Posted on 04/03/2015 9:20:40 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Too many jurists are worse than government -- when they are from among the illiterate deadbeat government dependents.
Well, this was the result of a trial....I grant the prosecutors may have been corrupt, but the government itself ought not be indcited entirely.
What we must always remember:
Jurors in any trial only hear what the judge deems admissable.
I didn’t look at the merits of this case, but I am ever mindful that LEO, judges, prosecutors get their checks from the same source & they are expected to produce results.
WE the people demand justice - why are we surpised when we get it, or when they get it wrong? They’re only giving us what we pay them for.
Outcome based justice, it’s what’s for dinner/the other white meat.
The presumption of innocence should prevail. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not believe that standard has been met for conviction.
“The evil lying prosecutors need to lose their licenses and the he needs to sue the state. “
The evil lying prosecutors need to lose their freedom.
It is not the government that decides — it is twelve people who decide. Imperfect as it is I prefer our system to the others. In regard to this case we don’t know if he was innocent. All we know is he was eligible for a new trial and since the evidence is gone he walks. None of us know the full story here.
I second that.
The more I read about this case, the more outraged I get. The prosecutors need to spend 30 years in jail.
Worth repeating. The level of corruption in our government is far greater than just about anyone is willing to admit.
Utterly corrupt, Regardless of party, which are just two sides of one criminal organization.
Hoping I never have to face the choice, but if the police asked me to take a lie detector test "to prove my innocence", I'd say "No - look at the odds. 1) If I fail, due to nervousness or whatever, you'd say 'Game Over. We got him' and seek/build evidence along that line. 2) If it is 'inconclusive', I'm still under suspicion, and evidence to prove it would be accelerated. 3) I pass. Then it is 'The little weasel managed to beat the machine, bit we KNOW he did it.'"
I think I'd try, "OK, I'll take the test - providing YOU take one with an operator of my choice. You will be asked such questions as 'Have you ever knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, or faked evidence?"
And watch heads explode.
For an innocent man to be convicted of a crime he didn't commit is a travesty. We also know that the guilty walk every day.
FReepers, of all people, should know to do their own research before commiting.
A jury merely convicts. It a judge, a member of the judiciary, one of the three branches of the government that sentences. Even with a jury recommendation of the death sentence, it is still up to the judge who can override and sentence to life. After sentencing, it’s the executive branch that carries out the sentence.
Right - but it is the jury that convicts - supposedly wrongly convicted if we are to believe this story. So it is not the judge that screwed it is the jury - again if we are to believe he is innocent and we really don’t know all the facts.
I never understood how small government conservatives could be comfortable with giving government that right.
My point is that a life sentence can possibly be corrected with release and recompoence. A death sentence cannot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.