• 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!

Hernandez, When Committing Suicide Pays Dividends

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,843
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is absolutely amazing.


https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/05/09/aaron-hernandez-conviction-arguments

Bristol County Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh said the interests of justice did not warrant a departure from the abatement doctrine and therefore had no choice but to dismiss the charges against Hernandez.

Hernandez's appellate attorneys wanted the conviction thrown out under a longstanding state principle called “abatement ab initio," which in Latin means to roll back a process to its beginning. It's a rule stating that a defendant that is deceased will be treated as though they never were convicted of the crime.

At the time of his death, Hernandez had not exhausted his appeals for Lloyd's murder...

So, in other words, if you did it, and you know you're not going to be acquitted or win an appeal, just hang yourself, and you end up being buried an innocent man. That's nuts.
 
Well logically, it would seem to make sense.

Our legal system can only get a conviction if the accused has due process and can defend themselves. If one is deceased, they cannot defend themselves nor do the receive due process. So it seems to me they can't be convicted.

Amirght?
 
Well logically, it would seem to make sense.

Our legal system can only get a conviction if the accused has due process and can defend themselves. If one is deceased, they cannot defend themselves nor do the receive due process. So it seems to me they can't be convicted.

Amirght?

Nope, he was convicted - it was only the appeals process that ceased upon his death. To assert that lack of an appeal opportunity means that such an appeal should be decided in favor of the deceased is just plain nuts.
 
Well logically, it would seem to make sense.

Our legal system can only get a conviction if the accused has due process and can defend themselves. If one is deceased, they cannot defend themselves nor do the receive due process. So it seems to me they can't be convicted.

Amirght?

And I si much want to be buried a free and innocent man.
 
This is absolutely amazing.


https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/05/09/aaron-hernandez-conviction-arguments



So, in other words, if you did it, and you know you're not going to be acquitted or win an appeal, just hang yourself, and you end up being buried an innocent man. That's nuts.

Question, man is dead. Why do we care if his conviction is vacated or not. Second he wacked himself, thereby doing the honorable thing if he in fact committed said crimes, or he was innocent and he wanted to be buried and innocent man and he had a sure way to inure that. In any case what does it matter to us?
 
Question, man is dead. Why do we care if his conviction is vacated or not. Second he wacked himself, thereby doing the honorable thing if he in fact committed said crimes, or he was innocent and he wanted to be buried and innocent man and he had a sure way to inure that. In any case what does it matter to us?

To us, nothing. But if there is a civil suit against him/his estate they would. Because a guilty ruling is often used to strengthen a civil case. So if the victim's families are suing the estate, they would care.
 
This is absolutely amazing.


https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/05/09/aaron-hernandez-conviction-arguments



So, in other words, if you did it, and you know you're not going to be acquitted or win an appeal, just hang yourself, and you end up being buried an innocent man. That's nuts.

Some people have reportedly done some really strange things after smoking Spice. I imagine Aaron's change in legal status may have significant financial benefits to the heirs of his Estate.

I personally believe we never escape our karma... and that Aaron still had some dues to pay. I further imagine, upon his death, Aaron transitioned along the lines of the bad guys in the movie Ghosts. Just thinkin'....
 
Well logically, it would seem to make sense.

Our legal system can only get a conviction if the accused has due process and can defend themselves. If one is deceased, they cannot defend themselves nor do the receive due process. So it seems to me they can't be convicted.

Amirght?

Unless someone can make the dead speak.
 
Nope, he was convicted - it was only the appeals process that ceased upon his death. To assert that lack of an appeal opportunity means that such an appeal should be decided in favor of the deceased is just plain nuts.
You bring-up an interesting point ttwtt78640, which is why I enjoy debating & discussing with you.

It is accurate that he was convicted, but he also is now deprived of access to the full legal process (specifically the appeal process), thereby allowing the conviction to otherwise stand. The appeal process brings to light defects in the previous conviction though, making it null. So I see the appeal as critical to affirming conviction.

I see this as a sort of legal no man's land, to be honest, and can see both sides of the argument. But I'm leaning towards supporting the OP decision in legal terms.

It'd be great if a DP attorney could weigh-in on this - Turtle would be perfect.
 
To us, nothing. But if there is a civil suit against him/his estate they would. Because a guilty ruling is often used to strengthen a civil case. So if the victim's families are suing the estate, they would care.

A case a few years back, He had swindled people of IIRC approx 65 Mil. Convicted, sentenced, dies in jail. And I think comments were made that it would/could affect civil suits for recovering funds from his estate assets.
 
To us, nothing. But if there is a civil suit against him/his estate they would. Because a guilty ruling is often used to strengthen a civil case. So if the victim's families are suing the estate, they would care.

It may also help his heirs to sue the NFL, saying that his alleged "work related" head injuries made him kill himself rather than guilt over a murder conviction. Lawyers can use damn near anything to get "victims" (and themselves, of course) some big bucks from civil actions against very rich folks. ;)
 
Well logically, it would seem to make sense.

Our legal system can only get a conviction if the accused has due process and can defend themselves. If one is deceased, they cannot defend themselves nor do the receive due process. So it seems to me they can't be convicted.

Amirght?

Yep. And if one want to avoid the conviction--I mean really wants to avoid the conviction--they can just opt out. Great plan, if you really think about it.
 
Nope, he was convicted - it was only the appeals process that ceased upon his death. To assert that lack of an appeal opportunity means that such an appeal should be decided in favor of the deceased is just plain nuts.

Exactly. It would mean that even the most obviously guilty person like, say, John Wayne Gacy, could have had his conviction overturned on the most frivolous of his many appeals, if only he thought of killing himself, and if only he happened to live in Massachusetts instead of Illinois.
 
Question, man is dead. Why do we care if his conviction is vacated or not. Second he wacked himself, thereby doing the honorable thing if he in fact committed said crimes, or he was innocent and he wanted to be buried and innocent man and he had a sure way to inure that. In any case what does it matter to us?

There are several civil matters pending. And, since the conviction has now been vacated, his guilt can not be used to sue his estate. I also believe that the Patriots are now on the hook for paying his heirs the balance of monies owed Aaron. Win-win.
 
There are several civil matters pending. And, since the conviction has now been vacated, his guilt can not be used to sue his estate. I also believe that the Patriots are now on the hook for paying his heirs the balance of monies owed Aaron. Win-win.

They can use evidence from the trial, as it is public record to support their case.
 
Exactly. It would mean that even the most obviously guilty person like, say, John Wayne Gacy, could have had his conviction overturned on the most frivolous of his many appeals, if only he thought of killing himself, and if only he happened to live in Massachusetts instead of Illinois.

He can later be declared dead right, so long as he is declared dead first. ;)
 
Yep. And if one want to avoid the conviction--I mean really wants to avoid the conviction--they can just opt out. Great plan, if you really think about it.
Well, they avoid the conviction - but pay the ultimate sentence.
 
Question, man is dead. Why do we care if his conviction is vacated or not. Second he wacked himself, thereby doing the honorable thing if he in fact committed said crimes, or he was innocent and he wanted to be buried and innocent man and he had a sure way to inure that. In any case what does it matter to us?


My understanding is that there is finance matters that likely to benefit his child if he is not found guilt of the murders and not the family members of his victims.
 
Well, they avoid the conviction - but pay the ultimate sentence.

Small price to pay for some people. We all die someday. Isn't choosing when the ultimate form of control?
 
Well logically, it would seem to make sense.

Our legal system can only get a conviction if the accused has due process and can defend themselves. If one is deceased, they cannot defend themselves nor do the receive due process. So it seems to me they can't be convicted.

Amirght?
I think it's kind of bizarre. I don't think there's a solid conclusive argument either way, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom