** Butchered Innocence **
View: thread | inline
-
Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 7 2007 at 12:25pm by Welcome to the Discussion about the case BUTCHERED INNOCENCE. We would like to know what you think about the series. Answer this question or post one of your own by replying to this post.
Should juveniles be eligible for the death penalty?
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 10 2007 at 11:22pm by not at all.i am from illinois(and you know what happened here}.young minds aren`t developed enough.punishment yes,death,no.tony from chicago.
-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 11 2007 at 6:01pm by I would like to know how it's possible to get time to present evidence to a judge when you've already pled guilty. In other words how was Monique's lawyer given the opportunity to present evidence about her childhood when she had already pled guilty? Is that a normal occurrance? RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Oct 12 2007 at 9:51am by Yes. The information about Monique's childhood and was not presented to the judge in an attempt to overturn the guilty plea. That is typical testimony during a sentencing hearing when the defense and prosecution both present what they believe the punishment should be. The purpose of the testimony was to show that she was a product of her immensely traumatic environment and that she was not an inherently evil person. They believe that she acted based on what her family's twisted values were and was doing what her brother instructed her to do.
-
RE: Butchered Innocence - juveniles and DP Posted on Sep 11 2007 at 6:04pm by Monique was a minor when she committed the crime, but she was 20 when she went to trial. Can you be tried as an adult if you reach adulthood while awaiting trial? And, has a juvenile ever been put on death row? RE: Butchered Innocence - juveniles and DP Posted on Sep 24 2007 at 5:12pm by On the show they said the most she could get was Life w/ out parole...So I guess not because of her age.
-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 19 2007 at 4:27pm by Minors on death row? In general? I'm struggling with my answer... This brother/sister team who set in on killing 2 little girls in response to their mother's drug debt - I don't ever want to see these 2 out of prison. But it didn't feel right when he got sentenced to death.
If he had a semblance good/functional family life growing up I'd feel differently.
In his case, NO, I don't think the death penalty was appropriate.RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Oct 23 2007 at 1:25pm by I catgorically oppose the death penalty even for severe no-chance-of-rehabilitation types like sociopath Ted Bundy types. Even for those types of offenders who have no chance of remorse or payback to the community there is a lot to be learned of their crimes while they are living to profile potential similar criminals. In this case, obviously a lot of what the Maestas children endured underlies their crimes, but there is an older sister who grew up just fine as comparison. No excuse ever for killing so brutely a young child and despite the directors attempts to make the viewer empathize with the perpetrators (I'm about as socially liberal as you can get in these matters) i still got a whif of superiority from the female defendant in this episode like she really truely does not quite "get" what she did. And she had had years in lockup to sober up from whatever adictins she may have been on at the time of the crime that may have clouded any judgement. A lot of that could be her age at the time this occurred. Keeping these offenders in prison until they are of old age (vs, just executing them), maybe there is a chance that even though they may never have children of their own to truly empathize with the victim, they will have nieces, nephews, close family child relations and someday they will "get it". I don't know what else to say.
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 21 2007 at 10:26pm by I watched this show with fascination last night. What a tragedy for everyone concerned. Beau Maestas received the death penalty for his part in this crime. I believe this occurred in 2003 and he was sentenced to die shortly after the penalty phase of the trial. Since this happened several years ago, I am curious as to whether he was indeed executed.
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 24 2007 at 5:08pm by Okay I don't understand did the sister "help" or not? Why would her brother take all the blame? It's a sick story but, I don't think the sister should have pleaded out her case. [b]
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Oct 14 2007 at 7:09pm by NO, I don't think they should be put to death. A child looks at adults, expecially there parents as God, for lack of a better word. I personally think the Maestas childrens parents should go to jail for no doing there part. For teaching there children Hate, for letting them be abused sexually, mentally and if not emotionally. They should have stoppd it. Those kids were subjected to a wrong side of life at an early life. I feel for Beau and Monica. Not excusing them for there actions.
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Oct 24 2007 at 6:24am by i don't believe much in the death penalty except 4 cases like Jeffrey Dahmer -- real sickos. 4 children no; a life sentence is death in itself. I love Sin City Law and really hope they come out with some more series. I love this in-depth, real look at the court system.
-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Nov 3 2007 at 11:47pm by I feel that regardless of age you commit a violent crime like these two did, or have complete disregard for the value of any persons life you are VERY deserving of the death sentence. Brittney (and Kristyanna) will never be able to live the life that she would have been entitled, why should the people that took that from the two of them be allowed to continue theirs? There are occasional cases of Murder where things "Went wrong" this was NOT one of those. The Maestas 's went and got the knifes prior to going to the trailer where the girls were. They had full intention of harming someone and did not care who that someone was.
Reading some of the postings that are on this topic I'm curious to know if anyone caught that she was 16 yrs old when she did this? It may just be me but when i think of a "child" I think under the age of 12 yrs. At this point in life I think that a "child" has a pretty good grasp on what is right and wrong, or that if you stab someone with a knife repeatedly they will die.RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Nov 25 2007 at 2:05am by How is a person serving a prison sentence allowed to be Wed (Married) ? How is a person serving a sentence for murder allowed for temporary release - For Any Reason ? What is up with the State of Utah ? Why is no one asking these questions ? Does not the State of Utah share some responsibility here ? Secondly - Death sentences benefit no one ! No Juror, Prosecuter, Judge or Officer should ever be asked to impose this on another person. The convict is thereby released from their miserable life. It does not deter crime. It costs more money to carry out than life in prison. Life in prison should mean just that - LIFE IN BEHIND BARS. No chance for parole. No getting married or getting out on the weekend for good behavior. Someone please, step up and help the State of Utah appreciate the outcome of their broken system.
-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Mar 11 2008 at 3:25pm by If any of you HAD ACTUALLY watched the whole show, you'd realize Monique's life was like something out Dante's Inferno. Her father abandoned her when she was a child. Monique was given drugs by her mother, which addicted her.She grew up in the violence and criminality of the drug trade. She was sexually molested by three men before she was nine, regularly raped by her mother's boyfriend btwn 9 and 12. From 15-16, she was regularly given drugs/alcohol and sexually abused by her uncle.She was homeschooled and isolated from society for the four years prior to the offense. No one to help her. Now she'll be in jail from 16 to 63 years of age. If the choice were mine, I'd rather be the girl Krystiana (who at least died quickly) than suffer what Monqiue has and will go through in her life. She is going to miss the same things that Krystiana will too--with the added benefit of gang rape and a lack of freedom for the rest of her life!
Also, the whole "anyone knows it is wrong" line of reasoning is simple-minded and ignorant of adolescent brain development. The very structure of their brain is different, and so forethought and abstract thinking become very hard--especially when one is in a drug-induced and sleep deprivation-induced psychotic state that comes with four days of using crystal meth and not sleeping for four days. (And why was Monique doing that? BECAUSE HER MOTHER TAUGHT HER TO.) Her brain, quite simply, was malfunctioning.
By the way, in NO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACY would Monique have received that severe a sentence. Case in point: In France, minors receive at most 50% of an adult's sentence; in Canada the worse that can he done is life with mandatory parole opportunities at no later than TEN years.
And really, let's all admit one thing: Judge Mosley was a moral coward. If he thought Monique deserved life without parole, then he should have given her that. He gave her a worse prospect, to think of it: What does a 63 year old indigent person do after having been incarcerated since she was 16? Work at McDonald's until she is 73 and retire to the dumpster out back.
Look people, this whole thing was a tragedy.Showing her some mercy would at least stop some of the damage.-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Aug 19 2008 at 12:09am by It sounds like Monique and her brother had a pretty good excuse for murdering their parents. However, unless it can be shown that those two young girls they attacked had anything to do with the abuse inflicted on them, I cannot excuse or mitigate their violent actions. Those sweet girls did nothing to provoke an attack.
(When Beau's lawyer was asking the jury to grant him life, I would have asked the jury to give his pleas for mercy the same consideration that he gave to the horrifying screams of those two girls!)
The only reason Monique was "not eligible" for the death penalty is because 5 Supreme Court justices ruled (incorrectly) that it was unconstitutional for murderers who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes to be executed. They based this decision not on what is in the constitution, but rather on foreign law and an international treaty that the United States has NOT ratified. In other words, they violated their duty and made up a ruling based upon their own sense of morality.
Since the constitution says nothing about an age limitation on executions, the tenth amendment requires that states be allowed to decide the matter.
The death penalty is very easy to avoid -- do not commit capital murder! If you think that is too hard a rule to follow, then move to one of the many states (or countries) where you can murder as many people as you wish and you will never be executed for your crimes.-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Sep 30 2008 at 8:29am by Again, another oversimplification of the realities of the situation. Again, I speak only for Monique, not Beau, who was an adult at the time. I am not arguing that Monique deserves mercy simply because her life was "bad." I am arguing that what happened that night was a direct outgrowth of the years of horror Monique endured before it. You CANNOT rape (and it was full fledged RAPE each time she was molested) a child, drug the child or allow the child to be repeatedly raped and drugged, and somehow expect the CHILD have normal moral development and demand full accountability. Look at this way: Imagine a young girl is hanging out with her boyfriend. He repeatedly gives her crystal meth and rapes her repeatedly for FOUR DAYS before brining her along to participate in a crime. No judge or prosecutor would even pretend that those were not significant mitigating circumstances -- mitigating circumstances meaning reducing culpability for the crime, NOT ITS SEVERITY. But because Monique was raped and drugged for YEARS prior to the event, it somehow doesn't matter? Does that really make sense? And if you like executing children, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia, where you can go and watch it every Friday morning in a soccer stadium. No other democracy executes children -- why do you think that is? I am sure the men who wrote the 10th amendment, when presented with this, would have clearly included a ban on child executions. -
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Oct 29 2008 at 12:28am by I do not believe that a single child has ever been executed in this country. At least it has not happened in recent years. By the time any murderer sees the death chamber, that person will have long since reached the age of majority. So please do not engage in the hyperbole of claiming that I would advocate the execution of "children".
Common sense must become part of the equation. No one would suggest that an eight year old who commits a crime should receive the death penalty. However, reasonable people can disagree on the eligibility of a sixteen year old perpetrator.
I completely respect the opinion that those who commit their crimes while they are under the age of 18 should be exempt from the death penalty. I disagree with that opinion, but I have respect for the argument.
I believe that each individual case needs to be evaluated. There are certainly some 16 or 17 year old sociopaths that commit crimes for which execution is the appropriate punishment.
My point is that the decision is properly left to the individual states. There is nothing in the U. S. constitution that prohibits the practice and the justices of the Supreme Court have no business inventing such a constitutional right. Perhaps the case can be made that Monique does not deserve the death penalty. But that decision is properly made by the state of Nevada and the jury – not by five Supreme Court justices.-
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Nov 8 2008 at 4:36pm by Here are a few interesting points: First, in NEVADA, a child as young as EIGHT years old can be tried as an adult for murder--and until the Supreme Court outlawed the barbaric practice, was eligible for the death penalty. Check the facts if you don't believe me. Any child over EIGHT years of age can be tried as an adult for murder and forced to forfeit their entire LIFE in prison. That is INHERENTLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY, period. THIS IS WHY 100% of industrialized democracies ban both the death penalty and life in prison without parole for children. The Supreme Court simply brought us into line with the REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC WORLD. NO STATE HAS THE "RIGHT" TO DECIDE TO EXECUTE CHILDREN, NO MORE THAN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIMIT OTHER BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS/LIBERTIES. That was the Court is there to do: protect UNPOPULAR ideas and people. Secondly, waiting until a minor offender is an adult before you execute them is so not very different from simply executing them as children. (There is cruel and inhumane element in simply waiting until they are an adult before you execute a person who committed an offense as a child.) Any disingenuous argument otherwise is so pathetic and evil that I simply find it beneath contempt. And forty-seven years to life is pretty much life without parole anyway, isn't it? What more do you people want? Blood? If so, how can you claim to be any better than Beau and Monique? -
RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Dec 3 2008 at 2:53am by Yeah, when I heard about that 8 year old boy in Nevada that killed two people and is eligible to be tried as an adult, the first thing I thought about is you, rsasso, and my last post! This, however, does not change the fact that the U. S. constitution does not guarantee anyone the right not to be executed for their crimes. While I would certainly be repulsed at the thought of executing someone for a crime they committed at the age of eight, my repulsion (or that of any Supreme Court justice) is not grounds for tossing the constitution out the window. If the state of Nevada has a bad law on the books (and I would agree that making an 8 year old child eligible for trial as an adult is a bad law), then the issue must be taken up within Nevada. The federal courts only have authority to reverse that law if there is a violation of the U. S. constitution. In this case, there is not.
The United States is a federal republic. This means that most of the legislative authority lies at the state level. Only where the constitution allows for federal involvement is the federal government legitimately able to intervene. If the U. S. were an oligarchy, then we would give a handful of judges the power to decide what should be law. Sadly, this country has allowed itself to become a de facto oligarchy by sitting idly by while federal (and state) judges routinely ignore the law and make rulings based upon their own personal sense of justice.
As a matter of personal morality, you might be able to raise some legitimate objections to the idea of executing murderers who chose to commit their crimes before they reached their 18th birthday. As a matter of law, however, it does not matter how many other nations on this planet refuse to sentence murderers to death. It also does not matter how many other nations insure special legal standing for those who are minors when they commit their crimes. The only thing that matters is the law here in the United States.
Stephen Breyer was one of the five members of the Supreme Court who ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute those who were under 18 years old when they committed their crimes. The majority opinion cited, among other things, foreign law and an international treaty to which the U. S. is not a party. Justice Breyer has stated that we should be able to learn from foreign law. This is an admirable idea. The big problem here is that a federal judge is supposed to rely on U. S. law! Foreign law has no standing in a U. S. court! If Justice Breyer wishes this country to incorporate concepts from foreign law into our laws, then he should resign his position on the Supreme Court and run for Congress where he can champion legislation that does just that. Yes, that is much more tedious than simply issuing an edict from on high. Unfortunately for him, though, that is the way laws are made in the United States.
The tenth amendment to the constitution (and the last of the Bill of Rights) reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Your last post states: NO STATE HAS THE "RIGHT" TO DECIDE TO EXECUTE CHILDREN, NO MORE THAN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIMIT OTHER BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS/LIBERTIES. As I stated before, the U. S. constitution contains no such right. It does not matter how many Supreme Court justices say that it does. It’s not in there. Read it if you don’t believe me. Since the right does not exist in the constitution, then, by virtue of the tenth amendment, each state does indeed have the right to decide this matter.
You also wrote the following:
What more do you people want? Blood? If so, how can you claim to be any better than Beau and Monique?
To answer your question, yes, for the perpetrator of the crimes committed in this episode, I do indeed want blood. It is an appropriate punishment for those crimes. I can also assert that I am better than Beau and Monique because I am calling for a sentence of death as a consequence of the choices that they made to commit horrible crimes. Beau and Monique, on the other hand, demanded and got blood from two totally innocent people. They had no right to kill that young girl. There is almost nothing those girls could have done to prevent the horror that happened to them. Beau and Monique are where they are now because of choices that they made.
Execution as a penalty for killing innocent people is NOT the same thing as murder. If you do not understand the distinction, then I can’t help you there.RE: Butchered Innocence Posted on Dec 8 2008 at 8:32am by Well, let me say a few things. First, and foremost, we are a federal republic, true. BUT we are NOT simply a confederation of independent states with a powerless federal government--that was resolved by the deaths of 600,000 people during the US Civil War and the amendments that followed it - the 13th, 14th and 15th, to be exact. Those amendments are part of the US CONSTITUTION, too, aren't they? And they say that as citizens of both states and of the nation, we have the exact same rights at BOTH LEVELS --the state must obey the all the provisions of the US Constitution. The US Constitution says that we are not allowed to implement "cruel and unusual" punishment -- and executing a CHILD is a PERFECT example of cruel and unusual punishment! What is "cruel and unusual" is an evolving standard, too, and world opinion plays a role in that. I am not saying you or NEVADA has to like it, but you have to respect the power of federal authorities to step in and FORCE the states to do what is RIGHT! If you doubt this, go read about the CIVIL RIGHTS movement and see what supporters of states' rights wanted then and there. Thank God we had a strong federal government or black people would still not be allowed to eat in restaurants and would have to use separate bathrooms. Now, as to murder versus "legal execution," well, all I can say to you is this: Does the government doing something make it right? We can argue back and forth about the death penalty without resolving THAT - but I would challenge you to read Camus' "Reflections on the Guillotine." The premeditated taking of another human being's life (unless there is an extreme emergency with no alternative) is not right for a civilized people. That's why most industrialized democracies have eventually limited or even eliminated capital punishment. We stand alone in this -- and stand in shame. Banning childhood executions was a step away from barbarism and towards a better nation. I am so sad you can't even see that. I wish I could help you there.
-
-
-
-
-
