"Killer Keller"- A Judge in Texas

Is she trying to prove something? There seems to be some logic missing in her decisions.
 
On the night Keller refused to keep the court open, Michael Richard’s lawyers had asked to file a last-minute appeal.
Click to expand...

Kramer?! Kramer was executed?! OMG!

All kidding aside, Im not surprised she is in Texas, and Im not surprised that shes a Republican. Whether I approve or disapprove (and I do both, depending on the circumstance) she was elected. The people have spoken, as it were.

But I am a big supporter of the 'do the crime, do the time' school of thought. I also believe that rules need to be followed. I dont mean rules like you cant have a cookie before dinner. I mean rules like if the court closes at five, your appeal has to be in before five. Its like that for everyone. Why should this one person be allowed to break the rule? That just opens the floodgates for everyone else to do it.
 
You have to seriously question the electorate in that circumstance.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but that's irrelevant here. Did you all read the item about the DNA evidence in another case and her rationale behind her decision?
 
lawschoolmom said:
You have to seriously question the electorate in that circumstance.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but that's irrelevant here. Did you all read the item about the DNA evidence in another case and her rationale behind her decision?
Click to expand...

I did.. And thats what I was referring to with the disapproval comment. If there is any doubt of a person's guilt, they arent supposed to convict them, right? IMO, the DNA test entered the shadow of a doubt at least. They shouldve either reopened the case or had a retrial or both.
 
You are correct. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

Meaning, there can't be just a doubt. It is a standard that goes BEYOND that. It's the highest burden of proof there is, which is imporant in any case, especially captial cases. We, and by we I mean the state/federal government, have to be that sure of someone's guilt. Everytime a criminal sentance is imposed on a defendant, it is done either in the name of the state or in the name of the US government--a body politic that represents YOU, ME, ALL CITIZENS. As such, it is our duty as citizens to participate in the election of judges, serve on juries, and be vocal about law. Without those things, one can only speculate...
 
Funny, the gov't is supposed to represent us, but it rarely does, IMO... But some of those 'participations' are the reasons I feel so strongly about freedom of speech. If they remove it from one place, theyll feel that it can be removed from any place. And before you know it, we dont any freeedom of speech remaining. Ive given up, rather, had taken from me, enough liberties to the Feds.

Anyone who would give up liberties, however few or small, in order to ensure security deserves neither and will lose both.
-more or less, Ben Franklin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top