Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (97229)	1/27/2005 5:50:45 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793912

A bizarre argument. The facts, as stated, are that he robbed a bank, kidnapped three, and killed one. If true, and there is not much doubt that he killed one since the manslaughter conviction held, is that he should have been strung up. Thats the trouble with cases that go forever. The DA loses witnesses and gets tired of it as time goes on.

To: Ilaine who wrote (97229)	1/27/2005 5:56:57 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

CB, Your looking at this as a lawyer, not as John or Susie Q Public. Rideau's convictions were overturned on technicalities, but there were two eyewitness victims who survived. Not your usual circumstantial case. To a general viewer - Malkins argument has great appeal. It might not survive scrutiny, but there is a significant belief that the appeals process is endless and convictions transient. The death penalty is permanent. To kill the death penalty we need some PR (and other structural) work to ensure that life without parole is exactly that and instill confidence in the system (to the public). John