|
|
Post by andie on Jan 24, 2008 17:22:38 GMT -5
No one should be given less justice...because that is not fair. However if a family wants to address the killer in court then they should be allowed too. People grieve differently and for some its having an impact statement. why are looks so important? Regarldess of looks they are still murder victims a family should have the right to speak on behalf of their loved one. I also hope that you guys are not implying that regardless of victim impact statements or not that a murder victim is not important because they are. ... But that's what happens - those without friends or relatives are given less 'justice' than others. Is that fair? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 25, 2008 6:22:12 GMT -5
No one should be given less justice...because that is not fair. However if a family wants to address the killer in court then they should be allowed too. People grieve differently and for some its having an impact statement. That is not the purpose of a criminal prosecution. It is typical of the desire to get what you want and to hell with justice. |
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 25, 2008 11:16:03 GMT -5
Regardless of a victim impact statement..the jury will still take into account that an innocent person was killed. the evidence should speak for itself, and a family should be allowed to speak for their loved one...just as the defendents family will speak on his or her innocence.It is not the job of the prosecuter to win the case fyi. No one should be given less justice...because that is not fair. However if a family wants to address the killer in court then they should be allowed too. People grieve differently and for some its having an impact statement. That is not the purpose of a criminal prosecution. It is typical of the desire to get what you want and to hell with justice. |
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jan 25, 2008 15:32:15 GMT -5
Any jury is composed of ordinary men and women. That being the case, emotion invariably comes into the picture. While I would never diminish the grief and loss felt by a victims loved ones, the introduction of emotion has no place in a court of law. Judgment must be based upon facts and facts alone, abject of emotion. Since Victim Impact Statements are introduced before a judge delivers sentence, the drama involved is most inappropriate. Should the victim's loved ones wish to address the court, the correct time would be after sentencing, although I personally feel it inappropriate even at that time.
Grief is personal and should not become a public display. It takes place at a funeral, memorial service, or however one observes it.
As with a death sentence bringing 'closure', Victim Impact Statements have become another 'flavour of the week". Both are simply sobriquets for exacting vengeance.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jan 25, 2008 17:00:35 GMT -5
Should the victim's loved ones wish to address the court, the correct time would be after sentencing, although I personally feel it inappropriate even at that time. Grief is personal and should not become a public display. It takes place at a funeral, memorial service, or however one observes it. But the victim's loved ones aren't exactly addressing the court, but addressing the one responsible for the killing, and saying what they feel they need to say. It should make no impact on a jurors decision to convict or not. The jurors decision should not be based on emotion at all, but the FACTS of the case. The victim's family should have every right to say what they need to say and I agree it should be after the sentencing. If one of my loved one's were murdered you'd better believe I would need to at least call the person a creep and ask them "why?" I wouldn't be wishing for a death sentence, but I sure would be needing to make that victim impact statement. I do believe that helps the healing process. |
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 25, 2008 17:29:48 GMT -5
I agree and I agree it should be done after sentencing. I also feel that it has nothing to do with the dp..because people will read victim impact statements in states that do not have the dp. Should the victim's loved ones wish to address the court, the correct time would be after sentencing, although I personally feel it inappropriate even at that time. Grief is personal and should not become a public display. It takes place at a funeral, memorial service, or however one observes it. But the victim's loved ones aren't exactly addressing the court, but addressing the one responsible for the killing, and saying what they feel they need to say. It should make no impact on a jurors decision to convict or not. The jurors decision should not be based on emotion at all, but the FACTS of the case. The victim's family should have every right to say what they need to say and I agree it should be after the sentencing. If one of my loved one's were murdered you'd better believe I would need to at least call the person a creep and ask them "why?" I wouldn't be wishing for a death sentence, but I sure would be needing to make that victim impact statement. I do believe that helps the healing process. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 25, 2008 18:09:25 GMT -5
... It is not the job of the prosecuter to win the case fyi. ... You are laboring under a misapprehension. Far too many prosecutors believe their job is just that - to win at any cost and to hell with the law and their ethics. They suborn perjury, bribe witnesses, hide evidence and try by any means to defeat the defense. They take an oath not to do that - and then do exactly that, knowing they will face no penalty if they are found out. |
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 25, 2008 19:58:46 GMT -5
Well I don't know why they would do that but when i become a prosecuter i'm going to do it by the book. That means present a case. I wouldn't try someone if all the evidence was circumstancial and that there isn't anything to prove that he or she did it. BTW it isn't only the prosecuter...its the corners, the police and so on. ... It is not the job of the prosecuter to win the case fyi. ... You are laboring under a misapprehension. Far too many prosecutors believe their job is just that - to win at any cost and to hell with the law and their ethics. They suborn perjury, bribe witnesses, hide evidence and try by any means to defeat the defense. They take an oath not to do that - and then do exactly that, knowing they will face no penalty if they are found out. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 25, 2008 23:06:30 GMT -5
Well I don't know why they would do that but when i become a prosecuter i'm going to do it by the book. That means present a case. I wouldn't try someone if all the evidence was circumstancial and that there isn't anything to prove that he or she did it. BTW it isn't only the prosecuter...its the corners, the police and so on. And the judges. However there is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is GREAT evidence. Direct (i.e. eye witness) evidence is often very unreliable. In the Scott Peterson case, for example, what almost all failed to appreciate is that there was NO circumstantial evidence against Peterson, all of it was in his favor. If they had found her body in his locked warehouse, or a big bloodstain in the house, the truck or the boat he'd be toast. What they found was NO evidence against him. The fact that they took 5 months to prosecute a one week case shows that the prosecution knew that too, and were trying to cover up for it. The jury remarked on how boring it was to listen to endless trivia that added nothing to the case. This gave the illusion of evidence where there was none. In the end, all they had to judge him on was that he lied to Frey for whatever reason. What he never did do was confess to her OR say he loved her. She was merely slander - she proved nothing about murder. That is not circumstantial evidence of anything, except, perhaps, poor taste. |
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 26, 2008 11:29:34 GMT -5
I still think Scott Peterson did it...but then again it is just a feeling. However, I also feel they rushed the case and they could have done more then what they did to get a conviction. It's cases such as Scott Peterson's that I will not try unless there is at least workable piece of evidence that can convict them...like what you had mentioned. Although it would be nice to find the person who murdererd a loved one, many cases are still open looking for the person, still in the process of investigation or have gone cold. However my point is people think that everything is like CSI..and how they always get the bad guy. My opinion is that Scott could actually be guilty...but how they tried him etc. puts doubt in peoples mind. I think like the OJ Simpson case, Scott Peterson Case and even with Karla Homolka they screwed up. They shouldn't have rushed it, they should have not done a stupid trail..getting OJ to try on a leather glove that was sitting in blood..hello everyone except for the prosecuters knew that the glove would shrink...like seriously...stupid. Well I don't know why they would do that but when i become a prosecuter i'm going to do it by the book. That means present a case. I wouldn't try someone if all the evidence was circumstancial and that there isn't anything to prove that he or she did it. BTW it isn't only the prosecuter...its the corners, the police and so on. And the judges. However there is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is GREAT evidence. Direct (i.e. eye witness) evidence is often very unreliable. In the Scott Peterson case, for example, what almost all failed to appreciate is that there was NO circumstantial evidence against Peterson, all of it was in his favor. If they had found her body in his locked warehouse, or a big bloodstain in the house, the truck or the boat he'd be toast. What they found was NO evidence against him. The fact that they took 5 months to prosecute a one week case shows that the prosecution knew that too, and were trying to cover up for it. The jury remarked on how boring it was to listen to endless trivia that added nothing to the case. This gave the illusion of evidence where there was none. In the end, all they had to judge him on was that he lied to Frey for whatever reason. What he never did do was confess to her OR say he loved her. She was merely slander - she proved nothing about murder. That is not circumstantial evidence of anything, except, perhaps, poor taste. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 27, 2008 14:24:08 GMT -5
I still think Scott Peterson did it...but then again it is just a feeling. However, I also feel they rushed the case and they could have done more then what they did to get a conviction. It's cases such as Scott Peterson's that I will not try unless there is at least workable piece of evidence that can convict them...like what you had mentioned. Although it would be nice to find the person who murdererd a loved one, many cases are still open looking for the person, still in the process of investigation or have gone cold. However my point is people think that everything is like CSI..and how they always get the bad guy. My opinion is that Scott could actually be guilty...but how they tried him etc. puts doubt in peoples mind. I think like the OJ Simpson case, Scott Peterson Case and even with Karla Homolka they screwed up. They shouldn't have rushed it, they should have not done a stupid trail..getting OJ to try on a leather glove that was sitting in blood..hello everyone except for the prosecuters knew that the glove would shrink...like seriously...stupid. No, he could not have done it. Just the fact that the prosecution could not come up with a plausible theory of how he could have done should have been enough to find him not guilty. The total lack of evidence of guilt, and the mountain of evidence of innocence were also enough. Sadly he didn't get a jury of unbiased citizens, he got a self appointed lynch mob who never considered the possibility of his innocence for a moment. Shame on all involved. See another9912.googlepages.com/theoddsand another9912.googlepages.com/theassumptionsfor more. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jun 7, 2008 9:26:09 GMT -5
The ONLY reason that executions are expensive, is because of the ridiculously long time it takes to carry out the sentence. All the appeals, hiring the lawyers & judges, incarcerating these unbelievably dangerous killers, so they cannot kill citizens, OR themselves, or the young boy, in prison for the first time. Make the time, between sentencing, and execution, a mandatory 6 months....remove the totally political, law-defeating pardons, by governors, or anybody else. And the cost of an execution would be the most cost-effective "bargain" in keeping our innocents safe, ever conceived. Remember, no executed murder....EVER killed again.  There you go. A REAL solution. Too bad that so very many innocent people would die too, but the entertainment value of executions would make it all worth while I assume? BTW, how will you feel when you are executed despite innocence? You'll accept it as a necessary part of the cost cutting? |
|
|
|
Post by banshee on Jun 7, 2008 10:02:53 GMT -5
Without the death penalty there would be money to ensure the prisons aren't over-run, crowded, under-funded, under-staffed, and over-utilized. It's an easy thing for lazy politicians to do to get elected - support the death penalty. Only those who are involved know how completely compromised the process is and how expensive. The ONLY reason that executions are expensive, is because of the ridiculously long time it takes to carry out the sentence. All the appeals, hiring the lawyers & judges, incarcerating these unbelievably dangerous killers, so they cannot kill citizens, OR themselves, or the young boy, in prison for the first time. Make the time, between sentencing, and execution, a mandatory 6 months....remove the totally political, law-defeating pardons, by governors, or anybody else. And the cost of an execution would be the most cost-effective "bargain" in keeping our innocents safe, ever conceived. Remember, no executed murder....EVER killed again. Remove the Death Penalty and shut up vengefull Murder Victim Surviviors who cry you a river if they don't get what they want and the costs will drop too. |
|
|
|
Post by banshee on Jun 7, 2008 10:22:15 GMT -5
Without the death penalty there would be money to ensure the prisons aren't over-run, crowded, under-funded, under-staffed, and over-utilized. It's an easy thing for lazy politicians to do to get elected - support the death penalty. Only those who are involved know how completely compromised the process is and how expensive. Remember, no executed murder....EVER killed again. Remember, no murder victim ... EVER got killed again |
|
