Posted on 05/08/2006 11:35:07 AM PDT by nickcarraway
When they arrested him for a previous burglary, he admitted to sending them the evidence.
This is not just a slippery slope...
It is a greased teflon slippery slope.
Think about it.
Jesus Christ himself was crucified between two thieves. One repented at the last, sought forgiveness, and was saved, or so the Bible teaches.
On a more humorous note, thieves who cannot be rehabilitated to the point where they do not steal should run for public office, where they can then steal legally.
Law & Order SVU
If I were the DA, I'd nul pros this in a heartbeat.
He was arrested on unrelated charges, and then he told police, "I gave you Robbie Aitken".
I have a bigger problem -- If the cops had the photos and knew the ID of the pervert, then why did they invite him in for a sitdown? Once the cops have probable cause to make an arrest, the first words out of their mouths ought to be "You have the right to remain silent..." By engaging in this type of gamesmanship, they run the risk that a judge will supress evidence that is crucial to obtaining a conviction.
Then I'm afraid this changes things to a "diminished capacity" defense...
Since the police had nothing to do with gathering the evidence, the evidence is good. The 4th Amend protects folks from govm't action, not criminal action. It's the same as if the family had discovered the pics and turned them in.
If the cops suggest, or coach a criminal to do something, that's the same as if they did it. In this case though, they did nothing.
If I were in his shoes and I knew I would have to go away for life I would hunt down that demon and cut his f'in head off....with a spoon.
Looks like Hahn didn't get arrested for that theft.
He did the right thing when he sent the evidence in.
He went on thieving, and will probably go on thieving too, if he is left free. That's the pattern, and that's why there are "Three Strikes" laws.
It seems to me that the right outcome is this: if Hahn had been arrested on the charges of having stolen THIS evidence, which came to light because he exposed himself to being caught by sending it to the police, I would not want the man convicted on the basis of THAT theft, so even if he were convicted of the crime, I would hope that the prosecutor would opt not to press charges, or that the jury would nullify, or, if he were convicted, the governor would pardon him for it.
What complicates this is that on the facts he was arrested for unrelated thefts. He raised his sending in that information as a sort of defense. It's not really a defense to theft, and if he's guilty of these other thefts, he should be convicted of them. But in sentencing, to the extent that the judge has discretion he might consider a more lenient sentence.
On the other hand, if the judge does NOT have discretion, and MUST send the fellow away for life, well, then that is where a governor's pardon might be appropriate, to give this particular three-strikes thief a FOURTH strike, one last strike, based on this clearly good act.
Wow! In this case, B&E was a good thing.
And what, pray tell, reaches to the heart of Mr. Aitken's conscience?
After reading a bit more closely, I'd nul pros the Aiken robbery and give him a deal on the robbery he got arrested for. This guy wouldn't get his third strike on my watch.
He should be sent to his maker for repair.
&&
Well said! I always maintain that clear cut cases of sexual abuse of children should be capital offenses.
Wow! Truth is stranger than any fiction.
There are petty criminals, and there are evil people. The burglar risked everything to do the right thing. I hope the justice system does right by him.
You could convert the robbery to misdemeanor tresspass.......
I have always been of the mind that the invalid "illegally obtained evidence" concept is an oxymoron. Evidence is either real or it's not.
The problem is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The solution is so simple:
Eliminate the concept of "illegally seized" evidence as frustrating the prosecution of serious and often monstrous crimes.
Change it to the obvious reality that two crimes have occured and both criminals must pay a price; and the more rational "extenuating circustances" can then be applied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.