if our entire justice system is based on "guilty without a reasonable doubt" how can we ever punish someone by killing them, which is the ultimate undoubtable punishment.

I'm against it, but I think anyone sentenced to life in prison without parole should have the option of euthanasia.

__________________
"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence."
Jim Morrison

Now that is thinking. That is one of the best ideas I have heard on this subject in a long time.

__________________
lambaste me not

MICcheck, I actually have to admit thats a rather brilliant idea. I tip my hat.

But again, this site provides a clearly one sided argument. If they were truly interested in the facts then they would equally have pointed out factors that lead to his guilt, it was clearly a one sided view. Additionally, while I obviously don't know as much as the detective involved there is something else there. Some investigating officer thought he was guilty otherwise the case doesn't go to the DA for prosecution. Maybe it's the NY Times that is providing a one sided view.


It doesn't, but it's admissable and it's relevant yet it's not mentioned even once. Again, a one sided biased view by the author.

He confessed and then he changed his mind. It doesn't make him a very credible witness. But does it matter? Most states have laws that if a murder is committed in the commission of a crime you didn't have to pull the trigger to be charged with first degree murder. If you and I rob a bank and I shoot and kill all of the hostages you are also (and rightly so) charged with murder. In this case he was (admittedly) in the middle of a large drug deal. There was a loaded gun in their car and he knew it. He was in the trooper's car after he was killed and he was caught at a roadblock travelling with Rhodes. Not only was nothing about this mentioned by the author, again showing bias, but also adds to the fact that even if he didn't pull the trigger his getting the death penalty doesn't make him innocent.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

You are correct. And that something else is a corrupt justice system wherein jurors are manipulated and evidence is withheld. I'm sorry, Rebellion, but this man was clearly innocent. Even the detectives acknowledge it. That never happens unless a serious miscarriage of justice happens. Why would the very detective on the case come out after the man is dead and proclaim his innocence unless based on the evidence they collected, he was. Also, I think you are jumping to conclusions by assuming that the NY times reporter went into the investigation with a biased point of view.

And yet, this was the testimony that convicted him. Simply because he was present at the crime scene does not make him guilty or else Rhodes would have also been executed. The fact is there was no evidence at all that Tefero used a weapon of any kind or convinced anyone to kill anyone. The only evidence was that he was at the scene of the crime. That is not enough evidence in a country where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty. The reason this happened is because the police in cases like this are pressured greatly to get convictions for crimes like this. So they offered one man a deal to rat out another man under the threat of eventual death (the chair.) Not many people can withstand the temptation to save themselves by ratting somone else out. This is why he later confessed, then recanted, then confessed and so on.....

This is not the sort of evidence that should condemn a man to die.

__________________
lambaste me not

Well I know one thing, I'm definitely not jumping to conclusion about the NY Times reporter point of view. Reporters are supposed to present facts, ALL of the facts. He clearly left out anything that would point to his guilt. He left out most of the evidence presented to the jury other than jaihouse witnesses (which he qualifies). I don't see how there could be any conclusion other than he had a preset opinion. And the whole story isn't here. Which detective felt he was guilty and what does he have to say? DA's don't just investigate and prosecute on their own. Detectives investigate and present evidence and the DA issues charges based on that evidence. Clearly someone in the PD felt he was guilty, where is his testimony in this article?

But you're still missing my point, Tefero didn't have to pull the trigger to be found guilty. The best case you can make is that Rhodes also should have been sentenced to death. Criminals are rightfully sentenced to death all of the time when people are killed in the commission of a felony. I gave you an example of if you and I robbed a bank. It differs by state, but in most states that would be a first degree murder conviction. I did a google search for crimes committed in the commission of a felony and there are hundreds of them. Here's one. "As a result, Collins was charged with felony murder, which is when someone dies in the commission of another felony, such as manufacturing methamphetamine, said Clark."

http://www.thestate.com/mld/macon/20...ws/9398178.htm

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Reporters are supposed to present new facts. What happened in the trial is a matter of public record. You can find that out on your own. What was not on public record was the case's investigator and his boss and their opinion of his innocence. That is startling.

A common misconception is that the DA is always on the up and up. The DA's job is not to seek justice. It is to get convictions and get re-elected. Face that.

You are forgetting something. There is no evidence to suggest that Tefero used the weapon or coerced someone to use the weapon, except for the testimony of the very man that you claim is not a reliable witness. This is the same man who testified against Terfero having gotten a deal, then confessed to the crime without such a bribery years later when he didn't need to. Why admit to something you didn't do without being coerced?

Simply being present at the crime without using the weapon or coercing someone to use it is not enough to establish guilt in a country where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

__________________
lambaste me not

That's a tenet of reporting I have never heard. If they truly wanted to present a case then they should have presented the entire case. Using your scenario would be like the NY Times saying tomorrow that Charles Manson is innocent because Squeaky Fromme said she killed everyone and not present all of the previous evidence against Manson because "it's already in the public record."

Not all DA's are publicly elected. And it doesn't change the fact that they can't operate on their own. Somebody has to present a case to them. They can not just go around charging people with crimes on their own. Someone in the police department must present them with a case and facts.

Doesn't matter. In the link I provided no one even claimed he intentionally killed anyone. That is part of the reality that is commiting murder in the commission of a felony. You don't necessarily have to pull the trigger yourself of have any plans to have done so to be convicted of murder.

Actually you're wrong...it is.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/cole.htm#_ftn2

Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law 682 (3d ed. 2000); Model Penal Code § 210.2 cmt. 6 (1980) (noting that “[t]he classic formulation of the felony-murder doctrine declares that one is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of any felony”). The history of the felony-murder rule in the United States is briefly described in the commentary to the Model Penal Code. Model Penal Code § 210.2 cmt. 6 (1980).

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

The reporter simply presented the opinions of the investigators who stood up and told us he was innocent. I call that newsworthy. That never happened in the Manson case.

It is not considered bias to present only new evidence. No reporter is expected to re-report a case that has already public record.

But ultimately their job is to get convictions. They are not accountable to the police. The police give them the evidence, and the DA uses it (or does not). That is where the relationship ends.

Ahh I see, so I am guilty of murder if I am simply standing next to the crime scene? So if I am present at the crime, and there is no evidence I pulled the trigger and no evidence that I coerced anyone to pull the trigger, I am guilty of murder and worthy of execution?

This applies to cases in which the suspects are involved in another felony. Here is a cursory summary of the Tafero case:

"Early on the morning of February 20, 1976, a Florida highway patrolman and his friend, a visiting Canadian constable, approached a car parked at a rest stop for a routine check. Jesse Tafero, Sonia Jacobs, their two children, and Walter Rhodes, a prison friend of Tafero’s, were asleep in the car. Allegedly, the patrolman saw a gun on the floor of the car. He woke the occupants and had Rhodes and then Tafero get out of the car. At some point after that, both the patrolman and the constable were shot. After fleeing the scene in the patrolman’s car, and then dumping the car, kidnapping a man, and stealing his car, the three were caught at a roadblock. Rhodes, Tafero, and Jacobs were all arrested. Rhodes turned state’s evidence in exchange for a plea to a lesser charge. Tafero and Jacobs were tried and convicted of capital murder. "
http://www.lairdcarlson.com/grip/Taf...%20Summary.htm

Can you make a case that Tafero killed the policemen while committing a felony? Neither could the DA, which is why the DA convinced Rhodes to testify against Tafero and name him as the trigger man. Then Rhode's confessed to doing it himself.

__________________
lambaste me not