Would you date an ex convict?

[mcbrion]

Excellent advice.

In addition to court records and newspaper articles, you can google him. Maybe you can talk to his family and friends. A private investigator might find witnesses or members of the jury who likely remember a murder case and are willing to talk.

But I don't see that it would be worth the trouble. He claims self-defense; 12 impartial juror unanimously found him guilty.

If it is first degree murder, all 12 jurors would HAVE to agree for there to be a verdict. So that is hardly a persuasive argument. You've read To Kill A Mockingbird?
As for the original poster, if you can't be with him, then be straight up and tell him you're afraid of him and go your separate ways. He's done his time, and the entry into society is hard enough without having to fight thru someone else's fears.
Murder is intense, no doubt, but you have already convicted him: the "They all have excuses, 99% of them are innocent, defended themselves, defended someone else, no one is guilty and they just happened to be in prison," already says what you truly believe.

What is so odd about this thinking is that soldiers come back from wars where they've killed hundreds of men, yet how many of us would admit we would not date someone who killed in times of war? Do you guys actually think a former soldier or Navy Seal is any less dangerous? What - to you - would make him less dangerous, that it was sanctioned by the government??? Many Vietnam vets had PTSD and reacted instinctively to the slightest sound. Would you date a war veteran who'd seen action knowing HE might instinctively react violently? I mean, he killed more than one person in the war. I've rarely seen someone ask a war vet if he killed people and then disappeared from dating him when he said "yes." Some of the answers here are really poorly thought out.
But it is your life and if you're afraid of someone, just go the other way. Let them find someone who isn't afraid of them.

 

[Telstra]

^ for war is abit different because soldiers are forced to kill?
Murder is you are not forced to kill.

 

[jbrown329]

For me it would depend on what he was convicted for.

 

[PacificBeach]

But I don't see that it would be worth the trouble. He claims self-defense; 12 impartial juror unanimously found him guilty.

Your white privilege is showing. You automatically assume his boyfriend had the resources and money to hire a decent lawyer to have a jury trial for manslaughter / murder. He would have needed $100,000 to $300,000 MINIMUM to field a defense. Most likely, he took a plea bargain for this incident.

Sorry, but to the OP....you have not provided us with nearly enough info to give you any info, other than "break up with him", which is what the advice you are desperately looking for. You aren't looking for an excuse to stay with him, you're looking for support in breaking up with him. Your boyfriend was correct, he didn't tell you because you're acting the exact way he figured you would. And now you want to blame him for not telling you.

Break up with him then since you want to so badly, and just move on. *shrug*

 

[heir-to-the-wind]

Your white privilege is showing. You automatically assume his boyfriend had the resources and money to hire a decent lawyer to have a jury trial for manslaughter / murder. He would have needed $100,000 to $300,000 MINIMUM to field a defense. Most likely, he took a plea bargain for this incident.

Sorry, but to the OP....you have not provided us with nearly enough info to give you any info, other than "break up with him", which is what the advice you are desperately looking for. You aren't looking for an excuse to stay with him, you're looking for support in breaking up with him. Your boyfriend was correct, he didn't tell you because you're acting the exact way he figured you would. And now you want to blame him for not telling you.

Break up with him then since you want to so badly, and just move on. *shrug*

Public defenders can be, and often are, as good or better than private criminal defense lawyers. Pride in doing a good job can be a better motivation than money. I certainly did not get rich practicing law, but a lot of people got social security benefits or work-related benefits because of my efforts. I took pride in my work. But it is true that case load and limited resources encourage a plea bargain.

 

[PacificBeach]

Public defenders can be, and often are, as good or better than private criminal defense lawyers. Pride in doing a good job can be a better motivation than money. I certainly did not get rich practicing law, but a lot of people got social security benefits or work-related benefits because of my efforts. I took pride in my work. But it is true that case load and limited resources encourage a plea bargain.

I wish the US had more lawyers like you. Sadly, in many jurisdictions and legal specialties, $$$$ is the ultimate decider of your fate. In the OP's case we don't have any of the specifics of his case, charges, pleas, conviction, parole, etc... so it's really hard to guess how trivial or horrific the crime may have been.

 

[heir-to-the-wind]

I wish the US had more lawyers like you. Sadly, in many jurisdictions and legal specialties, $$$$ is the ultimate decider of your fate. In the OP's case we don't have any of the specifics of his case, charges, pleas, conviction, parole, etc... so it's really hard to guess how trivial or horrific the crime may have been.

Thank you.

 

[mcbrion]

^ for war is abit different because soldiers are forced to kill?
Murder is you are not forced to kill.

The point is the state of mind that exists in order to kill another human being. Soldiers do not go into it with "passion", we go because we must. Saying that "murder is you are not forced to kill" is naive: men who abuse their wives and children and the wife finally kills him? Consider other perspectives in which "murder" occurs, because this one-line statement is not sufficient to make a good argument. The Nat Turner movie that is due to come out soon is about slaves who rose up against their masters. Would you suggest they "murdered" their owners who brutally beat them daily? Murder is only a word: it does not describe the environment and the circumstances that exist prior to the "murder."
The OP has only heard what happened, and he has the right to his own decision, but I doubt many people on this board are even remotely qualified to give advice unless they have been in circumstances where their own life was at risk. The typical "drop him" or whatever other phrase they use is simplistic thinking. If the OP doesn't know the truth, and yet is ready to vamoose without knowing the whole truth, what makes you think we can give any sensible advise? I stated a circumstance under which killing can occur. And perhaps the attorney on here can respond, but "murder" usually consists of premeditation, that's why pleas are changed to "manslaughter": death occurs, but without premeditation. Do you understand the difference?

 

[jbrown329]

Would you call this murder? The Burning Bed. I don't.

 

[offthewall14420]

Killing someone stays with people who aren't sociopaths. My bet is he's either fucked in the head, racked with guilt, or doesn't give it a second thought. Both of which are equally chilling.

 

[mcbrion]

Would you call this murder? The Burning Bed. I don't.

Interesting distinction, isn't it? Here's the factual information:

"On March 9, 1977, Francine Hughes, following thirteen years of physical domestic abuse at the hands of her husband, James Berlin "Mickey" Hughes, tells their children to put their coats on and wait for her in their car. She then pours gasoline around the bed in which Mickey is sleeping in their home in Dansville, Michigan. After the house catches fire, Hughes drives with her children to the local police station in order to confess to the act. Hughes is tried for first degree murder, and is found by a jury of her peers to be not guilty by reason of temporary insanity."

it was premeditated, for sure, and she was tried for first degree murder, but was found not guilty. So, while you wouldn't call it murder, the legal system did.

 

[mcbrion]

Killing someone stays with people who aren't sociopaths. My bet is he's either fucked in the head, racked with guilt, or doesn't give it a second thought. Both of which are equally chilling.

We have zero idea what's in his head, though. It's easy to speculate, because it's not us it's happening to. But people have a way of turning speculation into "fact." And they then act as though they have actual knowledge, instead of merely a prejudicial attitude, based on how they imagine it went down. I'm not a fan of that in any way.

 

[mcbrion]

But would he tell the truth? He asserts self-defense, but the jury did not buy it.

True, the jury might be wrong. Or he might have been found guilty based on irrelevant factors. The OP will never know for sure.

Sad how often that happens, isn't it? They're actually guilty but go free. Or they're innocent, but end up convicted of the crime.

 

[heir-to-the-wind]

Sad how often that happens, isn't it? They're actually guilty but go free. Or they're innocent, but end up convicted of the crime.

Truth is whatever a jury believes.

 

[jbrown329]

Truth is whatever a jury believes.

A jury in Texas had an innocent man executed. Was that truth? Google 'Did Texas execute an innocent man?'.

 

[heir-to-the-wind]

A jury in Texas had an innocent man executed. Was that truth? Google 'Did Texas execute an innocent man?'.

There are many examples of justice going awry by over-zealous prosecutors and/or inept defense lawyers. The verdict depends on whatever a jury believes, not necessarily ''the truth.''

 

[peeonme]

In a short answer no. I have known a few ex-cons and prison seems to have made them worse.
I suppose that I should add that it would depend upon why they were in prison, if it was a violent offence, no. Tax evasion, hell, we all need to be locked up for that.

 

[heir-to-the-wind]

In a short answer no. I have known a few ex-cons and prison seems to have made them worse.
I suppose that I should add that it would depend upon why they were in prison, if it was a violent offence, no. Tax evasion, hell, we all need to be locked up for that.

Income tax evasion, actually, requires proof of an affirmative act to hide income [eg, putting money into a bank account with a false name and SSN]. The more common crime is filing a false return by knowingly under-reporting income or over-stating deductions. Proof of intent is difficult except in the most flagrant violation. The IRS goes after the civil penalty for negligence.

 

[PacificBeach]

Tax evasion, hell, we all need to be locked up for that.

Um...no. Actually, I'd be just fine on that count. I have to file 3 countries worth of returns. I don't fuck around on the IRS or other tax authorities, thank you very much. The punishment and fines don't justify the crime.

 

[peeonme]

My point was white collar crime vs. violent crime, I am no lawyer, but I am sure that there are enough laws on the books that most people inadvertently violate so as to enable the authorities to charge one with a crime even if there was no intent, ignorance of the law...
I might add that this is no forum for us to argue in.