Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[Rolfe]

The consequence of still being considered guilty.

By whom?

You, apparently, but for no actual reason I can see.

And yes, I have read some ignorant bile being spewed on some newspaper comments threads, so some other people obviously.

But you know what? Most people are able to understand that when someone says, "I absolutely positively did not commit this crime, but I have agreed to certain legal technicalities being entered on the record in order to cut short an intolerable existence on death row," it isn't code for "I did it."

Rolfe.

 

[Tony]

The consequence of still being considered guilty.

So that sentence would have read Then being legally guilty is the consequence. They were fine with it, so let them live with the consequence of still being considered guilty they chose to face.

 

[Rolfe]

I think he means, let them live with the fact that some people will still believe them to be guilty.

That would have happened anyway. Even if they'd gone the whole nine yards, full retrial, and the case had ended in a complete acquittal, still some people would have insisted they got away with murder.

My main concern in this case is slightly different, and it's the ten years suspended sentences. These men were imprisoned in their teens, and they weren't the most intellectual or best-adjusted teenagers even then. Damien was said to have had mental health issues. They have been in the US prison system for 18 years, instead of learning how to get on in society as adult members of it.

Are they actually going to be able to keep their noses clean, under the threat of these suspended sentences? I hope so, but it's a big ask.

Rolfe.

 

[Tony]

I think he means, let them live with the fact that some people will still believe them to be guilty.

That would have happened anyway. Even if they'd gone the whole nine yards, full retrial, and the case had ended in a complete acquittal, still some people would have insisted they got away with murder.

My main concern in this case is slightly different, and it's the ten years suspended sentences. These men were imprisoned in their teens, and they weren't the most intellectual or best-adjusted teenagers even then. Damien was said to have had mental health issues. They have been in the US prison system for 18 years, instead of learning how to get on in society as adult members of it.

Are they actually going to be able to keep their noses clean, under the threat of these suspended sentences? I hope so, but it's a big ask.

Rolfe.

Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they moved to a non-extradition country just to escape the atrocious legal system they've already suffered under.

 

[Didaktylos]

... If I'm playing chess and I see mate in two, and the guy I'm playing suddenly offers a draw, I don't take it.

If you were playing against the clock with time for only one more move and your opponent wins the series if he wins the game you'd take the draw.

 

[Chaos]

Then if they were innocent they should have pressed for the new trial and let the prosecution lose or abdicate.

The justice system already sent one of them to death row and the others to prison for almost 20 years, despite them being innocent... so perhaps you´ll excuse for not having perfect faith in the ability of the justice system to let them go free if they are innocent?

 

[Checkmite]

It actually is. Surf the news for unsolved murders, then confess to one. But this misses the point. Unless we have been in that situation, there is no way any of us can know what we would do face with those circumstances.

Agreed; so really guys, knock it off with that "spend 18 years on death row and see how YOU feel" baloney.

 

[Checkmite]

By whom?

You, apparently, but for no actual reason I can see.

Do you think that bothers them?

And yes, I have read some ignorant bile being spewed on some newspaper comments threads, so some other people obviously.

But you know what? Most people are able to understand that when someone says, "I absolutely positively did not commit this crime, but I have agreed to certain legal technicalities being entered on the record in order to cut short an intolerable existence on death row," it isn't code for "I did it."

Rolfe.

So that's like the fifth rewording? Sixth? They agreed to remain on the books as "guilty". If they're willing to accept that, who am I to quibble?

 

[Checkmite]

The justice system already sent one of them to death row and the others to prison for almost 20 years, despite them being innocent... so perhaps you´ll excuse for not having perfect faith in the ability of the justice system to let them go free if they are innocent?

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial? Was it both somehow? The chance of the prosecution winning was too low for them to risk a retrial, AND the chance of them winning was too high for the defendants to risk a retrial? ?????????

 

[Didaktylos]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial? Was it both somehow? The chance of the prosecution winning was too low for them to risk a retrial, AND the chance of them winning was too high for the defendants to risk a retrial? ?????????

Actually - I think the reason was that there was no total certainty that a retrial would even be granted.

 

[Mark6]

If I'm playing chess and I see mate in two, and the guy I'm playing suddenly offers a draw, I don't take it.

If you also know the game is rigged and rules could be changed at any time -- or that had been for a long time, and you have no reason to expect different, -- taking a draw is a logical course of action.

 

[Mark6]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial? Was it both somehow? The chance of the prosecution winning was too low for them to risk a retrial,

yes

AND the chance of them winning was too high for the defendants to risk a retrial? ?????????

Even a very low chance of losing a retrial to too much when your life is at stake. It's not just the probability of win/loss that counts, it's also the consequences of win/loss.

Say, someone offers me a choice: One choice is I get $10 up front. Other choice is I open 1 of 100 boxes at random. 99 boxes contain $1000 each. 1 box contains a bomb which would kill me.

I would take $10.

 

[iknownothing]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial?

Oh, I know this one! That would be a false dichotomy. (Gold star for me, naming a fallacy!)

How about: the prosecution offered the deal because they didn't consider a retrial -- for people who have already served 18+ years -- worth the time, expense and possible negative publicity. And maybe the defendents accepted because they simply want out of prison, the sooner the better, and don't have enough faith in the justice system to hope for an aquittal.

Was it both somehow?

Perhaps neither.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial? Was it both somehow? The chance of the prosecution winning was too low for them to risk a retrial, AND the chance of them winning was too high for the defendants to risk a retrial? ?????????

The prosecution offered them the deal because clearly they thought the likelihood of them losing a retrial was very high. Otherwise, why let them walk? It's one thing to offer reduced sentences in exchange for the plea, it's another to let them walk out.

The three took the deal because the risk of not winning the retrial (if it was even granted) no matter how small it was, wasn't worth the ability to walk out free now.

 

[Chaos]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial? Was it both somehow? The chance of the prosecution winning was too low for them to risk a retrial, AND the chance of them winning was too high for the defendants to risk a retrial? ?????????

The prosecution offered this because they saw little chance, and the defendants accepted because they saw little chance.

Surely it has, at some point in your life, crossed your mind that different people might have different views, even mutually contradictory ones, on the same thing?

 

[Matthew Best]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial?

Asked and answered.

 

[iknownothing]

If they're willing to accept that, who am I to quibble?

They are accepting that they are considered guilty by law enforcement. And that they can be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their term if they get in trouble.

That does not mean that they have to pretend they're guilty, or that anyone else does. The public is free to make up their own mind -- I'm free to believe that O.J. was guilty no matter what a jury said, and that these people were probably innocent.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I'm free to believe that O.J. was guilty.

Get OUT!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Then again, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial? Was it both somehow? The chance of the prosecution winning was too low for them to risk a retrial, AND the chance of them winning was too high for the defendants to risk a retrial? ?????????

I think it was more of a situation where it was a good deal for both parties. The prosecution gets to make a statement about how they truly believed the boys were guilty, that there was no miscarriage of justice, and more importantly, that they had not made a mistake (they pleaded to the charges, they MUST be guilty!)

The defendants, on the other hand, get to go free almost immediately and return to a life with at least some normalcy in it. They could have refused the deal and waited a year in jail for the new trial to conclude to find out that they got a jury that for whatever reason wanted to convict them. It's probably a small chance, but they'd be betting their life on it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What would Pascal do?

If I'm playing chess and I see mate in two, and the guy I'm playing suddenly offers a draw, I don't take it.

Checkmite,

With due respect I think that this is a poor analogy. Let's say that the defendants believe their odds to be 95% of achieving an acquittal. Yet with the 5% chance comes either a life entirely behind bars or a death sentence. I could easily see myself forsaking this route for one in which I get released now. I don't think that the exact percentage matters terribly much for the sake of this argument.

Although one's good name is important, there are limits. I know of a case in which the state's attorney general declared three individuals "innocent" of rape (a much stronger statement than that there was not enough evidence to proceed), and yet there are still intelligent people who believe that the three are guilty. In other words, one can never completely recover one's good name, despite the fact that the evidence of innocence was overwhelming in this case. Anyone can PM me if interested in the details. MOO.