Ken Kifer's death -- manslaughter

Hunrobe wrote:

Exactly correct. Sentencing in a criminal case is always a balancing act that
must consider all kinds of factors. If I interpreted the rather poorly written
article ... correctly the defendant received a *total* sentence of 20 years on
two separate convictions. Without knowing the individual sentences on those
separate charges criticizing or supporting the decision is pointless at best.

Hmmm. I think criticizing the decision can be valuable.

As Bev said in a later post, "another reason for punishment is as a
deterrent to others who might commit similar offenses."

The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.

If we get the impression the sentence was light, that drunkard is likely
to get the same impression. As Bev says, he's likely to think "Hey,
odds are good I won't get caught, and even if I do, no big deal." Not
much deterrence there.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:12:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:

Exactly correct. Sentencing in a criminal case is always a balancing act that
must consider all kinds of factors. If I interpreted the rather poorly written
article ... correctly the defendant received a *total* sentence of 20 years on
two separate convictions. Without knowing the individual sentences on those
separate charges criticizing or supporting the decision is pointless at best.

Hmmm. I think criticizing the decision can be valuable.

As Bev said in a later post, "another reason for punishment is as a
deterrent to others who might commit similar offenses."

The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.

If we get the impression the sentence was light, that drunkard is likely
to get the same impression. As Bev says, he's likely to think "Hey,
odds are good I won't get caught, and even if I do, no big deal." Not
much deterrence there.

This is where I object to the attitude of the family, asking for a lesser
sentence, if I read that correctly. Where's the deterrence? What's to say
that b/c of the family having him let out sooner that he doesn't go out and
kill again? Where's the responsibility?

-B
(yes, the 'deterrence effect' is often debated)

The Real Bev wrote

Two years in jail is no "slap on the wrist." And with all due respect,
to the extent that you appear to want a harsher punishment for this
"crime against all of us," you do not speak for me. --Roy Zipris

Badger

wrote:
Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:

Exactly correct. Sentencing in a criminal case is always a balancing act
that
must consider all kinds of factors. If I interpreted the rather poorly
written
article ... correctly the defendant received a *total* sentence of 20
years on
two separate convictions. Without knowing the individual sentences on
those
separate charges criticizing or supporting the decision is pointless at
best.

Hmmm. I think criticizing the decision can be valuable.

As Bev said in a later post, "another reason for punishment is as a
deterrent to others who might commit similar offenses."

The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.

If we get the impression the sentence was light, that drunkard is likely
to get the same impression. As Bev says, he's likely to think "Hey,
odds are good I won't get caught, and even if I do, no big deal." Not
much deterrence there.

This is where I object to the attitude of the family, asking for a lesser
sentence, if I read that correctly. Where's the deterrence? What's to say
that b/c of the family having him let out sooner that he doesn't go out and
kill again? Where's the responsibility?

-B
(yes, the 'deterrence effect' is often debated)


It seems to me that many are jumping to conclusions based on a very poorly
written article. I'll withdraw that comment if upon rereading the article
anyone here can answer a few straightforward questions.
1- What sentence did the judge impose on the manslaughter conviction?
2- What sentence was imposed for the DUI conviction?
3- What will occur if, after his release from prison, Ken's killer violates the
terms of his probation? (I have to retract part of my earlier post- Alabama
statutes use the terms probation and parole almost but not quite
interchangeably.)
As I read the article and the applicable Alabama statutes, the answers *appear*
to be:
1- No more than 15 years.
2- Five years.
3- He would likely be incarcerated for 13 more years.
but how many people reading that article either know the Alabama statutes or,
like me, are willing to spend the time to look them up?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On 22 Nov 2004 01:30:31 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:




It seems to me that many are jumping to conclusions based on a very poorly
written article. I'll withdraw that comment if upon rereading the article
anyone here can answer a few straightforward questions.
1- What sentence did the judge impose on the manslaughter conviction?
2- What sentence was imposed for the DUI conviction?
3- What will occur if, after his release from prison, Ken's killer violates the
terms of his probation? (I have to retract part of my earlier post- Alabama
statutes use the terms probation and parole almost but not quite
interchangeably.)
As I read the article and the applicable Alabama statutes, the answers *appear*
to be:
1- No more than 15 years.
2- Five years.
3- He would likely be incarcerated for 13 more years.
but how many people reading that article either know the Alabama statutes or,
like me, are willing to spend the time to look them up?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Ok, thanks for some facts. Personally, I think that the difficult part
is the phrase, What will occur if... Ken's killer violates the terms
of his probation?'

Far too often, it seems that a violation of probation isn't considered
serious enough to reincarcerate unless it is as bad as the initial
offense. In this case, meaning someone else hit and/or killed.

If I remember, you are a police officer, yes? What is your experience
with parole/probation violators? Would a DUI, no accident, no injury,
lead to him being back in jail, immediately, no questions, no appeal?

Hunrobe wrote:

It seems to me that many are jumping to conclusions based
on a very
poorly written article.

Amen. I posted that article because I thought it would be of
interest to many here (it is a "news"group after all), but
it is probably impossible to parse that article an
unambiguous manner.

On Ken's website, there is this note from Riin Gill. Riin is
more clear:

"Update: over a year later, the case over Ken's murder
finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor
brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were
concerned that he might kill someone else if he were
released. He may possibly be released in a year under very
strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition
he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence."
http://www.kenkifer.com/death.htm#update

In article 1101094042.kTj9dF4C3uq6zpkA2UIwPA@teranews,
"Mike Kruger" writes:

On Ken's website, there is this note from Riin Gill. Riin is
more clear:

"Update: over a year later, the case over Ken's murder
finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor
brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were
concerned that he might kill someone else if he were
released. He may possibly be released in a year under very
strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

I think that's fair. I also think since Rodgers demonstrated
such wanton disregard for human life, his strict probation
conditions should include his being ruled off the road in
motor vehicles for the rest of his life. I hope that's the case.


regards,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Shortly after Ken's death, I explored his website in greater detail than
I had before. I rediscovered Thoreau and enjoyed Ken's own writing.
Ken's death has drawn attention to his writing and his view of the
world. It's refreshing to visit the site, and I hope it remains as a
tribute to Ken.

Todd Kuzma

"Mike Kruger"

wrote:
Amen. I posted that article because I thought it would be of
interest to many here (it is a "news"group after all), but
it is probably impossible to parse that article an
unambiguous manner.

On Ken's website, there is this note from Riin Gill. Riin is
more clear:

"Update: over a year later, the case over Ken's murder
finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor
brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were
concerned that he might kill someone else if he were
released. He may possibly be released in a year under very
strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition
he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence."
http://www.kenkifer.com/death.htm#update

Mike-
I hope no one misinterpreted my criticism of the author's sloppy reporting as a
criticism of you for posting the story. That was not my intent. All I was
trying to get across to those complaining about the "leniency" of the sentence
handed down is that after reading that article, I couldn't even be sure what
the sentence *was*.
The best guess I could hazard after reading the applicable Alabama statutes and
engaging in some extrapolation is that Rodgers received 15 years on the
manslaughter conviction and 5 for the DUI, sentences to be served concurrently.
The $13k had to be the result of a restitution hearing that Alabama law
specifies. (As an aside, restitution is not the same as a damage award. Alabama
law still allows for damages in a civil suit although it's awfully hard to get
blood from a stone.)
All that though is really incidental. What's important is that over a year
after his untimely death Ken is still remembered respectfully by people he
never met. That says more for the man he was than any sentence the courts could
impose on his killer.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:


The news article may have been badly written, and we may not have enough
information to understand the details of the sentencing, but we have as
much information as the next habitual drunkard who reads that article.

What information do we have? That the judge imposed a sentence of 20 years,
that Rodgers is guaranteed a year in prison, or that he received probation?
We can reasonably criticize the very sloppy reporting but in this particular
instance it makes no sense to me to either criticize or defend the sentence
imposed because, thanks to that very sloppy reporting, we don't *know* what the
sentence really is.

Regards,
Bob Hunt