Man Held Captive by Stepmom for Twenty-plus Years

[Brainster]

I legit don't get what this is supposed to be saying.

That we are presumed innocent until proven guilty?

 

[theprestige]

...he said in contradition...

Everybody disagrees with everybody around here. It's kind of the point.

 

[ahhell]

Does she pose a threat to the public, probably not but she's almost certainly a flight risk, so house arrest or electronic monitoring don't seem like a huge ask here.

 

[autumn1971]

$300,000 in liability seems like a reasonable hedge against flight risk in this case. She's not independently wealthy. She's not got strong foreign ties.

Without justification, surely. We hold the state to a high standard in such matters for a reason.

I was held without bond for a week on an assault charge. Nobody was touched, but I did say “l’ll ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill you.”
I had never been arrested, I’m 48 years old, and I’ve lived in the county for over twenty years.
Her bond was high, but mine was not an option.
Explain how that is fair

 

[plague311]

That we are presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Oh, in that case the statement doesn't even make any sense. I never said that she should be found guilty or that she was guilty. I merely said she should be monitored as to her whereabouts when she's out of jail until the trial.

Does she pose a threat to the public, probably not but she's almost certainly a flight risk, so house arrest or electronic monitoring don't seem like a huge ask here.

Well, according to theprestige we don't have to worry about that because she's not independently wealthy (how he knows that is beyond me, and she just seemed to have no issues throwing up $300k to get out of jail) and...well that's it. She didn't have to surrender a passport or anything like that as far as I can tell.

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that she put her house up as collateral for her bail. Which means if she were to leave she really wouldn't be out much because she wouldn't need the house anyway. She'd be on the run.

 

[theprestige]

I was held without bond for a week on an assault charge. Nobody was touched, but I did say “l’ll ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill you.”
I had never been arrested, I’m 48 years old, and I’ve lived in the county for over twenty years.
Her bond was high, but mine was not an option.
Explain how that is fair

Were you arraigned during that week? Did you have a bond hearing that week?

It's disingenuous to say you were held without bond, if what actually happened was you were sitting in jail waiting for a preliminary hearing.

Either way, it sucks, and if you really were denied bond when you finally got in front of the judge, I think that was probably unfair. At least based on the details you've offered so far.

To be clear: I absolutely reject the idea that this judge in this case owed you a duty of fairness to deny bond to this woman. For all I know, you weren't even in the same jurisdiction, and this judge wasn't even on the bench, when you had your experience.

 

[shemp]

I'd like to remind people to not be so harsh with theprestige. After all, he has a body of work and a reputation he has to live down to.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Yes, and it is entirely reasonable to think that a woman who had detained a grown man for twenty years while starving him practically to death, would do that to someone else. What's your reasoning to think she wouldn't? Because she hasn't? She hasn't needed to, she had someone locked away already.


Because she can't lock another person away "for years", she doesn't have that kind of time. That being said, locking someone away for "years" is not the only way to be a threat to the community, as you stated. The victim was "part of the community" and deserves protection. Ankle monitors aren't intrusive. It isn't some ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ massive inconvenience or even invasive to one's day to day life. Wear pants and most people won't even know but she'll be tracked everywhere she goes.


Why is "habitual crime spree" the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ qualifier? What if she finds this man and kills him for getting her caught?


I said inane, not insane but whatever.


Monitoring isn't a punishment and people are detained, held without bail, etc. all of the time. Especially when they commit heinous crimes against another person. Like rape, murder, physical assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Those situations result in people being held all of the time. Are you equally against those "punishments" being imposed before the trial begins? It wouldn't shock me if you were, but only because you say ridiculous ◊◊◊◊ just to continue an argument.


That's exactly how our system is supposed to work. Protecting the victim and the individual who is suspected of committing a crime loses rights and freedoms. I've personally experienced and understand it.


I can't imagine why you're surprised, but I also genuinely don't care.


I know, that's why I said it in direct contrast to you bitching about due process. I planned it that way.


Yet it happens, justifiably, all of the time.


I think her callous approach to human life, her decades of torturing another human, her obvious desire to continue to do so and her apparent lack of remorse cause her to be a danger to society. I, also, think she should have had to turn over her passport, if she had one.


Cool, I disagree.


Yeah, and we know she's a stickler for the law. Undoubtedly. That's why she kept a grown man locked away and starved him for 20 years.


You seem to be sure of a lot of things. Yet there are thousands of cases of victims being assaulted by the person they accused, with countless killed over the years.


I know you know better than this and I'm just not going to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bother. If you're too dense to be able to see why keeping her locked away or monitored is for the benefit of the community, then I can't help you. You're also saying "house arrest isn't necessary" based on a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ assumption you're making about where this man is located. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid, and I refuse to engage further. Make up whatever half-assed, unsupported, ridiculous rationalization you want. Maybe I'll read it, but your legal knowledge is on par with many sheep dogs I've met over the years.

There's no point interacting with theprestige. His grasp of reality is long gone.

 

[Thermal]

I was held without bond for a week on an assault charge. Nobody was touched, but I did say “l’ll ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill you.”
I had never been arrested, I’m 48 years old, and I’ve lived in the county for over twenty years.
Her bond was high, but mine was not an option.
Explain how that is fair

'Fair' probably isn't the right word, but a death threat is kind of actively imminent to the threatened, whereas this lady couldn't abuse the son anymore. She wasn't threatening a near-future murder.

Eta: here in scenic NJ, the K word is also taken very seriously. The assumption is you literally mean to do so, even though it's often just venting rage.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That we are presumed innocent until proven guilty?

That's only in the court room before a jury.
Anyone who is under arrest is presumed guilty. That's why they were arrested.

 

[Thermal]

Oh, in that case the statement doesn't even make any sense. I never said that she should be found guilty or that she was guilty. I merely said she should be monitored as to her whereabouts when she's out of jail until the trial.


Well, according to theprestige we don't have to worry about that because she's not independently wealthy (how he knows that is beyond me, and she just seemed to have no issues throwing up $300k to get out of jail) and...well that's it. She didn't have to surrender a passport or anything like that as far as I can tell.

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that she put her house up as collateral for her bail. Which means if she were to leave she really wouldn't be out much because she wouldn't need the house anyway. She'd be on the run.

I was also thinking about how she came up with bail so fast. She prob needed $30k cash (10% for the bondsman), and unless you have some kind of active open credit line on your house for that amount, it should take a while to tap into the equity.

She is likely going down for a long time, and will lose the house anyway, so $30k versus the rest of your life in jail? I'd skippidy-do- dah on that.

 

[3point14]

Everybody disagrees with everybody around here. It's kind of the point.

No they don't...

 

[plague311]

'Fair' probably isn't the right word, but a death threat is kind of actively imminent to the threatened, whereas this lady couldn't abuse the son anymore. She wasn't threatening a near-future murder.

Eta: here in scenic NJ, the K word is also taken very seriously. The assumption is you literally mean to do so, even though it's often just venting rage.

She kept a man in a borderline death state for 20 years, though. While she couldn't do that type of long-term damage to another human she definitely showed that she has no issues doing terrible things to people. The duration of torture should undoubtedly earn her a place in confinement alone. If the person discovered were a child there's no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ way in hell she's getting out of jail. For some reason, since this man is now in his 30s it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem.

I was also thinking about how she came up with bail so fast. She prob needed $30k cash (10% for the bondsman), and unless you have some kind of active open credit line on your house for that amount, it should take a while to tap into the equity.

She is likely going down for a long time, and will lose the house anyway, so $30k versus the rest of your life in jail? I'd skippidy-do- dah on that.

If I were her I would have sold the house and had the money ready to be put in her commissary fund since she'll be there awhile, might as well live a little.

That being said I'm assuming the house and any possessions will end up in the hands of the son. Anything, really. All he would have to do is file a civil suit and any jury in the world would give him every single thing she has. Without question.

 

[theprestige]

She kept a man in a borderline death state for 20 years, though. While she couldn't do that type of long-term damage to another human she definitely showed that she has no issues doing terrible things to people. The duration of torture should undoubtedly earn her a place in confinement alone.

That's what sentencing is for. You want to sentence her to confinement for her crimes, before the state has actually met its obligation to give her a fair trial and find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You keep trying to frame this as a community safety precaution, but it's pretty clear you're actually thinking of it as a just punishment for her crimes. But it isn't. Sentencing before trial, which is what you keep trying to get to, is never just.

Pretrial detention is more of a gray area, and one that I have qualms about. This is one reason why I prefer not to see it imposed, regardless of how heinous the allegations.

 

[plague311]

That's what sentencing is for. You want to sentence her to confinement for her crimes, before the state has actually met its obligation to give her a fair trial and find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

mmhmm

You keep trying to frame this as a community safety precaution, but it's pretty clear you're actually thinking of it as a just punishment for her crimes. But it isn't. Sentencing before trial, which is what you keep trying to get to, is never just.

Sure, sure.

Pretrial detention is more of a gray area, and one that I have qualms about. This is one reason why I prefer not to see it imposed, regardless of how heinous the allegations.

mmhmm

 

[Brainster]

Exactly. She presumably is no threat to the community and not at a high likelihood to reoffend while free on bail. Throw the book at her once you've convicted her, not before.

 

[Brainster]

It is a bit ironic that the current trend among liberal prosecutors is for reduced or no cash bail, because of the burden it places on the defendant while awaiting trial.

 

[ahhell]

In defense of prestige, he's correct in that she hasn't actually been found guilty yet, due process is important. Again, I don't see how house arrest or electronic tracking is so onerous in this case. Plague is likely right; a civil suit will likely get this guy everything she owns.

 

[plague311]

Exactly. She presumably is no threat to the community

Why? What are you basing that off of?

and not at a high likelihood to reoffend while free on bail.

Why? What are you basing that off of?

Throw the book at her once you've convicted her, not before.

Since when the ◊◊◊◊ are ankle monitors "throwing the book" at someone? Since when is house arrest "throwing the book" at someone?

I'm genuinely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ asking these questions. She has a victim out there somewhere, and none of us knows where. She has absolutely no oversight at all. Her husband is dead, she's facing several years in prison, she's easily a flight risk but you guys are acting like this is some new ◊◊◊◊ that would be some massive intrusion on her rights.

 

[theprestige]

Why? What are you basing that off of?

Her criminal history.

Why? What are you basing that off of?

Her criminal history.

Since when the ◊◊◊◊ are ankle monitors "throwing the book" at someone? Since when is house arrest "throwing the book" at someone?

Neither of those are typical bond conditions.

I'm genuinely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ asking these questions. She has a victim out there somewhere, and none of us knows where. She has absolutely no oversight at all. Her husband is dead, she's facing several years in prison, she's easily a flight risk but you guys are acting like this is some new ◊◊◊◊ that would be some massive intrusion on her rights.

You're taking a wildly contrarian approach to the judge's ruling.