1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

OK Jurors, he said he did it. Everyone understand?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by cjericho, Jan 23, 2017.

Page 2 of 3
  1. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    The cornerstone of our justice system is that it's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed. That's why one must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
    bigpern23, Jan 23, 2017
    #13
    franticscribe likes this.
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    He went to trial (i.e. -- he was allowed a chance to defend himself against the charges) for murder. He was convicted (i.e. -- by a jury of his peers). He appealed (i.e. -- he was allowed an appeal based on legal grounds) his conviction that resulted from a trial. The appeals court upheld his appeal (i.e. -- a court listened to his argument) and remanded back for a new trial (i.e. -- so he could once again defend himself). He pled rather than going to trial again (i.e. -- availing himself of another chance to defend himself).

    That is due process at work right there. This guy was NOT cheated on the fairness scale.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jan 23, 2017
    #14
  3. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Right, but the OP is arguing he shouldn't have gotten an appeal.
     
    MisterCreosote, Jan 23, 2017
    #15
  4. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Didn't argue that. He had a right to it, but didn't mean he had to use it. He had a public defender, who is likely burdened with a lot of cases. By spending time on this guy, it likely took away time from an innocent person who was wrongly arrested.
     
    cjericho, Jan 23, 2017
    #16
  5. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    He must've told the judge 15 minutes will save him money on car insurance. Boom, case dismissed.
     
    Twirling Time, Jan 23, 2017
    #17
    cjericho likes this.
  6. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Due process is for those who deserve it. #amirite #sjethics
     
    JohnHammond, Jan 23, 2017
    #18
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    He didn't walk away.

    I am baffled as to what the problem is here.
     
    Dick Whitman, Jan 23, 2017
    #19
    franticscribe likes this.
  8. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    For some reason, cjericho thinks insanity is not relevant. Professor Charles W. Kingsfield Jr. disapproves.
     
    JohnHammond, Jan 23, 2017
    #20
  9. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    He does not "get to walk away." The state can try him again.

    Everyone's entitled to a fair trial. The appellate court concluded he didn't get one the first time, so they sent it back ..that's all ..not letting him "walk away."
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
    Stoney, Jan 23, 2017
    #21
  10. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Well if he is insane, should he be sentenced to 30 years in prison?
     
    cjericho, Jan 23, 2017
    #22
  11. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Time to rest your case, Dan Fielding.
     
    JohnHammond, Jan 23, 2017
    #23
  12. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Just thought that he was clearly guilty, and maybe should've gone right to jail after the original case. He definitely had a right to an appeal. He had a public defender in an inner-city, who most likely has more cases than he can handle. Maybe he could've waived the appeal and let the public defender help those who were wrongfully arrested.
     
    cjericho, Jan 23, 2017
    #24
Page 2 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page