|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 7:38:54 GMT -5
I've recently befriended a new pen pal - Briley Piper (in DR in South Dakota) and only today did I research into his crime - The torture killing and robbery of Chester Poage. After reading the case, I felt a little sickened, but as a true Anti, I still oppose his execution, especially as one of his co-killers - Darrell Hoadley, who equally contributed to the murder was given Life sentences, whereas Briley and Elijah Page were given Death sentences. You can find details of the case in the following site, www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?category=opinions&nav=5378&year=2002&month=8&record=1015Can anyone give their thoughts on this case? Gill x
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 9:22:25 GMT -5
Dear Gill,
I think I would have had gone for the Death Penalty on all three...Maybe the jury for the other two guys felt that LWOP was enough of a punishment. And they decided that was enough. In Florida, the judge has to give great weight to what the jury has decided. I think he can go for more, however, that is a grounds for appeal... But this does go back to an earlier arguement I had with drugs...People will do almost anything to get money for drugs and this proves it...
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 9:33:57 GMT -5
You're wrong on a few things. Page and Piper declined having a jury deem their sentences, just the judge.
"Apparently hoping to avoid capital punishment, Piper and Page pleaded guilty, giving up their right to trials. They also rejected the judge's offer to have jurors decide their sentences."
Also, only one of the 3 was given LWOP, not 2. I doubt it was essentially for drugs also, more for the joy of the attack, otherwise they would have killed him instantly, and the thrill of a robbery, which was the main motive. Thank you for your response, Mike, but please read the case before deciding to put all 3 to death? Only, if you had read it, I wouldn't have had to correct you. Cheers, Gill. x
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 9:45:43 GMT -5
I read the link...It only mentioned Hoadley. I would have wanted a jury, not a judge and would have pleaded not guilty...Otherwise, you are asking for trouble...
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 9:49:33 GMT -5
You would have lied? I thought you Pros were concentrated on morality, and offenders being "men" and admitting to their crimes, not wasting tax payer's money on appeals . . . and yet, you, would have lied? I must say I am surprised. Regards, Gill
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 9:52:28 GMT -5
You always plead not guilty...Maybe the jury would have sympathy for you...Anything can be tried. For example, a white Death Row inmate is claiming that blacks were excluded from his jury and is demanding a new trial based on that... Like I said, anythingto give you hope...
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 9:59:31 GMT -5
I still don't understand your foundation. If an offender has pleaded 'not guilty', and then is found guilty, Pros are the first people to claim how disgusted they are. You do not always plead 'not guilty'. If evidence is screaming against you, as Piper did nothing to conceal the evidence, and yet you lie that it had nothing to do with you, then I wouldn't feel sorry for the offender. By pleading 'guilty' you are admitting to your actions, and showing remorse, and closure for the families. I'd be easier on a person like that. All 3 pleaded 'guilty' and one was given LWOP, the other 2 were given death sentences. Where's the stability in that? All 3 equally participated in the crime. Piper's mistake was allowing a judge who abuses the death sentence to deem his sentence, rather than the jury. Gill
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 10:02:48 GMT -5
In the American Justice System, you are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty...If you plead not guilty, he has to either try you or let you go... If you plead guilty, you are saying that you did it...Even with a parking ticket... Now, if you decide to fight, you fight will all you have...
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Jun 14, 2005 10:04:02 GMT -5
Hmmmm, who was it that said Rich should have taken the deal rather than plead not guilty? I'll have to check.....bbl.
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 10:07:48 GMT -5
The evidence was stacked against him; even Hoadley, who they'd arrested first spoke against Piper. Piper knew he'd be found guilty. That was obvious. He thought his best tactic would be to just admit it, and hope for LWOP. After all, Hoadley, who also admitted to it had been given LWOP. Yet, due to the unfairness of the system, Page and Piper were sent to DR. There's something really wrong with that. Gill
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 10:48:17 GMT -5
That is why you plead not guilty...And hope for the best... But what nailed Cartwright was that he had communicated with other people in jail, and the letters wereintercepted...he did everything right, but he tried to get the other people involved to work with him...
WIth this guy, i am not sure of his case. There was not enough information in the on the website you gave...
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 10:51:12 GMT -5
Then use your initiative and google it.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 10:52:32 GMT -5
When I get time...I am taking a break from moving books...
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Jun 14, 2005 11:13:23 GMT -5
That is why you plead not guilty...And hope for the best... But what nailed Cartwright was that he had communicated with other people in jail, and the letters wereintercepted...he did everything right, but he tried to get the other people involved to work with him... WIth this guy, i am not sure of his case. There was not enough information in the on the website you gave... Have you seen the "incrimidating" letters?
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 11:21:45 GMT -5
No. The DA that prosecuted the case mentioned them in the news after the execution...
|
|