Comments on: In 90s, Burris Sought Death Penalty for Innocent Man

By: Paddy-O

Paddy-O — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:58 +0000

# 50 Mister Mustard said, “No, Paddy-RAMBO, that was the rumor. It wasn’t a done deal; only speculation.”

Nope. Wrong again ‘Tard.

By: Mister Mustard

Mister Mustard — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:31:03 +0000

#49 – Paddy-RAMBO

No, Paddy-RAMBO, that was the rumor. It wasn’t a done deal; only speculation. And it wasn’t until my buds, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, let the new slip to me of the formal decision that I really believed it. Last night (shortly after they told me), the Wall Street Journal verified the information

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123179519870574715.html

I have lots of friends in high places, Paddy-RAMBO, but not as high as yours…I don’t find out about things BEFORE THEY HAPPEN, like you did with the drowned Somali pirates.

By: Paddy-O

Paddy-O — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:20:03 +0000

# 48 Mister Mustard said, “Well, it looks like the Dems are going to seat Burris after all.”

You were informed of that last week…

By: Mister Mustard

Mister Mustard — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:48:02 +0000

Well, it looks like the Dems are going to seat Burris after all.

By: Christie

Christie — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:20:24 +0000

Burris insisted on prosecuting an innocent man even after DNA evidence cleared him! The man spent 11 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. In my opinion Burris is corrupt and he has no business being in the Senate.

I really doubt that Obama wants to start off his Presidency by seating a thug like Burris.

By: HMeyers

HMeyers — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:11:02 +0000

@Fusion

“No, you are justifying the punishment of innocent people by police, prosecutors, and we must include, judges.”

I’m not justifying anything. I’m making an observation. If my observation is true, how can you argue with a true observation. Truth isn’t subject to debate.

And it does happen and tends to happen to iffy people far more than it happens to upstanding citizens.

The best defense in an imperfect world is to behave honestly, keep a clean reputation and to stay out of trouble.

I’ve seen real life situations where a jerk prosecutors/police acted like a world-class asshole.

But usually (not always) honest and decent people end up winning out.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:27:15 +0000

Sea Lawyer,

Sorry, but I thought I had posted the entire XXVII Amendment section. My mistake.

#44, Meyers,

I agree. But that’s in a perfect world and I’m talking about the one we actually live in

No, you are justifying the punishment of innocent people by police, prosecutors, and we must include, judges. As has been pointed out before, prosecutors knowingly continue to hamper and deny appeals even when they have been made aware that the person is innocent. Police are routinely shown to manufacture evidence to obtain search warrants and even in court.

That is as much the “real world” as is the robberies and murders they claim to be solving.

By: HMeyers

HMeyers — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:29:52 +0000

@32 “That shouldn’t matter. Whenever the police or prosecution knowingly prosecute someone they know did not do it they do everyone a disservice.”

I agree. But that’s in a perfect world and I’m talking about the one we actually live in

By: bobbo

bobbo — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:17:23 +0000

#42–Uncle==I don’t know the percentages, but of course it happens. We thump our chests regarding the appeals process==”but” most appeals are lost regardless of new evidence or anything else: “should have been raised at trial level.”

As a death penalty advocate, I’m upset the standard for “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is set way to low. Single Eye witness testimony with no supporting circumstantial evidence should be thrown out by judges==not passed on to the jury for their opinion. Much more. Innocence Project is a real eye-opener.

By: Uncle Patso

Uncle Patso — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:06:49 +0000

I believe #36 Angel H. Wong has it right — pretty much every prosecuting attorney has fought hard to get the maximum possible penalty for wrongfully accused defendants. The only ones you’ll ever _ever_ see asking the judge to dismiss the case, even when the defendant is proved not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, are the ones on TV.

Of course, Illinois can’t hold a candle to Texas, where every prosecutor, from the state Attorney General on down to the local Justice of the Peace is expected to continue to push for punishment for convicted criminals NO MATTER WHAT. There have been cases where, after conviction, the defendant is proven absolutely to be not guilty, but state prosecutors strenuously object to anything but the full sentence being carried out anyway, up to and including the death penalty. “They were lawfully convicted” is their motto and refrain.

It is my considered opinion (and nothing more than an opinion, though a well-considered one) that at least 15% to 20% of people in U.S. prisons right now are not guilty of the crimes that put them there. But this is likely a huge improvement over past times, where the percentage likely reached considerably higher than half. And yes, I do include death penalty cases.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:40:08 +0000

Don’t blame sea lawyer for reading Fusion’s post

By: bobbo

bobbo — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:26:21 +0000

Whose side do I help if I admit I’m full of shit too?

By: Mister Mustard

Mister Mustard — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:20:45 +0000

#38 – SL

>>hahaha

Hahaha indeed. I’m fully aware of the meaning of “sea lawyer”, and I’m fully aware that you’re full of shit.

Interesting, though, that you should consider two people who agree on something that contradicts your point of view to be a “homoerotic lovefest”.

I guess that means that either nobody ever agrees with you on anything, or that you’re the most enthusiastic rump-wrangling, pole-smoking ass bandit on the blog.

I wonder which it is.

By: Sea Lawyer

Sea Lawyer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:05:19 +0000

#37, hahaha, you could save yourself a lot of wasted hot air if you learned a little naval jargon between your homoerotic lovefests with bobbo. I know I’m full of shit, that’s why I chose the name in the first place. =D

By: Mister Mustard

Mister Mustard — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:55:59 +0000

#35 – SL

>>special election is the only way they can
>>legally fill the vacancy, not by direct
>>appointment.

Well, I may not know the Constitution of the Seven Seas as intimately as you (being a Sea Lawyer, and all), but a more complete reading of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution reveals the following:

“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

So, no problem. You really need to sit for the bar exam someplace where Landlubber Law applies.