Watson Murder Case - Discussion
- Thread starter almitywife
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
K_girl
Contributor
Just to clear-up a few things here. Watson was not acquitted because an acquittal is a finding of not guilty. I would say the second part about trying him for a crime for which he served a sentence would be correct in attempting to apply double jeopardy.
There was no first trial, so there can't be a second trial.
However, I agree in general. There is a chance that double jeopardy would apply for the reasons you argued. There is also a chance that Gabe Watson could become an Australian citizen if Alabama continues to pursue the death penalty.
as much as i like the legal system in US, UK, Australia, etc, it makes me sick seeing people strike a deal. As bad as the system in other countries is (namely eastern europe) this kind of things does not happen: you are either found guilty of the charge or not guilty, the court can change the crime you are charged with to a lesser one (based on the evidence presented) and still find you guilty but you don't see people rotting in jail because they had a bad feeling about the deck of cards on the table (you see plenty of get away with stuff as well as some doing time for having bad luck).
On the other hand, it has to be noted that in those states a judge is not simply an "impartial referee" in the process and actually has the legal right AND duty to do everything in his power to find the truth, meaning the judge can order new witnesses, experts, lab work, etc.
quite different from what happens in here and in fact quite burdening for the system, but, as an accused, you know that even if you can't afford it, somebody will be digging for the truth.
i'm not saying one or the other is wrong - different approaches dictated by different cultural and economical background.
p.s. i know little to nothing about this particular case but it disturbs me that one can be convicted based on the fact that "he is a certified rescue diver". if that happens in US anytime during my life i will do everything in my powers to get rid of that certification - no desire to rot in jail for somebody else's mistake / misfortune. In my mind it should be a clear case of guilty or innocent, regardless of the crime (and he has not been charged with manslaughter, has he)
On the other hand, it has to be noted that in those states a judge is not simply an "impartial referee" in the process and actually has the legal right AND duty to do everything in his power to find the truth, meaning the judge can order new witnesses, experts, lab work, etc.
quite different from what happens in here and in fact quite burdening for the system, but, as an accused, you know that even if you can't afford it, somebody will be digging for the truth.
i'm not saying one or the other is wrong - different approaches dictated by different cultural and economical background.
p.s. i know little to nothing about this particular case but it disturbs me that one can be convicted based on the fact that "he is a certified rescue diver". if that happens in US anytime during my life i will do everything in my powers to get rid of that certification - no desire to rot in jail for somebody else's mistake / misfortune. In my mind it should be a clear case of guilty or innocent, regardless of the crime (and he has not been charged with manslaughter, has he)
K_girl
Contributor
veriqster - When the sentencing appeal was announced in the newspapers, the Australian Attorney General, Cameron Dick, told newspapers that "deterrence" would be one of the factors to be argued to increase the sentence. Many of us have expressed our horror with this. I sent a letter to Cameron Dick expressing concern ( http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/4593543-post449.html ). The opinion in the sentencing appeal seemed to dismiss the idea of deterrence and the argument did not even seem to be presented by Cameron Dick's associate who argued the appeal. Here are the relevant portions in sentencing appeal opinion that compare "deterrence" in another case involving a woman who was starved to death for religious purging of evil spirits:
"[63] In the reasons of the Court it was said:
"The sentencing judge accepted the applicants were unlikely to reoffend. It is nevertheless important to impose a substantial term of imprisonment in the hope of deterring others from engaging in such objectively dangerous and unacceptable conduct whilst pursuing personal religious or spiritual beliefs. The deceased was in the applicants' care; she was plainly unable to look after herself or to make a free and informed decision whether or not to obtain medical attention and they failed to seek the required medical attention."
[64] As the Court pointed out, the conduct was "objectively dangerous and unacceptable". The applicants made no attempt to obtain assistance, despite the deceased's obviously grave and worsening physical condition, until it must have been apparent that her condition had deteriorated to such an extent that her death was a distinct possibility. Also, it was the view of the Court that it was important to impose a sentence which would satisfy the requirements of general deterrence. General deterrence is not a relevant consideration in this case. It is singularly unlikely that the sentence imposed on the applicant will bear in any way on the conduct of persons with the safety of others entrusted to their care."
"98] ..Punishment is not necessary as a deterrent, either to the respondent or anyone else. The offence is unlikely to be repeated."
---
So what's left unsaid about deterrence in this case? Well - I believe it is accidental neglect of duty versus intentional neglect of duty. I think they are saying they don't intend to prosecute accidental neglect of duty where they are going to punish in this case for intentional neglect of duty. I think they are saying that intentional neglect of duty rarely occurs, therefore establishing deterrence in this case will not be applicable in most situations. This was just a way to plea bargain the situation down to something else and keep rescue divers from freaking out - and yet it remains seemingly contradictory. And, what is to stop anyone from using this case as precedent in the future, especially with unspoken terms of accidental versus intentional. Such is the mystery of law.
"[63] In the reasons of the Court it was said:
"The sentencing judge accepted the applicants were unlikely to reoffend. It is nevertheless important to impose a substantial term of imprisonment in the hope of deterring others from engaging in such objectively dangerous and unacceptable conduct whilst pursuing personal religious or spiritual beliefs. The deceased was in the applicants' care; she was plainly unable to look after herself or to make a free and informed decision whether or not to obtain medical attention and they failed to seek the required medical attention."
[64] As the Court pointed out, the conduct was "objectively dangerous and unacceptable". The applicants made no attempt to obtain assistance, despite the deceased's obviously grave and worsening physical condition, until it must have been apparent that her condition had deteriorated to such an extent that her death was a distinct possibility. Also, it was the view of the Court that it was important to impose a sentence which would satisfy the requirements of general deterrence. General deterrence is not a relevant consideration in this case. It is singularly unlikely that the sentence imposed on the applicant will bear in any way on the conduct of persons with the safety of others entrusted to their care."
"98] ..Punishment is not necessary as a deterrent, either to the respondent or anyone else. The offence is unlikely to be repeated."
---
So what's left unsaid about deterrence in this case? Well - I believe it is accidental neglect of duty versus intentional neglect of duty. I think they are saying they don't intend to prosecute accidental neglect of duty where they are going to punish in this case for intentional neglect of duty. I think they are saying that intentional neglect of duty rarely occurs, therefore establishing deterrence in this case will not be applicable in most situations. This was just a way to plea bargain the situation down to something else and keep rescue divers from freaking out - and yet it remains seemingly contradictory. And, what is to stop anyone from using this case as precedent in the future, especially with unspoken terms of accidental versus intentional. Such is the mystery of law.
My-way
Contributor
K_girl
Contributor
I got the definition of acquittal from plain old dictionary.com:
Acquittal Definition | Definition of Acquittal at Dictionary.com
But it doesn't surprise me that lawyers can completely change it. They can make black - white and white - black when they want to. Just don't put a limit on the number of words they can use.
:bonk:
My-way
Contributor
Sadly there's heaps of "Legal" Dictionaries.
Similar threads
