Governor withholds pardon for man he convicted
Thursday, August 18, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EDT (16:49 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/refused.pardon.ap/index.html
RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- Gov. Mike Easley has refused to pardon a man he sent to prison when he was a prosecutor even though the man was freed after the victims recanted their testimony.
Easley denied the petition of Sylvester Smith, 54, who was convicted in 1984 for first degree rape and two counts of first degree sexual offense, the governor's office said Wednesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/refused.pardon.ap/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people are being held in prison while innocent.
Is there something wrong with the US justice system ?
Should reforms be implemented ?
What is your opinion ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe1. Yes, but no system is perfect, and this is the best one we have had up to date
Governor withholds pardon for man he convicted
Thursday, August 18, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EDT (16:49 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/refused.pardon.ap/index.html
RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- Gov. Mike Easley has refused to pardon a man he sent to prison when he was a prosecutor even though the man was freed after the victims reca ...[text shortened]... hing wrong with the US justice system ?
Should reforms be implemented ?
What is your opinion ?
2. Probably
3. See Checkmate187's answer
Originally posted by ivanhoeUS law may well be different to UK law, but I doubt it. Surely a pardon is for someone who did do it and should, for some exceptional reason, be let off, but the conviction still stands. This guy can appeal against his original conviction on the grounds of new evidence - namely that the people who said he did it are now saying he didn't. If he is denied the right to appeal then there is a problem.
Governor withholds pardon for man he convicted
Thursday, August 18, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EDT (16:49 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/refused.pardon.ap/index.html
RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- Gov. Mike Easley has refused to pardon a man he sent to prison when he was a prosecutor even though the man was freed after the victims reca ...[text shortened]... hing wrong with the US justice system ?
Should reforms be implemented ?
What is your opinion ?
Um...
I agree. On the face of it (given these bare facts) the conviction should be completely quashed. Which I think requires a court, rather than the governor.
However, I see no reason off the top of my head why the pardon can't be granted IN THE MEANTIME, while he's still officially regarded as guilty.
This is what happened in Australia's most notorious murder case, the death of Azaria Chamberlain (as seen in the movie A Cry In The Dark, also called Evil Angels depending on where you live). Her mother was let out of jail first and THEN applied to have her conviction quashed, which it was.
EDIT: Oh, I see, he is in fact out of prison already. So it's only about money. In which case the governor is being even more stupid, because it's blindingly obvious the man should be entitled to some kind of compensation. Possibly from the grandmother's estate...
Originally posted by orfeoI'm sure it's just politics. How many politicians would pardon a man they themselves had sent to prison? It would make them look bad maybe?
Um...
I agree. On the face of it (given these bare facts) the conviction should be completely quashed. Which I think requires a court, rather than the governor.
However, I see no reason off the top of my head why the pardon can't be granted IN THE MEANTIME, while he's still officially regarded as guilty.
This is what happened in Australia's most n ...[text shortened]... man should be entitled to some kind of compensation. Possibly from the grandmother's estate...
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe Legal system has a hard time admiting when they are wrong. It's an outrage when the freedom of some poor soul is denied because of the ego of the law.
Governor withholds pardon for man he convicted
Thursday, August 18, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EDT (16:49 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/refused.pardon.ap/index.html
RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- Gov. Mike Easley has refused to pardon a man he sent to prison when he was a prosecutor even though the man was freed after the victims reca ...[text shortened]... hing wrong with the US justice system ?
Should reforms be implemented ?
What is your opinion ?
Even if it is as simple as the OP makes it sound (and it very well may be), I am not at all suprised to hear that the former-prosecutor-turned govenor will not grant a pardon. Just as defense attorneys are notorious for getting child molester's and serial murderers off on technicalities, prosecutors are well-known for being overly zealous in convicting and punishing accused criminals. Often they want to appear tough on crime. Other times I suppose that they just feel that asking for a moderate sentence is a poor way of bargaining.
Is the governor a Republican? If so, that would explain a lot too. Although one former Republican governor from Illinois displayed a degree of critical thinking not commonly found among members of his party.
Originally posted by telerionI think he is Demacrat, not positive though.
Even if it is as simple as the OP makes it sound (and it very well may be), I am not at all suprised to hear that the former-prosecutor-turned govenor will not grant a pardon. Just as defense attorneys are notorious for getting child molester's and serial murderers off on technicalities, prosecutors are well-known for being overly zealous in convicting an ...[text shortened]... Illinois displayed a degree of critical thinking not commonly found among members of his party.
The point is though he was found guilty, even though the the witnesses recanted what they said, that dont prove the man isnt guilty. I personaly think the people who lied in court should take the guys place in prison
Originally posted by flyUnityYou're not required to prove you're not guilty, the State is required to prove that you ARE.
I think he is Demacrat, not positive though.
The point is though he was found guilty, even though the the witnesses recanted what they said, that dont prove the man isnt guilty. I personaly think the people who lied in court should take the guys place in prison
Of course there might be some cases where you can disregard a witness' evidence and still convict someone, say with forensic evidence. But I get the impression the evidence of the witnesses was central to the case.
Oh, and the witnesses we're talking about are children, so putting them in jail is hardly appropriate.
Originally posted by orfeoBut he was proven guilty, He may not be, but Dont tell me that hes in jail only because of the childrens testimonies.
You're not required to prove you're not guilty, the State is required to prove that you ARE.
Of course there might be some cases where you can disregard a witness' evidence and still convict someone, say with forensic evidence. But I get the impression the evidence of the witnesses was central to the case.
Oh, and the witnesses we're talking about are children, so putting them in jail is hardly appropriate.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=state&id=3366003
"...
"There is one set of standards for a judge to order a new trial," Easley said in a statement. "There is another separate and higher set of standards for a governor to declare a person innocent and I could not do that in the face of the independent SBI investigation, the medical evidence and the polygraph results."
In the SBI's summary of its investigation, officials said the mothers of the victims did not believe their daughters' recantations to be truthful. Additionally, two prosecutors interviewed by SBI agents said they did not find the victims credible when they recanted in 2004.
The SBI report cites a 1984 polygraph test, in which Smith's statements that he did not assault the girls "showed deception." One of the victims was also diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease, for which Smith had tested positive, the SBI said.
..."