American justice-life in jail for an unwanted kiss!

ronbyrne2005

It may have been a borderline call, but it was still a third strike. The Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a ruling that sent Nicholas Meyrovich to life in prison under a 2001 three-strikes law. Meyrovich got his third strike, a felony sex offense, for delivering an unwanted kiss.

Meyrovich, in his appeal, claimed that a life sentence for the kiss violated the Oregon Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Meyrovich, 60, an exterminator, was inspecting the home of a Salem woman in October 2003 when he suddenly grabbed her and kissed her. The woman pushed Meyrovich away, but he took hold of her again and sucked her on the neck, stopping when a neighbor walked in.

Meyrovich was later convicted of first-degree sexual abuse, which under Oregon law requires the forcible touching of the "sexual or other intimate parts" of another person.

Meyrovich argued that the neck is not an intimate part of the body; the court disagreed.

"In ordinary social intercourse, one adult does not touch the neck of another adult outside of intimate relationships, at least not without some unusual but reasonable justification," Judge David Schuman wrote for the panel that decided the case.

The court also disagreed that the sentence was cruel and unusual, noting that the three-strikes law was not aimed at the gravity of a particular crime but at habitual offenders. Schuman wrote that Meyrovich had been convicted of nine prior sex offenses before the kiss.

Meyrovich is one of only four inmates serving life sentences under Oregon's sex offender three-strikes law.

So Glad

And the world cried...

the_syco

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Schuman wrote that Meyrovich had been convicted of nine prior sex offenses before the kiss.

Serial rapist?

BrokenArrows

sounds an bit harsh but that all depends on what his other two convictions were.

Zillah

A life sentence? Thats retarded.

Mossy Monk

all depends on what his previous convictions were

Kojak

Does life in America actually mean life. Everyone knows in Ireland that if you get life you will spend approx years in jail.

Your man should have known better, especially when he already had 2 strikes against him. He must have some sort of sex addiction.

joejoem

No great loss by the looks of things

mise_me_fein_V2

As Frank said in Shameless........if you can't do the time.

Guy:Incognito

Zillah wrote:

A life sentence? Thats retarded.

Why?, he didnt get a life sentence for kissing someone who didnt want to be kissed (it may not have been rape but who knows what he was leadign to if tehy were'nt interrupted). He's guilty of gross stupidity at least, he knew he had two strikes already but it didnt stop him forcign himself on someone, so tough.

seamus

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

....unwanted kiss.

....

Meyrovich, 60, an exterminator, was inspecting the home of a Salem woman in October 2003 when he suddenly grabbed her and kissed her. The woman pushed Meyrovich away, but he took hold of her again and sucked her on the neck, stopping when a neighbor walked in.

....

I'm sorry, but that's not a kiss, it's sexual assault. And since he had been convicted of nine previous offences, where was this "kiss" going, and what would have happened if the neighbour hadn't walked in?

Life in prison is a tad harsh. Life in a mental institution would be more apt.

steviec

If he was previously convicted 9 times, doesn't that make it the ten-strike rule?

seamus

steviec wrote:

If he was previously convicted 9 times, doesn't that make it the ten-strike rule?

I'm guessing seven of those nine were in a different state or something.

rubadub

My idea of an "unwanted kiss" is my auntie giving me a peck on the cheek. This was obviously assault, a woman in her own home being grabbed. She is probably well messed up thinking it was going to be rape. The guy was convicted enough times before no matter how minor they were to know about the 3 strike rule and what he was risking with this attack.

If it happened to my mother I would certainly not say she got "an unwanted kiss, and thats why the guy is in jail".

AngryBadger

with 9 previous convictions for sexual assault seems fair to me. plus as was said, the 3 strikes rule is aimed at habitual offenders.

100gSoma

AngryBadger wrote:

with 9 previous convictions for sexual assault seems fair to me. plus as was said, the 3 strikes rule is aimed at habitual offenders.

was just about to post somehitng similar badger...
Meyrovich had been convicted of nine prior sex offenses before the kiss. Meyrovich is one of only four inmates serving life sentences under Oregon's sex offender three-strikes law.

In fairness, I don;t think its an unfair verdict. the man obviously has issues he cannot control.

Siogfinsceal

i think the question here is what would have happened if a neighbour had not walked in- how far would he have went then??

godtabh

The 3 strikes have to be 3 felons dont they? And as far as I'm aware a felon is more step above say petty crime.

i.e stealling a loaf of bread isnt a felon
stealing $100m probably is

Linoge

I think the whole issue is easier to understand if you think of it as taking him away from society and preventing him from hurting more people rather than just punishing him. lol, I wonder if he'll be raped in prison.... oh the irony!!:)

Lirange

seamus wrote:

Life in prison is a tad harsh. Life in a mental institution would be more apt.

Reckon there is an even better solution.

*snip* *snip*

tj-music.com

Life might be a bit hard - having said that I am not sure if he would have stopped if the neighbour would not have walked in.

Sangre

Ahh the good old American justice system. Probably one of the worst in the developed world.
And any state with the 3 strike rule has got to be the worst of a bad bunch.
There are people serving life in jail in california for stealing a bike.

(life is a mandatory 25 years)

kearnsr wrote:

The 3 strikes have to be 3 felons dont they? And as far as I'm aware a felon is more step above say petty crime.

i.e stealling a loaf of bread isnt a felon
stealing $100m probably is

.
Stealing a loaf of bread is petty theft which is...yep you guessed it, a felony.

Ridire_Dubh

kearnsr wrote:

The 3 strikes have to be 3 felons dont they? And as far as I'm aware a felon is more step above say petty crime.

i.e stealling a loaf of bread isnt a felon
stealing $100m probably is

Not true in the States. The Economist reported a case in California where a person who had two prior convictions and then stole a loaf of bread was sent to prison for life under their "3 strikes and you're out law." When an appeal was made for cruel and unusual punishment, the sentence was not overturned but held and the lad is still in prison for life. During the appeal, it was reported that this lad was unemployed, unskilled, had exhausted his unemployment benefits, and was attempting to feed his family with the bread. Stealing is wrong, but life imprisonment for a loaf of bread?

Oh, you might also want to visit their Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics site, if you think that all is fair over there. For example, a person of African heritage has a 1 in 3 chance of being convicted of a crime in their lifetime. Reminds me of that old Clint Eastwood movie called "Hang em' High." You might also look at their execution rate over there. It is very high and compares with China and other less developed countries where civil rights need great improvements.

Justice is the "best that money can buy" over there. If you do not believe that, compare the value of a loaf of bread to the sentence that the Enron executives will get for stealing millions of dollars?

Now back to the case in question. It is claimed that he had nine (9) prior convictions. You really have to research something like this before assuming that these 9 convictions were in fact 9 separate incidents. If you read their newpapers online, you will quickly realise that when someone is charged over there, the prosecutors will charge a suspect with every conceivable charge to ensure a conviction and the maximum sentence. Yes, this person may have committed nine separate acts, then again, he may have only committed one and was charged with multiple offenses.

Now, if the reports are correct, it appears that this person committed an assault on a woman, which was more than a "kiss," and should be tried accordingly. And if I had stumbled upon the act while it was in progress, and the woman cried for help, I would have probably climbed off my horse and punched the offender in the "kisser."

Guy:Incognito

Sangre wrote:

There are people serving life in jail in california for stealing a bike..

No they ar'nt. They may well be in for stealing three separate bikes on three separate occasions, but hey, they asould have known better. People know all about the three stikes rule so the ONLY peope who are to blame are the criminals. In the same way , you can't moan about the death penaty. You knwo the punishment, so if you don'nt want to be put to death, don't commit a crime that warrants it, if you do, tough.

Ridire_Dubh wrote:

Oh, you might also want to visit their Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics site, if you think that all is fair over there. For example, a person of African heritage has a 1 in 3 chance of being convicted of a crime in their lifetime. .

Well , they're not being fitted up so they're obvioulsy commiting more crimes. People will look at people from Tallagth as being more liekly to be arrested at some point. I know it's not going to be me because I don't cmmit crimes, those who do, bring it on themselves.

Sangre

Stekelly wrote:

No they ar'nt. They may well be in for stealing three separate bikes on three separate occasions, but hey, they asould have known better. People know all about the three stikes rule so the ONLY peope who are to blame are the criminals. In the same way , you can't moan about the death penaty. You knwo the punishment, so if you don'nt want to be put to death, don't commit a crime that warrants it, if you do, tough.

Thats fine its your peroagtive to think that way, you're not going to go to jail. But what about the fact that systems like this cost billions and billions of dollars a year for the tax payer when they are no where near reducing crime?

Sangre

Stekelly wrote:

No they ar'nt. They may well be in for stealing three separate bikes on three separate occasions, but hey, they asould have known better. People know all about the three stikes rule so the ONLY peope who are to blame are the criminals. In the same way , you can't moan about the death penaty. You knwo the punishment, so if you don'nt want to be put to death, don't commit a crime that warrants it, if you do, tough.



Well , they're not being fitted up so they're obvioulsy commiting more crimes.

Or being arrested more OR being convicted more harshly OR being tried more harshly.

Nah, its because black people commit more crimes.

Ridire_Dubh

Stekelly wrote:

Well , they're not being fitted up so they're obvioulsy commiting more crimes. People will look at people from Tallagth as being more liekly to be arrested at some point. I know it's not going to be me because I don't cmmit crimes, those who do, bring it on themselves.

This may or may not be the case. People with money can hire expensive lawyers to defend them and often get off, whereas, those who have to rely on a public defender do not. Putting the issue of race aside (which may be a factor over there because blacks are poorer than most whites), look what happened to OJ Simpson that was reported in the world press. He had the "dream team" defense that cost millions of dollars in fees. He was charged with killing two people (one of them his former wife). He was acquitted on the felony charge of murder, which would have earned him the death sentense or life imprisonment, but was convicted on the civil court case and required to pay damages (money again, not a sentence).

Yes, I agree, that felons should be punished, but there are serious differences in terms of how people are treated over there in terms of their wealth. The rich often go free, get a lesser sentence through "plea bargaining," or whatever, while those who cannot afford an expensive attorney do not. Do you really think that the Enron executives who stole millions will get the same sentence as the "kisser" or the guy who stole the loaf of bread in California?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the issue in the OP was questioning the severity of the sentence, not if the offender should be punished?

Ridire_Dubh

Sangre wrote:

Thats fine its your peroagtive to think that way, you're not going to go to jail. But what about the fact that systems like this cost billions and billions of dollars a year for the tax payer when they are no where near reducing crime?

Excellent point. Regarding capital crimes in America, a study was conducted between the states that have capital punishment (executions) and those that do not. It was revealed that the violent crime rate between the two types of states was essentially the same; i.e., that executions did not significantly affect the number of violent crimes and was not an effective deterrant. What was also reported was the fact that it cost more in the US to execute someone than to put them away for a long time in prison, due to the extraordinary costs associated with rendering a capital conviction and the numerous appeals that occur before the execution is carried out (years later). And the number of persons sitting for years on death row in the US is horrific, as is the occasionally reported execution of a person who was later to be found innocent!

Back to the original OP. I believe it concerned whether the sentence fit the crime, and not whether a felon should be punished (which they shiould be). The cost of prisons to house the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" bill has been going up since the law was passed; i.e., it's causing a glut in the prisons. This is not to imply that career criminals should not be put away, but rather should one who steals a loaf of bread (or three loafs of bread on three separate occasions) be put away for life at tax payers expense? I believe I read somewhere that the cost to house a prisoner in the US is somewhere between $26,000 and $32,000 USD per year. Now, how much is the cost of a loaf of bread?

Ridire_Dubh

Sangre wrote:

Or being arrested more OR being convicted more harshly OR being tried more harshly.

Nah, its because black people commit more crimes.

In the States, you might be right... Then again, have you ever heard of "racial profiling?" This is where law enforcement focuses on persons of a certain race more closely than persons of other races (and this does happen in the States). When this occurs, it would account for an increase of a certain race being picked up on crimes (which they commit) with a higher frequency, when compared to non-targeted races (who may also be commiting crimes).

I have one piece of anecdotal evidence (which, is obviously not scientific) from a friend of mine who lives in the States in a very white community. He is a bright, young black, originally from Jamaica, who works as a researcher at a univerwsity and has a Ph.D. degree. To my knowledge, he has never committed a crime, other than getting a parking ticket or two (which he promptly paid). When visiting the States, I personally experienced him getting pulled over on more than one occasion and being harrassed by law enforcement (while they paid no attention to me, being white). Was this racial profiling of an innocent person?

jesus_thats_gre

Siogfinsceal wrote:

i think the question here is what would have happened if a neighbour had not walked in- how far would he have went then??

Exactly!!

shuushh

anyone concvicted of nine prior sex offenses should be in prison for life anyway

this was just the final straw and its fairly obvious that the neighbours appearance stopped something horrific occuring

Ridire_Dubh

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

It may have been a borderline call, but it was still a third strike. The Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a ruling that sent Nicholas Meyrovich to life in prison under a 2001 three-strikes law. Meyrovich got his third strike, a felony sex offense, for delivering an unwanted kiss.

The court also disagreed that the sentence was cruel and unusual, noting that the three-strikes law was not aimed at the gravity of a particular crime but at habitual offenders. Schuman wrote that Meyrovich had been convicted of nine prior sex offenses before the kiss.

Meyrovich is one of only four inmates serving life sentences under Oregon's sex offender three-strikes law.

It appears that the OP did mention the "three-strikes-law" a few times, including the opening sentence? I believe that the main issue is whether the punishment fits the crime. Yes, maybe the criminal would have gone further if the neighbor had not interrupted them, but do we in fact know beyond a reasonable doubt? When a jury sits on a case, I would hope that the facts of the case will determine the verdict, especially when a life sentence is involved?

Sangre

Well a jury wouldn't know of his previous convictions.
Anyway the point isn't really if he deserved it or not. The point is the Judge had no discretion in giving him 25 years without probabation.

secret_squirrel

Meyrovich is one of only four inmates serving life sentences under Oregon's sex offender three-strikes law.

The implication here is that its 3 strikes specifically for sex offenders. To which I say fair enough, and throw away the key. Especially since it was his 10th Sexual offense.

arbeitsscheuer

Sangre wrote:

Well a jury wouldn't know of his previous convictions.
Anyway the point isn't really if he deserved it or not. The point is the Judge had no discretion in giving him 25 years without probabation.

Spot on.

Granted, I'm not gonna shed any tears for the guy, but the Judge's sentence does seem a tad draconian...

Guy:Incognito

SebtheBum wrote:

Spot on.

Granted, I'm not gonna shed any tears for the guy, but the Judge's sentence does seem a tad draconian...

So at what stage does he deserve the long sentence? On his 20th sexual assault? his 30th? when it's YOUR mother/sister/gf?

arbeitsscheuer

Stekelly wrote:

So at what stage does he deserve the long sentence? On his 20th sexual assault? his 30th? when it's YOUR mother/sister/gf?

Uh, dude, 25 years is a life sentence.

Without probation.

For a kiss.

I know, I know, 3 strikes yadda yadda, past offender yadda... Like I said, no tears for the guy. Still doesn´t excuse the judge excusing extreme personal prejudice, that´s all i´m sayin.

secret_squirrel

SebtheBum wrote:

For a kiss.

A kiss. From a repeat sex offender. If someone with that record kissed my Mother/Sister/GF/Female friends, I'd want him locked up for life.

He knew the score. He deserves everything he gets. Its not like its hard to avoid the temptation. Its very difficult to 'accidentally' kiss someone.

arbeitsscheuer

secret_squirrel wrote:

He knew the score. He deserves everything he gets. Its not like its hard to avoid the temptation. Its very difficult to 'accidentally' kiss someone.

Actually, it´s arguable that his actions are pretty fcuking obviously not those of a man with sound mind. Also, it´s arguable that he didnt know the score, given the fact that he had never served a proper sentence for this and that for all the other misdemeanours he was merely given a slap on the wrist.

Of course he didn´t accidentally kiss someone. To be clear: I´m not arguing with the verdict. The man was guitly of sexual assault, and deserved a severe sentence based on previous misdemeanours (note: NOT felonies).

But life? No probation?

This is the law, ppl. It's not there to wreak vengeance on ppl in a pretty OTT manner.

secret_squirrel

SebtheBum wrote:

Actually, it´s arguable that his actions are pretty fcuking obviously not those of a man with sound mind. Also, it´s arguable that he didnt know the score, given the fact that he had never served a proper sentence for this and that for all the other misdemeanours he was merely given a slap on the wrist.

Of course he didn´t accidentally kiss someone. To be clear: I´m not arguing with the verdict. The man was guitly of sexual assault, and deserved a severe sentence based on previous misdemeanours (note: NOT felonies).

But life? No probation?

This is the law, ppl. It's not there to wreak vengeance on ppl in a pretty OTT manner.

I dont disagree with the sentiment of anything you say, other than to say we all know the US is more fúcked up than most countries law-wise.

There's a good argument to be made that most sexual offenders are mentally ill in some shape or form.

You're right in saying that the law in an ideal world isnt there for vengeneance, however in many areas thats exactly what its used for.

Victor

What if he kissed 9 differeent women? Does that deserve life?

Stekelly wrote:

People will look at people from Tallagth as being more liekly to be arrested at some point.

Arrested yes, convicted yes, but other people probably commit just as many offences and crimes.

ronbyrne2005

maybe this man wrongly Thought the woman was coming on to him,he had a job so his past crimes must'nt have been that severe if an employer gave him a job dealing with the public.once people read "sex offence" they assume serial rapists,the point of the Original thread was that for a third strike which wasnt in its self very serious he got life.

Chucky the tree

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

maybe this man wrongly Thought the woman was coming on to him,he had a job so his past crimes must'nt have been that severe if an employer gave him a job dealing with the public.once people read "sex offence" they assume serial rapists,the point of the Original thread was that for a third strike which wasnt in its self very serious he got life.

yea, every fella knows that when you kiss a girl and she pushes you away it means shes really gagging for it.:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Presumably the man knew he had two priors & he was aware of the law in the state of Oregon re three strikes.....it still didn't or couldn't stop him from forcibly touching a woman......so now he's locked up for life.....what is the problem here?! If you think a man forcing himself on a woman for a kiss or anything else vaguely sexual isn't a serious offence, then you need to have a good think about this man's motives and intentions.....:eek: Any man who cannot stop himself touching a woman when she does not want to be touched by him wants locking up for life anyway (even if it's his first offence) as well as being mentally assessed &/or castrated.....IMO

John R

The 3 strikes laws are crazy, In some cases they can give good results but it is a very bad way of dealing with crime.

Unfortunately we are suffering from one of the main problems that led to mandatory sentences in the US, namely completely inappropriate lenient sentences from idiot judges.

The sentences for rapes and child abuse in this country are disgustingly short and the do one crime get half a dozen free concurrent sentences are even worse.

Because of that sort of thing along with the political mileage from tough-on-crime policies many states brought in these laws.

One of the most ironic things is that criminals on two strikes that find themselves facing a third strike are much more likely to go to extreme lengths to avoid getting caught. A high percentage of police killings are committed by these people, they have nothing more to loose by killing a bunch of cops.

I believe that all sex offenders should be put away indefinitely until it can be proved that they are rehabilitated and not a threat to anyone else. The safety of the public should be of greater importance than the freedom of a sex offender.