You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Bin dun? Search didn't find anything
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03ytvjz/Life_and_Death_Row_Execution/
Me and mrs watched first 2 episodes last night in (almost) complete silence, gripping. It's produced and edited to tug on your heart strings which will annoy some but I get sucked in by that stuff. Got me looking into death penalty stuff again, it's really ****ed up.
Executing kids ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Minimum_age ]commit a crime at 16[/url] and you can be executed later) and [url= http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/list-defendants-mental-retardation-executed-united-states ]mentally ill people[/url], heard it before, [url= http://www.truthinjustice.org/DNA-DP.htm ]destroying evidence that could posthumously exonerate people[/url] was a new on on me. As was the fact that "it could put the death penalty in jeopardy" is a valid argument against testing evidence post execution.
no-one?
I only saw the first one. Both me and my wife were glued to it. The victims daughters and the killer speaking so candidly made it an interesting watch.
[quote=D0NK ]Executing kids (commit a crime at 16 and you can be executed later) and mentally ill people
Except if you follow the link you give it's clear both of those have been ruled unconstitutional (I'm not defending the death sentence in any way here, and not after an argument, just providing a factual correction).
Doh failing to read [i]my own links[/i] properly, huuuuge fail.
OK until 2005 they were potentially executing 16yo offenders.
Pik n mix the lengthy appeal process seems to make it pretty hard for the victim's family (aswell as being a major head**** for the condemned) surely if the offender was given a life sentence (with or without parole) then the family have some closure.
Didn't know about any of the details beforehand so was pretty tense viewing.
now I thought this thread was going to be about this
[url] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/japanese-man-freed-death-row-retrial [/url]
45years on death row and DNA evidence seems to suggest he was framed
hope he gets on tv
We watched the (I think) second episode - where the guy was on trial for the murder of his whole family. We were genuinely speechless they found him guilty when there was so little evidence.
What really shocked us was that the jurors seemed really happy to have reached a verdict after hours of deliberation so we thought "surely they wouldn't be so happy if they were sentencing a man to death?". As it turned out the death sentence option had been taken off the table due to a juror being removed (the only one who obviously thought he was not guilty), but the jurors didn't know this. Some of them seemed disappointed that the death sentence wasn't an option.
Seriously messed up system.
Seriously messed up system.
Try this one then
[url=
(Can't work out how to do the embed thing)
There was a story in the paper of a 14 year old being executed back in 1948.
Regardless of guilt or not, what sort of person could electrocute a boy?
Sick bastards.
Have watched both episodes thus far, both gripping in their own right.
The Guy Heinz Jnr episode was the one that got me the most.
I did wonder how many of the jurors came to the guilty verdict just to see a man put to death.
That they were shown the sliding scale of 'everything but 100% definite guilty opinion' should be deemed not guilty.
Obviously we see an edited version, but given what we saw I cannot believe that all 12 (including the alternate brought in for 152) had not doubt.
Just look at the interviewed female jurors who towards the end admitted that they were pretty much confused throughout the whole trial - to think that could have lead to him being executed.
I reckon he probably had something to do with it, however given that sliding scale, this would still mean a not guilty verdict.
Us too. i hadn't heard about the case prior, after seeing the news frenzy about it during the intro I thought no chance he's gonna be found innocent, after watching the trial I thought no way can they find him guilty. How the hell could the guy have done it alone? I guess there is a possibility he had an accomplice (or 3) but police/prosecution insist he was working alone which has got to give you cause for concern, doubt = not guilty.We were genuinely speechless they found him guilty when there was so little evidence
scary thing about jury trials, do you want people confused throughout deciding guilt nevermind a man's life.Just look at the interviewed female jurors who towards the end admitted that they were pretty much confused throughout the whole trial
Subsequent reading about the case online - there were some reports that stated the case wasn't that he did it alone but that he was definitely part of it.
Watching the program it certainly didn't come across like that so prob BS.
The victim from the first episode was troubling too, "I forgive him but he died too easily" she's been through a terrible ordeal but that's pretty conflicting, explaining to her daughter (6/7?) about execution seem pretty brutal aswell.
edit
I was worried they'd has missed pertinent bits 🙁Watching the program it certainly didn't come across like that so prob BS.
[quote=mulv1976 ]We were genuinely speechless they found him guilty when there was so little evidence.
Try reading some John Grisham. I thought it was all rather exaggerated for literary effect until I read "The Innocent Man", which happens to be nonfiction.
Pretty grim viewing really. I'm surprised one man could batter 8 people to death without meeting fierce resistance. The blood on his shorts seemed a tiny amount considering the inside of the house looked like a slaughterhouse. The older male juror seemed overly keen on execution while one of the young females came across as clueless. Only in America.....I hope
weren't there reports from the huhne/pryce case about really daft questions from the jurors? Less at stake there but if I ever ended up in the dock I'd want sensible people judging me not idiots.The older male juror seemed overly keen on execution while one of the young females came across as clueless
[quote=D0NK ]if I ever ended up in the dock I'd want sensible people judging me not idiots.
Good luck with that.
Just watched these, 'WOW' at episode 2, if I was American I would be embarrassed and worried at the level of incompetence shown by the jury.
[quote=carbonfibreismadebyaliens ] if I was American I would be embarrassed and worried at the level of incompetence shown by the jury.
What makes you think it's reserved to Americans? I was a juror at a rape trail involving an asian man and a european woman. Before we'd heard any of the evidence, two of the guys on the jury had already decided he was guilty because "[i]you know how they treat their women[/i]".
What makes you think it's reserved to Americans? I was a juror at a rape trail involving an asian man and a european woman. Before we'd heard any of the evidence, two of the guys on the jury had already decided he was guilty because "you know how they treat their women".
I don't, but:
What was the final verdict?, and in your opinion, was it correct?.
The majority verdict was Guilty. I thought it was wrong and felt awful about it, thinking I should have done more to persuade some of the other jurors they were wrong. The verdict was later turned over on appeal. For me, it was a very good example of why capital punishment can never be correct
Thing is, these days, what percentage of accused people reach trial that have actually had nothing to do with the case and are 100% innocent? It's going to happen, but the percentages must be vanishingly small. So, even if the guy didn't actually beat 8 people to death i suspect he knows who did. So, fess up, or take the punishment yourself.
I watched the guy heinze last night, was planning on going to bed, missus flicked onto it, and after 60 seconds was gripped!
Said to her this is almost of film quality, very well put together.
Once the bloodstained boxers, with three different victims blood was presented, which he said he got from "sitting on the bed" when at the scene he was found with shorts on without stains my verdict switched to guilty.
All these were red flags for me
1. 911 call "family has been beaten" police thought they looked shot on initial inspection
2. Entering the crime scene to retrieve the gun which was stolen (which wasn't) after 8 of his family had been killed, and decided to strip down to his boxers and sit on the bed??
3. smoked crack and weed for several hours as an alibi