I just read this story about how the judge has thrown out the confession of the worthless piece of human debris who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford, because he supposedly asked for a lawyer, but wasn’t given one. I’m very angry right now.
Here’s the rub. The guy was picked up. He told the cops what he’d done, how he did it, and where to find her body. The cops found everything, just as he said. This is one of those cases where a trial should not even be an option. He confessed. He told them everything. They verified the facts. At that point, he should have been taken out behind the police station and shot. Or, as my friend just suggested, taken to the public square and shot. Or put in a cell where he could watch a gallows being built, just for him. When a perp confesses, and the details match, that should be it. Game. Set. Match. This animal doesn’t deserve to continue drawing breath after what he did to that little girl.
What do you think should of happened? I mean besides the summary execution.
You seem to have no problem with the police acting as judge, jury and executioner. How about them acting as competent police?
Jon, Jon, Jon… How did I know you would have a problem with this? Hmmm… I wonder… Did you bother to read the article or what I said? This animal confessed. He told the police precise details of what he did and where he left her. There’s no room for debate here. I don’t care if the police beat it out of him, he knew details that only the killer would know. This is open-and-shut, in my book.
Note that nobody threw out a conviction. They just threw out a confession.
The fact that this time the confesson was accurate does not excuse the incompetence of the police.
Throwing out illegally obtained evidence is the only way we’ve found to get the police to play by the rules (i.e. follow the Constitution).
Jon, I agree with Joey….why waste taxpayer money and the courts time with a trial when something is indisputable. Just like in Atlanta on 3/11 when Terry Nichols killed Judge Barnes and the court reporter in from of dozens of people and on video tape….and now he is pleading “not guilty” Instances like this make a joke of our Constitution. Yes it does say that he should be allowed a fair tril with a proper defense, but how can you defend something that is so clear cut. That part of the Bill of Rights is designed to protect innocent people that may have been wrongly accused not absolutely guilty people.
Except for the fact of course that sometimes supposedly “absolutely guilty people” are thrown in jail because of police incompetence.
The Rolando Cruz/Janine Nicarico case is a great example. That guy was on death row for *10* years before he acquitted. He had nothing to do with the crime and the only “evidence” was from incompetent police.
This case is different..its obvious by the physical evidence that the guy did it. They’re only throwing out the confession…not the whole case.
Yes, there are terrible cases of “the wrong guy” ending up in prison. But this case was clear cut. There was no possible way that someone else did it.