man is executed when judge overturns the jury's verdict of life

now, personally, i am very on the fence on the death penalty. i would rather see life in prison than to have an innocent man be executed. and all of us do know that has happened. then again, i do not want to have people like bundy and gacy living out there happy lives either.

that being said, i posted this because this man did not ACTUALLY commit the murders. he was present when they happened as it was a burglary gone wrong. when caught, he cooperated with the police and admitted his role. he even tried to persuade the actual killer not to kill these people. the killer admitted that as well. because of this, the jury gave him life. the judge said "nope, you folks are wrong. this man gets death!" he was even executed before the actual killer.

so what is your opinion? is it right to have a judge overturn such a serious sentence? why do you think he did it?

www.theatlantic.com...

I was under the impression only the jury can make the decision. I have never heard of anything like this before.

What is the point of a trial by jury if the judge decides he or she does not like jury's decision and makes his own?

I fully do believe that ultra violent murders should get death.

Its franky a shocking travesty the public, pays for the jail time for the rest of his life while also leaving a VERY dangerous person among the prison population. If i comit a crime that puts me in there with a dangerous psyco, thats my right not be stabbed in prison and do my time. Keeping people like that alive serves literally no purpose for the greater good of the people.

And a judge should never igore or overturn the jury, thats not how the system is meant to work!

Poor guy

jrod
I was under the impression only the jury can make the decision. I have never heard of anything like this before.

What is the point of a trial by jury if the judge decides he or she does not like jury's decision and makes his own?

the judge yields the most power when
1) deciding admissible evidence
2) providing instructions to the jury
3) sentencing

I have never heard of an accomplice being executed before the perp. I'm sure it happens and there is probably obvious and famous cases but I am ignorant to them.

reply to post by blackthorne


gross injustice.

The rate of arrest, incarceration and execution of black people in the US south is an absolute travesty. The numbers don't tell the whole story but numbers, so overwhelming, do not lie.

I"m against the death penalty UNLESS the person would be too dangerous to incarcerate. If the lives of the other inmates or the guards would be in danger , then the death penalty is appropriate. Or if keeping the person alive would inspire terrorist acts ... like if the person had followers who would take people hostage if the inmate wasn't released .... Otherwise, I'm against the death penalty.

reply to post by blackthorne


I wonder what would happen if you were hanging with a shady group, a crime was committed followed by a murder in which you had nothing to do with. The group hands you a gun and wants you to kill in order to 'force' an involvement thereby making you an accomplice so you don't talk to the police. Or they will kill you. Instead, you shoot and kill the entire group.

Would a good lawyer be able to get you off on self-defense or would you be looking at the rest of your life in prison? One of those catch-22 situations.

insanity

this judge should be in a cell.

i am on the fence regarding a death penalty and as a brit we dont have the option here anyhow
however this guy was at worse an accomplice he DID NOT commit murder
as the evidence shows.
so the death penalty should not have even been on the cards never mind implemented
this case MUST be reviewed in a higher court and the judge prosecuted
with this case it it now obvious that the judgement of a jury means nothing
and justice is over and gone in the US court system.

a judge can direct a jury but not overule it period

reply to post by ShayneJUK


Apparently, in Florida the judge CAN overrule the jury. Also, unfortunately for this guy, the law says that if you are in the process of committing a crime (in this case, burglary) and someone is killed during the commission of that crime, death penalty is on the table for all those involved, whether they pulled the trigger or not, at least in those states that allow the death penalty. Other than that, it would be Murder I or II, depending upon the state's laws.

reply to post by ShayneJUK

a judge can direct a jury but not overule it period

Sorry, but you are wrong at least in this case.

Override is legal in only three states: Alabama, Delaware, and Florida. Florida and Delaware have strict standards for override. No one in Delaware is on death row as a result of an override and no death sentences have been imposed by override in Florida since 1999. In Delaware and Florida, override often is used to overrule jury death verdicts and impose life - which rarely happens in Alabama.

www.eji.org...

It doesn't seem right, but it is legal.

He entered a house with the intent to steal. Innocent people died. As far as I am concerned he was not executed fast enough. It matters not one bit whether he did the actual killing or not to me.

My perfect world has no room for thugs that are willing to rob, assault or kill innocent people.

This happened in 1977.

The chap in question was executed in 1981 whilst the actual murderer was executed last year.

I don't think an accomplice who fully cooperated with the law should have gotten the death penalty on a judge's overrule unless there is a lot more to this case than we are being told, and I support the death penalty for especially heinous crimes.

Giving someone in their early 20's anything over 30 year is almost a death sentence. After 30 years there is not a lot left for them once they get out, and giving someone life is just telling them to die slow in a hole.

I read through the article, and the postings, yet did not go into the court case or look at the records. But here is the take on such:

In most jurisdictions, the law is quite clear on this one issue: If a person is involved in committing a crime, his or her accomplices are held equally accountable in the crime and share the same burden as the person who committed the crime. That means if a person is there with another who pulls the trigger, the accomplice is equally guilty in the murder.

Now that being stated, there are a few questions that should be asked and considered.
Did the man executed not know the difference between right and wrong? Did he not understand or have the mental capacity to understand that it is not right or legal to rob or pull a weapon on someone or even kill someone? While it is commendable that he would help the police and not want to cover it up, but what about while the triggerman was pulling the trigger that ended the life of 8 people, where was his compassion and desire to do the right thing then? Could he at any time have saved those people who were killed in the course of a robbery?

Those kinds of questions that we should ask and weight before saying if it was or not legal for them to execute him. As sad as this event was, the laws in the state is very clear cut and the judge can impose a more sever punishment. My understanding is that the jury can recommend a suitable punishment, but ultimately it is the judge that has the final say in such, as he has to administer the law. And if the other judges during the appeal found no reason for misconduct and that the judge’s ruling was sound and based on the law, then it has to stand.

Getting upset at a judge is pointless, as it is not the judge that should or should not be condemned but rather it is the laws that are on the books, that should be considered and looked at, and when people start pressuring the politicians to change the laws or remove them, and actually see it through, then we shall see changes that occur.

reply to post by Mamatus


fair enough he was a criminal scumbag and should have been locked up
for a long time but executed for burglary seriously!

reply to post by blackthorne


its simple if you take life you pay with life. Sounds harsh but if that were the case our tax dollars could be better spent and people would think a little bit harder about there descisions in life.

Now this guy from what you presented shouldn't of had to pay with his life, I think a life sentence is too hard, what ever happened to being flogged in the square put to hard labor for a time and being responsible for reparations for the deceased's family. A good beating and and actual responsibility for ones actions would also make people think twice. Or we could let people sit in a cell soak up resources and read books

as i stated, i did not want his to be a debate on the death penalty. this was meant to discuss the judge over ruling the jury giving this man life, and the judge saying, "nope! this man get's the chair!" the man in question did not actually pull the trigger and fully cooperated with police when caught. not saying he was an innocent by far. yes, he did deserve prison time. a lot of it!

I have to question the outrage here. Would we be discussing this if it had been the jury deciding death and the judge overturned it to life in prison? Personally I do not believe in the death penalty for any reason. And I do find it rather abhorrent that a judge would overturn a life sentence for the death penalty. But I also find myself a bit torn on this, because I do feel that judges should have the ability to overturn a death penalty sentence. But do not feel that they should be able to overturn a life sentence. But then again I personally feel anyone sentencing anyone to death should be required to personally carry it out.

The article states that there is no dispute or no whodoneit. It's also perfectly clear all three entered ARMED regardless of intent. The article goes on to describe that all eight victims were forced to lie down with hands tied behind there back.

If this guy wanted nothing to do with murdering them, that's all well and good. When he realized that wasn't the name of the game, it became his OBLIGATION to protect those people, even if it would cost him his life. If he didn't have the balls to confront his partners in crime, then he should share the sentence. 8 people were shot in the back of the head execution style and he shouldn't be excused for not pulling the trigger. In fact he should be charged for not pulling the trigger to save those souls.

As far as the 30+ year gap between the accomplices execution (3 years after the event) and the ring leader Fergueson, was because Fergueson had known mental health issues before and after the killing (yeah no kidding) and therefore causes complications in his execution. This must be viewed separately than the actual event due to extenuating circumstance.

Further, how could White not know he was dealing with a serious lose cannon while heavily armed? I'd imagine if Fergueson received a psyc eval then White did too. White wasnt crazy, just really really stupid and a coward.

Personally I think ALL life lost is tragic but I'm not really going to lose sleep over his death or the " manufactured outrage". I will however, say a prayer for the souls that lost their lives that tragic day.