gingersmom Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mississippi-governor-pardons-210-including-murderers-rapists/ The outgoing governor pardoned murderers and rapists. Is he out of his mind????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The only thought I have is that those charge with rape were for statutory rape. Quite often that can mean a young adult with a teen girlfriend in a consensual relationship. That's the best spin I could put on that. But if I lived in Mississippi, I would want to know the basis for their pardon. Those convicted for murder? Unless there was specific evidence exonerating them, that is way out of line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Isn't this the same Governor Barbour who refused to pardon posthumously the civil rights era student Clyde Kennard who was brought up on patently false charges by the state itself and convicted to 7 years for a crime he did not commit? His only real "crime" being that he tried to enroll in Mississippi Southern and refused to back down when told no for being black? It does not sit well with me that he refused to do that (concerns that the family would sue, despite their willingness to release all claims and despite them having a case regardless?) That said, while unpopular, governors have the legal right and in some cases the moral responsibility to make pardons to those whose sentences do no match the crime or current risk or circumstances. There are many reasons for a pardon and I seriously doubt any Gov. has ever pardoned someone because they supported crime or the crimes that the people were convicted from. In some cases, this is the last way for someone who was unjustly convicted to get any relief. I think it is telling that to a one they all seem to do it right before leaving office- they know it is the right thing to do in many cases but can't do it because it makes for a shocking, if very surface level, headline. Edited January 11, 2012 by kijipt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I feel so bad for the guy who is now afraid for his life because the man who tried to kill him is out free. I have trouble believing he was wrongly convicted, either, considering his victim lived to ID him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetMissMagnolia Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 we here in MS are thinking the same thing WTH was he thinking!? I mean I'm sure there were some others more deserving of a pardon..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuirkyKidAcademy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 we here in MS are thinking the same thing: WTH was he thinking!? I'm a Mississippian. I have previously admired and respected Gov. Barbour. Now I am ashamed of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I feel so bad for the guy who is now afraid for his life because the man who tried to kill him is out free. I have trouble believing he was wrongly convicted, either, considering his victim lived to ID him. I don't know the specifics of this case you're referring to, but eyewitness ID is quite unreliable, even that of the victim. Many of the guys on death row freed by DNA evidence were there on the basis of eyewitness ID. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php I'm posting this just to disseminate the info. I don't know if the law about instruction to juries has been changed anywhere and yet we have a situation in which eyewitness ID is valued highly by jurors but known to be unreliable. Rape is a case where the victim is often the one providing the eyewitness ID, yet when old cases are revisited that were tried before DNA, the eyewitness ID turns out to be unreliable. Edited January 11, 2012 by Laurie4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I don't know the specifics of this case you're referring to, but eyewitness ID is quite unreliable, even that of the victim. Many of the guys on death row freed by DNA evidence were there on the basis of eyewitness ID. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php I'm posting this just to disseminate the info. I don't know if the law about instruction to juries has been changed anywhere and yet we have a situation in which eyewitness ID is valued highly by jurors but known to be unreliable. Rape is a case where the victim is often the one providing the eyewitness ID, yet when old cases are revisited that were tried before DNA, the eyewitness ID turns out to be unreliable. In the article linked, it said that the man shot his own wife and this man. I don't think there was much doubt who did it. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetMissMagnolia Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'm a Mississippian. I have previously admired and respected Gov. Barbour. Now I am ashamed of him. it's making me question things now too..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Here's an update: Court Halts Quick Release Pardons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm not up on the story, but in my state the push to get "expensive" people out of state responsibility is on. Medical costs can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the state eats this if the person is under its care. There are even patients who TRY to get committed or incarcerated to get their cardiac bypass, cancer, etc. taken care of. We certainly see it for winter shelter and extensive dental work. When I read the headline, this crossed my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 In the article linked, it said that the man shot his own wife and this man. I don't think there was much doubt who did it. ;) I wasn't responding to the particular case, as I said in my post, but to this statement: "I have trouble believing he was wrongly convicted, either, considering his victim lived to ID him. " The more people (potential jurors) who know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, the better. Certainly, if victim knows the perpetrator, that is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuirkyKidAcademy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm glad the courts had the sense to block so many of these pardons. Not a single news article I've read has hinted that any of the FOURTEEN pardoned murderers were wrongly convicted. The block was based on Barbour not following the rules for pardons - potential pardons must be published 30 days ahead of time. Was he counting on a block? Does the pardon make him look good to the prisoners while the AG is the bad guy in blocking the pardons? Does a potential POTUS candidate *care* what felons think since they can't vote? Why alienate thousands of voters then? What is going on behind the scenes here???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnitWit Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 We want to know what is going on too. Former Gov. Barbour issued over 200 pardons! There are several SELF-CONFESSED murderers in the pile. We are grateful that our Attorney General has stepped forward and is trying to act to reverse some of this. We have been quite shocked and upset by the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I wasn't responding to the particular case, as I said in my post, but to this statement: "I have trouble believing he was wrongly convicted, either, considering his victim lived to ID him. " The more people (potential jurors) who know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, the better. Certainly, if victim knows the perpetrator, that is different. I was discussing the specific article linked. To me, victim ID plus other victim being his wife sounds pretty convincing. We're not talking about picking someone out of a line-up when you've only seen them once before. Now I see a news story that one of the wife killers (apparently more than one of the pardoned had killed his wife) shot his wife while she held their child. So sad! Edited January 12, 2012 by angela in ohio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.