![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 41°F |
|
Knoxville Murder Case
Posted Monday, August 17, 2009, at 8:37 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
The Knoxville case I first mentioned in my blog in 2007 and re-ran as Racism on July 27th is finally going to trial. (Murder occured in Jan. 2007)
The first of four defendants is at trial with the jury being seated from a Nashville panel. This is only the first of four defendants as I mentioned. He and all others now are using court appointed attorneys and have spent $350,000 so far and the first trial, of just one defendant, is yet to get totally underway. I gather all defendants will be tried separately so as to maximun the income of attorneys and the burden on the taxpayers who pay them. Can you imagine the families of the two young people who were brutally tortured and murdered having to pay, through their taxes, for the defense of those charged with killing them? How about the expense and the emotional trauma of four trials on these families? Having to sit through the graphic depiction of the death of their loveones time and time again. If this is justice, something is wrong with the system. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Election 2010(0 ~ 3:57 PM, Nov 18)
Gambling Sentence
Wartrace Liquor
Gambling Update
Gambling Article
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Carl, I know this was a gruesome murder, but as distasteful as it sometimes is, all citizens are allowed the right to a trial. All citizens are innocent until proven guilty no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. Justice just isn't pretty sometimes, but that's the way it is.
That does seem terrible but think how much worse it would be for innocent persons to be denied an appropriate defense.
The collection and processing of evidence,interviews with witnesses,expert testimony,etc. have costs.
Add in the lawyers' time,the investigators' time,interviews with psychiatrists,etc. and the tally gets even higher.
Finding and prosecuting a guilty person isn't cheap.
Mounting an adequate defense of an innocent person isn't either and the presumption of innocence has to be reinforced by hard facts that refute cases that seldom come to trial unless the authorities are confident that a conviction can be obtained.
While convictions are occasionally overturned due to procedural irregularities or new evidence,once a person is behind bars,he is usually there for the duration of his sentence and his life is forever changed.
Yes,there have been cases where the guilty went free,a sentence was far too short or too mild or a person was able to pick up the pieces of his life and thrive after incarceration.
But,the odds are in favor of people convicted of murder losing any chance of a normal,productive life.
No punishment humans can inflict could match the atrocities that victims suffer.
The family and friends left behind endure a special brand of hell every day and can only hope that seeing justice done will offer a little closure.
But,justice is not served and the injured are not vindicated when an innocent receives punishment undeserved.
The accused may also have family that are tortured by accounts of hideous crimes.
How awful it must be to see a truly innocent person held accountable for such deeds.
Because our courts must be more interested in justice and the welfare of the people than in punishment,we must seek exoneration of the innocent and rehabilitation of the guilty.
Any improvements of the system would be welcome but it seems unlikely that even a swift,Draconian conviction would offer much solace to the bereaved.
How much more would they suffer if it were discovered that the lack of thorough investigation and a fair trial led to a miscarriage of justice?
There are "persons of interest" who have never had the luxury of a trial to determine their guilt or innocence.
Some have even lived under a cloud decades after evidence led the police to another party.
These people and their loved ones have also had to deal with cases being dredged up over and over again.
Unfortunately,we have yet to implement a system that will place blame where it belongs with no cost (monetary or otherwise) to the rest of us.
Until we can make that happen,the onus is on the People to prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty and follow that conviction with an appropriate sentence.
The price of a fair and efficient response to a crime can be exorbitant but the price of a kangaroo court,witch hunt or strange fruit is far higher than we should be willing to pay.
Well said quantumcat.
Thanks for the comments volfanatic and Q'cat.....I am an adamant believer in the right to council and in the proposition of innocent until proven guilty. In the instant case I question whether the District Public Defender rather than private, appointed counsel should be employed and also why cannot the defendants be tried together so as to mimimize costs and the emotional toll on the victim"s families.
I champion the notion the citizenry needs protection from an overzealous prosecuter and the defendant is due all benefit of any doubt. The grand jury was insisted upon by the Founders as another layer of protection for the citized from an overzealous prosecuter. The grand jury was to be an arm of the court but has degraded to a toy of the prosecuter that has completely bastardized the intentions of the founders, but that is a story for a blog on another day.
Thank you.
Sometimes,the interests of one defendant are at odds with those of others accused.
Combining the trials could result in self-incrimination or negate the possibility of plea bargaining.
Should a defendant's counsel decide that solidarity would endanger his client or bring about the wrong outcome for the trial,he could advise against hanging together in favor of separate trials that could let the guilty be hung separately.
An overextended Public defender or a defense lawyer with multiple clients might be unable to offer a single client an adequate defense.
A one-one-one approach gives more of a chance to delve into the facts and compose the best argument on a client's behalf.
Where a combined effort is warranted,the elimination of redundant services would be welcome.
Q'cat......I agree with most of your concerns and have considered some of them. I am a firm champion of the notion we must always be on watch for an overzealous prosecuter, also police actions for that matter.
I also willingly accept the requirement of the 6th Amendment that everyone has a basic right to counsel in a criminal proceeding but they have no right to the best counsel money can buy.
As an aside, the Founders required a Grand Jury consider criminal charges. Historical research will show they did so to add one more level of protection from an "overzealous prosecutor." The Grand Jury is an arm of the courts but in practice it has become a tool of the prosecuter thus bastardizing the intended function as rationalized by the framers of the Constitution. Ah, but that is a whole other blog for another day.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I also willingly accept the requirement of the 6th Amendment that everyone has a basic right to counsel in a criminal proceeding but they have no right to the best counsel money can buy Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 10:19 PM
So you think we should give them the ambulance chasing lawyers or the ones with the on line degrees? Works for me :>)
But seriously I agree with you for the most part because I would hate to know my taxes are going to defend the person who killed my child. It is also the same thing to me as putting that person who killed and raped my child in prison. I can not imagine the pain this has caused so many families knowing the person that took the life of a loved one is living on their taxes. Thus why I support the Death Penalty.
I too support the death penalty for those convicted of hienous crimes such as this one. However the sub-human garbage that are found guilty of this atrocity will be housed, well fed and all their medical needs fully paid for by the taxpayers of Tennessee for many, many years to come before this sentence is carried out.
No doubt, their tax supported bleeding heart attorneys will try to blame these murders on the fact that "society" had somehow wronged these maggots.
tattoos you are correct... Look how long Manson has been fed and housed..
The Grand Jury is an arm of the courts but in practice it has become a tool of the prosecuter thus bastardizing the intended function as rationalized by the framers of the Constitution.
-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 10:19 PM
That probably is one of the most accurate statements I have read in some time apart from the Scriptures.
Mr. McClanahan, this is a case that cries out for punishment to fit the crime. I have seen many horrendous examples of brutality and callous depravity in my 44 years on this earth, but these people--and I use that term VERY loosely--are the worst examples of criminals ever seen. They do not deserve the death penalty, however, and I will explain why. They already seem to have the mindset of most animalistic killers "They can only kill me once and they can do it much more humanely than the tortures and abominations I committed." If you want a TRUE eye-for-eye justice, inflict the worst possible life sentencing on them, send them to the worst possible corrections facility and make sure they suffer and live in terror every day--EVERY DAY--for the rest of their lives. The release of death is far too good for these animals.