Murder with a really BIZZARE twist

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that Jeremy is right as a matter of law.

As for what the law should do if a person does commits a murder they were wrongly convicted of and sent to jail because of it: I think we can all agree that if the person was released early, that person would have to go back to jail to finish the remainder of the sentence. (E.g. if you were sentenced to 80 years in jail for killing me, but got after 20 because I was found to be still alive, and then u got a gun and shot me (and killed me for real), you would go back to jail to finish the remaining 60 years.)

Also, for the specific case of a double jeporady murder where the full sentence has been surved: I can sympathize with letting the person get off easy but to let the person off the hook completely is a bad idea. At least a reduced sentence of 10 or 5 years, to have something to discourage you from coming after me once you've been released.

OTOH, even if the person could not be tried on my murder a second time, the person could certainly be tried for assualt and battery (with intent to kill) if not manslaughter. Perhaps that would be enough deterrant to stop him from going after me.

As for the original case: It is well known in hollywood movies that young people who are falsely accused and sent to jail for things they didn't do will come out of jail harden criminals. Hollywood is hollywood (lower cased on purpose not a spelling error) but I'm guessing that a similiar effect is in play here. The guy had no right to kill that woman but he should be let off easy and rehabitated (big time therapy) not punished.

The skeptical part of me also can't help but wonder if the guy was set up (he really is innocent the second time around but he was framed so the county would have a better chance of winning his lawsuit against them)?

The problem is that the law is a load of rubbish anyway. It is created by humans and is infinitely fallible, If you choose to subject yourself to it, that is your choice- however remember, just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.

The 5th Amendment wasn't supposed to create a loophole as being able to kill someone twice. I honestly doubt that was the original intention. And according to law, that loophole doesn't exist.

Punishment is supposed to FOLLOW the crime, not precede it. Otherwise, it's pointless.

I agree with you. Laws that are wrong and severely cause harm to other people should not be obeyed.

Of course, laws that are wrong but do no real harm - well that I'm still not quite sure about.

The thing about laws: it's very hard to choose to give up obeying the law and get out of the social contract. Sure you can live a life of crime and such, but when/if you get caught the law will be pushed onto you (despite your choice to not obey it).

So as a matter of principle laws that are wrong should never be obeyed but as a practical matter the effort in resisting a wrongful law that causes no effective harm might not be worth it.

----
Gandhi and MLK are my heroes

I agree. That's pretty much how I live my life. I do as I see fit, and while this usually doesn't bring me into conflict with the law, if it does then I shall deal with it as I feel appropriate. There is however, little point in deliberately provoking the law when it comes to small matters.

Aren't we all jumping to conclusions? The man has not been tried or convicted of this murder. He remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he indeed committed this crime, I believe his past incarceration should have nothing to do with future sentencing. While it is horrid that he was wrongfully convicted of the first crime, and his suit in that case should be allowed to go forward, there needs to be justice for the victim as well. I just hope that the authorities do not railroad him without just cause again.

Yes, probably.

I disagree. It is certainly possible, if not likely that the reason the man turned to murder was because of what was wrongfully taken from him. There is certainly a chance to plead for insanity due to emotional distress (imho - I didn't bother to check up on case law to see how previous cases have turned out).

Agreed. But if he is insane then he should be treated, not destroyed. It is certainly not his fault that he became like that. Also, like I said before the skeptical part of me wonders if he was wrongfully set up....

I also wonder if he was set up. But if he was not, he must be tried by a jury of his peers. While others have been wrongfully sentenced for crimes they did not commit, they don't all go out and commit murder.

I postulate that he did in fact commit the first crime, and somehow the original DNA evidence was screwed up somehow so he was wrongly exonerated and released.