posted
I'm not putting this in the Flameboard, because it isn't a discussion about whether the use of the death penalty is right or wrong. I'm putting it here because it's quite an interesting situation, and I think as many peoplem as possible ought to be made aware of it.
Basically, to sum it up, this guy is on death row because he supposedly paid some guy to kill someone. However, the killer has since admitted that he lied in order to plea bargain himself out of execution, and the guy who is on death row actually had nothing to do w/ the murder.
But he's still going to be executed, as it stands now. The courts keep denying his appeals because the killer who admitted to perjury isn't trustworthy.
Yeah, the American (in)justice system works soooo well... *rolls eyes*
------------------ My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
posted
I think it would be up for a JURY to decide whether or not the dude is telling the truth now. Deffinitly, at the very least, give this guy on Death Row another appeal/trial. If he isn't ... well, it just goes to show what's wrong with the Death Penalty system. At least with a trial, if he's found to be un-trustworthy, people can say "yeah, but he got another trial after the new evidence appeared, and they still found him guilty" instead of "you got new evidence, didn't do a damn thing about it, and fried an innocent person!"
That's how I see it, in any case.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 19, 2001).]
Seriously, in any case, when something like this comes along, it pretty much screams for "APPEAL!" or "NEW TRIAL!"
Because, let me tell you, getting to say, "hey, in this case, the guy whose testimony put the dude in the electric chair said he lied on the stand and you still killed the guy without giving him a re-trial! Foul!"
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000
posted
I'd agree to that. Assuming there's the slightest chance, there should probably be a new trial.
I was on a jury on a drug trial a while back, and we had a witness for the defense who was an admitted liar, habitual drug user, filer of false reports, and who had been intimately involved with the accused.
Needless to say, we found her testimony to be neither believable nor remotely credible.
We found the guy guilty of 3 of 4 charges, and would have convicted him of intent to sell, except one of our jurors was an idiot who couldn't understand the concept of independent thought. (In other words, we, the jurors, independently discovered damning evidence which neither the prosecution or the defense had noticed, but she wouldn't accept it as being usable.)
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Oh, I can hear the studios baying already. Great High-Concept flick here: Jurors carry out their own investigation of the crime, and find evidence each side of the case missed.
I'm trying not to be judgemental here, but what is this so-called evidence and how did you come by it? Aren't such situations meant to mean the jury has been unfairly influenced? However, since you all felt the witnesses were unconvincing, you just decided in this case it wouldn't matter too much. Thank Christ for that one juror who actually too his job seriously, I say.
------------------ "Businesses used to be like Christianity; if you were faithful and obedient, you could obtain bliss in the afterlife of retirement. Now it's more of a reincarnation model. If the worker learns enough in his current job, he can progress to a higher level of employment elsewhere."
posted
Well, it depends on how the defense and prosecutions handle their cases.
The Prosecution is of course going to argue that the man's testimony can't be believed: he's lied before, why believe him now?
The Defense will go a different route. Yes, he's lied before. But by telling the truth now to set free an innocent man, he's exposing himself to horrid consequences, such as jail time and possible the death penalty (if he was the one who actually killed the guy). It's his conscience that's killing him now, and he wants to make sure the wrong guy doesn't go down for it.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Thank God that tabloid newspapers are there to fill in the gaps that the lawyers so carelessly leave behind.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
No, that's the penal system you're thinking of. 8)
Which wasn't actually meant to be a pun, but that works too!
------------------ "Businesses used to be like Christianity; if you were faithful and obedient, you could obtain bliss in the afterlife of retirement. Now it's more of a reincarnation model. If the worker learns enough in his current job, he can progress to a higher level of employment elsewhere."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
