Jury recommends death sentence for Cleveland Serial Killer

[Babyblue]

I know. But you say nothing about innocent people being executed.

People on death row have appeals after appeals now. And I am also stating that DNA do release people. Such as the Memphis 3. More and more people that were wrongfully convicted are being released. It is a major step on protecting the innocent that were wrongfully convicted.

Yes, A few innocent people were executed in the past..
Innocent Project has helped a lot. Lawmakers do need to make a change on protecting the innocent,

 

[diehardbiker]

Yeah, DNA is not 100% evidence. I am sure that there are people out there knowing how to frame somebody else making it look like somebody else did commit crime where the actual criminal had implant DNA at crime scene. Had it happened? Of course it had and it is not that hard to do that.

The justice system is NOT 100% fool proof, why making execution legal if it is not 100% fool proof.

I would still not believe in witness, maybe up to 10% of what they said. The rest of 90% I don't believe because sometimes a person see something may have think differently and can twist the story. Witness used to be considered strong evidence, but not anymore.

You might want to check the actual evidence, not something from trutv. There was no evidence that the victims had been sodomized. Further, the witness that implicated the other 2 stated that they boys were abducted during the morning hours; a time that has been confirmed that all 3 of the accused were proven to have been in school. There are many more discrepancies. If there weren't, these 3 would never have gotten out of prison, especially given the fact of the tremendous fear, emotional response, and political motive that surrounded their trial.

You are putting a lot of faith in DNA. It cannot prove guilt. It can only prove presence. It can, however, prove that someone did not commit a particular crime, such as rape. That is why so many people have been released after serving many, many years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

 

[rolling7]

People on death row have appeals after appeals now. And I am also stating that DNA do release people. Such as the Memphis 3. More and more people that were wrongfully convicted are being released. It is a major step on protecting the innocent that were wrongfully convicted.

Yes, A few innocent people were executed in the past..
Innocent Project has helped a lot. Lawmakers do need to make a change on protecting the innocent,

Excellent and fair post......I would ask only one favor

Do not refer to "wrongfully convicted" because this is extremely rare where there has been jury misconduct. A jury of us works extremely hard with the evidence at hand. The accused has a whole system of safe guards to protect his/her rights that only evidence allowed to be presented during trial is discussed and/or debated by the jury. Once the jury comes to a decision of judgement (whichever way it goes) the jury has done the very best they can and deserve appreciation of us all.

Unfortunately there are those who, when the verdict does not go their way, seek to destroy these outstanding citizens. Recall the recent C.A trial where the jury went into hiding once done.

 

[jillio]

Show me a link that said this child was not mutilated. I am sure you did not read this link at all.. It was the DNA that got these people released.

I read the link. I also have seen more than one documentary that released the actual evidence in the case.

 

[jillio]

People on death row have appeals after appeals now. And I am also stating that DNA do release people. Such as the Memphis 3. More and more people that were wrongfully convicted are being released. It is a major step on protecting the innocent that were wrongfully convicted.

Yes, A few innocent people were executed in the past..
Innocent Project has helped a lot. Lawmakers do need to make a change on protecting the innocent,

Yes, more and more people are being released, but we cannot release the one's that are already dead. How do we give back 23 years spent on death row for a crime one did not commit? Two of the people that I listed that I asked that people check the facts of their case are already dead. For one of them, there was evidence available that pointed to his innocence. Political powers that be refused to allow the evidence presented prior to execution. The same another one.

What do you think happens to these people once DNA secures their release? Do you think that simply giving them their freedom solves all the problems? Do you think they simply pick up where they left off? The reality of what happens to these people, even once they have secured their release, is not pretty.

 

[jillio]

Excellent and fair post......I would ask only one favor

Do not refer to "wrongfully convicted" because this is extremely rare where there has been jury misconduct. A jury of us works extremely hard with the evidence at hand. The accused has a whole system of safe guards to protect his/her rights that only evidence allowed to be presented during trial is discussed and/or debated by the jury. Once the jury comes to a decision of judgement (whichever way it goes) the jury has done the very best they can and deserve appreciation of us all.

Unfortunately there are those who, when the verdict does not go their way, seek to destroy these outstanding citizens. Recall the recent C.A trial where the jury went into hiding once done.

Anyone who spends years in prison or on death row, much less suffers execution at the hands of the state for a crime they did not commit, has been wrongly convicted, as in most cases, there was evidence available that the state, for political reasons, dissallowed, was manipulated, or was "misplaced". The jury rarely is given the whole story.

Johnny Frank Garrett. Dead at the hands of the state. Proven to be an innocent man. How many are acceptable to sacrifice?

 

[Babyblue]

Excellent and fair post......I would ask only one favor

Do not refer to "wrongfully convicted" because this is extremely rare where there has been jury misconduct. A jury of us works extremely hard with the evidence at hand. The accused has a whole system of safe guards to protect his/her rights that only evidence allowed to be presented during trial is discussed and/or debated by the jury. Once the jury comes to a decision of judgement (whichever way it goes) the jury has done the very best they can and deserve appreciation of us all.

Unfortunately there are those who, when the verdict does not go their way, seek to destroy these outstanding citizens. Recall the recent C.A trial where the jury went into hiding once done.

They were wrongfully convicted... That is why the judge and the system manipulated the system that the three plead guilty... so they can release the Memphis three..... so the three could not come back and sue the shit out of the State for wrongfully convicting the three....

 

[Babyblue]

Yes, more and more people are being released, but we cannot release the one's that are already dead. How do we give back 23 years spent on death row for a crime one did not commit? Two of the people that I listed that I asked that people check the facts of their case are already dead. For one of them, there was evidence available that pointed to his innocence. Political powers that be refused to allow the evidence presented prior to execution. The same another one.

What do you think happens to these people once DNA secures their release? Do you think that simply giving them their freedom solves all the problems? Do you think they simply pick up where they left off? The reality of what happens to these people, even once they have secured their release, is not pretty.

No doubt.. Which is why I think the whole system needs an overhaul in general.

 

[jillio]

No doubt.. Which is why I think the whole system needs an overhaul in general.

Agreed. For one thing, our justice system was never intended to be politicized. Yet, politics has become more important than accuracy.

 

[Babyblue]

Agreed. For one thing, our justice system was never intended to be politicized. Yet, politics has become more important than accuracy.

I think it has improved some already.. Take Casey Anthony case. It was not the most popular verdict.. But people took it into consideration. They did not have any concrete evidence agaisnt her.. So she walked. We do not know if she is innocent or guilty. We just simply did not have enough evidence to convict her. Wasn't she facing the death penalty also?

I think the press does not help either.......

 

[rolling7]

No doubt.. Which is why I think the whole system needs an overhaul in general.

You are right about the Memphis Three, however, the damage/errors were NOT done by the jury. As stated in an above post, the jury is rarely given the full story/facts.

This is why people like O.J and C.A. get to go free. Nevertheless, the control and management of evidence allowed to be presented is a shinning star of our system. A smart (at least, worth the money!) defense lawyer spends an incredible amount of money and time keeping evidence AWAY from the jury. In effect, hiding the truth.

 

[jillio]

I think it has improved some already.. Take Casey Anthony case. It was not the most popular verdict.. But people took it into consideration. They did not have any concrete evidence agaisnt her.. So she walked. We do not know if she is innocent or guilty. We just simply did not have enough evidence to convict her. Wasn't she facing the death penalty also?

I think the press does not help either.......

The crime carried the possibility of the death sentence. And yes, this was a case, no matter how people feel about it, that demonstrated the way our justice system is supposed to work.

The press most definately does not help. The press's intent is to generate emotion and sell papers as a result. Justice cannot be meted out by emotional response.

 

[jillio]

You are right about the Memphis Three, however, the damage/errors were NOT done by the jury. As stated in an above post, the jury is rarely given the full story/facts.

This is why people like O.J and C.A. get to go free. Nevertheless, the control and management of evidence allowed to be presented is a shinning star of our system. A smart (at least, worth the money!) defense lawyer spends an incredible amount of money and time keeping evidence AWAY from the jury. In effect, hiding the truth.

Unfortuantely, it is very often the prosecutor that is hiding evidence the jury needs to have available to them. That is why we have an estimated 2 million innocent people in prison. Closing the case and making the public believe that the "bad guy" is off the street is more important than actually finding the person who did it. If it takes convicting an innocent man, oh well.

 

[Babyblue]

You are right about the Memphis Three, however, the damage/errors were NOT done by the jury. As stated in an above post, the jury is rarely given the full story/facts.

This is why people like O.J and C.A. get to go free. Nevertheless, the control and management of evidence allowed to be presented is a shinning star of our system. A smart (at least, worth the money!) defense lawyer spends an incredible amount of money and time keeping evidence AWAY from the jury. In effect, hiding the truth.

Not really, hiding the truth.. if the police would obtain the evidence like they are suppose to and follow protocol. They would be able to present the evidence. Many times the evidence have been tainted. So it makes it not a reliable evidence.

 

[deafskeptic]

The crime carried the possibility of the death sentence. And yes, this was a case, no matter how people feel about it, that demonstrated the way our justice system is supposed to work.

The press most definately does not help. The press's intent is to generate emotion and sell papers as a result. Justice cannot be meted out by emotional response.

The emotions and comments that I see in certain famous criminal cases is frightening.

 

[rolling7]

Not really, hiding the truth.. if the police would obtain the evidence like they are suppose to and follow protocol. They would be able to present the evidence. Many times the evidence have been tainted. So it makes it not a reliable evidence.

You are a little bit correct. The way the system is set up is to protect the rights of the accused. No one give a darn about the rights of the victim. Looking at it in football terms the offence has 10 players and the defense has 11 plus the refs. always favor the defense.

My point is the D.A. office is an open book. Just try and get their notes and works, the defense is allowed full access to them. But any discovery the defense fine is NOT required to be shared with the D.A. office, even if that evidence will totally prove the accused guilty.

 

[saywhatkid]

Excellent and fair post......I would ask only one favor

Do not refer to "wrongfully convicted" because this is extremely rare where there has been jury misconduct. A jury of us works extremely hard with the evidence at hand. The accused has a whole system of safe guards to protect his/her rights that only evidence allowed to be presented during trial is discussed and/or debated by the jury. Once the jury comes to a decision of judgement (whichever way it goes) the jury has done the very best they can and deserve appreciation of us all.

Unfortunately there are those who, when the verdict does not go their way, seek to destroy these outstanding citizens. Recall the recent C.A trial where the jury went into hiding once done.

So, if someone accuses you of a crime, and they get friends to back them up, and you cannot afford a decent lawyer, and you are found guilty, and they sentence you to death....how will you feel when the poisons are injected? Will you be correcting the media if they term you "wrongfully convicted?" Life must be wonderful inside that fuzzy globe you live in.

 

[rolling7]

Because only a jury can hand down a verdict, the team "wrongfully conviction" can only mean the jury did something terribly wrong. It has happen before but is extremely rare. In my universe, a jury that righteously hands down a verdict, whichever way it goes, is always shown respect. Perhaps where you are you feel differently.

 

[jillio]

Wrongful conviction means that the conviction was in error. Period. Whether it was because the prosecutor with held information from the jury or because the case was tainted in any other way...if a person is convicted as guilty of a crime they did not commit, they have a wrong conviction.

 

[saywhatkid]

Because only a jury can hand down a verdict, the team "wrongfully conviction" can only mean the jury did something terribly wrong. It has happen before but is extremely rare. In my universe, a jury that righteously hands down a verdict, whichever way it goes, is always shown respect. Perhaps where you are you feel differently.

Wrongfully convicted and wrongfully acquitted mean the same thing to different people.

Wrongfully convicted means:

• Someone is punished for a crime they did not commit
• The actual criminal remains free
• The victim does not receive justice for being wronged
• Justice system receives "black eye"

Wrongfully acquitted means:

• Nobody is punished for the crime
• The actual criminal remains free
• The victim does not receive justice for being wronged
• Justice system receives "black eye"

Bottom line: juries make mistakes. Wrongfully convicted and put to death, to me, means manslaughter by the government. Even one time is too many. If you do not see this, feel free to discuss this with the family of the "wrongfully" executed prisoner.