|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
KODIAK 
Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 10 2003,2:11 pm |
|
   |
Somebody said something about (paraphrasing) "nobody in their right mind would let Manson out..."
Remember, this is the judicial system that let a jury come to the conclusion in the O.J. case that DNA evidence was "weird science" and the judge in that case was intimidated into a hapless pile of goo.
I am all for the Bill of Rights, but an amendment needs to be made concerning a Right to Trial by a jury of your peers. It is far outdated. Think about it, a jury these days are made up of people (big generality here) who are not smart enough to get out of it. A jury these days do not make up a representative cross section of the populace (i.e. not my peers) If my life is on the line, I want someone who will weigh evidence, and will not make emotional decisions, and certainly not someone who believes reality is what they see on soap opera's or on Playstation 2.
--------------
"Dyin ain't much of a living.....boy" Clint (Outlaw Josie Wales)
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 24 2003,3:27 pm |
|
 |
What's anybody think about the D.C. sniper--Malvo--got life in prison without parole for 1 of the killings? For me, it reinforces the contention that it is inconsistently applied--this is the guy that hid in a specially designed snipers hole in the trunk of the car, that looked through the scope, took careful aim, and pulled the trigger at an innocent human being at least 20 times--gets life--but the wheelman gets death.
Insult to injury--they "fine" him $200,000--that money has about as much chance to be paid as the Freeborn County "Pay to Stay" program. 
I hope he is tried for every one of his crimes--yes, it costs the counties involved money, but the families of the victims deserve the knowledge that at least some of this guys upcoming misery was as a direct result of what he did to their family.
Being facetious here, it's interesting that Washington, D.C. was one of the cities that tried to sue gun manufacturers for causing misery to their citizens. One of the indictments against the manufacturers was "failure to protect citizens" (when the gun did exactly what it was supposed to do). Using the same standard, why couldn't the municipality be sued for failing to protect its citizens?
Edited by jimhanson on Dec. 24 2003,4:01 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Tiger
Group: Members
Posts: 606
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 26 2003,8:38 am |
|
|
Jim, I don't think you can make a good judgement of the jury's decision by what you have read in the newspapers. The jurors heard testimony and evidence you may not know about.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 26 2003,9:08 am |
|
|
I do believe sometimes that our judicial system is way out of whack and needs to be revamped. Tiger, you do make a valid point that we don't hear everything, however, Malvo was the trigger man and has so far only received life without parole.
Let's look at a different case, Gary Ridgway, the infamous "Green River Killer." This maniac had a twenty year murder rampage with 48 people dead. He's allowed to make a
plea agreement with the court. In the agreement, the court agreed if he plead guilty and helped authorities find the bodies, he would be given life without parole. Where's the justice in that?
In some of these instances, the only possibilities of the "eye for an eye" justice is that perhaps one convicted murderer will eliminate another murderer.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 26 2003,10:20 am |
|
|
| Quote | | "The jurors heard testimony and evidence you may not know about. |
That excuse won't work. There were reporters in the courtroom the whole time--the jurors were not given any secret testimony. Malvo didn't deny shooting the people--he used a modified "insanity defense"--bringing in his upbringing. Most legal analysts didn't think it would work, and the jury didn't buy it, either. Apparently, only his age saved him.
I've said before, I'm not against the death penalty, but I am when it is inconsistently applied. Some states wouldn't have saved him because of his age--inconsistent application. Another jury in the same state might have disregarded his age and recommended the death penalty--inconsistent application. He could have been tried in a Federal court as a terrorist, and sentenced to death (as McVeigh was)--inconsistent application. This guy didn't do this by accident, he didn't do it as part of another crime--more than 20 times, he crawled into a specially made snipers nest, looked through the scope, and pulled the trigger on an innocent victim. He gets life, the guy that drove the car gets death--inconsistent application. As Kodiak said | Quote | | "Remember, this is the judicial system that let a jury come to the conclusion in the O.J. case that DNA evidence was "weird science" and the judge in that case was intimidated into a hapless pile of goo." |
No question, inconsistent application.
Question for Forum participants--what percentage of time do you think the judicial system produces an absolutely correct verdict? Fifty percent? Seventy five? Ninety? Most attorneys will tell you that you may have an iron-clad case--but increasingly, there is the element of surprise in jury makeup--you may lose! Think of how many cases are overturned on appeal. In the case of the death penalty, the certainty should be nearly 100%.
It is fashionable to be non-judgemental--but sometimes, we must be. Either do away with the death penalty, or make sure that it is fairly and consistently applied.
Edited by jimhanson on Dec. 26 2003,10:24 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Outsider
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 26 2003,12:05 pm |
|
|
Jim ...Great post. I think you hit the nail on the head. In death penalty cases, the certainty should be nearly 100%. Unfortunately, it rarely is and that's one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty.
In response to your question posed, I think you should look at the judical officers serving in Freeborn County. What percentage of cases do you think a judge or jury produces a correct verdict? I believe in jury cases, the percentage is pretty good. However, when a judge is the sole decision maker, I believe the percentage drops rapidly.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 26 2003,1:42 pm |
|
|
| Quote (jimhanson @ Dec. 26 2003,10:20:am) | | Question for Forum participants--what percentage of time do you think the judicial system produces an absolutely correct verdict? Fifty percent? Seventy five? Ninety? Most attorneys will tell you that you may have an iron-clad case--but increasingly, there is the element of surprise in jury makeup--you may lose! |
It depends... The vast majority of cases are settled in a plea, sometimes the prosecutor doesn't have the time, or the evidence needed for a harder penalty to go to trial. But then most people charged don't have the money for a lawyer to defend them, so they end up with a court appointed lawyer who sometimes defends them, other times sends them to jail regardless of the how strong the case is. If the prosecutor gets $70k-$90k a year and your lawyer gets $50 from the state to defend you, well... cross your fingers.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
