|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2010
Posts: 1,390
Location: Florida
|
Darth_Jim wrote: I'd still rather have the loophole here than on the other side, where innocent people paid for crimes they didn't commit with their lives. That happens pleanty of times in america too... 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/23/2009
Posts: 1,399
Location: MD
|
Of course that's gonna happen, because the judicial system involves humans, and nothing involving humans is ever perfect. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good judicial system.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/27/2010
Posts: 317
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
Darthbane53 wrote:Shes not doing any more time even...4 years down to nada, there giving her credit for her 3ish years served...and shes being let go a week from today..next sunday. Compleate Bull. Seriously? I didn't know that. So she's not even getting time for those 4 counts of lying to the authorities? Wow. What did she serve 3 years for before? Echo24 wrote:Also, I think that people haven't addressed your questions about the trial because we're not lawyers or involved with the case, none of us are qualified to do so or should. Touché. Quote:It's always bothered me when people watch coverage of a trial and then try to act like they know as much or more than the people actually involved. I'm not trying to, I just feel like the questions weren't every completely answered, and I, along with everyone else I'm sure, would like to have these answers. Darth_Jim wrote:I'd still rather have the loophole here than on the other side, where innocent people paid for crimes they didn't commit with their lives. What's the "other side?" I do have to agree with you here. This wouldn't be as big of an issue if there was no death penalty, something I'm not too supportive of in general, but that's a different argument. The thing I hate now is that, because of the double-jeopardy clause, she could basically come out and say that she did in fact kill her daughter and the most she could be charged with would be something like lying under oath and lying to the authorities (again). Am I right? If not, someone please correct me. I understand the double-jeopardy clause was put in place to protect people, but it's terrible when new evidence might be found after the trial that could have changed the court's decision, but it wouldn't matter because the person has already been tried. I'm not saying this happens often, if at all, but it is a possibility and there have to have been at least a few cases that somebody remembers where this was an issue.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2010
Posts: 1,390
Location: Florida
|
SuperYodaMan wrote:Darthbane53 wrote:Shes not doing any more time even...4 years down to nada, there giving her credit for her 3ish years served...and shes being let go a week from today..next sunday. Compleate Bull. Seriously? I didn't know that. So she's not even getting time for those 4 counts of lying to the authorities? Wow. What did she serve 3 years for before? She was basically in a holding cell for 3 years before the trial started and the judge is giving her credit for that, yes she did get 4 years, but she did 3 and dont quote me on this but using my best assumption shes getting parol for the last year.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
SuperYodaMan wrote:The thing I hate now is that, because of the double-jeopardy clause, she could basically come out and say that she did in fact kill her daughter and the most she could be charged with would be something like lying under oath and lying to the authorities (again). Am I right? If not, someone please correct me. I understand the double-jeopardy clause was put in place to protect people, but it's terrible when new evidence might be found after the trial that could have changed the court's decision, but it wouldn't matter because the person has already been tried. I'm not saying this happens often, if at all, but it is a possibility and there have to have been at least a few cases that somebody remembers where this was an issue. There are loopholes around Double Jeapardy. Why do you think O.J.'s book was scuttled. Way to dangerous for him to put it out there, as prime evidence for other options. As far as I'm aware of, at the minimum, there is still Federal laws that could be charged with new evidence. And really, I will say the only thing that boggles the mind about this case is the not guilty on Child Neglect. Just based on what I heard of the defense, they were practically admitting to it. And to be honest, I think the not guilty verdict is more cruel to her than jail time. What life is she going to be able to have now, not that is seemed that she was going to have a great life before. Unlike O.J., she doesn't have previous riches to fall back on while the hatred dies down.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/27/2010
Posts: 317
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
Sithborg wrote:And to be honest, I think the not guilty verdict is more cruel to her than jail time. What life is she going to be able to have now, not that is seemed that she was going to have a great life before. Unlike O.J., she doesn't have previous riches to fall back on while the hatred dies down. No, but she'll have the media attention for quite some time; there's already rumors that she'll end up being the subject of reality TV or something like that. This case will be remembered for a long time, regardless of your opinion of the verdict, and she'll have plenty of time to bask in the limelight. Whether that's "cruel" or not is up to each of us to decide. It may be true that she'll have nothing after her "15 minutes of fame" are up, but until then I think she's better off than she would have been otherwise.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 812
Location: Parkville, MD
|
Sithborg wrote:SuperYodaMan wrote:The thing I hate now is that, because of the double-jeopardy clause, she could basically come out and say that she did in fact kill her daughter and the most she could be charged with would be something like lying under oath and lying to the authorities (again). Am I right? If not, someone please correct me. I understand the double-jeopardy clause was put in place to protect people, but it's terrible when new evidence might be found after the trial that could have changed the court's decision, but it wouldn't matter because the person has already been tried. I'm not saying this happens often, if at all, but it is a possibility and there have to have been at least a few cases that somebody remembers where this was an issue. There are loopholes around Double Jeapardy. Why do you think O.J.'s book was scuttled. Way to dangerous for him to put it out there, as prime evidence for other options. As far as I'm aware of, at the minimum, there is still Federal laws that could be charged with new evidence. And really, I will say the only thing that boggles the mind about this case is the not guilty on Child Neglect. Just based on what I heard of the defense, they were practically admitting to it. And to be honest, I think the not guilty verdict is more cruel to her than jail time. What life is she going to be able to have now, not that is seemed that she was going to have a great life before. Unlike O.J., she doesn't have previous riches to fall back on while the hatred dies down. I'm under the impression she was not charged with child neglect, but aggravated child abuse. If charged with neglect, I'm sure they would have convicted her of it and then she would have maybe gotten a couplen of more years in jail.
|
|
|
Guest |