Conference back40::soapbox

 Hey, so how about the woman refused admittance to Hahvahd after it was
discovered she killed her mom?




Jim

    
    ... and all the bleedin' hearts falling over themselves to
    "forgive her"... Only in the PRM...
    
    -b

    -1 PRM = People's Republic of Markey?   :-)
    
       Chip

    
    Yeah, Ed Effin' Markey... a red pox on the family name if ever
    there was one...
    
    -b

	I keep getting half the story - what's the poop here?  Wasn't
	she being abused?  Killed her mother with a candlestick?
	Thought her records were sealed, since she was a juvenile?

	What else?

    
    What I've gathered so far is: South Carolina, daddy dead, mummy alcoholic 
    and physically abusive, Gina 14, bashes mummy with a candlestick 14 times,
    Gina and boyfriend try to make it look like mummy committed suicide, 
    Gina arrested and tried in Family Court as juvenile, Gina serves 6
    months and then transferred to a facility in Massachusetts to be near
    aunt and uncle, Gina moves in with aunt and uncle, doesn't get along, 
    moves into her own apartment, goes to Cambridge Rindge and Latin, I think, 
    is topnotch student, gets admitted to Harvard, Sunday Globe does an 
    article on her, someone from South Carolina anonymously sends clippings 
    about case to Harvard, Harvard rescinds admission saying Gina 
    misrepresented herself on application, Gina says she answered all
    questions on application honestly but that they didn't ask questions
    that would have obligated her to reveal her past.
    
    I know that juvenile records are supposed to be sealed, but what can
    you do about people who take it upon themselves to share your past with
    others?
    
      

 I'm leaning towards placing my sympathy with the woman (based on what I under-
 stand).  Yes, she killed her mother (who reportedly was abusive, but I will
 not claim that as an acceptable excuse for now), but she did serve the time
 to which she was sentenced and yes her record was sealed.  She obviously has
 been trying to make something of her life as has been attested to by several
 friends.  


 When I was a juvenile (16) I was nailed for possession of a particular green
 substance.  I served 6 months probation and when I turned 21 my record was
 sealed.  As the judge said "if you are ever asked if you were arrested, served
 probation, etc, you may safely say "no".  Sounds to me like it should have
 been the same with this woman.


 But, as a caller to Claptrap and Witless said this morning "she should be 
 denied admission to Hahvahd simply on the basis of being dumb enough to 
 be submit to an interview by the Globe".



 Jim

>                            Gina 14, bashes mummy with a candlestick 14 times,
>    Gina and boyfriend try to make it look like mummy committed suicide, 

Supposedly the boyfriend was the one who tried to make it look like suicide.
If it was Gina, that's sufficiently stupid to allow Harvard to rescind.

    
    that like the case of the person who machinegunned himself 
    to death?

    The woman has a case against Hahvahd if she wants to pursue it.  They
    had no legal right to act on the anonymously supplied information cuz,
    as has been pointed out, the woman was a juvenile and her records were
    sealed on her 18th birthday.
    
    She can now sue Hahvahd for libel, with a good prospect of a judgment
    in her favor.  Remember, folx, libel need not be false, it need only be
    defamatory and damaging.  The info about the killing is damaging, and
    Hahvahd's choice to disqualify the woman because of that info casts
    doubt on her honor, which doubt is defamatory.
    
    I hope she takes Hahvahd to the cleaners bigtime.  They need taking
    down a peg or two.

    News reports seem short on facts and long on sensationalism in this
    story. Did she or didn't she lie onher Harvard application? Evidently
    the app. form does asks candidates if they've ever been on probation.
    
    If she lied, then Harvard's got a strong case.
    
    I noticed that John Silber has offered her admission at BU.

    Hahvahd has NO case if the probation ended before her 18th birthday.

 I was told, when my records were sealed, that I could legally responde "no"
 to any question regarding my arrest, time served, probation, etc.  Of course
 that was in California.




Jim

>Fat Boy went to Harvard...

Rush Limbo went to Harvard??

    
    <-----
    
    I think the reference is to "Snorkel" Kennedy...
    

    
    ... yep, old "A Blonde In Every Pond" Teddy...
    
    -b

    No, not Fat Man, Fat Boy.

Snorkel Kennedy?  Who's that?

Oh, never mind.

    RE: Mr. "She's Got a Case" Binder

    Yeah, those awful folks at Harvard. To think that they have
    the nerve to choose who goes to their own school, based
    on whatever criteria they see fit to choose. To think they
    frown on killing people! The nerve. Sue 'em right out of
    existence for having the backbone to tell the PC crowd
    to eff off I say!!!

    -b

>>    To think that they have
>>    the nerve to choose who goes to their own school, based
>>    on whatever criteria they see fit to choose. 

	Bri, are you suggesting they should be able to change 
	their criteria from applicant to applicant?

    .21
    
    I have no problem with their choosing who goes to their school, based
    on their own criteria.  But they have violated this woman's legal right
    to have a clean bill of health as of her 18th birthday.  Her answer 
    was correct under the law, and they have used information to which they
    had no legal right to disqualify her.  Should we similarly allow the
    cops to use illegally obtained evidence in a court of law?

    >	Bri, are you suggesting they should be able to change 
    >	their criteria from applicant to applicant?

    No Lady Di, not at all. But from what I understand, they
    did not change the criteria. Convicted murderers need
    not apply. That's the criteria. The only controversy is
    whether they can apply the criteria to juveniles. I
    personally think they're doing the right thing... I
    don't think age is a license to murder.

    I'm glad this young lady is sorting her life out, but
    that doesn't change the fact that she is a murderer.

    -b

>>    I'm glad this young lady is sorting her life out,

	...as long as she doesn't attempt to (from all accounts
	legally) get into any prestigious colleges?

    .24
    
    > that doesn't change the fact that she is a murderer.
    
    What isn't changed is the fact that she was convicted as a juvenile
    and served her time and is legally and morally entitled to be treated
    as a person every bit as upstanding and law-abiding as you or I.  She
    is not receiving that kind of treatment from Hahvahd; she is receiving
    treatment that is decidedly discriminatory.
    
    It's going to be very difficult for her to "sort her life out" if she
    has to wear an albatross around her neck for the rest of that life.

    and potentially illegal, as Juvinile records are sealed after 18 if the
    person stays out of trouble.
    
    

    This is a difficult one. On the one hand, I'm a "lock 'em up and throw
    away the key/execute 'em" type when it comes to murder. On the other
    hand, the girl was a juvenile and does appear to be rehabilitated.
    Given the facts as I understand them, it's Harvard's loss. And much as
    I hate to say it, Binder's got a point about Harvard's behavior. 

    It may well be Harvard's loss, but I see it as Harvard's choice.
    Dick is correct about the law. I just happen to disagree with
    that law. I don't think records should be sealed for murder.
    Harvard will probably get sued and will probably lose, but is
    it the right thing?

    Kill, become a ward of the state for a few years, go to Harvard
    to learn to get other killers off the hook! What a system!

    While everyone rushes to feel sorry for this young lady, and
    what Harvard "did to her", they forget that there is a growing
    number of extremely cold-blooded killers who are juveniles.
    Are we to cast them all as "victims" who get a clean slate
    when they're arbitrarily declared adults?

    We have to make a choice. If killing is a crime, it should be
    treated as a crime. Juveniles should not be locked up in adult
    prisons; but they should be locked up in juvenile prison until
    they become adults, and should then complete adult sentences,
    including all the other penalties which go along with being a
    killer... like not going to Harvard.

    -b
                                        

    
    wonder if thing would have turned out differently had the murderer
    been one of the classified minorities and a denizen of the 'hood?
    
    

>>    I'm glad this young lady is sorting her life out,

    >	...as long as she doesn't attempt to (from all accounts
    >	legally) get into any prestigious colleges?
    
    We're arguing different perspectives. I never said _she_ doesn't
    have the right apply... but I feel Harvard _does_ have the
    right to decline...
                                                            
    -b

Hey, we don't know what the mother inflicted on this
girl.  Most people know that alcoholic behavior in 
itself is damaging to people who have to put up with it.

All I'm saying is that the mom could have been a real
doozy and maybe, just maybe the daughter felt physically
threatened by her.

We don't know the story.

     The mere fact that she killed her mother is not of utmost importance.
    After all, if he mother was lunging at her with a knife, it would be
    entirely justifiable. We clearly do not have a complete understanding
    of the totality of circumstances regarding the homicide. Since she
    served but 6 months, I have to believe that the circumstances
    surrounding the crime were found to be mitigating factors. So I don't
    think that she's a "cold-blooded killer." 
    
     I tend to agree with the sentiment that children who kill ought to
    face adult sized punishments, from about age 14. That is to say, I
    think that the default starting at 14 is that you are tried as an
    adult, and to be charged as a juvenile the defense has to prove that is
    more appropriate. The current system burdens the prosecution. 
    
     In this particular instance, it sounds like there were some mitigating
    factors. And for that reason I think that Harvard should do the right
    thing and reinstate her acceptance.

>>    While everyone rushes to feel sorry for this young lady, and
>>    what Harvard "did to her", they forget that there is a growing
>>    number of extremely cold-blooded killers who are juveniles.

	Do you evidence to the effect that Gina is one of these
	"extremely cold-blooded killers"?

    .29
    
    If all killings resulted from a motive of malice, I'd be all for the
    "lock 'em up forever or else burn 'em" school.  As long as there are
    valid motives other than malice, I think the law should judge each case
    on its own merits or lack thereof.  Gina was clearly abused and, as
    best we here can tell, legitimately in fear for her physical well-being
    if not for her life.  She appears to have done what any sane person
    might likely do - if you truly fear for your life, defend yourself as
    best you know how.  This is not to say that all persons in like case
    will make the "right" choice of defense, but still they all deserve to
    be treated fairly and, by people and institutions other than the legal
    system, in the manner dictated by the legal system.  Hahvahd broke the
    law in making her record public, and Hahvahd also thereby signed up to
    be the defendant in a libel suit.
    
    I agree that Hahvahd has the right to establish admission criteria, and
    I agree that those criteria can well include a pure-as-snow criminal
    record.  Gina's record is pure as snow; it was washed clean on her 18th
    birthday, and it should have stayed that way barring criminal activity
    on her part after that date.  I reiterate the question, Brian:  Should
    we allow the cops to usde illegally obtained evidence in a court of
    law, as Hahvahd has done in its admissions screening?  Or is Hahvahd
    above the law?

	John Silbur said she could go to BU...... that her past is history, and
she served the time for her crime. Now it's time to move on and let her get on
with her life. To be honest with you, I was surprised and glad to hear these
words from him.



Glen

 There is little question that her past is history.  On that we can all agree





 Jim

>>    <<< Note 379.31 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
>>    
>>    We're arguing different perspectives. I never said _she_ doesn't
>>    have the right apply... but I feel Harvard _does_ have the
>>    right to decline...

	No, that's not a different perspective - the point is the
	same, i.e. you don't think she should get into Harvard.

    I wonder how many murderers Harvard has produced (see previous
    references to Ted Kennedy) :-}
    
    Matriculating at a prestigious university doesn't necessarily turn
    out fine outstanding citizens (eldest Menendez boy attended 
    Princeton).
    
    Most states have the option to try juveniles as adults if they
    feel the circumstances warrant.  Since this gal was tried as a juve-
    nile, her past history shouldn't matter to Harvard.  If I under-
    stand correctly, it was perhaps a private citizen who pointed out
    her previous history; the state didn't disclose her sealed records.
    
    This sort of episode does tend to put a damper on telling youthful
    offenders that they can make something of themselves.  She doesn't
    need Harvard, let's just hope some good school will give her an
    opportunity to further her education.
    
    
    

    >	Do you evidence to the effect that Gina is one of these
    >	"extremely cold-blooded killers"?

    No. But you're missing my point again. By saying that Harvard
    has no right to deny admission in this case, means that
    Harvard has no right to deny admission in more extreme
    cases. And I think that's wrong.

    She was convicted. It is likely she would not have been
    convicted of murder if the defense could have created
    "reasonable doubt" regarding the circumstances; for
    example, if she killed in self-defense. So, society
    _should_ assume that she is guilty of murder and treat
    her accordingly. If they don't, then someone like the
    two teens who murdered kidnaped and murdered the baby
    in England will get to go to Harvard. That, IMHO, sucks!!!

    -b

>                          She appears to have done what any sane person
>    might likely do - if you truly fear for your life, defend yourself as
>    best you know how.

She bashed her mother on the head with a candlestick 14 times.  That seems
to be more than would required to subdue Mom.

    
    There is a false idea that criminals are sentenced to prison for
    rehabilitation.  The truth is that they are sentenced to prison for
    punishment.  This is what justice demands.
    
    jeff

    re: .40
    
    Why does it "suck?"  If you don't believe prison can
    reform people, why do you bother sending them there in
    the first place?  If we put a system in place, use it,
    and then fail to apply the principals in our society,
    should we be surprised that many of these people return
    to crime?  No penalty should be held against people who
    commit crimes, serve time and are released, until such
    time as they choose to commit a crime again.  If the punishment
    fits the crime, as they say, then it should be finished
    when the jail time is.
    
    Mary-Michael

    >on her part after that date.  I reiterate the question, Brian:  Should
    >we allow the cops to usde illegally obtained evidence in a court of
    >law, as Hahvahd has done in its admissions screening?  Or is Hahvahd
    >above the law?

    No Dick, we should not. (Did you really believe I would say "yes"?)

    But that is a different thing. You want to Harvard not to have
    the right to make choices about who gets admitted. You say
    you support them having this right, but then turn around and
    say "except". Bull. No except. If Harvard accepts public funds,
    the state has the right to tell them who to admit. If they're
    privately funded, the state can go to hell.

    -b

>>   <<< Note 379.41 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>>She bashed her mother on the head with a candlestick 14 times.  That seems
>>to be more than would required to subdue Mom.

	That sounds as though it could be explained as a phenomenon
	associated with abuse cases.

>>   <<< Note 379.41 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>


>>She bashed her mother on the head with a candlestick 14 times.  That seems
>>to be more than would required to subdue Mom.

	Gerald, maybe it was Miss Plumb that did it in the library with the
candlestick. :-)



Glen

    >Why does it "suck?"  If you don't believe prison can
    >reform people, why do you bother sending them there in
    >the first place?  If we put a system in place, use it,
    >and then fail to apply the principals in our society,
    >should we be surprised that many of these people return
    >to crime?  No penalty should be held against people who
    >commit crimes, serve time and are released, until such
    >time as they choose to commit a crime again.  If the punishment
    >fits the crime, as they say, then it should be finished
    >when the jail time is.

    Man oh man. Why is it so tough to understand where I'm
    coming from here? Am I really doing _that_ poor a job of
    explaining myself?

    Of course, I believe prison can reform people. Do I
    believe they are automatically "reformed" when they
    reach 18 years of age? No. Do I believe they should
    be released from prison the moment it appears they
    are reformed? No. Prison, as Jeff said, is punishment.

    In addition, I am arguing that Harvard should be allowed
    to make decisions about who it admits. If Harvard wants
    to make part of the criteria a clean criminal record,
    good for Harvard. It doesn't appear that anyone has
    a problem with this notion...

    So, the only question is whether society should force
    Harvard to make an exception for juvenile murderers.
    I think that would be a BIG mistake. A very BIG
    mistake.

    -b

    As I mentioned, most states have the option to try juveniles as
    adults if they feel the crime heinous enough or there are no miti-
    gating circumstances.  Georgia just tried a 14 year old as an
    adult (he was 15 by the time the trial started).  He murdered a
    woman 8 months pregant, the baby also died (the woman worked at a
    local dry cleaners, he was trying for initiation into a gang).
    
    The boy's crime was deemed sufficiently heinous and there were no
    mitigating circumstances, so he's been nailed.
    
    As Jim Henderson pointed out, if a judge told him he could say NO
    if asked about criminal record, then I don't think the girl lied
    on her application.  If she had applied before her records were
    sealed, then that's another story.
    
    

    matricide sounds like something you would spray in your garden to
    control those pesky little mattresses from choking out your tomato
    plants.

    .45
    
    If Hahvahd is privately funded, it has the right to use illegally
    obtained information to deny admission to an eminently qualified
    student?  Bunk.
    
    The crux of the matter, Brian, is the word "illegal."  Hahvahd had NO
    LEGAL RIGHT to the information about Gina's conviction, and in using
    what it had no legal right to use, the institution broke the law.

Harvard receives public funds, so the point is moot.

    
    
    This also shows that there are a lot of busybodies in this world who
    can't keep their noses out of other people's business, IMHO.

>>     <<< Note 379.2 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
    
>>    ... and all the bleedin' hearts falling over themselves to
>>    "forgive her"... Only in the PRM...

	Bri, do you think the people who believe the law should be upheld, as
	it now stands, fall into this classification?

    >	Bri, do you think the people who believe the law should be upheld, as
    >	it now stands, fall into this classification?

    No. My venom, in this case, was intended for some of those
    interviewed in an article I read, who were in full criminal
    as victim mode. That kind of thing always pisses me off.

    RE: Dick

    I agree that what Harvard did will probably cause a law
    suit. I agree with you that what Harvard did was illegal,
    I just disagree that it was immoral.

    And I don't fault the person who sent the newspaper clips
    either. Apparently, the felty strongly that being a juvenile
    should not be a license to murder. I see what they did,
    and what Harvard did, as a matter of "civil disobedience";
    one that I personally agree with, FWIW.

    But again, I seem to be the only one out arguing in left
    field (or maybe it's right field), so maybe I'm the one
    not seeing things clearly here...

    -b

    
    	So the people that think this girl should be able to attend Harvard
    are also against the 'child molester registration' laws. (Laws that say
    child molesters need to register in the town where they intend to
    reside)
    
    ed

<---- yup

    
    I'll have to reserve my opinion until I hear the whole story.
    

    
>>    	So the people that think this girl should be able to attend Harvard
>>    are also against the 'child molester registration' laws. (Laws that say
>>    child molesters need to register in the town where they intend to
>>    reside)

	How do you draw that conclusion?  Being against a law being broken
	doesn't automatically mean that one is against a law being created.

    
      I would have thought matricide consistent with the institution.
    
      bb

    You're confusing Harvard undergrad with Harvard Law.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    	What did Harvard do that is allegedly illegal? Accept information?
    
    ed

    It may be that the central, organizing fact of the matter is that she
    lied on her admission application.
    
    Usually taht's enough to get your acceptance rescinded.

    .63
    
    She did not.  For all intents and purposes, as Jim Henderson has said,
    the legal truth is a negative.  The law intends that one's juvenile
    record simply did not happen when one becomes an adult, so long as that
    adult remains law-abiding.

    
    It may be that Harvard should have worded it admissions application
    differently -- in a way that respected the privacy of juvenile
    offenders, now applicants.
    
    However, as I said, lying on the application is usually enough
    to force a new decision.  

    Maybe this isn't clear yet- it's not a lie to answer "no" when your
    record is sealed.

 I was told by the judge that heard my case as well as my probation officer,
 that when the record was "sealed" any inquiries as to my criminal background
 as a minor would come back negative, just as if the offense had never happened.



 Jim

    
    Is it the same thing to be busted with a little weed as
    to murder someone? It is now... but I don't think it
    should be. In fact, murder is probably the _one_
    exception that should be made to the current law.
    
    My view of "justice" is that restitution should be made
    to the victim. If a juvenile gets caught in a burglary,
    they should have to repay the victim. If they get
    caught with drugs, there probably is no victim, unless
    they're a dealer... but murder... well, how does one
    "repay" the victim?
    
    Having part of a juvenile's sentence include restitution
    is fairly common. But there cannot be restitution for
    murder. Murder is the worst possible crime, should be
    treated separately, and with a harshness of punishment
    far above other crimes.
    
    I think it is _wrong_ to "wipe the slate clean" for
    convicted killers.
    
    -b

    re: .68
    
    But you're lumping all types of murder together.  Even
    the justice system in this country doesn't do that.
    That's why we have murder 1 murder 2...etc. and manslaughter.
    
    Killing someone in cold blood is NOT the same as killing
    someone in self defence, as it may appear she may have done.
    
    I personally believe in mitigating circumstances, and there
    seem to be some in this case.  
    
    If you want to apply your argument that killing anyone should
    allow Harvard to prohibit them from admittance, are you
    also including people who killed people in wars?
    
    Mary-Michael

    
>    Is it the same thing to be busted with a little weed as
>    to murder someone? It is now... but I don't think it
>    should be. In fact, murder is probably the _one_
>    exception that should be made to the current law.
 

    Not sure I disagree with you, but one has to be concerned with the
    laws currently on the books in this case.



   
   Jim

    >But you're lumping all types of murder together.  

    I'm not lumping a damn thing...


    >                                                 Even
    >the justice system in this country doesn't do that.
    >That's why we have murder 1 murder 2...etc. and manslaughter.

    
    >Killing someone in cold blood is NOT the same as killing
    >someone in self defence, as it may appear she may have done.
    
    Killing someone in self defense is not murder. It _may_
    be manslaughter if the killing was not in response to
    deadly force.

    But this person was convicted of murder. Not first degree,
    but _murder_ nonetheless.

    >If you want to apply your argument that killing anyone should
    >allow Harvard to prohibit them from admittance, are you
    >also including people who killed people in wars?

    Killing != Murder.

    You know that, and as hard as it may be for you to believe,
    I'm not some brain dead yahoo with a rope, so _I_ know
    it too...

    -b

    re: .71
    
    No, I don't.  Killing a living, breathing person is murder.  
    Murder is taking the life of another.  Period.  Rationalizing
    the process by thinking so-and-so deserved it only indicates 
    an imperfection in society which evolution hasn't fixed yet. 
    We cannot handle the implications of taking life so we attach 
    "values" and circumstances to create places we feel comfortable
    commiting and condoning murder.  It changes nothing.  You may 
    have reasons you may not.  It is still all murder.
    
    
    
    

    .72
    
    IYHO.

    
    .72
    
    i take it that is not th abortion topic

    RE: .72
    
    From a legal standpoint, which is all I'm talking about here,
    being a soldier and killing someone in combat is certainly
    not murder. But thank you for that nice little moralist
    diversion, even if it has no relation to the topic of
    discussion.
    
    -b

In your  inaccurate opinion.

Murder is a legal term. Killing someone is English language.

Not all killings are murder, even if'n you think them to be extremely
cruel, violent, etc.

Murder is declared by the court systems and neither you nor I have the
authority to declare this or any other killing as murder.

TTom

    
    
    RE: .72  Bzzzt, wrong.
    
    
    
    Murder-the crime of unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice
    aforethought.  To kill unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
    
    
    
    Killing someone in self defense is not murder.
    
    
    Mike

    re: .73-.77
    
    I don't care what you want to call it.  Taking human life
    is taking human life.  You have made a decision that for
    whatever reason, your life is more important than someone
    else's.  For some moment in time, you have played God.  Again 
    we create situations and "values" that may justify this.  
    War is one, manslaughter and self defense are others.  
    Whatever you use, it does not change the fact that you have 
    made a judgement.  All it changes is how many people
    agree with it.  
    
    

SPECIAL PRESS RELEASE FROM LONDON

FROM HIS GRACE THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

NICHOLAS INGRAM: STATEMENT BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

"I have heard with profound sorrow the news that the Georgia Board of
Pardons and Paroles has decided that the execution of Nicholas Ingram
should be carried out later today.

I pray now for Nicholas Ingram as he faces death, and for his family.  I
pray also for the victims of the crime of which he was convicted, and for
all those who have been involved in the subsequent legal processes.

I am publishing now the text of the personal appeal for clemency which I
made in confidence to the Board.

As Spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and as Easter
approaches, I plead with the people of the United States of America, as a
great Christian country, to search their consciences about the use of the
death penalty.

I hope that God will in his mercy eventually enable some good to arise from
these tragic events."

There will be no further comment.

Sent from the Anglican Communion Office in London UK
at  4:29 pm GMT on Thu, Apr  6, 1995

    Give us Barabbas!

  .79 how nice.  why is it in this topic?

    Besides, his luck ran out on Friday night.

    
    he should have protested the Contemplacion case instead, where
    the entire evidence and trial was muy questionable.

    I think .79 believes that the death penalty is institutionalized murder 
    and would like to remind those of us that believe that the death penalty 
    is a sometimes appropriate form of justice just how barbaric our thoughts 
    are however inappropriate it may be to the topic.  
    
    Brian

    
>    I don't care what you want to call it.  Taking human life
>    is taking human life.  You have made a decision that for
>    whatever reason, your life is more important than someone
>    else's.  For some moment in time, you have played God.  Again 
>    we create situations and "values" that may justify this.  
>    War is one, manslaughter and self defense are others.  
>    Whatever you use, it does not change the fact that you have 
>    made a judgement.  All it changes is how many people
>    agree with it.  
    
     This is looney.  
    
    So, let me see if I understand your logic correctly.  If I pick up a
    wallet from a chair in a theatre and spend the money I find inside, if
    the wallet is mine I'm a thief and if the wallet isn't mine I'm a
    thief.
    
    jeff

    
    First, some killings, murders or life takings (take your pick or invent
    one) receive public noterity regardless of the age or intent of the
    accused. Taking your mother's life, regardless of the circumstances
    usually receives such attention. It almost always makes news in the
    media. So regardless, of the court sealing her records there are
    individuals that will recall the event unless the courts can seal their
    memories/minds and obliterate the media archives. Is there anybody that
    was alive then that does not recall Fat Boy taking his date to the
    submarine races? He was never convicted but very few of us have
    forgotten the circumstances and many among us still believe that he should
    have been charged and convicted of a crime.
    
    Second, taking someone's life in self-defense usually leads to an
    aquittal. If this young woman did indeed bash her mom's brain's 14
    times to ward off what she must have considered a deadly assault, then
    why did the courts determine that she needed to be incarcerated and
    ultimately her record sealed. Clearly there was evidence we are not privy 
    to that suggests the court was not totally convinced of the self-defense
    motive. In addition, (as I brace myself for the retort on this one) most
    murderers, especially teenagers, rarely receive the punishment that
    fits the crime. 6 months for killing someone other than in self defense
    is IMHO a cake walk, particularly in the facilities we provide for
    youthful offenders.
    
    I don't believe Harvard broke any law unless someone can prove they
    gained access to her sealed records. The truth is that someone close to
    the case felt that this young lady didn't pay for her crime and chose
    to use publicly available information for revenge, punishment or
    whatever. It would be interesting to know more about cases where
    Harvard has rejected an applicant that has not received the publicity
    this case has. What I sense is that some in this forum believe that this 
    young woman was singled out and was the only applicant ever rejected by 
    Harvard for any reason. Would any of us have known about her rejection if 
    she did not cause it to be made public (I assume she did; Harvard had 
    nothing to gain by advertising it's decision). 
    
    Finally, not withstanding serving your time, paying the penalties,
    etc., every human being should be made well aware early in their life
    span that the actions one takes may very well haunt one for the rest of
    their lives. Sealed records or not there will always be someone out
    there who will remember the victim and the circumstances. There are no
    guarantees that at the least opportune moment someone might say, "Oh,
    aren't you the one who killed your mother 20 years ago?"
    
    JLB   

    Caught a news blip on local station, JLB was correct.  Someone close
    to the situation when it happened was not satisfied with the verdict;
    so it was someone close to the victim who notified the press.  For
    all we know, it might have been a relative who spilled the beans.
    
    Perhaps (as someone else said) if there hadn't been publicity about
    the scholarship in the press, the individual who notified Harvard
    might never have found out about it.
    
    However, since some have seen fit to hammer me over the head with it;
    we are supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt.  She did
    the crime AND she did the time sentenced to her; whether the sentence
    should have been longer is moot, it wasn't given to her.  I admit I
    have some difficulty with 14 licks with a candlestick, but perhaps
    the physical abuse was used in making the decision as to whether to
    try her as a juvenile rather than an adult.
    
    There was a situation a little similar to this a few months ago.
    A famous novelist (her name excapes me at the moment) assisted her
    closest friend in murdering the friend's mother (in New Zealand I
    believe) many, many years ago.  The girls both did jail time; when
    this young woman was finally released she moved to England and has
    earned an outstanding reputation as a novelist.  The woman decided
    to go public herself after 20+ years.
    
    It's too bad Harvard couldn't have taken a different stance on this;
    if the girl did well at Harvard she could have been held as an
    example that rehabilitation IS possible is the individual is given
    a chance AND is willing to work at that chance.
    

    
    
    Everyone's making a big deal of the "14 hits".  Think a minute.  You
    are in a life threatening situation.  You decide to fight back for the
    first time.  Are you really going to have the wherewithall to stop at
    one or two?  14 does seem excessive for those of us looking at the
    situation now but I'm sure it didn't seem excessive at the time.  Like
    I said earlier, I'll need to know more about what went on.
    
    
    Mike

	According to todays paper...

	She crushed her mothers skull with more than a dozen 
    	blows from a leaded crystal candlestick. 
    	It should be noted that her mother
	had a blood alcohol content of .30 which according to
	the County Sheriff, would have rendered her incapable
	of defending herself or attacking anyone.

	Then, either Grant or her boyfriend stuck a steak knife
	into the mothers neck and dragged ger around the house.
	
	Gina Grant initially claimed that intruders did it.

	Then she said her mother fell down the stairs.

	Then she said her mother stabbed herself in a suicide attempt.

	Then she said her boyfriend did it.

	Then she claimed that years of mental and physical abuse 
	made her do it.

	
	

    
    Gleaned more info from yesterday's paper.  Gina and her boyfriend never
    went to trial - they pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter.  So
    Bri, she was never convicted of murder, if that makes any difference to
    your argument, which it probably doesn't.  Just FYI.

    >>It should be noted that her mother had a blood alcohol content 
    >>of .30 which according to the County Sheriff, would have
    >>rendered her incapable of defending herself or attacking anyone.
    
    can we be sure of the last part of that statement????  
    
    
    

    
    
    Nope, not at all, Raq.  I know someone who had BAC's of 3.8 and most
    people couldn't tell they were drinking.
    
    
    Mike

    Seen to many bar fights in my younger years with people with high BAC's
    to completely agree with the sherriff's statement here.  It really
    depends on the person.  
    
    In any case, her dept to society was supposadly paid, she was a minor,
    and her juvenile record has been sealed, so officially the crime never
    happened and she has never been convicted of anything. 
    
    Wonder what harvard would have done if whe was a "legacy student", IE
    the child of an alumni.
    
    meg

.33>     I tend to agree with the sentiment that children who kill ought to
.33>    face adult sized punishments, from about age 14. That is to say, I
.33>    think that the default starting at 14 is that you are tried as an
.33>    adult

I'm not so sure that 14 is the appropriate arbitrary age to choose, Doctah.
Fourteen lies smack-dab in the middle of raging hormones for a lot of kids.
That doesn't necessarily excuse the actions they might take, but it sure
as hell clouds the issues in the eyes of many people trying to adjudicate
matters.

    Re .10:
    
    > Remember, folx, libel need not be false, it need only be defamatory
    > and damaging.
    
    It is true that, to prove libel, a plaintiff need not prove a statement
    to be false, only that the statement was published (even if just to a
    single person other than the plaintiff and defendant) and is either
    damaging on the face of it or that damages actually occurred.
    
    However, truth is an affirmative defense against libel -- if the
    defendant can prove the statements true, the case should be decided in
    favor of the defendant.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    > can we be sure of the last part of that statement????
    
     Of course not. Alcoholics in particular can tolerate BAC levels which
    far exceed those that would render most people unconscious.

>     Of course not. Alcoholics in particular can tolerate BAC levels which
>    far exceed those that would render most people unconscious.

So alcoholics should be allowed to drive with a higher BAC than non-alcoholics.

How did you reach that conclusion, Gerald? I think all that Mark was trying
to point out was that a BAC which would render some unconscious, still
might leave an alcoholic capable of activity, albeit free of any reason.

Poor Gina, another victim...

daryll

I don't by any means condone what she did, but if she hadn't been accepted
to Harvard and then exposed, how many people would GAS about what she did
when she was 14?

    >I don't by any means condone what she did, but if she hadn't been accepted
    >to Harvard and then exposed, how many people would GAS about what she did
    >when she was 14?

    The primary issue is whether Harvard has the right to rescind
    their acceptance, based on her criminal history. I believe
    that it's their school and they have a right to decide who
    goes there, that they did not illegally obtain information
    about Gina, and that it's basically Gina's tough luck.

    -b

Yeah - you're prolly right, Brian. I kinda entered the reply pre-emptively
since I saw it was a .x00.

:^)

>>    <<< Note 379.101 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
>>    it's their school and they have a right to decide who
>>    goes there

	You keep saying that, Brian.  It's pretty vague though.
	What do you mean "they have a right to decide"?  

    >So alcoholics should be allowed to drive with a higher BAC than
    >non-alcoholics.
    
     That's not my conclusion; argue it if you like.

    >So alcoholics should be allowed to drive with a higher BAC than
    >non-alcoholics.
    
	I thought he was being funny.  No?

    RE: .103

    I mean, quite simply, the admission board of Harvard is
    welcome, in my opinion, to use whatever criteria they
    see fit in their admission policy, as long as they
    apply it consistently. If they consistently deny
    people with criminal records access to Harvard, that
    is their right.

    I do not believe that "what makes a good Harvard student"
    is a matter of "public policy", it is a matter of Harvard
    policy. I feel the same way about any "private" institution.

    -b

>                           If they consistently deny
>    people with criminal records access to Harvard, that
>    is their right.

Of course Gina doesn't have a criminal record.

    Re: An earlier note....
    
    "Crushes her mothers skull with twelve blows of a candlestick, then
    stabs her thru the neck with a steak knife, drags the body around the
    house, intruders did it, boy friend did it, mom tried to commit
    suicide, no I did it, etc......"
    
    Then cops a plea for manslaughter.......I repeat my earlier thought, 6
    months in a facility for youthful offenders, a cake walk IMHO compared to
    what she deserved. Drunk or not I think it would have been pretty
    difficult for mom to present a real physical threat after having skull
    "crushed". The knife thru the neck does not appear to have been
    required. If it was truly self defense why drag the body about, why
    fabricate several stories about her mother's death.  
    
    Sorry, but I vote in favor of Harvard's decision to exclude someone
    whose prior actions are not an example of your average good citizen.
    They are a private institution and should have the right to exclude
    individuals who do not meet their admission standards.
    
    Now if Gina had really been been smart, she would have insisted on
    being tried as an adult, been sentenced for murder, could have gone to an 
    adult prision and gotten a free college education paid for by us taxpayers.
    No problem with admission standards there. The only worry she would
    have is being paroled before getting her degree.
    
    JLB
                             

    	re: records sealed
    
    	Is it a fact that her records have really been sealed?
    
    	I don't hear much about this case out here.  I don't recall
    	seeing that point addressed in the article I read.  (I do recall
    	seeing that she has an IQ of 150, FWIW...)  It has been stated
    	in this topic that her records have been sealed, but I get the
    	sense that the "fact" is merely one person repeating what another
    	said.  Have her records, in fact, been sealed?
    
    	
    	re: 14-year-olds tried as adults
    
    
    	I think it has to vary from case-to-case.  I think there are
    	12-year-olds that are hardened and savvy enough to commit
    	crimes with an adult awareness, and I think that there are 
    	17-year-olds that are naive and immature enough that they
    	should be tried as juveniles.  Judges get paid to determine
    	such things.
    
    
    	re: this case
    
    
    	Didn't I read something back in this topic about her living on
    	her own through the last part of her high school career?  That
    	she can do that, and graduate high school with credentials that
    	make her a Harvard-quality applicant speaks volumes about her
    	self-discipline and maturity.  I don't know enough about this
    	case to say whether Harvard was right in using her history as
    	it did, but I'm surprised that Harvard didn't take her as an
    	example of a troubled-youth-turned-good.

    
    Grants defense attorney states that there was only a "threat"
    of physical abuse the night Grant murdered her mother.
    He further states that "It wasn't a clear cut case of self defense."

re: .109, Joe

>		I'm surprised that Harvard didn't take her as an
>    	example of a troubled-youth-turned-good.

Harvard's probably wishing the same right about now. No law prohibits even the
most venerable institutions from knee-jerk reactionism. This appears to be a
good case of it.

I think they haven't rejected her, just rescinded the early-admissions
acceptance.  I predict they'll accept her regular-admissions, but she'll
decide to go elsewhere.

    Perhaps Hahvid fears repercussions from parents of other students.
    If you were paying Hahvid prices, would you want Gina as your kid's
    roomie?  Or even in the same dorm?
    
    As for myself, I'd believe that while it's reasonable to "close the
    books" on some crimes (or "non-crimes" like victimless crimes), it's
    over-the-edge do-gooder lunacy to do this for any killing, regardless
    of how justifiable it may be.  Killing is a crime with *permanent*
    consequences for the killer (whoops, I should say "offender"), the
    victim, and many others such as family and friends.  It is absurd
    for The State to attempt to deny the permanence of this crime by
    waving its ponderous paw and declare that the killing never happened,
    officially.  One should ask her mother, or her mother's other family
    members and friends, if it happened.
    
    Everyone should always have the right to know whether there are
    people living in their midst who have killed, people who have
    demonstrated that they lack the capacity to control such violent
    tendencies, tendencies which many of us do not believe can be
    "rehabilitated" away.  The government has a duty to protect its
    citizens from such people, and is failing miserably at one of its
    fundamental responsibilities by foisting upon us the notion that
    such people can be made nice-nice again by six months in a "supportive
    environment".  Or even by ten years in the slammer, for that matter.
    
    If the particulars of this situation were different, for example
    a 14-year-old boy who'd killed an "abusive" girlfriend, I suggest
    that the media and public response would be a good deal more harsh.
    
    Chris

re: Chris

>    If you were paying Hahvid prices, would you want Gina as your kid's
>    roomie?  Or even in the same dorm?

Oddly, this reminded me of something that came up in here several years
ago after Willie Smith was let loose in Florida. Eastie was claiming that
anyone oughta be proud if the young Mr. Kennedy Smith, recently exhonerated,
wanted to date their daughter.

Somehow, I'd feel more comfortable with Gina as a roomie with my kid.
Not perfectly comfortable, but moreso.

    re: .113
    
    If you believe this, we might as well just leave them all
    in prison for the rest of their lives, since you are effectively 
    providing them with no means of supporting themselves, their families
    or deriving any peace from what remains of their lives after
    they are released.  If we are sending people to prison to
    "punish" them, they we should be finished "punishing" them
    when they are released.  If you give them no mean of bettering
    themselves upon release, then it's hardly any big surprise that
    many of them return to crime.
    
    People who want the government to keep their noses out of our
    business also seem to be the ones hollering loudest about
    tracking the whereabouts of every poor soul who's ever left
    prison.  This I will never understand.  If we don't trust the prison
    system, then fix the prison system.  But for crying out loud,
    at least give the people a chance to start over.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    	Was she really a *murderer*?  A previous entry said that she
    	merely agreed to plead no-contest to a plea bargain.  Some
    	probation in exchange for avoiding the risk and media blitz
    	of the trial that eould have occurred.  Records locked after
    	age 18 (or so it has been stated in here).
    
    	That sounds relatively clean and easy to swallow, even if the
    	truth of the matter was that this really was a legitimate
    	self-defense issue.
    
    	It is not unlikely that she was advised to accept this in her
    	own best interest.  And if so, I can see how such a plea 
    	really WOULD be in her own best interest.  She may have been
    	permanently damaged emotionally/psychologially by a full-blown 
    	trial.
    
    	Again, I'm not taking sides here.  Just thinking out lout trying
    	to ponder some of the possibilities in this issue.

re: .115

How does alerting a neighborhood to the nature of the past of a released
criminal who will be in their presence prevent the criminal from having
a chance to start over? They (the criminals), if convicted as adults, do
not have a sealed record. They are required to be truthful about their
past in job applications etc. Why is it that their neighbors should be
subjected to the risk of being unaware of their past? How can that knowledge
in their neighbors' minds be any more detrimental than the facts on paper
with their prospective employers?

    If there were no mitigating circumstances, there would be no motivation
    whatsoever for the prosecution or the courts to accept a plea bargain
    that is essentially a slap on the wrists. Particularly given the fact
    that her story evolved over time. My guess is that it was common
    knowledge that there was abuse, and one day the old lady came home
    piped and like a thousand times before threatened the kid the way she
    did before every beating and the kid decided she'd had enough and took
    her out. Obviously not a particularly noble act, but one considerably
    more understandable and excuseable than the Menendez case, for example.

    re: .117
    
    And you think this wouldn't make a difference in how they
    were treated?!!!! If the neighbors spoke to them, invited
    them to local parties, be-friended them?  Do you really
    think that the neighbors would blame the local vandals
    first for "pranks" or "the person next door with the criminal
    record."  Please.  People can be jerks.  They judge at the
    drop of a hat.  Yes, an employer has that information.  
    However, I do not expect an employer to make his decision
    solely on that.  I'd like to think people are above that
    sort of thing.  Perhaps not.  If you want a person to 
    straighten themselves out, you've got to give them
    the opportunity.  After all, the person who lived next door
    for 20 years and never got arrested could just as easily
    be a closet child molester as the one who got caught.
    
    Mary-Michael

>    And you think this wouldn't make a difference in how they
>    were treated?!!!! If the neighbors spoke to them, invited
>    them to local parties, be-friended them?

I guess I don't normally consider having an active social calendar
part of "starting over". I think of it more in terms of keeping
one's nose clean and being able to hold down a job and attend to
one's financial responsibilities. Becoming "part of the crowd"
should maybe happen after some years of being able to prove that
one can be a trouble-free productive member of society. But then
again, I live alone and like being a hermit. I've got next door
neighbors (albeit a quarter mile away) that I haven't spoken to
in years, so ymmv. 

    re: .120
    
    I disagree. If we view prison as "paying one's debt to society."
    Then upon one's release the debt should be considered "paid in full."
    
    Mary-Michael

    re: .115
    
    >> But for crying out loud,
    >> at least give the people a chance to start over.
    
    Why?
    
    Why do they deserve such a chance?  Does their "right" to have a
    chance to start over supersede the public's right to be safe?
    
    If it can be demonstrated that such a killer is no longer a
    threat to the rest of us, and demonstrated to *our* satisfaction,
    then a chance to start over might be considered.  Otherwise,
    we might as well indeed just leave them all in prison for the
    rest of their lives, as you stated.
    
    By closing the books on a crime of such magnitude, the state has
    taken away the means by which we can determine for ourselves whether
    we should consider a killer to be a continued threat.  Because by
    their definition, the "event" never took place.
    
    But the danger to the rest of us continues.  And no, I don't trust
    the state, or the prisons, or anyone else.  The furtive hiding of
    such criminal information by the state belies the notion that they're
    keeping us safe.  If they "declare" we are safe by denying that the
    killing took place, then to them we are indeed safe.  But are we?
    
    Chris

You might want to post a public notice then, stating that released
felons are welcome in your neighborhood - no questions asked.

    
>    I disagree. If we view prison as "paying one's debt to society."
>    Then upon one's release the debt should be considered "paid in full."
    
>    Mary-Michael
    
    But this is not the way prison is viewed exactly.  Convicted felons are
    never allowed to vote again, I think.  Similarly, those committed of
    sex crimes are not protected legally from community actions to restrict
    their access and so on.  "Paid in full" is the debt of punishment in
    prison.  Some crimes will forever limit one's freedoms.
    
    jeff

    Excuse me?
    
    Some convicted felons do regain their right to vote, carry arms, etc. 
    This varies from state to state as to length of time out of trouble
    etc.  
    
    Not wanting people who have paid their debt to society to function in
    that society afterwards is probably one cause of a high recidivism
    rate.  Why don't those of you who believe someone's past should follow
    them forever advocate locking all these people up forever?  Turning a
    person lose in society with no hope of a job, life, education etc. is a
    sure way to increase the violence in our world.
    
    m,eg

>    Why don't those of you who believe someone's past should follow
>    them forever advocate locking all these people up forever?  Turning a
>    person lose in society with no hope of a job, life, education etc. is a
>    sure way to increase the violence in our world.

At least for myself, I DO NOT want to have their past follow them forever.
Once they have been able to demonstrate, for a reasonable period of time,
that they have ammended their lifestyle to the point whereby they can
function successfully in normal society without reverting to their criminal
tendencies, then I fully believe that it's time to let bygones be bygones,
for the most part. My problem is that the current way of thinking is
"Day one - out of jail. Day two - pretend nothing ever happened and don't
let on to the neighbors." That's unacceptable in my view. They have, as
of day two, proven nothing other than the fact that they served their
time in jail. They've as yet shown nothing as to how they can function in
society like a normal human being.

    Jack-
    
     Sounds like a chicken and egg thing to me. They can't very well 
    demonstrate their ability to function normally in society without being
    allowed to try, and we can't let them try to function normally in
    society until they've proven they can do so.
    
     My take on this is that the prison system has to have reintegration
    programs that prepare inmates to assume a productive, functional role
    in society. If we simply toss them into the streets and make them wear
    a scarlet letter, then we are paving the way back to crime. Crime is
    typically the easy way out, if we put additional obstacles in the path
    of righteousness, what can we expect these people to do?
    
     I personally think that halfway houses and probation officers are very
    important parts of the criminal justice system, and they seem to get
    the short shrift in the funding sweepstakes.

    Re: .119
    
    If I should choose not to socialize with an ex-con that moved into the
    neighborhood that is a personal choice I am still free to make. If I decide
    to be more cautious about that ex-con coming in contact with my
    family that is again my choice. If that ex-con was released at the
    end of his sentence (usually serving less than half their sentence) then
    society has given them another chance. I do not feel obligated 
    to go out of my way to make their re-entry any easier or for that matter
    any more difficult. Those that do are welcome and have my blessings to have 
    those ex-cons as close friends, to socialize with, to party with, be-friend
    them, and bring them into their homes.
    
    IMHO, too many of these supposedly "rehabilitated" criminals are prematurely
    released into society and commit additional crimes. If you want to
    blame that on a society that generally does not want to associate with
    ex-cons that's okay. I blame it on those "do-good" individuals who have 
    more concern for the criminal than the citizen victim who is and has been 
    law-abiding all their lives. I blame it on a criminal justice system that 
    rarely makes the punishment fit the crime.
    
    A lot of attention was focused on the "three strikes yer out" approach
    to repeat offenders. Very, very little attention was focused on the
    three victims it takes to have that violent offender sentenced for life.
    
    Life is too short to put it at risk by placing oneself in close contact 
    with individuals who have shown some propensity for law breaking.   
    
    I would not want any of my children to have Gina as a roomie at Harvard
    or any other college. My choice doesn't stop you from volunteering to
    do so with your children if you choose.  
    
    JLB

    re: .123
    
    I can honestly there are probably many felons I'd rather
    have next door before I'd want someone with a dishonorable discharge,
    3 closets full of guns and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
    
    We spend time and $$$'s keeping criminals off our streets
    and informing people of their whereabouts and yet we train
    literally thousands of people to kill professionally, send 
    them off to war and then plop them all back home with a hand 
    shake and a howdy-doo when we're done with them. I'm not
    real comfortable with that.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    Re: notification of ex-cons in neighborhood
    
    This is most popular in the case of released child molesters.  However,
    it does not come without drawbacks.  In one case, a man stayed over at
    the house of a relative, whose son was a released molester.  Two people
    broke into the house and attacked him, injuring him severely.  They
    could have easily killed him, and indeed, that seemed to be their
    intent.  The problem is when people cross the line from being vigilant
    to being vigilantes.
    
    It's difficult to make a new life for yourself when you constantly get
    overt messages from everyone, "You're no good scum.  You're no good
    scum."  Either you start to believe them, or you decide that if you're
    going to get stuck with the name, you might as well live down to it.

But there's a difference between committing violence against a released
criminal as a neighbor (which is certainly wrong) and being prudent
in your acceptance of him (which, while arguably inhospitable, is not
illegal).

You cannot legislate how people feel towards one another. By the same
token, we shouldn't legislate that people can hide their recent misdeeds
from the innocents among which they dwell. Let them prove over time
that they are trustworthy. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to
see mega$uits against localities wherein a past criminal is again found
guilty of felony, but was shielded by law.

	.131  Yes.  In particular with child molestors I think there's
	 a case to be made for letting the neighbors know, since children
	 are clearly more vulnerable.

    	To me it seems that prison sentences are NOT rehabilitative.
    	Regardless of waht they're SUPPOSED to be, it would take a
    	tremendous argument with lots of supporting evidence to 
    	convince me otherwise.
    
    	What part of the prison experience is supposed to change the
    	pedophile into a safe neighbor?  Same for the rapist.
    
    	Would an accounting firm ever want to hire an ex-con who
    	served time for embezzlement?  Even after he has served all
    	his time?  Most likely not, because he is a risk in that
    	environment.
    
    	Well, an ex-con who served time for child molestation, or
    	rape, or murder is a similar risk in the social environment.
    	I have a hard time seeing how serving the punishment will
    	consistently change such people for the better, and given the
    	horror stories we hear about prison life, I would be willing
    	to bet that such people might actually be worse as social beings.
    
    	I would want to know if such a person were to move into my
    	neighborhood just so that I could warn my kids to stay away
    	from him, and to watch my back.
    
    	And if he *did* have the propensity to revert to old behaviors
    	he would be less apt to do it where he knew that people knew
    	about him.

    Re: .131
    
    >But there's a difference between committing violence against a
    >released criminal as a neighbor (which is certainly wrong) and being 
    >prudent in your acceptance of him
    
    No!  Really?
    
    If you are going to notify the community of an ex-con's presence, then
    you should also be prepared to protect the ex-con until such time as
    his neighbors prove themselves trustworthy as well.

(I can play that game too.)
    
    
>    If you are going to notify the community of an ex-con's presence, then
>    you should also be prepared to protect the ex-con until such time as
>    his neighbors prove themselves trustworthy as well.

No!  Really?

Did anyone mention having a problem with that?

    
    
    i do believe i heard this morning that the students at hahvahd (well,
    not necessarily all of them) are holding a rally in SUPPORT of gina...
    
    

    Re: .135
    
    >Did anyone mention having a problem with that?
    
    No -- because that was the first time the proposal was made.

    	Perspective, Chelsea.
    
    	A man with a history of animal (especially cat) torture and
    	mutilation is sent to prison.  Upon his release, he decides
    	to move to your neighborhood -- right across the street from
    	you.
    
    	Would you want to know that he has such a past?  Would you 
    	want to be informed that he was moving into the house across
    	the street from you?  And if you were informed of this, would
    	you go over to his house and start physically assaulting him?
    	Or would you be more inclined to make sure that your cats
    	don't get out of the house...

    re: .138
    
    I can answer that!  I have 5 cats and 3 ferrets, I should qualify.
    
    No.
    
    No.
    
    No.
    
    My pets don't set foot outside anyway.  
    
    The man is OUT of prison.  He should be considered trustworthy 
    until proven otherwise.  If you don't, he doesn't have a chance
    to reform himself.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

(Sigh)
What if your pets _DID_ go outside regularly, Mary-Michael?
And, what if, one or more were found dead and mutilated?
And, what if, you then found out after the fact that this guy
had a history?
And, what if, it was also proven that he did it to 'em?

Wouldn't knowing ahead of time have helped you a lot in those
circumstances? When you could have chosen to keep an eye on
the cats? Or restrained them?

Do you mean to say that you'd be just as glad to have been
kept in the dark till you had 5 dead cats in your lap?

Saying "None of this applies because my cats are in the house
all the time" isn't the answer.

    
    I disagree with Mary-Michael; I have three cats and yes, I would want
    to know.  But then again, I'm not the sort to go around beating up
    strangers because of their past or their potential future; I'd just
    keep an eye on my cats' whereabouts.
    
    I know that I would be ripping mad if one of my cats turned up
    mutilated and I was then told "oh by the way, the new guy across the
    street is a convicted cat mutilator.  Sorry we didn't tell you before.".
    Now I'll be more careful, but in the meantime, I've got one dead cat.

>>    <<< Note 379.139 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
    
>>    The man is OUT of prison.  He should be considered trustworthy 
>>    until proven otherwise.  If you don't, he doesn't have a chance
>>    to reform himself.

	If he hasn't already reformed himself, then he's still a danger,
	no?  If he has, then it's moot.

    
    This is a tough call.
    Sounds like the scarlett letter.
    
    On the one hand, on principle, people released from prison
    are suppose to have repaid their debt to society.
    Unfortunately, it seems that the "debts" are not always commensurate
    with the crime. We have people serving life terms for possession
    of marijuana (Sp?) and convicted murderers serving less than
    10 years (on the average). Let alone the subject of this topic
    serving 6 months or so for murder! (sorry but abuse is not
    an acceptable excuse for murder in my opinion).
    
    Seeing as how this society is evolving, I expect that soon
    we'll get to the point that once out of prison, you'll continue
    to pay for your crimes. And I really don't support that.
    I suppose a case could be made for those convicted of
    violent crimes though.                         

    re: .140 (Sigh)
    
    (Sigh)
    
    What if it wasn't a convicted felon? What if it was
    an 11 year old junvenile with a history of animal abuse
    whose family has moved 5 times in the last 4 years to
    try and keep ahead of the problems he causes?  What if
    it was a cult member who used animals for sacrificial
    rites?  I can't possibly know everything that could 
    happen to my animals if I choose to let them run.
    Under the circumstances I could be equally suspicious
    of everyone until they prove themselves.  And basically
    that's what happened.  No one trusts anybody anymore.
    We want to know everything about everybody so that we
    can each make our judgements and make feeble attempts to
    insulate ourselves from the simple fact that sh*t happens.  
    
    This is not a safe place.  It wasn't designed that way.
    If I let my animals out of my sphere of control, I do
    so with the knowledge it may be the last time I see them alive.
    Same thing with children.  If a convicted animal abuser lives 
    across the street, that's no proof he did it.  If he did 
    he should be punished for it.  If I let my pets out, regardless
    of whether he is there or not, I accept the risk I could have
    5 dead cats on any given day.  It's personal responsibility.
    If I trust people, I accept the fact that I could get burned.
    If I judge people, I accept the fact that I could be wrong 
    and lonely and judged by other people. 
    
    Mary-Michael

    <<< Note 379.139 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>

>    re: .138
>    
>    My pets don't set foot outside anyway.  
    
    	I considered that this answer would have popped up, and wanted
    	to preemptively address it.  But I've done that in the past and
    	have been accused of putting words into others' mouths...
    
    	Let's bring this back to what is being called for.  Not a
    	notification of animal abusers, nor drug possessers.  The
    	call is for notification of child molesters moving into a
    	given neighborhood.  (How big is "neighborhood" anyway...)
    	Almost EVERYONE's kids step foot outside, so the "my <whatever>
    	doesn't go outside" argument is rather useless in this
    	situation.
    	
>    The man is OUT of prison.  He should be considered trustworthy 
>    until proven otherwise.  If you don't, he doesn't have a chance
>    to reform himself.
    
    	What is the law currently being debated -- Meagan's Law?  Maybe
    	a parent who doesn't support the law should say, "Boy, I see the 
    	ex-con has proven himself untrustworthy.  I'm sure glad he didn't
    	prove it on MY kids..."   What do you think Meagan's parents would 
    	say about this discussion?
    
    	A guy convicted for child molestation has proven only one thing -- 
    	that he is a child molester.
    
    	As for the girl, Gina, who is the original subject of this topic,
    	6 months after the murder is not enough to prove much, but living
    	clean after that for her whole high school career -- some of it
    	on her own -- and achieving Harvard-worthy grades and
    	accomplishments is pretty good proof that she is trustworthy.
    
    	Am I saying that a convicted child molester needs to qualify for
    	Harvard to be considered trustworthy?  Hardly.  How long should
    	his conviction follow him if he is truly reformed?  I really
    	don't know -- perhaps for the duration of some probationary
    	period.  Don't most convicts get probation after their prison
    	release?  If so, that might be a reasonable time if they stay
    	clean for that period.

>>    <<< Note 379.144 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>

>>    If I judge people, I accept the fact that I could be wrong 
>>    and lonely and judged by other people. 

	You're not "judging" the convicted child molestor - the courts
	have already done that.  You're simply operating from a more
	informed position.  If you want to let your children go play
	in the child molestor's yard, that's your prerogative.  Likewise
	if you don't.  You are assuming responsibility for a decision that
	could impact your child's life, rather than leaving that decision
	unmade and letting the chips fall where they may.

	Dead cats are one thing.

MolestEr.

    {look of horror}

>>MolestEr.

	you're right - thank you.

    
    I don't trust anybody, convicted or not, by default.  Trust is earned.
    
    Basic personalities, like a lot of things, rarely change.
    
    So if the word on somebody is bad, it will count somewhat against
    them forever.  But the longer ago it was, the less it matters.
    
    And when they die, it matters not at all.
    
      bb

    Hold it- seems to me most of you are neglecting the facts of what
    actually happens in these cases.  First of all, the ex-con is usually
    out early.  That means they are usually on probation/parole.  In no way
    can someone on parole be said to have paid their debt to society; not
    until they complete the parole without further wrongdoing.  And in
    addition, it is often a condition of these paroles that sex offenders,
    to go with the existent law's best example, are *required as condition
    of parole* to register with their local law enforcement agencies.
    
    California just conducted a sweep of its sex offenders to make sure
    they're where they are supposed to be.  Many weren't.  They'll be
    having their paroles revoked and bench warrants issued if they don't
    show up pronto.
    
    Anyway, do I think these registration laws as conditions of poarole are
    a good idea?  Yes.  Is it a good idea for law enforcement to keep track
    of them?  Yes.  Do I think local communities have a right to know that
    such people are living among them?  Yes, I do.  Does that extend to
    specific addresses?  Of that I'm leary...but then again, you wouldn't
    beleive the types they let out on parole.  As long as parole boards are
    letting out these thugs because the prisons are full of harmless drug
    offenders, I want to know when one is in my neighborhood.
    
    DougO

    
    M-M seems to believe that if one doesn't immediately accept the ex-con
    who moves in across the street as trustworthy then that individual is
    doomed to commit another crime. It would be nice if everyone that moved
    into your neighborhood could immediately be trusted but that is not the
    kind of world this is. Several years ago, a young couple bought the
    house next door to me, they seemed friendly and took care of the
    property. We didn't socialize much because they were significantly
    younger than we and they seemed to have a lot of company all the time
    anyway, although their guests didn't stay long and came at all hours day
    and night. 
    
    Turned out they were running a drug operation at the house and had sold
    drugs to several of my neighbors teenagers. As the story unfolded, they
    had been convicted before and the husband was on parole. We never knew
    that until after the fact talking to the police that raided the house. Did 
    they sell drugs because we didn't party with them, socialize with them, I 
    really doubt that. Will they do it again when they get out, probably.
    
    I submit, in these times, that almost nobody gets immediately accepted
    into a community until the neighbors have some time to experience what
    the character of the new-comers are. If a delay in socializing,
    partying and acceptance is going to cause that released murderer,
    child-molester or rapist to commit another crime then I submit that
    they were not ready for release into society in the first place. Common 
    sense would tell most ex-cons who were truly rehabilitated that it's going 
    to take a lot of time and perserverance to be really accepted in a 
    community, sometimes a very long time depending on the crime. 
    
    Unfortunately the idea of parole has been significantly distorted these
    days. It used to be that the criminal that showed good behavior in prison
    and had adopted a good attitude about returning to society as a law abiding
    citizen got paroled. Nowadays, it's based on, "oops we got too many 
    prisoners and the spa is crowded, lets turn some of them loose". The 
    attitude appears to be let's cut these guys loose and lets see what 
    happens. If some crime victims show up we will revoke their parole. I 
    dislike being a testing ground for some wacko social do-good parole
    board and/or psychiatrist's experimentation, particularly if I'm not 
    notified that I or my neighbors are the object of the experiment. Like I 
    said before if others want to volunteer to embrace these individuals I
    encourage them to do so.
    
    JLB  
         

    Derschowitz(sp?) was on CNBC (or CNN) last night defending (or trying
    to) Harvards actions.  Looked like a fish out of water flip floppin all
    over the place.  Just caught a few minutes, though.  Pretty amusing.  
    
    He seemed to think that the applicant was using her orphan status as a
    way to gain sympathy and admission to Harvard.
    
    Dan

    Dersh said that Harvard should do the right thing (call her in, express
    their concerns and give her a chance to answer their concerns,
    reinstate the offer if their concerns are addressed) but that they had
    the right to rescind the offer they originally made. He also explained
    the catch-22 situation they have put themselves into.

    Re: .138
    
    >Or would you be more inclined to make sure that your cats don't get
    >out of the house
    
    You've obviously never had to deal with a cranky Zoe.  My cats go out
    when I'm at home, during the daylight.  If one has five year olds, one
    probably follows the same rules.  You seem to think that I can't grasp
    the concerns of those who see no problems with notification.  In fact,
    it's the other way around -- they apparently can't figure my concerns.
    
    Would I like to know?  Yes.  Would I assault him?  No.  But then, I
    don't think the world revolves about my decisions, and I can easily
    believe that someone else might.  Were I the confrontational sort, I
    would tell him that he better hope nothing happens to my cats, since
    he's number one on the suspect list and most people wouldn't consider
    that the list might hold more than one name.  Beyond that, I'd pretty
    much ignore him.

Does Allen "Go_see_Reversal_of_Fortune-It's_all_about_me" Dershowitz (sp?)
teach at Hahvahd?

    
    Yes.
    

>           <<< Note 379.155 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
    
>>    Would I like to know?  Yes.  Would I assault him?  No.  But then, I
>>    don't think the world revolves about my decisions, and I can easily
>>    believe that someone else might.

      This is a good point, but my gut feeling (based upon no statistics
      whatsoever) would be that probably 95% of the people would like to
      know and would not assault him, so that being my premise, it would
      make sense to me that the world could, and perhaps should, revolve
      around that 95%, rather than around the 5% who might assault him.

      And yes, I know you're probably not interested in my gut feelings,
      wasting your time on me, blah, blah, blah... ;>

           <<< Note 379.155 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    You seem to think that I can't grasp
>    the concerns of those who see no problems with notification.  In fact,
>    it's the other way around -- they apparently can't figure my concerns.
    
    	Actually I don't think that at all.  I think you dismiss the
    	concerns in favor of your own, namely:
    
>    Would I assault him?  No.  But then, I
>    don't think the world revolves about my decisions, and I can easily
>    believe that someone else might.  
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    	What do you base this on?  What makes this seem so likely that
    	it becomes the apparent sole focus of your participation in this
    	discussion?
    
    	THAT is why people are taking issue with your position.  I doubt
    	that anyone really thinks you don't see others' concerns here.

           <<< Note 379.161 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    >the world could, and perhaps should, revolve around that 95%, rather 
>    >than around the 5% who might assault him.
>    
>    I'd say that burglaries are committed by something less than 5% of the
>    population.  However, I'm not going to start leaving my door unlocked.
    
    	Asking us to accept ignorance of the presence of ex-child-molesters
    	in our neighborhoods could be argued as being akin to leaving one's
    	door unlocked.
    
>    >What do you base this on?
>    
>    On the history of vigilantism in the US.  Certainly there are
>    sufficient episodes of citizens causing harm to others in the name of
>    pre-emptive justice to provide some basis for suspecting it will
>    happen in the future.

    	Certainly there are even MORE episodes that do not end in
    	vigilantism.  Are you of the "if it saves even ONE life"
    	school of thought?

>           <<< Note 379.161 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
    
>>    I'd say that burglaries are committed by something less than 5% of the
>>    population.  However, I'm not going to start leaving my door unlocked.

      Right - every situation is different.  There are two parties in
      the above situation and three in the other, for instance.  My point
      was that the world wouldn't be revolving around you in the other 
      case - it would be revolving around a majority of the people, most
      likely, which makes it, to my mind, a reasonable state of affairs.

    Re: .162
    
    >Asking us to accept ignorance of the presence of ex-child-molesters in 
    >our neighborhoods
    
    I suggest you find someone who's asked such a thing of you and let them
    know, then.

    Latest disclosures seem to indicate that Ms Grant was less than
    forthcoming in her personal interviews with Harvard screeners.
    
    
    

    I understand she's no longer interested in Harvard, and is leaning
    towards BU.

    
    
    
    
        In today's Boston Globe,.....two sources on the admissions
        committee who spoke on condition of anonymity said that
        during GG's interview,....she said that the cause of her mother's
        death was a car accident.
    
    
        Ed
    

                     <<< Note 379.167 by NEMAIL::BULLOCK >>>
    
>                       -< ....why would she say that?? >-

	Why would Harvard ASK that?
    
    	She should have answered that it's none of Harvard's business.

    
    
    
      re.168
    
    
      Harvard asked her how she became an orphan. Is that a "fair"
      question? She responded that her mom was killed in an auto
      accident.
    
      Ed

    It's a fair question.  Her correct response would be to say that that
    information was private and she didn't care to share it.
    
    If she actually did say the cause was a car accident, then she deserves
    not to be admitted and I will retract the calumnies I've directed at
    the Hahvahd people.

    A better response would have been "she died violently" and decline to
    discuss it further.

 RE .171



 that's the way I feel about it.




 Jim

    
    The Herald also mentions that Grant, after moving to Mass.
    had a falling out with her relatives here.
    
    [alleged] trouble at home, murders drunk mother.
    Lies about murder, many different stories tried.
    Finally claims abuse.
    Moves to Mass.
    Again has trouble with relatives.
    Lies to Harvard.
    
    							Good grief!
    
    								Hank

    It should be noted that the psychiatrist that examined her said it was
    "the worst case of psychological abuse s/he'd ever seen."

    Letter writer to today's Globe chides Harvard for not admitting Gina,
    but hosting George Will. 
    
    

     I don't get the connection.

 Yabbut, George Will..

    Let's face it she wouldn't be the first very intelligent person
    who has had a very horrendous childhood and it still impacts her
    judgment/decision-making capabilities today.
    
    I still think if Harvard wanted to do the stand-up thing, they
    could admit her.  If someone could provide her with professional
    psychological counseling, that might be all it takes.
    
    How many times have we complained and moaned in here about lazy,
    do-nothing people that suck off welfare.  Here is a girl who has
    made some horrific mistakes, yet she wants to better herself.
    She can't be a dummy if she qualifies academically for Harvard.
    
    This hits close to me because I have a second cousin who has had
    to pull herself out of a nightmare childhood.  She didn't murder
    her mother, but she suffered mightily at her mother's hand.  She
    was told she was stupid, dumb etc....the whole gamut on emotional
    abuse.  By the time she was 35 she was entering her third marriage,
    caring for 3 children from her first two.  She went back to high
    school, then on to college; she'll get her Masters this year.
    When she called me to wish me a Happy Birthday earlier this year
    she said "Karen, would you think I was crazy to think I might be
    able to go for my doctorate"?  I think she is absolutely the
    bravest person I know.  She stays close to me because I was able
    to turn her onto a suport group dedicated to helping people who
    were raised in alcoholic/dysfunctional families.  She's said finding
    out that other people have suffered thru the same type childhoods
    (many worse) made her understand that she was capable of getting
    beyond it and hopefully, not make the same mistakes with her
    children.  It also gave her the courage to go for the education
    she craved.
    
    Academically, my cousin had always been a wiz; it wasn't until she
    got the emotional support and help that she was able to do anything
    with the drive and enthusiasm that were among her God-given gifts.
    
    

    
    .177 
    
    Precious sensibilities of letter writer were offended by Harvard's
    obvious shortcomings. 
    
    

    re .179
    
    	Committing murder is not "making a mistake".
    
    ed

    
    
    
        re. 179
    
        
        If she were to be accepted,.....would it be ok if she roomed
        with your daughter [hypothetical].
    
    
       Just wonderin'
    
       Ed
    

    
    now that GG has gained a victim status, her fortune cookie says that
    she will soon be receiving millions, millions of dollars that is.
    it starts with a book, a movie, and since she seems to be a good looker 
    from her picture, a playboy spread and tabloid TV appearances. 
    
    before anyone from Harvard class of '99 earns a penny, GG would have
    made a fortune from her criminal past which includes doing drugs and
    murder.  
    
    

 Her lawyer is talking about suing Hahvid.





Jim

       
    
    
         re .183
    
    
         "...only in America.." :-)
    
    
         Ed

    Have fun with it people, but as I said, some of you would be the
    first to complain about the lazy so-and-so on welfare.
    
    She murdered her mother; the state decided her punishment and
    she completed it.  The state could have chosen to try her as adult,
    there has to be a reason the state chose not to do this (perhaps
    more is known about her treatment at the hands of her mother than
    has been revealed to the public).
    
    IF I had a daughter I would hope I wouldn't have a problem with
    thig girl being her roommate; there's no evidence that Gina is
    a homicidal maniac or serial killer <sarcasm off>.
    
    I haven't seen anyone indicate in here that this girl tried to
    enroll as a publicity stunt or that she wasn't serious about trying
    to further her education?
    

I haven't really said anything up until now regarding my own opinion
on this matter specifically, but since it's Friday afternoon I thought
I might add it now.

While I certainly don't condone anything that she did, neither do I
know all of the details. It certainly sounds as though what she did
could have been contrued at some level to be self-defense. Were that
the case, it lies outside of my view of justice for violence.

Whatever the case, it appears that she was treated accordingly by the
law (for whatever reasons they may have chosen to deal with her in
the manner that they did), that she served whatever sentence they
inflicted upon her, and that she's been able to demonstrate in the
interim that she is not a threat to society.

I fault Hahvahd insofar as they should have had the good sense to
treat the information they received as if it had not been. Given the
circumstances since the crime, and the fact that she was within her
rights to not divulge her past actions, Hahvahd should have ignored
the evidence rather than taking the action they did.

The last paragraph notwithstanding, if she did in fact lie during
interviews regarding how her mother met her demise, rather than
saying that she wasn't at liberty to discuss it, then she shouldn't
have done so. If Hahvahd cared to reject her for that, I could see
their point. The fact that they apparently didn't use that as a basis
for their rejection is not excuseable in my mind.

So what? Nothing new there that hasn't been said already.

    >> there's no evidence that Gina is
    >> a homicidal maniac or serial killer 
    
    And there's no evidence that she *isn't* a homicidal maniac
    or a serial killer.  But she *has* killed; she has taken that
    "one step beyond" that most of us can hardly imagine taking.
    And that fact makes her a serious risk.  To many people, she
    would be an unacceptable risk, particularly given that she
    had still more "family trouble" *after* her miraculous 6-month
    rehabilitation.  The real issue here is that "legal fiction"
    denies the public the right to evaluate this for ourselves,
    or to even be aware of the matter.
    
    
    >> there has to be a reason the state chose not to do this
    
    I haven't, and never will, trust the state in such matters.
    They have proven themselves time and time again to be totally
    unconcerned with public safety in such matters.
    
    
    Another observation:  isn't it nice, how we're all referring
    to her as "Gina"?  Gina, what a nice name.  "Grant" doesn't
    even appear in this topic until something like the 90th reply.
    Were we referring to the abortion clinic murderer by his first
    name, or the Menendez brothers?  What does this first-name
    pseudo-familiarity indicate about our biases?
    
    Chris

    Chris,
    
    There is plenty of evidence that she isn't a homidical maniac
    or a serial killer; homicidal and/or serial killers couldn't
    go 5 years without the compulsion striking them again.
    
    For those of you who feel she is not entitled to foul the 
    beloved halls of Harvard, what would you have her do?  If she
    sits home, drinks beer and watches soaps all day, would that
    make ya'll feel safer?
    

 Yeah, let her go on welfare!

    Ah hell, she's already fully qualified to open a used auto
    parts business! :-) :-)

    -b

    >> There is plenty of evidence that she isn't a homidical maniac
    >> or a serial killer; homicidal and/or serial killers couldn't
    >> go 5 years without the compulsion striking them again.
    
    Some killers aren't necessarily dangerous to the general population
    (I suspect that she isn't), but rather they get more dangerous with
    people with whom they've established close relationships.  Like
    parents, like spouses, or like maybe roommates.  We just don't know
    who she might or might not kill someday, but we do know that she is
    quite capable of doing it.  And since she has killed, we the public
    deserve the right to be informed enough to evaluate that risk
    for ourselves.
    
    As far as her being "entitled to foul the beloved halls of
    Harvard", no one is entitled to attend Harvard or any other
    college.
    
    The public should have the right to know about killers, regardless
    of their ages, with no "closing the books", "legal fiction", or other
    fantasyland mumbo-jumbo.  Harvard, or any other private institution,
    or any individual or collection of individuals, can choose to "accept"
    (or not) anyone for any reason.  Any college that does accept her
    should be prepared to make special living arrangements for her (i.e.,
    a single room) and should not force unaware and unsuspecting students
    to live in close quarters with her, particularly as roommates.
    
    Chris

>>    <<< Note 379.188 by DECWIN::RALTO "Made with 65% post consumer waste" >>>
    
>>    Another observation:  isn't it nice, how we're all referring
>>    to her as "Gina"?  Gina, what a nice name.  "Grant" doesn't
>>    even appear in this topic until something like the 90th reply.
>>    Were we referring to the abortion clinic murderer by his first
>>    name, or the Menendez brothers?  What does this first-name
>>    pseudo-familiarity indicate about our biases?

	Er, just to explain this from my standpoint anyways, I
	didn't know her last name when I created the topic.  I'll change
	it now.

I suspect Mr. Simpson is mostly referred to as OJ in _his_ topic.

    re: .193
    
    Oh, but I didn't mean you, Di... I meant everyone, not only here
    in the box, but more disturbingly in the newspapers (I don't know
    what they're calling her on local TV news, since I usually avoid
    it).  Even in the Herald, which has taken on an uncharacteristically
    sympathetic stance towards her, she's "Gina" on the front page
    teasers, "Gina" in the headlines, and "Gina" through most of the
    articles.  "Gina's Torturous Path to Matricide".  "Gina Needs
    Caring and Counseling".  "Students Protest in Favor of Gina", and so
    on (approximate headlines).
    
    Furthermore, the accompanying photos are the "young Gina", whose
    charming barely-out-of-childhood face is more conducive to the feelings
    that the articles are attempting to generate.
    
    Whether the overly-familiar use of her first name is a reflection on
    her age or her gender (or both), it seems to be an exception in terms
    of how people reference strangers who also happen to be convicted killers.
    My point in mentioning it was that if we see and say "Gina" often
    enough, we'll get the old pseudo-celebrity "we know her, she couldn't
    be so bad" effect that we see so often.  Every time I'm tempted to
    feel sorry for her (which ain't often, to be sure), I think about her
    mother and her mother's other family and friends, who won't be
    getting a second chance.
    
    Chris

    
>>    Oh, but I didn't mean you, Di... 

	Thanks, Chris - I knew you didn't mean _just_ me, but my
	ignorance certainly contributed to the problem. 

    
    Don't feel bad Lady Di... for a while I kept thinking her
    name was Gina Smith! :-)
    
    (smiley for the irony of getting her mixed up with Susan
     Smith; I really was getting their names mixed up...)
    
    -b

>> I suspect Mr. Simpson is mostly referred to as OJ in _his_ topic.
    
    To be sure... of course, he was a prior celebrity figure who'd
    always gone by that distinctive acronym/nickname/beverage.  Even
    then, I wish that the media would refer to him as "Simpson" or
    "Mr. Simpson", though it's far too late to realistically expect
    such a thing.
    
    It's the same old "my pal, first-name-basis" thing where some of us
    fool ourselves into thinking that we "know" these people, and hey,
    they're not so bad.  In my recent edited-for-human-consumption OJ
    reply, the original version rambled at length about how we really
    do act differently towards a defendant whom we actually know in real
    life.  We think "gee, they're nice, they couldn't do that".  Or even
    if their guilt is beyond doubt, we do some rationalization/denial
    stuff like "they've been under a lot of stress", "they have a
    drinking problem", "they just need some time to straighten out
    their problems", and so on.
    
    I believe that this "sympathy for those I know" effect extends to
    celebrities like OJ, and pseudo-celebs like our old friend "Gina".
    There's no harm in using the first names as long as we're aware of
    the "familiarity effect".
    
    Chris

    Oh, I just realized why the Herald is so much on her side...
    I'll bet it's because it was their competitor, the Globe, that
    was "burned" by the original "Gina" article (where she was
    apparently presented in a phoenix-like manner, before the facts
    were known), so the nasty Herald is just rubbing salt into the
    Globe's wounds.  Wouldn't be the first time, on either side.
    
    Now, wasn't Gina Grant on "Gilligan's Island"?...
    
    Chris

    
    	mz_deb, I'm so ashamed....
    
    

    >Now, wasn't Gina Grant on "Gilligan's Island"?
    
    Ginger Grant was the movie star character played by Tina Louise.

    >> Now, wasn't Gina Grant on "Gilligan's Island"?
    > Ginger Grant was the movie star character played by Tina Louise.
    
    Oh, I know, Doctah, I was just joking.  Actually, I suspect
    that Gina Grant is the illegitimate daughter of Lou Grant and
    Sue Ann Nivens.
    
    Chris

    >Oh, I know, Doctah, I was just joking.  Actually, I suspect
    >that Gina Grant is the illegitimate daughter of Lou Grant and
    >Sue Ann Nivens.
    
    Then no wonder she killed her mother...
    
    -b

    >> <<< Note 379.188 by DECWIN::RALTO "Made with 65% post consumer waste" >>>
    >>              -< Next will be the Gina Grant Scholarship >-
    
    Ho-ho!  I'm si'kick!  Gina Grant *did* get a scholarship at Tufts
    or wherever she ended up!
    
    Chris