Death Sentence Overturned For Asshole Who Killed Dave's Mom

[Hype]

Dude should die for the murder he committed. But then again, that's the easy way out and he doesn't deserve that. Jail for the rest of his life would allow him to suffer like he should. But...then taxpayer money goes to keeping dude alive, and that's not cool. He'll be playing baseball in the courtyard, reading books, watching TV, eating...all on our dime.

Tough decision. Hell, saying HE should die just because he killed someone else doesn't seem right. Then we're just killing people too. It's fucked up philosophical shit if you think about it too much.

I'd like to say let's just keep a simple rule of if you kill someone else, you yourself will be killed...but that in itself seems immoral. But people who hurt/kill others need to be eliminated from society. But is death the answer? I hope not.



Anyways...

So.... just ramble a bunch of stuff and not make up your mind?

[Kajicat]

Dude should die for the murder he committed. But then again, that's the easy way out and he doesn't deserve that. Jail for the rest of his life would allow him to suffer like he should. But...then taxpayer money goes to keeping dude alive, and that's not cool. He'll be playing baseball in the courtyard, reading books, watching TV, eating...all on our dime.

Tough decision. Hell, saying HE should die just because he killed someone else doesn't seem right. Then we're just killing people too. It's fucked up philosophical shit if you think about it too much.

I'd like to say let's just keep a simple rule of if you kill someone else, you yourself will be killed...but that in itself seems immoral. But people who hurt/kill others need to be eliminated from society. But is death the answer? I hope not.



Anyways...

So.... just ramble a bunch of stuff and not make up your mind?

Yup. Typing out loud.

[el segundo]

Sorry for Dave to have to go through this, I am sure the news of this deffinatly has made an impact on his thought process...even if his mother was killed 20 years ago. To me it sucks that someone like this guy has been commuted of death, while political prisoners are still on death row 50 years later.

Its a damn shame that people like this guy, who clearly commited double homisde get to spend life in jail when he deserves to die. Yay for the justice system (or lack of).

[Hype]

... but the problem wasn't with the justice system, it was with the way the case was handled by specific people.

[Hokahey]

I think it's strange we're debating how much this is on Dave's mind.

[Hype]

I agree. And I still don't understand the people reacting like they're setting the guy free or something. All that happened is that they discovered they fucked up procedure, so they're making sure they take that into account now. That's not a failure of the justice system, that's a built in safeguard against injustice in the first place. Taking it personally makes no sense.

All we should be saying is that we support Dave.

[Hokahey]

I agree. And I still don't understand the people reacting like they're setting the guy free or something. All that happened is that they discovered they fucked up procedure, so they're making sure they take that into account now. That's not a failure of the justice system, that's a built in safeguard against injustice in the first place. Taking it personally makes no sense.

All we should be saying is that we support Dave.

Agreed completely.

[Romeo]

no one said it was a failure of the justice system. The system worked. He received everything the 6th amendment promises him. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

He got that.


Saying he received an unfair trial because the judge excused someone from the jury pool

trial judge presiding over the trial of John Riccardi improperly dismissed a prospective juror because of her conflicting written responses in a questionnaire asking her views of the death penalty

.
Key word "propective" not sworn.

According to the article on Huffington the outcome of this can also affect Scott Peterson, richard ramirez etc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 79144.html

[JOEinPHX]

Doesn't a Judge have the legal right to judge whether a prospective juror is fit to be utilized for trial?

I mean, if a Judge can't be trusted to use sound judgement, then who could we possibly get to judge that sort of thing?

Maybe we just shouldn't call them Judges.

[Hokahey]

no one said it was a failure of the justice system. The system worked. He received everything the 6th amendment promises him. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

He got that.


Saying he received an unfair trial because the judge excused someone from the jury pool

trial judge presiding over the trial of John Riccardi improperly dismissed a prospective juror because of her conflicting written responses in a questionnaire asking her views of the death penalty

.
Key word "propective" not sworn.

According to the article on Huffington the outcome of this can also affect Scott Peterson, richard ramirez etc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 79144.html

I'm not sure what point you'e trying to make here. It doesn't matter if she was prospective or not. The trial process did not occur as it should have according to the California Supreme Court. They're there to make these decisions.

And yes, once precedent is set in a case it CAN affect other cases. That's not a very insightful statement.

[creep]

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

california is now saving money for someone that would probably never be put to death anyway. seems ok to me.

[Romeo]

no one said it was a failure of the justice system. The system worked. He received everything the 6th amendment promises him. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

He got that.


Saying he received an unfair trial because the judge excused someone from the jury pool

trial judge presiding over the trial of John Riccardi improperly dismissed a prospective juror because of her conflicting written responses in a questionnaire asking her views of the death penalty

.
Key word "propective" not sworn.

According to the article on Huffington the outcome of this can also affect Scott Peterson, richard ramirez etc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 79144.html

I'm not sure what point you'e trying to make here. It doesn't matter if she was prospective or not. The trial process did not occur as it should have according to the California Supreme Court. They're there to make these decisions.

And yes, once precedent is set in a case it CAN affect other cases. That's not a very insightful statement.

no. It's ridiculous. a "potential" juror who is dismissed during the selection process for whatever reason (religious, ethical or moral beliefs) before a trial even starts doesn't have any baring on the outcome of the case after all the evidence & arguments.
what's next? If you're dismissed from the pool of a slip & fall case the defendant can complain because you were dismissed he received a lower settlement?


We do not have a death penalty in NY. We have no prisoners on death row. In fact we no longer have the equipment to execute a prisoner.
My nephew was murdered in 1994. Because his murder was in Washington DC and they caught his killer in Maryland after he committed another murder/robbery he was never extradited to DC to stand trial in Derwin's case. The reasoning was "he received life in Maryland so what's the point". Maryland also doesn't carry the death penalty. we never got out day in court or justice. but if we did & this animal with no regard for human life was removed from death row on a stupid fucking technicality like this, I would be ripping mad.

[Hype]

what's next?

The problem is that's fallacious reasoning (slippery slope fallacy... basic stuff). True, there is an issue of setting a precedent... but what matters for legal precedent is what the rule is that's actually being followed. The conditions which make a rule valid in one case make it valid in all cases where those conditions are the case... there's nothing sketchy about that at all.

It's a whole other thing entirely that you just don't like that the legal system is set up to make changes to sentences this way... but that's got nothing to do with "what's next". Your view of justice is just different, obviously, and you base your view, in part, on your experience with it. Nothing much anyone can say about how you feel.

There's a very real question, though, about how incarceration and punishment should operate, institutionally... and it isn't really helpful to just talk about how pissed you are or would be if such and such a case were changed or whatever. The question is what the general rules for the criminal justice system should be... how to make sure they're actually promoting "justice", whatever that is. (It's nearly the oldest question in philosophy, by the way... all the way back to Socrates in Plato's Republic asking Glaucon "What is Justice?"... they never reach a definitive answer.)

[Juana]

It compounds it all because the states have the same right of the fed gov... it makes for a huge fucking mess

[Hokahey]

It compounds it all because the states have the same right of the fed gov... it makes for a huge fucking mess

Explain.

[Juana]

It compounds it all because the states have the same right of the fed gov... it makes for a huge fucking mess

Explain.

Because in some states its basically that both the state and the fed run the prisons, and the states rights get trumped in some of those areas. Which is unconstitutional.

[Hype]

It compounds it all because the states have the same right of the fed gov... it makes for a huge fucking mess

Explain.

Because in some states its basically that both the state and the fed run the prisons, and the states rights get trumped in some of those areas. Which is unconstitutional.

I don't understand that...

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/crimin ... ution.html

States can only add to your Federal constitutional rights -- they cannot pass constitutional amendments that restrict the rights you receive under the Federal Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

I don't see how the "states rights" get trampled...

[Juana]

Because some states are broke and to take federal money they have to give into the federal government, which means they have to give up their rights in any area to get that money. An example is in Louisiana the drinking age used to be 18 years old, but they had some bad roads so to get the government to fix the states roads with federal $$$$$ it was put in there that they would have to raise the drinking age to 21. It happened in other states as well. So how is that NOT taking away a state's right?

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/03/us/lo ... of-21.html

So if the fed is going to deny money to fix highways over drinking ages, then chances are they will want the prisons run the way they want if they give federal money to a state for that cause.

[Hype]

Because some states are broke and to take federal money they have to give into the federal government, which means they have to give up their rights in any area to get that money. An example is in Louisiana the drinking age used to be 18 years old, but they had some bad roads so to get the government to fix the states roads with federal $$$$$ it was put in there that they would have to raise the drinking age to 21. It happened in other states as well. So how is that NOT taking away a state's right?

... because it isn't?

[Juana]

Okay, you're right extorting a state to do something by threat is NOT unconstitutional and trampling on the rights of the states. In fact I guess a rapist should just throw money on the victim because you know as long as the money is there then the rights are not violated.

[Hype]

Okay, you're right extorting a state to do something by threat is NOT unconstitutional and trampling on the rights of the states. In fact I guess a rapist should just throw money on the victim because you know as long as the money is there then the rights are not violated.

If a court rules that it's unconstitutional, then I'll change my mind, but I don't see how that's unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment only says that powers that aren't granted to the feds are reserved for the states or individuals... surely the power to make deals like this with states is a power the feds have... how is that unconstitutional?

[Romeo]

Supremacy clause.

though each state also has it's own state constitution it can not in anyway contradict the US constitution which applies to all citizens. If someone feels that a state law is passed and is in contrast to the US Constitution or the bill of rights then the Supreme Court can decide if it is "unconstitutional" or not.

[mockbee]

Supremacy clause.

though each state also has it's own state constitution it can not in anyway contradict the US constitution which applies to all citizens. If someone feels that a state law is passed and is in contrast to the US Constitution or the bill of rights then the Supreme Court can decide if it is "unconstitutional" or not.

That's why we are United and not 50 different countries.... It seems everyone is just posting facts, but I don't know what anybody is actually disagreeing with...

[Warped]

I remember that Dave once said either on DM or on the Howard Stern show that whatever happened to that guy there will never be forgiveness or "closure" and i don't think he would be "satisfied" when that asshole would be killed. Maybe we will hear something about it when the documentary is finished.... I wonder if he really would talk to that guy nowadays...

Especially the talk on Stern was very serious and deep, Howard seems to be very touched by the story. It was last year's show if i remember correctly.

[Romeo]

I have a lot of respect for anyone who can forgive the murderer of a loved one. Some people have, I personally can't.