View Full Version : Martha Moxley Murder


Getsome
01-11-2005, 12:00 AM
I'm sure as you know Michael Skakel was found guilty in this murder and is now being appealed because his lawyer is saying that he should have been tried as a juvenile because the crime happend when he was 15 years old. I'm interested in how you all feel about a 40 something man being tried in a juvenile court.

QQin4meboo
01-11-2005, 01:02 AM
is there a link ?? i lived in colo , 90-94 , somehow the name rings a bell , but i cant recall ,

freckledgrl
01-11-2005, 01:13 AM
QQ, I'm pretty sure this is the Kennedy relative story. Skakel is a cousin to the Kennedy's and from what I remember, the accusation is that the family covered up the crime with their political influence and money. Skakel was accused of raping and murdering the babysitter, Martha Moxley (?????) at least a couple decades ago when he was a juvie.

Getsome, you probably already know how I feel about this....(lol). I honestly don't think juveniles should be held to the same standards as adults in the same way that we don't allow them to drink or vote. He was found guilty of committing the crime as a juvie so I feel he should be given the same sentence that a juvie would get, but served out in an adult prison.

Getsome
01-11-2005, 01:29 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020830/4407444s.htm

freckledgrl: Yes I know how you feel about this but it doesn't stop me from trying toget you to see the correct way of thinking.:D I also didn't if this long of a time peroid made a differance.

Skakel gets 20 years to life in neighbor's 1975 slaying Kennedy cousin says he's innocent


By Fred Bayles
USA TODAY



NORWALK, Conn. -- Tearfully proclaiming his innocence, Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel was sentenced Thursday to a term of 20 years to life in prison for the murder of Martha Moxley in 1975.

''I would love to be able to say I did the crime so that the Moxley family could have rest and peace, but I can't, your honor,'' Skakel told Judge John Kavanewsky, in a weeping, often rambling address to the court. ''To do that would be a lie in front of my God.''

The sentencing came at the end of a two-day hearing that included statements from the victim's mother and brother and Skakel's friends and family. Skakel, 41, was praised for overcoming years of alcohol abuse and helping others overcome addiction.

While acknowledging Skakel's rehabilitation, Kavanewsky said the defendant still owed a ''deep debt'' for a crime that ''was especially vicious.''

''By the verdict delivered, I . . . know that for the last 25 years or more, the defendant has been living a lie about his guilt,'' he said.

Skakel was convicted on June 7 for the Oct. 30, 1975 murder of Moxley, 15, a neighbor in Greenwich, Conn. The girl was beaten repeatedly in the head with a golf club, then stabbed with the club's broken handle.

The case carried an aura of celebrity because Skakel is the nephew of Ethel Kennedy. His aunt was among 90 people who wrote to Kavanewsky in support of Skakel.

Skakel received close to the maximum sentence of 25-years-to-life. Under the 1975 guidelines used in his sentencing, Skakel will be eligible for parole in April 2013. Moxley's mother, Dorthy, and brother, John, said they were satisfied with the sentence.

Skakel's statement to the court was his first public words on the case. Looking pale and thinner from three months in jail, Skakel cried when he spoke of being separated from his 3-year-old son, George. ''I struggle with that every second of the day,'' he said.

sickofprisons
01-11-2005, 06:12 AM
That's really an interesting question. I think a 15 year old has enough sense of right and wrong that viciously beating someone to death with a golf club and then being cool enough to lie about warrants a 20 to life sentence, so I really don't have too much of a quarrel with this particular case. However,as a point of law, there are many instances where very young offenders in very particular circumstances would not deserve such a sentence, so whether they can be tried as adults years after the fact and drawing much worse sentences is certainly worth arguing. I'll be watching this case with interest.

Slainte
01-11-2005, 09:13 PM
I don't know if the law in CT would have allowed him to be tried as an adult had he gone to trial at 15 or 16 years old. At any rate, personally I feel he should not be retried in juvenille court.

Soliana
01-11-2005, 09:39 PM
Is this guy just now going to prison and will be eligible for parole in 2013? That is not a very long sentence compared to what most people are getting these days. Oh, those Kennedys!

freckledgrl
01-11-2005, 10:11 PM
LOL Getsome! You just keep trying ;)

Honestly, I am torn on this one. I think it would be important to know what the guidelines would have been back then for this crime and age. That should be a starting point. No, I don't think he should actually go to juvie, but the sentence should be *comparable* to what he would have gotten.

QQin4meboo
01-11-2005, 10:46 PM
oh , okay now i see why it rang a bell , lol ,

i think , since he is older now , he cant go to ** Juvi **

but i only will say , what dont come out then ...always comes out later !! KARMA , bites many in da butt , later !!

Abner
01-12-2005, 04:59 PM
Actually, it has less to do with the Kennedys and more to do with much much harsher laws today.

The court used the 1975 law to sentence.

abner


Is this guy just now going to prison and will be eligible for parole in 2013? That is not a very long sentence compared to what most people are getting these days. Oh, those Kennedys!

angeltob
01-22-2005, 10:09 PM
Three things...
One: money can get you out of trouble but it cant keep you out and that is clear here.
Two: He knew all along that he should have been charged so KARMA is a great description.
Three: The 1975 law was for adults...I wonder what the sentence for a child was back then? That truely is what they should be using for his sentence regardless of his age now. I mean the judge used 1975 rulings, he/she should have followed all statutes then.

titantoo
01-22-2005, 10:14 PM
Getsome

You mention the "correct way of thinking"
Take a look at

http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102339

to see how the civilised world considers the US attitude to juveniles.

In addition, if a crime was committed when you were 15 , the crime was
committed when you were 15...your age today is, or at least should be irrelevent. The definition of a juvenile relates to what you can be considered responsible before at the age you commit the crime. This is universally accepted throughout the civilised world.

For example: The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that capital punishment should not be imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age. All of the 192 countries which have ratified the Convention have agreed to this obligation without making a specific reservation to it, emphasising the almost global consensus that 18 should be the minimum age for capital defendants.

Almost global because in contrast to this international consensus, some US politicians are calling for children as young as 11 to be made eligible for the death penalty. For its part, the US Supreme Court, while recognizing that the law should treat children and adults differently, has determined that 16 should be the minimum age, not 18. Between October 1977 and June 1992 US state authorities executed five people for crimes committed when they were under 18, and sentenced to death more than 70 other such people.