Punishment
 

I was listening to bits and pieces of the news this morning and I understand some clansman is on trial for an act committed in 1960 something. What came to mind is what would an appropriate punishment be after 30 years have passed. Like in the Kennedy trial for Michael XXXX(something) Kennedy. His crime was committed when he was a teen but is back in court now that he is in his 40's. I know the crime is no less and the pain that a victim's family suffers is no less regardless of time but I have to wonder what's appropriate. Additionally, during these types of trials individuals are asked to recount events that sometimes are more than twenty years old. I can't remember with certainty some things that happened in high school and realize that this issue is certainly complex.

The trial you alluded to is the trial of Michael Skakel, a Kennedy cousin. I had the opportunity to read the book about it. There was an investigation into the case by Skakel's father who was trying to clear the name of his older son who had at first been accused of the crime. So there is much physical evidence, and documents from the 60s about the case that have survived.

More importantly, some memories never go away. It depends on the circumstances, especially if you have never gotten closure.
Although one may not have a clear recollection of what someone was wearing, or exactly how tall they were. Some memories never go away.

There is not statute of limitations on murder, (if the Klan case was a murder) and cold cases are dug up and solved everyday. If justice prevails, it shouldn't matter how long it took.

Another thing I always wondered...with these types of cases...what would be fair if the person is convicted of such crime they committed during their adolescence--should they be sentenced as a minor, or as an adult.

For instance, if someone...let's just say...raped and beat someone(Let's forget about statute of limitations for a second)...when they were 14...and they were never brought to trial until they were like 40. IF convicted...should they be given the maximum sentence that the law would impose on a 14-year old...or sentence him as an adult?

The klansman in which you were referring to is the ringleader of the bombing of the church that killed the "Four little girls" as they are titled in Spike Lee's documentary on the event. J. Edgar Hoover, from what I heard on the news this morning, was the person who stopped the investigation and prosecution citing " Lack of evidence". The klansman own family members gave evidence to have him convicted and also apologized to the four girls' families. There was an informant who knew everything but was anonymous for nearly four decades that was forced out of hiding by the prosecution and now they have a strong enough case to convict because they have taped meetings of the informant and the alleged bomber.

I think the Cincinnati event is going to make alot of Klan sympathizers accidentally show their hands; and alot of people are going to be shocked when they discover the identities of these people.

Why do I say this? Isn't the timing of this story kinda coincidental with what's happenin' in Cincy?

[This message has been edited by The Original Ape (edited April 19, 2001).]

Yeah man! It makes you wonder what postponed it in the first place. It must take a helluva lot of influence to get the government to investigate some crime THAT old. I guess you have to ask yourself who stands to gain from it, in order to find out why it's happenin' now.