Fate Of The West Memphis 3

[FunkyBuddha]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/3-men-convicted-1993-cub-scout-slayings-free-192933711.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-192933711.html[/url]


Now I obviously wasn't paying attention when this happened back in '93, I was preoccupied with dinosaurs and legos.

I found a problem with a singular phrase in this article.

"All three men were placed on 10 years' unsupervised probation. [u][b]If[/b][/u] [b][u]they re-offend[/u][/b], they could be sent back to prison for 21 years."

Personally I see that as an enormous if, not to mention the fact that that phrase has pretty much said they did something bad.


Unsupervised? Really?

Hell, I'm supervised and I haven't ever been convicted or tried of any crime.

Anyone else have an issue with this sort of lackadaisical treatment of three men who may have committed such a heinous crime?

I'm not saying no probation but not so lightly at first.

I would understand if they said "Hey you're free to due to lack of evidence and what not but we'll be keeping an eye on you for a bit."


Am I overreacting? Hulu+ is getting me all riled up by throwing commercials during my Man's Future in the Cosmos lecture thing.


Thoughts and opinions?

[Chreees]

So... Why are they called the Tennessee 3 if they are from West Memphis, Arkansas? I don't understand...

If they have enough evidence, then they should be in jail. The Casey Anthony trial if anything shows us that. I don't know all the facts and evidence against them, but sounds like they should still be in jail atleast. Crazy how our system works sometimes.

My feeling is, if we actually used the death penalty more, there'd be less crimes such as this.

[ChicagoRSX]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1313788600' post='520525']
So... Why are they called the Tennessee 3 if they are from West Memphis, Arkansas? I don't understand...
[/quote]

That was a typo on funky's part, they are called "The West Memphis 3". Second, I'm not sure how well versed he is on the case, but everything I read basically says this was another botched police investigation that rushed to charge individuals. The 3 charged/convicted of the offense were "goth kids" in the Bible belt of the USA. Seems like typical early 90's justice at the time, and all DNA evidence found at the scene has come out to not belong to any of the 3 men convicted, but rather the step father of one of the children, and the step fathers friend.

They plead no-contest, which allows them to maintain their innocence, and allows the state to save face. By "Re-offend" it means any charge, from a DUI to domestic abuse charge, not murder. I find an issue with lackadaisical investigating by law enforcement, but such was the times. And yes, they may have done something bad, but by the same token, they may not have at all. I feel for the families involved and in the end, only 1 knows what really happened. ( I would go on longer, but it's late and I'm lazy.

[FunkyBuddha]

[quote name='ChicagoRSX' timestamp='1313904675' post='520666']
That was a typo on funky's part, they are called "The West Memphis 3". Second, I'm not sure how well versed he is on the case, but everything I read basically says this was another botched police investigation that rushed to charge individuals. The 3 charged/convicted of the offense were "goth kids" in the Bible belt of the USA. Seems like typical early 90's justice at the time, and all DNA evidence found at the scene has come out to not belong to any of the 3 men convicted, but rather the step father of one of the children, and the step fathers friend.
[/quote]

Damn dyslexia

I didn't know much about this case other than what I read from Yahoo. I can agree fully now with their release. I think the wording of the judge's statement is what unnerved me. I'm a words guy, what can I say?

[Chreees]

Ahh, okay. I'mma edit the title then.

Sounds kinda like the Casey Anthony trial, in the way of there's a lack of [b]DNA[/b] evidence to convict the three, yet it would seem they *most likely* did it.

Looks like our justice system is going where if there's no DNA evidence, you cannot be convicted of a crime.

[ChicagoRSX]

Well there was DNA evidence, they found hairs "not unlike" the hairs that belonged to the stepfather of one of the victims in the knots used to bind the kids hands and feet together, but the detectives decided the goth kids/outcasts were better suspects.

[Chreees]

Figures...

[judgeposer]

[quote name='FunkyBuddha' timestamp='1313786462' post='520516']
[url="http://news.yahoo.com/3-men-convicted-1993-cub-scout-slayings-free-192933711.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-192933711.html[/url]


Now I obviously wasn't paying attention when this happened back in '93, I was preoccupied with dinosaurs and legos.

I found a problem with a singular phrase in this article.

"All three men were placed on 10 years' unsupervised probation. [u][b]If[/b][/u] [b][u]they re-offend[/u][/b], they could be sent back to prison for 21 years."

Personally I see that as an enormous if, not to mention the fact that that phrase has pretty much said they did something bad.

Unsupervised? Really?

Hell, I'm supervised and I haven't ever been convicted or tried of any crime.

Anyone else have an issue with this sort of lackadaisical treatment of three men who may have committed such a heinous crime?

I'm not saying no probation but not so lightly at first.

I would understand if they said "Hey you're free to due to lack of evidence and what not but we'll be keeping an eye on you for a bit."

Am I overreacting? Hulu+ is getting me all riled up by throwing commercials during my Man's Future in the Cosmos lecture thing.

Thoughts and opinions?
[/quote]
Keep in mind that these men have already served something like 18 years in jail on the trial court's conviction. One of the three was even sentenced to death. In light of that, I'm not sure how lackadaisical we can say the prosecutors or the overall criminal justice system has been, if we can say that at all. Their appeal was based on new DNA evidence, which for reasons probably having to do with the available technology of the time was unavailable at trial.

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1313788600' post='520525']
So... Why are they called the Tennessee 3 if they are from West Memphis, Arkansas? I don't understand...

If they have enough evidence, then they should be in jail. The Casey Anthony trial if anything shows us that. I don't know all the facts and evidence against them, but sounds like they should still be in jail atleast. Crazy how our system works sometimes.

My feeling is, if we actually used the death penalty more, there'd be less crimes such as this.
[/quote]
Their "release" is the product of a successful appeal; nothing more. Also, the death penalty has not been shown to act as a deterrent for murder. In fact, states without the death penalty have had historically lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. I suppose though, since you qualified that 'if we were to use the death penalty [u]more[/u], there'd be less crime like this' (emphasis mine) says something more about our [i]efficient[/i] use of it, not whether we say we're using it at all. I suppose also that we'll never really know the answer to that. To know the answer to that we'd have to see years of executions closer in time to the sentencing, without the present appeals process. But, for a penalty of death, we have only seen this process lengthened and complicated. This has not been all bad because a good number of those appeals have been able to utilize DNA evidence to establish a defendant's innocence.

[quote name='ChicagoRSX' timestamp='1313904675' post='520666']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1313788600' post='520525']
So... Why are they called the Tennessee 3 if they are from West Memphis, Arkansas? I don't understand...
[/quote]

That was a typo on funky's part, they are called "The West Memphis 3". Second, I'm not sure how well versed he is on the case, but everything I read basically says this was another botched police investigation that rushed to charge individuals. The 3 charged/convicted of the offense were "goth kids" in the Bible belt of the USA. Seems like typical early 90's justice at the time, and all DNA evidence found at the scene has come out to not belong to any of the 3 men convicted, but rather the step father of one of the children, and the step fathers friend.

They plead no-contest, which allows them to maintain their innocence, and allows the state to save face. By "Re-offend" it means any charge, from a DUI to domestic abuse charge, not murder. I find an issue with lackadaisical investigating by law enforcement, but such was the times. And yes, they may have done something bad, but by the same token, they may not have at all. I feel for the families involved and in the end, only 1 knows what really happened. ( I would go on longer, but it's late and I'm lazy.
[/quote]
These defendants didn't plea no contest, that's something different. In a no contest plea, a defendant simply [i]does not contest the charges[/i] (some refer to it as "remaining silent"); he accepts the court's judgement without having to admit guilt. These defendants offered an "Alford plea," which is when a defendant [i]maintains his innocence[/i], denies committing the act, but acknowledges that the prosecution likely has enough evidence (of beyond a reasonable doubt) to obtain a conviction at trial. These pleas are all as opposed to a straight "guilty" plea, where the defendant [i]admits[/i] guilt, which he will likely have to allocate to, that is to put into the record the details of his acts, and accepts the court's sentence. That sentence usually mirrors what the defendant and the prosecutor have agreed to, and what the prosecutor recommends to the court, but the court is always free, in its discretion, to differ.

[joytron]

[quote name='judgeposer' timestamp='1313979389' post='520788']
[quote name='FunkyBuddha' timestamp='1313786462' post='520516']
[url="http://news.yahoo.com/3-men-convicted-1993-cub-scout-slayings-free-192933711.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-192933711.html[/url]


Now I obviously wasn't paying attention when this happened back in '93, I was preoccupied with dinosaurs and legos.

I found a problem with a singular phrase in this article.

"All three men were placed on 10 years' unsupervised probation. [u][b]If[/b][/u] [b][u]they re-offend[/u][/b], they could be sent back to prison for 21 years."

Personally I see that as an enormous if, not to mention the fact that that phrase has pretty much said they did something bad.

Unsupervised? Really?

Hell, I'm supervised and I haven't ever been convicted or tried of any crime.

Anyone else have an issue with this sort of lackadaisical treatment of three men who may have committed such a heinous crime?

I'm not saying no probation but not so lightly at first.

I would understand if they said "Hey you're free to due to lack of evidence and what not but we'll be keeping an eye on you for a bit."

Am I overreacting? Hulu+ is getting me all riled up by throwing commercials during my Man's Future in the Cosmos lecture thing.

Thoughts and opinions?
[/quote]
Keep in mind that these men have already served something like 18 years in jail on the trial court's conviction. One of the three was even sentenced to death. In light of that, I'm not sure how lackadaisical we can say the prosecutors or the overall criminal justice system has been, if we can say that at all. Their appeal was based on new DNA evidence, which for reasons probably having to do with the available technology of the time was unavailable at trial.

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1313788600' post='520525']
So... Why are they called the Tennessee 3 if they are from West Memphis, Arkansas? I don't understand...

If they have enough evidence, then they should be in jail. The Casey Anthony trial if anything shows us that. I don't know all the facts and evidence against them, but sounds like they should still be in jail atleast. Crazy how our system works sometimes.

My feeling is, if we actually used the death penalty more, there'd be less crimes such as this.
[/quote]
Their "release" is the product of a successful appeal; nothing more. Also, the death penalty has not been shown to act as a deterrent for murder. In fact, states without the death penalty have had historically lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. I suppose though, since you qualified that 'if we were to use the death penalty [u]more[/u], there'd be less crime like this' (emphasis mine) says something more about our [i]efficient[/i] use of it, not whether we say we're using it at all. I suppose also that we'll never really know the answer to that. To know the answer to that we'd have to see years of executions closer in time to the sentencing, without the present appeals process. But, for a penalty of death, we have only seen this process lengthened and complicated. This has not been all bad because a good number of those appeals have been able to utilize DNA evidence to establish a defendant's innocence.

[quote name='ChicagoRSX' timestamp='1313904675' post='520666']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1313788600' post='520525']
So... Why are they called the Tennessee 3 if they are from West Memphis, Arkansas? I don't understand...
[/quote]

That was a typo on funky's part, they are called "The West Memphis 3". Second, I'm not sure how well versed he is on the case, but everything I read basically says this was another botched police investigation that rushed to charge individuals. The 3 charged/convicted of the offense were "goth kids" in the Bible belt of the USA. Seems like typical early 90's justice at the time, and all DNA evidence found at the scene has come out to not belong to any of the 3 men convicted, but rather the step father of one of the children, and the step fathers friend.

They plead no-contest, which allows them to maintain their innocence, and allows the state to save face. By "Re-offend" it means any charge, from a DUI to domestic abuse charge, not murder. I find an issue with lackadaisical investigating by law enforcement, but such was the times. And yes, they may have done something bad, but by the same token, they may not have at all. I feel for the families involved and in the end, only 1 knows what really happened. ( I would go on longer, but it's late and I'm lazy.
[/quote]
These defendants didn't plea no contest, that's something different. In a no contest plea, a defendant simply [i]does not contest the charges[/i] (some refer to it as "remaining silent"); he accepts the court's judgement without having to admit guilt. These defendants offered an "Alford plea," which is when a defendant [i]maintains his innocence[/i], denies committing the act, but acknowledges that the prosecution likely has enough evidence (of beyond a reasonable doubt) to obtain a conviction at trial. These pleas are all as opposed to a straight "guilty" plea, where the defendant [i]admits[/i] guilt, which he will likely have to allocate to, that is to put into the record the details of his acts, and accepts the court's sentence. That sentence usually mirrors what the defendant and the prosecutor have agreed to, and what the prosecutor recommends to the court, but the court is always free, in its discretion, to differ.
[/quote]

Don't really have any more to offer, but that was a great read and a well worded response.

[evilded777]

Wow.... learn the facts of the case.

I seen some retractions here but... there is no "they most likely did it yet there is a lack of DNA evidence to convict". There IS NO EVIDENCE. There is a preponderant LACK of evidence.

These young men were railroaded, period. They were convicted on the basis of an illegally obtained and subsequently re-canted "confession" by a mentally challenged individual, hearsay, and other assorted shenanigans.

[Chreees]

Yeah man, I said that before I fully read up on it all. So I agree with you, I should have learned the facts of the case. The media I was watching put it in a tone like "HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH THIS?!" I got caught up in it, and shouldn't have. So yeah, I agree that they should NOT be convicted.