SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hunter Vann who wrote (4283)2/2/1998 7:05:00 PM
From: Triluminary  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
RE: Tucker,

I found this interesting...

If Tucker's death sentence is commuted to life in prison, she will be eligible for parole on July 21, 2003. - cnn.com

IMO, when "life in prison" actually means "life in prison" maybe society (read Texas) will be more lenient where the "ultimate" penalty is concerned. All the lesser penalties appear to be shrinking in severity while the crime rate only seems to grow. There is a tremendous amount of backlash in Texas against this. It is ironic then that Mrs. Tucker is the victim of this backlash. She is regrettably, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Regards,

Mark

PS. The guilt argument in this particular case does not hold water. Mrs. Tucker has freely admitted her guilt.



To: Hunter Vann who wrote (4283)2/2/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: carl a. mehr  Respond to of 20981
 
Very good response.
Prosecuting attorneys has to get their man, any man! That is the way we measure success. Prosecutors may come accross evidence that shows that a person is innocent, but they will rarely come forward with it, as that is the job of the defense attorney.
A little planted evidence can often help get a conviction. What a country!



To: Hunter Vann who wrote (4283)2/3/1998 9:17:00 AM
From: Father Terrence  Respond to of 20981
 
So I ask you, what price do you assign to an INNOCENT individual? You accept the monstrosity that the ultimate violation of individual rights is acceptable for the illusionary "common good"?

FT