IN - Ruth Pelke, 78, brutally murdered by teen girls, Gary, 14 May 1985

[ArianeEmory]

Good point, and one of the reasons why victims should have no say in sentencing or parole decisions. Such things should be decided by impartial people who are able to objectively assess risk to the public, mitigating/aggravating factors etc. They should never be decided on the basis of how forgiving or how vengeful the victim's family feel.

I agree with you, but wouldn't that mean that, for example, Travis Alexander's family shouldn't have been allowed to speak at Jodi Arias's sentencing phase?

Again--I agree with you. But I suspect a lot of people here will want to have it both ways.

 

[Cappuccino]

I agree with you, but wouldn't that mean that, for example, Travis Alexander's family shouldn't have been allowed to speak at Jodi Arias's sentencing phase?

Again--I agree with you. But I suspect a lot of people here will want to have it both ways.

Oh no, not at all, I didn't mean to suggest that a victim's family shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind, either to a court or to a parole board. They certainly should be allowed to.

But the final decision should be taken by an impartial judge/jury/parole board or whomsoever is appropriate. And IMHO the weight they give to the opinions of the victim's family should be limited by the knowledge that a grieving family of a murder victim cannot possibly be expected to look at the murderer rationally or objectively. Either their hatred or their need to forgive may be so overwhelming that their words may have to be respectfully listened to, but not followed.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Ok, I guess I'm confused then, because some posts seem to (obliquely, not blatantly) imply that the victim's grandson shouldn't have been allowed to speak his mind here. In other words, I sense a double standard: victim family can only speak against, not in favor of, the criminal?

 

[Hopeful One]

Just because the grandson can forgive her, that should mean nothing to her sentence. She was sentenced by the court, not him. And if every criminal got out of prison early because one of their victims forgave them, this world would be an even scarier place than it already is.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the idiocy of some people. :sigh:

 

[Hopeful One]

Ugh...Im not a death penalty supporter, so Im glad she wont be executed BUT for the love of God....do NOT let her OUT. I dont care if she is "sorry" (which she isnt because she hasnt taken responsibility), or if she claims or appears to be a different person....15 is old enough to understand what she was doing....a helpless old woman.....this girl was and probably still is a monster. Leave her where she is.

My son is 14 and certainly knows that it's wrong to kill another human being. Last night I caught him trapping a cricket in a cup and putting it outside rather than squishing it.

At 15, she knew better.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Ok, I'm going to assume it's not me you're calling an idiot, but I'll just say I'm not comfortable with the grandson being skewered for his forgiveness and leave it at that.

 

[Tonya421]

Sorry, but I'm against her being released.

These young women planned this poor womans' murder, went to her house on their lunch break from school, and in one article I read, it was reported that she was stabbed so violently that the butcher knife was at point imbedded into the floor underneath her body.
And they gained entrance by knocking on her door and saying that wanted to talk about recieving Bible lessons.

I'm glad that the grandson was able to forgive her, but I still think she should remain in jail

:moo:

 

[Ausgirl]

This is every bit as heinous as the crimes keeping the Manson girls locked away for their natural lives.

Why are they still in prison, and this other knife-wielding murderer released? It really doesn't make sense.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Ok, I guess I'm confused then, because some posts seem to (obliquely, not blatantly) imply that the victim's grandson shouldn't have been allowed to speak his mind here. In other words, I sense a double standard: victim family can only speak against, not in favor of, the criminal?

speaking for myself only, I think he should be able to say he forgives her, even ask to have the death penalty reduced to LWOP but to ask for her to be set free on the rest of society is NOT his call, and not something he should be able to speak toward. A jury convicted her on behalf of the state. The public safety should rule the day.

 

[ArianeEmory]

speaking for myself only, I think he should be able to say he forgives her, even ask to have the death penalty reduced to LWOP but to ask for her to be set free on the rest of society is NOT his call, and not something he should be able to speak toward. A jury convicted her on behalf of the state. The public safety should rule the day.

I'm sorry, but are you actually saying he has no right to voice his opinion?

(Or are you under the impression he's personally responsible for letting her out of prison? It wasn't "his call". Reading the article, it looks like it was a combination of changing laws from the Indiana and U.S. supreme courts, respectively; department of corrections, good behavior (earned Bachelor's degree, etc.,) and time served).

I understand people being angry that a murderer was released (sadly, something that happens all the time, and probably with far less chance of being rehabilitated than this one had), but I feel directing rage at the victim's grandson is way out of line.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I'm sorry, but are you actually saying he has no right to voice his opinion?

(Or are you under the impression he's personally responsible for letting her out of prison? It wasn't "his call". Reading the article, it looks like it was a combination of changing laws from the Indiana and U.S. supreme courts, respectively; department of corrections, good behavior (earned Bachelor's degree, etc.,) and time served).

I understand people being angry that a murderer was released (sadly, something that happens all the time, and probably with far less chance of being rehabilitated than this one had), but I feel directing rage at the victim's grandson is way out of line.

Whoa Nelly, I'm not expressing rage at the grandson, as I said before, if he can find it in his heart to forgive her and find peace with that, that's great. I'm saying the jury convicted her on behalf of the state (read as the peers of society). To ask for her to be released among the people that spoke loudly to have her put away / executed is wrong. I live in IN, and I don't care for the fact this person asked for her to be released to possibly live in this state or anywhere else. For anyone to release her after the people have spoken is a smack in the face of justice for all.

 

[Ausgirl]

Whoa Nelly, I'm not expressing rage at the grandson

I think you have expressed this more than adequately in your posts, Dewey.

The grandson must have a very big heart indeed, which is nothing to denigrate, of course. It's something I admire, not being myself the most forgiving of persons when it comes to vulnerable victims and multiple stab wounds, and the like...

But I do see your point, regarding the greater good VS violent offender releases.

 

[Cappuccino]

This is every bit as heinous as the crimes keeping the Manson girls locked away for their natural lives.

Why are they still in prison, and this other knife-wielding murderer released? It really doesn't make sense.

The Manson girls, (and indeed Manson himself), have all been eligible for parole for some time now. Many of them have had parole hearings and have failed to convince any parole board that they are fit to release. This woman was sentenced to 60 years, which means that under the laws of Indiana she is eligible for parole after 30. She had a parole hearing, and did convince the parole board that she was fit for release.

I think maybe the media are exaggerating the role the grandson played in the decision, although I'm sure the parole board let him have his say just like they always do with family members. There would have been more to the decision than his word, but I spose it makes a good news story that a relative has forgiven her and supported her release.

 

[cityslick]

Whoa Nelly, I'm not expressing rage at the grandson, as I said before, if he can find it in his heart to forgive her and find peace with that, that's great. I'm saying the jury convicted her on behalf of the state (read as the peers of society). To ask for her to be released among the people that spoke loudly to have her put away / executed is wrong. I live in IN, and I don't care for the fact this person asked for her to be released to possibly live in this state or anywhere else. For anyone to release her after the people have spoken is a smack in the face of justice for all.

BBM

But Dewey, the point Arianne is making is how is that any different from another family member of a victim asking that their nightmare end and the accused be put to death. You can make the argument that is even more impactfull than with this lady's grandson did, because in the former you are doing it in front of people that are actually going to decide the defendants fate.

Maybe I'm confused, did the victim's grandson actually plead to the appeals board to let this person out?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

BBM

But Dewey, the point Arianne is making is how is that any different from another family member of a victim asking that their nightmare end and the accused be put to death. You can make the argument that is even more impactfull than with this lady's grandson did, because in the former you are doing it in front of people that are actually going to decide the defendants fate.

Maybe I'm confused, did the victim's grandson actually plead to the appeals board to let this person out?

BBM: The difference, as I see it, is that asking for a death sentence only comes after the person is found guilty and there is a penalty phase. This monster was already found guilty and the family member is asking she be released back into the public where she can act out again. that's a grade A large difference to me.

 

[Cappuccino]

But he's only asking for that in the context of a parole hearing which she is entitled to by law. She wasn't sentenced to LWOP, she was sentenced to 60 years. I have to assume that a judge in Indiana knows the laws of Indiana, so he would have known when he set the sentence that she would be entitled to parole half way through that time, (although she seems to have had another couple of years knocked off either for time served before sentencing or for good behaviour).

In other words, if the sentencing judge wanted her to spend 60 years behind bars before her first parole hearing he would have sentenced her to 120 years. He didn't, he sentenced her to 60, presumably in the full knowledge that she would be assessed by a parole board after 30. Victims families always have the right to speak at a parole board hearing, and I think that right becomes a bit meaningless if we say that victims have a right to be heard, but ONLY if they ask for the prisoner to be denied parole. They should be allowed to say whatever they want.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the due process of the law was followed here. If you don't agree with the decision to release her its the state legislature you should be petitioning to change the law. None of this in any way the fault of the victim's grandson, who has merely exercised his right to speak his mind at a parole hearing for his grandmother's murderer.

 

[rob]

Forgiveness is a beautiful thing. But, if she commits another murder, will he feel that persons blood is on his hands? Will that family blame him, for assisting her? He can be her friend, while she is in jail.
Would she still want his friendship, if she wasn't getting out?
What of the others who committed this crime?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

But he's only asking for that in the context of a parole hearing which she is entitled to by law. She wasn't sentenced to LWOP, she was sentenced to 60 years. I have to assume that a judge in Indiana knows the laws of Indiana, so he would have known when he set the sentence that she would be entitled to parole half way through that time, (although she seems to have had another couple of years knocked off either for time served before sentencing or for good behaviour).

In other words, if the sentencing judge wanted her to spend 60 years behind bars before her first parole hearing he would have sentenced her to 120 years. He didn't, he sentenced her to 60, presumably in the full knowledge that she would be assessed by a parole board after 30. Victims families always have the right to speak at a parole board hearing, and I think that right becomes a bit meaningless if we say that victims have a right to be heard, but ONLY if they ask for the prisoner to be denied parole. They should be allowed to say whatever they want.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the due process of the law was followed here. If you don't agree with the decision to release her its the state legislature you should be petitioning to change the law. None of this in any way the fault of the victim's grandson, who has merely exercised his right to speak his mind at a parole hearing for his grandmother's murderer.

To take a recent case that is still ongoing, everyone is saying that if Arias gets life it wil mean life, who is to say that case won't be overturned by a panel of parole judges. Botom line is, this killer can move in next door to any one of us now. Do the judges think she will move into their fine neighbourhoods? Hell No! It's more likely she will move in next to you or I

 

[Cappuccino]

To take a recent case that is still ongoing, everyone is saying that if Arias gets life it wil mean life, who is to say that case won't be overturned by a panel of parole judges.

Sorry, I fail to see the relevance. Then again I didn't follow the Arias case, so maybe I'm missing something. Is she under 18? I thought she was an adult, what case would she have in law to overturn a LWOP sentence, (or even a death sentence)?

Botom line is, this killer can move in next door to any one of us now. Do the judges think she will move into their fine neighbourhoods? Hell No! It's more likely she will move in next to you or I

I've been living next door to a convicted murderer out on license for the last five years. I've never lost any sleep over it, so she can move in on the other side of me if you're that nervous. Or she can move in with the dude next door, the two murderers can suffer each others' company.

 

[Reader]

Forgiveness is a beautiful thing. But, if she commits another murder, will he feel that persons blood is on his hands? Will that family blame him, for assisting her? He can be her friend, while she is in jail.
Would she still want his friendship, if she wasn't getting out?
What of the others who committed this crime?

First, the OP article says this, so it seems they could be out of prison now or up for parole also:

Cooper's three accomplices were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 25 to 60 years.

Since Cooper will be on parole, won't she still have to report to an officer often and have her residence and work, activities approved by them? I would think they would be keeping a special watch on her for the first year or so. IMO, she is lucky to get out, which I don't think is solely due to the grandson's remarks. The board considers a lot of factors into making that decision, including what her plans for the future are.

I'm still not decided what I feel about this and everyone has brought good views to consider. If she messes up even with a DUI, she will be a fool after getting this chance.