A crack binge means she should get clemency?
Did I miss something here? I don't get it.
shareThis pic is your typical soft-on-crime Hollywood PC baloney, that's what. Yeah, being drugged out on crack really excuses your actions. I'm no conservative, but I'm quite pro-death penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if a drunk or drugged-up defense hasn't already been used in some court. (Remember the "Twinkie defense" used by the defendant in the Harvey Milk case? Give me a break already.)
BRING OUT SEASON THREE OF "ONCE AND AGAIN" ON DVD!
I thought she was getting clemency because a) she had changed and b) because she hadn't gotten proper counseling when she was arrested for the crimes?
Bryndda: Can't say I enjoyed this movie - the subject matter is very disturbing. I gathered that her advocates on the Clemency Board were requesting a commutation of her death sentence because although she was high on drugs at the time of the murders, this had been swept under the carpet by the prosecution, who had cut a deal with the other perpetrator to turn states evidence in return for a lighter sentence, and the defense counsel had failed to pick up on this.
What I don't understand is how deliberately tanking up on drugs prior to committing a crime (and we saw Cindy doing this in the car before she entered the house where she murdered her two victims) makes the crime any less heinous, and makes her any less responsible for her actions. Especially when she seemed to be doing it in order to release her inhibitions, and she was very well aware of this.
I do support the death sentence in some cases, (if anyone is interested), and I think this is one of them. No matter how she had changed in the interim, her victims were still dead at her hands, and nothing could bring them back.
What is unforgiveable, IMHO, is all the shilly-shallying that goes on around the execution of these death sentences. People are kept waiting for years - in the case of this movie 12 years - to die, and that certainly smacks of cruel and unusual punishment. However, under the US justice system, death row inmates are entitled to as many appeals as their lawyers can produce, sometimes on grounds which are nothing but spurious, all with the aim of avoiding the sentence which has been passed on them.
Apparently, a large majority, I am unsure of the exact statistics, but I think it is well over 50%, of the US population supports the death penalty in certain cases. In the final anaylysis, it comes down to the often unrealistic "Capital punishment is a crime" brigade versus the vicious "Burn the b*****" contingent.
The victim(s) and their families, who have also been victimised by the murderer, are cast aside by both factions, and ignored, when in fact, they are the only ones who are of any real importance. While knowing that the person who killed your child, parent, spouse, sibling, friend, partner has paid the ultimate penalty for their evil deed may bring closure to some, and not to others, the fact that they are living on in fairly comfortable circumstances, often the center of benign media attention (think Myra Hindley) must be insupportable. I would like to see more concern for the well being of the victim(s) and their families amid all the hoopla.
[deleted]
"People are kept waiting for years - in the case of this movie 12 years - to die, and that certainly smacks of cruel and unusual punishment."
Even with this in mind, death is a kindness. There is no more pain or fear after one is dead. After one is dead there is no chance to use them to gain insight on possible associates.
In the case of The Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy James McVeigh. It was pretty clear that there was unknown co-conspirators who had not been named. Yet the State rushed to execution. It seemed to many that he had been silenced, presumably to cover up for someone highly placed in government. Perhaps a link to 9/11? It was also clear that he fit the profile of someone the other prisoners would retaliate against should he ever be put in general population.
I would rather think of McVeigh being beaten bloody everytime he recovered enough to get out of the hospital than peacefully dead. As it is we have nearly forgotten Oklahoma City, and far to soon. Yet everytime "Charles Manson" hits the news we are reminded of his acts, which happened decades before, and are pale by comparison.
I can almost hear the News report. "Tim McVeigh, the infamous Oklahoma City Bomber had his right leg broken for the fifth time since beginning his incarceration in his 126th altercation with fellow inmates. His newest injuries include...."
It is obvious to me that the Criminal Justice System is pretty good at escalating victimless crimes, but is incapable of deterring major offenses. Perhaps when the pot head and the armed robber are treated differently this will change.
Wasn't Tim McVeigh "quickly" executed because he waived his appeals? I don't think any reasonable amount of time would have caused this fanatic to give up his co-conspirators. I agree that the reason she should not have gotten the death penalty is because the drugs made her incapable of the forethought necessary for premeditation. Thus she deserved 2nd degree murder, and life in prison instead of death. In some cases I think life in prison is worse - you go from being part of a small group, usually with your own private cell, to a large group with many different social challenges to overcome. I don't believe in the death penalty. Emotionally there are a variety of violent crimes where my emotion and gut wants that person to be torn limb from limb, but I think reason should rule the day when people's life are at stake, and no matter how great the system is, we will never have a perfect system and innocent people will die. I don't think anyone should accept that. Death penalty convictions overturned because of new evidence always make me shudder thinking about the dozens, or even hundreds, of innocent citizens our country has murdered since its inception.
share