posted on September 9, 2002 07:22:10 PM new
We were not in deliberations, did not sit in on the trial and we are not privvy to all the evidence. How can you pass judgment?
From all that I have read and heard, this jury truly believed the boys did not take part in the plan. They believed the confessions were staged with the assistance of the pedophile. The jury said nothing about how innocent these boys looked. They were looking at evidence.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:09:44 PM new
The issue is not what punishment the kids in these cases got, but why the punishments were so different.
It has nothing to do with not agreeing with the outcome, but why they were different.
The jury ignored the physical evidence and the confessions because they didn't want the white kids in prison for life without parole.
Whether both cases ended in manslaughter or first degree murder makes no difference. The issue is why the black kid got first degree and the white kids didn't.
The black kids case was a textbook case of manslaughter, the white kids case was a textbook case of first degree murder, but the verdicts were the opposite.
posted on September 10, 2002 04:55:34 PM new
" The issue is not what punishment the kids in these cases got, but why the punishments were so different.
It has nothing to do with not agreeing with the outcome, but why they were different."
Because the crimes are not comparable. An easier way of putting it would be:
Case 1
4 people have access to a house, one winds up dead and the house is on fire.
posted on September 10, 2002 05:49:47 PM new
The question is not if the white kids committed the crime. If they didn't commit the crime, they can't be convicted of the crime.
If the white kids were found to have committed the premeditated murder of their father, which is First Degree murder, then that is what they should have be convicted of. Being convicted of second degree murder only lacks the premeditation, for which there is no evidence of.
If the jury "felt" that the two white kids didn't commit the murder, then there is another problem with the verdict. A jury can not convict on a lesser charge because they have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant committed the crime, in such a case they must acquit.
What you seem to suggest is that a jury can convict on a lesser charge because they have doubts about whether the defendant committed the crime, so the jury throws out the maximim charge and convicts on the lesser charge just in case they actually committed the crime. A jury can not do that. The lesser charge can only be used for the lack or presence of certain elements of the crime.
How can a jury convict the white kids for second degree murder, when the jury has doubts that the kids actually struck the blows ?
First degree murder requires willful, deliberate and premediatated taking of a life. Second degree murder is not premeditated.
As I pointed out before, the black child was a classic case of second murder, while the whiye kids was a classi case of first degree murder.
You can not reduce the degree of murder just because the jury finds the case lacks evidence of direct involvment of the defendants. If the jury thought as you suggest, then they should have acquitted.
The juries ruled the way they did in these cases because of race.
What you have suggested as differences in the cases are due to the lack of evidence, which does not comport with the convictions.
posted on September 10, 2002 06:01:47 PM new
" How can a jury convict the white kids for second degree murder, when the jury has doubts that the kids actually struck the blows ? "
Because it doesn't matter.
If 3 guys hold up a bank and 1 drives the getaway car and a teller gets shot, all 4 can go to the chair.
So, like the forewoman said, they were all "guilty". They just weren't sure who did it.
posted on September 10, 2002 07:46:12 PM new
What you're referring to is felony murder. The white kids were not charged with felony murder, and for felony murder to apply, the felony can not be the murder itself, the killing must happen while in the commission of a different felony. Felony murder is also a first degree offense.
The white kids were convicted of second degree murder, no premeditation, no malice. If they were guilty at all they were guilty of first degree murder.
A jury can not convict on the situation of knowing that 10 people could have possibly committed the murder so we convict them all. There must be a connection in the agency of death by the defendant as defined by law for conviction.
They let these kids skate first degree murder because of their skin color.
posted on September 11, 2002 11:28:47 AM new
12 year old murders, that are called boys and children. If you are going to give them a sentance for a man. You better be willing to call them men. I think the whole thing is wrong and horrid. Did that convicted child molester get anything out of his relationship with the younger child? It makes one wonder about our world...watch and love your chilren.
posted on September 11, 2002 11:44:34 AM new
The child molester was acquitted of murdering the father. There was no evidence that placed him at the home, and the boys admitted they committed the murder themselves.
The molester does face or has been convicted on numerous other charges.
