Author Topic: [A&O #3] Fair Game Discussion  (Read 95330 times)

Temari

  • writers
  • Auto-Zauberer
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • The cup is half full.
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #165 on: March 15, 2012, 10:34:26 am »
I did wonder how that evidence got included - also that they said it was definitely wolves that made that kill, which at the start of the book I thought the wolves were trying to cover up.

I also wondered about the made-me defence, but I don't know US law. I can see that in certain circumstances it would seem reasonable e.g. man holds loved ones hostage and threatens to kill them to make someone do a robbery. But in that case the offence (theft) is less than the threat (death). In the case where a hostage (or the actual person) is threatened with death unless they kill, I wouldn't expect that to be an adequate defence. Mitigating, yes, but not absolving.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:24:59 pm by Elle »

gryphon340

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #166 on: March 15, 2012, 10:38:54 am »
they weren't trying to cover it up, just kill the dumbasses who made a mess of things.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:25:11 pm by Elle »
life is terminal

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the sermon of the mount" Omar N. Bradley, U.S Army General

Patti L.

  • Administrator
  • Hostess of Hurog
  • *
  • Posts: 13010
  • Not PattY Briggs. Keeper of the fluffy vortex.
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #167 on: March 15, 2012, 10:42:13 am »
it was too late to cover up the kill of the pederast when Charles got there, they'd done such a bad job - actually, no job, the kid walked into the body - that they couldn't hide it.  Getting the wolves who were that stupid taken out was all Charles could do about that.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:25:23 pm by Elle »
We've had our toad for the 2020s, it's got to get better from here!
But do beware the toad burps.

Temari

  • writers
  • Auto-Zauberer
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • The cup is half full.
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #168 on: March 15, 2012, 10:50:51 am »
Ok, I need to re-read that, I thought they were still trying the 'wild dogs' approach.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:25:36 pm by Elle »

Kkat07

  • writers
  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #169 on: March 15, 2012, 01:33:48 pm »
I did wonder how that evidence got included - also that they said it was definitely wolves that made that kill, which at the start of the book I thought the wolves were trying to cover up.

I also wondered about the made-me defence, but I don't know US law. I can see that in certain circumstances it would seem reasonable e.g. man holds loved ones hostage and threatens to kill them to make someone do a robbery. But in that case the offence (theft) is less than the threat (death). In the case where a hostage (or the actual person) is threatened with death unless they kill, I wouldn't expect that to be an adequate defence. Mitigating, yes, but not absolving.

It shouldn't have been an adequate defense. I don't have any legal experience, but given that he admitted to the crimes, he should have gotten at least the minimum jail time-not sure what that is.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:26:00 pm by Elle »
WAKE THE SANTAMIND. -Eric James Stone

bookworm

  • Tinker
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • Savory and Safe (food blog)
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #170 on: March 15, 2012, 02:41:59 pm »
Short of an insanity defense, you have a point Kkat. And, even with that, he should've been put in an institution for observation.
My food blog, jointly run by me and my best friend: www.savoryandsafe.com

jenniwee

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #171 on: March 15, 2012, 07:48:59 pm »
On the matter of the defense--"insanity" pleas or defenses do not always lead to institutionalization for the defendant.  Basically, the defense will argue that in some way the defendant has been temporarily or partially incapacitated but is still mentally competent.  In this case they probably argued that Heuter was unable to tell it was wrong to kill because he had been indoctrinated since childhood.

This type of defense can be offered in the American legal system, but must be approved by the judge.  Because judges have a near total control over their courtrooms, they can influence how trials progress.

Another judge may not have allowed the indoctrination defense, but, clearly, the judge has a very strong bias against the Fae and the weres.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:26:17 pm by Elle »

jenniwee

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #172 on: March 15, 2012, 07:56:02 pm »
To be clearer--The defense needed the pics to demonstrate Heuter's mental state, the judge allowed those pictures into evidence (she could have excluded them).  We don't know whether the prosecutor moved to have them excluded or not, but Patty does say that he put on an exhaustive case, so I assume he did.  In many cases both the pics and the defense would have proved prejudicial but that does not always mean that the judge would have ruled that way.  Look at the history of hate crime in America and you will see a pattern of "those-people-scare-me" being allowed as a legitimate defense.  And too often an effective one.  Disgusting but true.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:26:28 pm by Elle »

Kyria

  • writers
  • Senior Pack Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2900
    • Farthest Feather Creations
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #173 on: March 15, 2012, 08:49:44 pm »
One of the things that made the greatest impression out of all the things I "learned" in middle school was a video we watched during a unit on stereotypes, where the speaker made a great point about the power of fear and hatred as a unifying force.  He wasn't defending it, merely pointing out that if you give frightened people a common enemy... they will come together, usually in a destructive way. 

Temari

  • writers
  • Auto-Zauberer
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • The cup is half full.
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #174 on: March 16, 2012, 04:45:40 am »
Interesting to know - so the judge was very involved in the injustice. Oh well, I bet she's really scared now.  :)
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:26:40 pm by Elle »

Cerulean

  • Pack Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1053
    • Books and Chat
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #175 on: March 16, 2012, 11:45:59 am »
On the matter of the defense--"insanity" pleas or defenses do not always lead to institutionalization for the defendant.  Basically, the defense will argue that in some way the defendant has been temporarily or partially incapacitated but is still mentally competent.  In this case they probably argued that Heuter was unable to tell it was wrong to kill because he had been indoctrinated since childhood.

This type of defense can be offered in the American legal system, but must be approved by the judge.  Because judges have a near total control over their courtrooms, they can influence how trials progress.

Another judge may not have allowed the indoctrination defense, but, clearly, the judge has a very strong bias against the Fae and the weres.

Some thoughts on the defense:

Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is very rarely used as a defense - less than 1% of cases use it. Of those, less than 1% use it successfully. There's also guilty, but insane verdicts, which are also rare. The defense must prove the status of mens rea - that the defendant did/didn't perform the actions with the intended outcome. Essentially, did he know what he was doing was wrong and would harm someone? Still, it's clear that Hueter did know what he was doing would harm someone, but they might've tried to make the defense that he didn't realize it was wrong since he'd been brought up that way. Of course, given all the evidence and the low likelihood of this defense being successfully used, this status as a government agent (who really should know better), and the heinousness of the crimes, clearly the only reason he didn't get convicted was prejudice and fear.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:27:05 pm by Elle »
There are many people – happy people, it usually appears – whose thoughts at Christmas always turn to books. The notion of a Christmas tree with no books under it is repugnant and unnatural to them. – Robertson Davies (1997)

Moonbeam

  • Tool Wrangler
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #176 on: March 17, 2012, 06:19:41 am »
I loved this book. Some of what I post is going to sound lik things already said, but I had a couple of comments on the trial. It is too hard for me to copy and paste several posts on my iPhone for the purpose of responding to specific posts one by one, so that is why I might seem like I am repeating wha has already been said. I apologize in advance.

Like Anna, I am into police procedurals. I know more about New York state law than laws in my own state simply from looking stuff up online to verify is something I saw in Law and Order is plausible.

First off - the defendant in a trial can only be charged with the specific murders in which he participated. The defense would almost certainly move to exclude from trial not only any evidence regarding previous (and therefore non-fae/werewolf victims), but it is possible the prosecutor could have been instructed to avoid any reference that there even were any previous victims. It is also possible that the prosecution was barred from mentioning any out of state victims. Given the judge's sympathies, this seems likely to me.

As far as the, "He made em do it!" defense goes... It is basically a Stockholm Syndrome defense. There is a long standing legal precedent for that defense. It has had varied results from juries across the country. I believe they found Patty Hurst guilty, after all. It is inexcusable that a government official with training would still behave that way, but I believe their argument was that the brain washing started so young that he was already irreversibly brain washed before he ever joined Cantrip. Obviously a crock, but juries can make all sorts of mistakes out of fear or ignorance.

Of course, anything that is suppressed at trial is still fair game for the press and th court of public opinion. But the jury would have to have been sequestered.

The legal definition of insanity is that you did not understand your actions were wrong. You can theoretically be perfectly sane and still argue for insanity in certain cases. Also, to reply to one poster - no, he wouldn't get a minimum punishment just for acknowledging that he committed the crimes. He would only receive punishment automatically if he plead guilty to the crimes. If he pleads guilty, there is no trial. In order for there to be a trial, he would have to plead not guilty for whatever cause is specified. And if you are found not guilty, then that is it. No punishment. You are free to go.

As to the issue that the little boy had not been fae - very possible that that fact was withheld from the public and from the prosecution. Having grown up with a father that worked in intelligence, it is completely plausible that the FBI withheld that fact from the other agencies for their own purposes. And I doubt they felt any obligation to share it with the state unless they thought it would significantly help their case. They found out something very important, after all - that Cantrip's records suck. They have a vested interest in Cantrip not realizing how much they suck. Highlighting the mistake during trial would lose them that advantage.

I am interested by the fact that the Feds were not able to identify Charles. He mentions in the other book that the government sometimes follows him. That begs the question of - who in the government? Someone has to at least know enough about him to know he is worth being followed. And whomever that is, or whatever agency that did that before the weres came out has evidently not shared the info with the FBI, Homeland Security, or Cantrip. At least - not that we know of yet.

It has also been mentioned in previous books that "the government" knew about werewolves before they came out. It was one of the reasons for the need to come out. However, I got the impression that none of the agents who appeared in Fair Game had known anything. So what level of government knew, and will it matter later on? If someone in government knew about weres before they came out, then they al let certainly still know a good deal more than these agents.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:27:38 pm by Elle »

Patti L.

  • Administrator
  • Hostess of Hurog
  • *
  • Posts: 13010
  • Not PattY Briggs. Keeper of the fluffy vortex.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:27:54 pm by Elle »
We've had our toad for the 2020s, it's got to get better from here!
But do beware the toad burps.

Temari

  • writers
  • Auto-Zauberer
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • The cup is half full.
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #178 on: March 18, 2012, 10:41:48 am »
You raised some very interesting points there, Moonbeam.

Especially that the out-of-state case might have been ignored - I do wonder if that was the case - it'd make the trial look very different - i.e. he killed just a few people, this year, is different to killing many year after year.

Also that the fact that the boy wasn't fae was withheld - that's a very good reason to, and the FBI might have felt prior to the trial that would make little difference (and perhaps it wouldn't have done!)

I think 'the people' in government could well have just been a few agents of some department plus a few more people at high level, or might even have just been within the military perhaps? I can see that they would be reluctant to share that info early on because even after the fae came out they could well be ridiculed, and also that knowledge is power and it loses that power after it becomes common knowledge. After the wolves came out they would then stay quiet about previously knowing to stop everyone from saying "Why didn't you tell us before?"
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:28:12 pm by Elle »

Patti L.

  • Administrator
  • Hostess of Hurog
  • *
  • Posts: 13010
  • Not PattY Briggs. Keeper of the fluffy vortex.
Re: SPOILERS Discussion of Fair Game after publication!
« Reply #179 on: March 18, 2012, 10:54:01 am »
There's a chat on the book right now at http://us4.chatzy.com/13988508505163
with forays into Frost Bitten, if you care to join us.
We've had our toad for the 2020s, it's got to get better from here!
But do beware the toad burps.