eym_sirius

I have no problem at all with a person getting a fair trial. I have no problem with an automatic appeal. If evidence is presented that shows that the state denied the accused any of his rights, I have no problem at all with a second trial. When he's convicted a second time, he still gets a final appeal for his attorneys to make the case that the state didn't get it right. There should be a review, and there should be one of three outcomes. Either the case is dropped, it gets retried on the basis of State/procedural error, or an execution date is set. How could this possibly be unconstitut

ZC, because you're a death penalty opponent, you're being intentionally obtuse. The trial is over. The sentencing is over. The guy is on death row. There's no more evidence to be admitted that wasn't ruled on in the trial. The guy just needs a review to make sure that the process was legal, then on to the death chamber. I KNOW that this is not the way that it is presently done, but the time for the fast track has come. This isn't anyone else's idea but mine; I haven't gotten this idea from a radio talk show, for instance. I've yet to have you quote a specific from any amendment that expla

That's a red herring, ZC. The person has already been tried, convicted and sentenced, in accordance with Constitutional principles. It's not the same process for everyone, as I explained. The District Attorney prosecutes cases at his discretion! He can CHOOSE to not seek the death penalty in one case and to seek the death penalty in another case. After the sentencing phase, there's an automatic appeal. This is as it should be. In some cases, the condemned admits his guilt due to the overwhelming evidence. He's not fighting the fact that he is guilty. He's not crazy. What's t

Try this -- Take the 15 bean soup beans and soak 'em overnight. Don't drain, put beans in a deep pot and add a good quart of water. Add "Trinity Mix" and cook them on medium heat until tenderish. Add worcestershire sauce, the packet of chicken seasoning that came with the beans, a few tablespoons of granular beef bullion, and several splashes of hot sauce. Add pot roast fat, if you're into that. Cook on low heat for 30 - 45 minutes or so. Trinity mix is equal portions of onions, green peppers and celery, all diced. A cup and a half should be a'plenty. It's awesome!!

.......under the law. Finished it for you. Yeah, he gets his day in court. That's another good example, though. He did it, everyone knows he did it, there is sufficient material/forensic evidence - there's no doubt that he did it. As long as he is not criminally insane, after his conviction, he should get a review of the case, a week, after which he can swim with the fishes. I'm eager to hear about the Constitutional specifc that you've alluded to, the one that guides your opinion on the matter.

Presently, at least a fourth of all death row inmates dies before being executed. So many of them exhaust the appeal system and so live out their natural lives. You're absolutely wrong about the legal system having to prosecute every case the same. But understand - This is after the judgment and the penalty phase. The date for execution isn't the same for everyone. The number of appeals isn't the same for everyone. The amount of time between appeals isn't universal. The execution date is TYPICALLY set after all of the appeals have been judged to have been exhausted. This is done by --

I'll tell you what I think. The defense should be able to present any and mitigating factors for consideration within a year. In the case of someone on death row with 100 percent certain evidence that he did it, like Ledford, there are no such mitigating factors. A review takes place. and if nothing reversable is produced, the condemned should get a week. A review of the original case should take no more than a few months. So -- a year and a few months and one week. That's how long someone should be on death row if it's known that he's the guy.

ARGGHHHH!!! The state got it wrong BEFORE THERE WAS DNA EVIDENCE!! Now that there IS conclusive forensic evidence - the same evidence used to let the innocent out - THERE CAN BE PROVED, 100 percent, the guilt of the accused! You know the facts. The conclusion should be that today's forensic evidence is as conclusive to convict as it is to free. Otherwise, why not have a neverending string of appeals to keep the guy in prison after DNA evidence clears him? Because DNA evidence can show guilt or innocence with 100 percent certainty.

ZC is not a proponent of the death penalty. I agree with a lot of what ZC says. I'm a liberal person, too, but the present system is badly broken. I would like for the justice system to have an even hand for those who have been wronged by the condemned individual. The fast track would take care of those who are just living out their lives in prison, circumventing the jury/judge decision regarding the imposed death penalty.

Quite simply? Not good enough. Be Specific. On what grounds is hard evidence not more compelling than soft evidence? People are treated not the same all of the time in the system! Judges have a range of penalties. That's why they call them, "JUDGES"! Now, I'm not talking about DECIDING the guilt or innocence - not at all! I'm talking about 100 percent certainty vs Not 100 percent certainty, the verdict decided by things other than forensic evidence. I'm talking about a person ALREADY CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH!! Now, specifically -- what part of the Constitution precludes a fast

Me either. Lawyers in general are not the problem with our present snafu. Unless the lawmakers happen to be lawyers! That's who deserves the blame here - Lawmakers. They are too busy traveling on junkets paid for by lobbyists who are buying their votes to worry about the disaster that is our judicial system. And whose fault is it that the same people keep getting elected? The voters, of course. The sheep.

You're using an exception to (what I suggest as) the fast-track rule to argue against the fast-track rule!! Use Ledford. Use his case to specifically argue against the fast-track. Don't argue with a broad-brush approach! That's what I say is WRONG with the system. Tell why his case, where forensic evidence conclusively determined that HE was 100 percent guilty, should be put in the same category as those who are NOT determined to be 100 percent guilty by forensic evidence, where NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH could have commited the murder(s). This case will be just an example of the fast track to

There's something that you don't hear, ZC, you really don't. My contention is that the system has not progressed along witth technology. Yes, you hear about people who have been in jail for 30 years because of misidentification. Now that technology has advanced to the point that dna evidence can provide proof-positive of a crime, evidence that was not available before, the justice system simply needs to make a special category for those individuals who have been proven beyond any doubt, through forensic evidence to be guilty. Ledford is such a case. He doesn't need appeals to determine guilt

I disagree, in part. I think that it's best to pick up the pieces and move on, but to show the other person nothing. How they perceive things has to be of no consequence. You just make the decision to move on and regard that relationship as one of the things that got you to where you are, wiser and stronger and worthy of someone special.

I'm sure that the doctor also told you to take the full round of antibiotics. You can't play around with head infections due to their proximity to the brain! Just take it easy and enjoy the boredom on this Janu-ugly day.

It's true that people keep relationships going through various types of communication. That's the difference, I think. If the bad feelings require an expression of those bad feelings that keeps the communication lines open -- that's a mixed signal. Closing off the lines of communication or just no longer communicating means "the end", regardless of whether the people "hold a grudge" or not. How does this fit with the title of the topic?

I understand what you're saying. It probably resembles a review more than an appeal, unless the defense offers up something new. Something new could take the form of coercion to plead guilty, poor representation by the attorney - stuff like that. Absent any further evidence, I think that the individual should be fast-tracked to the execution phase, to be followed by the burial/incineration phase. It's only then that the scales of justice will be somewhat balanced.

Take care of that infection, MJF! That can be extremely serious!

You make a really good point. It's not the attorney who represents the criminal to the best of his ability - It's the system that allows a never-ending string of appeals, even when there is no doubt regarding the guilt of the individual. It's a flawed system and it's not getting any better!

ZC, I think that the problem is that the public feels that their interest in justice is being bogarted. The consensus is that the absolutely guilty criminal is being given avenues to circumvent the imposed sentence. Those avenues take the form of delays, a series of appeals, as opposed to one session where any evidence of malfeasance or miscarriage of justice may be heard. I'll support the benefit of the doubt, except where there is no doubt. Then, it's just a dysfunctional system bogarting the public's right to justice.

I don't think that anyone wants the State to get it wrong. That being the case, I don't think that people mind a hearing to review the fairness of a death sentence conviction. MY complaint with the present system is when there's no doubt that the person is guilty. There's no doubt that the punishment meets the criteria for the death penalty and there's no question about the sanity of the person. When the previously described criteria are met -- why is there a delay, once there has been a review that dots the i's and crosses the t's? It becomes less like a death penalty when the guy gets

I was with you, in part, until the last line. Our system of justice is PRESENTLY designed to treat all cases alike. If a person is guilty, everyone knows he's guilty, he's not insane and his case has been reviewed in detail, found to be absolutely guilty, no doubt -- at that point it's not a matter of maintaining justice for the living criminal. It's about utilizing a broad brush approach that does NOT allow those wronged to see the scales of justice at "LEVEL" in their lifetimes, occasionally. That means that justice was NEVER done by them! A dozen years on death row? That's not justice, tha

I agree with you, in part, TC. Yes, he's scum. Yes he deserves to die. There are no mitigating circumstances. In my book, he'd get a single review/chance to appeal, not a bunch of single reviews on single appeal issues. One. He did it. Once the review/appeal has been dealt with, there should be a final decree to make it official and in a week, he's at room temperature. A word about "eye for an eye". People always quote that saying with a misunderstanding of its meaning. The meaning of it is, "Let the punishment fit the crime" or "ONLY and eye for an eye". Back in biblical times, peopl

When we had hangings and there was a rush to judgment, there were no modern forensic tools that, today, can solve crimes with cetainty. Mistakes can be made when there isn't absolute forensic evidence at the crime scene that provides irrefutable evidence. In that case, there should be NO rush to judgment. When the evidence is absolute and there can be NO DOUBT that the individual commited the crime, ONE appeal should be automatically afforded the individual and if there are no mitigating circumstances, the death penalty should be pursued immediately and to its conclusion. No more housing, fee

Who are the "Baldwin Sisters"? Or did you mean the bald twin sisters?