Van Der Sloot is a dead man.

[fuelair]

If he is killed in prison I hope his killers (if found) are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

and pardoned back into prison (they get a mulligan on the good deed).

 

[Darth Rotor]

You have been here since 2005. You know its in bad taste to post news articles without a description, brief summary, quote from the article, or even your opinion. Just posting links is called spamming.

As for the article, I hope the guy does get killed in prison. Serves him right.

So, let me get this right:

you are for a death penalty not handed down as a sentence by a judge and jury in a court of law?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here ...

 

[Roma]

Oh I'm sure Joran will be killed in jail but not because the prisoners in there feel any moral outrage by what he did.
My guess is that big money is up for grabs to any person that kills Joran.

 

[Ian Osborne]

But people like Nancy Grace is the price we pay for free speech.....you hae to permit the A Holes of the world to have their say too.

Here in the UK, we have sub judice laws that greatly limit what the media can say about issues that are still going through the legal process. What Nancy Grace does is disgusting, and would see her in the dock facing two years in jail and an unlimited fine for contempt of court.

I don't want to turn this into a UK vs US mudslinging match, but in my opinion, our sub judice laws are an acceptable limit on free speech. I was genuinely shocked during the William Kennedy Smith trial, when a guest appeared on the Oprah show telling the world how she was also raped by Smith.

I can see the difficulties in passing such a law in America, where the Constitution prevents Government restriction on free speech, but perhaps it's time for a rethink. The defendant's right to a fair trial should trump our wish to read about the case s/he's facing in gory detail.

 

[Cainkane1]

You have been here since 2005. You know its in bad taste to post news articles without a description, brief summary, quote from the article, or even your opinion. Just posting links is called spamming.

As for the article, I hope the guy does get killed in prison. Serves him right.

I apologise if you feel that this post is spam. I felt that this article spoke for itself and needed no elaboration from me. There is a video on MSN that describes how the prisoners want to kill this punk and I hope they succeed.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Here in the UK, we have sub judice laws that greatly limit what the media can say about issues that are still going through the legal process. What Nancy Grace does is disgusting, and would see her in the dock facing two years in jail and an unlimited fine for contempt of court.

I don't want to turn this into a UK vs US mudslinging match, but in my opinion, our sub judice laws are an acceptable limit on free speech. I was genuinely shocked during the William Kennedy Smith trial, when a guest appeared on the Oprah show telling the world how she was also raped by Smith.

I can see the difficulties in passing such a law in America, where the Constitution prevents Government restriction on free speech, but perhaps it's time for a rethink. The defendant's right to a fair trial should trump our wish to read about the case s/he's facing in gory detail.

in the US the jury is (technically) barred from reading about or discussing the case outside of court or jury deliberation, in order to be able to provide a fair trial, and if this happens it can be ruled a mistrial and starts over from square one (obviously the system is not perfect, but no system is, not even sub judice)

this is why jury selection is such a big deal for high profile cases (OJ, michael jackson, michael vick) because you have to have a jury that doesnt have an opinion already (and preferably hasnt heard of the defendant)

 

[Ian Osborne]

in the US the jury is (technically) barred from reading about or discussing the case outside of court or jury deliberation, in order to be able to provide a fair trial, and if this happens it can be ruled a mistrial and starts over from square one (obviously the system is not perfect, but no system is, not even sub judice)

this is why jury selection is such a big deal for high profile cases (OJ, michael jackson, michael vick) because you have to have a jury that doesnt have an opinion already (and preferably hasnt heard of the defendant)

I can see where you're coming from here, and I agree no system is perfect, but in the UK the reporting restrictions come into play as soon as an arrest is made and charges are likely. To me, this makes more sense than allowing media reports then limiting your jury selection to the terminally uninformed.

I suspect the US already has laws that limit press freedoms in criminal cases. Can the American media name a rape victim, for example, or a child involved as a witness? Any step away from freedom of speech should be taken with care, but IMHO, this one would be a step in the right direction.

ETA: Once again, I hope this doesn't come across as a nose-thumb about our system being better than your system. I think the UK could learn a lot from America's libel laws and separation of church and state, but sub judace is something I feel we Brits have got right (or at least mostly right).

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I can see where you're coming from here, and I agree no system is perfect, but in the UK the reporting restrictions come into play as soon as an arrest is made and charges are likely. To me, this makes more sense than allowing media reports then limiting your jury selection to the terminally uninformed.

just one of the many ways criminal rights get reconciled with other freedoms in america

maybe the UK system would be better, but most people here dont think our system is broken (at least not in this respect) so theres little desire to change it

I suspect the US already has laws that limit press freedoms in criminal cases. Can the American media name a rape victim, for example, or a child involved as a witness? Any step away from freedom of speech should be taken with care, but IMHO, this one would be a step in the right direction.

the media is generally prevented from naming victims in any case, or minors involved in a case (although they do have access to the information)

this is something that came up a few years ago, IIRC a child was a key witness in a case, but due to safety concerns they wanted to keep the child anonymous, even to observers in court, and especially to the defendant. this led to a claim he was being denied his right to face his accuser



anyway sorry for the OT, i dont want this to devolve into US vs UK either

 

[applecorped]

You have been here since 2005. You know its in bad taste to post news articles without a description, brief summary, quote from the article, or even your opinion. Just posting links is called spamming.

Spam tastes good. Especially if fried.

 

[Cainkane1]

Here in the UK, we have sub judice laws that greatly limit what the media can say about issues that are still going through the legal process. What Nancy Grace does is disgusting, and would see her in the dock facing two years in jail and an unlimited fine for contempt of court.

I don't want to turn this into a UK vs US mudslinging match, but in my opinion, our sub judice laws are an acceptable limit on free speech. I was genuinely shocked during the William Kennedy Smith trial, when a guest appeared on the Oprah show telling the world how she was also raped by Smith.

I can see the difficulties in passing such a law in America, where the Constitution prevents Government restriction on free speech, but perhaps it's time for a rethink. The defendant's right to a fair trial should trump our wish to read about the case s/he's facing in gory detail.

As an American I agree with you. No need to hinder Justice with idle gossip.

 

[Cainkane1]

So, let me get this right:

you are for a death penalty not handed down as a sentence by a judge and jury in a court of law?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here ...

I hope he gets murdered in prison myself. Peru has no death penalty but in this case I hope the prisoners deal with him harshly. A shiv in his back would be very satisfying to me.

 

[NoScotsman]

Actually, Van Der Sloot might ENJOY his stay at that prison.

 

[Xephyr]

Heh. Leave it to an average Joe ex-prisoner to call a spade a spade and tell it straight. No political correctness or beating around the bush there.

*snicker snicker*

 

[Cainkane1]

Theres a video circulating on the web that shows a convicted rapist in Guatamala being forced to wear womens clothes and do things I cannot describe on this forum. He is in for many years and while he is doing the unmentionable the guards laugh at him. I hope this will be Sloots fate.

 

[Suddenly]

Theres a video circulating on the web that shows a convicted rapist in Guatamala being forced to wear womens clothes and do things I cannot describe on this forum. He is in for many years and while he is doing the unmentionable the guards laugh at him. I hope this will be Sloots fate.

Yeah. Leave "real justice" up to prison sociopaths. Would this be different if Sloot somehow was the person administrating this "punishment" rather than some other random psycho?

 

[Eddie Dane]

There is an element of poetic justice to this.
Especially as he escaped jail in the Holloway case because his dad had political influence in Aruba, and is now in total hell because he killed a young woman who's dad has political influence in Peru.

Still, I'm uncomfortable with the gloating over VDS's fate.

Years of sexual abuse is not a punishment that a civilized society dishes out.

 

[TraneWreck]

This reminds me somewhat of Ted Bundy, who escaped from prison where he was being held on murder charges, went to Florida, where they actually execute condemned people quite a lot, and raped and murdered a 12 year old girl. I hesitate to call it an actual death wish, but maybe it's a pushing of the line, a risk taking behavior taken to the extreme.

Whatever it is, one way or the other, I will not grieve to see him ending his days in a Peruvian prison.

Not to derail the thread, but, if it's even possible, Bundy's time in Florida was even more horrific.

The episode was something out of a bad slasher movie:

On Saturday, January 14, Bundy broke into Florida State University's Chi Omega sorority house and bludgeoned and strangled to death two women, raping one of them and brutally biting her on her buttocks and one nipple. He beat two others over the head with a log. They survived which investigators attribute to fello roommate Nita Neary, who came home and interrupted Bundy before he was able to kill the other two victims.

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/tedbundy2.htm

He broke into a sorority and just went nuts.

 

[Stellafane]

I saw a recent news item in which Mr. van der Sloot was bragging about all the marriage proposals he's been receiving lately. This may be one of the few things he's uttered in his life that has so much as a grain of truth to it. However, I suspect the consummation of any such proposals will involve his playing a role a bit closer to the bride's rather than the groom's.

 

[Psi Baba]

Another news program showed a short clip of inmates and how they live in the place where he is being held. It is a gruesome and violent place. The guy in the CBS story is right. That's why Van Der Sloot is trying so hard to make a deal with the Aruba authorities to serve time there instead of Peru.

When the story about the incident in Peru broke my first thought was, what an idiot, he could have been in prison in Aruba, now he'll be in prison in Peru. Biiiiiiiiiig difference. Furthermore, this girl was the only daughter in the family--she had three loving, protective brothers. Whether he does to prison or not, I think he's doomed either way.

 

[fuelair]

When the story about the incident in Peru broke my first thought was, what an idiot, he could have been in prison in Aruba, now he'll be in prison in Peru. Biiiiiiiiiig difference. Furthermore, this girl was the only daughter in the family--she had three loving, protective brothers. Whether he does to prison or not, I think he's doomed either way.

Given that, I would prefer the bothers have a chance to adjust him rather than the prisoners. I believe victim family should always have first crack at the thing if they want it. Otherwise....