|
Post by skyloom on Feb 27, 2006 11:18:23 GMT -5
I have only been a member on this board a very short time, but time and time again I have read and continue to read stories on here of how death row prisoners are being treated inhumane. .... They're in prison to pay their debt to society, not to live on easy street. If they wanted a comfortable life they should have thought about that before they murdered innocent victims. Life in prison is never comfortable. The fact that an individual is deprived of his or her freedom and is subject to the rules set up by prison authorities is sufficient punishment. There is no need to treat prisoners with additional inhumanity. BTW, no one who is sane actually expects to be caught. It would be great if a potential murderer were deterred by the thought of prison, but that is just not how human beings work. Let's at least try to be realistic here.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Feb 28, 2006 3:14:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Feb 28, 2006 13:47:54 GMT -5
Suzanne, I have a question for you - I don't know all the details of Richard's story, so know that I'm in no way implying his guilt. I read somewhere that while awaiting trial Richard wrote letters to the other men involved urging them all to agree on a single story, which were intercepted by authorities and later helped convict him. If, in fact he was innocent what was the purpose of such letters? Yes, I read the same articles. I'm not going to argue his innocense. Rich was executed for a crime he did not commit. Please do more research about him, such as searching all the verious news articles, all the claims of innocense. If you can find those letters anywhere, please post them. What was printed in the paper did not prove anything. There is a letter from one of the men who testified against Rich in which this man confessed to the killing. Does that mean anything to you, jennaleigh? And that same man also changed his story saying prior to Rich's execution. Does that also mean anything to you, jennaleigh. Research his case. There is plenty of information. Just type "Richard Cartwright 999224", "Richard Cartwright death row" and "Richard Cartwright executed" in your searches and you will find plenty of information. hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Feb 28, 2006 14:10:44 GMT -5
First of all Suzanne, lets clear some things up. I did not ask you to argue his innocence and plainly stated that I was in no way implying his guilt. I was merely asking a question. You being a supporter of his and knowing a great deal about the case I assumed you wouldn't mind sharing a little info. Apparently I was wrong. As for me finding the letters and posting them? I never said such letters existed, hence why I asked you about them. I was only stating what I had read. Furthermore, what's with the repeated "Does that mean anything to you jennaleigh?" I mean, come on. You were questioning his innocence. Rich is dead. He was my dear friend. I was insulted by you coming to me questioning his innocence. If you question such, research. I was merely helping you by giving you said information to do your research. If you just research "richard cartwright", you will find many sites pertaining to a Richard Cartwright from Austin, Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Alyce on Feb 28, 2006 16:17:35 GMT -5
I don't know one person who has ever read Rich's story that believed he was guilty.,For he was an innocent man murdered by the state of Texas for a crime he DID NOT commit. And I don't think anyone should come here and state things they know absolutly nothing about Rich and his fight. So take Suzanne's advice and do the research.
Bless All!! Alyce
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Feb 28, 2006 23:28:48 GMT -5
Dear Jenna, I have read this a few times but I still do not see your point, you say that you do not advocate further inhumanity but that is exactly what your posts say.
The punishment a person receives is to be detained in prison, people are not sent to be punished in prison.
Do you have any experience of what the conditions are like in prisons?
You said "They deserve every bit of pain they are suffering". We do not, in England at least, treat inmates according to their moral standards but by our own. The way that a nation treats its prisoners is the way that state is judged. As Jesus put "My father will judge you by the you treat the least of my people".
Remembering that an estimated 10% of all people in American prisoners are innocent, how would you expect to be treated in prison if you were among that 10%?
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by dfar on Feb 28, 2006 23:58:10 GMT -5
Why suzanne are you taking it out on her? She has stated she is not implying his guilt.
Why continue posting this repeatedly? She has already stated she is not against you, yet you continually respond to her in a childish manner time after time.
Is that your opinion? I can post stats that say less than 1% on DR are "innocent". The term innocent to me means they did not committ the crime.... Not that they are innocent on a technicality, such as mental illness or improper police procedures. Because a cop makes a mistake in the investigation, does not mean that the person did not commit the crime. So please explain what creditable source that your stats come from. Just curious......
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Mar 1, 2006 0:09:41 GMT -5
Dear Dfar, If you understood the American legal system, the appeal courts only find techinical faults in cases where they believe that a person is actually innocent. WHy do they do so? Because innocence is no grounds for appeal (USSC 2000).
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by dfar on Mar 1, 2006 0:20:42 GMT -5
My question would be, why are they facing an appeals court in the first place? To face an appeals court, means they were convicted of the crime in a court of law in the first place. So, if YOU know anything about the American Laws and justice system, you would know that the conviction would have to come from an entire Jury of American Citizens, one of which I sat on during a trial recently. By the way, are you a US citizen? Just curious?
just me
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Mar 1, 2006 2:49:08 GMT -5
My question would be, why are they facing an appeals court in the first place? To face an appeals court, means they were convicted of the crime in a court of law in the first place. So, if YOU know anything about the American Laws and justice system, you would know that the conviction would have to come from an entire Jury of American Citizens, one of which I sat on during a trial recently. By the way, are you a US citizen? Just curious? just me Dear Dfar, I would not trust having somebody on a jury who is too stupid to see from my info that I am from Bognor Regis in England. Law is my business and I was taught what I know about American law by a US Federal Appeals Judge. My daughter is from Maryland however. Just because a person is found guilty by a jury, that does not always mean that they are guilty, if that was the case we would not need the appelant courts. Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by peacefulfrog on Mar 1, 2006 3:12:08 GMT -5
I wasn't going to mention it in case of an argument but I just wanted to say I couldn't agree with you more on the above comment Judy. Same goes with this comment -- although more of a serious nature I cannot think of anything more full of truth than this. Take care. - Ben.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Mar 6, 2006 10:54:07 GMT -5
My question would be, why are they facing an appeals court in the first place? To face an appeals court, means they were convicted of the crime in a court of law in the first place. So, if YOU know anything about the American Laws and justice system, you would know that the conviction would have to come from an entire Jury of American Citizens, one of which I sat on during a trial recently. As Judy explained, proof of innocence is not grounds for appeal. That probably sounds bizarre to you, as it does to me, but the U.S. "just us" system is most reluctant to question the decision of a jury... even when new, exculpatory evidence comes to light. The judges have to determine that if the original jury had heard the new evidence there is a reasonable certainty that they would have voted differently. Since the judges have no way of knowing what exactly persuaded the original jury to render a guilty vote, they are extremely reluctant to re-examine any case. Here's an excellent online video series from Frontline that examines some of the issues: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/burden/view/
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Mar 7, 2006 0:16:31 GMT -5
Dear Sky, We also have to remember the most important thing for the American Government: If a person is later found not guilty due to a technicality, they do not have to pay out the millions in compensation they would have to pay out if the person was simply found not guilty because they are innocent.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Mar 7, 2006 14:43:50 GMT -5
Dear Sky, We also have to remember the most important thing for the American Government: If a person is later found not guilty due to a technicality, they do not have to pay out the millions in compensation they would have to pay out if the person was simply found not guilty because they are innocent. Love and hugs, Judy It's pretty darn hard for anyone to get those millions, Judy. A few are compensated, but very, very few. Most just get an apology. Generally, the state legislature has to approve a resolution to provide compensation for someone who was wrongly accused. If the person does get money, it's a pretty sorry amount when compared to all s/he's lost.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Mar 7, 2006 14:59:28 GMT -5
Dear Sky, You are right there, though many do not even get an apology, the DAs still say the peson was guilty and the courts made a mistake letting them go.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|