Originally posted by CX
Well this is bound to raise the whole death penalty issue again, or at least the gathering of evidence needed for a conviction and a sentence like
How lucky is this woman that they allowed her to keep trying with her appeals?
"Our main concern is the fact that I have a client that never confessed and a police detective who said she gave a confession. There was no tape
recorder, no witnesses, nothing. Just his word," Mr Kimerer said then.
Milke would have been the first woman executed in Arizona since the 1930s had her appeals run out.
How did she even end up in prison with such poor quality evidence? I wouldn't just be looking at the detective in this case, it takes more than one
person to send you to Death Row.
Hopefully they'll look into other cases managed by this guy.
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 15/3/13 by CX because: (no reason given)
Actually you raise all good points. I personally would never trust myself to a trial by my peers, or a jury trial. Too many biases. I've seen it
too many times, and I know too many people to even give any credulity to 12 people getting together to decide if some flimsy evidence is worth
convicting a person or not. They get it wrong ALL THE TIME. And are allowed to convict people with very little to no evidence.
Just circumstantial evidence is enough to send a person away for life, or the testimony of one person. Many times the prosecutors themselves don't
know if the person they're trying is guilty or innocent, they just go on what they think. And as was shown here, we all know that detectives lie all
the time. They are probably some of the lowest scum around, lying to everyone all the time and thinking that it is just. And this is not bias, they
do lie all the time, and they think they are just doing it.
But I will tell you something, if someone thinks it is okay to lie to me or to you, they are not trustworthy. If you lie, and you think it is okay,
you are wrong. And you shouldn't be trusted. I don't know how people trust liars or think they will get justice from liars.
There should be actual proof to convict someone, physical proof, or at least two or three eyewitnesses. Not circumstantial evidence, and no one
should ever be convicted on the word of one person. It is too easy to lie about someone and get them thrown away or killed, if it is just
circumstantial, or just one eyewitness.
Even in the Mosaic Law code a person couldn't be convicted of a crime unless those obligations were met. Does that mean that some people will, in the
short run get away with crime? Yes, but it also means that many innocent people will not be convicted unfairly.
You can't have it both ways unfortunately. Humans are not mind-readers. We should base justice, the limited amount we are able to give each other,
on facts, solid evidence, and on multiple eyewitnesses. All of this will cut down on the gross injustice perpetuated upon innocent people. And trust
me, if you think that injustice is not being done upon innocent all the time, you are in a fairyland, and will perhaps one day be shaken awake to the
cold hard reality, when what you thought was a just system, unjustly, unrelentingly, and unmercifully comes after you, and convicts you when you have
edit on 17-3-2013 by SubAce because: (no reason given)