• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ryan Ferguson Juror 'Sorry' For 2004 Murder Conviction

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,337
Reaction score
27,006
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ryan Ferguson Juror 'Sorry' For 2004 Murder Conviction - Yahoo

None of the DNA collected at the scene -- the footprints and fingerprints -- matched Ferguson's, but the jury decided that testimony from Charles Erickson, one of Ferguson's classmates who claimed they had murdered Heitholt together, and Jerry Trump, a janitor who identified Ferguson as one of the two men he saw in the parking lot after the murder, was enough to convict him.

Based on their testimony, the juror said the 12-member jury's decision to convict Ferguson was unanimous.

"Charles Erickson and Jerry Trump hold a lot of weight in our minds," he said. "Everybody had the same feeling that because of Mr. Erickson and Mr. Trump that yes, he was guilty."

The juror also blamed Ferguson's trial lawyer at the time, saying he was "very hard to follow" and not very effective at delivering his case.
Click to expand...

The juror also blamed Ferguson's trial lawyer at the time, saying he was "very hard to follow" and not very effective at delivering his case.
Click to expand...

This young man spent 10 years of his life in jail and the best they can say is "sorry"? Every ****ing juror should be sent to jail for 10 years over this and see how they like it. I hope he sues the living **** out of the state over this and wins.
 
Well hell, if we're going to imprison jurors for convicting based on witness testimony they found credible, can we go ahead and imprison them for walking a defendant that ends up killing again? If we're going to impose a "be perfect or be in prison" standard, it'll have to go both ways otherwise every jury will acquit no matter how strong the evidence.
 
The entire CJS is broken, largely because of inept jurors. Anyone of moderate intelligence can get out of jury duty, for one (yes, i managed to get myself kicked off), which the leaves the lowest common denominator. The average settlement after cases like this is in the millions. It's such an ass backwards system. With all the unemployed PhD's out there, find some people capable of problem solving, pay them well and have them serve every court case. Unbelievable that people are still convicted of murder based solely on two clowns' testimony, and all that imbecile juror can do is blame the lawyer for being "hard to follow."
 
We know virutally NOTHING about the case other than a few snippets of what was presented. The jurors were presented with a coconspirator that admitted guilt and named his accomplice and an eyewitness, as well as a compelling case for conviction and what sounds like an incompetent (or at least incoherent) defense attorney. I understand being upset that the guy was falsely convicted, but I am not sure how this case serves as an indictment of a justice system or jury trials. Would people prefer there be NO trials unless the individuals not only were caught in the act but also confessed to committing the act?
 
chromium said:
The entire CJS is broken, largely because of inept jurors. Anyone of moderate intelligence can get out of jury duty, for one (yes, i managed to get myself kicked off), which the leaves the lowest common denominator. The average settlement after cases like this is in the millions. It's such an ass backwards system. With all the unemployed PhD's out there, find some people capable of problem solving, pay them well and have them serve every court case. Unbelievable that people are still convicted of murder based solely on two clowns' testimony, and all that imbecile juror can do is blame the lawyer for being "hard to follow."
Click to expand...

May I ask why you would throw your right to be a Juror away?
 
chromium said:
The entire CJS is broken, largely because of inept jurors. Anyone of moderate intelligence can get out of jury duty, for one (yes, i managed to get myself kicked off), which the leaves the lowest common denominator. The average settlement after cases like this is in the millions. It's such an ass backwards system. With all the unemployed PhD's out there, find some people capable of problem solving, pay them well and have them serve every court case. Unbelievable that people are still convicted of murder based solely on two clowns' testimony, and all that imbecile juror can do is blame the lawyer for being "hard to follow."
Click to expand...

Sadly it is not only the jurors that are the problem.. judges too and of course the whole elected prosecutor system.

Saw an article about people who got sentenced for life without parole for first time minor offences. There was one guy where his crime usually meant 9 years, but the judge said life without parole.. I mean wtf?
 
PeteEU said:
Saw an article about people who got sentenced for life without parole for first time minor offences. There was one guy where his crime usually meant 9 years, but the judge said life without parole.. I mean wtf?
Click to expand...

can you offer some sources?
 
PeteEU said:
I can, but I am guessing you wont accept it.

https://www.aclu.org/living-death-sentenced-die-behind-bars-what
Click to expand...

lol. I love when people react that way to a reasonable request, especially with your history of basically making **** up, exaggerating, and talking out your ass.


<<<One of the judges who reviewed Patrick's appeal said he did not "believe that the ends of justice are met by a mandatory sentence for this 22-year-old," but that legislation mandated sending Patrick away for the rest of his life because of unarmed burglary convictions when he was 17.>>>

Should have figured mandatory minimums would play into this. They tend to be responsible for all manner of totally senseless sentencing outcomes and create situations where the appeals process *and judges* are really powerless to deal with such things or show any level of reasonable discretion.

Apparently his trouble stems from a lengthy past record. It would be interesting to know the exact details of his prior convictions

<<<Matthews, who had been addicted to methamphetamine and heroin as a teen, got the harsh sentence under Louisiana's Habitual Offender Law because of several prior convictions tied to a single burglary that happened when he was 17, according to the ACLU.>>>

Read more: Patrick W. Matthews' Mandatory Minimum Sentence - Business Insider
 
chromium said:
The entire CJS is broken, largely because of inept jurors. Anyone of moderate intelligence can get out of jury duty, for one (yes, i managed to get myself kicked off), which the leaves the lowest common denominator. The average settlement after cases like this is in the millions. It's such an ass backwards system. With all the unemployed PhD's out there, find some people capable of problem solving, pay them well and have them serve every court case. Unbelievable that people are still convicted of murder based solely on two clowns' testimony, and all that imbecile juror can do is blame the lawyer for being "hard to follow."
Click to expand...

The entire criminal justice system is NOT broken. Every day in every state jurors do their duty admirably well. Sometimes a jury errs, but the reason this story is news is because it's extraordinary rather than ordinary.

The two eyewitnesses didn't recant their testimony during the trial. Erickson says he made up accounts of murder - Columbia Daily Tribune | Columbia Missouri: Crime

There are Ph.D.s who serve on juries. Every day and simply because, like everybody else, they're ordinary good citizens. Holding a doctorate doesn't make them necessarily any better qualified to serve on a jury.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol. I love when people react that way to a reasonable request, especially with your history of basically making **** up, exaggerating, and talking out your ass.
Click to expand...

Yea I make up ****.. sure.. and the usual reaction from right wingers when using sources like ACLU or Amnesty or even Huffington Post is dismissive because it does not fit into their narrowminded world view.

<<<One of the judges who reviewed Patrick's appeal said he did not "believe that the ends of justice are met by a mandatory sentence for this 22-year-old," but that legislation mandated sending Patrick away for the rest of his life because of unarmed burglary convictions when he was 17.>>>

Should have figured mandatory minimums would play into this. They tend to be responsible for all manner of totally senseless sentencing outcomes and create situations where the appeals process *and judges* are really powerless to deal with such things or show any level of reasonable discretion.

Apparently his trouble stems from a lengthy past record. It would be interesting to know the exact details of his prior convictions

<<<Matthews, who had been addicted to methamphetamine and heroin as a teen, got the harsh sentence under Louisiana's Habitual Offender Law because of several prior convictions tied to a single burglary that happened when he was 17, according to the ACLU.>>>

Read more: Patrick W. Matthews' Mandatory Minimum Sentence - Business Insider
Click to expand...

And so what? It is still an idiotic sentence and far from the only one. The US justice system is flawed from top to bottom if they allow **** like this. The punishment should meet the crime no? How about a first time minor offence that gets you life without parole.. how is that fair?
 
Hatuey said:
Ryan Ferguson Juror 'Sorry' For 2004 Murder Conviction - Yahoo





This young man spent 10 years of his life in jail and the best they can say is "sorry"? Every ****ing juror should be sent to jail for 10 years over this and see how they like it. I hope he sues the living **** out of the state over this and wins.
Click to expand...

Instead of sending them to the big house where society has to pay for them, a one day public event should be held where they receive a lashing for every day the innocent man was incarcerated.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea I make up ****.. sure
Click to expand...

Yeah, you do. I've personally addressed about a dozen times where you go off on some baseless anti-american tangent that has no supporting evidence behind it.


and the usual reaction from right wingers when using sources like ACLU or Amnesty or even Huffington Post is dismissive because it does not fit into their narrowminded world view.
Click to expand...

Ugh, I've been donating to the ACLU since I was 18. And it's hard to take someone seriously when they try to equate the huffington post with the ACLU and Amnesty International



And so what? It is still an idiotic sentence and far from the only one.
Click to expand...

Lol, where did I defend it? I was pointing to the fact the issue with MM do not stem from the judge like you originally asserted, but are codified into legislation that actually removes the ability of the judge to show discretion

The US justice system is flawed from top to bottom if they allow **** like this. The punishment should meet the crime no? How about a first time minor offence that gets you life without parole.. how is that fair?
Click to expand...

did you even read what I linked to? The issue rested on the fact it WAS NOT a first time offense ...
 
I'm less upset with jurors than I am with malicious prosecutors who in many of these cases should know better. I think we need to do a more rigorous job of investigating prosecutorial misconduct and apply a broader definition to that category.
 
PeteEU said:
Sadly it is not only the jurors that are the problem.. judges too and of course the whole elected prosecutor system.

Saw an article about people who got sentenced for life without parole for first time minor offences. There was one guy where his crime usually meant 9 years, but the judge said life without parole.. I mean wtf?
Click to expand...

This is why i didn't say "completely." Anyone who takes an intro criminology class can learn how broken our system is at all levels.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea I make up ****.. sure.. and the usual reaction from right wingers when using sources like ACLU or Amnesty or even Huffington Post is dismissive because it does not fit into their narrowminded world view.



And so what? It is still an idiotic sentence and far from the only one. The US justice system is flawed from top to bottom if they allow **** like this. The punishment should meet the crime no? How about a first time minor offence that gets you life without parole.. how is that fair?
Click to expand...

At least california got rid of the draconian 3 strikes law, where people got life for stealing golf clubs, but only because it was bankrupting the state. American "justice" conjures images of the gulag, and the worst part is most seem to have to no problem with that, thinking deterring crime (it doesn't) justifies any affront to proportionality.
 
chromium said:
This is why i didn't say "completely." Anyone who takes an intro criminology class can learn how broken our system is at all levels.
Click to expand...

maybe it's just a streak of populism, but I see the biggest issue as being that justice and innocence seem to be highly dependent on access to cash.
 
chromium said:
At least california got rid of the draconian 3 strikes law, where people got life for stealing golf clubs, but only because it was bankrupting the state. American "justice" conjures images of the gulag, and the worst part is most seem to have to no problem with that, thinking deterring crime (it doesn't) justifies any affront to proportionality.
Click to expand...

A big part of the maintenance of those laws and the fight against decriminalization came from the prison guards union in California, who 's history reads like some type of Orwellian nightmare and really speaks to the issues of public sector unions
 
chromium said:
The entire CJS is broken, largely because of inept jurors. Anyone of moderate intelligence can get out of jury duty, for one (yes, i managed to get myself kicked off), which the leaves the lowest common denominator. The average settlement after cases like this is in the millions. It's such an ass backwards system. With all the unemployed PhD's out there, find some people capable of problem solving, pay them well and have them serve every court case. Unbelievable that people are still convicted of murder based solely on two clowns' testimony, and all that imbecile juror can do is blame the lawyer for being "hard to follow."
Click to expand...

Look whose running it.
 
American said:
Look whose running it.
Click to expand...

what is your argument here, that the CJS would work if taken under the wing of private enterprise? If so, could you explain that, because I find myself skeptical
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
what is your argument here, that the CJS would work if taken under the wing of private enterprise? If so, could you explain that, because I find myself skeptical
Click to expand...

I think there are lots of stupid legislators with no common sense or insight into how a law will actually work.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
maybe it's just a streak of populism, but I see the biggest issue as being that justice and innocence seem to be highly dependent on access to cash.
Click to expand...

Definitely a big part of it. In WI having $3000 salary is "able to afford an attorney" so many have to defend themselves in court! Whereas a CEO who brought an end to the financial system has nothing to fear.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
A big part of the maintenance of those laws and the fight against decriminalization came from the prison guards union in California, who 's history reads like some type of Orwellian nightmare and really speaks to the issues of public sector unions
Click to expand...

And for profit prisons had nothing to do with it? With the ballot system in CA, it could have been gotten rid of much sooner, but the public even in "liberal" states actually believes that 3 strikes is justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom