|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering that it has been reported that she told the Mr. Harris' daughter that she could kill her father and get away with it, I think the prosecution should have gone for first degree murder. With the death penalty.
I'm also curious why - and it has been commented on in all manner of the press as to how unusual it is - the sentencing was left solely at the discretion of the jury? It begs the question for me, did the judge lack the guts to give her the sentence she deserved, namely, at least life, if not a needle in the arm? Why didn't the jury get capital murder as an included charge in the indictment?
A lot of whys here. It seems to me that someone was afraid, maybe two someones if you count the DA and the judge, to go after this woman, because she was a woman, and out of fear what the pheminazis would do to them politically. Give it to the jury. Pass the buck. Gee Whiz, Ms. Steinem, Our Hands Were Tied.
Twenty years for premeditated murder. And parole after, what, ten? That's a hell of a cheap price for premeditation.
Remind me to move to Texas in about nine years, so I can have a shot at being on a jury. Because if Mr. Harris' daughter decides Clara got off to easy when she walks free, I don't think she should have to do a day in jail for it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo Kid.
Any relation to Hunter S. Thompson?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twenty years, with time off for good behavior, she will get out in ten. If a man killed his wife for cheating, with a child in the car, and he was bold enough to state that he could get away with it before hand, well, he would die. I don't believe how this could have happened without a public outcry, when we as a society are dead set against violence, oh I forgot, that is only if the violence is against a woman. What a place we support with our taxes, and our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found it perticularily intersting that they had to put in that he by god was a cheater.
"Wife Kills Cheating Husband"
God help us I have never seen the reverse "Husband Kills Cheating Wife".
They wrote it almost as if to justify her actions.
I should really post that article on "The Media and the Hive Mind".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 15, @11:24PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
Yeah, I noticed that too.
Every chance they got, the media-ites would make good and sure they refered to Dr. Harris as Mrs. Harris' "CHEATING husband", again and again.
And I agree, whole heartedly, with you, that it seems they did that to some how justify Clara's actions.
Something else.
Does anyone else here find Mrs. Harris' "aledged" comment; "I could kill him and get away with it...," un-settleing?
I mean, why is it the media never asks the question, 'Why did Clara Harris believe this so fervently?' And further more, why do they not also ask 'Why do more and more women who murder men also seem to beleive the same?'
It's a semi-rhetorical question, I guess.
Most of us probably already KNOW the ansewer.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Something else.
Does anyone else here find Mrs. Harris' "aledged" comment; "I could kill him and get away with it...," un-settleing? "
I'll try to explain this briefly. Underneath the article on Clara Harris there was another article from the Canadian Press. The article was about how a DA would not retry a case of a woman killing her husband with a steak knife. A number of reasons were given all bullshit.
Now my concern isn't so much about the DA's decision my concern is why did my local newspaper feel the need to saddle that article right beside the Clara Harris article? It was a meaningless story on an appeal and was not fresh news. The associated press has a plethora of other articles that could have made up that space. It was pure agenda forming. It could even be cited as Damage Control if you were a politician.
I am also finding the delevery of male victims to be a shorter peice and less dramatized by the news reel. When its a female I notice the colours and the tonnes are lowered and the amount of time to cover the story is longer. More people are interviewed. Even the concerns of the people are asked.
With men its short and sweet. "A 24 year old man was found stabbed earlier today in his eastside apartment. The victim died opon arrival to the hospital".
With women is a much different case. Even in cases where homicide isn't decided its still a dramatized effect and the question of "I hope they catch the 'guy'". Men are not a priority. The reason. Men do not call the police, in fact men can do with out them. Fear mongering cops need women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 16, @12:35AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, indeed. Well, it's possible the jury was sucking up the free pizza and snacks benefit of jury duty. But I doubt it. The gender count was 9 women and 3 men (well there's a perfectly even gender distribution!!) and it took 8 hours to come to this abundantly easy conclusions: she ran her husband over in a car (he probably bought her) in front of numerous witnesses and caught on tape. Yep, that's a real tough one! Suppose they were arguing facts in that jury room or going through the numerous gamut of excuses women are sooo ready to make for one another? My money's on the latter.
If the sex roles had been reversed you can be sure (the late) Mr. Harris would be set for the infamous Texas chair right now. Instead, (the former) Mrs. Harris will get loads of sympathy, a few book contracts, and maybe a movie deal when she gets out (in 10 years or less, almost a certainty).
While it is good that she was actually found guilty of a ruthless murder she committed (well, hell, there's progress, eh lads??!), it is still a slap on the wrist for punishment. She may actually do 10 years of her 20-year sentence.
If she were male, she'd be getting life w/o parole, possibly death.
Harbor no illusions. Justice for men is still a long uphill battle.
Stay single, men!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""Suppose they were arguing facts in that jury room or going through the numerous gamut of excuses women are sooo ready to make for one another? My money's on the latter."""
You know, I have a gut feeling that the MEN on this jury where the one's that went for leniency. You have to factor in the goddamned "chivalry factor" that some males are still addicted to when they are confronted by ye ol damsel in distress even if she is a cold blooded murderer! And the women wanted a much harsher sentence like life without parole. And they compromised and came up with the 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 17, @04:22PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
eight hours is not a long amount of time for any jury in a murder deliberation. ever served?
"While it is good that she was actually found guilty of a ruthless murder she committed (well, hell, there's progress, eh lads??!), it is still a slap on the wrist for punishment. She may actually do 10 years of her 20-year sentence"
where did the article say she had been sentenced yet? sentencing usually is not done the same day as the conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
