- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Balentine argued he deserved a reprieve because an ineffective trial lawyer failed to present mitigating evidence, such as emotional problems and a difficult upbringing, that could have led to a life sentence.
Now here's what I don't understand - A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was retarded, with a verifiable IQ of 61. Then they turn around and grant a reprieve to a triple killer who planned and executed his murders because his lawyer claims he had a difficult upbringing? This does not make sense.
What the **** does the Supreme Court do on death sentence appeals? Do they flip a coin? Heads for fry 'em and tails for let 'em go? Seems that they do. Nothing else can explain this.
Article is here.
Last edited: