How does it make sense that Judges can sentence so differently based on state law?

[Kaneki05]

Watching documentary on murderous women cause reasons... but it goes from woman killed guy with Arsenic with very easy evidence on her gets only 10 years probation yup no prison time.
Meanwhile basically the same case but in another state women is executed. Ain't the difference maddening?

[goaded]

I'm sure the man she poisoned was a perfect gentleman to her at all times and never, say, beat her or their children. (Women acting in self-defence pretty much have to plan their killings which automatically rules out that defence in court.)

I can't find the cases you're talking about, but one wife who was convicted of poisoning her husband, Sgt. Todd Sommer, was later released when tests showed no arsenic in his liver, contradicting the test that led to her conviction.

And this is why we don't have death penalties.

[Kaneki05]

The women poisons the men hoping to get their life insurance, which is what 99% of these cases that have poisoning in.
It's not because their husband was abusive what a great way to victim blame, hope you don't meet such women and someone says 'Ah well he was abusive anyway who cares.' both cases weren't self defence at all.

I would take death penalty over letting people get away with no prison time when obviously they did it.
I the case the woman got no jail time, she also accidentally poisoned a kid who drank the same juice, which helped them figure it out and later the bottle of juice was found cleaned and thrown away.
And ya know something? She did it twice however the first time not enough evidence, as her last husband was buried without an autopsy yet he told his daughter to figure out if she was killing him.

[goaded]

Since you haven't linked to either case, it's hard to tell, isn't it?

The death penalty is wrong because the judicial system isn't perfect (nothing is).

[Kaneki05]

How can I link them? It was on a documentary somewhere. And no it's not hard to tell because why would I randomly make a question about this to lie?
I obviously asked because I found that episode to be crazy how different the law worked out.

[goaded]

I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying that without some details a conversation is practically impossible. Don't you have a name or something? The name of the documentary?

[Kaneki05]

Murderous women.
Not really impossible it's pretty easy to understand one practically got away with it due to state laws being dumb asf.

I think sometimes they change the name of killers or victims, and I stopped paying attention to names anyway after you've seen so many.

And throughout the documentary there is other cases too where the sentencing differences just don't make sense. But this was the most drastic example.
Also weird when they setence both as harshly when they have a partner involved but the other didn't do much or was clearly not the instigator one would think the other who was should get a bigger punishment.

[goaded]

Was it "Killer Women", with Piers Morgan?

Whatever. I despise "true crime" documentaries because they often provide the killers with exactly what they wanted: notoriety. They also don't consider the impact on the victim's family or raking over the coals.

[Kaneki05]

No, it's hosted by a Woman who was a profiler. She's great and very dramatic.

The literal son and daughter were on the show, I think they wanted their story to be told.
But think what you want I don't care what you like.

[goaded]

I've heard, from criminology professors, that profiling is bullshit. Which is probably why she's on TV.

[Kaneki05]

That makes no sense. Psychological reasons to why killers kill is an obvious fact, and killers have MOs for a reason.
To says it bs might as well be saying there is not such thing as patterns or serial killers.

[goaded]

Obviously you can make statistical generalisations (currently, "self-described incel" would be a good bet), but the idea you can reduce the suspect pool to "a 5'2" dark haired man with a limp" is ridiculous, and there's a good chance you will be removing the actual culprit from consideration.

[Kaneki05]

Nobody said profiling was a mystical know it all. It's a tool to get closer to a possible suspect by theory crafting based on patterns.
To not do this would just be a major debuff in ya know doing an investigation and finding a suspect.

[goaded]

"Flaw and Order: The Science and Mythology of Criminal Profiling

Somewhere between hard forensic science and Hollywood-cop psychobabble, criminal profiling
struggles to find a legitimate place in law enforcement’s investigative toolbox."
skepticalinquirer.org/.../p54.pdf

"The scholarly literature over the past decade has chronicled a growing problem in the forensic technique colloquially called criminal profiling. The basis of this conundrum appears to originate from a concept referred to as “offender homology,” which presumes an inherent uniformity among offenders that is believed to underpin the analytic process incumbent to criminal profiling. Studies thus far conducted have apparently struggled to find evidence of offender homology, and based upon these findings arguments have been promulgated that various approaches to criminal profiling imputably labeled as “trait-based” are therefore not viable."
journals.sagepub.com/.../0306624x13513429

[Kaneki05]

Idc again to say it's not a real thing means there is no such thing as patterns of behaviour among killers and certain MOs show who they are.
When obviously there is.
Even a idiot could figure out who was killing all of Gacy victims was most likley a dude in his middle age who was liked and trusted by his local community...
Oh and what was Gacy? Oh right exactly that.

Saying that don't work is the most illogical thing in the world.
Same with how poison killings are often done by women so you can start profiling towards women if such death happens.
Same if the evidence shows the woman who was killed was a sex worker... Probably a man...
Damn it's almost like I can do this off my head and I would be right?

That's without any training, now imagine if I trained years in psychology studies on criminology.

[goaded]

The question is: does it work more than not profiling, and the science says pretty much no, it doesn't.

And I happen to know someone who's "trained years in psychology studies on criminology".

[Kaneki05]

Of course it works more than once...
Unless your saying it's not more likely for it be a man who would kill a woman sex worker... Cause if it is then it works?

And I happen to know someone too. Cool let's play that game instead of ya know understanding simple facts.

[goaded]

That's hardly profiling, and besides how often do you hear about the times it didn't work, do you think?

There used to be a conman who would predict the sex of a baby a woman was going to have, or your money back. Obviously, with a simple guess, only half the cases could ask for their money back, and most of them didn't bother.

[Kaneki05]

That's basic profiling. I don't know why your so obsessed with how many times it didn't work like I said it's not a mystical know it all. But anyone with a little bit of brain can tell a women sex worker been killed is more likely to have been killed by a man, therefore this will work most times and is useful.

Otherwise your suggestion is to go in and just go in 'Ah well it could've been anyone nope not anything we can tell at all by the choice of victim or how they were killed time to go home guys' smh.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. Certain crimes should be federally harmonized. It's grotesque.

[Anonymous]

Human interpretation of the law. It will essentially be unfair until judges are artificial intelligence. Course, Musks AI now speaks badly about him (in musks own programing of honesty) so it doesn't always work out how humans want it to.

[exitseven]

It is called state;s rights

[Kaneki05]

Why should state rights let's a woman get no prison time for clear murder?

[DrPepper12]

Yes but it's grotesquely obscenely distorted and unjust

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 this is one of the reasons people are leaving Democrat run states, in droves

[DrPepper12]

So blues should be more punitive?

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 Yes, shoplifting should be a crime, homeless encampments should be dispersed, public urination should be an arrestable offense, selling fentanyl should be a capital offense.

[jahaims]

Different states have different laws

[Kaneki05]

Why should state rights let's a woman get no prison time for clear murder?

[Kelly6]

@Kaneki05 Judge can do what they want

[Kaneki05]

No in my country. No matter where in UK murder has a Minimum life sentence you can in reality get out sooner due to Poral Board but the sentence you always get is life. No way would you get something less.