Woman who burned dad's penis on stove is taking a cooking class

That's taking place in jail. Brigitte Harris, who faces up to 15 years in prison for killing her dad when she's sentenced on Friday, also has been biding her time on Rikers Island by reading vampire novels. (New York Daily News)

Comments

[Mook]

Taking a cooking class... or teaching a cooking class?

[thomas]

I'm interested to see what effect the unusual wishes of the jurors will have on judgement day. Hope it sets a precedent.
Bourdain and Zimmern,,,,Watch out!

[Sheila]

Assuming her story of years of sexual abuse is true, it's too sad for jokes.

[kevy]

I agree with Sheila.

[Lou Sussler]

It's too bad she couldn't think clearly enough to get herself help before she acted. If she's right about the father, we're better off that he's dead but she's now ruined her life.

[stopeatingmysesamecake]

Throwdown with Bobby Flay! Next week.....penis!

[sometimesilie]

Sheila: And also a good reason for murder. If her story was believable and I were on that jury, we would have hung, at least. Maybe that's not right or mature, but that's how I feel about it.

[Phranqlin]

What a terrible story. I too would not have wanted to convict this woman. I hope she gets justice and psychiatric help.

[Worker]

It's not easy being on a jury. They don't always get to vote on the real issue: I was on a jury in which a woman had been abusing the boyfriend for quite some time. She had HIM arrested because he fought back once. Note that she had no medical reprecusions other than questionable bruises. Though 100% of us(yes including the women) agreed she was far more guilty and his action was not worth jail time, we had to vote on whether he used undue strength in restraining her.

We returned the verdict that he was guilty of using undue strength. We took solace in the fact that we didn't do the sentencing and prayed the judge would use wisdom.

[LimeGreenLizard]

Let her go.

[American Veteran]

LGL,
If she gets off(pun?), she could open a cajun BBQ and serve blackened sausage.
Or, would that be redundant?

[LimeGreenLizard]

@ SEMSC & AV:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mianne]

Worker,

before you are next called upon to serve on a jury, please take a few minutes to visit The Fully Informed Jury Association. If you felt the law was unjust, or (specifically in this case) unjustly applied, you should have voted to acquit.

[Aaron]

I agree with mianne. We are not (or at least should not be) robots who blindly apply the law even when it doesn't make sense. If you feel the accused is being wrongfully railroaded, then you have the right (and in my opinion, obligation) to acquit, even if they are technically guilty of the crime.

[RevJSH]

Miane- I am glad you shared that with everyone. My late hero, Robert Anton Wilson, was a big part of this organization before he died. Check it out, peoples. A jury doesnt just decide whether a law was broken, they also determine if enforcing the said law is appropriate in a given case.

[lld]

I can see how hard it would be for a child to go to a non-related adult when her relatives... the people who are supposed to love and care for her don't. Once you've been rejected like that. If her relatives didn't believe her, why would anyone else? Plus her relatives would have said she was making it up. I don't think this is a crime that she would repeat.

[LimeGreenLizard]

Having served on a jury, I was relieved when the judge, as he instructed us told us we could use our belief in the credibility of any witness in making our decisions. We didn’t believe the “victim” was credible, and that helped us to convict some poor defendant on a lesser charge. Had there not been photo evidence of the guy’s smashed up face, which he deserved, we would have gone with a not guilty verdict.

[USMerc]

I've seen a few judges give instructions to juries implying that they had to follow the letter of the law when deciding a case...The way I've always understood it, having a jury of your peers was basically intended to protect against that very thing. If you are on a jury, and are instructed to follow the letter of the law...I would suggest NOT following those directions, as they go totally against the entire jury system!!!!!! (I know it's rather ironic for ME to be saying this, but, sometimes the law SHOULDN'T be taken so seriously!!!)

[axisofweevils]

The jury isn't there to mete out justice or help avoid uncomfortable applications of the law. The jury is there to determine the facts. That's why, during jury instructions (often the most important part of the trial), the judge instructs the jury that if they find (a) to be true they MUST do (b).

That being said, I'd have a hard time applying the law if the defendant has a story like this lady and it was convincing.

[RevJSH]

Axis- Read the earlier link. The jury has alot more responsibility than determining facts. They must also determine how relative those facts are to any potential punishment.

[sometimesilie]

"That's why, during jury instructions (often the most important part of the trial), the judge instructs the jury that if they find (a) to be true they MUST do (b)."

MUST do may be technically correct, but is not enforceable in any way. The judge can say "Must, must, must" until she is blue in the face but at the end of the day, the jury has the final say. I've foremaned two juries and luckily, both times, the way people cooperated and reached what I thought was the right verdict- one that coincided with the judges precise instructions- gave me renewed faith in the system, such as we are stuck with. Or rather, renewed faith in my fellow non-felonious, non-incarcerated, non-scofflaw citizens.

Having said that, it will be a cold, cold, cold day in hell before I let a Judge- or another juror- bully me into finding in a way that I cannot live with. Once I am seated as a juror I view that as both my right and obligation. I will never violate that principle and I ALWAYS respond to jury summons.

[mianne]

Axis,

I would suggest you read up on John Peter Zenger, a publisher in New York before the American Revolution.

In summary, he was charged with libel at a time when publication without first gaining government approval was itself a criminal act. The prosecution's case was very clear--He had clearly violated the law as written. The judge ordered the jury, similarly to your statement, that if the charge had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the jury was compelled to return a guilty verdict.

Despite this, and within 10 minutes, the jury had acquitted him. This case brought forth the common understanding that it's not libel if it's true. It was also a huge building block for the constitutional right to a free press.

[axisofweevils]

I'm familiar with the Zenger case. It was a case of jury nullifiation. At least that's the polite term we use when we agree with the jury's deliberate disregard for the codified law and substitution of their own notions of fairness.

Jury nullification was also used to acquit Klansmen of murder during the Civil Right's movement. In those instances, we call it a miscarriage of justice.

The bottom line is that it replaces the legislative process (the process by which we make laws via democratically elected representatives addressing the diverse needs of the community) with, at most, a twelve person panel addressing very specific facts.

My personal belief is that I'd never be in a circumstance to participate in jury nullification. In the case we're discussing here, I would have been clear during voir dire that I wouldn't convict the woman if I believed that her father sexually abused her - even if the facts for self-defense weren't present. The prosecutor would have had me excluded, and I would be available to serve on another jury where I could assure the court that I was able to fulfill my duty.

[Charles]

Herds and herds of sex crazed maniacs and other assorted loonies.

[mianne]

Axis,

you are correct re: the acquittal of Klansmen. Jury nullification can be used for both right and wrong reasons. That's the same with any tool: Build a house with a hammer, then destroy it with that very same hammer.

The point is: in this day and age, it wouldn't be too difficult in theory to design a computer program that could evaluate the facts presented to it and compare it to a database of statutes, then output a result of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" depending on whether or not the facts correlated with the statutes. Heck, we could do away with judges, trial lawyers and such. Just have a cube farm inputting police reports into a terminal, a printout would decide if the accused walked free or had to serve time, and for how long.

Juries are our best protection from tyrannical governments and abuse of authority. They aren't perfect, as you pointed out. But without jury nullification, prohibition, slavery, and lynchings in the town square could very well still be the law of the land today.