Contact
Lifestream
Just a reminder that Annika Östberg Deasy is up for a parole hearing later today. After being turned down twice already by the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) and generally ignored by both the Swedish and American authorities it’s easy to despair. Annika’s sentence of 25 to life, of which she’s served 24, is probably the longest incarceration in modern history of any Swedish citizen. And on top of this for two murders that she didn’t even commit.
In 1981, her boyfriend, Bob Cox, first shot restaurant owner Joe Torre, in Stockton, and later Richard Helbush, a policeman, in Lakeport. Annika was present at both murders, although her role was entirely passive. Annika was considered an accessory to the crime. Prior to the trial, Bob Cox hanged himself while in custody in Lakeport.In a “plea-bargain”, an agreement between prosecutor and defence counsel, Annika pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree. If she had declined to accept this plea-bargain, she would have risked the death penalty or a life sentence without any hope of repeal. She was sentenced to serve 25 years to life in prison. At the time, it was generally understood that this left open a later possibility of having the sentence commuted to 12-14 years.
Since that time, one of the parties to the agreement, the State of California, has changed the rules and removed the possibility of a reduced sentence.
Source: Kvinnoforum
Suffice it to say, this exposes some of the worst fallacies of the American system. A system that not only created Annika thru neglect and social abuse but also continues to unjustly incarcerate and punish her. On top of this, at least one hate mongering grassroots organization has taken it upon themselves to see to it that she is never released. Given this, the stagnating and cruel US prison system, contempt for the Swedish system (which right wing Americans view as liberal and weak) and the lackluster efforts by the Swedish authorities to make her case a top priority, I’d say her chances are slim. Add to this the fact that relatives of the victims are invited to speak at the BPT hearing.
Update: Yeah, that worked out pretty much as lousy as I had anticipated. To expect justice or the truth to come from Americans is like waiting for rain in the Sahara. Article in Swedish. The performance by Tara Salizzone and Dana Mcavoy, daughters of Richard Helbush, in particular, were vindictive and unforgiving and showed a bad demeanor. To mix facts with emotions on that level is just medieval.
The chairwoman, Margarita Perez, had the nerve to call Deasy a liar and a danger to the state of California (even though Annika would have been moved to a Swedish prison). She cited the three (!) murders that Annika supposedly had committed in “cold blood.” Yeah, so much for deviating from the truth …
Justice or truth is not a factor for these people, nor for America. And this is just the symptoms of a greater ailment in this society. The US prison system is nothing but infantile revenge and as such an embarrassment to the so called leader of the free world and a self proclaimed democracy. And it’s important to remember that there are some 50.000 foreign citizens being detained in the US today. In the veritable gulag that is the US prison system.
02:25 on June 2nd, 2005
Bjorn:
Please tell me how C.O.P.S. is a "hate mongering grass roots organization." It was founded primarily as a SUPPORT group for the families of law enforcement officers. It’s not a grass roots organization and we don’t preach hate at all.
The "system" did not create Annika…she made her choices as an ADULT in 1981…oh that’s right…you Swedes love to abdicate responsibility.
What would you expect from the victim’s daughters? A warm and fuzzy kiss? I’d be unforgiving if someone aided and abetted my father’s murder…she did nothing to try to stop Cox.
The 50,000 foreign citizens have committed crimes in the United States…like murder, rape, child molestation…what makes them so special that they should avoid punishment? Gulag?! We don’t have slave labor camps. You have your history mixed up…read about Stalin.
You need to do a little more studying on your so-called "American system." It wasn’t the American system that punished her, it was the California system as a result of HER actions.
You’re "the embarrassment"…to your own country. Stick with what you know and it’s not criminal justice…I should know…I’m a law enforcement officer with a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice. What makes you think your system is better?
Alas…you remain…totally clueless in Sverige.
JD
07:53 on June 2nd, 2005
Ohhh, touchy! Well. I’ll be happy to lay it out for you. Because obviously someone has to.
Looking in from the box: For your information I’m a Social Psychologist. It may not trump Criminal Justice in your book but here is my point: Lets assume that you are who you indicate your are. An American and on top of this in the sector that we debate here. You may be under the false impression that it makes you uniquely qualified to pass judgement or know the system. Well, you may know the structure of the system better than me. But I’d never in a million years listen to any moral or otherwise analysis of the system. You’re just not qualified for that. You’re in the box, twice over, and looking inwards. So it’s really you who should stick to what you know. And critically examining the system is not part of that it seems.
On abdicate responsibility: That is another thing Americans will never understand. The notion of intrinsic explanations have infected your entire system. Example: "If people are poor then they are just lazy and dumb." If people commit crime it’s their choice alone, their desires. You conjure up individual motives in place of social explanations. Which makes you the perfect guardian of the system. A system that created millions like her to justify its own power and existence. But that is one aspect in which the US is not unique unfortunately.
If Annika had been brought up in Sweden, I wouldn’t find this quite so telling, but since she moved to the US when she was around 9 years old it can be argued that she had a great deal of her socialization take place there. And we know for a fact that her early years in the US were troublesome. Being bullied, neglected and cast out. No one made the effort to help her. But I suppose that is her fault too in your book.
In cold justice: So what you’re saying is that in America, if you’re an accessory to murder (which I suppose you should do time for depending on the exact involvement) only are tricked to confess to first degree murder, then you’re a "murderer." Now that is interesting. Could you please take your enormous legal expertise and explain how that is justice? It’s hilarious to hear the board sit there and claim that "you killed people in cold blood." Have they no shame? Can’t they read their own legal documents? Now that is America for you, creating a scapegoat in Annika by treatening her with capital punishment. Seems like a very enlightened system …
Hate: C.O.P.S: May not be overtly hateful in your book but what do you call an organization that regularly searches out and harasses parole cases? They don’t even debate it. It’s completely normal for them. What kind of justice is that, and what legal function to they fill? I don’t care who bankrolls or makes up the roster, but if they’d really wanted to support the victims of crime they ought to take a different approach. I don’t see how this benefits the victims at all beyond turn them into media spectacles and salivating fools whose emotional wounds are being torn right open as they turn vindictive, bloodthirsty. But you teach them that .. to capitalize on their hatred. You fool them into thinking that this is the normal way to live and that it will take their sorrows away. Hardly. But hateful and fearful people are easy to control, hence the American system continues to perpetrate this.
State vs Federal: Do I really care if it was California law or whatever? Is it relevant? No. But that got you another pointless paragraph. That is another lesson here. You always use the federal and state systems to try and shift the blame when it suits you.
The Prison System: Yeah, of course those 50.000 are guilty of "murder, rape, child molestation" or worse. Maybe they were just "terrorists." Maybe they just didn’t appreciate the "wonderful opportunities" of the American system. If you really have a degree in law, you ought to know better than to quote three major offences and claim that they represent the entire inmate population. Cheap shot.
And as far as Gulags go, again, you miss the point entirely. I’d say that the forces labour system that you have in some states is equal to a Gulag. But it’s not just about forces labour as a way to "rehabilitate" people. Mostly it’s the neglect and utter contempt that society is showing clients in the system. Where clients are being jailed for life and never seriously
I know Stalinism and Marxism better than you ever will. So don’t waste your time lecturing me on that. Try at least to understand the underlying principles of a Gulag or indeed a concentration camp. Just because you don’t have, on the surface, the EXACT same system doesn’t mean that they aren’t equivalent. But that is another American flaw. Failure to see beyond the absolute and obvious truth being indoctrinated.
Nowhere are people more clueless than in America. Especially looking in on themselves. Thanks for proving my point.
For more info on America’s Prisons I’d suggest the BBC Channel 4 series on torture from earlier this year:
http://www.informationclear...
http://www.channel4.com/new...
Injustice, dehumanisation and brutality.
09:33 on June 2nd, 2005
You are a social psychologist Mr. Hallberg? Then you must have some familiarity with the concept of "projection". Your vilification of the USA and its prison system appears to reveal some pent up agression as well as a bit of envy — do you wish your country was more like the USA?
I am well acquainted with the Swedish system, like the case where an 18 year old MAN (not a little boy as your system might view him) in Malmo killed a woman who owned a restaraunt and poked the husband’s eyes out (I guess after he had to witness the brutality inflicted against his wife) and he was sentenced to 8 years! And how about the recent gang rape of a 13 year old where the higher court reversed the lower court’s judgement and took away the sentences of several of the perpetrators and drastically reduced the already too-low sentenced of the rest? Is that justice?
How about one of your supreme court members who paid for sex from a male "rent boy" and used the excuse he did not know paying for sex was illegal? They moved him from hearing cases to being an advisor for your Riksdag. Pity some poor working class Swedish male that might pay for a prostitute and get nailed by your system yet a member of your highest court does this sort of thing and gets what might be considered a cushy job re-assignment.
I could also cite the case of Aka Green, a minister who your government wanted to throw in prison for speaking out against homosexuality (your lower court acquited him of the so-called "hate crime" but your system has no double jeopardy protection so your higher court — is the rent boy judge on that court(?) — would like to bring him up on charges again. And Sweden supports free speech?
Get off your high horse and realize the US system might have its flaws but so does your’s and at least in the USA if a person commits a violent crime we don’t generally blame society as you do.
10:07 on June 2nd, 2005
may she rot in jail, and then rot in hell for eternity!
15:45 on June 2nd, 2005
Immature comments aside, I’ll attempt a short answer for Mike as he at least tried to refute my opinions:
Projection is a good term, although a bit too Freudian, and irrelevant for this discourse. Though it still applies to modern behavioural science obviously.
Def: Noun: Projection:
1. (psychiatry) a defence mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else.
You base your assumption on the belief that I secretly covet to be like the US or that it is in fact I who desire to abuse or incarcerate people. Or if logic allows that I try to conceal my own actions or those my country. That is conjecture and I’m not sure that projection was the term you were looking for. If you think I want Sweden to become more like the US, then you are simply delusional. But that is also part of the US fantasy. I.e. that everyone else aspired to be like you. And if they don’t, then they just don’t know it yet.
The cracks in the systems don’t need to be vilified. It’s enough to just open your eyes. You are entirely correct that this is not the first, nor the last, that I have opened up a diatribe against the United States. It’s about time I do my part in exposing the system. If you look around you’ll see that I have plenty that I have complained about. Although, if we put it like this, had I taken notice five years ago or if I hadn’t already been so focused on the US? No.
I feel that this is one of the weakest parts of the US system and as such needs to be focused on. Why? Because it reveals a type of thinking that is predominant in the US and that stands for much of the aggression and fear that powers the US imperial crusade as it were. It’s all connected obviously. Regardless of how Americans try to wriggle their way out of it by blaming individual states, individual people or failing to see the big picture. This is an understanding that I have slowly come to over the last two years or so.
As for Sweden, no one claimed Sweden was perfect. But that is also not the issue here. I’d be happy to discuss that in a separate thread though. Because if anything I am consistently critical. I can’t comment on all the cases you brought up for lack of time but I’ll say this. At least we have a slightly more enlightened view of criminal correction. We just don’t generally believe, even though their are dissenters obviously, in primitive and cruel prison environments. We don’t believe in courts and hearings controlled by mobs. And with very few exceptions, Swedish sentences are time limited. Sweden as well as our model country, Canada, has found that this just works better. Rehabilitation of sorts instead of just storing people indefinately or locking people up for every little misdemeanor. When in doubt, consider that the US is now incarcerating as many as 10 times as many as most democracies. More even than China and Iran, which the US constantly vilify.
http://battleangel.org/blog...
15:46 on June 2nd, 2005
This entire commentary is also proof of what immediately happens when one criticises US policy in a consistent manner. Most people just can’t believe it and are desperately trying to disparage or abuse the opinions expressed. You just don’t question America’s divine purpose and role and model for the world. It’s just inconceivable that the US could do anything wrong, let alone be abusive. It’s unthinkable to many in the US and their dwindling flock of supporters elsewhere.
I need not draw on 20th century history to point out how dangerous that type of thinking is.
04:57 on June 3rd, 2005
Bjorn, proof of what? You know the average American complains about all sorts of aspects of what the government does. In fact, typically, the people who fly flags and have patriotic bumper stickers do the most griping. However, when someone tries to make the US system look more akin to China or North Korea most US citizens (across the political spectrum) will respond in defense. Maybe you might analyze the use of words as well as your accusations to see if (just perhaps) your "commentary" reads more like a diatribe against the US in general.
09:52 on June 3rd, 2005
Well it is a diatribe against the US in general. I’ve gone way beyond the point where I actually care. And it does make sense since the same system obviously made and upholds all the principles that I despise. State law or no state law. Elite orwellian smoke screens or not.
Obviously I have thought about the risk of people like myself polarizing and alienating the US populace through a constant siege of words. And in a way proving how right the US elite is when they keep suggesting that the rest of the world is just plain against them for no reason (that the US populace can see or understand at least). But the future, given that we (the world), do nothing is frankly terrifying. We have to take the chance. I do not believe for a moment that internal forces in the US have the power nor the will to set things right. When I look through the history books I see a disturbing pattern of abuse and contempt that starts as early as the 1800s. And no one has managed to set anything right since. Unless you manage another civil war, lengthy reforms (including checking the actual constitution), a financial cataclysm or a popular revolution or whatever that will end US world hegemony, I’m afraid my diatribe will continue.
17:08 on June 3rd, 2005
Good to see you have something to give your life meaning. In a way does this make George Bush sort of a surrogate father for you?
I heard Sweden has a severe birth shortage. Have you thought of finding yourself a wife and making a few good Swedes rather than focusing all your creative energies on trying to tear down the USA?
18:33 on June 3rd, 2005
I see you have run out of hot air and arguments.
Kind of nasty, isn’t it, when people stand their ground and don’t rush to immediately offer a formal apology and submit to the divine, all knowing US and its henchmen. Another thing that is not well understood nor practised. I often find that so called arguments quickly dissipate and are replaced by insults, irrelevant discourse and illogic.
20:37 on June 3rd, 2005
Actually, no. I don’t see any reason to get into a street brawl if, as you have indicated, you merely want to rant and rave against the USA — just for the heck of it. If you want to compare our system of checks and balances, federalism, division of powers, etc. then I would love to discuss issues. I don’t see the US system as perfect but I do see it as, overall, having advantages over the Swedish system in the areas of criminal justice, civil liberties and economic/taxation policies. The advantages Sweden has is within its people (not its government). They are very loving to children, not quite as materialistic as blue state urban Americans, and have many wonderful traditions they don’t want to let go of.
03:23 on June 4th, 2005
Your first mistake is not knowing the facts and writing lies. Forget the US and the atrocities about the US, focus on the facts of this whole situation. You really need to focus on facts because what you wrote here is more fantasy and wishful thinking than facts.
Your hate of the American system is your own battle. Annika’s fight for freedom is a poor cause for you to fight for since your version of the story is warped from reality.
Again, focusing on facts, Annika in her life time is responsible for the death of three people. An individual in 1974 was killed by Annika plus the two people killed in 1981. These are facts found in her legal file and the reason why the head of the parole board, Margarita Perez, cited three murders. If you knew what you were talking about, you would have known this simple fact.
Why do you portray Annika as a defenseless creature of her US upbringing? To claim she was never given help is just an outright lie. After the murder she committed in 1974, she was given help and an opportunity to make her life better. Instead, she turned to drugs and prostitution again. She also was in drug rehab twice. Nobody held a gun to her head to do this. She did it on her own and by her own choice. Why do you run away from her personal accountability? Nobody put her in a relationship with Bill Cox. Why she was present and supported the murder of the two individuals in 1981? She was given a chance after 1974 – but rejected that chance when she twice killed again in 1981.
In 1981, it was read in the record that it was believed that Annika actually fired the weapon that killed Joe Torre. This was sworn testimony from Bill Cox – the fact that he heard a shot and saw Joe Torre hit the ground. He and Annika were the only people present at this time besides Joe Torre. This is FACT. Annika doesn’t sound so innocent in this murder.
After that murder, she continued to stay with Bill Cox and continue on to Lakeport, California. If she didn’t want to be part of this rampage, she could have separated from Cox and called police. Again, an opportunity which she did not take.
Did you know that Bill and Annika stole Joe Torre’s credit card? In FACT, Annika insisted that Bill take her out for a "steak and lobster dinner" after Joe Torre’s murder. They charged the dinner on Joe Torre’s credit card. Does that sound like someone who is so innocent?? These are FACTS admitted by Annika herself.
In 1981, it is unknown who actually shot Sgt. Helbush because the only person surviving is Annika. Many of the facts of the investigation, including the many contradictory statements given by Annika herself at various parole hearings, prove that Annika could have actually been the shooter in Sgt. Helbush’s death. Many of the investigators believed this.
Annika also admitted that it was her idea to roll the body of Sgt Helbush into the ditch, steal his service revolver (weapon), wallet, and police car. This is in the record and is FACT.
Annika only decided to save her own life from the death penalty by pleading guilty to a lesser offense that carried a sentence of 25 years to LIFE with the possibility of parole. From my experience, I find it highly unlikely that it was ever stated to her that she would receive a reduced sentence of 12-14 years. Normally in these circumstances, and in FACT, this sentence means the individual will serve the LIFE part of the sentence.
Innocent of murder – hardly!! Three murders and there is no question that she was a willing party to the events that transpired. I can say this – again – because I can back it up with facts. Annika was seen reloading the weapons for Bill Cox in the shoot-out with police just prior to their arrest. After Bill Cox was injured in the shoot-out, Annika continued to struggle to continue the shoot-out. FACTS – not like the fiction you write.
03:24 on June 4th, 2005
Since your idea that everything in the US is warped, you really have no fact backing up your slamming of the group called COPS – CONCERNS OF POLICE SURVIVORS. This group offers support groups, scholarships, counseling, and grants to families affected by the death of a police officer. This is an honorable group that deserves respect for their activities on behalf of families’ that have lost their love-ones. These love-ones who selflessly gave their lives for the good and protection of society. You should be ashamed of your comments.
COPS – CONCERNS OF POLICE SURVIVORS also supports families that have to appear at parole board hearings such as Annika’s in California. It is the belief of most Americans and Swedish people that anyone who murders a police officers will kill just about anyone. These murdering individuals should NEVER be allowed to re-enter society and should be incarcerated (jailed) for the rest of their lives. To this means, COPS fights for all survivor familes in their attempt to keep killers of police officers in jail. It is not a "hate mongering grassroots" organization but an organization that lives by a set of beliefs that are both honorable and justified by most of the world’s citizens. The only hate mongering person in this discussion is you – Bjorn Hallberg.
Then you turn to the family – Daughters of a police officer that gave his life while trying to offer assistance to stranded motorists (we know this FACT because this is what he radioed in). HOW DARE YOU! I would love to see your perverse reaction if your father (if you ever had one) was gunned down doing such an honorable job.
These daughters lost their father forever. He didn’t walk them down the aisle when they got married; he didn’t see their children born; he doesn’t get to experience their lives – AND NEITHER DO THEY GET TO SPEND THEIR LIVES WITH HIM. Their loss is inconsolable. Their loss is eternal while here on earth. You have no right to even comment on their feelings or frustrations because you have not EARNED it. I am sure they have given a piece of their heart up that cannot be filled. Their reaction, unlike yours, comes from the love and loss.
So write your factless lies and write your leftist comments because it makes you feel like more of a man or an intellectual of grand means. In FACT, it makes you an evil liar that spews the same – LIES and HATE.
May God have mercy on your soul.
08:09 on June 4th, 2005
Mike: So now you turn back to a "serious" commentary, well it’s too late for that buddy boy. Also shows how much you know about the Swedish system. Again, it’s proof of concept. I.e. how Americans view the world and themselves and their divine right.
08:33 on June 4th, 2005
Allen: You sure have a way with facts and lies too. For starters you go on listing witness reports and various "facts" stated in various "reports" as truths and innuendos. Well, believe it if you will. I sure don’t.
The fact of the matter is that there was no proof of Annika killing either of the two victims we are concerned with here. But blame had to be pinned. Knowing what I now know about American "justice" and barbaric primitivism, she probably made the right choice in a lousy deal, i.e. pleaded guilty even though she wasn’t. Now this too is subconsciously being held against her.
Your ranting about why Annika didn’t intervene in 1981 is pure conjecture. How do you know what she wanted? Not to be demeaning to women here (rather invoking social hierarchy), but do you actually think that in a high pressure situation, a woman in this situation would just bail? I don’t think it’s very likely. Please do not assert telepathy. I avoided this discussion for the longest time since it is such outright speculation, but hey, since you brought it up. Nice lobster story btw. If anything, it would give a psy. evaluation something to brood over. I.e. it seems less than sane and would in my book shatter much of the talk about reason or motive and turn it to inconsistency.
Being given help in America or by America is nothing but a travesty of justice and kindness. I can imagine that it was this "help" that pushed her to continue her former life.
Your view of COPS is admirable, if a little short-sighted and naive. And it probably works if you really believe that 25-to-life is a normal and enlightened way to deal with criminal conduct. If you believe that mob rule is a good thing as long as it serves your twisted masters. But all it does it cause agony and animosity on all sides and grant legitimacy to the powers that be. I’m not ashamed nor should I be. I stand by my first observation. COPS is active in a twilight zone of justice where they perpetrate hate mongering and influence processes that they have no right to interfere in. Bottom line is that is threatens the entire justice system and in fact democracy (that one special interest group is allowed to keep subverting the system).
So, we’re back to God now. Well that is one emotional blanket and fantasy that wont come to your rescue this time.
10:13 on June 4th, 2005
Bjorn, I suppose you are familiar with Freud’s views on people who rebel against something just for the mere pleasure of kicking against a system. He considered it a severe case of neurosis with its origins in a poor self-image (and that self image being damaged by a poor identification with the father). In this case have you magnified your father image and projected those unresolved feelings onto the United States itself? This is why I go so far to say that Bush may be your symbolic father — "Bjorn, I am your father, search your feelings and you will know it’s true". Is Bush YOUR shadow, your very own Darth Vader?
Does Sweden represent your mother? Are you in fear that she gets submerged in her identity and power by a powerful, almost omnipotent, father/USA? Is this the root of your antagonism against the USA?
10:40 on June 4th, 2005
Mike: Interesting but sadly misplaced theory. Are YOU familiar with the fact that Freud is considered a psychological curiosity these days by most modern, enlightened people in the field? At least so far as his overindulgence in various complexes go. His theories and applications are sometimes interesting and colourful and have spawned an entire field of analysis (just because they give convenient answers quickly). Freud’s remaining strengths are in his ego-superego-id model and his bleak outlook on society, questioning the "goodness" of the system (much like Nietzsche and Foucault).
But talking about omnipotence, you’d have just outlined one possibly scenario. Just remember that you said it, not I. If you have any further interest in that subject I’d suggest the reporting by Alex Jones.
http://infowars.com/
On the New World Order .. or something out of the American Empire Project
http://www.americanempirepr...
Also the links provided throughout the commentary above. My antagonism shouldn’t be that hard to trace. No need to invent explanations or pretend that you really can’t see how anyone couldn’t love America.
But hey, don’t debate the issue. Try to avoid the American hegemony and the American psychosis and self-image by getting into some quasi-psychological rant. Do you actually think that one can debate the issue of criminal corrections without stepping over into a general criticism of the US society. It’s all connected, just as what you’d probably call a lax system of corrections in Sweden is linked to a socio-liberal world view.
10:57 on June 4th, 2005
American psychosis? Give me a break. Also, what people generally don’t like about Freud is that he is way too politically incorrect in today’s socio-political climate. Doesn’t mean that a great deal of what he said isn’t true, just that overall it runs totally against feminism and leftist political ideology. I’m sure though that you believe the feminist propaganda that is expoused by Scheman, Solin, etc. that gender is nothing more than a social construct and other Marxist inspired (i.e. Das Capital) nonsense that is the official cornerstone of the Swedish government.
If I were a violent criminal I would rather be caught doing something bad in Sweden than in the USA. Why? I think you know the anser to that. First, I know that my potential victims are unarmed. Second, I know that the police have a poor record of apprehending criminals. Third, if I do get caught I won’t serve too harsh a sentence.
You might then say that Sweden tries to rehabilitate even the most violent of psychopaths. I’ve heard Swedes say that. However, are there any studies that show that rehabilitation works for child molesters? Is there any proof that you can "cure" a violent psychopath — especially the ones smart enough to play the system and act out for those in authority as if they really do feel bad about their crimes?
Only 1 in 1000 people in the world is a Swede — and the number will shrink if you guys don’t remember to have more kids. The USA doesn’t have the luxery of being geographically isolated or so small that you don’t have to get involved in world politics except to give advise. So please, remember that geopolitical realities dictate that the US has to take a center stage in world politics and please don’t forget that Sweden benefits from the existence of the USA.
15:13 on June 4th, 2005
Psychosis was far too kindly worded and imprecise. Developing on that would however take far much time and probably be a roller-coaster of a ride through genocide, subversion, coups, damp Vietnamese jungles and prison Gulags. If you had understood the term we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Freud: I suggest you read up on Freud and update yourself to the 21st century. Freud is not hard science any more. It never was but for the longest time no other theories could break through the psychoanalytic dominance. It’s not a fashion thing. Don’t waste your time on his empirical work.
And while we are waay off topic, I don’t subscribe to social gender theories:
http://battleangel.org/blog...
But if you look up feminism you’ll see that it is "a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women." Sweden is according to reports the most equal country on the planet and yet it isn’t enough. Yes really. If you can’t see the difference in opportunity that exists between men and women in Sweden, the US or elsewhere you haven’t paid much attention. But that could be said for much of your so called arguments. They are narrow, americocentric and lack scope.
Marx: I don’t think there is very many people in the social democratic government who have actually read Marx and understood him. I think you’ll also find that there is a wealth of theories and research out there based on various forms of social constructs, deriving back to Marx, Weber and Durkheim mostly. But your expression and attempted "vilification" of Karl Marx hints that you can’t grasp even his basic premisses. You are however in good company, neither could / can so called communists. You are entirely in line with American dogma here. I’ve seen it before on this very blog.
"If I were a violent criminal …"
Yeah so? Your point? Again you make it sound like violent crime is some sort of label. Like people either are criminal or not. And what does it say? The US still has roughly three times as many murders relatively for instance. Is that significant? Maybe not. But neither are clearance rates.
It’s also interesting that you should choose "psychopaths" and "child molesters" (two more labels!), which are relatively rare. Most crime is petty property theft, less violent crime of sorts and lately drug related offences. I should also note that "sociopathic personality traits" don’t equate crime or violence. You’re on pretty thin ice now. You also hint in your subtext that you believe that people "act" when feeling bad at least when they’re "psychopaths/sociopaths", which I suppose you in your Neanderthal sense of justice equate everyone to be. Not so hard to see why Annika is never getting through that hearing. This was also one complaint against her, that she "wasn’t honest" and hadn’t "changed" or wasn’t "sorry." I guess you can never be sorry enough in the US justice system. Let alone if you try to speak up for yourself from subservience or contradict your masters.
Isolated? I’m no expert on geography but I’d say that the US is geographically isolated. It’s just that your perspective starts and ends within its borders and as such everywhere else is just "isolated" (from the US) to you. Again, you illustrated my point better than I ever could have.
Having said that, there is one aspect in which America doesn’t enjoy total isolation. America nowadays have assets and bases (700+) all over the world. Isolated but at the same time everywhere. It’s quite a dangerous contradiction. America has always been isolationistic, and still is (in mind), even if its military complex is nowadays reaching far beyond its borders.
Again you speak of realities as if they really were. A while back you were arguing for accepting one’s actions and not "blaming society." Well, right back at you. So now it’s "geopolitical realities" (situation) and not the actor (the US) which is to blame for the calamity that the US is causing. Nice one.
You are not entirely incorrect though. Even if you may not know it. The centre stage that the US is occupying is indeed in some ways inevitable. Take oil for instance where the US consumes more than its fair share. Namely 20 million barrels per day. No one can compete with that.
http://www.nationmaster.com...
Old figures and but one of many examples. Due to arrogance, imperialism and egocentric planning, the US now has to, in many ways, take on a central role in order to protect its central role. That is also in the definition of imperialism.
19:13 on June 4th, 2005
Bjorn, you are beginning to bore me with your rhetoric. Remember, questioning and assumptions based on faulty reasoning are not true analysis. But I have a little spare time so I will address some of your "logic".
1) So which psychological theories do you tend to agree with? You dis Freud
but who do you tend to agree with? Maybe the esoteric "feel good" philosophies of Maslow? What about the cold, impersonal world of Watson/Skinner? Eriksson? Jung? To be honest NO psychology can be considered "hard science" — it is all based on assumptions of the believer’s world view. However, it has more validity that sociology — the field of study I believe most of your Swedish politicians who speak out on gender issues or crime base their opinions on.
Gender issues? You are not a parent or married are you? What do you know about the formation of gender activity? I hope you know more than the proponents of a tabula rosa view of gender roles that infests your Swedish governing system. You cannot legislate out biological differences, all your society will do is create depression and confusion and eventually it will have a bombarang effect of creating a macho-oriented society once males rebel against the attempt to minimize their importance and females show preference for the males who do. It happened in Russia when communism fell and it will happen in Sweden.
Fair society? A recent survey showed that 1/4 young women would like to be stay-at-home mothers full time. Yet your government ridicules such choices and designs an oppressive tax structure to make it difficult for women to stay at home. The "Feministas" are a group of middle aged feminist ideologues who are ignoring true choice.
And yes, I’ll label people who commit violent crime. And I notice you fail to show any support for the idea that you can truly rehabilitate a psychopathic murderer or a child molester. And where did you come up with the notion that child molestation is rare?
And your attacks on the US are hardly novel or really constructive. You base your attacks on an assumption that everything evil is American. Yet by what philosophical or religious foundation do you chastize the US by? Your own personal opinions? Your own projections of a powerful father figure you cannot comes to terms with except in the context of a figure (transference)?
20:25 on June 4th, 2005
Well, then, don’t let me keep you babbling on my quasi-religious antagonist (yeah it shows, even in less obvious statements). Pesky isn’t it when the world just doesn’t take American propaganda at face value?
You wont sell any girl scout cookies here that is for sure. It is abundantly clear that you are just another misguided apparatchik that would rather not debate the real issues and instead revel in irrelevance and fantasies.
You wouldn’t know faulty reasoning even if it danced around, painted red and blue, singing the Star-Spangled Banner.
Yeah … having a family sure is scientific. I mean opposed to say, that no good evil sociology that is trying to subvert the righteous US. Can I get a degree in that? LOL.
If you had though before you blurted out the part about "oppressive tax" system you would have realized there may be other reasons why we would want both men and women to join the work force. But I suppose that would have required some of that evil sociology.
Never miss out on a chance to criticise the Swedish tax system, eh? All in all, and particularly related to women, it works pretty well: http://battleangel.org/blog... (Gender Gap study)
I don’t doubt that you read the report but managed to misinterpret it. And on top of this, do you even know how taxes work. It’s not like we just squeeze it out of workers in Sweden and burn the money. Ever heard of welfare? It’s the opposite of the every-man-for-himself system that the US champions. Where people are not only happy with working longer weeks for a little less money every year but still rush to defend it. And the money they save by low taxes is effectively eaten up elsewhere, curtesy of the system which people rush to defend. Hoodwinked and bamboozled.
That is also the conclusion here. You ask me to give a reason for why I bash the US, when your own interest in this is the petty effort to prove somehow that leftist Sweden is doing poorly. To prove that your own political views, and as such your fatherland, of which you speak lengthy, are valid and squash the dissonance by convincing yourself of what an accident waiting to happen Sweden really is. Just don’t hold your breath.
If you had spent any time reading the link I posted you’d had seen that I DON’T believe in "tabula rasa" / blank slate. Not as far as anything is related to reproduction at least. I do have an academic background with genetics, evolution and ecology too you know. Unlike some people, I adopt both sides of the story, eclecticism as it were. Psychological and sociological in this case. So it is irrelevant to build a hall of fame of psychologists. The answer is that it depends. But needless to say you have missed out on a great deal if you’ve only studied the individual side of the field. And forgot all about the larger social picture. It is nevertheless amusing to see this anti-sociology view fuelled by old fear of Leftists, Socialism, Marx, The Soviet Union and who knows what. It is not surprising that with the animosity towards that field, you’ll have trouble coming to terms with what I’m relaying here.
But maybe that is the point? The grand plan from the powers that be. That is, convince the populace that sociology is evil. Pinko commie stuff. So that they don’t read up or believe it. Good for the system that will effectively shun itself from a barrage of criticism.
Oh for crying out loud. Where do I base my criticism of the US? Have you ever read a history book? A real history book? I can be as "novel" as you’d like, but you’d still not understand and it would still be off-topic. And I can’t be novel beyond the facts which you choose to skim over. There is no way to be "constructive" with Americans since they do not acknowledge ever being wrong when it comes to their own self-image, their "great" nation and the ever more dangerous delusion they live.
09:04 on June 5th, 2005
Bjorn:
You have totally turned this discussion around…you are obviously virulenty anti-American…and that’s fine. I’ve checked…you have never even stepped foot in the US. I wouldn’t think of judging Sweden, having never been there, the way you have judged the United States. Remember the topic? Annika and the "American" justice system? We Americans very frequently admit when we’re wrong…we broadcast our shortcomings in the media…it’s no secret. We never said that our country was perfect.
We Americans generally take personal responsibility seriously. There may be social reasons for an individual’s behavior as I well know, being a law enforcement officer (I did not say I was a lawyer as you implied above), however people make choices. Some of the best homes have produced some of the worst children/adults and some of the worst homes have produced some of the best children/adults. I knew kids who grew up in alcoholic families and drug-infested/crime-ridden neighborhoods, and became very successful and happy adults. CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES. Annika made choices.
It’s odd how you attack some of the comments here…you’re so convinced that YOU’RE right that you really come off sounding terribly arrogant. I bet your arrogance turns off a lot of people, and, as a result, you don’t have many friends. Why else would you spend so much time on the computer? You obviously believe everything you read and hear about the United States. Can it possibly be THAT bad? Why is it that so many people want to immigrate to the United States? Why do so many people become US citizens every year? I have two Swedish friends who became US citizens last year…they’re quite happy here. Why don’t you reflect on Swedish history more? Your history is far from perfect, but I don’t need to throw it in your face.
Tell me please, how is our "hegemony" affecting you? Why do you care?
JD
10:48 on June 5th, 2005
Yeah, I suppose being right does seem a little arrogant.
JD: Here is how it works. American lies go on the front page. Retractions go on the last page, in small print a month later. The things I criticise are common knowledge. Like an archaic justice system and abuse. I don’t need to go there. But that is an argument I often here and one that is very common. Should one criticize stuff one hasn’t done, seen or experienced? Must I have been in an American prison to have gained the legitimacy to to complain? Where do you draw that line? Except obviously where it suits your world view …
For that matter, I doubt I’d be allowed to observe most of the high security facilities in the US. At least not with my credentials. If your famed security services are doing their job I ought to be on some sort of watch list.
But that is also what most evangelists say "just try it out ." A siren’s song that at best ends in wasted time. I can confirm that your information is correct. Given what I’ve learned about the US I’d never set foot there for fear of persecution and abuse.
Again, personal abuse ensue where reason and logic ends. Very mature.
Is immigration the only measure you can come up with? Most people who immigrate are Mexicans these days, no? Who go there for the same reason that Swedes went there en masse over a hundred years ago. Sure, I suppose people are still lured by the illusion of the US and the "possibilities." Some have no political of societal awareness and for purely economic reasons I’m sure its great, at least if you’re one of the haves. And supposedly there are also a few people still left who are sort of agreeable, not being religious zealots or nothing. You can still agree with the people even if the system is rotten to the core.
But most immigrants are drawn to baubles. Even Swedes. The siren’s song of dreams and wealth in the land of "hopes and dreams" is a powerful one. As many have noted, America’s greatest export is indeed its image of itself. Add to this the fact that the US has been sucking up competence (academic mostly) for decades. It’s a conscious strategy.
I’d be willing to concede that social factors worked in conjunction with personal choice in the case. Sure, a strong individual can often break social yokes. But is Annika such an individual? And even so, we’re back at square one – being the severity of the punishment. And the bullshitting she is receiving in every so called hearing.
American hegemony affects not only me but every living thing on the planet. That is what it has come to. We’re all citizens of the US (albeit with varying rights) in some twisted way. Summarizing effects would require hundreds of pages. If you have the time, again, I’d suggest the American Empire project. Chalmers Johnson or Chomsky for instance. Chances are my time is wasted explaining it since you would only see it as some sort of unfounded attack and I wouldn’t have the time to provide enough sources. Why re-invent the wheel? Read Johnson.
11:24 on June 5th, 2005
Bjorn:
Lies? About what? Oh, yes, please go there. All governments lie…even YOUR government.
Most ILLEGAL immigants come from Mexico. Legal immigrants come from all over the world. And you don’t have to be a "HAVE" in order to make it here. Most people who have immigrated here were "HAVE NOTS" and have done very well. I know many refugees (HAVE NOTS) and other immigrants in my community who have all done very well and they’re happy. Come for a visit and I’ll introduce you to them. Please stick to what you know.
You can arrange a tour of any prison facility with the approval of the prison warden. Try it and learn something.
I have read Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky. I am not impressed with those two, and not because I agree or disagree with them; they are very loose with "facts".
Why would you fear persecution or abuse if you came here? Why would you be on a watchlist? Do you feel you’re THAT important? Paranoid maybe. Pull out your knitting needle and stick it in your head…your ego needs deflating.
JD
14:19 on June 5th, 2005
The powerful and the elites always lie. Sure. But not everyone is a superpower that can subvert entire nations and invade others on a whim. It comes down to a question of power relations. Power corrupts as the saying goes, and the absolute power that the US wields corrupts absolutely. When the Swedish government lies, typically some fall guy loses his job. Not so long ago we lied and two people ended up in Egypt for torture, which is unforgivable. However, when the US lies, thousands die. Entire countries are devastated. There is no reasonable comparison here. Chomsky once drew on the St. Augustine metaphor of the emperor and the pirate, which sums it up nicely.
Again we are back at the role that the US has in world and whether or not Americans accept and see that role for what it is. Namely one where the expansion becomes power politics to protect (or at least thinking you do) the resources and the balance that you’ve hoarded. One where the US controls the entire planet through its staggeringly superior and overwhelmingly military. Where the US media sets the de facto standard everywhere and where "might makes right."
It is not the first time in history, nor the last, that similar empires arisen sure. But the consequences for other, less well endowed, nations are always the same.
And as you asked me a while back, does this in fact affect me, maybe not so much in reality. I’m not the prime victim of American imperialism. The people most affected are already dead or don’t happen to run their own weblogs. Isn’t that what solidarity is all about? As opposed to only, in the end, protecting a largely inflated hegemonic empire with ever more insane aspirations to power.
Illegal immigrants? Like "illegal combatants." Nice twist on that. Yes, because obviously, those that don’t contribute in the way your society wants are "illegal." But I can sympathize with the fact that you don’t want to take in just anyone. That part about "give us your poor" and so on …
Well except for when you can have them work for nickels and dimes under sub-human conditions and send them packing.
Good for you that your "personal acquaintances" can bail you out of this argument every time. So much for being loose with the "facts." Please stick to what you know, as opposed to speaking for how happy every immigrant is in the US. It may also be that when choosing between being dead or starving to death, even the US seems like a good idea.
You overestimate the transparency of your prison system. What if I just so happen not to get approval? And waltzing in, maybe, in most places, obviously not anywhere were there is an open investigation of abuse or such, but not in any way that I’d be able to document anything that is going on. At least not if I happened to slip that I’d plaster everything I find out on the net. BBC didn’t always manage in the documentary mentioned above. They got the PR treatment, which in many cases was disturbing enough.
If you read Johnson and Chomsky and neither disagree or agree, then what do you think? I think you’ll be hard pressed to find any major factual errors in Johnson’s texts nor Chomsky’s for that matter, except for when he obviously states opinions. Johnson’s writing is however researched in an unmatched fashion.
Given that, you should also have a picture of America’s empire that is as complete as mine. And that still doesn’t bother you? I find that hard to believe. Oh wait don’t tell me … it’s "just a reality", right? No need to look into that then …
It’s not an ego thing, but it stands to reason that if innocent people (albeit with suspicious surnames) can be picked up from the street and shipped via rendition to outsourced torture or to Guantanamo or wherever, it can happen, in theory to anyone. We may not be there in reality yet but I have confidence in that we will be.
That is also the only kind of realization that can reverse the slippery slope that that the US is on. But any such attempt is effectively blocked by the American circular logic that if you’re in jail, you must have done something. That personal choice beats social context every time and so on and so forth. There in ample evidence in this commentary of that type of intrinsic bias.
Regarding entry into the US, you underestimate your own system. For some actual projection on my part, if I’d had been in a US security agency, and prone to the isolationism that the US endures, I sure would have done some snooping on the web. But don’t tell anyone
15:54 on June 5th, 2005
Bjorn, so if someone injects any mention of religion they are a religious zealot? I think Sweden is desperately in need of a re-awakening of the spiritual side of life.
Also, again, I happen to like Sweden — yet there are things I really don’t like about the government. I can separate the people and the government. Can you? Your projected hostilities towards the USA seem to be all-encompassing. You don’t seem to like the government or the people.
You also seem so hostile that you can only see the bad, and not the good. You create a caricature — if the USA was represented as the most beautiful woman in the world, yet she had a scar on her shoulder, you would present the scar as a gaping would leaking plasma and extending over her whole body. Deny it if you want but this does characterize how you deal with issues.
Let’s use a familiar example. If you ever read about the history of your own people in the viking period you would understand that the vast majority of Vikings were traders, farmers and explorers. They set up valuable trade routes and (when actually invited by the Slavic peoples) established the Russian Empire since they were known as great organizers, being fair-minded and able to unite people. Yet many people think of the tiny minority of Vikings were raped, pillaged and plundered. The later does indeed describe some of your Swedish ancestors (mine too) but it’s not a fair and balanced portrayal of the history of our people, now is it?
As for sociology, why is having a double major of sociology/women’s studies seen as the equivalent of a degree in underwater basketweaving on most college campuses? It’s because sociology is not a scientific study of anything, just an attempt to explain events involving the group — and usually from a Marxist perspective. It has no predictive value and no true application to real life. However, psychology attempts to study and explain the individual. While not fully scientific in the sense that physics might be it does have application in the field of helping people in need. It also requires more discipline than sociology in that you at least have to conduct studies and the results are held up to review — this is more extensive than most sociology that I have seen.
Also, as you are probably aware your government takes a zealous role in attacking gender differences. I have no problem with equal opportunity but no government has the right to interject its gender ideals on preschoolers in dagis (daycare) or to supress information that shows differences do exist (not determined by societal constructs but something inborn in us) naturally between men and women.
In a truly free society women could choose to stay home full time and raise their children. Yet you combine an oppressive tax structure with a government policy that sees it as a goal to force women to work full time and have pay-care raise the little ones. That’s just against the notion of free choice, don’t you agree?
17:24 on June 5th, 2005
Mike: Sweden is probably one of the most secularized nations in the world. Since you know Sweden, you’re also familiar with this I assume. Your comment indicated this. Well, it does give a certain clarity of thought that is hard to come by under the yoke of religious dogma. Religion is, according to those dastardly sociologists, one of the greatest ways ever conceived to exploit and control the populace. Which is also the reason why the US likes it so much, embedded with superpatriotism, it makes for a system that is virtually foolproof. If one doesn’t get you, the other will. So, thanks but no thanks, keep your mind control for yourselves.
What you see or interpret is of no concern to me. But I’ll say that for the most part, the people equate the system or the regime. Accept for autocratic systems of course. Maybe you are more refined, but to digress again, as I recall it it was the US which cheered on as sanctions killed half a million children in Iraq. Because, oh, they just didn’t do enough to oust Saddam. Since democracies usually are more uniform in that people generally vote for one party or another and believe in the system, the people could be equated with the system. But of course, the illusion of autocracy and democracy doesn’t really reveal just how close the two systems are.
There are some things you don’t like about Sweden? Really. I couldn’t have guessed from your previous comments. Let me guess, it has got something to do with being left and still working, which according to doctrines is just impossible. Like when the communists claimed that Moscow had the world’s only subway.
A Viking metaphor. How novel. Well, first of all I don’t know how common such incidents were. But I wouldn’t refute that they existed and indeed were relatively common. Second, it’s not that relevant to compare something that happened almost 1000 years ago and something that has been thoroughly reported on in contemporary media. If the Vikings would have had CNN and left us tapes that would have been different. As it stands, piecing together history is a science in itself. It’s not that inaccessible to learn about the US today.
America may be beautiful to the casual observer, hell even I used to think so before I actually looked closer. I would simply suggest closer scrutiny. Which I in many ways think that MOST Americans are unable to do. Just like in fact most people are way too blind to the problems in the Swedish system. Or indeed anyone living in any system. If America is a beautiful woman (which kind of also shows how blindly you view the issue), then it is one who have had plastic surgery, and plenty of photo retouching.
Well, I don’t give much for women’s studies either. It’s a fad. But that doesn’t mean that women have equal opportunity. Nor that sociology is a fad.
Your comments on sociology are just unfounded. You make it sound like it’s some sort of kindergarten game, in that it has no scientific principles and with the only purpose of furthering Marxism. That is simply not true. Marx is but one of the "founding fathers" of modern sociology and I can vouch for the field being every bit as much of a science, even though it does not always follow the positivistic view of traditional psychology.
The government meddling that you describe has been well documented in this journal. I do not condone it. In fact it’s madness. Governments and laymen should keep out of science. But this is something that we have gotten used to. Compare this to the battle between evolution and creationism / ID for instance. Or what is called Data Quality Act in the US. There are in fact many special interests, government, private and corporate, that strive to change science. Or to desperately prove how one field is better than the other. If all fields would be required to have a predictive value in some sort of applied sense, i.e. being able to be used NOW, I can see many sciences, even psychology dropping off the map.
About free choice, that is granted there is such a thing at all. I have been made aware that Americans believe in personal choice and responsibility above social context. If they at all consider the context. What I am saying is that there may be other structures that limit free choice to a point where free choice is not really free. But that is an academic debate that is going nowhere. They line of conservatism that I assume you’re trying to defend advocates women to stay at home but does under a veil of free choice.
The World Economic Forums doesn’t agree as I’ve pointed out before, they seem to think that in order to be equal one has to have equal opportunity on the market (which according to some dastardly sociologists is where everything happens). Sweden bested the US in the Gender Gap Study:
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/...
They refer to what we’re discussing here as economic participation and economic opportunity. Bottom line is that in order to have a chance of free choice you have to make money or you’ll be dependant on someone else, a husband or the government. What is the alternative, that we lower the taxes? How would that help? Or should we pay women for having children? Isn’t that some sort of fuzzy welfare model that Americans claim to hate. And have you ever considered that all women may not want to stay at home and raise children? Or indeed have children at all? And top of this the purely economic consequences of having people not being part of the work force for prolonged times.
18:31 on June 5th, 2005
What’s with your love affair for high taxes? Do you actually pay any taxes?
And what about survival? Didn’t that genius you have as a finance minister recently say that Sweden needs more immigrants so the welfare system can survive? You don’t have enough babies — so you depend on more successful or productive societies to have your future workers?
Isn’t that called a parasitic relationship?
18:32 on June 5th, 2005
Bjorn:
Jeez, you are a KNOW-IT-ALL. Stick with what you know.
Those who have violated immigration laws are "illegal aliens" or as some prefer to call them, "illegal immigrants". This includes those who have entered the United States illegally and/or violated some other immigration law…overstayed visa, committed a crime after entry into the US, violated the conditions of his/her admission, etc. Our immigration laws are quite clear.
No, my "acquaintances" do not need to bale me out. All of my grandparents were immigrants; they had it a lot harder than the current immigrants, but they became very successful. Those who are here illegally have it more difficult, because they worry about being arrested and deported…that’s the same anywhere. And the "evil" US government is talking about granting amnesty…oh the horrible Americans!!! The horrible American government!!!
"Illegal combatants"? That’s a new one for me…I am familiar with "enemy combatants".
The vast majority of people who are in jail have done something wrong. What is your evidence otherwise?
JD
21:55 on June 5th, 2005
Mike: I have argued that the US does the very same thing, only on much larger and more devastating scale. Many western, industrialized nation do that and continue to do so. In the 70s for instance Sweden had offices in Yugoslavia I believe to get hold of possible immigrants. Regardless of who does it, it is a questionable method. At least so far as grabbing qualified labour, academics and so forth. America has been notorious in attracting students from many regions of the world for instance.
Also, Sweden is not alone in its nativity and generational problems. Look at Italy and Japan for instance. How the US manages this exactly I do not know. But they have Mexico to tap if they need to. At least for menial labour.
22:16 on June 5th, 2005
JD: My point was that "illegal" in this sense is a very subjective term that can be waived at any time. It is always illegal to hit someone over the head, but immigrating was more or less open a hundred years ago. Now it is regulated. Because the US doesn’t need labour, or at least not the kind that the average Mexican is providing. But that may change and that is perhaps also the reason for that amnesty. I suppose in some parts of the country, the use of this labour has become a necessity. But the actual situation will have to be researched.
By "illegal combatants" I meant the new US term for, well, I don’t know, paramilitary, or so called terrorists. Anyone who mustn’t be given a clear status and rights under say the Geneva convention. I used it as a way to show the relativity of the system. Maybe that will be a real term in law textbooks in 10 years?
http://www.answers.com/topi...
Of course people in prison have done "something wrong" according to the definition of the term and the system. But it is really something "wrong"? I mean, take drugs for instance. Both Sweden and the US have relatively harsh laws on drugs. A crime that is not violent (although it can be related of course, like in the Annika case) and not property related per se (since the government doesn’t sell drugs, unless you listen to Michael Ruppert). Just imagine a case of possession, whatever that constitutes in the US. More of a moral standpoint that is. My view would of course be the Foucault idea that society locks these people up and throws away the key to disguise their own failure. The old US "war on drugs" is at least something tangible, as opposed to debating how society would have prevented murder. But the same could hold true there. There are those in (that dastardly field of) sociology that would argue that this is one of the most powerful means of control that the system has. To decide right and wrong, to control perception and conserve power. And as such the slip-ups are "conscious". In some sort of problem – reaction – solution kind of way. Provides legitimacy for the system if nothing else. But sure, it would be difficult to argue that they haven’t done something wrong. It’s just according to who.
23:03 on June 5th, 2005
Oh please, don’t tell me you are into moral relativism too. Flashback: 1960s/early ’70s. Bjorn, you rip on the USA for doing what YOU call bad things. Yet you make the concepts of "right" and "wrong" seem like social constructs.
See the problem?
12:01 on June 6th, 2005
Mike: No I don’t. But neither do you. Again, this is falling on deaf ears. Ex: If you think that killing around three million people in SE Asia (for instance, one among countless atrocities committed by the US, I had that flashback you talked about) is equal to any of the "crimes" I have "defended" then please enlighten me. Both are relativism but the scope isn’t really the same, is it … and …
My point was to examine how the system treats its own subjects, like indeed this entire post supposedly is about. But to humour you, there still is no relation between genocide and petty crime and only the US would stand up and applaud the genocide of SE Asia for instance, grappling to flimsy ideas of domino theories. Then make up various bogus legal constructs of what genocide is, fail to live up even to those and still have the nerve to point out genocide elsewhere. Now that is relativism for you on a gigantic scale.
Might makes right as the doctrine of the day is. If the US kills someone it was a necessity evil or a good cause at worst. Relativism and double standards is what the US is about. Take the ICC. Take US "participation" in the UN and other supposedly international organizations. US support for Israel. US support for various dictatorships, like Uzbekistan. The list goes on. If it suits the purpose of the US, anything goes and human rights and equality becomes indeed something relative.
And, again, we end up in a debate over power relations, the strong and the weak, powerful elites versus powerless and marginalized people. Which again is way over your head considering your contempt for social science. You confuse an academic debate over power and control with a very practical one of what has actually happened and what is so outright wrong and dirty that no one could ever hope to defend it. You jump to condemn a single person that acted, due to social and individual triggers, badly. But fail to see even a hint of wrongdoing in recent US history. A history which was written in large part by cool and calculating men in "cold blood", not undertaken in a drug induced rage. Now that would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing.
The point I was trying to make was that governments use crime and correction to control the populace. And that because of this, not all crimes and sentences are logical. You mentioned yourself inconsistencies in the Swedish system regarding gang rape and prostitution (why for instance is prostitution so important). I could add that many forms of economic and property related crimes are too out of proportion. In themselves they are disturbing signs of a relativistic, or even inconsistent or elitistic system. I assume you could find similar things in the US, like say a woman locked up for 24 years for two murders she didn’t commit. Your faith in the system is touching but sadly misplaced. Even Freud could have told you as much.
14:13 on June 6th, 2005
Again, she helped in the killing of two individuals — coldly and without remourse. I could not care less if she spends the rest of her days in jail rather than returning to Sweden, going free, living off welfare or getting an honorary degree and becomming a professor in one of your universities.
Also, what does the US support of Israel have to do with anything? What would you do in the region to create peace?
Also, you make it sound as if the US went in to ethnically cleanse southeastern Asia. Yeah, right. WHat of the actions of the communists in the region? You never mention champions of human rights and Marxism such as Pol Pot. Why not? If your country were invaded and asked for help I’ll bet the US would assist in any way possible to protect you. Would they then be accused of being agressors? If a civil war broke out and the US sided with the non-communists would the US then be the agressors?
Where would Iraq be today, or for that matter Afghanistan, if the US had sat back and done nothing? And how many more attacks would have occured against the US if no actions had been taken?
18:49 on June 6th, 2005
Mike: Your delusions and nonsensical, unproductive rant about the Swedish system and Annika deserves to remain uncommented.
Since you screamed about relativism I thought I would point out how hypocritical it is to support Israel alone and subvert its neighbours. But I know, Americans don’t get that part either. And again, if I can’t answer, in a few short sentences how I would magically solve the middle east issue then it defaults to the US being right. It figures.
Vietnam: Millions died. It would qualify as genocide in my book. Genocide is a "systematic killing of a racial or cultural group." And the North Vietnamese could easily be a cultural group based on their political ideology. Which is also why the US would wipe out village after village. 2-4 millions dead (Wikipedia) are in fact 2-4 million civilians. Add to that some 600.000 soldiers. Initial intentions notwithstanding. And based on a fantasy of a communist threat that was exaggerated for political gain and the sole purpose of doing exactly what you claimed the Soviets were doing.
Add to this demeaning terminology, "Gooks" and so forth. A character assassination not seen since WW2 and Japan. So much for the respect of the people you were "saving." And add to this the use of Agent Orange, which no one in the US will admit has devastated Vietnam (and US veterans). I suggest to you that the intentions were in fact bad from the start. That the actual casus belli for open war (Tonkin) was bogus. That both the troops and the US government disparaged the people of the region to a point where I’d call it racist. That the only "reason" was the domino theory which the US to this day claims was a success.
Many American foreign policy theorists by the beginning of the 1950s, moreover, had been more or less won over by the twin doctrines of containment, as proposed in 1947 by George Kennan, and the domino theory, which held that if one country "fell" to communism, its neighbours would be soon to follow. The latter of these doctrines often assumed a good deal of vertical unity in international communist movements, directed by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and his successors. While this was largely true of European communist parties (with the exception of Yugoslav leader Tito), the situation was somewhat different in Asia.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
And in the end, why would it have mattered if you’d let communism spread in Asia? Unless you of course believe that it is some sort of ungodly evil empire as many of you seem to believe. Which it clearly was not after the death of Stalin. The irony here being of course that the only evil empire was the US all along.
Vietnam did, as we know, return to status quo in 1975. So thanks a lot. For getting the South Vietnamese to fight a proxy war as sepoys for you that they lost. Instead of just accepting reality. I mean, if you’re so interested in saving lives, some simple calculus would arrive at the conclusion that the best course of action would have been to do nothing.
And if you were really convinced that the capitalistic system was superior, you’d have just let them adopt it over time. As we have seen in China in recent years. Or indeed in Vietnam which has nowadays opened up and is having capitalist investments on an unprecedented scale.
The doctrine of confrontation, sanctions and so on causes nothing but suffering and if anything secures the position of the authoritarian leader. In Vietnam it managed to further antagonize North and South and just make the eventual reunification so much harder.
So sure, if Sweden got into a civil war, the US would come to the rescue. Kill a million people at least on each side, then declare retreat and let the people duke it out. That would be a nice analogy to the Vietnam war. If the US had prevailed, there would have been US bases littered around the countryside, effectively occupying and influencing national policy. So no thanks. The US has ulterior motives for every move it makes on the international arena. It’s the way of an empire.
And needless to say, the example is crippled like everything else you present. Simply because it’s a far fetched illusion that desperately searches for some sort of sympathy, no matter how unlikely the prospect is. Sweden hasn’t had a civil war since, well a long time, and hasn’t been to war at all for some 200 years. In the last 200 years, the US has had a civil war and been to war so many times I’ve lost count.
I don’t talk about Pol Pot, because a) the US effectively gave him room to move to power by its bombing and destabilizing of Cambodia. And b) because you’re trying your very best to escape the realities of what the US has done and discussing that issue at hand, and this also isn’t relevant because of a). It’s always "look at what they have done" with you people. What about this, what about that. So much for accepting responsibility.
Unquestioning … unwaveringly accepting the official party line.
Thank God for you saving Iraq. Killing as many as 100.000 in the process, further poisoning the countryside with depleted uranium. Letting in American corporations to ransack the place. Devastating infrastructure needlessly. Establishing US bases that will most likely never go away. Not even Saddam did such a good job. Gee, I don’t think anyone is going to call the US any time soon and ask for help.
I can promise you that you’ve invited more "anti-Americanism" and possible attacks (I assume you refer to the WTC?) by your actions in recent years. Nor was it ever the intention of your government to make you any safer. Just to expand, send superfluous people and superfluous money to superfluous countries.
And … what do you think inspired me to closer examine the US system? I couldn’t fathom why the US was behaving to erratic and it spurred my research on the subject. Needless to say, Islamic fundamentalists (and others) wont attempt to debate you to death.
I’ll be around to say "I told you so."
19:47 on June 6th, 2005
Your, uh, logic is interesting. Applying it to the Annika Östberg Deasy case I’m surprised you aren’t attacking the policeman for being the true cause of poor Annika’s having to assist in his murder.
Would you say that John F. Kennedy and Pol Pot are moral equivalents?
23:50 on June 6th, 2005
Mr. Hallberg
I did not get to read your original collum on Annika Deasy. However, having read the above dialogue, I have a fair idea of your opinions on a number of items. However, I am only truly interested in the discussion of Ms. Deasy.
I am very much interested in your source of information as to the case. I gather that you were not present at the hearing from your comment that you are not in the United States.
I don’t belive that I agree with your position. However, I would like to better understand it. The conversation which I found going on has gone of on many tangents. Unfortunately, this can easily happen when discussing these kinds of issues.
I am curious to know whether you are saying that the California Penal system is corrupt, archaic, misdirected or all of the above with a few more things thrown in? Or, are you saying that the entire social, economic and political system of the United States is one or more of the above? Or, both?
If the prime thrust is that an injustice is being done to Annika Deasy in this particular case then I am concerned as to the source of your information and its accuracy for without that it is difficult to assess the value of the opinion.
Is it your position that Annika Deasy was a passive participant in the events and thus that she is being unfairly punished? Or, is it your position that it makes no difference whether she actually killed three men and that even if she did her punishment is excessive?
In other words, is your opinion in any way affected by the underlying facts? The discussion is different depending on which topic is being discussed.
I would also be interested in knowing if you believe that other people could have a different opinion which would be worthy of consideration or even a modicum of respect?
Thank you for your time.
LF
03:45 on June 7th, 2005
Hi,
I just got very interested in the dialogue here between you people. My personal opinion is that I do not understand some things in the US justice system. Not only in Annikas case but in general. And of course, when you start reading and get interested in a country like the US, which I am because of their great influence in our world, you see things you really don’t like. I am married to an American and to me it was surprising to see how information about US affairs in the world, not are shown in American media. My father-in-law and other family members never heard of the things I told them I have seen over here in Sweden. I believe the press in Sweden works better since it is free. And I wonder why the US, despite death penalty, have so much highly, violent crimes. There are many reasons for it combined, and I’m truly sad for it. Not for my own sake, I don’t live there, but for the people living there. We may be more soft when it comes to punishment here, but it works better in general than the hard way.
And most murder crimes are committed in rage or under the influence of drugs, so the use of long, hard punishment and even death penalty only scare people thinking of it, but you don’t use your brain to think when you are influenced by drugs or strong emotions. I don’t know if I’m right or not, but the meaning of having death penalty for example would be to state example of what happens if you kill someone right? It maybe used to work in the old times when you showed the executions in public. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I just feel the American justice system is way to aggressive for my taste, and it doesn’t seem to make the streets safer. And have been sitting in prison for over 20 years when you were with the person who committed the killing, not you, I can’t understand why they can’t give her a number, 25 years or life in prison, well, give her 50 years or lifetime period, but to refuse to take a stand doesn’t make any sense to me at all! It seems as if the victims familymember are in decision of that, and it won’t happen for as long as they live obviously. Maybe they don’t want a closure in their lives, because fighting for keeping her inside for the rest of her life, will be a constant battle and has nothing to do with the grief anymore.
Excuse my not perfect English but,
Take care all of you out there!
17:47 on June 7th, 2005
Mike: As for Kennedy, I never said Kennedy, did I? I noticed that that Tonkin was a fraud. Whether Kennedy knew this or not at the time I do not know. But Kennedy nevertheless was the one that authorized the escalation of the conflict. Though it should be noted that the US has maintained a military presence since the early 50s. And already practised (lets be fair and call it) containment and domino.
Thanks to the convenient system of democracy, blame just dissipates. But if Kennedy is to be held responsible for the war that ensued, which I have no problem with, he is surely responsible for more deaths than Pol Pot. By that definition he is even responsible for Pol Pot. As for Mr. Pot, he supposedly killed 1.2 – 2 million people. Few would argue that twice as many died during the Vietnam conflict. If you really want more Cambodia I should also note that Pol Pot was anti-Soviet, even though he was a "communist." As such the US even supported him from time to time. Especially after Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978. Ironically those "dastardly" Vietnamese pretty much deprived Pol Pot of any real hold on the country and saved the day from a humanitarian perspective. But they obviously had closer links to the Soviets and as such .. well .. the US again showed its great humanitarian side.
The other less tangible link between Pol Pot and the US system during the time is that both were so convinced of their own superiority that they isolated themselves from the world and employed whatever means necessary to uphold their fantasies. Human lives just didn’t matter to either of them. Not when it came to realizing their self-proclaimed prophecies.
18:11 on June 7th, 2005
Charlotte: You have a couple of points there that I should have made instead of digressing. But I just got carried away.
I found three main things that I’d just like to underline further.
1) Media and Looking closer – Without closer examination, the US looks great. Especially if you listen to the official story. And yes, there is a big difference between what is reported in the US and say Britain or Sweden. I regularly read British and US papers and I suppose that it could be even more obvious in live media (even if you don’t watch Fox). Why this is I don’t know for sure. I guess you’ll get flamed for saying that Swedish media is "free". Americans don’t think so because they are taught that government owned media (like SVT) is just one step down the ladder from North Korea. The US has a huge problem with corporate media on the other hand. Corp media, on the surface, seems like a good idea. But it’s not really. And I wouldn’t say that they distort or misrepresent the news on purpose (again, not counting Fox). It’s just the climate there. Part of the illusion that people unwittingly become caught up in. And God knows no one is going to change it since it plays right into the hands of the powers that be.
2) "It doesn’t work" – that is perhaps the best argument. And really the only one you need. And on top of this, as you point out, the unlikeliness that it will deter you in the heat of the moment.
I agree, public executions are more effective, not because people die but because they are ashamed to be humiliated in public. Hat tip to the US … but in a way the US system knows this. Why else the admissions and retraction cycle of torture and abuse. It’s a form of terror far more effective than physical abuse.
3) Closure – Indeed. You got in on the emotional side of the argument. Something that I don’t immediately think about. Most people want closure, except the system which thrives on adversity and power. How absurd it is that people are so easily hooked by the sham and actually start to believe that all of this is for their own good.
18:32 on June 7th, 2005
Charlotte:
Your English is fine. We have a free press, too. Just because the Swedish media chooses to report on an issue that our media doesn’t report on does not mean that we don’t have a free press. It is my understanding that the Swedish press is quite anti-American, so it would seem to me that the average Swede’s opinion of the US is quite skewed.
Our media coverage is different because we have a huge country with a huge population. Sweden is small…9 million people, right? So, I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. My local television stations, which are affiliates of the major networks and cable companies, cover issues specific to my community and state. This is the case all over the country. The US also produces thousands of newspapers and magazines. Not free, you say?
And why do US internal affairs interest the world so much? I presume you are talking about our internal affairs. This befuddles me every time I travel to Europe…last year I was in Norway in Iceland. Some of the questions I got blew my mind… not enough time here to go into it. I just smiled and told them to tell me something nice about their countries. I have travelled to many countries and have lived in several for my work. I have very little interest in the internal affairs/politics of other countries.
Regarding the death penalty…there are different schools of thought on it. Some people simply see it as a punishment…a person takes someone’s life, so we’ll take his. Some people believe that the death penalty deters crime. I personally don’t believe in the death penalty, but I do believe in life in prison without parole for murder…a person took a life, so it seems fair to me that we take his life by denying him liberty. I do NOT care if a murderer can be reformed or rehabilitated. Why would anyone want to release a killer back into society?Of course, my opinion is different regarding other crimes.
Now I don’t understand why the world focuses so much attention on the US regarding this issue. China has the death penalty and executes FAR more people than the US. What is the Swedish media stance on that? Please don’t tell me that "the US is a democracy and should do this or that." China is very influential…almost everything is made there…just walk through your local IKEA store.
Please try to separate the "American" justice system form the California justice system. We have 51 separate justice systems…50 states and the federal system for federal crimes. The federal system is not the "American" system.
JD
18:43 on June 7th, 2005
Charlotte:
What does the Swedish media report on the "US" media doesn’t report on?
JD
20:04 on June 7th, 2005
Charlotte
The United States has 50 states. Some of these states have the death penalty while other states do not. The murder rate varies from state to state, however, the differences do not seem to be linked to whether or not the state has the death penalty or not. Thus, your point that the death penalty is not a deterrant seems correct. Those who support the death penalty argue that it is the death PENALTY not the death DETERRANT.
In the state of California, the death penalty was enacted by what is called the referrendum process. This means that petitions were circulated throughout the state and millions of people had to sign the petition saying that they wanted a death penalty. Once enough signatures were received, the matter was put on the ballot and an election was held. At the election, two out of three California voters voted that they believed that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment in certain murders. That is why we have the death penalty in California. It has very little to do with deterrance.
In California there are specifiec circumstances which must be found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt before the death penalty can be imposed.
As a practical matter, not all crimes which are eligible for the death penalty are prosecuted as death penalty cases. Probably not more than in one out of four murders for which the death penalty is authorized is the death penalty asked for by prosecutors. Of those cases in which the death penalty is requested, juries only return death verdicts in approximately 30% of those cases.
In California, the death penalty has been carried out in 5 or 6 cases out of the 800 or so death penalties over the last 27 years. Many more criminals die of natural causes or suicide while on death row than are executed.
I am not trying to justify the death penalty in any way, I am just attempting to explain how it works in California.
If you have any questions or would like further information on the death penalty, I would be happy to provide additional information.
If you are interested in the Annika Deasy case in particular I am in a position to provide information of that case as well.
LF
22:36 on June 7th, 2005
Lester: Ok lets focus on the case for a change. You are correct. I was not physically present at the hearing and remain located in Sweden. The coverage has been exclusively Swedish sources, since the international news value of this is close to nothing. In fact I’ve looked (Google News) and found no accredited news sources outside Sweden that reported on this. I have of course seen video footage from the actual hearing, though I have not seen the entire run.
Is the California Penal system is corrupt? The US? Both?
I have consistently refused to make a distinction on state and federal law and instead generalized. That has its pitfalls for sure. I expressed earlier that the US usually uses its system to shift the blame or credit as it suits them. Taking states and various laws into account would just force me to play by their rules. Which they’d love. And if I don’t it always "oh you don’t understand the US system." It’s closer to the truth that I don’t care. I am more interested in what goes on as a whole in the US, what the trends are, the big picture. The legal system is just one of the pieces in the puzzle, but one where I don’t like one bit what I see. I’m after the spirit or the essence, not what the dull laws say. In essence what binds the US as a nation, in attitudes and action, not what separates you and what conceals.
But to be brief, I believe that there is something very rotten at the core of the US system. More so than other countries. I guess you want something more concrete than that. It’s just not something that one easily puts a finger on. In part the US is a problem because of sheer size and power, and aside from the various implications this has for other nations, the outcome for the US is no better. Add to this what many have dubbed militarism, in which a nation over time focuses all its efforts on security and where the entire purpose for being is that same fuzzy idea. It is as Chalmers Johnson would put it the Siamese twin of imperialism. Imperialism of course becoming inevitable with large nations as they expand beyond their natural borders. Imperialism is interesting in this context because of what the British used to call the Boomerang Effect and considered the ultimate price for foreign involvement. In short: what you subject others to is bound to come bouncing back as the people doing it are bound to come back. Just so that there is no confusion, this is not a "blowback" (since I mentioned Johnson) or "chickens coming home to roost". A Boomerang Effect, traditionally, is just re-introducing the people you have sometimes had do terrible things abroad to the homeland and this can of course come in many forms. I.e. not separating colonial methods and normal domestic policies properly. Colonializing the homeland. And furthermore, every time the US goes to war, there are veterans, some boasting with pride, some contemptuous of the system. But both nevertheless changing society forever. This ties in nicely with militarism as well.
It is only with the combined efforts of these lines of thought that one can get close to a meaningful explanation. The British took this so seriously they would sometimes take steps not to allow the most notorious of these individuals home, ever. My main input regarding imperialism is Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, except for when it’s Johnson (or Chomsky). It was also Arendt that said that "Although tyranny, because it needs no consent, may successfully rule over foreign peoples, it can stay in power only if it destroys first of all the national institutions of its own people" which is highly related to this.
This is just something I got from off the top of my head and indicating what I’ve been able to absorb so far. To offer some threads to build on that aren’t stuck in Cambodia or wherever.
Unfairly punished?
Not according to the system. She seems to get the same crappy treatment as anyone else being convicted of murder (and having killed a law enforcement officer). I don’t think she is singled out. But the thought of that doesn’t exactly make me feel any better, knowing that there must be countless others in the same situation.
I do feel the punishment is excessive given her involvement. I do feel that even if she had been guilty of murder, 25 years is an absolute maximum. I also do not believe that law enforcement should be getting special treatment and that "cop killers" should be more severely punished (but they are and that is in part because an attack on them is an attack on the system and power). If anything it should be the other way around. I do not subscribe to the idea of punishment, which I find offensive and backwards. I also do not believe in the blood feud mentality that goes on here. If we wanted that then why do we maintain a justice system at all? Above all the idea is to rehabilitate. If we don’t, the problem will just come back to haunt us.
We had a new word being introduced in Sweden recently by the think-tank Eudoxa — "Hårdaretagism" — roughly "Strongarmism", which sums it up nicely. The problem with getting tough on things is that you rarely solve the issue, rather postpone it. A solution usually requires one to stop, take a step back and rethink the problem. More of the same rarely solves anything.
Opinions .. a modicum of respect?
It depends. If we were debating something more trivial I wouldn’t be quite so antagonistic. As it stands, with the type of barrage of America first, nonsensical and sometimes provocative comments I have received its difficult not to be swept away. I’d say that respect is earned. And call me a bigot, but if you’re American and defend the system in such a fiery way, I just get suspicious. It has been clear, what type of thinking "these people" represent. Another generalization. But chances are the same people that are applauding this incarceration, even gleefully and salivating, are also the same people who curse us with other "conservative" ideals. That is also the fuzzy pattern I started to expose in the post, nothing fanciful. Bring in God on top of that and they’ve lost my respect. So sure. There are things I don’t respect. And I’m not denying this, nor apologize for the fact. Does that make me seem like an even bigger bigot? Maybe, but at least these people wont be walking all over me like they have so many others. Surrendering to correctness and politeness, why would, these people wont show me the same courtesy. And sure, this is indeed a bit counterproductive. What is it they say, "saving paradise by destroying it."
00:22 on June 8th, 2005
Mr. Hallberg
Thank you for your reply.
THE SYSTEM
I am an American, a Californian and a member of the system. As such, I am always very interested to hear various perspectives and ideas regarding our system of govenment of which the legal system is a cornerstone.
In the 50 different states there are some differences in approach and attitude. A prime example being the death penalty. Some states have a death penalty and impose it frequently. Some states have a death peanalty and impose it infrequently. Some states do not have a death penalty at all. However, the under pinnings of the system are national in scope so in many respects you are justified in refusing to differentiate between them.
The United States has had a long and arduous history of blundering along in trying to balance the rights of individuals and the rights of society. We have frequently gotten it wrong. However, there are a lot of good people who want to get it right and are trying to do so.
One of the real problems in our system is trying to balance between punishment and rehabilitation within our justice system.
You are again correct when you say that there are problems with what the system does both internally and externally. The question is how to balance the competing needs.
There was a time from the late ’60s to the middle ’80s when rehabilitation was the wave. Sentences were reduced and programs to help people were instituted to help keep them out of the system. For whatever reason, the crime rate began to rise rapidly and violent crime skyrocketed. Inevitably there was a reaction to this both from politicians and from ordinary people. As a result for the last 20 years the wave has been toward punishment. Again, for whatever reason, crime rates decreased and violent crime actually dropped also.
Part of the reasoning was that a huge part of the crime was committed by a very small number of individuals. If you removed a signifigant amount of these people from society by putting them in jail for long periods of time that you would reduce crime by a lot. There has been some effect. However, the move toward keeping some people of the street longer has led to more and more draconian sentences.
I believe that there are the beginings of a swing back in the pendulum toward rehabilitation but it will take time to build.
ANNIKA DEASY
I am still unsure as to whether or not the facts of Annika Deasy’s case make a difference at all in your feelings about HER situation.
Clearly, one could take the position that she has been in prison for long enough and has been rehabilitated even while thinking that she personally killed everyone that she was convicted having killed. That would seem to be what you are saying.
However, you said "I do feel her punishment is excessive given her envolvement."
I think that you have a wrong impression of the level of her envolvement. I could tell you where the misimpression lies. But, the thrust of your opion seems to be that she has done enough time under any set of circumstances for killing two people regardless of who those people may have been.
Do I correctly interpret your position?
Are you interested in the facts of the case?
Thank you again for your time and for your reply. I find your opinions very interesting.
LF
15:30 on June 9th, 2005
Lester: Thank you for responding. I think you have my opinions pinned in a roundabout way. The case details aren’t superfluous but they have taken a second seat to the disproportionate punishment and the endless stories surrounding the case. And the Bizarro Universe concept of convicting people for things they in fact didn’t do, at least given the system’s conclusion at the time. And then sticking with that verdict, repeating it, up to the point where most laymen and casual observers will believe it is in fact so. Doesn’t seem like a very fair thing to do. It may be that California sees accessory to murder as a serious offence, but just because Annika plea-bargained to murder doesn’t make her the killer. It seems we are both reaching for evidence and conclusions that may very well exist but are outside of the case which was made and upon which Annika has been tried and convicted.
I started digging around, trying to find information about the alleged "third murder" which took place in San Francisco in 1974 and stumbled upon this article:
http://www.sj-biz.com/artic...
In which you present new evidence, of which the paper publishes three main points …
A) Beverly Ann Mesick claimed Annika confessed killing at least Helbush.
B) Statements by Annika during the 1981 investigation indicated that she had in fact stabbed Donald McKay to death. Not the boyfriend, "Chris".
C) ".. take the deputy’s wallet after he was killed and helped reload Cox’s gun .. "
A and C may very well be but they are merely circumstantial evidence. Reloading the gun looks bad, sure, but it’s quite easy to sit here and say that she could have refused if she really wanted.
As for A and B She may have been untruthful. Pissed off and prone to exaggerate. I know I would have been. A bit like that movie Dead Man Walking where the client joins some white supremacist organization out of the blue. As if he didn’t have enough things going against him. I’d say it could be a way of coming to terms with the dissonance of being locked up. I.e. if I’m so bad, why not take it all the way and "I wish I had taken a few more with me." But either way it’s inconclusive speculation. C I was aware of.
As for B I’m curious. Didn’t this "Chris", I think his name was, confess to the stabbing? And didn’t Annika indicate that "Chris" had in fact done it? And wasn’t the entire case dismissed as self-defense? If so, what happened to "Chris"? How did that really turn out?
Other things that I have been curious about is Cox’s (Collins was it?) background. He supposedly had an even more dire history than Annika.
And again, little details … like he wasn’t supposed to, at least usually wasn’t, accompanying Annika on the beef deal she had with Joe Torre, something that from what I know had been going on for some time at least so far as the check deal worked. The article above makes it sound like it was a one time thing and that they "lured" Joe to a "secluded area". I don’t think any one of those people wanted to advertise what they were doing in a public space.
Finally I am somewhat suspicious about Cox’s death. How well was that investigated? Even if suicides happen, you’d think that a holding cell would be a pretty safe place. Call me paranoid, but there are indeed a few things with this case that are unclear. It sure works out better and more conclusive on Television … but I’m not going to rant on about perceptions and preconceptions.
Indeed, there are things here that I was not aware of. Specific details. But I am not so sure it changes the big picture. Like prison sentences or views on rehabilitation or degrees of involvement in general.
It is a bit disturbing though that the case was taken to lightly as it seems, in 1981. If the evidence was there to convict her of murder, why the plea-bargain. I can’t believe the system was just being lenient.
I find it a tad weird to hear the BPT insists that she has killed three people in cold blood. Seriously? I mean, I’m no lawyer but given that the BPT isn’t supposed to handle new evidence (?) and that, at best they have evidence of two cases of murder, although they know it was a plea-bargain situation. And one voluntary manslaughter on top of that. How does that amount to "three murders" and in "cold blood." Her involvement may have been more serious than most people think, but "cold blood." Isn’t that a little melodramatic. I can accept that the BPT may not be informed or doing a crappy job but this will obviously be held against Annika in the future. One the "three murders in cold blood" line has sunken in. Like everything she has or can do. If she defends herself she "doesn’t understand" or she "continues to belittle the extent of her involvement." You’ll only be in a worse position after its done. I don’t see why they bother with a hearing, except for legitimizing the system.
I also believe that the incarceration and rehabilitation in Annika’s case are problematic. It would be very interesting to know exactly what kind of rehabilitation / therapy Annika is receiving. More than say learning a profession and being taught the "error of her ways" in blunt and obvious ways. It’s a Catch-22, isn’t it? Like in the book by the same name where you can be excused from flying bombing missions on the grounds of insanity, only, you’re considered sane if you have the ability to report insanity and have a fear of death.
If she hasn’t been rehabilitated enough, as the board indicates during the hearing, isn’t it likely that the system hasn’t provided a viable method or insignificant amounts of the same? Given what we have all agreed on regarding the US system in general and California in particular. But yes, I know, it’s all the individual. If change doesn’t come, it’s the individual’s fault. Not the system. This also remains the one main thing that separates the US and Sweden and makes this case seem so incomprehensible and difficult to reconcile.
If you have anything to add to the case, please do. Or if you have in fact uncovered anything else in the case that may shed light on the story.
01:57 on June 11th, 2005
Mr. Hallberg
I am sorry I haven’t replied up to this point. I have been very busy and unable to do so. I will have some time within the next 24 hours and will at least begin to reply.
LF
21:00 on June 11th, 2005
Mr. Hallberg
Let me start by answering a few of your questions.
DID CHRIS EVER ADMIT HE HAD KILLED DONALD MC KAY?
No. Chris always maintained his innocence. He says he was not there when the homicide occurred. A judge decided that there was not enough evidence upon which to hold Chris for trial in the death of Donald McKay. He did, however, return to prison for violating his conditions of parole at some point.
Annika currently claims that she turned herself in to the police and confessed to killing Donald McKay because she had been approached by Chris’ family who told her that he would be treated more leniently on his parole violation if the homicide of Donald McKay were cleared up in such a way as to absolve Chris of any guilt.
There is no one else who will verify this. So we are left with Annika’s conflicting statements that she did it and that she didn’t. The facts in the case are ambivilant. Either of them could have killed McKay. However, it is clear that the person with the complaint against McKay and his girlfried which led to the stabbing was Annika. She felt that McKay and his girlfriend had stolen Annika’s stereo.
Annika claimed that the stabbing was an accident and in self defense. She said that McKay pulled a knife and attacked Chris. She said at first that Chris and McKay fell to the floor and McKay was accidentally stabbed in the fall. One of the stab wounds was to the back and there were three other stab wounds to the chest. Hardly consistent with an accident. She later changed her story to her grabbing McKay’s arm as he went after Chris and they she and McKay fell and he was accidentally stabbed.
Clearly Annika is lying about something. Annika’s position as described by her when she returned to the appartment would have put her in a position to have stabbed McKay in the back.
In 1981, Annika was questioned while being quesstioned about the murders of Torre and Helbush the following is in her tape recorded statement taken the same day as the murder of Sgt. Helbush:
Cooper: You went down for manslaughter once before?
Annika: Yep
Rosenquist: What kind of beef?
Annika: Uh, stabbing.
Rosenquist: Did you take the whole for it? you know we’ll check into it, it just seems peculiar you’d take a manslaughter beef and ended up with five years probation?
Annike: Seven
Rosenquist: Huh?
Annika: Seven.
Rosenquist: Seven years probation?
Annika: Plus that, they charged two people with it. See first they busted me, then my old man, at the time. I told him to split. THE SUCKER WOULDN’T BELIEVE I DID IT. THEY REFUSED TO BELIEVE I DID IT. The guy was stabbed eight times and no girl could have done it. And so, finally, he turned himself in, and that’s the word. And i was only a witness, so I got up on the stand in his defence. And he was found…, the case was thrown out. That’s what it was. And then, two years later, a bunch of stuff, and they wanted my old man real bad. And the only thing we could give ‘em was me, you know. So, we gave ‘em me. So I turned myself in to ‘em. That was part of it.
The interview then goes back to the murders of Helbush and Torre.
It was when I read this statement that I began to reexamine my assumptions about the case.
She seemed to be saying that she was, in fact, the stabber of Donald McKay at a time when she had no reason to misrepresent that fact. So, I started thinking about things and I realized that the only reason for thinking that Annika had not been the actual killer was that she said she wasn’t. All of the fact pointed as much to her as it did to Cox and Chris.
There is a 5000 character limitation of this message so I will answer one more question and then continue in a couple of days.
THE SUICIDE OF WILLIAM/ROBERT COX/COLLINS
The matter seems to have been appropriately investigated at the time. Cox hung himself with strips of material torn from his bed sheet. The question is why was he not on suicide watch. Annika had stated to the police that they had agreed to kill themselves rather than be take alive.
It is my belief that since Cox never made any statements about being suicidal and neither he nor Annika acted suicidal after their arrest, the police just didn’t think it was a serious threat. However, apparently Cox was more serious than they knew and clearly more serious than Annika.
WHAT WAS COX’S CRIMINAL BACKGROUND
It appears that Cox was a small time criminal who engaged in drug trafficing, possessing drugs, using drugs and some minor assaultive behavior. Actually, with the manslaughter conviction on her record, Annika’s criminal record was far more serious and violent that Cox’s.
Thank you for your time. I will continue this in two days time.
Lester
22:31 on June 12th, 2005
Mr. Fleming: Thank you for your efforts so far. I’ll write up a formal response once I have your concluding comments.
But briefly …
As for Cox’s background, I have very little to go on. His footprint on the Net is virtually non-existent. The Annika Deasy page (http://www.annikadeasy.org/...) although obviously partial here, claims that Cox "had served six years in a Turkish prison for attempted murder and black market racketeering, as well as being involved and questioned regarding a murder in Arizona." It could be a slip-up on their part, but it seems too obvious to be conscious misinformation. Any clues on this?
20:05 on June 13th, 2005
Mr. Hallberg
Let me answer your last question first. My file contains no information that Cox had either been imprisoned in Turkey or investigated for murder in Arizona. Since Cox had committed suicide before trial no one felt that such information was relevant to any necessary decisions. As far as is known by my office, Cox was a small-time drug dealer and thief.
In the first paragraph of your posting of June 9th you raise several points.
In California, when a person is arrested by the police, the reports of the police are turned over to the District Attorney’s office and the District Attorney’s Office decides what to charge the defendant with.
In Annika’s case the District Attorney in San Joaquin County charged her with murder and with robbery and with the personal use of a gun. There was a special circumstance allegation of murder in course of a robbery which could have led to the death penalty or life without possibility of parole.
In Lake County Annika was charged with murder and with robbery and a special circumstance of murdering a peace officer which could also have led to the death penalty or life without possibility of parole. She was also charged with the attempted murder of three other peace officers in the gun fight which accompanied their attempted get away and the personal use of a gun.
After a crime is charge (felonies only) there is a preliminary hearing at which the District Attorney presents evidence to show that there is good reason to believe that crimes have been committed and that the defendant is the perpetrator of those crimes.
This was done in Lake County. Testimony was taken over the course of several weeks. 15 transcripts of testimony were prepared and made an official part of the record upon which the BPT can base its decisions.
A preliminary hearing in San Joaquin County was never held because the plea bargain was reached before that was necessary.
A judge looked at the evidence and decided that Annika could be tried on all of the charges alleged except one. It was one of the less important charges and was dismissed by the judge.
Accessory to a crime, in California, means that you tried to cover up a crime which you had no part in.
Aider and abetter, in California, means that you intended to help someone commit a crime and that you then actually helped them commit the crime. Annika was clearly guilty in all of the counts charged at least on the basis of intending that crimes occur and taking an active part in those crimes.
There is room for a difference of opinion from the evidence which is part of the record as to whether or not Annika actually pulled the trigger or whether or not she was in agreement with the killing of either of the individuals. However, the evidence is fairly strong that she was in agreement with what happened.
Under California law, if you are involved in a robbery then you are responsible for any crime which occurs as a result of that robbery. This includes murder. All the DA had to prove in the San Joaquin County murder of Joe Torre would have been that she went there to rob Joe Torre.
Annika, according to her own account, even at the BPT hearing, was the one who set up Joe Torre to be robbed. That she did it with the specific intent that he would be robbed. That she lied to him to get him to meet with them on the promise of non-existent meat so they could steal his money.
Annika told police that she had told Joe Torre, "Give it up, Joe (the money). This man will pull the trigger."
She also told police that it was her idea to go to Lake County after the murder of Joe Torre. She also said that after the Torre murder and before the Helbush murdre she had test fired the murder weapon. When asked why she had test fired the gun she said it was because if the were stopped by the police on the highway, "We were just going to go for it."
She also admitted that, according to her version, that she was pretending to look for identification when Helbush was shot. Here, different stories on this point was the one where Commissioner Perez concluded that she was lying about events.
Annika, pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder with no mention of any reduced culpability on her part. She did this, undoubtedly, in order to not face the death penalty or life without possibility of parole.
Annika had very good lawyers, one of whom I know, who did a very good job of getting her a good deal.
Annika was sentenced to 25 years to life. This meant that she had a minimum eligible parole date of 16 2/3 years. However, this isn’t the only limitation known to her and her attorneys at the time.
There is also a matrix from which the BPT must fix the term should they find her suitable for parole. One of Annika’s attornies calculated that in 2002 to 36 years after conduct credits.
I am nearing the 5,000 character limt once again so I will break at this point and continue later.
21:09 on June 14th, 2005
Continuing on…
As to the comment that Annika was responsible for three murders, the explanation for this is that manslaughter is considered to be a mitigated form of murder. All unlawful killings under California law start off as 2nd degree murder unless there is a mitigating factor which reduces it to manslaughter or a statutorily defined circumstance which elevates it to 1st degree murder. So the three murders part of the remark is technically correct.
As to the comment "in cold blood" I can only speculate as to why she would have chosen those words. It would not be inappropriat to describe the murder of Joe Torre as "in cold blood" if you accept Annika’s account that she warned Joe to "give it (the money) up or this man will pull the trigger." While his killing was a contingent event it was apparantly thought out and planned for if resistence was met. Helbush was clearly attacked without warning from the rear. No matter who’s story you believe or just looking at the physical evidence.
In cold blood is particularly inappropriate in referring to the manslaughter charge as the crime could only be mitigated under the law at the time in two ways. One was "in the heat of passion" and the other "honest but unreasonable need to defend one’s self from death or great bodily injury." There are not enough facts in the 1974 case to suggest that it was cold blooded. If I attend the heaaring the next time, I will make this clear on the record. If I am not the one to attend, I will make it clear to the person who does attend that this should be stressed.
My point to the BPT was that there are things in the record which point to her being either the actual killer. There are other things in the record which point to her being the driving force in the crimes that were committed. There are other things that indicate that she was not the driving force in the crimes but that she was a willing participant. There is virtually nothing in the record to indicate that she was merely present and minimally involved in the events. That they should not accept Annika’s presentation of herself as only responsible because she put Collins and Torre together just because she said so, there being no other evidence to back it up and a lot of evidence to dispute it.
I too am puzzled about the "leniency" shown Annika in 1981. I think it was probably a combination of ingrediants.
1. The DA in Lake County was inexperienced in murder cases.
2. The Deputy DA in San Joaquin County, who handled the case, had just become the number two person in the office and didn’t want to be burdened with a large trial just as he was beginning his new duties.
3. Annika Deasy was a woman. (For better or worse, woemen have been treated more leniently in violent crimes than men.)
4. Robert Collins/Cox committed suicide and the case lost its press appeal because they were expecting to seek and to get the death penalty on Collins. When Collins cheated them, they lost a lot of interest in the case.
5. Robert Collins/Cox left a suicide note in which he took full responsibility for all of the actions of the two.
6. It was probably the intention to attempt to get Annika to testify against Collins at trial for this deal. When Collins suicided the deal was still around and very little desire to proceed to trial against the woman.
If the Swedish govenment wants Annika back to finish her term I would have no particular problem with that. They would have to apply the matrix provided at the time of her conviction. The matrix calls for 31 years for killing a cop and an additional 7 years for the second murder. There are other factors also which would extend it beyond the 38 years due to the other crimes which were committed during the spree even though she did not have to plead to them. This was all known at the time that she agreed to take the plea bargain. One of Annika’s attorney’s calculated that with various credits Annika would probably have to serve 36 actual years in prison. She would thus get out in 2017.
I am truly ignorant of the Swedish system of law and justice. How long would one expect to spend in prison in Sweden for killing two individuals under similar circumstances? I understand that your field is not criminal justice but you probably have some feeling for what would be the sentence in your country.
Since you are very critical of the US and our justice system, do you have any specific recommendations in mind. I ask this out of a true desire to consider the system I work within from as many sides as possible.
Thank you once again,
Lester Fleming
14:22 on June 15th, 2005
Mr. Fleming: First off I’d like to thank you for your efforts. I now have a much better picture of the actual workings of relevant aspects of the California legal system.
Given this information the case seems to have been handled by the book, not that I agree with the legal practises of the state of California (and indeed much of the US) but that is another matter. I still have to respect regional laws, even if I don’t agree with them. I still feel there are mitigating circumstances, but a lot is hinging on what-if scenarios based on Cox not being dead or taking the blame even though he is.
The suicide note btw, shouldn’t that have counted for more? Or did it conflict with other given statements?
As for an actual transfer to Sweden, and serving out her sentence here, I recall there were two cases just last year of Swedes being transferred. One being Michael Schiöld (15-life) who had not had his sentence commuted beforehand. So in some cases it does seem possible bend the rules (as I understand it the sentence has to be determined in time before a transfer can be made).
The Swedish System:
Regarding the what-if scenario of Annika committing the same crimes in Sweden, it’s hard to say. First one could take the position that in Sweden, she would have most likely been raised in some dull suburb and never been subjected to narcotics. But lets be fair and look at the case as it is and assume that it would have played out in the same fashion.
First, according to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (KVV): "A prison sentence can vary from 14 days to lifetime. When a person has been sentenced to life, they can, after some time, turn to the government and ask for mercy. The sentence may then be commuted to prison for a determinate period. In 2001, 105 inmates of Swedish prisons had been sentenced to life imprisonment."
I think that number is more like 120 today. Sweden has been on the slippery slope towards toughening up the legal system. In 1990 it was like 60 inmates for instance. Furthermore:
"Those persons serving time-limited sentences are conditionally released when 2/3 of the sentence has been served."
It used to be 1/2 of the time. As for the actual real-life sentences, they too have been extended over time. Today, I’d GUESS that life imprisonment really amounts to 18-25 years (less in the mid 90s when she would have made the request).This in reality translates to 12-16 years. But that is also the normal maximum penalty of the system. I am sceptical whether Annika would have been tried for murder here. And there is no death penalty to plea bargain from.
The equivalent of aiding and abetting at most. Which would hardly have given more than 10 years in prison (unknown parole rules). Minus 1/3 of the time of course. In fact I speculate the sentence would most likely have been between 3 and 6 years and that much of the inconsistencies would have been seen as mitigating. Reasonable doubt I guess is bigger and broader here. Just to get a perspective on sentences. For a non legal person to speculate about this is of course sketchy at best. I can safely say it wouldn’t have been 25+ though.
Finding a case that corresponds to Annika’s is tricky. Interestingly enough there has been at least one case in recent years where aiding and abetting has been turned to murder, namely the Malexander incident. Three men robbed a bank back in 1999, are pursued by two policemen who at one point are shot and killed. The three all deny various charges and I suppose there was only technical evidence to indicate who had actually pulled the trigger. They were nevertheless all sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial was remarkable in that victims of the two policemen were allowed to address the court. This is however far from general practise. So, yes indeed, people are far from equal under the law. I don’t see this happening had they shot and killed two Joe Sixpacks or if they had been less, should we be fair and say socially troubled, linked to neo-nazi circles, one being an ex-merc from the Bosnian war and so on.
I should be clear again just for the record that I don’t very much care for the Swedish system either. The upside is of course that even though it doesn’t work 100% and contain ample sentence inconsistencies and tedious little nuisances (in prison) that effectively make reintroduction into society difficult, we don’t lock people up for life. At least not yet. But we are on the slippery slope. What I’m saying is that no system is perfect and the least one can do is NOT lock people up and throw away the key just because the system is flawed and can’t fix the real problem.
One major irony of the Swedish system is that shortly after we made the effort to look at other countries (namely Canada) on how to improve rehabilitative efforts, we also started to toughen up the system. Maybe as a way to appease the mob and get someone reelected, as it always is. I have my doubts about how well Sweden actually adapted the Canadian model. One may copy the actual paper it is written on, but taking it to heart and copying the actual people involved seems harder. It’s a bit like when every corporation started to take after the Toyota production model with only limited success. If I find time I’d like to look closer at the Cuban prison system specifically (which I’ve heard is a little different) as well as understand the Canadian model better. As it stands I still maintain that prisons, punishments and corrections are just as much a means to harness power as they are to protect the populace.
It should also be noted that there are those currently in Swedish prison that have not had their life imprisonment commuted and that have now served 20 years. But Annika is still holding the unglamorous record of being the longest incarcerated Swedish citizen alive. It is my belief that there is no way she would have served anywhere near 20 years in Sweden or even been sentenced to life imprisonment.
More information about the Swedish correction system can be found here:
http://www.kvv.se/templates...
I’ll be back with my condensed thoughts on the relevant parts of the US system.
23:10 on June 25th, 2005
Lester Fleming: Condensed thoughts on relevant aspects of the US justice system:
Hopefully at least some of this will make sense and be sort of tangible. I realize that I sometimes draw on ideas and theories that aren’t terribly down to earth and practical and thus wont offer quick and easy solutions. Sometimes I purposely avoid detailed solutions as they are usually much greater than any one man, even though I realize that power-wise it looks more credible to hand out shrink-wrapped "solutions." As my detractors often do, in punchy one-liners or by swearing allegiance to the powers that be.
And I’ll try to be briefer than usual, most points have been mentioned above. This is not so much specific to any particular state or the case of Annika Östberg Deasy. Nor is it certain that Sweden would pass with flying colors if it were to be scrutinized. But as a whole, the US remains in a class of its own.
Victims’ rights and Lynch mob mentality. Like the COPS organization mentioned. It does not belong within the legal framework. Or when a victims organization in California managed to abolish nail polish (lipstick?) for female prisoners. I don’t know what is most awkward here, that they care about lipstick in jail or that they care that they care. The very reason we have a centralized justice system and a code of law is to avoid this very thing. Under any other circumstances we would get virtual vendettas. There needs to be a fire wall between the victims and justice and they should not be encouraged to influence nor should policy makers play on populism in this case.
Individual vs Society. As I have stated above on more than one occasion, the US has a fundamentally slanted view of what is individual and social. "Attribution errors" as they were. "Just-world hypothesis" (bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people) for instance which comes into play with welfare, American dream and some crimes like rape for instance. Or the "fundamental attribution error" which in this case means dispositional attributions when analysing other people’s behaviour. Also, "defensive attribution" which in line with the FAE is "attributing successes to ourselves and failures to the situation." These of course are prominent in all "western" cultures. But, over time, and due perhaps to the protestant work ethic, denial of social strata and corporate culture the slant has become institutionalized. Another thing with Americans is that they often do "active coping" (doing as opposed to being), they change their environment rather than change themselves. Hence everything is up for grabs, and if you miss your opportunity you’re likely lazy or dumb. Needless to say the criminal justice system is just an extension of this and it can’t just be fixed.
Sentence length. The "matrix" that is mentioned above for example. There is no intrinsic value in setting someone up for 40 or 100 years in prison. It just looks unrefined and as if you don’t really have any other measures to apply apart from ludicrous sentences. I often hear Americans lament the brutal physical punishments that go on in say Iran, cutting the hands off thieves for instance, but this psychological brutality is surely just as gruesome and also, like the case of Iran, shows that you’re on a one-way road where you can only escalate the level of abuse. Why not lock people up for 1 million years right now just to get it over with.
Harsh prison environments. Example: Sweden views the prison as an isolated part of society, i.e. as far as it is possible, inmates should have the same opportunities and treatment as the civil population. Living standards should approximate the civil society. That can mean proper food, personal clothes, personal items, education, a TV and a Playstation or whatever. I suspect that this is because it becomes exceedingly difficult to repatriate inmates if they have been locked away in a virtual hell hole for a decade or so. The point isn’t to make them even less socially adapted than they were to begin with.
I feel that in many parts of the US, the view on this is the exact opposite. I.e. that the run down and overcrowded facilities are just another aspect of the punishment. And it is of course. But it is not in any way sound.
Take the inmates’ clothes again. Well, having uniform clothes, jumpsuits or whatever, is a road to conformism and to some extent the breakdown of individual identity. The "total institution" as it were in terms of mental asylums. If the notion is to break people down to such a degree that they can be brainwashed Clockwork Orange style and "given a new personality" I would advise not to go for the sci-fi approach. The thinking behind this alludes me quite frankly and is more likely based on vindication and hatred.
In general, prisons should work to limit the "excess punishments" and "Mickey Mouse regulations" as far as possible. The idea of depraving people of their freedom is bad enough and should in time also be reformed and minimized in conjunction with optimizing welfare and the social grid, thus minimizing crime as we know it. The US has, it seems, taken the worst of both worlds, the old physical abuse and psychological effects of ever longer incarcerations.
Prison population. Now exceeds 2.1 million. Half of which are none violent crimes. In 2002, 1 out of 142 Americans was incarcerated. That is five to eight times that of the Western European nations and Canada. 86.000 are held in private facilities. (Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/...)
Example: California has the controversial Twin Towers Correctional Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...), the world’s largest jail and the largest mental institution in the US which houses 2,000 mentally ill inmates and controls the population using 6,000 doses of psychotropic drugs daily.
Catch 22 rehab. Since my belief is that the US is not serious about rehabilitating inmates and properly preparing them for life outside of prison (because even under ideal conditions, which is hardly the US, they will be worse off after having served their time), it follows that any statements regarding prisoners not having been "rehabilitated" enough on the part of the US system are utterly nonsensical. Being locked up 24/7, humiliated, controlled and worn down is not a remedy nor a basis for improvement, nor an environment where any such spontaneous improvement is likely to occur.
Capital punishment. It’s a given of course. Including juvenile delinquents, which I hear is quite unique in the free world. Again, of course, it depends on the state.
Juvenile Incarceration. Take the California Youth Authority for instance, which has been in the media these last couple of years. Clearly the incarceration trend has spread insofar it now also, in some places, includes "junior prisons" which circumvent minimum age. Rehabilitation in many cases seems to consist of regular beatings. And of course the lack of proper care for psychological problems. (Source: http://www.mindfully.org/Re...)
This inadequacy is a sure way to see to it that these juveniles later pursue a life of crime or at least become a social liability for the state and federal government.
The Jury System. I’m not the first to bash that concept and we have all heard the arguments.
Law Enforcement Nepotism. Can’t really point to a cause, but it seems that the US system is way more protective of "its own" and more consolidated, share more of a commonality than one could consider normal or sound.
Reflections …
International Criminal Court. The US needs to fully comply with the ICC and if nothing else set a good example, even if I have no doubt there would be controversy if or when an American citizen were ever called before the court. There is of course a deep rooted feeling of chosenness among Americans, that they alone can judge the world but that the world could never be allowed to judge them.
Hussein and Aziz. I noted that London-based attorney Giovanni di Stefano said Hussein’s defence team would like to see the trial in Sweden, Austria, Switzerland or The Hague, Netherlands. The same request has been made by the defence team of Tariq Aziz. They feel it’s the only way they can receive a fair trial. This is being relevant not only since both teams have requested Swedish help (and will be denied) but also because they are de facto being held by the US. So I’m afraid I have to equate the type of illegal handling they are receiving with the domestic US policy. It’s the boomerang again. Now for some flame bait, one can wonder why they aren’t kicking and screaming to be tried in the US or indeed in Iraq by US overlordship, if the US is such a righteous and upstanding place where people can rise above their petty grievances and take on a case without prejudgement. I wonder.
00:10 on September 1st, 2005
Annika Ostberg-Deasy, reviewing the facts, not fiction nor projections, is guilty of having a bad judgement and loss of present character civil courage, combined with drug influence and shock, fear, bewilderment, and having suddenly a cold blooded murderer as a boyfriend.
These things I can understand that she is guilty of.
00:21 on September 1st, 2005
Furthere more on the "alleged" murder in 1974 of Annika Ostberg-Deasy.
If you look at the facts and witness claims of this you will learn the following.
When Annika married Brian Deasy, she walked away from her life and all the friends and associations she had in the drug world. One of them was Chris, for whom Annika still had strong feelings.
Wondering what had happened to him, Annika contacted his family and found out he was serving a prison sentence in San Quentin. Annika decided to go and visit him, and in retrospect realized how disastrous this decision was. Shortly thereafter, Annika was contacted by one of Chris’ family members, who explained that unless Chris was ‘cleared’ of a murder charge, he would never be released by the Board of Prison Terms. Chris’ family appealed to Annika’s kind and generous nature, convincing her to take responsibility for Chris’ crime.
They explained that a ‘deal’ could be arranged wherein she would get probation. She was told that a ‘deal’ could be arranged and she would only get probation and Chris would soon be released. Annika decided to help Chris out of his mess and pled guilty to his manslaughter charge. She was indeed given seven years probation, which she completed in five.
As soon as Chris was free, he told Annika that he had another girl friend and that she was expecting his child. Annika had been useful for a while, but now he wanted her to go away. Annika was shocked, hurt, and disappointed, but simply returned to Stockton, not realizing the ramifications of her actions until a few years later.
So… she’s guilty allright, but of having had bad judgment, period.
01:23 on May 1st, 2006
Is this about the U.S. vs Swedish penal systems? Is it about name calling and finger pointing or who holds what degree in what capacity? Or is it about Annika Ostberg Deasy who although incarcerated in a women’s prison, is still very much alive?
This is the year that Richard John Helbush would have turned sixty years old. But while on his was home from work twenty-five years ago, rather than call it in and keep on going, he stopped his patrol car to assist a couple with car trouble… Annika and her boyfriend. An unfortunate move on his part. And fatal. Why not blame him instead of poor Annika?
He was thirty-four years old. He didn’t live to see thirty-five. He had two little daughters he was already so proud of. He didn’t live to see them grow up and fight for him.
Did you know Richard was an only child? His mother was still living when he was murdered. Annika had an only child… a son who died about four years after Richard. But no one put a bullet through the middle of his forehead. Richard was shot three times in the back(!) before he was rolled over and shot in the face. He had the sweetest brown eyes… I’ve always wanted to ask Annika if she saw the light go out of those eyes.
Judy Bond
City of Clearlake, Lake County, California
19:07 on May 6th, 2006
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought we were debating U.S. legal issues and whether or not Annika actually committed the crime, not writing up sob stories. I should mention that they only work in the U.S. and especially in U.S. courts of "law." The rest of us want facts. This of course underlines the basic annoyance that led me to become interested in the case in the first place. Namely that law in the U.S. is more emotion than actual fact. Though the U.S. of course deceitfully claims to offer the most rigorous legal protection, due process and the world’s finest democracy.
Now, almost a year since starting this thread, I have witnessed countless more U.S. crimes against the world. Pertinent to this case if of course the farcical Hollywood trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, complete with sobbing victims who have nothing to contribute to the proceedings. Due process and fundamental justice have given way to drama queens styled after the phantasmagorical Hollywood world that they can’t distinguish from real life. Armed with their complete ignorance, outright contempt for alternative opinions, as well as the outside world, rejection of science and history, Americans fantasize about matters of which they know very little. It has entered both common and legal practise to act on faith and what-if scenarios more than actual fact and what you really can prove.
But then again, if America was interested in what is in fact known, possible to prove and not idle speculation and drama, Annika would be free (whether she ACTUALLY committed the crimes or not) and the thousands of people rotting away in America’s dungeons, be they in California or at Guantanamo, could finally get some measure of justice. Being "alive" and in a U.S. prison seems like an oxymoron to me. Personally, I’d take that bullet. But anyway …
Annika is but a symptom of a much greater ailment of U.S. society that again, and more than ever, threatens not only those foolish enough to travel to the states, but in fact anyone, anywhere in the world. As such, this is not so much about Annika Östberg at all, though she has become a poster child for American abuse, and in more ways than one.
09:03 on June 29th, 2006
Let the stupid americans continue paying. If there thirst for vengeance is bigger than there brains and understanding of what Crist did, let it be. Punish & hate!!! Dont forgive, God damn it!!! All countries have there problems, but follow America, keep on hating and live happily ever after!!
Maybe the best thing would be if we just killed all poor, socially maladjusted people who are a treat to America, and God knows how, somehow ended up there. Or lock them up forever and make them work like slaves so the rest of us can live happily. At the same time, throw some bombs over all those muslims so we get rith of all the mess at the same time. Positive thinking!
/Michael Moore rules!!