22 years in jail, innocent.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=157547

 

I know it's nothing world changing this bit of news, but it really strcuk a chord with me the poor sod. Like life's not bad enough for a sick bloke, sufferoing schitozphrenia, but to spend 22 years in jail for something not only you are innocnet of, but a foul horrible thing to have pople consider of you aswell...

 

I haven't got the link, it's on my crashed computer. But another sad story of American "justice", is the guy that made it common knowledge how the Bush family made their family fortune (bank-rolling the Nazi war machine) is in jail indefinately.

 

He's been accused of terrorism I believe, for no more than investigating the presiden't family. Actually, the charge began as terrosism, they reckon his interest in the president was sus, and so he must have had plans to kill him, and was literaly written up for attempted murder at some point from memory. Then it was changed to a charge of stalking the president's family...Still there as far as I know, and has been for the last 12 months or so that I know of.

 

In jail for reporting news.

 

It's a bright world we have ahead huh?

 

cheers

rob

[Jess Stone]

This is why you can not support the death penalty ,at least this poor soul is still alive and can be freed.

Google Roseanne Catt Robbie for an Aussie one or I remember last year or the year before I think in WA a mentally disabled dude spent longer than this in gaol for a murder he did not commit,his original conviction was so long ago that he got the death penalty but I believe it was commuted as he was mentally retarded(IQ of child I believe and it might have been a doco on ABC TV last year or the year before so I think he was released in the late 90's) then the death penalty was reppealed in WA around 1972 and he was to stay there forever any way a quick google did not find him. Then theres Martin Bryant they repeatedly stated his IQ was 65 ,well you be lucky to able to learn to tie your shoelaces with such a low IQ yet he is such a crack marksman that he takes out more people than the number of bullets he used then deploys a special cartridge that blows up in the breech of the gun destroying the firing pin and other mechanisms in the gun that leave identifying forensic evidence so as to leave no evidence

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

the death penalty is sub-human. Animals may attack one aother to death, but we have what is for lack of a better term "justice"

 

Surely the potential of an innocent person being murdered is sufficient reason to not have the "penalty", and I'd never dis-agree with you jess. That's more than sufficient reason and that's right, but there's even greater reasons for it in my view to never be a legal use of the justice system.

 

Of course, a death penalty, like "three strikes ya out", actually encourages violent behaviour among the guilty (which I'm led to believe is the reason we as a society will not re-impliment it, as opposed to "moral grounds"). That is to say, a person who has nothing to loose, is the most danergous person in the world. Remove any chance of life, and they have nothing to loose to murder more and more people. Say in the event a condemned man has escaped, what stops them murderiong with imunity now? Say they break into myhome to take some money, a change of clothes, a feed and my car. With death awaiting them if he's caught, what stops himmurdering me and my whole family so he can not be tracked and re-captured to face this death he alreadyhas around his neck? The threat of "two" death penalties, "three"??

 

What if a person, while depserate for heroin money, takes a gun to rob a servo, and with no intention at all, shoot and kills a man. Total accident.

Under our system, as irresposible as it was, he has great reason to surrender and pleade his reasons, the extenuateing circumstances etc..but in USA, and other coiuntries that seek to apply "punishment" not "justice", such as death for this imaginary robber turned accidnetla muderer..he has nothing to loose now, going from a terrible circumstance of accidently killing someone while on a drug induced madness, to now holding every person in the place hostage, executing one every hour until some insane request such as a helicopter is met. Or takes his chance to shoot it out withthe cops to escape, nothign to loose, excpet the lives of your loved one walking past the bank.

It increases the potential for violence, and was the arguement I believe that saw the death penalty stoped here in Australia.

 

It takes a bad situation, removes all hope and causes, more so than allows even, the situation to become so set for imense carnage it begs how modern thinkng people can entertain the concept.

 

but even then, stil there's an even gretaer reason for not having a death penalty IMO.

 

That is, as bad as it is, the "justice system of a society is the highest principle we have, to define right from wrong, it embodies and seeks to uphold the highest qualities of human character above the animals, to take the concept of uncontrolled action, and in it's place, create an order of such high respect for order, decency and philosophy.

 

To use it as a cold hearted unit to administer death deteriates the entire order to nothing more than an arm of a section of animal behaviour. That is, one animal has acted out of order to the pack, and the system has designed a way to not contain the situation and correct it, it does instead; nothing more than retaliate. Like a wounded animal. that may be how wee feel when we have something bad befall us, and is why we don't represnt ourselves in court, so emotion is removed, and reason and logic can be the success of the day. even the inncoent death of a child, suffered the most herrendous death of all will make each and every one of us at least secretly wish the death of that person. but to do so, degreades the order which sekes to prove the actions played outi n crime were below the satndard of the society we are.

 

The death penalty is to take the highest and most protective principle in civil society and turns it on it's head, and becomes nothing more than an extesnion of anger of those who have not learned control of their emotions. ie. those who call for one's death.

 

Imagine a person who, while in a rage- murders someone. Being found guilty, and in his place of residence is given death as punishment for his act, is in turn murdered.

 

The first murder, as unexcusable as it may (or may not) be, had a reason. A reason that even if better acted upon that the killing he did, should not have happpened, but a reason typical of ALL humaity. Jealousy, rage, humiliation etc..

Imean to say, almost ALL murde is typical human emotion, that in a singlemoment of madness loses control. That if that person was able to have the luxury 9which we do nothave when faced with anguish) of 12 months, most likely would NEVER commit the murder again. It was purelythe spontanity that cuase dit, and as bad as that is, howmuch worse would it be if they had a year to re-consider, but blithley went ahead anyway? Now THAT is evil.

 

But what about the system which kills him leaglly?

 

It, with no "heat of the moment" to blame, with all the time in the world to re-consider it's choices, slowly and blithley grinds on to a date, where a man, is taken by other men, prepared like a cow at a slaughter, walked without malice or hatred to a place where he is cold and calmly extinguished. Hwere no reason canbe given of emotion overame anyone to this end. Where lack of sleep, depression, fear or any other reasion common to murder can be dredged up at all to defend the actions of the system.

 

Surely many who have faced this penalty would have relived the experience that led them to this place differently with even one millonth the opportunity to repent from the actions set in motion; if only theyhad the trime and calm of mind to act with.

That is to say those who have killed in a flash of anger, given a year to consider it, are most unlkikely to have actually committed that murder. Those who, with a year to re-consider, would not have killed their spouse, when they one year latyr confront them over an infidelity.

yet the system that seeks to be the highest order in civil society has this time to re-consider,with no personal emotion to drive iit, acts out murder in the coldest and most unhuame manner.

 

It's either an abuse of our highest order in civility, or it was never any such high order, and no respect is deserving of the "justice" system, for it simply is an official way to act out what it accuses all other humans with.

 

It has been turned from the highest order in society to the filthiest tool we have, a tool of cold blooded retribution with no level of "higer" quality at all.

 

The death penalty in short uses a system which should bring order and peace from disorder and anger to a community and makes it, itlsef the thing that is deadlier and lacking the qualities we need for proper society.

 

I saw a doco that ran over several weeks that dealt with the hangmen of England over about a one hundred year period. Every one of them went mad. To kill a human thathas done nothing to you, who in the coldness of the moment chats with you as you prepare his death, has to turn a person into an animal, and in turns reflects the same of the institution that enables it.

 

but that's just how I see it I suppose.

 

I wonder what went on with MArtin Bryant. You know those living in TAsmania didnt even know the name of him for some years (except for travelling intersate), it was that "blanketed"out of the news at the time in Tasmania. The strange things surrounding that day have never been properly discused in thatstae as far as I know, and until reently I never had any idea such parculiar things took place myself. It certainly is worth wondering about ey?

I hear he attempted suicide the other day too.

 

cheers

rob