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!!

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.

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

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.

These things I can understand that she is guilty of.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?