Posted on 09/07/2009 9:44:43 PM PDT by george76
Jonathan Lee Adams' claims of redemption after his arrest in the killing of a 12-year-old boy has netted him a 20-year sentencing break.
The state Court of Criminal Appeals chopped two decades off Adams' sentence ...
The court left intact Adams' life term for his role in a March 2003 home invasion in which Cody Thomas was slain.
Former Judge Kenneth Irvine Jr. had stacked onto that life sentence in Thomas' slaying another 20 years for lesser crimes related to the fatal home invasion, deeming Adams a "dangerous offender" worthy of consecutive sentencing.
"As the trial court referenced, at the sentencing hearing, the defendant introduced 11 letters written by the defendant's family members, friends and other acquaintances,"
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
ht comments
mug shots?
Acts of contrition can only be made up to the moment the police decide to arrest the perpetrator. After then, it is indistinguishable from “I’m sorry I got caught.”
One of the worst perversions of justice I ever saw was the trial of a vicious child killer in California. He sat sullenly through his trial, and as the jury was leaving for its deliberations, he made an obscene gesture at them.
Later, when asked about the verdict, a juror replied, “I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, until he flipped us off. Then I knew he was guilty.”
Were I the judge in that case, and had heard that, I would have not only provided that as evidence to the defense with an endorsement to appeal for retrial, but I would have cited that juror for gross contempt of court. It was that bad.
It ruined the integrity of the trial. Though the evidence was damning, it would have remained damning through the next trial and conviction. He would not have escaped justice, but he would have received justice, not the damnation of a juror who had been offended.
That sums it up exactly!
The prison system is replete with folks who are sorry for having been caught; but that is not exactly what is ordinarily meant by real contrition.
But the killer was convicted, right?
Help me understand how this was a "perversion of justice?"
Because he was not convicted of a crime, based on evidence. He was convicted of being *rude*, by flipping off the jury. This is a face-palm right up there with convicting someone because they are ugly.
(Which also happens a lot, as proven by psychological tests that show juries convicting ugly people and acquitting pretty people, after having been shown exactly the same evidence.)
Remember that the flip side of conviction is acquittal. By doing what he did, the juror implied that he might have let a vicious child killer go free, if he had just been more polite. That is a scary prospect.
In more and more cases, juries have become so bizarre that by agreement, if the person on trial believes themselves innocent, they just ask a judge, no jury, to hear their case, believing that an objective person will see their innocence. But if the defendant is guilty as sin, they want a jury, because if just one juror is a crackpot, they might walk.
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.