ken's family wanted otherwise:
> "Kifer's son, Nathan Kifer, and family attorney, Joe Galda, recommended the
>sentencing and plea agreement."
>
>Whatever happens to this turkey, it won't bring Ken back.
Exactly correct. Sentencing in a criminal case is always a balancing act that
must consider all kinds of factors. If I interpreted the rather poorly written
article (For example, supervised release after incarceration is parole not
probation. Some may find that nitpicking but the difference is a critical one
in the law.) correctly the defendant received a *total* sentence of 20 years on
two separate convictions. Without knowing the individual sentences on those
separate charges criticizing or supporting the decision is pointless at best.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Terry Morse
> Somehow, only 2 years in a cell and 7 years total sentence (with 5 years of
> that probation) out of an original 20 year sentence, and only $13,000
> restitution, doesn't sit well with me...I mean $13,000 for killing
> someone??? Cripes, obviously no amount of money will bring him back, but
> $13,000??? Where's the future earnings potential, etc?
As I understand it, damage awards would be granted in a separate
civil case, if the heirs of the victim want to go that route. But
IANAL.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
Fred Hall
"Terry Morse" <tmo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tmorse-837284....@news.covad.net...
> As I understand it, damage awards would be granted in a separate
> civil case, if the heirs of the victim want to go that route. But
> IANAL.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
So you're anal too??? My daugther always says I'm too anal about things
(sorry - couldn't resist upon seeing that acronym) :-)
The Real Bev
No, but another reason for punishment is as a deterrent to others who
might commit similar offenses. Why should anybody bother to sober up
before driving if the only penalty is a slap on the wrist and a fine
equivalent to the cost of a not-very-impressive used car. This guy is
not likely to learn anything from a short sentence, probation and
"treatment" -- "Rodgers had been released from jail just four hours
before hitting Ken. He had been held for 12 hours on charges of DUI
(Driving Under the Influence) and a violation of the open container law.
He has been charged with murder."
The killing of one of us is a crime against all of us. Ken's family may
feel that the sentence is acceptable, but I don't.
--
Cheers,
Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
I remember when everybody posted to Usenet with their real, deliverable
e-mail address. Of all the sins committed by the spammers, destroying
the viability of the open Internet was the worst.
(Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, news.admin.net-abuse.email)
Pete
"The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote
>
> The killing of one of us is a crime against all of us. Ken's family may
> feel that the sentence is acceptable, but I don't.
I agree, But judges usually give a lot of weight to the wishes of the
victims family.
Pete
Frank Krygowski
> Exactly correct. Sentencing in a criminal case is always a balancing act that
> must consider all kinds of factors. If I interpreted the rather poorly written
> article ... correctly the defendant received a *total* sentence of 20 years on
> two separate convictions. Without knowing the individual sentences on those
> separate charges criticizing or supporting the decision is pointless at best.
Hmmm. I think criticizing the decision can be valuable.
As Bev said in a later post, "another reason for punishment is as a
deterrent to others who might commit similar offenses."
The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.
If we get the impression the sentence was light, that drunkard is likely
to get the same impression. As Bev says, he's likely to think "Hey,
odds are good I won't get caught, and even if I do, no big deal." Not
much deterrence there.
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
Badger
<frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>Hunrobe wrote:
>
>> Exactly correct. Sentencing in a criminal case is always a balancing act that
>> must consider all kinds of factors. If I interpreted the rather poorly written
>> article ... correctly the defendant received a *total* sentence of 20 years on
>> two separate convictions. Without knowing the individual sentences on those
>> separate charges criticizing or supporting the decision is pointless at best.
>
>Hmmm. I think criticizing the decision can be valuable.
>
>As Bev said in a later post, "another reason for punishment is as a
>deterrent to others who might commit similar offenses."
>
>The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
>information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
>much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.
>
>If we get the impression the sentence was light, that drunkard is likely
>to get the same impression. As Bev says, he's likely to think "Hey,
>odds are good I won't get caught, and even if I do, no big deal." Not
>much deterrence there.
This is where I object to the attitude of the family, asking for a lesser
sentence, if I read that correctly. Where's the deterrence? What's to say
that b/c of the family having him let out sooner that he doesn't go out and
kill again? Where's the responsibility?
-B
(yes, the 'deterrence effect' is often debated)
Roy Zipris
Two years in jail is no "slap on the wrist." And with all due respect,
to the extent that you appear to want a harsher punishment for this
"crime against all of us," you do not speak for me. --Roy Zipris
Hunrobe
wrote:
It seems to me that many are jumping to conclusions based on a very poorly
written article. I'll withdraw that comment if upon rereading the article
anyone here can answer a few straightforward questions.
1- What sentence did the judge impose on the manslaughter conviction?
2- What sentence was imposed for the DUI conviction?
3- What will occur if, after his release from prison, Ken's killer violates the
terms of his probation? (I have to retract part of my earlier post- Alabama
statutes use the terms probation and parole almost but not quite
interchangeably.)
As I read the article and the applicable Alabama statutes, the answers *appear*
to be:
1- No more than 15 years.
2- Five years.
3- He would likely be incarcerated for 13 more years.
but how many people reading that article either know the Alabama statutes or,
like me, are willing to spend the time to look them up?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Dan Daniel
>>
>
>It seems to me that many are jumping to conclusions based on a very poorly
>written article. I'll withdraw that comment if upon rereading the article
>anyone here can answer a few straightforward questions.
>1- What sentence did the judge impose on the manslaughter conviction?
>2- What sentence was imposed for the DUI conviction?
>3- What will occur if, after his release from prison, Ken's killer violates the
>terms of his probation? (I have to retract part of my earlier post- Alabama
>statutes use the terms probation and parole almost but not quite
>interchangeably.)
>As I read the article and the applicable Alabama statutes, the answers *appear*
>to be:
>1- No more than 15 years.
>2- Five years.
>3- He would likely be incarcerated for 13 more years.
>but how many people reading that article either know the Alabama statutes or,
>like me, are willing to spend the time to look them up?
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt
Ok, thanks for some facts. Personally, I think that the difficult part
is the phrase, What will occur if... Ken's killer violates the terms
of his probation?'
Far too often, it seems that a violation of probation isn't considered
serious enough to reincarcerate unless it is as bad as the initial
offense. In this case, meaning someone else hit and/or killed.
If I remember, you are a police officer, yes? What is your experience
with parole/probation violators? Would a DUI, no accident, no injury,
lead to him being back in jail, immediately, no questions, no appeal?
Mike Kruger
>
> It seems to me that many are jumping to conclusions based
on a very
> poorly written article.
Amen. I posted that article because I thought it would be of
interest to many here (it is a "news"group after all), but
it is probably impossible to parse that article an
unambiguous manner.
On Ken's website, there is this note from Riin Gill. Riin is
more clear:
"Update: over a year later, the case over Ken's murder
finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor
brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were
concerned that he might kill someone else if he were
released. He may possibly be released in a year under very
strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition
he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence."
http://www.kenkifer.com/death.htm#update
Tom Keats
"Mike Kruger" <mik...@mousepotato.com> writes:
> On Ken's website, there is this note from Riin Gill. Riin is
> more clear:
>
> "Update: over a year later, the case over Ken's murder
> finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and
> was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor
> brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were
> concerned that he might kill someone else if he were
> released. He may possibly be released in a year under very
> strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think that's fair. I also think since Rodgers demonstrated
such wanton disregard for human life, his strict probation
conditions should include his being ruled off the road in
motor vehicles for the rest of his life. I hope that's the case.
regards,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Todd Kuzma
I had before. I rediscovered Thoreau and enjoyed Ken's own writing.
Ken's death has drawn attention to his writing and his view of the
world. It's refreshing to visit the site, and I hope it remains as a
tribute to Ken.
Todd Kuzma
Hunrobe
wrote:
>Amen. I posted that article because I thought it would be of
>interest to many here (it is a "news"group after all), but
>it is probably impossible to parse that article an
>unambiguous manner.
>
>On Ken's website, there is this note from Riin Gill. Riin is
>more clear:
>
>"Update: over a year later, the case over Ken's murder
>finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and
>was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor
>brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were
>concerned that he might kill someone else if he were
>released. He may possibly be released in a year under very
>strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition
>he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence."
>http://www.kenkifer.com/death.htm#update
Mike-
I hope no one misinterpreted my criticism of the author's sloppy reporting as a
criticism of you for posting the story. That was not my intent. All I was
trying to get across to those complaining about the "leniency" of the sentence
handed down is that after reading that article, I couldn't even be sure what
the sentence *was*.
The best guess I could hazard after reading the applicable Alabama statutes and
engaging in some extrapolation is that Rodgers received 15 years on the
manslaughter conviction and 5 for the DUI, sentences to be served concurrently.
The $13k had to be the result of a restitution hearing that Alabama law
specifies. (As an aside, restitution is not the same as a damage award. Alabama
law still allows for damages in a civil suit although it's awfully hard to get
blood from a stone.)
All that though is really incidental. What's important is that over a year
after his untimely death Ken is still remembered respectfully by people he
never met. That says more for the man he was than any sentence the courts could
impose on his killer.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>
>The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
>information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
>much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.
What information do we have? That the judge imposed a sentence of 20 years,
that Rodgers is guaranteed a year in prison, or that he received probation?
We can reasonably criticize the very sloppy reporting but in this particular
instance it makes no sense to me to either criticize or defend the sentence
imposed because, thanks to that very sloppy reporting, we don't *know* what the
sentence really is.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Jym Dyer
> detail than I had before.
=v= And that website would be:
<_Jym_>
Fred Hall
"Roy Zipris" <lrzi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d828b4.04112...@posting.google.com...
Compared to being dead I would say 2 years is a slap on the wrist...not that
I'd want to spend 2 years in jail, but I didn't kill anyone either...and if
I read some of the previous posts correctly, he could be out in as little as
one year. But "if he violates the conditions of his strict parole, he would
go back to serve his full sentence"...little consolation if he runs down and
kills someone else as soon as he gets out.
Ken Pisichko
> A piss poor resolution for a real crime and loss. He [rodgers] gets his
> life back and will live to kill again. Sad, very sad.
Yes, I do agree. However no matter what is done, Ken will NOT come back.
His son sees value in rehab. So do I.
Of course there is no guarantee that Ken's killer won't do another killing.
There are no guarantees - not even ANY guarantee that YOU will be breathing
in 5 minutes from now. If you are, then count your blessings for eventually
YOU will die.
Under the justice system as i know it, there is some element of trust for
rehabilitation. IF Ken's killer screws up then there is due process and the
justice system could not (and did not) predict the killer's failure.
Put yourself in the Ken's killer's shoes (IF you can). Would you like your
life terminated NOW with NO chance for rehab? If so, step up to the plate
and...
Otherwise don't throw stones while living in a glass house.
Ken
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>If I remember, you are a police officer, yes?
Yes.
>What is your experience
>with parole/probation violators?
Extensive enough to have formed the opinion that the only rehabilitation
programs that work are those that people initiate on their own. <g>
>Would a DUI, no accident, no injury,
>lead to him being back in jail, immediately, no questions, no appeal?
Probation and parole are two completely separate issues here in Illinois.
If an individual is *convicted* of a crime while on probation the original
court- the court that sentenced him to a period of probation- may revoke that
probation and send them to jail or prison for whatever time the statute
specifies. That rarely happens even upon conviction and is almost unheard of
for a mere arrest. Unless the new arrest charge is substantially similiar to
the charge he received probation on, he'll likely get a stern warning and
"double super secret probation" a la Dean Wormer of "Animal House" fame. If
he's convicted on that new charge his probation will be likely be "terminated
unsatisfactorily". That's rather like telling him, "This is going on your
PERMANENT RECORD, young man!".
Parolees are in a different situation altogether because a parolee is still
technically in the State's custody. Merely being arrested can and often does
result in a violation of parole (VOP) and the parolee returned to prison. It's
not like being arrested, posting bond, and remaining free pending trial. To
illustrate:
A convicted armed robber is paroled.
After being paroled he's arrested for driving on a suspended license.
The Department of Corrections (DOC) issues a parole violation warrant for him.
He's arrested and returned to DOC to continue serving his armed robbery
sentence.
Any VOP appeal proceeds while the parolee is in prison.
Where things get tricky is in figuring out how long the parole violator will
remain in prison on the violation but that is way off topic.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Roy Zipris
public defender, violations of probation or parole are typically
viewed by judges as extremely serious. Judges here view violations as
direct challenges to their authority and they punish violators
severely. Parolees under the supervision of the state parole board are
even worse off: that agency doesn't mess around!
As Bob infers, criminal law and procedure are matters of ech state's
and the fed's different rules; his analysis is similar to but not
quite the same as Pennsylvania's. Here, an allegation of a violation
must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence--a tip of the scale,
51%, more likely than not, in its various definitions--a pretty easy
burden to sustain. Such things can be appealed, but, again in my PA
experience, with almost no chance of success (for a number of OT
reasons). --Roy Zipris
Terry Morse
> [In Pennsylvania] an allegation of a violation must be proved by
> a preponderance of the evidence--a tip of the scale, 51%, more
> likely than not, in its various definitions--a pretty easy burden
> to sustain.
Preponderance of evidence -- in a criminal case?? I hope you're
mistaken. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the
Constitution. A jury must receive specific instructions about
reasonable doubt:
Jury instruction language upheld by the Supreme Court in Sandoval v.
California (1994):
"Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible
doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending
on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It
is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in
that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction,
to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."
Roy Zipris
> mistaken. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the
> Constitution.
For guilty verdicts and death penalties, yes. For various other
matters, no, not constitutionally required, although statutes (which
will differ state to state) may define the appropriate burden of proof
as either (1) beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) clear & convincing, or
(3) preponderance. For example, in PA, a statute states that when a
defendant moves to suppress evidence, claiming that the police
discovered it in violation of his constitutional rights, the
prosecution need only prove by a preponderance that his rights were
not violated. --Roy Zipris
Hunrobe
wrote:
>Preponderance of evidence -- in a criminal case?? I hope you're
>mistaken. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the
>Constitution.
I doubt he's mistaken because he *is* an attorney in the public defender's
office and he likely deals with VOPs on a regular basis. Besides, VOPs are not
truly criminal cases in the constitutional sense. A VOP is more like a breach
of contract. Think of it this way- a person is convicted of a crime after the
State has met their burden of proof, proof of guilt to a moral certainty. In
the case of probation, the State then offers a contract to the guilty party:
"Abide by these conditions and the State will not confine you. Violate these
conditions and the State will confine you for the crime just proved."
The guilty party accepts that contract but fails to abide by the terms. The
State says, "Hey, you had your chance. Off to confinement with you."
The same concept applies to parole except the contract is for an early release
from confinement after a conviction as opposed to a contract that avoids
confinement altogether.
Regards,
Bob Hunt