THIS MIGHT GRAB SOME OF YOU BY THE BALLS!

[Irontoto]

back in 1983 in the nothern part of new jersey, there was a young, promising, fighter by the name tony ayala jr.he was in shot for a crack at the world middleweight title when alcohol and cocaine took over his life.on new years eve of that year he and his girlfriend dranked,sniffed, and smoked their ass off.his girlfriend passed out and tony decided to go raise havoc in a near by apartment complex.well to make a long story short,he broke into a single womans apartment, beat, raped, and left her for dead.he was caught a short time later and sentence to something like 16 years in a state prison.at the age of 37, he was released in may,1999.he begun to train and fight again and has since began to line hiself up for a titleshot again, and is also looking at multi million dollar paydays.now, heres my question. does this man deserve to fight and make millions of dollars since he's paid his debt to society, or should the woman who is scarred for life be intitled to his earnings. i would really appriciate some insight and opinions on this matter.

[This message has been edited by irontoto (edited 04-21-2000).]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

He's paid his debt. You can't continue to punish him (beyond not allowing him to run for President or become a police officer, rights that are taken away from you for life. He is permitted to earn a living, and should not be penalized just because that living is a good one.

The exception is this -- he should not be permitted to profit from his crimes, that is a book or movie sale, say, based on the events. In that case I believe the victim is entitled to a share, if not all, of the profits. I honestly don't know if the Son of Sam laws are still in effect -- but they should be.

 

[Skibum]

There has to be some end of his sentence, unless the court has decided to convict him to life in prison or envoke the death penalty. He may not be a nice person, but if he has completed his sentence, he should be allowed a life.

 

[Sonora]

I'm not a lawyer, but can't she file a civil suit and possibly get some money for 'damages'. You know like mental anquish or something?

 

[Sonora]

I'm not a lawyer, but can't she file a civil suit and possibly get some money for 'damages'. You know like mental anquish or something?

 

[OldDog]

He's paid his "debt" according to the current judicial system. You failed to mention whether or not he was given early release for good behavior, a parole, or served the entire sentence. If he served the FULL term, then his debt is truly paid and what he does is only his business. If he is truly "rehabilitated, why doesn't he donate part of his winnings to assist her rather than going through all the debate. Drugs or not, alcohol or not --he is still repsonsible for any acts good or bad. Only Mr. Ayala knows where his heart really is.

 

[Earthgoddess]

I agree with sonora his victim should have some rights in a civil suit..as she lives daily with the damage he did to her...am curious about his sentence too..full sentence or paroled release?

 

[Hurley_International]

No she cant file a lawsuit
she should have done it while he was in prison

 

[Sonora]

"No she cant file a lawsuit"

Hurley, do you know this for sure or is it just your opinion?

"she should have done it while he was in prison"

What good would it have doen her then? He was making maybe $2.60 a week scrubbing toilets. Is there any statute on how long you have to file suit?

Putting myself in her shoes, I'd want the bastard to pay. None of this crap about paying his debt to society. It wasn't society that he beat, raped, and left for dead!!


PS: I don't think that I could use any money that might be awarded. I don't think that I could live in a house, or drive a car that would remind daily of what happened. It should go to establish/fund battered women's shelters or to provide educational opportunities for women in abusive relationships. Something good should come from it.

[This message has been edited by Sonora (edited 04-22-2000).]

 

[Hullo_nurse]

Sure, the prick may have paid his debt to society...depending on whether he served his entire sentance or not. I do NOT believe in getting out early for good behavior or parole. If you do the crime you serve the fucking time, 100% of the time.

But, to say he's paid his debt to HER--- NO FUCKING WAY!!! He will NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS be able to pay his debt to her. Not unless someone rapes & beats him within an inch of his life & leaves him for dead. In cases like this I truely believe in "an eye for an eye" kind of justice.

This woman has to live with the memories, emotional and physical scars of that fateful day for the rest of her life. Why should he get off so easy as to spend a mere 1/4 of his life in jail?

[This message has been edited by hullo_nurse (edited 04-22-2000).]

 

[Fallen Angel]

My gosh it is easy to see why the lawyers get so much business.

If he came out and got a job working at a grocery store ya'll would think it was just fine. He gets out and goes back to work at what he was doing before and may make some money. Oh no let's take it away by sueing him. Whatever happened to double jeopardy?

Now if you want to take up the matter of who should be eligible to fight with the boxing commission have at it.

Anyone who can go to the pen keep their nose clean, get out and stay out of trouble should be considered to have paid their debt in full.

Nurse I hear what you are saying but especially in our youth we make mistakes. If we pay the price set by society we should be entitled to a chance to show that we can do it right this time. If the sentence isn't what you think it should be change the law or the judge. Don't take it out on the person who did what was ordered and now is trying to find a place in society.

The one that always gets me is that a big exec can steal thousands or millions and never serve a day but the poor man may have to spend months in jail for not being able to pay child support or traffic fines.(please note wording not able to pay)

 

[Slut_boy]

Aren't we possibly confusing to very seperate issues here.

When a person commits a crime (like rape) then it is a crime against society as a whole. For that reason, society punishes the offender ie. by removing him and incarcerating him - partly as retribution and partly as rehabilitation. Now that debt, as DCL has pointed out, has been extinghuished.

But the debt to society should not be confused with his own personal debt to the victim. She ought to be entitled to be compensated for her loss and injury suffered by his wrongful conduct.

If we don't seperate the consequences of an act into both criminal as well as into civil issues then we blur the distinction between remedies - which must be seen as seperate since they are designed to serve seperate purposes.

[This message has been edited by slut_boy (edited 04-23-2000).]

 

[Boo]

Just a point of clarification. The rape victim cannot file a civil lawsuit now because the statute of limitations has run. In my state, the time period for filing such a suit runs in three years. It is not tolled for prison time or anything of that nature. Therefore, though at one time she did have that particular recourse, it is not availabe to her at this time. A civil lawsuit is one where a person who has suffered some type of injury, rape in this instance, files a suit against the person they believe is responsible for their injury in order to recover for money damages. This is separate from the action a state has against an individual who has committed a crime. Seems like social studies 101 but people miss this point quite a bit. The two are not mutually exclusive but because the vast majority of criminals are people who it would seem futile to file suit against, the state's prosecution for the crime often becomes the only action taken against them. When the state prosecutes it is not for money damages.....the punishment if convicted is for prison time and/or fines. This person has paid his debt to society by being prosecuted by his state, convicted and having served his time. I applaud him for coming out of this experience and getting on with his life the best way he can. This after all, is what incarceration is supposed to do in theory.....i.e. rehabilitate someone. It often does not work. It has, apparently in this case. I also agree that there has to be some statute of limitations on the filing of a civil suit. People make mistakes and his vicitim had her window of opportunity to file against him and did not. At some point, all people who have committed crimes, including rapists, need to be able to move on.



[This message has been edited by Boo (edited 04-23-2000).]

 

[Unclebill]

Being the bleeding heart liberal that I am, I wonder why a criminal thug is rewarded for incompetence. If he beat her and left her for dead, why shouldn't he be imprisoned for life? And by that I mean he shouldn't leave prison until it's in a pine box for boot hill. Parole, are you kidding me? Ask Michael Dukakis about weekend furloughs for criminals. That's about equivalent to a parole just shortened to a couple of days each month. Willie Horton made good use of that facet of the justice system, didn't he?

He has done irreparable damage to another human being's life and is now granted his freedom to potentially do it again? That's justice? Not in any rational context.

This stupidity in the American criminal processing (NOT justice) system is unforgivable. Why does anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder not pay the ultimate price? The victim did or would have but for the perp's incompetence.

So my answer is, "Not NO but HELL NO"! He shouldn't even be uncaged and released on an innocent populace.

[This message has been edited by unclebill (edited 04-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by unclebill (edited 04-23-2000).]

 

[Slut_boy]

Hi Boo,

That is so strange. You and I said almost the same thing in our two posts - I take it that we must have drafted our responses at pretty much the same time.

Hi Unclebill,

Are you really suggesting that if a person commits a wrong then he should be denied freedom forever thereafter? Are you suggesting that punishment is in itself an insuffecient tool of the state in dealing with criminals? You must remember, as both Boo and I pointed out earlier, that punishment has several purposes: and there are theories which deal with this like the absolute or retibutive theory, the preventative theories, the deterrance theory and obviously the theories in support of intergration. Although I am not religious, one who is may question even the merits of a 'forgiveness' theory.

Do you have children Unclebill? If they do something wrong then can forgive them and give them a second chance? I would think it fair to do so provided: (i) they have learnt their lesson (ii) they appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct (iii) they are committed to not repeating the mistake. Don't people deserve another chance if they have already been punished?



[This message has been edited by slut_boy (edited 04-24-2000).]

 

[Unclebill]

To clarify, it depends on the nature of the wrong. In this case, the stated offense was attempted murder, i. e., the victim survived only because of the incompetence or lack of thoroughness of the criminal perpetrator. He tried to exact the utlimate price from his victim and simply failed to achieve his intended result. Why then, should he be rewarded with less than the ultimate punishment? Why should the perpetrator be rewarded (receive lighter punishment) just because his failure to achieve his intended result, his victim survived? That he may have changed since then doesn't excuse, make amends for or mitigate what he did. The punishment is for what he did (intended to kill) and should not be mitigated because he's a 'changed man' if in fact he's changed at all.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Heard of Mike "I did nothing wrong" Tyson....
Read an article on Tony Ayala and so what if he's 'changed' or not... he expressed remorse for what he has done. He is part of society now and is free to continue in his profession, if that is beating the snot out of someone and getting millions for it so be it.
He's done the time for the crime, he's payed his debt, let him lead his own life.

I know I'm Australian.... article in SPORT mag early '99 if you want to check, very interesting.

There's my cent worth.... da Chef

 

[Guest]

In America we no longer welcome success, but are jealous of it. Anyone who has money is fair game. Ask any lawyer, what is the first consideration? Can we recover. Are there deep pockets to go for? The point about the grocery clerk is good. If he were to go back to boxing in a store there would be no outrage. We just hate the rich, so soak him. Believe me, knowing the game from the inside, he will be soaked bad enough. The managers, handlers and promotors are more vicious than the IRS. Now, you wanna talk about rape...

 

[Slut_boy]

Unclebill,

Aren't we perhaps still addressing two seperate issues almost interchangably as though they were one. Mitigation is important when deciding sentence because once we have established guilt then the next question is what should we do with him.

I am not sure that he is being "rewarded" (as you put it) simply because his attempt failed. I think that it would be fairer to state that the consequences of a failed attempt are less severe than the consequences of a successful rape or killing. For this reason I think it fair that an attempt carry a lessor penalty than a completed offence.

But I can see your point as well, Unclebill - sometimes the risk to society is no less simply because the attempt failed. It depends on the purpose for the sentence. If it is simply to protect the public against the criminal then I may be inclined to agree with you. But my thoughts are that punishment means more than that....as I pointed out in my earlier post, it also refers to retribution, and rehabilitation.

These are just my views. I would love to hear other opinions. What do you think, Boo?



[This message has been edited by slut_boy (edited 04-30-2000).]

 

[Magic Merlin]

My main concern is on the victim and what was done to violate either her or his existence. When a person is simply living their life trying to survive or better themselves and all of suddenly their existence is violated, either violently or something less, my concern is for the victim and the safety of others. The rights of the criminal are mot my primary concern at this point. My concerns for the criminal are that he is apprehended, appropriately punished, what level of remorse he/she feels, and what level of rehabilitation he/she can acheive.

To say that a criminal that commits a crime and pays the time, and then he/she starts over with a completely clean slate, so to speak, completely ignores the changes that the criminal's crime has brought about to the victim and the victims family and friends. Also to the criminals family and friends. Because of that crime, everyone involved has had their life changed, and now must live with those changes, forever.

Because a person/persons has made a free choice to commit a crime against another person/persons, the criminal has made a free choice to somehow violate anothers persons existence.

At that point, I think the criminal has to forever live with what he did and to make amends for it, forever. If the criminal has indeed payed his time to society and is rehabilitated to a large degree, I do think he has the right to get on with his life and make a living. But to say that he can go on and forget about what he did, is wrong in my opinion. Somehow I believe he has to forever remember what he did. And hopefully he/she will change their life enough to truly no longer be a threat to society as a whole.

If the criminal has to live with the stigma of his crime, then so be it. That person made a free choice to violate another person's existence. He now has the responsibility to live with his choices.

All of has to live with the choices we make, everyday. And we have to live with the consequences for the rest of our lives.

When we are relieved of taking responsibility for our own free choices and actions, what will we have learned? You can see it all around you. People who will go on to commit other crimes!

We get lucky occasionally and a criminal will truly feel remorse for their crimes and do indeed change. But that is not typical.

Just as the victim must forever live with what happened to them through no choice of their own, I believe the crimianl must forever live with his actions!! He/she made the choice to commit that crime. Not the victim!!!

But to wipe the slate completely clean!!! Who is going to make everything go back to the way it was for the victim before the crime was committed. NO ONE!!! It can't be done.

We all have to take responsiblity for our own actions. And doing that 100% of the time... well, that is a lifetime goal!!!!

................

Sorry to go off on a philosophical bent here, but I believe all of us that try to live a law abiding life ultimately want the same thing. A life without crime and when a crime is committed we would like the criminal to be feel remorse and be able to be rehabilitated 100%.

But unfortunately, Real Life is not that way. There truly are people without a soul and the rest of us have to deal with them in the best way possible..... And if that means they never walk the street again, then so be it..........

 

[*Eve*]

Well, although he has paid his "debt to society", it will never change what he did and if he were to win that belt how would that poor victim feel seeing him on television making millions in endorsements. The boxing commission suspended Mike Tyson for a less offense(gross though it was), but yet this guy is allowed to box. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be but I think that it's just interesting.
I think that the victim should be compensated for what he did to her. Why should he live high on the hog while she is made to suffer everyday with the memory of what he did to her.