From the files of...Wha!? Winona Ryder Arrested For Shoplifting (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Having piles of cash of course cushions the blow. But when the wiring in the head is shot, that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference.

Not to mention that ordinary folks like us think it should excuse someone from having any kind of problems and that simply having money should cure everything

 

[Henry Gale]

Winona Ryder was charged Friday with four felony counts stemming from her shoplifting arrest at a Saks Fifth Avenue in December.

This sounds serious. Can't you get life for 3 felonies as an habitual criminal?

Jim

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Can't you get life for 3 felonies as an habitual criminal?

Not if they're three counts of an indictment stemming from a single incident. The whole idea of a three strikes law is to nail people who keep committing crimes after they've been tried and convicted of committing separate crimes a couple of times. Even legislators aren't irrational enough to make it apply in a case like this.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Eve T]

I remember hearing this news on the radio back in December, the morning news guys were making a real hoot out of it. I have a family member who is a klepto and it's no laughing matter she is seriously ill. She has no need to steal as she has the money there is just something wrong in her head where she thinks she has to do this. It's really sad and it's really hard on our whole family. Even though she has been getting help she has never fully rehabilitated. I hope Winnona and whoever else has this problem gets the help and treatment that they need. It shouldn't matter if the person is famous or not, rich or poor, they need help and getting that help is very important.

Peace,

Eve

 

[Brian Perry]

Eve,

Don't assume Winona is a kleptomaniac. There may be people who have a specific psychiatric problem who can use that as an excuse for stealing, but unless Winona is diagnosed with a mental illness, I consider her a lawbreaker who should be punished accordingly.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There may be people who have a specific psychiatric problem who can use that as an excuse for stealing, but unless Winona is diagnosed with a mental illness, I consider her a lawbreaker who should be punished accordingly.

Which means even before her trial even begins, you are saying she is a lawbreaker. What happened to the basic principal of our legal system in which you're innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers?

Crawdaddy

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

What happened to the basic principal of our legal system in which you're innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers?

The presumption of innocence does not, and was never intended to, apply outside of the courtroom. The accused has a right to be presumed innocent by the jury, not by the world in general. People outside the courtroom are perfectly free to draw any conclusion they want from the available facts, just as they are free to believe that someone is guilty even in a case where the jury decides the prosecution has not proved its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." "Case not proven" is not the same as "the person didn't do it."

Even people in the jury pool will have generally reached some preliminary conclusions about a case from hearing about it - which is why we have the voire dire. That process is intended to weed out, not all those who have any knowledge of a given case (which in the case of well-publicized ones, is almost impossible) but to assure that those who are selected to serve can set aside any conclusions they have already reached, and decide based purely on the evidence presented in court, and the judge's explanation of the law. This wouldn't be necessary if the jurors were expected to bring a pure presumption of innocence to the trial. What they actually believe doesn't matter. What is required is that they act as though the defendant is innocent, and take that as the starting point in assessing the evidence and testimony.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Robert Crawford]

The presumption of innocence does not, and was never intended to, apply outside of the courtroom.

Maybe to you or the system but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until I see or hear evidence/testimony from both sides. Also, according to your statement then if you're arrested then you might as well kiss your reputation goodbye.

Crawdaddy

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Also, according to your statement then if you're arrested then you might as well kiss your reputation goodbye.

In many cases this is, sadly, true. Hell, in many cases your reputation can be destroyed just on the public accusation that you've done something wrong, or an indictment, even if you aren't arrested. (Ask Gary Condit.) That's life and human nature, not a flaw in the judicial system, because mere gossip can cause the same harm, even if no criminal charges exist. And if you're arrested and released or the evidence presented at trial rises above the level of "not proven", but is genuinely persuasive of innoncence, then you'll probably be OK.

The circumstances of the arrest also make a big difference. If someone is picked up on murder charges six months after a body is found, there is a lot more reason to be skeptical of the validity of the charge than there is in a case where the suspect is arrested while still plunging the knife into his victim in front of witnesses. If you're videotaped robbing a jewelery store there isn't a hell of a lot of room for "presumption of innoncence" outside the courtroom. Did anyone seriously "presume" Jack Ruby was innocent of killing Oswald? He committed the murder on national television and in front of 20 or 30 witnesses who knew him personally and could testify to that effect.

Ryder was picked up exiting a store with merchandise concealed on her person. There aren't a lot of "innocent" explanations for that, and there is no chance it was a case of "mistaken identity." If a drunk driver crashes into a crowd of people and, after he's pulled from the wreckage, both the field sobriety tests and hospital blood tests confirm he was legally drunk, I don't have a lot of doubt that he is guilty of the crime of drunk driving.

Every crime is not a mystery. (In fact, most of them aren't.) In such cases the presumption of innoncence on the part of the jury is vital to seeing that the defendant gets a fair trial, and that the prosecution is forced to prove its case - that this individual committed that crime. But it is hardly binding on the community at large. In fact, unless you require that people turn off their brains entirely, it hardly could be. I saw Jack Ruby shoot Oswald on television. What doubt am I supposed to have?

Regards,

Joe

 

[JohnRice]

It always annoys me when people confuse the law with ethics. Just because the law doesn't forbid doing something doesn't mean it is OK to do it. The LAW says the jury is supposed to presume the defendant innocent, but it is also wrong ethically to automatically jump all over someone who is suspected of doing something wrong. I realize there is virtually no doubt that Ryder actually did this. She actually HAS had a history of mental illness, but I have no idea if that had anything to do with it. It may have just been a thrill. If it is determined to be that, she will pay the price.

While drawing a comparison to Jack Ruby has a certain value, it is really just inflammatory. Ryder pretty clearly committed a crime. How she will be held responsible for it will be determined, but I think the comparison to murder is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I didn't compare what Ryder may have done to murder, I pointed out that this business of "presumption of innoncence" and giving someone the benefit of the doubt in our private thoughts and conversations are different precisely because the circumstances of crimes are different. There can't be any hard and fast rule about how we should react to accounts of crimes and arrests because the nature of each case will differ. Obviously if we can make an exception to the principle of "presumed innoncent" (outside the courtroom) in the case of Jack Ruby, we can do so in other cases. It is not a universally-applicable "rule", but one contingent on circumstances. That was my only point.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Eve T]

Eve,Don't assume Winona is a kleptomaniac. There may be people who have a specific psychiatric problem who can use that as an excuse for stealing, but unless Winona is diagnosed with a mental illness, I consider her a lawbreaker who should be punished accordingly

Well yes, there are people who may have a specific psychiatric problem I don't think that they "use" that as an excuse to steal though. It's exactly what you said "a psychiatric problem". And yes, even though someone commits a crime doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for the crime commited, I mean just because you have a problem doesn't mean that there are not conciquences for what you have done. I never said she shouldn't pay, my whole point is when someone has a problem they should get HELP. If she has a problem I do hope she gets the help that she needs.

Eve

 

[Brian Perry]

Winona, as may have been expected in today's blameless society, pleaded not guilty to the four felonies.
While it may appear that I have already convicted her in my mind, I am only reacting (as Joe suggested) with common sense to the facts as they have been presented thus far. This includes Ryder being videotaped removing price tags from merchandise, stuffing the items into a bag, and leaving the store (not moving between departments). Don't you think the case must be pretty strong against Ryder for the police to press forward with the charges, knowing the high profile of Ryder and the threat of a defamation lawsuit?
Now if her plea of not guilty really means "I did it but I am mentally ill," I would be more understanding and that would be another topic for discussion (Eve ). I don't even care about the drug part of the arrest. But assuming there is no mental illness, what kills me is the refusal of someone literally caught red-handed to admit that she fucked up and is willing to make amends.
If the details as we know them are significantly incorrect, i.e., the police made the whole thing up, etc., then I will be the first to say Winona has every right to sue for false arrest. But if she knows she is guilty and is simply trying to weasel out of it, I think it is wrong for her to waste our money with a trial.

 

[Eve T]

But assuming there is no mental illness, what kills me is the refusal of someone literally caught red-handed to admit that she fucked up and is willing to make amends.

She probably did do it. But...the refusal of someone "literaly caught red-handed to admit that they messed up" is usually a sign that theres something not firing right in the head which is..mental illness. I know the person in my family has been caught numerous times and each time denies it even though they were caught in the act. It's a part of the illness.

Eve

 

[Janna S]

Anyone who thinks it is more honest or honorable or healthy to just "plead out" to whatever criminal charges have been filed clearly does not understand the criminal justice system.

As a former prosecutor, I can tell you that the charges that are filed are usually maximized, and it takes the discovery, trial, and bargaining process - with a defense lawyer (this is an adversarial system, not a collaborative system) representing the interests of the defendant - to reach a reasonable conclusion.

The prosecutors have their information (through the investigation done by law enforcement and through their own research) and the defense lawyers have their information (incriminatory or exculpatory, through their investigations, their research, and their access to the defendant) and it takes both sides to reach the truth (which can happen) or at least to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the system.

In criminal cases of any magniture there is ALWAYS more than one side to a story. There are ALWAYS additional factors to consider. Don't ever make the mistake of "'fessing up" without talking to a lawyer. I saw injustices done as a prosecutor, in defense work, and in my years on the bench, and sometimes the unrepresented defendants were the most unfortunate.

 

[Brian Perry]

As a former prosecutor, I can tell you that the charges that are filed are usually maximized, and it takes the discovery, trial, and bargaining process - with a defense lawyer (this is an adversarial system, not a collaborative system) representing the interests of the defendant - to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Janna,
What's wrong with filing "maximum" charges? If someone commits one crime or six, he should be charged for them. It may have evolved that padding the charges is now necessary to get a conviction on at least one of the counts, but I see that as a failure of the system. My sense is that Ryder has been given an opportunity to settle for some lesser charge but she and her lawyers have refused. Thus the multiple felony charges.
Yes, we have an adversarial system. But does that mean people who are guilty are morally, as opposed to legally, entitled to waste people's time and money by demanding a trial? (Assuming the person truly is guilty and "proper" charges have been filed.) Does it benefit anyone other than the lawyers?

 

[Janna S]

There is room for lots of discussion about whether filing "maximum" charges is right. All I have time to say right now is that because you don't, as a prosecutor, have all the information available to you, you may file the maximum that you think is winnable and reasonable, but you know that there will often be more to the story.

Depending on the quality of the pre-charging investigation, and the quality of your pre-trial preparation (both of which may be limited by time and money), you can get surprised in motion and trial work.

I took at least two cases to trial as a prosecutor in which I found, to my chagrin, that there was a lot of information left out of the police reports. In one case there was a clear self-defense situation, in another a defendant with a dramatic mental illness and physical disability. I dismissed one of those cases at once, and got a reduced conviction on the other - and in retrospect I believe I should have dismissed that one as well.

I believe passionately that this system - which allows both sides the opportunity for representation, and provides access to information from both sides - benefits everyone, not just the lawyers.

Just think about it - how many times have you been involved in something, heard or saw something, and formed an opinion, then found out that things were not at all what they seemed? As I have said here before, if juries always heard only the prosecutor's side of the story, all defendants would be guilty. And they are not.

 

[CharlesD]

I'd like to say a few words in defense of defense lawyers (and I am NOT a Lawyer)

Rigorous defense in court (even of the guilty) is a fundamental part of our liberty. I would argue that it is one of if not the most important guarantees of liberty.

Even if a defendant is guilty he/she should receive the best possible defense! Why? because the trial is a search for truth and a rigorous defense forces the police/government/authority to do its job correctly. If a defendant was not able to mount a defense why should the police care about whether anyone's rights were violated?

I am sure that many here will then say that criminals don't deserve these rights, but if they don't have them then nor will the innocent, because then all it takes is for the police to assert that you are guilty and therefore not deserving of rights.

If the police do their job correctly, the guilty will still get punished but everyone's rights are preserved. So the next time you get upset over some criminal's seeming attempt to "get out of it" remember that his ability to mount a defense guarantees your rights. I would rather see the occasional criminal set free on a "technicality" than have everyone's rights trampled by overzealous prosecution or police.

(Edited to remove double paragraph)

 

[Brian Perry]

I am sure that many here will then say that criminals don't deserve these rights, but if they don't have them then nor will the innocent, because then all it takes is for the police to assert that you are guilty and therefore not deserving of rights.

Charles,

I see your point and partially agree that the ability to mount a defense even while guilty is a form of checks and balances. But would you go as far to say that a guilty criminal has a civic obligation to mount such a defense? After all, even though he knows deep down he is guilty, he should go through the motions to protect the system?

 

[CharlesD]

Brian,

Basically, yes! Defence attornies are the ones who keep the authorities (relaitively) honest. Now obviously there are times where it is in the defendant's best interest to make a deal with the prosecuter or avoid a trial for other reasons, but overall I believe it is best for everyone that justice is seen to be done.