Ross graduate on FBI's Most Wanted List?

[rob14599]

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0314metkrist.html

This guy kidnapped a college student, buried her alive, and held her for ransom. He was caught and sentenced to life in prison, but ended up getting paroled. The article then states that he went on to get a medical degree from a medical school on the Caribbean island of Dominica. Everyone thought he had turned his life around, that is until recently when he was caught smuggling drugs and illegal aliens into the country.

I can't believe Ross would admit this guy. Would you feel comfortable studying alongside a man who was one of the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted Criminals in 1968? Very scary.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[krust3]

holy **** that's crazy!

way to go ross!

 

[Bevo]

hey man it happens in the US too

I think it was some student at Arkansas? He had a history of violence and ended up killing someone close to him or something. He had attacked people before.

Ross requires a police report in order to get a student visa to go down to the island.
I guess for 1 reason or another that insult didnt show up. As crappy as the island of dominica is, I doubt they'd let in a known criminal.

Not sure how Ross would find out this guy was a criminal unless he stated it.

 

[McGillGrad]

He was admitted because he was pardoned and there was no record of his crime. Then he had his license pulled by a few states so he went ape****. This is why he did those awful things. If you treat him like a criminal 30 years after he was punished then he will act like one.

Read the artcile a little closer next time before accusing schools os wrong-doing.

 

[Skip Intro]

First off, this is old news. He made a bad choice as a young man. He then straightened himself out, got his life on track, and became a contributing and highly productive member of society. Then, after all of that was behind him, some "do-gooder" blew the whistle, from his past, on him. The Indiana medical board revoked his license. After that, he couldn't get licensed anywhere else.

So much for the concept that we can actually rehabilitate people. So much for the belief that there's no such thing as "double jeopardy". He paid for his "crime" (for which he actually received a pardon) twice.

How many of you know for sure that you wouldn't totally crumble if the life you'd spent years working so hard to build was suddenly and completely stolen from you? Better yet, how many of you have done some crazy **** in your pastm, maybe as a teenager or college student that, if you'd actually gotten caught, would've potentially blacklisted you from things you now enjoy the privilege of doing?

Doesn't make what he now did "right"; we all make choices, good or bad. But, we also all have our demons, big or small. Try to be be a little more compassionate. Try to see the big picture. Try to understand what's really going on here, and not just react to some salacious news story - and then try to assign blame where it shouldn't necessarily be placed.

-Skip Intro

 

[davematthews]

Poor choice? He kidnapped someone and buried her alive, and that is a poor choice- LOL. Yeah, I'd say so. Tell you what, if my doc got in trouble when he was a kid for fighting or smoking a joint, or whatnot, that's fine by me if s/he has grown up since. There IS quite a difference between a poor decision made at an immature or troubled stage in someone's life, but making a poor decision and burying a young college girl alive are just a weee bit different

 

[Skip Intro]

Poor choice? He kidnapped someone and buried her alive, and that is a poor choice- LOL. Yeah, I'd say so. Tell you what, if my doc got in trouble when he was a kid for fighting or smoking a joint, or whatnot, that's fine by me if s/he has grown up since. There IS quite a difference between a poor decision made at an immature or troubled stage in someone's life, but making a poor decision and burying a young college girl alive are just a weee bit different

Do you know all the details of the story? Or, is the attention-grabbing headline enough for you?

Who's to blame here? The system that rehabilitated him? The doctors and/or clinicians who treated whatever psychopathology that led him to act irrationally as a young man? The State of Georgia for granting him a pardon? Ross University for granting him admission (knowingly or unknowingly) to their school? The State of Indiana for granting him (knowing or unknowingly) a license to practice medicine? Was he found guilty of any illegal, illicit, or immoral behavior while practicing medicine?

I ask you again: Do you know all the details of this story?

I'm not at all saying what he did was right. I'm saying that there are a hell of a lot of people practicing medicine right now in the U.S. who beat their wives, molest their patients, do drugs, have killed people perhaps not accidentally, and done many other horrible things... and they have never been caught. That's the only difference here. They are doing these things right now. They have not, like this man, put their past behind them and moved on.

Now, did this man pose such a threat to the public - years after he'd turned his life around, years after he'd been granted a pardon, years of not being accused of or charged with any wrongdoing - that the State of Indiana had to presumptively yank his medical license and ruin the life he'd built?

That's what is germane, here. Can you say that there aren't a lot of people out there who wouldn't have a complete meltdown if they found themselves in his position? No, the media is lasciviously reviving the partial details of this sad, sordid, sexy story - and no one has really figured out who to blame. Instead of one victim, our supposedly intelligent leaders and politicians have created two.

I ask you one last time: Do you know the full details of this man's story? If not, you have no right to level any type of judgment.

-Skip Intro

 

[f_w]

I guess the background check US medschools run on their students somewhere before 3rd year is worth something after all.

 

[McGillGrad]

I guess the background check US medschools run on their students somewhere before 3rd year is worth something after all.

Not if you have been pardoned.

Plus, the whole point of our justice system is to punish you once for your actions, not to punish you for the rest of your life. Unless, that is, you disagree with the freedoms that our justice systems provide. if you do, there are places such as Saudi Arabia that may be more to your liking.

 

[f_w]

Not if you have been pardoned.

Well, I filled out a couple of license applications recently. Most of them ask: 'Have you ever been convicted of a crime (list all convictions, even if the record has been sealed or expunged or if you have received a pardon. Do not list traffic violations)'. Don't know what the medical school background check asks these days, but it is designed to weed out the people that will never be eligible for a license (e.g. convicted violent felons) early in the process.

Plus, the whole point of our justice system is to punish you once for your actions, not to punish you for the rest of your life.

Actually, this piece of dirt was supposed to be punished for the rest of his life (or what does 'life in prison' mean in your book). He didn't get caught with blunt during college, he committed a professionally planned kidnapping for ransom. He is lucky that he didn't kill the girl in the process, I don't think the georgia justice system would have been that kind to him (at the time, the Georgia penal code prescribed the death penalty in 'kidnapping for ransom' cases. He was a lucky man at his trial).

A medical license is a priviledge granted to us by the public. They can give it to us if they trust us, they can take it away if they don't. Not issuing a license is not punishment. The indiana board gave this guy a probationary license so he could open an office in a small underserved community that nobody else wanted to go to. The point of a probationary license is that it can be revoked without the long process required for a full license. To say that 'suddenly out of the blue' they decided to pull out the rug under him ignores the fact that other states had already (rightfully) turned him down and that he was well aware of his tenous license situation.

there are a hell of a lot of people practicing medicine right now in the U.S. who beat their wives, molest their patients, do drugs, have killed people perhaps not accidentally, and done many other horrible things...

I practice medicine and I have never done any of these things. I reserve the right to pass judgement on someone who with pre-meditation almost killed someone for financial gain and was lawfully convicted for it.
The type of his newest crimes and the degree of organization he put into it makes me certain that he was better suited for a criminal career than a medical one. (btw. there are ways to be gainfully employed if you have a medical degree but no license, the lack of a medical license doesn't excuse turning to drug and human traficking as a way to earn your living)

Unless, that is, you disagree with the freedoms that our justice systems provide. if you do, there are places such as Saudi Arabia that may be more to your liking.

That comment is both cheap and stupid.

 

[McGillGrad]

Well, I filled out a couple of license applications recently. Most of them ask: 'Have you ever been convicted of a crime (list all convictions, even if the record has been sealed or expunged or if you have received a pardon. Do not list traffic violations)'. Don't know what the medical school background check asks these days, but it is designed to weed out the people that will never be eligible for a license (e.g. convicted violent felons) early in the process.

You are not required to volunteer information if you have been pardoned. Hence, the raison d'être of a pardon. If you have been pardoned, there is no way to withhold licensing because there is no criminal record.

Actually, this piece of dirt was supposed to be punished for the rest of his life (or what does 'life in prison' mean in your book). He didn't get caught with blunt during college, he committed a professionally planned kidnapping for ransom. He is lucky that he didn't kill the girl in the process, I don't think the georgia justice system would have been that kind to him (at the time, the Georgia penal code prescribed the death penalty in 'kidnapping for ransom' cases. He was a lucky man at his trial).

You are the prime reason why we use the Constitution, reason and objectivity (not emotion) to guide our justice system. Our ability to reason without emotional prejudice is what separates us from other animals. Without it, we are merely smarter beasts.

A medical license is a privilege granted to us by the public. They can give it to us if they trust us, they can take it away if they don't. Not issuing a license is not punishment. The indiana board gave this guy a probationary license so he could open an office in a small underserved community that nobody else wanted to go to. The point of a probationary license is that it can be revoked without the long process required for a full license. To say that 'suddenly out of the blue' they decided to pull out the rug under him ignores the fact that other states had already (rightfully) turned him down and that he was well aware of his tenous license situation.

If he committed an act, post-licensing, that would illicit revocation, then I would agree but we judge people on what they do, not on what they might do.

I practice medicine and I have never done any of these things. I reserve the right to pass judgment on someone who with pre-meditation almost killed someone for financial gain and was lawfully convicted for it.
The type of his newest crimes and the degree of organization he put into it makes me certain that he was better suited for a criminal career than a medical one. (btw. there are ways to be gainfully employed if you have a medical degree but no license, the lack of a medical license doesn't excuse turning to drug and human traficking as a way to earn your living)

You have no right to pass judgment in this person unless you have walked a mile in his shoes. Until then, you are flexing your sense of moral superiority which often stems from personal feelings of inferiority.

That comment is both cheap and stupid.

You are free to argue the lengths at which our Constitutional rights can stretch but once you deny those rights, you are no better than despotic regimes such as the saudis.

 

[f_w]

You are not required to volunteer information if you have been pardoned.

Licensing applications specifically require you to list all convictions, including the ones you have been pardoned for.

You are the prime reason why we use the Constitution, reason and objectivity (not emotion) to guide our justice system.

Reason and objectivity tell me that I don't want someone who admitted to 4 murders and got life in prison for kidnapping as part of the medical profession.

If he committed an act, post-licensing, that would illicit revocation, then I would agree but we judge people on what they do, not on what they might do.

Like it or not, there are crimes in peoples past that disqualify them from a medical license.

You have no right to pass judgment in this person unless you have walked a mile in his shoes.

You mean I have to live a couple of years as a career-criminal before I can comment on one ?


The more interesting question is whether Ross admitted him knowing about his past or whether he conveniently forgot to mention that.

 

[wook]

You are not required to volunteer information if you have been pardoned. Hence, the raison d'être of a pardon. If you have been pardoned, there is no way to withhold licensing because there is no criminal record.

As stated by previous poster, you are REQUIRED to list any convictions, therefore he would be REQUIRED to discuss his previous criminal activity.

 

[McGillGrad]

As stated by previous poster, you are REQUIRED to list any convictions, therefore he would be REQUIRED to discuss his previous criminal activity.

Not if you have been pardoned.

 

[wook]

Not if you have been pardoned.

A conviction is a conviction. Failure to disclose has the potential to have you license yanked. A "not guilty" is not a conviction.

Wook

 

[McGillGrad]

A conviction is a conviction. Failure to disclose has the potential to have you license yanked. A "not guilty" is not a conviction.

Wook

You have a right under the Constitution against self-incrimination and if you have been pardoned, which is tantamount to being forgiven for a conviction, whose debt has been paid, you are not obliged to confirm it because it does not legally exist anyway.

 

[wook]

You have a right under the Constitution against self-incrimination and if you have been pardoned, which is tantamount to being forgiven for a conviction, whose debt has been paid, you are not obliged to confirm it because it does not legally exist anyway.

Your description is correct for criminal proceedings as far as your right against self-incrimination (5th amendment of US Constitution). Since application for a medical license is a civil matter (and medical school), this does not hold true and is grounds for having your privilege to practice medicine revoked if you do not report the conviction (even if pardoned).

Wook

 

[CanCan]

Well i must say you guys have provided for quite an entertaining and sometimes insightful debate BUT i must take exception to the aforequoted statment by the in-house constitutional expert, McGillGrad... i think you are referring to the 5th ammendment (the right forbidding double jeopardy and the right against self-incrimination)

Not if you have been pardoned.

Plus, the whole point of our justice system is to punish you once for your actions, not to punish you for the rest of your life

The mistake here is that although double jeopardy is forbidden IT ONLY APPLIES TO SITUATIONS IN COURT where you can't be criminally prosecuted again for the same crime... NOT, my friend, in the arena of employment where subjective criteria , like ... oh lets say your proness to commit a violent felony after you've been bestowed a position of power- where u need MORALS, HONESTY, RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE AND TO NOT BURY PEOPLE ALIVE-, can be used against u or to ur benefit. So YES, after incarceration employers, like hospitals, have the right/obligation to review your criminal past EVEN ur pardoned criminal past.

You have a right under the Constitution against self-incrimination and if you have been pardoned, which is tantamount to being forgiven for a conviction, whose debt has been paid, you are not obliged to confirm it because it does not legally exist anyway.

As for this second error, interestingly because the 5th ammendment exists (so u cant be reprosecuted for a crime for which u were aquitted/ convicted) asking about someone's past convictions is not in violation of this self-incrimination clause since YOU CAN'T BE RETRIED(incriminated) FOR THAT CRIME ANYWAY The legal system does work(sarcastic tone)

...AND by the way wook regarding this statment:

Your description is correct for criminal proceedings as far as your right against self-incrimination (5th amendment of US Constitution). Since application for a medical license is a civil matter (and medical school), this does not hold true

... the underlined portion is actually not really true... the provision in the 5th amendment DOES allow protection against self-incrimination for both crim and civil courts. but like i said b4, u cant claim the right against self-incrimination when there is no possibility of being reincriminated to begin with.


McGillGrad ... should a daycare owner hire a molester if they served their time and were pardoned 15yrs ago when they were 18yrs old? probably not. does that make the employer judgmental? of course not, it simply means that they're scrutinous. is it unfair (or dare i say constitutionally unfair) to exert this due dilligence at the expense of the molester? hellz no. unfortunately sometimes ur past does follow u... so dont bury ppl alive. (and this isn't emotion speaking; its logical constitutional objectivity)

 

[wook]

...AND by the way wook regarding this statment:

... the underlined portion is actually not really true... the provision in the 5th amendment DOES allow protection against self-incrimination for both crim and civil courts. but like i said b4, u cant claim the right against self-incrimination when there is no possibility of being reincriminated to begin with.

Actually, if you think about it, civil court is different from criminal court. Double jeopardy and the like is not covered with civil matters (ie the 5th amendment). For example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder (criminal proceedings). Yet during the civil trial WAS found responsible. The 5th applies only to criminal proceedings.There was no double jeopardy as the civil trial was not covered by the 5th amendment.

Wook

 

[CanCan]

HAHAHAH! Actually Wook I wont have to think about it cuz it is already outlined very clearly in the 5th amendment for all, including yourself, to see. My previous assertion that u were mistaken stands:

In trying to refute my correction of your statement, you've both misinterpreted my statement AND the constitution of the United States; the 5th amendment has several different provisions dealing with issues from double-jeopardy to eminent domain(u kno when the gov takes ur property for public use). So when i say that you have the right against self-incrimination for civil and crim court THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the provision dealing with double-jeopardy which applies only to criminal court.

Double jeopardy and the like[self-incrimination] is not covered with civil matters (ie the 5th amendment).

Well sorry but the CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT U ARE PROTECTED AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LEGAL MATTERS.
Since it is written in the 5th amendment this is fact and not my opinion or interpretation.
AND because i was referring to criminal double jeopardy and never mentioned anything regarding double-jeoparding in a civil matters, nothing i said was false.
btw you were misguided in linking my claims regarding self-incrimination to the separate and distinct claims i made for double jeopardy; U erroneously assumed that since i said that self-incrimination applies to both civil and criminal courts that i was implying that double jeopardy also applies to civil and criminal courts because they both fall under the 5th amendment ?????? well that was your error because u dont know that the 5th amendment has separate and different clauses (self-incrimination and double jeopardy are among them); what affects one has nothing to do with the other. i suggest u re-read the 5th amendment so as to prevent future erroneous conclusions and future irrelevant OJ examples.

From your Canadian friend,
CanCan.​

 

[McGillGrad]

HAHAHAH! Actually Wook I wont have to think about it cuz it is already outlined very clearly in the 5th amendment for all, including yourself, to see. My previous assertion that u were mistaken stands:

In trying to refute my correction of your statement, you've both misinterpreted my statement AND the constitution of the United States; the 5th amendment has several different provisions dealing with issues from double-jeopardy to eminent domain(u kno when the gov takes ur property for public use). So when i say that you have the right against self-incrimination for civil and crim court THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the provision dealing with double-jeopardy which applies only to criminal court.


Well sorry but the CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT U ARE PROTECTED AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LEGAL MATTERS.
Since it is written in the 5th amendment this is fact and not my opinion or interpretation.
AND because i was referring to criminal double jeopardy and never mentioned anything regarding double-jeoparding in a civil matters, nothing i said was false.
btw you were misguided in linking my claims regarding self-incrimination to the separate and distinct claims i made for double jeopardy; U erroneously assumed that since i said that self-incrimination applies to both civil and criminal courts that i was implying that double jeopardy also applies to civil and criminal courts because they both fall under the 5th amendment ?????? well that was your error because u dont know that the 5th amendment has separate and different clauses (self-incrimination and double jeopardy are among them); what affects one has nothing to do with the other. i suggest u re-read the 5th amendment so as to prevent future erroneous conclusions and future irrelevant OJ examples.

From your Canadian friend,
CanCan.​

Why is it that us Canadians know more about the US Constitution than Americans themselves?

 

[f_w]

State licensing proceedings are neither criminal nor civil court. They give you a license or they don't. That dude should never been licensed in the first place.

 

[McGillGrad]

Great argument based on emotion.

State licensing proceedings are neither criminal nor civil court. They give you a license or they don't. That dude should never been licensed in the first place.

 

[f_w]

What emotion ? The use of the word 'dude' ?

I think you can make a very objective case that an admitted serial killer and convicted kidnapper shouldn't be entrusted with the health of patients. The medical board of that state should have followed the lead of all the other bards that had denied him a license. If the medical boards license someone with this kind of record, the medical profession will lose even more of the precious little trust the public has in us (he didn't get locked up for overbilling medicaid or some 'poor choices' in his youth).

 

[McGillGrad]

Emotional because you do not take a step back and realize that people much more informed and educated (in law) than you made a conscious decision to pardon the man. That's right, fully pardon, not expunge his record.

You do not have all of the facts and thus are making an emotional decision about the case based on a news article.

What emotion ? The use of the word 'dude' ?

I think you can make a very objective case that an admitted serial killer and convicted kidnapper shouldn't be entrusted with the health of patients. The medical board of that state should have followed the lead of all the other bards that had denied him a license. If the medical boards license someone with this kind of record, the medical profession will lose even more of the precious little trust the public has in us (he didn't get locked up for overbilling medicaid or some 'poor choices' in his youth).

 

[f_w]

And other people with good counsel decided to pull his medical license

That's right, fully pardon, not expunge his record.

Thats right, it doesn't matter. The medical board can use whatever information they please to determine whether you are a candidate for a medical license (just like the military can decide whether they give you a security clearance or not).

 

[McGillGrad]

And other people with good counsel decided to pull his medical license



Thats right, it doesn't matter. The medical board can use whatever information they please to determine whether you are a candidate for a medical license (just like the military can decide whether they give you a security clearance or not).

Either waythe fact remains that you are emotional.

 

[f_w]

Either waythe fact remains that you are emotional.

Oh yes, I can be very emotional. A kitten run over by a truck, or a newborn will make me emotional.

But when it comes to a career criminal who
- for financial gain,
- buried his victim alive,
I think I am fairly objective when I agree with the medical board that he shouldn't practice medicine.