Prosecutor Kessler suspected Eric Persaud of burning his girlfriend with a hot iron. Prosecutors say she stuffed a towel in her mouth to keep herself from screaming.
"He told her if she screams or yells, he'll burn the kids, too," says Scott Kessler, chief of the domestic violence bureau for the Queens, New York, district attorney.
Even worse, one of the kids saw the whole thing. "Persaud thought the boy was asleep. He wasn't," Kessler adds.
Despite her injuries, Persaud's girlfriend did not want to testify before a grand jury. That could have meant the end of the case. No testimony from a burn victim can mean no conviction.
Kessler had suspected Persaud was talking to his girlfriend on the phone and intimidating her to not testify. The Queens County district attorney's Domestic Violence Bureau was forced to dismiss about 70% of its cases due mostly because of intimidation.
Kessler had decided to go to plan B. He decided to use Persaud's own words against him. Not a confession, but just as good, if not better. He lobbied the Department of Corrections to record jailhouse phone calls. That enabled him to prove to the court that Persaud and others were intimidating their battered victims.
To use the tapes, Kessler is using a legal theory called forfeiture by wrongdoing which says..."you have the right to confront a witness that's against you, unless you're the reason they don't come forward."
Surprisingly, detainees keep calling from the jail despite that there are posted signs warming them that their phone calls are recorded.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says in jail, rights are limited. "It's not unfair. It's prison. And when you're in prison, you lose certain rights, like the ability to have phone calls in privacy." I would have to agree with this, I think that recording the inmates phone calls are a good idea to find out information.
what do you guys think?
Do you think this is fair? or the best way?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I do think that recording inmate's phone calls is fair. While there are obviously issues regarding free speech, I think that when potential criminal trials are involved, no chances should be taken. If Persaud's calls were not recorded, then there could have been both a criminal on the streets and a victim without justice, which would be detrimental all around. There could have very well been the possibility that she could have faced even more abuse if he was let free. By recording Persaud's calls, his girlfriend (probably ex-girlfriend by now) receives the justice that she deserves; she no longer has to worry about his intimidation.
Overall, there are obviously criminals who get away with their wrongdoings. Violating free speech is a way to catch those criminals, even if it means that certain rights are taken away. It's the same as during times of war and genocide. Certain radio stations and newspapers in Rwanda should have been censored; it was through those types of media that the genocide was able to successfully be carried out.
Bottom line: if you commit a crime, then you ought not expect to receive the same rights as before.
I also think that recording the phone calls of inmates is fair because you do and should lose certain rights if you're in prison. Of course, there are also certain rights that should not be disregarded, such as the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. But the right of privacy for inmates could be potentially dangerous. Perhaps I watch too much television, but it is plausible for an inmate to connect with someone on the outside and plot against a witness for revenge. Also, the inmates are notified that their conversations may be recorded, so it isn't like their right to privacy is being taken away without their knowledge.
I fully agree with both Zoe and Andrea. Criminals are in prison for a reason, and despite certain privacy issues, I feel that its completely justifiable for them to lose their privilege of private phone calls. Moreover, the prisoners know their conversations are being recorded, so its not like they are being secretly recorded. I feel that using these recorded calls as evidence is an effective and fair tool in keeping criminals (who otherwise would have walked away with no punishment) in jail.
I can't believe I'm hearing this! I won't believe it! I thought all people were born with certain unalienable rights. Weren't we? Isn't that part of our Constitution?
Taking away people's right to free speech is wrong, and simply not American. If we deem it okay to take away the first amendment, well then why not take away the rest of their rights? Cruel and unusual punishment might help catch more criminals. Taking away Miranda rights would make it easier to get confessions out of criminals, so why don't we do that? I think it's just ridiculous that we strip our own citizens of the most fundamental right because it seems necessary.
Is it even really necessary in the first place? I think not. Thanks to our rights, we have a right to a defense counsel, like an attorney, to defend us, which I hope that woman consulted. Their reassurance, plus the Witness Protection Program, ought to have been more than sufficient grounds on which to testify. 70% of cases are dismissed because of intimidation? How did they find that out after the cases were dismissed?
I don't think anyone has the authority to tweak the Constitution because they think that it's acceptable to do so. That's not what this country was founded on.
I do believe that everybody is born with certain rights that should not be taken away at different circumstances. But I think i am going to agree with Zoe and Andrea because like they said, innmates are in jain for a reason. And when they go to jail, some of their other rights are taken away. If recording their phone calls helps in court testimonys and stops threats to potential witnesses, then I think it is neccessary to have a fair trial, with all the information, and witnesses should not have to be terrified of going up before the court. I'm surprised that this hasn't come up any sooner. And I also think that because there are signs warning the inmates that their calls are being recorded, doesn't nesseceairly take all their rights away because it is their choice whether or not they want to make phone calls and what they say over the phone.
@ Phinney:
I am in full support of Kessler's actions. What has thus far has stated should be reconsidered. It is because criminals are able to use the justice system and the constitution in such an "elastic" manner to protect themselves that many victims do not receive the justice they deserve. Does anybody remember the O.J. Simpson case? If Mr. Simpson had not been protected by the 4th Amendment then he would have be rightly convicted and prosecuted. The Constitution is supposed to uphold the rights of Americans citizens who (key word) LAWFULLY abide by the guidelines set forth by the American justice system. If a person is sent to jail for just reason, i.e. they have broken a veritable law, then they have "signed" away their rights to the justice system and they have NO rights except to their lives(except in the case of murder and rape). I am ASTOUNDED that people are moping saying, "that 'poor' rapist, murderer, abuser, arsonist, etc." is having his/her freedom to speech taken away. What would you propose we do?! Maybe we should also set them (criminals) up in mansions and set them free to roam the streets so as not to violate the Constitution by "holding citizens against their will" and making sure that the Supreme Courts "separate is not equal" findings under many situations is not broken. Also, maybe we should give all the terrorists in Gitmo as many resources and communication ability so that they can have the "freedom of expression" to set up other bombings from their prisons. If you violate the law you are then SUBJECT TO THE LAW. As a little refresher to those who either forgot or never knew, the Constitution of the United States of America applies to the... prepare to be surprised... wait for it... just a little more... THE GOVERNMENT! The Constitution (as it relates to the Bill of Rights) tells the Government what it cannot do. However, there are situations under which these rights can be taken away /removed /violated /infringed upon /proscribed. Thankfully, when it comes to speech, according to the U.S. Supreme court cases of Texas v. Johnson, Schenck v. U.S., and U.S. v. Eichman, speech can be proscribed if it "presents a clear and present danger," if it serves "limited societal benefit," or if it falls into the categories of speech created under U.S. Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire of "obscenity, fighting, and libel"(among others). As the criminals speech in jail to intimidate a witness would fall under these Court findings then there can be NO LEGITIMATE argument which could possible argue for the rights of criminals to have their supposed "First Amendment Rights" upheld in jail.
These are unalienable rights they're taking away from someone. That's disgusting.
Nice quote drop, Alex.
Is the right to free speech actually restricted in this case? You can still say whatever you want, it's just recorded. When you call some companies, it's often recorded for quality control purposes. When you go into a drive thru, you can find a camera recording your actions in case of criminal activity. Are our rights taken away here? Nope.
Post a Comment