|
Friday, February 06, 2004
The Unnecessary Death of Carlie Brucia
The Unnecessary Death of Carlie Brucia
In case you haven't been following the news, or have been so traumatised by Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" that you've switched to the Weather Channel for a while, a serious miscarriage of justice recently occurred in Florida. In fact, that's too mild a phrase. What happened in Florida was a horrible tragedy that could easily have been avoided.
An 11-year-old girl named Carlie Brucia was kidnapped and murdered, apparently by a man who should never have been seen outside of a jail until she was in her thirties. Her real killer, however, was the justice system that somehow let her murderer walk free after repeated arrests and convictions.
37-year-old Joseph Smith appears to be the man seen in a surveillance video, wearing a mechanic's shirt with a name patch on it, showing tatoos on his arms that match Smith's. He's definitely the man who escaped justice so many times that it seems as though it must be a typo or mistake, as reported by AP News.
Smith has been arrested at least 13 times in Florida since 1993.
He served 17 months in prison in 2001 and 2002 for heroin possession and prescription drug fraud. Eight days after he got out, he was arrested for cocaine possession and placed on probation for three years. He also got probation for aggravated battery in 1993 and heroin charges in 1999.
A state correction official, Joe Papy, said that a probation officer had asked a judge on Dec. 30 to declare Smith in violation of his probation because he had not paid all his fines and court costs.
Papy said Circuit Judge Harry Rapkin declined to find Smith in violation, which could have returned him to jail. The judge defended his decision Friday, saying the probation officer never sent him the evidence he requested that Smith had willfully refused to pay.
Because the justice system was excessively tolerant of this animal, an 11-year-old girl is dead. How many more like him are walking the streets because we lack a consistent, national "three strikes" law such as California and 25 other states have, and because the ones we do have aren't being enforced? (The Federal three strikes law requires that the third offense, at least, be a Federal crime.) In 2002, the Mercury News "reviewed the case histories of all 181 individuals in Santa Clara County whose third strike was non-violent and found that 173 had been convicted of multiple violent acts, many predating the three-strikes law. Their rap sheets contain scores of robberies, rapes, sexual molestations, serial burglaries, assaults and other hard-core criminal behavior." Under this law, a convicted third-time criminal recieves 25 years to life, period. The California version doesn't mandate that the third offense be a violent crime, unlike the others; even non-violent crimes like burglary can qualify one for incarceration. And according to California officials, the law works, though the Supreme Court has been kept busy upholding it against challenges and no two states have the same three strikes law.
Florida instituted a three strikes law of its own in 1999. It is unclear to me why it wasn't used to put Joseph Smith where he belonged: serving his 25-to-life sentence instead of (allegedly, true) killing an innocent child. After the arrest for cocaine posession eight days after his last release from prison, his third (possibly fourth) drug charge in just three years, why was he given only probation?
Amber alerts, television coverage, and flyers passed out by neighbors and volunteers is no defense against the kind of evil that murders little girls. Our justice system is supposed to do that. But when the system lets repeat offenders roam the streets at will, despite laws enacted to prevent that from happening, what kind of protection does it really provide?
Posted at Friday, February 06, 2004 by CavalierX
 | | | L
February 7, 2004 05:27 AM PST
The following article comes from my hometown newspaper and is about the case of a murdered 4 yr old girl. The police has a suspect, has given evidence to the DA, but no arresst warrent has been issued, so the rapist/murder is running free. How can this happen?
Orange police have organized evidence against a person suspected of kidnapping and killing Dannarriah Finley, 4, in 2002.
"We believe we know who the person is," said Police Chief Sam Kittrell.
No one has been arrested and no charges have been filed.
Kittrell said the department organized evidence and laboratory reports and turned them over to the Orange County District Attorney's Office. He said the district attorney's office will review the evidence and reports to make sure everything is in order before presenting the case to a grand jury for an indictment.
The little girl with a shy smile in her pre-school photograph captured the attention of thousands of people. Her mother reported her missing on July 4, 2002, from their house on Fourth Street in Orange.
Hundreds of volunteers searched the town for the next few days. Volunteers came from across Texas and from other states, some bringing helicopters and some bringing horses.
A pipeline inspector on Pleasure Island in Port Arthur found the child's body the morning of July 7, 2002. The autopsy showed she had been sexually assaulted.
Orange police, along with the FBI and other area law enforcement agencies have worked the case for months. Numerous tests have been run on registered sex offenders and searches have been made of cars. At one time, police distributed posters with a color photograph of a flowered sheet from a discontinued Springmaid pattern. The child's body had been wrapped in the sheet.
Kittrell said there has been a lot of "good hard police work by the many officers that worked on the case day and night."
Kittrell said the final report from the FBI lab in Quantico, Va., came back about three months ago. He said it took weeks for officers to review all the evidence and organize the evidence into a case against a suspect.
"It's a very complex case," he said.
He said the district attorney's office will probably need several weeks to make sure the evidence is ready for a legal case. He said the office is currently busy preparing for a capital murder trial in the case of an Echo area elderly couple that was budgeoned to death in 2003.
The person who is arrested in connection with Dannarriah's killing could face capital murder charges, which include the death penalty.
| |
| | | JM
February 7, 2004 07:49 AM PST
That's horrible. What good are laws that aren't being enforced? | |
| | | Mike H.
February 7, 2004 05:14 PM PST
It appears that the top brass at the BBC have more honor than some of our jurisprudential appointees. perhaps judge Rapkin could resign instead of excuse himself. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a start. | |
| | | Mike H.
February 7, 2004 05:19 PM PST
BTW JM, evidently this is strike three for the judge. (per O'Reilly (a person who pisses me off most of the time!)) Sorry about that. | |
| | | JM
February 7, 2004 05:34 PM PST
I've seen Judge Rapkin briefly interviewed about this tragedy... but as far as I know, no one has yet asked why Smith was given parole instead of his life sentence. | |
| | | Gerry
February 7, 2004 09:44 PM PST
Come on - the man had a bunch of bogus "drug possession" convictions. He had only one "violent" offense: aggravated battery, which might have been slapping his girlfriend for all you know. How could anybody without a crystal ball state that this loser should have been in prison for 25 years to life? He sure doesn't sound like a career criminal to me.
| |
| | | JM
February 7, 2004 11:23 PM PST
So speaks the voice of the Left -- there are no crimes, just "bogus charges". Notice how the word "violent" is in quotes to denote how meaningless an aggravated battery conviction is to these people. In a few short sentences Gerry has decided that this career criminal is an innocent victim himself. Disgusting. | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 12:21 AM PST
OK, so a few convictions for possession of small amounts (personal use) of recreational drugs plus a conviction for agravated battery (details unknown) warrants a life sentence as a career criminal. What do you think the sentence should be for stealing a loaf of bread? How will you guard the prisons when there are more people inside than out? Or should we just impose the death penalty for any felony conviction? After all, that's the original definition of a felony - a crime that carries a punishment of death.
| |
| | | JM
February 8, 2004 05:43 AM PST
Yes, that's the law: if you're determined to keep deliberately breaking the law, you go to jail. No one is forcing criminals to keep breaking the law; they choose to do so. You're so anxious to defend a murderer and career criminal. I wonder why? Of course, in California, as shown by the articles I've linked to, the number of life sentences handed down has drastically decreased in California as a direct result of the three-strikes law. Whether that's because the hardcore career criminals are behind bars, have left, or are too frightened to commit crimes is immaterial to me... law-abiding Californians are better off. People like you would prefer to let criminals prey upon the innocent with impunity, given slaps on the wrist when they rape, murder, and steal over and over and over. Well, to hell with that! | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 09:38 AM PST
The "career criminal" in question didn't "rape, murder, and steal over and over and over". He had a few convictions for possession of personal-use quantities of drugs. How many jaywalking convictions would you permit before judging the miscreant a "career criminal" and incarcerating him for life?
| |
| | | JM
February 8, 2004 10:28 AM PST
You do realise you're propogating a stereotype, don't you, Gerry? Please find for me where the law states that jaywalking counts towards the three strikes law, thanks a bunch. Next, please show me where "personal use quantities" of cocaine, which you so blithely assume is all he had, is no longer illegal. Thanks! | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 10:42 AM PST
OK then, how many convictions for possession of "personal use" quantities of cocain should result in "career criminal" status?
| |
| | | JM
February 8, 2004 10:44 AM PST
Three, obviously. That's the law. Want to change it? See your Congressman and get started. | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 11:21 AM PST
Naah - I prefer to overthrow this terminally corrupt system by force and violence. Thanks anyway, but I'd better get started while there are still some non-politicians out of jail.
| |
| | | JM
February 8, 2004 11:34 AM PST
Well, just keep in mind that Conservatives back the Second Amendment, so we probably have more guns and ammo than you. Otherwise, good luck. :) | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 12:24 PM PST
Doesn't three violations of gun control laws get you locked up for life? Like having a hunting rifle with amunition in your car trunk while driving through Massachusetts? Or shooting a burgler in your house at night with an unregistered firearm in Illinois? Can't you "conservatives" understand that when almost everything is a "crime" and the sentences for such "crimes" are made more and more Draconian, it's YOU that will be rotting in jail?
| |
| | | Mike H.
February 8, 2004 02:06 PM PST
Gerry,
1) The perp had a false imprisonment conviction, and 12 other charges against him.
2) in regard to your statement on guns, first there has to be a gun control law. We don't have them in WA.
3) If you try what you espouse, don't be within 500 meters of me. I'm very concerned for your safety.
Mike H. | |
| | | JM
February 8, 2004 02:07 PM PST
Where on earth are you getting the idea that "everything is a crime" except the usual Liberal hysteria? The three-strikes laws stop those who repeatedly commit violent crimes, burglary, or drug crimes, as far as I can tell. If you have any proof that the law covers jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk, please let me know. I'd like to see it. | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 03:17 PM PST
It will be interesting to see what you "conservatives" have to say when all the police powers of your Patriot Acts are in the hands of Hillary Clinton. If I were you, I'd start practicing your "perp walks" now. (Of course, many of you will simply disapear and so be deprived of that 5 seconds of fame.) What goes around, comes around, and a lot of you will be on the inside looking out.
| |
| | | Mike H.
February 8, 2004 03:58 PM PST
Gerry, can I quote you, pretty please? Thank you. | |
| | | Name drmom
February 8, 2004 05:01 PM PST
a number of people who seemingly should be in prison are walking the streets of communities around us because prisons are increasingly overcrowded, often dangerously so. The legislature of the state of Utah is about to pass a law stating that substance abusers with "non-violent" offenses must be sent to sbustance abuse programs before they are sent to prison. Great!! let's let more criminals walk the streets of the communities and watch the crime rates go up. That man had tried to kidnap someone before, and had been acquitted. We can't read a person's mind, and put them in prison for what they are thinking, unfortunately. | |
| | | Gerry
February 8, 2004 05:52 PM PST
The real problem is that we are filling the prisons with young, nonviolent drug offenders because of the federal sentencing laws. A kid who is caught with a bag of marijuana does more time that many an adult rapist, burgler, armed robber, or even a murderer. Nobody wants crimes to go unpunished, but it is long past time to stop criminalizing every aspect of human behavior and sentencing nonviolent offenders to Draconian prison terms. The whole system is a mess, and calling for more and longer sentences alone just won't help.
CavalierX: This might provide a good subject for an essay.
| |
| | | JM
February 8, 2004 08:37 PM PST
Frankly, I'm not buying the argument that drug offenses are to be ignored or winked at. You buy drugs, it's a crime. You're fueling violence, dictatorships and even terrorism with that money. Plus, let's not lose sight of the fact that illegal drugs are, you know, ILLEGAL. Your argument that kids with a bag of pot do more time than murderers will lead to the fact that I favor the death penalty, so you don't want to go there. We're not too tough on drug offenders; we're too lenient on more violent offenders. Our prisons are country clubs where those who break our laws are treated to better conditions than many of those whose tax money pays their cable tv bills. Those who voluntarily break the law -- and no one holds a gun to your head and tells you to buy that cocaine -- certainly should be punished.
Oh, and as to the PATRIOT Act -- oh, just read my article from 29 January. | |
| | | Kerry
February 8, 2004 11:47 PM PST
OK, Cav, I'm going to get personal here.
I was raped at the age of 14, the guy was put behind bars for 6 years, and let out on probation.
Yes, I have a gun, and you bet that I can shoot it. As they say, "The 2nd Ammendment: the Original Department of Homeland Defense. "
Gerry, until you or a family member is a victim of a violent crime, your opinions don't hold against mine. | |
| | | JM
February 9, 2004 04:56 AM PST
I'm sorry, Kerry. The victims of crimes are so often forgotten in the rush to protect the "rights" of the criminals. But crimes don't just happen, like an act of God... some SOB deliberately acts to commit them. | |
|
|
