It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Freed After 21 Years On Death Row

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Man Freed After 21 Years On Death Row


news.sky.com

A 43-year-old Scottish man has been freed after spending nearly half his life on death row in the US.
Kenny Richey was finally released after spending 21 years behind bars for the murder of two-year-old Cynthia Collins in Ohio.
He has always insisted he had nothing to do with her death, and last month agreed a deal to secure his release in return for a no contest plea to charges including attempted involuntary manslaughter.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
torley.org
news.scotsman.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?
What do you think about the death Penalty?




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Speaking outside court, Richey said: "It's been a long time coming."

Asked if there were any other innocent people on death row, he said: "There are innocent people on Ohio's death row - and they need your help."

There were at least 28, he said, and gave several names before urging investigators to look into their cases.

When asked if he was one of the innocent, he replied: "I am one."


He came within one hour of dying via the electric chair in Ohio.

I guess the sad thing about this case is that if Kenny Richey is indeed innocent of the crime he served time for, that the real perpetrator is still living free unless of course it was just a tragic accident.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I don't get it. By taking a plea, which is basically an admission of guilt, he got out of prison?

Ok, let's try this example. 21 years ago, he killed the 2 year old. He sat in prison for it. Now he admits he did it, and they let him go? I know he claims he did not do it. But, taking a plea is saying he did. If he truly didn't do it, don't you think he'd hire a lawyer, and go for broke to get out of serving time for a crime he did not commit? And at least get reimbursement for the time served?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pmexplorer
 


i hope he gets re-imbursed for all his time served plus payment for the stress mental and physical he and his former family have suffered by being falsly accused and seperated from loved ones---how do you put a fair price on this kind of hell?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Just imagine all the innocent people now and in the past that have been imprisoned and executed. I imagine the numbers are high.

It is a terrible injustice that this man spent that many years locked away. What worries me is what they say about people who know nothing more than the prison life, can they successfully survive in the real world? In his case, I sure hope so!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I read a couple of the links and I don't see anything that supports his innocence. It said he started a fire out of jealousy and the child was killed.

At this point I would assume that there was enough evidence to convict him in the first place but I don't understand why they decided to let him have a plea bargin at this point unless he has alot of outside supporters petioning the courts.

I am not ready to feel sorry for him without something to support his innocence. If he did such an act and killed a child then he does not deserve sympathy.

I can understand why someone would admit to something to go free though.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
if your confused by his plea apearently you never been handcuffed to a rail and slapped around and forced into confession



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mekanic
 


Of course he'd hire a lawyer to get out of prison, but it doesn't always work out that way does it? Capitol punishment in the US is extremely flawed and by no means 100% accurate. Until it is, we need to abolish it all together.

And he pleaded no contest, which is different than pleading guilty.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


That's BS. Go stab somebody, and when you go to court for it, plead No Contest. You still get a fine, you still go to jail. I'm not confused by the plea bargain, I'm confused as to why he was let out. If there's no proof stating that he was innocent, and he gave a plea of no contest, he should still be sitting in the Greybar Hilton.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mekanic
That's BS. Go stab somebody, and when you go to court for it, plead No Contest. You still get a fine, you still go to jail.


But you're not admitting guilt. See the difference?


I'm not confused by the plea bargain, I'm confused as to why he was let out.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Richey's "no contest" plea at an Ohio court on Monday was accepted and he was sentenced to time already served.




If there's no proof stating that he was innocent, and he gave a plea of no contest, he should still be sitting in the Greybar Hilton.


Unless he's already been there for 21 years with a reasonable doubt of his guilt.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Ok, I must have misread that the first time around.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mekanic
 


I can answer your question. Because the state was protecting itself.

In prison you learn a whole new set of rules. The first one is that "they" are in charge. This is drilled into all but the thickest of skulls, by every and all means. You want to know how brutal and evil the real NWO is?

Once DNA or whatever proves you did not commit the crime in question, the state is faced with a problem. If they free you, they are admitting that they were in error and open themselves to a lawsuit, for big bucks. And there are then the questions that have to be answered about the role of the prosecution in the conviction-did they play by the rules?

So to protect the prosecutor and the state itself, they offer you a deal. You plead guilty to a charge that they will then consider as equal to the time you have already served, and they will let you out within days, as soon as the paperwork gets signed.

But if you say "Hell no", then they will stall. They will fight it all the way. they assure you, and they mean it, that they will make it drag out at least another ten years, with appeals and with delays of every sort. They make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they will try their very best to make the "process" last even longer than your sentence or until you die of old age.

Why do you think there is no real push ever made to speed up the appeals process that you are told so often just lets murderers set on death row for years? Because in the event that the state is caught with it's drawers down, they will use the very same slow assed process to keep you in prison till you die.

And then you will get word through the "prison telegraph" that should you decline their most generous offer, and it should appear as if you will outlast them, as a last resort they will have some lowlife kill you for a "favor", and write you off as an unsolved in prison killing.

Now what do you, Mr. Innocent; chose? Another 10 years in the Garden of Earthly Delights, with death waiting in the showers or the mess hall, or do you take a no contest plea to a lesser charge and get out to see your family without a glass window in the way? And think very carefully, because this is a one time offer, no later change of heart, because once we announce the decision to retry you, there's no backing down.

I have a friend who spent time on the Arizona Death Row. His name is Paris Carriger, and I have his permission to use his story. He is now an advocate to abolish the death penalty, and often speaks to groups. Google him. Learn how another inmate admitted, even bragged, about the very crime Paris went to prison for. And yet, in the end, he gave in and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, because the state of Arizona wasn't about to admit any wrong doing.

Rule # 1, the state is never wrong.

Rule #2, if the state is wrong, see rule # 1.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I've seen similar cases. About fifteen years ago a friend of mine was involved in a murder of a child. He did not commit the crime, however the person who did it was in the same party, and the party was committing a burglary. My friend (he was a friend prior to this, though for about a year beforehand we never really talked much anymore) was accused of murder, and had a crappy lawyer. Wisconsin does not have a death penalty, so he got a life sentence after somehow being proved guilty. Two weeks later it came out that the guy who did it was still running around free as a jaybird, bragging about how he got away with murder. He's still free, to this day, but I think he's moved out of state.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736

I have a friend who spent time on the Arizona Death Row. His name is Paris Carriger, and I have his permission to use his story. He is now an advocate to abolish the death penalty, and often speaks to groups. Google him. Learn how another inmate admitted, even bragged, about the very crime Paris went to prison for. And yet, in the end, he gave in and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, because the state of Arizona wasn't about to admit any wrong doing.

Rule # 1, the state is never wrong.

Rule #2, if the state is wrong, see rule # 1.


Great post.
That is really shocking.

These type of cases seem to be becoming more and more common place.

It appears this is down to advances in the world of crime scene investigation or D.N.A science.

Here is another interesting case of false imprisonment which was re-opened
because of such advances and led to the freeing of a man who had been jailed for 17 years and was only the third state inmate to be freed from prison through DNA testing :

www.jsonline.com...




[edit on 7-1-2008 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Found this on the death penalty which Kenny Richey came oh so close
to succumbing to as posted at the top of the thread.

(Hope posting all this quote is okay):



"The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether to ban lethal injections - the means of execution in most states.
The court has agreed to hear challenges from two Kentucky death row inmates - Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr.

They sued the state in 2004, saying three-drug injections violated the US Constitution's ban on cruel punishment.

The court's decision to hear the case last September has halted executions across the country.

In 2007, 42 people were put to death in the US - the lowest total in 13 years.

In December, New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty since 1976.

'Reasonable safeguards'

Lethal injection is used in all the 37 states that have capital punishment except Nebraska, which requires electrocution.

LETHAL INJECTIONS
Sodium pentothal - anaesthetic
Pancuronium bromide - paralyses entire muscle system
Potassium chloride - stops the heart

The standard method is a combination of three chemicals - one which makes the inmate unconscious, another that paralyses all muscles except the heart, and a final drug that stops the heart, causing death.

In 2004, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr - who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death - argued that lethal injections administered in Kentucky amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The procedures "create a significant and unnecessary risk of inflicting severe pain that could be prevented by the adoption of reasonable safeguards", their lawyers said in court papers.

The Kentucky state defends its procedures.

"Kentucky seeks to execute in a relatively humane manner and has worked hard to adopt such a procedure," Kentucky Attorney General Gregory Stumbo has said.

The court begins its hearing on Monday and a ruling is expected in June.

Lawyers for the two men have said the court has not reviewed the issue for more than 100 years.

news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 7-1-2008 by pmexplorer]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join