Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4107)	3/21/2002 7:24:09 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

Use a dog, go to jail! cnn.com California couple guilty in dog mauling case March 21, 2002 Posted: 6:04 PM EST (2304 GMT) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The owners of two dogs that attacked and killed a neighbor in the hallway of the San Francisco apartment building they shared were found guilty Thursday of all charges against them, including involuntary manslaughter and having a mischievous animal that kills. One of the owners, Marjorie Knoller -- who was present during the January 26, 2001 mauling -- was also found guilty of second-degree murder. Courtroom spectators gasped, and Knoller, 46, grimaced, trembled and breathed heavily as the unprecedented verdict was read. "Oh my God," she mouthed. Her husband, Robert Noel, 60, sat silently as the verdict was read. He was not at home at the time of the attacks, but jurors apparently agreed with the prosecution's argument that he and his wife had ignored repeated warnings about their two large Presa Canarios -- Bane and Hera -- and knew they were a danger. The prosecution laid out more than 30 incidents or warnings involving the dogs, which since have been destroyed. Involuntary manslaughter carries a sentence of two to four years in prison, while the charge of owning a mischievous animal that kills carries a sentence of 16 months to three years. Knoller faces a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for second-degree murder. Long history of complaints The five-week trial gripped much of the nation, as prosecutors described a horrific attack in which Diane Whipple, 33, was bitten all over her body -- her throat ripped, her clothes torn from her body -- by at least one of the dogs as she returned to her apartment from a grocery trip. The jury of seven men and five women saw graphic photos of the victim's ravaged body, with wounds visible from her ankles to her face, and pictures of the blood-stained hallway where the attack occurred. In tearful testimony over three days, Knoller said Bane pulled her down the hallway to Whipple, and she tried in vain to stop the attack. The other dog was loose in the hallway. Knoller insisted she had no idea her "loving" pets were capable of such an attack. Adding to the courtroom drama was the demeanor of her attorney, Nedra Ruiz, who at times cried, crawled on the floor to depict the fatal struggle and sparred with the judge. Noel did not testify, but his attorney insisted he was blameless, noting he was not home at the time of the attack. But jurors heard from several witnesses who said the dogs either lunged at them or exhibited aggressive behavior. And the prosecution played television interviews and read letters the couple wrote to state prisoners in which the husband and wife showed little remorse for the fatal mauling. "Neighbors be damned," Noel wrote in one letter, according to prosecutors. The couple's relationship with two state prisoners was brought up because prosecutors said they operated a kennel with the inmates that raised attack dogs. Verdict represents 'some closure' Whipple's mother described herself as "very happy" with the verdict. "I feel that justice was done here," said Penny Whipple Kelly. She said the owners never took any responsibility for the attack. "They had tried all along to blame my daughter and anybody else they possibly could," she said. Sharon Smith, Whipple's domestic partner, wept and was hugged by her attorney, when the verdict was read. Later, she told reporters that "some measure of justice was done for Diane today." The verdict, she said, represented "some closure." The trial was moved out of San Francisco because of heavy publicity. The case resonated with the city's large gay population because the victim had lived with her life partner, Smith, who successfully sought to for the right to sue as a surviving spouse. Ruiz had charged in court that the prosecution was trying to "curry favor" with that community in its pursuit of the case. The jury reached decisions on four of the counts by Wednesday afternoon, but the verdicts were sealed until the final charge was settled Thursday. Smith and Whipple's mother both said they were pursuing civil suits in the matter.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4107)	3/21/2002 7:53:26 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It might be more efficient if we could integrate punishment and compensation I think criminal courts often do just that. It seems to me that in a case, say, of embezzlement, courts often will make restitution part of the sentence. Or say a kid has spray-painted a bunch of cars -- I think a judge would often incorporate paying for the damages as part of the sentence for vandalism. In these cases, there would be a blend of possible jail time with restitution, or even community service which is another form of "payback." The point is, that the overall sentence would be a fair and just mixture of different components of punishment. In these other cases we're talking about, a person may get the max of incarceration punishment .... and then as an entirely separate matter, get another max of restitution punishment. This is trending toward a time when every defendant may face two trials, and two different punishments for the same act. Don't you think that really comes down to double jeopardy? (BTW, don't be surprised, it's not easy to guess where I will stand on an issue, despite what you may think ;-) JC