GUILTY CA - Madyson Middleton, 8, Santa Cruz, 26 July 2015 - #3 *Arrest*

[Madeleine74]

The reason there is focus on heinous crimes and there are lots of threads is because people focus on them (for a variety of reasons) and there are specific places to do just that, to the exclusion of other topics.

Heinous crimes have existed from time immemorial from as long as humans have existed. There is documentation that exists from every century that shows us how awful and cruel humans can be and were: men, women, children, babies...all have been affected. Humans are the most dangerous and cruel species because they kill for pleasure, revenge, greed, among other reasons. I saw a TV special about the frozen remains of the "Otzi the iceman" who was found buried among the deep ice in the mountains. A team has been studying his remains. Turns out he was murdered! And the team was able to determine he was murdered less than an hour after he ate a full meal, which means he was murdered by someone in his tribe or clan, at that specific elevation on the mountain.

What's different now is the ease of access to information around the world and in almost every region and in a variety of forms. Go back 100 or 200 years and what you knew was limited to your specific geographical area. There was just as much evilness back then. And in eras like the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and many others...it's almost unfathomable.

 

[human]

I think that with the net there is a ton of child *advertiser censored* which was never available at this level. Scary buisness

 

[tlcya]

:stop:

criticising how others choose to feel about or view the perp. It is rude and unwelcoming. ALL members are entitled to feel however they feel and to express it within TOS without being attacked for doing so.

 

[LinasK]

In the cases of Hannah and Heather, they had the extreme misfortune of being mixed up in relationships with older messed up individuals. So in comparison, they are BABIES. Babies in relation to the older perps they were trying to relate to emotionally. I think the term baby is given IN CONTEXT.

Austin and Perry were 'babies' in the context of being alone in the wide open wicked sea. They were inexperienced and unable to make mature decisions, imo.

I do not think the two 12 yr old perpetrators should be tried as adults in this Slenderman case. I think they are babies and immature and mentally ill, most likely.

BBM. That's where I disagree. In this case, 1cm more, and the victim would have died. They committed a very adult crime on purpose for a stupid reason, and only one of them is mentally ill. My only problem with them being tried as adults is if the mentally ill one doesn't get treatment for that reason. They had the intent to kill her. If it were only a robbery, or an accidental push, I might feel differently.

 

[LinasK]

Just for the record, as some seem confused, the OP did not say she knows AJG or his mother. She is friends with someone who knows Maddy's mother. I can imagine in that particular circle of friends, in a more "alternative" community like Santa Cruz, attitudes would be different and more conflicted than they are here on WS. They aren't as familiar with evil actions as we are. This may be their first experience with someone that age committing atrocities, whereas we've seen it before and have already processed this type of situation (Gabe Gaeta/Jenise Wright for example).

It's the type of community that is more inclined to believe that everyone has value and is capable of good, so I can understand her cringing about crude expressions used about AJG, even while knowing what he's done. She probably can't yet bring herself to imagine that he is as irredeemable as many here believe. She's certainly entitled to her struggle and her feelings. It obviously was not a wise first post, but I do understand where she was coming from because I live in a similar community.
JMO

I got that already, but I can't agree with the mindset. :notgood:And though I am Liberal, Santa Cruz is out there for me, and I'm not talking about the distance. I've spent a little bit of time there in the last couple of years.

 

[Lilibet]

I got that already, but I can't agree with the mindset. :notgood:And though I am Liberal, Santa Cruz is out there for me, and I'm not talking about the distance. I've spent a little bit of time there in the last couple of years.

It's not necessary for anyone to agree with the possible mindset of the OP. I was simply trying to understand and perhaps clarify for others where she might be coming from. She got a very strong reaction...one that Ticya told posters to stop. I think we ought to be able to look deeper and attempt to understand points of view we disagree with, both when it's someone's very first post and with old-timers. It makes for a respectful, nuanced discussion, and that was my goal, as always. JMO

 

[borndem]

I find it cringe worthy that he lured, raped, and violently murdered a child and stuffed her into a garbage bin...and can't get life without parole. He can't consent to sex, but he can rape an innocent child and have a chance to get out and do it again. What about her consent? Are we forgetting that? She was on the earth for 8 years...what about her? Can we focus on her instead of label semantics for the monster who snuffed out her life?

Him...no...he doesn't get any of my grace extended to him. Not conflicted here. Not sorry about it.

And I am sorry for being so blunt, but talking about his ability to consent to "sex" when he violently raped a young little girl...is disgusting. JMO.

It is not impossible for someone under 18 who has been convicted of murder to receive LWOP -- but mitigating and aggravating circumstances must be presented, and the judge will be able to give a LWOP sentence to someone who committed the murder when s/he was under 18.

From the Los Angeles Times:

[h=1]Supreme Court rules mandatory juvenile life without parole cruel and unusual[/h]
June 25, 2012
.
.
.


In 2005, the court abolished the death sentence for those under 18 who are convicted of murder. In 2010, the justices went further and said life terms with no parole are unconstitutional for juveniles who commit crimes short of murder.
Today’s decision does not end life terms for young murderers, but it says judges or juries must consider the defendant’s youth before imposing a life term with no parole.
.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ju...ife-without-parole-cruel-and-unusual-20120625

We had a case here in NC where the defendant committed murder, kidnapping, and grand larceny on a young woman, and was given LWOP on 12/20/11. Then the Supreme Court came out with the ruling cited in the article above in 2012. His LWOP was suspended, he remained in prison, and his case was the first one reviewed in NC. The judge evaluated the case and re-instated LWOP. So it can happen -- it's just not an automatic sentence as it once was.

 

[blue22]

It is not impossible for someone under 18 who has been convicted of murder to receive LWOP -- but mitigating and aggravating circumstances must be presented, and the judge will be able to give a LWOP sentence to someone who committed the murder when s/he was under 18.

From the Los Angeles Times:



http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ju...ife-without-parole-cruel-and-unusual-20120625

We had a case here in NC where the defendant committed murder, kidnapping, and grand larceny on a young woman, and was given LWOP on 12/20/11. Then the Supreme Court came out with the ruling cited in the article above in 2012. His LWOP was suspended, he remained in prison, and his case was the first one reviewed in NC. The judge evaluated the case and re-instated LWOP. So it can happen -- it's just not an automatic sentence as it once was.

But in AJ's case, he can be eligible for parole. I'm talking about him specifically.

 

[Madeleine74]

The Manson family are eligible for parole and so far, 45 years later, not one of them has gotten paroled. Eligible does not mean someone ever will be released. If AG is deemed to be an ongoing danger he'll never get out. It takes a lot for someone to win parole when they've committed first degree murder.

Beyond that, the law is the law. If the laws aren't tenable, then action needs to be taken by the citizens of a jurisdiction to change the laws. The courts can only do what the laws allow them to do.

 

[LinasK]

It's not necessary for anyone to agree with the possible mindset of the OP. I was simply trying to understand and perhaps clarify for others where she might be coming from. She got a very strong reaction...one that Ticya told posters to stop. I think we ought to be able to look deeper and attempt to understand points of view we disagree with, both when it's someone's very first post and with old-timers. It makes for a respectful, nuanced discussion, and that was my goal, as always. JMO

I completely get where she's coming from, and as I've said, I've spent time there and know people there. I just don't agree with it. It's naivete as I see it.

 

[LinasK]

The Manson family are eligible for parole and so far, 45 years later, not one of them has gotten paroled. Eligible does not mean someone ever will be released. If AG is deemed to be an ongoing danger he'll never get out. It takes a lot for someone to win parole when they've committed first degree murder.

Beyond that, the law is the law. If the laws aren't tenable, then action needs to be taken by the citizens of a jurisdiction to change the laws. The courts can only do what the laws allow them to do.

They all received Death sentences. Only by sheer luck that California overturned the Death Penalty for 4 years (1972-1976) was their sentences commuted to Life. If they'd been convicted after 1976, they'd be on Death Row. Susan Atkins died in prison, she didn't even get a compassionate release. Manson, Van Houten, and Krenwinkle are unrepentant. (Ironically, there was a segment on them last night on the new docudrama series- The Seventies) on CNN. They interviewed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who died this year.

 

[EllieBee]

Well I have seen the terms "baby," "little girl/boy" and "young girl/boy" used. Various cases covered on WS; it's actually quite common. Just a few I can list off the top of my head. I note it because I've always found it interesting that a victim even up to age 16 is sometimes seen as a "baby" or "little girl/boy" and a perp at the same or near the same age never is. Just one of those things...

- 16 yr old Hannah Anderson
- 20 yr old Heather Elvis
- 14 yr olds Austin Stephanous & Perry Cohen
- 12 yr old 'Slenderman' case, girl who was stabbed by two of her 12 yr old friends. She has been called 'baby' and the other 2 girls the same age are just "the monsters." And, the two 12 yr olds will be tried as adults.

Your first example is the most obvious to me. I do not believe she is/was in any way, shape or form a victim, but because of the awesome policing in San Diego (Zahau case, anyone? ) this special person has bedn treated as a sweet helpless little baby, despite her illuminating SM postings.

So, yeah, depending on the case, a 16 year old can be a "sweet innocent baby who was led astray and could not POSSIBLY be held responsible" or a "evil monster who was old enough to know better".

I pretty much believe #2. 15/16 is old enough to know it is a no-no to kill people.

But pretty blonde cheerleaders always get a pass.....it is not fair. But it is what it is.

 

[EllieBee]

BBM. That's where I disagree. In this case, 1cm more, and the victim would have died. They committed a very adult crime on purpose for a stupid reason, and only one of them is mentally ill. My only problem with them being tried as adults is if the mentally ill one doesn't get treatment for that reason. They had the intent to kill her. If it were only a robbery, or an accidental push, I might feel differently.

I, like you, am a liberal (well, I am liberal-ISH. Fiscally more conservative, but, yada...)
And, I find that many of these so-called "babies" are more knowing and hard edged than I am at 50!!!!

They are brazen, unashamed, and have little or no regard for life or any empathy.

Hannah Anderson is the poster child for that sort of "pass". She is not a victim, she is reveling in her celebrity. And that is almost as scary as the murders themselves.

Look, AJ may have had tough times. But rape and murder of a little girl whilst you twirl your yo yo and annoy cops with "Soooo, any leads yet?" is sick and so damn wrong you can't right it.

 

[blue22]

The Manson family are eligible for parole and so far, 45 years later, not one of them has gotten paroled. Eligible does not mean someone ever will be released. If AG is deemed to be an ongoing danger he'll never get out. It takes a lot for someone to win parole when they've committed first degree murder.

Beyond that, the law is the law. If the laws aren't tenable, then action needs to be taken by the citizens of a jurisdiction to change the laws. The courts can only do what the laws allow them to do.

The Manson Family were not juveniles being tried as adults. (Not to mention they were sentenced to death with no parole and got lucky that the death penalty was done away with at that time.) The likelihood of a juvenile convicted as an adult getting out on parole, IMO is much higher. I still think it's unjust for someone who rapes and murders a child to even have a CHANCE. Since I don't live in California, I cannot act to change their laws. And California happens to have an atrocious history of letting sexual criminals out of jail, only to kill or rape again.

 

[Madeleine74]

California is not one of the states that has abolished JLWOP, although they do have bills passed to look at sentencing guidelines. Bottom line for any person who might be up for parole: a parole board will look to see if the prisoner "poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society."

Someone who kidnaps, rapes and murders a child is going to have a tough time proving they are safe to society, even if they committed the crime at the age of 15. It will not be a guaranteed release by any means. Lots of hurdles to get over even in a liberal state like California. And that of course presumes said inmate is even alive at the point they would be eligible for parole and has a perfectly clean record.

A sentence of many decades can be handed down, which would not constitute "LWOP" but would still serve to keep a killer behind bars.

 

[blue22]

California is not one of the states that has abolished JLWOP, although they do have bills passed to look at sentencing guidelines. Bottom line for any person who might be up for parole: a parole board will look to see if the prisoner "poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society."

Someone who kidnaps, rapes and murders a child is going to have a tough time proving they are safe to society, even if they committed the crime at the age of 15. It will not be a guaranteed release by any means. Lots of hurdles to get over even in a liberal state like California. And that of course presumes said inmate is even alive at the point they would be eligible for parole and has a perfectly clean record.

A sentence of many decades can be handed down, which would not constitute "LWOP" but would still serve to keep a killer behind bars.

I understand what you are saying and I agree that a parole board will look differently at someone who murders a child, than other types of crimes and/or murder. What worries me about this particular case, is that even if he serves 40 years before a parole hearing...he is still in his 50's and young and able with plenty of time left to do this again. And perhaps many won't agree, but a person who does this at 15...WILL do it again, IMO. I honestly think he will spend every day in jail thinking of it, and thinking about what it would be like to do it again. I'm not suggesting I think he will get out of jail then, but it happens in California often and I only see it getting worse as the inmate populations continue to grow. Especially after the legislation they passed a couple years back regarding juveniles convicted as adults. (I forget what it's called...SB something, maybe?)

ETA: Oops...the legislation I'm thinking of only impacts juveniles convicted to life without the possibility of parole. They get a chance 15-25 years into their sentence. With that said, California is one of the most generous in terms of allowing violent juvenile offenders and offenders in general, a chance at release. That scares me regarding AJ.

 

[Minette]

I understand what you are saying and I agree that a parole board will look differently at someone who murders a child, than other types of crimes and/or murder. What worries me about this particular case, is that even if he serves 40 years before a parole hearing...he is still in his 50's and young and able with plenty of time left to do this again. And perhaps many won't agree, but a person who does this at 15...WILL do it again, IMO. I honestly think he will spend every day in jail thinking of it, and thinking about what it would be like to do it again. I'm not suggesting I think he will get out of jail then, but it happens in California often and I only see it getting worse as the inmate populations continue to grow. Especially after the legislation they passed a couple years back regarding juveniles convicted as adults. (I forget what it's called...SB something, maybe?)

ETA: Oops...the legislation I'm thinking of only impacts juveniles convicted to life without the possibility of parole. They get a chance 15-25 years into their sentence. With that said, California is one of the most generous in terms of allowing violent juvenile offenders and offenders in general, a chance at release. That scares me regarding AJ.

BBM. And if/when he gets out, he will be bigger, stronger, and hardened from decades in prison. And he will have had a chance to think about his crimes and to think about where he went wrong. Next time he'll know better than to take the kidnapped child to a place that can be traced back to him and he'll dispose of the body more carefully. I think he'll still leave it somewhere it could be easily found, though. I get the feeling he's a 'taunter.' But he'll be more careful about avoiding security cameras. IMO.

 

[at_the_keor]

I find it cringe worthy that he lured, raped, and violently murdered a child and stuffed her into a garbage bin...and can't get life without parole. He can't consent to sex, but he can rape an innocent child and have a chance to get out and do it again. What about her consent? Are we forgetting that? She was on the earth for 8 years...what about her? Can we focus on her instead of label semantics for the monster who snuffed out her life?

Him...no...he doesn't get any of my grace extended to him. Not conflicted here. Not sorry about it.

And I am sorry for being so blunt, but talking about his ability to consent to "sex" when he violently raped a young little girl...is disgusting. JMO.

I wasn't really citing that what he did was "sex" I am just struggling with the idea that at the exact same age one child can be unable to legally consent to sex and another child may rape and murder an innocent little girl and no longer be a "child" - it seems to me either age of consent laws are wonky or he's a messed up kid without a fully-formed brain, since he citing incredibly idiotic logic when the police asked why he did it, he "just wanted to see what people would say" - he just doesn't seem old enough to be a calculating mastermind monster, to me. He seems like a kid who has no sense of empathy and also lives in a violent fantasy world in his head. Did he really realize that he was harming another human? I watched this documentary earlier about Josef Fritzl, a man who kept his daughter in a soundproof dungeon under his house for 25 years and his rationale was that he wanted to keep her from "doing bad things" - I think some people are just missing parts of their brain. I don't want to make excuses for this kid, but I can't imagine a boy of his age being a cold inhuman monster, on an adult level.

 

[at_the_keor]

Also, as a point of fact, whenever I've considered the possibility that something like this may happen to my own daughter (also 8 years old, bright and bubbly, intellectual and sweet), I've always thought of a perp who fit the description of horrifying monster. I never put a 15 year old kid into that role. Call it cognitive dissonance, but honestly I'd rip someone in half if they so much as touched my baby, but I'd have a helluva time if it were a young teenager. I'm in no way empathizing, I'm just saying I can't imagine an urge to blood-for-blood someone that was half my own age. If the killer were a 45 year old man with a scowl and a bad shave, absolutely, it fits the narrative. This is just so awful.

 

[katydid23]

Also, as a point of fact, whenever I've considered the possibility that something like this may happen to my own daughter (also 8 years old, bright and bubbly, intellectual and sweet), I've always thought of a perp who fit the description of horrifying monster. I never put a 15 year old kid into that role. Call it cognitive dissonance, but honestly I'd rip someone in half if they so much as touched my baby, but I'd have a helluva time if it were a young teenager. I'm in no way empathizing, I'm just saying I can't imagine an urge to blood-for-blood someone that was half my own age. If the killer were a 45 year old man with a scowl and a bad shave, absolutely, it fits the narrative. This is just so awful.

It must be a shock for most people to see what horrors a 15 yr old can unleash in the world. I can see why it is so distressing for you. But many of us here have seen many cases where 14, 15, 16 yr olds have raped and killed, in a brutal fashion. It is more common than you would think or hope. Sad to say.