Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

Captain_Swoop said:
If they hadn't released a video of themselves doing the crime they would still be free men.
Click to expand...

But do remember that the arresting officers at the time thought a crime had been committed. It was the DA that afterwards decided to sweep it under the carpet. It should have been prosecuted even without the video. The video made it impossible for the DA not to prosecute.
 
Craig4 said:
I don't really see that happening on this one. This is multiple counts of felony murder and malice murder with aggravating factors. The coming body cam video is going to make "Depraved Heart" a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

Bryan may be granted the possibility of parole. The McMichaels? Not a chance.
 
Darat said:
From what you posted "Both charges can also result in the death penalty, but prosecutors did not seek it in this case." Surely that is the judge's decision? :confused:
Click to expand...

Generally it's up to the prosecutor to seek death.
 
Darat said:
Why? - Genuinely don't understand why.
Click to expand...

It's part of the adversarial system. Sentencing is argued between the prosecutor and defense. It varies by jurisdiction, sometimes a judge rules or sometimes a jury decides where exactly within the prescribed limits the sentence lands.

Our system generally gives prosecutors a lot of discretionary power when it comes to how aggressively to act. Seems awfully arbitrary to me
 
Darat said:
From what you posted "Both charges can also result in the death penalty, but prosecutors did not seek it in this case." Surely that is the judge's decision? :confused:
Click to expand...
Capital cases are litigated differently and the jury has to understand that the death penalty is an option during the trial.

For one thing, in most states the prosecution would have to prove that special circumstances exist in the case. So, the judge can't arbitrarily turn a non-Capital case into a Capital one at sentencing.
 
Darat said:
Why? - Genuinely don't understand why.
Click to expand...

Hate to generalize here but there is quite a bit of overlap between the kind of people who would vote to convict in a death penalty case and the kind of people who think it's okay to kill a black jogger. Asking for the needle might have seated a jury much more favorable to the defense.
 
The point is, in most if not all death penalty states, the jury has to vote to recommend the death penalty, in addition to voting on the guilt of the defendant or defendants. Therefore, both the prosecution and defense have to take this into consideration during jury selection. That's why the judge can't just decide to impose the death penalty when the prosecution hasn't specifically sought it.

Note that there is an argument to be made that an entirely separate jury should vote on the death penalty. This is because anyone who admits to being opposed to capital punishment will have been excused from serving on the jury for cause, and one might reasonably conclude that people who favor capital punishment are more likely to vote for guilt.
 
jadebox said:
Capital cases are litigated differently and the jury has to understand that the death penalty is an option during the trial.

For one thing, in most states the prosecution would have to prove that special circumstances exist in the case. So, the judge can't arbitrarily turn a non-Capital case into a Capital one at sentencing.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
Darat said:
You have to remember there is only one "reason" behind all of Skeptictank's disgusting opinions, and that is "white is good, black is bad", there is nothing more sophisticated or rational than that simple mantra.
Click to expand...

I would like to reiterate Darat's point by noting that the subject of this thread is a group of men who have been caught on camera committing murder, being successfully prosecuted for the act, and now we have a poster referring to this conviction as a "win for criminals."

Fascism is nested in contradiction and doublespeak. To anyone even a little bit familiar with the English language, a "criminal" is someone who commits crimes. But to the fascist, the word denotes something more akin to a personal judgement. The "criminals" are the undesirable elements of society, possessing some ineffable quality that just makes them bad people. And of course, a civilized society must treat them appropriately: Trash goes in the dustbin, milk goes in the fridge, and minorities go in the camps.

You even see this sentiment expressed in milder forms in our criminal justice system, when a younger white defendant is given a mild sentence for a serious offense because "he has his whole life ahead of him" or "he doesn't seem like the prison type."

So don't bother arguing the facts of a crime with a fascist. It's just a "law and order" coat of paint over a pile of racism.
 
Execution for those poor, poor men? Woe, heaven forbid! They've been punished enough!

Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's part of the adversarial system. Sentencing is argued between the prosecutor and defense. It varies by jurisdiction, sometimes a judge rules or sometimes a jury decides where exactly within the prescribed limits the sentence lands.

Our system generally gives prosecutors a lot of discretionary power when it comes to how aggressively to act. Seems awfully arbitrary to me
Click to expand...

In some cases, deciding on the death penalty can also be in the Jury's remit.
 
erlando said:
Both felony murder and malice murder carries a mandatory life sentence with minimum 30 years served but the judge can decide to grant the possibility of parole in both instances.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of 30 years when I made my remark. Even at a minimum, his son will be an adult, with a life and possibly a family of his own. His biological father will no longer be in any way relevant to him, except perhaps for curiosity's sake.
 
We'll we've got the racist's opinion, I wonder how mean we'll have to be to the poor widdle racist murder to trigger the Batsignal for the board's non-racist contrarians to decide we need a good talking to.

Come on where's the "pound of flesh" people? The "we're just as bad" people? The "two wrongs don't make a right" people? Where one of our Swedes to call us barbarians because in their country murders only get 3 days in a luxury hotel?

Less flippantly and more actually on topic, my main concern now is the DA and other people who sat on the original incident. They need to see hard time.

Real talk. Long term we need more oversight on small town police forces and court systems.

We still need to remember that all of this only happened because one video went got out. Had Roddie had two more brain cells this entire incident would never have gotten out.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Come on where's the "pound of flesh" people? The "we're just as bad" people? The "two wrongs don't make a right" people? Where one of our Swedes to call us barbarians because in their country murders only get 3 days in a luxury hotel?
Click to expand...
Considering recidivism in Sweden is less than half of what we have here in the states, in spite of comparatively mild sentencing, maybe we should be listening when they tell us such things.

Oh wait, that would be unamerican.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
.....
Real talk. Long term we need more oversight on small town police forces and court systems.
.....
Click to expand...

In many places, including Georgia, prosecutors and judges are elected. Their decisions are heavily influenced by what the local voters want. That's not likely to change easily. But it's not always the problem either. In the Arbery case, the judge and (ultimate) prosecutors did an effective job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom