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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (53655)	11/19/2006 12:02:32 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

There are several hundred reasons listed here. Clicking on a name leads to the details. forejustice.org en.wikipedia.org I am against the death penalty because I don't want crooked cops or lying witnesses to be able to legally murder their enemies. I agree with you: The ACTUAL murderers are absolute scumbags. They deserve death in the worse way. However, in Canada alone we have seen the police mangle investigations and intentionally ignore evidence. I think something like 5 or 6 convicted "murderers" have now been released after being exonerated by DNA evidence. Under death law they would be, well...DEAD. On the other hand, when someone has personal knowledge of the guilt of a murderer and is able to become judge , jury, and executioner...well, something seems right about that. Several years ago, two Canadian cops took advantage of their position to steal steal steal in the middle of the night (cops are welcome to park behind buildings and lanes and check for the public safety, of course!) A relative found them out and they murdered him. They almost got away with it and given a bit of time I'm sure they could have found some derelict to take the fall. Probably would have found the victim's blood on a wine bottle or something... "if I see somebody like Jeffrey Dahmer walking down the street and shoot him" Don't get caught. The reason we don't allow that sort of thing is because we want justice to be objective. YOU may be entirely reliable and may be sober and mentally competent and free from the possibility of mistakes, errors of judgment--and maybe poor shooting. But what about ME?? I don't know enough facts on Martha Stewart, but that seemed like a spiteful case" Yeah...they really put a dent into insider trading when they caught Martha! ;-)

To: ManyMoose who wrote (53655)	11/19/2006 12:06:59 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 90947

One of hundreds of examples: forejustice.org "One of the Tobias Five. Five men were wrongly convicted of the December 1986 murder of Jerry Tobias. The testimony of Debra Parmentier (Herrick) who claimed to have been an eyewitness to the murder was central to the prosecution's case.. In August 2003 Herrick pled guilty to three counts of perjury after being indicted for perjury in the trials of Walter Moore and Michael Canter. "After the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the charges against Canter and Moore in 1992, hundreds of pages of documents pertaining to the case that had not been given to defense attorneys at the time of the trials were discovered at the Gaylord post of Michigan State Police." (source: Otsego OKs settlement talks in wrongful imprisonment case, Dan Sanderson (staff), Traverse City Record-Eagle, 10/21/2001). Included in those documents was proof of the unreliableness of Parmentier's testimony. In a Feb 1995 statement, Parmentier admitted that none of the men were involved in Tobia's murder, and she only claimed to have witnessed the murder because the police and prosecutor threatened to prosecute her if she didn't perjure herself. It also came out that she was home at the time Mr. Tobias was allegedly murdered. However there is no proof he was in fact murdered: since the available evidence is he overdosed on drugs and went to sleep in the bed of a pickup and froze to death without waking up."