He's 'lucky' they messed the papers up for the death penalty39yrs in prison and he was innocent
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...670562#rlabs=7
He's 'lucky' they messed the papers up for the death penalty
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...670562#rlabs=7
All his adult life spent behind bars based on the evidence of a lying 12 year old.
Hopefully he'll get adequately compensated.
I'm sure he will, bless him!Originally Posted by Ako Si Jamie
All his adult life spent behind bars based on the evidence of a lying 12 year old.
Hopefully he'll get adequately compensated.
I'm sure he will, bless him!
What are the chances of that? First met him 39 yrs ago
Read more here ....Prosecutor Timothy McGinty said his case had fallen apart and dismissed objections to Jackson's motion for a new trial. Prosecutors later dismissed the charges against the men.
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justi...iends_lea.html
I believe the American system doesn,t allow for compensation - no matter how long you serve as an innocent person.All his adult life spent behind bars based on the evidence of a lying 12 year old.
Hopefully he'll get adequately compensated.
He's 'lucky' he didn't end up as one of Dedworth's good news stories
Exactly.He's 'lucky' he didn't end up as one of Dedworth's good news stories
Yet another reason why the death penalty is wrong.
I'm really pleased for the guy, but it's not another case to be against the death penalty in the modern world especially where you have the 2 slugs who killed Lee Rigby or Ian Huntly. They did not have DNA testing in those days either. I'm for it if proved beyond all doubt - as in the 2 cases I have mentioned - as it would be impossible to have a miscarriage of justiceHe's 'lucky' they messed the papers up for the death penalty
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...670562#rlabs=7
Les.. I have nothing against life sentences for the type of "people" you describe as long as the guards can give them a good kicking at least once a week and the inmates can freely add ground glass to their coffee at will... You know..Like they did in the good old days.
I can accept that, but they would still be on my Death Row, and I would torture them repeatedly by letting them have their last meal, then electric chair and pardoning them at the last minute - to be repeated over and over. Then, when I felt really mean, I would strap one of 'em in, bring along the other one to watch and fry the ........ then tell the other one it's your turn next week - maybe!Evillestaxi.com
That is for the ones I have mentioned and not for a case not 100% proven I might add. Right - typing that has cheered me up, so I'm off for a 6 mile walk
In regards these two fellas, I hope that they sue the justice system for Millions and millions of dollars to help compensate for such a sad loss of the best years of their lives..
I respect them both immensely for the attitude they displayed after release.. Incredible IMO.
Not wrong for the likes of Ian Huntly, Yorkshire Ripper, Dr.Shipman, killers of Lee Rigby. Could go on and on ...Yet another reason why the death penalty is wrong
Wish you would read what I put - instead of just arguing for the sake of it Joe!They believed that this guy and the other 2 were guilty enough to give them the death penalty
I said in 100% proven cases - which Lee Rigby's killers, Ian Huntly and the Yorkshire Ripper are.
So these 3 guys nearly got the death penalty in a less than 100% proven case.Wish you would read what I put - instead of just arguing for the sake of it Joe!
I said in 100% proven cases - which Lee Rigby's killers, Ian Huntly and the Yorkshire Ripper are.Maybe they should not have been charged at all then
What about Stefan Ivan Kiszko Les? Is he one of your 100% proven cases?
I'm not even going to bother looking it up. My reply was for modern 100% proven cases.
Lee Rigby's killers are one example - are you saying that was not 100% proven?
That is the type of incident I'm referring to. Nothing to do with reasonable doubt or anything like that.
So where there is no doubt, for the 100th time Joe,
I'm not even going to bother looking it up. My reply was for modern 100% proven cases.
Lee Rigby's killers are one example - are you saying that was not 100% proven?
That is the type of incident I'm referring to. Nothing to do with reasonable doubt or anything like that.
So where there is no doubt, for the 100th time Joe,
This thread is about innocent people being convicted not guilty ones..
When are you going to execute them Les, when it's 100% no doubt, when you've convicted him ? What about 16 yrs later when it's 100% no doubt he's innocent ? Are you going to release him then ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_MolseedA 23-year-old local tax clerk of Ukrainian/Slovenian parentage, served 16 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted of her sexual assault and murder. His ordeal was described by one MP as "the worst miscarriage of justice of all time."[1] Kiszko was released in 1992 after forensic evidence showed that he could not have committed the murder. He died in December 1993. Ronald Castree (born 18 October 1953 in Littleborough, Lancashire) was eventually found guilty of the crime on 12 November 2007.
I think it's fairly obvious what Les is saying and I agree with him.
There's no doubt what 100% means and the examples he's given are irrefutable. If there were any element of doubt - or the accused consistently proclaimed their innocence - then that obviously isn't 100%
Thank you Simon
But how can they sentence anyone who is not 100% guilty at all?
Do they judge that if the evidence is, let's say, 75% guilty, they are classed as guilty?
Why are they jailed at all if the evidence is not 100%?
But how can they sentence anyone who is not 100% guilty at all?
Do they judge that if the evidence is, let's say, 75% guilty, they are classed as guilty?
Why are they jailed at all if the evidence is not 100%?
I think this explains it better than I could
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[1]
Generally the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.
Thanks Simon, it's not as clear cut as guilty or not guilty.
Criminal Law is complicated.
Here's my considered opinion:
If ... on the basis of irrefutable DNA evidence available at the scene of the crime ... ANY person charged, is found guilty of premeditated, cold~blooded murder - then that person should be for "the chop"No two ways about it!
Or caught red handed as in Lee Rigby
Or caught red handed as in Lee Rigby... but I would start with sexually~motivated child killers - like Brady, Hindley, Tobin and the aforementioned Huntly - thereafter, I'd move on to *terrorists and **drug barons ... BOTH lots of whom are responsible for wiping out innocent people ... the *former lot [usually and mercifully] instantaneously and the **latter far more frequently causing a horrendously slow, lingering death.
I think I follow the Amnesty international line
The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated
If we had the death penalty here all these people and more would have probably been executed despite later being found innocent.
Bridgwater3 Guildford 4 Birmingham 6 Maguire 7 Stefan Kizko Barry George Sean Hodgson
More than 130 death row inmates have been proved innocent in the US since 1973.
Like most I agree we have some vile scum in our prisons some of which I'd probably quite happily pull the trigger on if I caught them in the act but I could never support the death penalty as long as the risk remains of innocents being killed. Life in Prison should mean exactly that with no privilidges and hard labour wherever possible.
I would not execute anyone without 100% proof.
I would happily be a volunteer executioner
Same here Les!I would not execute anyone without 100% proof.
I would happily be a volunteer executioner
Joe has been on crystal meths again - ramblings of a madman
You are the only one who does not seem to understand what I said - everyone else does.
Argument for argument's sake Joe
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
