http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/peterson.ap/index.html
A buddy of mine was on a reaction team in San Q. I couldn't believe the stories he told me.
A buddy of mine was on a reaction team in San Q. I couldn't believe the stories he told me.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I wonder how long he will last in here.
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Hopefully he'll suffer a "lethal injection" of a shiv sooner than later in the cell-block!
20 years of feeding/housing that piece of trash is much too good for him...he's not worth wasting the taxpayers money, even if it is CA.
20 years of feeding/housing that piece of trash is much too good for him...he's not worth wasting the taxpayers money, even if it is CA.
Triumph955i said:
I've always been a fan of "An eye for an eye". And when you throw in how much money is WASTED on keeping these criminals incarcerated, you're right, get'er done!
Unfortunately he will be sitting on death row for far too long. Would be nice if the expedited this one.
Zaphod said:
When any inmate isn't doing what he is supposed to be doing in his cell, the guard will tell him twice to stop it and comply. If the inmate still doesn't comply, the guard call the "react" team. They have another name that is pretty funny, but it excapes me right now. This react team is an 8 member team all dressed in riot gear with night sticks and shields. They litterally open the cell door, bum rush the inmate all together with the shields to pin him against the back of the wall. At this point if the inmate shows any bit of resistance they proceed to litterally beat the snot out of the guy until he gives up. Then they cuff and leg shackle him and move him to another cell area where, after being checked out by medical, he will be in solitary for a few days.
The worst is when they converge on a guy hopped up on drugs and he keeps trying to fight back. John also said the average size guy on the react team is about 240 lbs.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Triumph955i said:
Oddly enough, I HAD been a fan of the death penalty - having a close friend shot to death will do that to you.
However, with all the recent publicity about innocent men being released because of new evidence lately, I've changed my mind. Yes, Lacey got convicted of a heinous crime... but what if they were wrong and someone confesses in 10 years? Maybe 2 days after Lacey is put to death? Real hard to apologize to a dead guy. At least you can release a live one and apologize profusely.
I just don't want that on my conscience... I realize that I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty any more. (OTOH, if someone gets shot committing a crime... too bad; it's his/er fault for doing it in the first place).
I think that there are some crimes that deserve death... but there's that nagging "what if we got the wrong guy" thought still. I think I'd rather pay to support him in a cage where he can't do anything to anyone else ever again. (But I don't think that they deserve cable TV and all the other goodies that they get on my dime - let 'em work for it!)
Ross
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Lynne said:Ummm....I think you meant Scott, Ross, yes?
Uhh... yeah.
For some reason I was thinking lacey was the last name... how do I hit Crtl-alt-delete for my brain?
Ross
I'm very ambivalent about the death penalty. If they caught Osama, sure I'd pay plenty to be the one to get the privilege to put a bullet in his head. A colleague of mine was on AA flt 11.
But not too long ago here in MA we released 3 men convicted of murder 20+ years ago. IIRC, they were convicted based on the testimony of a mobster. The FBI knew their informant mobster was lying on the stand, but they didn't care. The fourth man convicted died in prison.
There have been way too many similar stories in similar states.
[sheesh, I know the difference between knew and new...]
But not too long ago here in MA we released 3 men convicted of murder 20+ years ago. IIRC, they were convicted based on the testimony of a mobster. The FBI knew their informant mobster was lying on the stand, but they didn't care. The fourth man convicted died in prison.
There have been way too many similar stories in similar states.
[sheesh, I know the difference between knew and new...]
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
I don't have a problem with the death penalty, per se. It's the judicial system that leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, I don't believe they proved their case against Petterson beyond a reasonable doubt. It was all circumstantial and the cop that said he saw Lacey on the morning of her disappearance, in fact jogging, was not allowed to testify. I am NOT saying that I think he's innocent. After hearing the jurors speak I believe he was convicted because of adultry and someone had to pay for Lacey. Maybe they got the right guy, I'm just not sure.
Now, fast forward to Mark Hacking. He has confessed to killing his wife and putting her in a dumpster. She was later found in the landfill. However, because he confessed, he WILL NOT get the death penalty. WTF? This is a case of absolute proof of the killer. No chance in being wrong here. The crime is just as heinous but the punishment varies greatly.
In other words, we're only killing people who profess their innocence to the bitter end who are convicted on circumstantial evidence, but housing and feeding those who we have no doubt did the deed. In my mind, there's something wrong with that picture.
Our system was set up with the belief it was better to free a guilty person rather than to convict an innocent. Somewhere that all changed, and I'll tell you why;
Widespread media attention instantly paints the charged as a monster. Every bit of dirt that can found is brought out. Now, the people demand that someone pay for the heinous act that was committed because they're mad and scared. Prosecutors and judges are elected by these people. If the people don't 'think' they are doing a good job they don't get re-elected. The accused is then judged by these same people on the jury who are looking make someone pay. It's a vicious circle and our system is broke.
Now, fast forward to Mark Hacking. He has confessed to killing his wife and putting her in a dumpster. She was later found in the landfill. However, because he confessed, he WILL NOT get the death penalty. WTF? This is a case of absolute proof of the killer. No chance in being wrong here. The crime is just as heinous but the punishment varies greatly.
In other words, we're only killing people who profess their innocence to the bitter end who are convicted on circumstantial evidence, but housing and feeding those who we have no doubt did the deed. In my mind, there's something wrong with that picture.
Our system was set up with the belief it was better to free a guilty person rather than to convict an innocent. Somewhere that all changed, and I'll tell you why;
Widespread media attention instantly paints the charged as a monster. Every bit of dirt that can found is brought out. Now, the people demand that someone pay for the heinous act that was committed because they're mad and scared. Prosecutors and judges are elected by these people. If the people don't 'think' they are doing a good job they don't get re-elected. The accused is then judged by these same people on the jury who are looking make someone pay. It's a vicious circle and our system is broke.
There was also the fact that Lacey was pregnant too, Tony. It rips at the emotional knee muscles that cause one's limb to jerk. I didn't like the fact that it was all circumstantial evidence either, but sometimes that's all they've got. And, if there was a witness that saw her, then his defense lawyers didn't do their job. Now, all that being said, if he really is innocent - why didn't he take the stand??? I know I would. If I was accused of killing my husband and I didn't do it, I'd be in that seat screaming it loud and clear. I think that added to the jury's decision - "Why didn't he testify?". It'll be 10 to 15 years before they pull his plug anyway, so if any new evidence comes up, they can file for a new trial.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Lynne said:
You're absolutely right about Conner. However, she was pregnant when she went missing and had somehow delivered before found. I don't understand that fact. (Even having many years in the medical field)
The judge ruled the cop's testimony was not allowed. Defense raised hell but to no avail. That's the point I'm making, too much shit went on for me to draw a conclusion. Attorney shenannigan's.
Not testifying was probably due to the fact that the prosecution would make him look even more like an ass for being unfaithful. That shit weighs heavy on a jury. Being an ass doesn't mean he's a murderer. No further investigation will be conducted by anyone into another suspect because he's already been convicted, case closed in everyone's eyes. He may very well be the guy, I'm just not convinced by what little I've seen or been privy too.
On the other hand, Mark Hacking confessed. There is no doubt. He did it. Why isn't he going to suffer the same fate. That's my other point.
TonyD said:
I know what you mean. It's frosts my cake too. Cases like that happen all the time in MA (even though the majority of people in this state want the death penalty, it's not in our books). You see the SOB who did the deed and, IF you're lucky, they get life without parole. But then again, we have judges who rule to allow homosexual marriage. We also have judges who yell at the prosecution because they're trying to do their job but the lib judge doesn't like what they're doing. Not that I condon offing judges, but ya gotta wonder about them that's getting off'd and why, ya know??
Tony, most "plea bargains" involve admitting guilt and getting lesser sentences. This gives the DA brownie points, saves the cost and uncertainty of a full-blown trial and gets the bum off the street for a while anyway.
NOTHING compels the DA to cut a deal, at least legally. The pressure of getting cases off the docket is usually the driving force to cut a deal.
IIRC I think one of the OKC bombers tried to get a deal to avoid potential death penalty and the DA said "no way".
In MA, most "life with no possibility of parole" usually get their sentences commuted and released by some governor some years after most everyone has forgotten about the bum.
In the 21st Century, DNA evidence will take away all doubt about guilt for almost every capital murder case. Given that evidence, I have NO problem executing the scum after a two levels of appeals (screw this 12-20 years of appeals shit)!
NOTHING compels the DA to cut a deal, at least legally. The pressure of getting cases off the docket is usually the driving force to cut a deal.
IIRC I think one of the OKC bombers tried to get a deal to avoid potential death penalty and the DA said "no way".
In MA, most "life with no possibility of parole" usually get their sentences commuted and released by some governor some years after most everyone has forgotten about the bum.
In the 21st Century, DNA evidence will take away all doubt about guilt for almost every capital murder case. Given that evidence, I have NO problem executing the scum after a two levels of appeals (screw this 12-20 years of appeals shit)!
I think you are way, way too optimistic. DNA evidence may prove that someone was at the scene at some time. Does it really mean they did what they are accused of? That's another matter entirely. And having worked at a biotech and seen the errors that can get into DNA sequencing results, I'd have to say that it isn't quite as conclusive as you might think. Cross-contamination is not just a theortical problem.
Then there's the epistomological problem that juries never see scientific evidence. What the get is some people who the court believes are qualified sitting up there and telling a story about their tests, evaluations and conclusions. Most of the time that's both honest and in accord with science. There are always exceptions. Fingerprint matching is usually acurate, but more of an art than it's generally asserted to be, not to mention that transfers are possible, though usually detectible, if someone's looking for it. There's also been some rather significantly dishonest testimony from the FBI lab and BATFE.
I use and have great respect for scientific methodology. Unfortunately not everyone with a list of initials after their name seems to have that same level of respect. (Have degree, will testify for a price.)
Ken
I use and have great respect for scientific methodology. Unfortunately not everyone with a list of initials after their name seems to have that same level of respect. (Have degree, will testify for a price.)
Ken
Similar threads
