Cheshire Murder Documentary #3

There were parts of the story of this horrific incident that didn't make sense to me. Right when the police and investigators got to the house, they should have gone in and arrested the men. Getting to the house and "setting up" the perimeter before doing anything else gave the men extra time to kill the victims and distribute the gas to light the house on fire. In my opinion, the burning down of the house could have been prevented if the police were more aggressive when at the house. I think the process and precedure for investiagting crimes like these should involve paying close attention to detail and finding any possible evidence to use against the suspects. In regards to what information to give to the public, it is hard to draw the line of releasing too much and not enough. I would think the family of the victims would want some privacy, but that is hard when its a story as big as this one. I think the police could have released more informtation to the public than they did but not too much. As outsiders, its also hard to account for the lack of continuity between those in charge of the investigation. I know I was confused as to why it took them so long to take action and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I guess we just have to live with the way they handled the situation and hope they learned to do more next time.

1. Do you think the police did enough when they got to the home?
2. If you were the victim's family would you have wanted more information to be given to the public?
3. Do you approve of the men getting the death penalty?

International Borders/Ukraine #5

There is a lot of talk in the news right now about Ukraine and whether or not it is justified for Russia, or any country, to intervene and try to help. There are laws put in place that limit international involvement so countries don't invade each other. International law include basic law and also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. One example of an international law is that "a country cannot treat an alien in a manner which does not satisfy the international standard of justice." This promotes equality all around the world and is an effort to keep the peace because it is only fair. Obama also said that, "The proposed referendum on the future of Chrimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law." Regarding whether or not a country can redraw its borders, Obama states, "...the international community believes that borders cannot be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders." I think a country should be able to redraw its borders when the people of the country are in danger. Innocent civilians shouldn't have to suffer and get hurt if their country is failing. 

1. What are your thoughts on Russia invading Chrimea?
2. Do you think it is right for a country to redraw its borders in this situation?
3. What would you do if you were President Obama in this situation with Ukraine? 

Cheshire Murders #4

1. The mitigating circumstances of the crimes committed were that both men involved were not mentally stable at any point in their lives. The fact that they raped these girls and lit them on fire while they were still alive makes this crime heinous and absolutely abominable. The mitigating circumstances do not help defray the heinous nature of the crimes committed at all. These crimes were too nasty and disturbing and completely unthinkable for these circumstances to make them any less. 

2. The prosecutors wanted to bring the defendants to trial because they wanted the criminals to get the death penalty, and that couldn't happen without a trial. The prosecutors and other people who wanted them dead couldn't bare to pass up the chance to execute these two men. The benefits of accepting the guilty peas included life in prison without parole. A negative effect of going to trial and seeking the death penalty is that is the prosecution doesn't win and the judge does not give them the death penalty, then the two men could walk free. 

3. In cases like these, mental health issues play a big role. Both men in this case had previous mental problems and were never mentally stable. Some think that it was their mental health that allowed them to commit such a terrible crime. Society has a hard task at hand with balancing punitive justice and our supporting mental health system. At what point do we stop letting criminals go just because they have a mental illness to "justify" their actions? I think it depends on the crime at hand and sometimes if it is bad enough, then the law should override our "supportive mental health system" and punish the criminals who are a threat to society and could put people in danger.