• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ok, why should *this* guy live?

Wowbagger said:
I thought someone could be tried for a crime, again, if new evidence came about to make such a trial worthwhile.

Wouldn't this confession constitute new evidence?
Click to expand...

If the evidence would help overturn the conviction it can result in new trials. The thing is that the system is weighted strongly in favor of the defendant.

That is why in a case where there was issue of some guy who was tried for rape or murder, they found photos proving did it after he was found not guilty. He ended up being convicted of purgery as he took the stand.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Good to see that justice was served properly at least.
Click to expand...

Well, heh, then I must sadly ruin it for you by saying that most Confessing Sams aren't brought to such swift justice. E.g., John Hart, who confessed to being the infamous Jack The Ripper, wasn't even brought to trial, on the ground that he was only 3 years old when the first murder had been committed.

But that does bring the question: how many of them should one hang so it counts as justice properly served?

As much as 50 people have confessed to having commited the shocking murder of Eizabeth Short, and at least one other case has over 20 self-confessed murderers of the same child.
 
dtugg said:
No. New evidence is not grounds for a new trial on the part of the state. But as AvalonXQ eloquently explained, this piece of crap wasn't charged with the same crime twice.
Click to expand...

So how many different trials for the same crime can you have.

"well we didn't get him on this murder charge, so we will introduce a different murder charge and have another trial".
 
dudalb said:
BY that logic, society has no right to use lethal force to defend itself.
Click to expand...

No. See we have prisons, so we don't need to kill him to defend ourself against him. Now you want to kill him, but I would be happy if many people died(say Jenny McCarthy, she has killed more people than this guy) but for some reason killing her is not regarded as the only method we have of defending society from her.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Right, sorry. To clarify: the murder charge was remanded to be retried. The remand was for a retrial, not just for sentencing. I wasn't clear on that.

You can read the details here.
Click to expand...

Ah so the second trial was a result of overturning the first death penalty, and he made the statement after the overturning of the first trial and before the second trial?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how many different trials for the same crime can you have.

"well we didn't get him on this murder charge, so we will introduce a different murder charge and have another trial".
Click to expand...

They can always bring different charges as long as there is evidence to support it. It's not the states fault that this dumbass piece of crap confessed to committing a crime that unknown to him was technically different.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how many different trials for the same crime can you have.
Click to expand...

You can have one trial for each crime.
Under Virginia law, "killing girl A while attempting to rape girl B" is a different crime from "killing girl A while attempting to rape girl A".
Prosecution: He killed girl A and tried to rape girl B, and that's capital murder.
Virginia Court: No it's not. Have a retrial on whether he killed girl A, and this time you can't use the fact that he tried to rape girl B to make it capital murder.
Murderer: Ha! Not only did I kill girl A, I also tried to rape her!
Prosecution: Okay, then. He killed girl A and tried to rape girl A, and that's capital murder.
Virginia Court: Yes it is. Death penalty for him.

ETA:
ponderingturtle said:
Ah so the second trial was a result of overturning the first death penalty, and he made the statement after the overturning of the first trial and before the second trial?
Click to expand...

That's correct. I'm sorry if my earlier description was unclear on this point.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
They can always bring different charges as long as there is evidence to support it. It's not the states fault that this dumbass piece of crap confessed to committing a crime that unknown to him was technically different.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of say having a trial for manslaughter, then waiting for more evidence and retrying for murder? You think that this wouldn't be double jepardy?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you are in favor of say having a trial for manslaughter, then waiting for more evidence and retrying for murder? You think that this wouldn't be double jepardy?
Click to expand...

I figured you would trot out something like this next.
The doctrine is called "lesser included offense". If one of the two crimes must be true for the other to have occurred, then you can only be tried for one of them. Being guilty or not guilty of one of them tolls double jeopardy on all the others.
 
Arcade22 said:
And what exactly is wrong with revenge?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to live in a society that sanctioned revenge. That's a fast recipe for long term violence. Eye for an eye is a crap philosophy that we should have matured out of by now as a society. Sequester those who refuse to live by our rules in prisons for as long as it takes, up to and including the rest of their lives, but there's no need to have a revenge mentality in the justice system. It benefits no one. No tangible benefit to the victim, to the state, to the accused, to the whole of society.
 
AvalonXQ said:
You can have one trial for each crime.
Under Virginia law, "killing girl A while attempting to rape girl B" is a different crime from "killing girl A while attempting to rape girl A".
Prosecution: He killed girl A and tried to rape girl B, and that's capital murder.
Virginia Court: No it's not. Have a retrial on whether he killed girl A, and this time you can't use the fact that he tried to rape girl B to make it capital murder.
Murderer: Ha! Not only did I kill girl A, I also tried to rape her!
Prosecution: Okay, then. He killed girl A and tried to rape girl A, and that's capital murder.
Virginia Court: Yes it is. Death penalty for him.
Click to expand...

So can try someone for the same murder many times you just then try him for the murder of girl A, and not mention the rape of Girl B. Now a totaly different crime. So you can get many many convictions for murder with only killing one person.
ETA:


That's correct. I'm sorry if my earlier description was unclear on this point.
Click to expand...

The point is one of cronology. He he said this after he had been convicted of the first degree murder and then sentenced to life in prison that would be different to having his first sentence overturned he then says this and is used in his second trial. The cronology is important here.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I figured you would trot out something like this next.
The doctrine is called "lesser included offense". If one of the two crimes must be true for the other to have occurred, then you can only be tried for one of them. Being guilty or not guilty of one of them tolls double jeopardy on all the others.
Click to expand...

So you can be retried after being convicted of manslaughter, for murder of the same person?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you can be retried after being convicted of manslaughter, for murder of the same person?
Click to expand...

No. Again, once you've been found guilty of one of these, you're done.
Lesser included offenses are the "same" offenses for double jeopardy purposes.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
No. Again, once you've been found guilty of one of these, you're done.
Click to expand...

And that is why I thought it was a legitimate double jepardy issue, because if he had been tried on the first degree murder charge and convicted they couldn't get him on the second capital murder charge. Neither the article or any of the others seemed to care about the exact timing of his statement and that he was retried instead of having his first erronious capital murder conviction reduced.
 
Oh, thank you. It's wrong because you say so and clearly, we should just move on since you have enlightened us all with your wisdom.
Click to expand...
The OP didn't really have a point to it, other than to give an example of a person who did something very bad. I could do the same thing for just about any scenario.
 
Arcade22 said:
The state also gets do decide who gets do be thrown into jail for the rest of their life. How exactly would that be any different from killing them directly?
Click to expand...

If it is determined that there was an error/bias/wrongful conviction, the person isn't dead.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

And hell, that's assuming a benevolent but somewhat incompetent government, lets not even get into a malevolent one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom