♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 21, 2010 13:55:24 GMT
The possible threat of the death penalty is a very compelling bargaining tool in the hands of a prosecuting attorney. Sometimes murder suspects will panic and make a plea bargain confession in cases where the police don't have hard evidence just to make sure that they won't face the death penalty. The Murder Mack killings were stopped and solved when one of the killers was questioned after a witness told police he was bragging about one of the murders. This killer in return for a plea bargain to avoid the DP testified against his murdering cohort who got the DP on the basis of this testimony. The police were also led to the remains of other victims ( whose fate would have otherwise remained unknown ) as part of the plea bargain. www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bittaker_norris/8.html If it wasn't for the terrifying possibility of the DP the predator may have remained calm and claimed the witness was lying or it was just a sick joke. The murder Mack predators were planning to torture their next teenage victim with acid and without the horrifying spectre of the DP the predator norr*s might have just laughed his way out of detention realising that the police had no solid evidence and rejoined his predator cohort b*tt@ker and continued the murder spree..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 7:16:21 GMT
There's no need to spell out the danger in offering immunity, dropped charges or other inventives to criminals in return for their testimony against others. There has to be safeguards, and the jury should (I believe) be made aware of the bargain that has been struck.
Also, the idea that sentence depends on whether the accused has information to trade makes me feel uncomfortable. When life is in the balance, the idea becomes a bit obscene.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 22, 2010 14:08:23 GMT
Plea bargaining is all about saving time and money. When justice is reduced to that level, and when accused persons can "bargain down" their actual offence and thus get a lighter sentence than they deserve, there are two victims. The first is the victim of their crime, and the second is justice itself.
It might be pragmatic, and it might be simply facing reality.......but it demeans justice!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 22, 2010 14:13:05 GMT
I know all about plea bargains and I don't like them at all.
I suppose I could just about swallow one where a single perpetrator had kidnapped someone and was holding out for a reduced sentence in return for disclosing where they were holding the victim.
With murder, I just can't see it. Either you put the murderer on trial and, if they're found guilty, punish them according to whatever the sentence of the law is, or else you're having a two-tier justice system where some perps are getting off scot-free.
I have personal experience of the unfairness of the plea bargain system. When I was 20 years old two friends of mine, a husband and wife, were victims of it.
They and two people, a man and a woman, who they thought were friends, were running a business that was - well, let's say it was operating on the margins of the law. They didn't cross the line themselves but the man DID.
When he was arrested by the police he immediately asked for a plea bargain. So did the girl.
They were granted full immunity and went on to 'testify' - actually to spin a whole web of lies - about my friends. They made out that THEY were the prime movers, made out that THEY had done all the bad and illegal stuff when in reality it was the 'plea bargainers' who had done it, and basically lied through their teeth to make them look bad.
My friends ended up in prison; the two perps walked free with a suspended sentence.
During their time inside, both the husband and wife were raped and brutalised by inmates and by guards. Both attempted suicide.
Of course I took certain steps of my own, not least because the woman was a local organiser for the BNP.
Let's say that both the lying toerags ended up in hospital and it was quite a while before they were able to walk properly again.
Citizens' justice is often fairer than the law and it certainly was in this case.
I can't see how plea bargains can really be effective.
If someone's committed murder then execute them. Don't just say, well, I know you've gone and murdered people but we'll make a deal with you so you won't get executed.
I don't think that's justice at all.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 15:01:49 GMT
There's no need to spell out the danger in offering immunity, dropped charges or other inventives to criminals in return for their testimony against others. There has to be safeguards, and the jury should (I believe) be made aware of the bargain that has been struck. Also, the idea that sentence depends on whether the accused has information to trade makes me feel uncomfortable. When life is in the balance, the idea becomes a bit obscene. not at all. since the FACT is that if three individuals participate in a robbery in which someone dies, all three are EQUALLY guilty of first degree murder, the important thing is that at least one of them are executed. it doesn't matter, either legally or morally, which of them die. if it is necessary to take the death penalty off the table for the actual shooter in order to execute the getaway driver, there is NOTHING unfair in any way about it. obviously, the best situation is to execute them all, but as i said, as long as one of them is executed, justice is served
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 22, 2010 17:18:29 GMT
not at all. since the FACT is that if three individuals participate in a robbery in which someone dies, all three are EQUALLY guilty of first degree murder, the important thing is that at least one of them are executed. it doesn't matter, either legally or morally, which of them die. if it is necessary to take the death penalty off the table for the actual shooter in order to execute the getaway driver, there is NOTHING unfair in any way about it. obviously, the best situation is to execute them all, but as i said, as long as one of them is executed, justice is served That attidude is why the death penalty was scrapped all those years ago. We had a case when two young boys were caught by the police and one of the boys drew a gun. The police attempted to take the gun from one of them and older boy, who had ben arrested at the time, shouted 'let him have it' and younger boy pulled the trigger and killed a policeman. The killer was too young to be hanged so the other boy, who was was already under arrest and in custody was hanged for a murder that he had no part in, simply because the actual killer was too young to be hanged. That hanging was nothing to do with justice and everything to do with revenge. I have always thought the death penalty people to be odd and these types of stories went on to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 22, 2010 17:35:42 GMT
I know the case you're talking about, RV.
I used to live about ten minutes away from Derek's home.
There are extreme pros just as there are extreme antis.
Actually the case you mentioned was even worse because:
a) the police committed perjury on a massive scale as testifed to by INDEPENDENT eye-witnesses
b) even the judge who sentenced him to death expected that it would be commuted
c) the Home Secretary who refused to commute the sentence was thrown out of his seat in Parliament at the next election because he'd outraged almost all the locals in his constituency by his behaviour
To return to the death penalty and plea bargaining.
I don't support executing people who HAVEN'T killed, conspired to kill or actively assisting in killing another person.
In the case Jumbo mentions I can't see ANY way in which justice is served by NOT executing the murderer and executing the two innocent people instead.
He and I have disagreed on this subject for years and neither of us will change the other's views but there you go!
If the only way to get a conviction is through the use of a plea bargain then the evidence is obviously not strong enough and you have to hold your nose and let the guilty walk.
If you've got the evidence then you don't NEED to plea bargain.
Actually a better comparison than Derek Bentley is the case of Michael (Harris, I think his name was), back in the 1950s.
Michael was a teddy boy and he and a bunch of Teds were out on Clapham Common and knives came out and someone was stabbed and died.
A lot of arrests were made (I was talking to a friend of his mother's about a month ago, amazingly, that I met at a party) but Michael was charged with murder and sentenced to death.
All over South London his sentence became a cause celebre and even hardened pros signed the petition for his sentence to be commuted.
The basic problem was that, although there was no doubt that SOMEONE among the Teds HAD committed murder, there was a LOT of doubt that it was actually Michael.
In the end his sentence WAS commuted and he emigrated to Australia.
On appeal, the ruling was that it was not certain exactly WHO had carried out the murder so Michael's execution was unsafe.
That's pretty much how I see the death penalty.
If there's doubt then doubt execute; if not, hang them high.
Does anyone seriously doubt that Steve Wright, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Beverley Allitt, Richard Ramirez, Christa Pike, Darlie Routier, Antoinette Frank (a POLICEWOMAN for God's sake!) and hundreds of other convicted killers ARE guilty?
How does it benefit anyone by keeping them alive for years rather than seeing them swinging at the end of a rope?
They murdered other people and they OUGHT to pay for that with their own lives.
I believe in proportionate justice and, as long as there's no doubt, execute the murderers!
If there is, hold back and if necessary commute the sentence.
In any case, there's no good reason for corrupt plea bargains.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 22:23:16 GMT
not at all. since the FACT is that if three individuals participate in a robbery in which someone dies, all three are EQUALLY guilty of first degree murder, the important thing is that at least one of them are executed. it doesn't matter, either legally or morally, which of them die. if it is necessary to take the death penalty off the table for the actual shooter in order to execute the getaway driver, there is NOTHING unfair in any way about it. obviously, the best situation is to execute them all, but as i said, as long as one of them is executed, justice is served That attidude is why the death penalty was scrapped all those years ago. We had a case when two young boys were caught by the police and one of the boys drew a gun. The police attempted to take the gun from one of them and older boy, who had ben arrested at the time, shouted 'let him have it' and younger boy pulled the trigger and killed a policeman. The killer was too young to be hanged so the other boy, who was was already under arrest and in custody was hanged for a murder that he had no part in, simply because the actual killer was too young to be hanged. That hanging was nothing to do with justice and everything to do with revenge. I have always thought the death penalty people to be odd and these types of stories went on to prove it. wrong all the way around. was evans there, participating in a crime when the police arrived, or was he not? REALITY!! EVERY participant, however slight the participation, in a crime in which there is a death, is guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. the simple FACT is that, if you pulled a toy gun to rob a store, and the clerk had a heart attack, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and deserve to be executed, and can be. there is NOTHING unfair about it. it is the ONLY legally and morally proper way for it to be.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 22:28:09 GMT
I know the case you're talking about, RV. I used to live about ten minutes away from Derek's home. There are extreme pros just as there are extreme antis. Actually the case you mentioned was even worse because: a) the police committed perjury on a massive scale as testifed to by INDEPENDENT eye-witnesses b) even the judge who sentenced him to death expected that it would be commuted c) the Home Secretary who refused to commute the sentence was thrown out of his seat in Parliament at the next election because he'd outraged almost all the locals in his constituency by his behaviour To return to the death penalty and plea bargaining. I don't support executing people who HAVEN'T killed, conspired to kill or actively assisting in killing another person. In the case Jumbo mentions I can't see ANY way in which justice is served by NOT executing the murderer and executing the two innocent people instead. He and I have disagreed on this subject for years and neither of us will change the other's views but there you go! If the only way to get a conviction is through the use of a plea bargain then the evidence is obviously not strong enough and you have to hold your nose and let the guilty walk. If you've got the evidence then you don't NEED to plea bargain. Actually a better comparison than Derek Bentley is the case of Michael (Harris, I think his name was), back in the 1950s. Michael was a teddy boy and he and a bunch of Teds were out on Clapham Common and knives came out and someone was stabbed and died. A lot of arrests were made (I was talking to a friend of his mother's about a month ago, amazingly, that I met at a party) but Michael was charged with murder and sentenced to death. All over South London his sentence became a cause celebre and even hardened pros signed the petition for his sentence to be commuted. The basic problem was that, although there was no doubt that SOMEONE among the Teds HAD committed murder, there was a LOT of doubt that it was actually Michael. In the end his sentence WAS commuted and he emigrated to Australia. On appeal, the ruling was that it was not certain exactly WHO had carried out the murder so Michael's execution was unsafe. That's pretty much how I see the death penalty. If there's doubt then doubt execute; if not, hang them high. Does anyone seriously doubt that Steve Wright, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Beverley Allitt, Richard Ramirez, Christa Pike, Darlie Routier, Antoinette Frank (a POLICEWOMAN for God's sake!) and hundreds of other convicted killers ARE guilty? How does it benefit anyone by keeping them alive for years rather than seeing them swinging at the end of a rope? They murdered other people and they OUGHT to pay for that with their own lives. I believe in proportionate justice and, as long as there's no doubt, execute the murderers! If there is, hold back and if necessary commute the sentence. In any case, there's no good reason for corrupt plea bargains. obviously, the ONLY morally right thing to do is execute EVEREY first degree murderer. unfortunately, because of a couple of lunatical rulings by the supreme court, that isn't feasible in practice
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 22, 2010 23:27:52 GMT
was evans there, participating in a crime when the police arrived, or was he not? Yet again you miss the entire point. Bently was under arrest and in police custody when Evens shot the copper. He was no longer part of the conspiracy at the time. That is the REALITY.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2010 5:48:45 GMT
It was Bentley (under arrest) who shouted "Let him have it" and young Evans who fired; Bentley was hung for "giving the order", but the debate rages on as to what he meant when he said it.
I once read that Evans was never asked at the trial what he thought Bentley meant, but admitted later that what Bentley must have intended was that Evans should let the officer have the gun.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 17:34:31 GMT
was evans there, participating in a crime when the police arrived, or was he not? Yet again you miss the entire point. Bently was under arrest and in police custody when Evens shot the copper. He was no longer part of the conspiracy at the time. That is the REALITY. NO lad. the REALITY is that he was part of the conspiracy from the time it was hatched until the day he died. the conspiracy doesn't end just because someone is unable to carry it to completion. that's why conspiracy is a crime entirely unto itself. whether or not the conspired act ever transpires is totally irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 17:37:02 GMT
It was Bentley (under arrest) who shouted "Let him have it" and young Evans who fired; Bentley was hung for "giving the order", but the debate rages on as to what he meant when he said it. I once read that Evans was never asked at the trial what he thought Bentley meant, but admitted later that what Bentley must have intended was that Evans should let the officer have the gun. of course, if that was the case, he would have said, "give him the gun". everyone knows what "let him have it" means, and there's NO rational way of construing it to mean anything other than "shoot him"
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 19:05:18 GMT
means, and there's NO rational way of construing it to mean anything other than "shoot him" What are you on about? You are suggesting that it is irrational to assume that 'it' refers to the gun? Are you serious about that? People us the word 'it' every day and you are able to determine what the 'it' was? That is barrel scraping, Jumbo. Everyone knows how desperate the hanging brigade are and now we have a new low in the pro hanging debate. Well done, just when I thought you guys could not sink any lower.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 19:08:20 GMT
NO lad. the REALITY is that he was part of the conspiracy from the time it was hatched until the day he died. The REALITY is he ceased to be part of the conspircacy the moment he was in police custody, from that instant on Evans was acting alone.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 19:21:47 GMT
NO lad. the REALITY is that he was part of the conspiracy from the time it was hatched until the day he died. The REALITY is he ceased to be part of the conspircacy the moment he was in police custody, from that instant on Evans was acting alone. i realize that you know nothing about the law, but, your hallucinations will NEVER become reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 19:25:28 GMT
means, and there's NO rational way of construing it to mean anything other than "shoot him" What are you on about? You are suggesting that it is irrational to assume that 'it' refers to the gun? Are you serious about that? People us the word 'it' every day and you are able to determine what the 'it' was? That is barrel scraping, Jumbo. Everyone knows how desperate the hanging brigade are and now we have a new low in the pro hanging debate. Well done, just when I thought you guys could not sink any lower. no, i'm not suggesting. i'm merely stating a fact. obviously, "it" out of context means absolutely nothing. the ONLY thing that "let him have it" means, in the context that it was uttered, and by whom it was uttered, is "kill him"
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 19:33:48 GMT
the ONLY thing that "let him have it" means, in the context that it was uttered, and by whom it was uttered, is "kill him" Oh, that is a fact then is it? That is the ONLY thing that that the alleged statement could have meant? No possiblilty when the police ask Evens to hand over the gun 'let him have it' could not mean 'give him the gun'. No the language used could only mean that Bently meant Evans to kill him? Sure.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 19:38:48 GMT
i realize that you know nothing about the law, but, your hallucinations will NEVER become reality Try reading some English case law on the subject. Once in custody, no-one can be held responcible for the actions of a third party. Had the two boys been on the roof at the time, then they were part of the same agency, but as soon as Bently was arrested, he was not part of the gang. The police lied about this in court because they knew telling the truth would have meant Bently would have gone free under English law* *free of the murder charge, he would have still had to face housebreaking charges.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2010 19:47:03 GMT
Another disturbing aspect of the Bently case is that (from what I have read) the lawyers agreed between themselves that Evans should not be asked certain questions, including the all-important "What do you think Bently meant?"
(sorry, I don't mean Evans, so I? The younger boy was Christopher Craig)
|
|