Should bomber be allowed a deal?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Serial Bomber Eric Rudolph pleads guilty to bombings , but reserves a plea of guilty for the bombing of the olympics in order to secure a deal that would spare him a death sentence. Should we allow people with the lowest reguard for life to plead their way out of a death sentence they themselves imposed on their victims? I think not , this is a travisty when a man is bold enough to kill yet can't take the same in return which sickens me. We must formulate new laws that restrict deals in matters where in the blaiten disreaguard for life is displayed.




www.msnbc.msn.com...


April 8: Eric Rudolph is to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty to a string of bombings, including the Atlanta Olympic park blast. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.

[edit on 8/4/2005 by drbryankkruta]




posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Well, first off, good on him to use it to his advantage. Whether you agree or not, it'd be stupid in his position not to take it.

Anyway, I agree it's not fantastic to allow people to lower their sentences, but it's much more desirable than the alternative, which is often a number of dropped counts due to unsubstantial evidence, which results in a large amount of time and money being wasted, and possibly even less jail time.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Anyway, I agree it's not fantastic to allow people to lower their sentences, but it's much more desirable than the alternative, which is often a number of dropped counts due to unsubstantial evidence, which results in a large amount of time and money being wasted, and possibly even less jail time.




Points all good yes, however the man was going to get the death penalty before the deal right then here in lies a question why allow him to live just for the sake of pinning him with more charges , when they kill him in the death chamber it would have been over. So where does the justification come in for allowing this man to live and even more so why feed him when the best he could do for his victims is give them a shraptnel sandwich.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Remember if he goes to trial he always has a chance of getting off. Which would you prefer? Life in prison or him walking free? It can happen. Look at Simpson and Blake.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The prosecution only works a deal when their case is not air-tight. Evidently, without his confessions and pleas, they might fail to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, if he refuses to deal, runs the risk of a death sentence, if he is convicted.

It's sort of like Mexican Sweat, for lack of a better analogy.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The prosecution only works a deal when their case is not air-tight.


I'm not so sure of that in this case. If they didn't have a good case, why would his lawyer plead it out. I think that they have overwhelming evidence of his guilt. There is also the cost to the tax-payers to consider, I think they did good.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
FYI, I submitted an ATSNN news story yesterday about the deal here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4/9/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkrutaPoints all good yes, however the man was going to get the death penalty before the deal right then here in lies a question why allow him to live just for the sake of pinning him with more charges , when they kill him in the death chamber it would have been over. So where does the justification come in for allowing this man to live and even more so why feed him when the best he could do for his victims is give them a shraptnel sandwich.


I don't know, exactly, there are probably desires around the board to try and get as many of the crimes pinned down as possible. Nobody wants their relatives to have died as a result of nothing. But, this is not an isolated issue. The idea applies to other cases as well, ones where it would actually be helpful.

At the very least, death sentences are far more expensive than life terms, save some money.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I would hope that in a case as important as this one, a deal wasn't struck on the basis of economics. That would be fine for a criminal mischief case, but not for one involving bombs, rednecks, abortionists, cops, lesbians and the relative value of intra-uterine life.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Remember if he goes to trial he always has a chance of getting off. Which would you prefer? Life in prison or him walking free? It can happen. Look at Simpson and Blake.




Bravo good point so here is the way I look at it 1 the man doesnt get to be retryed on any other case he deals out because of double jepordy laws.
The second problem is if he gets convicted on a few no point was made other than to let the man weasle out of death.....either way the world looses and a terrorist wins.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

I don't know, exactly, there are probably desires around the board to try and get as many of the crimes pinned down as possible. Nobody wants their relatives to have died as a result of nothing. But, this is not an isolated issue. The idea applies to other cases as well, ones where it would actually be helpful.

At the very least, death sentences are far more expensive than life terms, save some money.





I conceid o your point , its a matter of closure its just hard to see getting closure for a few despite then many. Your point is well taken however



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
This Rudolph guy might be a government plant too.

I cant deny that the police dont really have a shot at catching criminals in an investigation. Especially someone smart.

So it is not out of bounds for me to think this Eric Rudolph is just a fall guy. How did they know it was him he was looking for? Someone smart would not leave all kinds of evidence in his trailer home like they say he did.

I have a hard time beleiving they would be able to catch anyone half smart. But maybe he really did do it and was just a crazy guy who wasnt really that smart.

Why would he take a deal when his crime is so serious. Life in prison times 2 versus life in prison times 10? Wow nice deal.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obfuscate
So it is not out of bounds for me to think this Eric Rudolph is just a fall guy. How did they know it was him he was looking for? Someone smart would not leave all kinds of evidence in his trailer home like they say he did.


One or two minor hiccups with this, one the man is proud of 2 bombings and had no problem owning up to the , and in that I mean the abortion clinics, he did however say it was not his intention to kill innocent people. Like a person who may have been in the clinic for the abortion of a rape produced pregnancy or a person with health risks couldnt be considered innocent.

the other hiccup is that the man gave up extra evidence that the police had not found , such as already prepared bombs ready to use. If this was a frame up then why devulged the locattion of evidence when you are facing life terms or death sentence.




I have a hard time beleiving they would be able to catch anyone half smart. But maybe he really did do it and was just a crazy guy who wasnt really that smart.


Despite the fact the police have had some failures chasing down smarter criminals , I would remind you that luck is not always a bad thing in their job, good example case in point is Timothy Mcveigh caught by OHP trooper less than 2 hours after bombing of Murrah Bldg in a car with no tag on it and carrying a concealed unregistered firearm. Brains doesnt always a shifty criminal make , they have to fight against gut instinct and sometimes you cant be smart enough to beat that.



Why would he take a deal when his crime is so serious. Life in prison times 2 versus life in prison times 10? Wow nice deal.


The original charges carried a FEDERAL Death sentence for capital murder is why for killing an off duty police officer and maming several others. In life VS death I would look to deal to I guess.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
sorry, if i had the nuts to bomb something or someone, i'd have the nuts to take a bullet, the chair, or the big shoot-up. i wouldn't wuss-out at the end. what a pansy. he was an idiot to begin with and now an idiot terrorist and an idiot murderer and deserves to get what's coming to him. if he doesn't get death, he won't last long in the cooler.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Anyway, I agree it's not fantastic to allow people to lower their sentences


Well, that's America for you.

But you can look at it this way: he'll be spending the rest of his life in jail, so irregardless of the fact that he managed to weasel out of the death penalty, he's going to be stuck looking at four walls for the rest of his pathetic existence. And I agree with fledgling666, if he doesn't get the death penalty, after some time in the can he's going to wish he did.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It's kind of amusing, had it been a Muslim extremist accused of the same acts that got life on a plea bargain, the Right would be raising a huge ruckus right now about "coddling terrorists."

Since it was a white, Christian terrorist however, the usual suspects are strangely silent.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by toechopper

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Anyway, I agree it's not fantastic to allow people to lower their sentences


Well, that's America for you.

But you can look at it this way: he'll be spending the rest of his life in jail, so irregardless of the fact that he managed to weasel out of the death penalty, he's going to be stuck looking at four walls for the rest of his pathetic existence. And I agree with fledgling666, if he doesn't get the death penalty, after some time in the can he's going to wish he did.






SO based on you two guys account the idiot actually picked the worse of two evils live in squaller watching his back til they get him suffering every minute.

Instead he should have just got it over with death, now the idea gets confusing .....in this thinking death would be the cowards way out ....kinda neat how that works , suffer for a short time by taking the death sentence which is very humane for most accounts as opposed to lerking around with his back to the wall till someone kills him slow and painfully.




This is a conundrum I guess now either side you look at it from their is the man taking the cowards way out and the only destinction between the two is that its costing the innocent people money to keep him fed clothed and sheltered for life.





top topics
 
0

log in

join