Thursday, January 29, 2009

Justice Delayed

Five people imprisoned for the 1985 rape and murder of a 68-year-old woman were pardoned Monday, two months after investigators said DNA evidence proved they were innocent. [More]
One can only wonder how many enter pleas because they've been bullied into it over threatened consequences. And somehow, those who defrauded them into it remain free to do it again and again...

And remember: "They" hate us because we're free.

[Via Ed M]

4 comments:

  1. Know why they took the deals? Because their lawyers don't care and are working for the government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You don't think for one minute do you that these people's families weren't threatened also, do you?

    C'mon AvgJoe, you know every one of them had concerns beyond themselves when they accepted the deal.

    A cop I once knew became irate when he was reminded that he had family too. Seems he decided to do something constructive to actually solve the case, rather than just close it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Plea bargaining - court sponsored,
    condoned, encouraged perjury. The poor fools will plead to anything up to and including the crucifixion of Jesus Christ if they've been promised leniency or a suspended sentence with terms of probation with which they can't possibly comply.

    Once the court manages to get the plea and conviction, it has created another prohibited person who can never own a firearm.

    Faust got a good deal. He just sold his soul to the devil. A poor SOB who sells his soul to the government by way of a plea bargain is well and totally screwed. And, most gun owners seem to buy into the idea that ALL convicts deserve what they get, and SHOULD NEVER own a firearm for as long as they live.

    We tend to forget that, if the Obamamama lightbringer and the rest of the gun grabbers get their way, all 85-90 million of us are going to be criminals, and felons at that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The pardon restores civil rights, such as the right to get a passport, vote and serve in the military."

    Seems the author missed at least one. She thinks "serve in the military" is important to a person in his 40's?? Self-protection (i.e., firearms) is not??

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.