|
Post by bernard on Mar 21, 2015 19:44:52 GMT -6
I don't understand how it is that people get convicted on the testimony of jailhouse snitches. Why would we kill a man upon the word of a criminal who would do anything to advance his own interests?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 22, 2015 10:06:53 GMT -6
I don't understand how it is that people get convicted on the testimony of jailhouse snitches. Why would we kill a man upon the word of a criminal who would do anything to advance his own interests? If it leads them to facts not just hearsay why not?
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 23, 2015 18:48:09 GMT -6
I don't understand how it is that people get convicted on the testimony of jailhouse snitches. Why would we kill a man upon the word of a criminal who would do anything to advance his own interests? If it leads them to facts not just hearsay why not? Robert Pruett is scheduled to be executed next month on the evidence of prisoners and nothing else. Not sure of his guilt but there were deals with prisoners and corrupt prison guards.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 23, 2015 20:40:24 GMT -6
If it leads them to facts not just hearsay why not? Robert Pruett is scheduled to be executed next month on the evidence of prisoners and nothing else. Not sure of his guilt but there were deals with prisoners and corrupt prison guards. As I stated, if they have facts" in his case due to no real facts, juror mislead, there is no way he should remain on DR. Then there should be a new trial...which I doubt will happen. Not right at all.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 24, 2015 0:10:03 GMT -6
Cameron Willingham was convicted on the basis of two pieces of evidence. 1. The fire chiefs figured the fire that killed his children was deliberate. 2. A jailhouse snitch said that Willingham confessed. Turns out the fire chiefs got it wrong. The fire was accidental. And the snitch now admits that he lied after being bribed by the prosecutor.
They should release Willingham immedia oh crap he was executed in 2004.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 24, 2015 9:27:59 GMT -6
Cameron Willingham was convicted on the basis of two pieces of evidence. 1. The fire chiefs figured the fire that killed his children was deliberate. 2. A jailhouse snitch said that Willingham confessed. Turns out the fire chiefs got it wrong. The fire was accidental. And the snitch now admits that he lied after being bribed by the prosecutor. They should release Willingham immedia oh crap he was executed in 2004. Seems others switched up too, not just the jailhouse snitch. Too many liars & deception in this case is the problem. And so called professionals not agreeing. What I do not get is why was there a fridge blocking the back door exit of the house, the fire started in the front of the house & if he was strong & well enough ( young enough), why did he push the car out of the way. Seems he would have run to the back of the house to try to save or find his kids..no?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 24, 2015 12:08:40 GMT -6
I don't understand how it is that people get convicted on the testimony of jailhouse snitches. Why would we kill a man upon the word of a criminal who would do anything to advance his own interests? Why not? Evidence is evidence.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 25, 2015 0:59:28 GMT -6
Cameron Willingham was convicted on the basis of two pieces of evidence. 1. The fire chiefs figured the fire that killed his children was deliberate. 2. A jailhouse snitch said that Willingham confessed. Turns out the fire chiefs got it wrong. The fire was accidental. And the snitch now admits that he lied after being bribed by the prosecutor. They should release Willingham immedia oh crap he was executed in 2004. Seems others switched up too, not just the jailhouse snitch. Too many liars & deception in this case is the problem. No, the problem is that Willingham is now dead.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 25, 2015 0:59:55 GMT -6
I don't understand how it is that people get convicted on the testimony of jailhouse snitches. Why would we kill a man upon the word of a criminal who would do anything to advance his own interests? Why not? Evidence is evidence. Evidence may be evidence, but that sure isn't.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 25, 2015 7:53:21 GMT -6
Evidence may be evidence, but that sure isn't. It is if a sitting jury says so, Bernard.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 25, 2015 8:33:28 GMT -6
Seems others switched up too, not just the jailhouse snitch. Too many liars & deception in this case is the problem. No, the problem is that Willingham is now dead. Execution does that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 25, 2015 15:54:13 GMT -6
Evidence may be evidence, but that sure isn't. It is if a sitting jury says so, Bernard. I'll grant you that the authorities treat it as evidence. Just as they once treated female buoyancy as evidence of witchcraft. That just illustrates the distinction between what's treated as evidence, on the one hand, and what really is. Difficulty level: Beginner.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 25, 2015 15:55:25 GMT -6
No, the problem is that Willingham is now dead. Execution does that. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 26, 2015 8:15:30 GMT -6
TX got a new batch of execution drugs.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 26, 2015 9:13:25 GMT -6
the distinction between what's treated as evidence, on the one hand, and what really is. As if the distinction is important. It isn't.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 26, 2015 17:49:18 GMT -6
the distinction between what's treated as evidence, on the one hand, and what really is. As if the distinction is important. It isn't. I.e. you'd be happy with any old sh!t being used as evidence. Which means it's more important to you that someone gets executed than that we convict the actual killer.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 27, 2015 16:55:11 GMT -6
you'd be happy with any old sh!t being used as evidence. Which means it's more important to you that someone gets executed than that we convict the actual killer. I am simply saying it's the process that's important, not the outcome. Criminal justice is a human enterprise. It only works if it's seen to work. It is broken to the extent jury verdicts are not dispostive. Perfect justice is neither attainable or desireable.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 27, 2015 20:09:06 GMT -6
Perfect justice is neither attainable or desireable. Yeah, but you must think the current state of justice is improvable, because you think it would be improved by more executions, longer sentences, the cessation of parole, and so on. I think it is improvable too. By disallowing the testimony of someone who, having broken every other part of the social contract, has proven that his oath is worth nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 27, 2015 20:11:11 GMT -6
It is broken to the extent jury verdicts are not dispostive. Trial by combat was dispositive. That wasn't its problem.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 28, 2015 10:45:12 GMT -6
Perfect justice is neither attainable or desireable. Yeah, but you must think the current state of justice is improvable, because you think it would be improved by more executions, longer sentences, the cessation of parole, and so on. By disallowing the testimony of someone who, having broken every other part of the social contract, has proven that his oath is worth nothing. What if they do give credible information which leads with facts, should their testimony still be disallowed? Justice would improve if the DP did not take 20 or more yrs to be carried out. Longer sentences should not be added on to their time when one inside for murder kills again inside those walls, or thru escape or while on parole. Justice would improve if we stop placing those who commit non violent crimes in prison, other options are availabe for them. " " " if we stop treating women who commit heinous crimes above men for a DP verdict. Just a few improvements for a starter, w/o going to the far other extreme of no DP at all.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Mar 28, 2015 21:17:18 GMT -6
I don't understand how it is that people get convicted on the testimony of jailhouse snitches. Why would we kill a man upon the word of a criminal who would do anything to advance his own interests? Beats me! I never understood how the testimony of "Sammy the Bull" Gravano could have been accepted as credible evidence at the Gotti trial. If I had been on the jury I would have voted for an acquittal even though I personally believed Gotti was guilty of the crimes he was convicted of.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 1:50:16 GMT -6
What if they do give credible information which leads with facts, should their testimony still be disallowed? What's "credible" about it? Either it is corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. If it isn't, then we shouldn't be taking the uncorroborated word of a criminal. If it is, then we can use the corroborating evidence and dispense with the snitch. Either way, we don't need his testimony, and we shouldn't want it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 1:58:38 GMT -6
Justice would improve if the DP did not take 20 or more yrs to be carried out. I've heard other people make this claim, but I do not understand it. How does it affect the justice of the matter if the creep endures five or twenty five miserable years in jail before being poisoned? If anything, the second state of affairs seems harsher, even though it's the creep's own fault for appealing all the time.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2015 7:52:23 GMT -6
Justice would improve if the DP did not take 20 or more yrs to be carried out. I've heard other people make this claim, but I do not understand it. How does it affect the justice of the matter if the creep endures five or twenty five miserable years in jail before being poisoned? If anything, the second state of affairs seems harsher, even though it's the creep's own fault for appealing all the time. It would improve, showing we are serious, why contain them for decades first is my question to you, what does that do? What real benefit does that do them or society?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2015 9:13:49 GMT -6
What if they do give credible information which leads with facts, should their testimony still be disallowed? What's "credible" about it? Either it is corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. If it isn't, then we shouldn't be taking the uncorroborated word of a criminal. If it is, then we can use the corroborating evidence and dispense with the snitch. Either way, we don't need his testimony, and we shouldn't want it. I never said I agree to having a snitch from prison to testify/or their testimony in court. I believe a prison snitch, homeless person, anyone may have some information to follow up on, not just ignore or make deals with. They are not always liars or professional snitches.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 13:11:32 GMT -6
I've heard other people make this claim, but I do not understand it. How does it affect the justice of the matter if the creep endures five or twenty five miserable years in jail before being poisoned? If anything, the second state of affairs seems harsher, even though it's the creep's own fault for appealing all the time. It would improve, showing we are serious, why contain them for decades first is my question to you, what does that do? What real benefit does that do them or society? It provides a benefit to pros. Specifically, it ensures that, for the most part, the accused is still alive by the time the activists have proven his innocence. This spares pros some embarrassment, and allows them to more plausibly claim that no innocent has been executed, the system works, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 13:13:26 GMT -6
What's "credible" about it? Either it is corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. If it isn't, then we shouldn't be taking the uncorroborated word of a criminal. If it is, then we can use the corroborating evidence and dispense with the snitch. Either way, we don't need his testimony, and we shouldn't want it. I never said I agree to having a snitch from prison to testify/or their testimony in court. I believe a prison snitch, homeless person, anyone may have some information to follow up on, not just ignore or make deals with. They are not always liars or professional snitches. You asked why their "testimony" should be "disallowed". That sounds like you're suggesting their testimony should be heard in court.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2015 14:18:31 GMT -6
I never said I agree to having a snitch from prison to testify/or their testimony in court. I believe a prison snitch, homeless person, anyone may have some information to follow up on, not just ignore or make deals with. They are not always liars or professional snitches. You asked why their "testimony" should be "disallowed". That sounds like you're suggesting their testimony should be heard in court. Should be recorded.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 16:12:26 GMT -6
You asked why their "testimony" should be "disallowed". That sounds like you're suggesting their testimony should be heard in court. Should be recorded. So that the defense attorney can't poke holes in their lies? That makes the problem worse.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2015 16:18:38 GMT -6
So that the defense attorney can't poke holes in their lies? That makes the problem worse. Why are you certain it is a lie?
|
|