Football Holy DAMN! Aaron Hernandez dead in his jail cell - Page 18

Silock · 04-19-2017, 04:39 AM

http://www.kshb.com/news/national/aa...d-in-jail-cell

Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez was found dead in his jail cell early Wednesday morning, according to the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.

Frazod · 05-09-2017, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

I'm not too worried about their families. **** that.

Me either. It would mainly be an enticement.

**SAUTO** · 05-09-2017, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frazod

Me either. It would mainly be an enticement.

Yeah, some would find that an enticement to teach their kids to be pieces of shit, they might get paid someday over it.

**kysirsoze** · 05-09-2017, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Man what a crock of shit. More evidence that liberal run states are idiotic.

My God. Can you DC folks ever bite your tongues on making everything a political attack? No wonder that place is such a ****ing cesspool. Everything you see is forced into bolstering your political ideology. It's just exhausting.

patteeu · 05-09-2017, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

My God. Can you DC folks ever bite your tongues on making everything a political attack? No wonder that place is such a ****ing cesspool. Everything you see is forced into bolstering your political ideology. It's just exhausting.

You don't need to be here.

vailpass · 05-09-2017, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

My God. Can you DC folks ever bite your tongues on making everything a political attack? No wonder that place is such a ****ing cesspool. Everything you see is forced into bolstering your political ideology. It's just exhausting.

Someone's got a bur in their pussy hat.

**kysirsoze** · 05-09-2017, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

You don't need to be here.

Naw. Most of CP is capable of having a discussion without this crap. It's why there's a DC forum. Just wish you guys could keep it there.

Marcellus · 05-11-2017, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Naw. Most of CP is capable of having a discussion without this crap. It's why there's a DC forum. Just wish you guys could keep it there.

Its 100% relevant to the topic dipshit if you aren't smart enough to understand that, its not my problem.

Amnorix · 05-11-2017, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Man what a crock of shit. More evidence that liberal run states are idiotic.

You mean like ****ing Texas, which had the same thing happen when former Enron CEO Ken Lay died of a heart attack prior to appeals being exhausted?

In fact, it's a very old concept, and many states still have it, while others never had it, and some had it but have gotten rid of it. It's not really a liberal/conservative thing, just a legacy thing.

But that doesn't save you from being a dimwit who spouts off without a clue.

Amnorix · 05-11-2017, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Its 100% relevant to the topic dipshit if you aren't smart enough to understand that, its not my problem.

Marcellus -- smart enough to think that Texas is also a "liberal run state".

Thanks for your insight. Truly invaluable.

Squalor2 · 05-11-2017, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

My God. Can you DC folks ever bite your tongues on making everything a political attack? No wonder that place is such a ****ing cesspool. Everything you see is forced into bolstering your political ideology. It's just exhausting.

its the denver fans on a chiefs board that make it this way.

vailpass · 05-12-2017, 08:36 AM

Fordham Law Review offers one view of the abatement doctrine. I tend to agree with the view that the law is intended to punish the criminal not the criminal's family though I see the victim's rights view as well.

Dying To Get Away With It: How the Abatement
Doctrine Thwarts Justice--And What Should Be
Done Instead

...
II. ANALYSIS OF ABATEMENT AND ITS ALTERNATIVES
This part provides an analysis of each major option, articulating the
advantages and disadvantages of each.
A. Option 1: Abate the Proceedings Ab Initio
Why did courts invent this doctrine in the first place? First, as discussed
earlier, this doctrine is logical considering the environment in which it was
created. 20 1 The Pomeroy court held that the "fundamental principle ... is
that the object of criminal punishment is to punish the criminal. ' 20 2 If a
defendant has died, it is impossible to punish the defendant, so the
conviction must abate. 20 3 Some courts use formalistic logic-reasoning
that when the defendant died, the court lost jurisdiction to enforce the
judgment against him.20 4
Second, continuing on the theme of futility, courts that use abatement
also do so because hearing an appeal is pointless. 20 5 If the defendant has
died, then there is no reason to waste the time hearing an appeal-if the
appeal results in a need for a new trial, for example, the trial could not be
had without a defendant.20 6 If the appeal upheld the conviction, then the
judgment could not be enforced anyway-resulting in essentially a waste of
the court's time. 207
A third rationale, related to the idea that criminal law is meant to punish
the defendant, is that criminal law does not work to punish the defendant's
family, heirs, or next of kin.20 8 In fact the U.S. Constitution supports this
concept because it does not allow punishment for treason to "work
corruption of blood. '20 9 This expresses an attitude that only one who
commits a crime should be punished, and not someone related to him or
her.
A final and more modem rationale for keeping abatement relates to the
"right" to appeal. There is no federal constitutional right to a criminal
appeal. 2 10 However, forty-seven of fifty states grant at least one appeal of
right, with the others providing a procedure that is essentially an appeal of right, but is ostensibly discretionary. 211 The constitutions of fifteen states
enshrine the right to appeal. 212 Commentators have said that the right to
appeal is so important and so respected that it should be considered a
fundamental right.213
Because review of a conviction is held in high regard in our legal system,
many courts that use abatement hold that depriving a defendant of review of
his conviction would be unfair. 214 The criminal justice system relies on
appellate review to make society confident that a criminal conviction is
valid and correct.215 If this appeals process is necessary to validate a
conviction, then we cannot say that a defendant who has died pending a
review of right has truly been convicted.216
The major disadvantage of abatement is that it completely ignores the
interest of the victim, which, as this Note has pointed out, has only recently
become important in criminal law.217 It deprives the victim of any interest
in restitution.218 It also stymies any collateral civil proceedings against the
defendant's estate, by depriving the plaintiff of the benefit of offensive
collateral estoppel.219 Other disadvantages of abatement are discussed
below in Part II.B as advantages of the non-abatement option.

Read more here:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...51&context=flr

Amnorix · 05-12-2017, 08:45 AM

It's not a slam-dunk. In many cases, abatement is the right answer in the sense that it makes no sense to continue the legal proceedings at government expense, given that the defendant is dead and cannot be punished.

There are collateral effects, however, especially on the victim, in some cases; especially those where the defendant has the financial wherewithal to pay compensation to the victim or the victim's family.

It does seem stupid on its face, but do we really want prosecutors, judges and potentially public defendants all spending time fighting over this issue at public cost?!?

vailpass · 05-12-2017, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

It's not a slam-dunk. In many cases, abatement is the right answer in the sense that it makes no sense to continue the legal proceedings at government expense, given that the defendant is dead and cannot be punished.

There are collateral effects, however, especially on the victim, in some cases; especially those where the defendant has the financial wherewithal to pay compensation to the victim or the victim's family.

It does seem stupid on its face, but do we really want prosecutors, judges and potentially public defendants all spending time fighting over this issue at public cost?!?

Agreed, it is nonsensical to prosecute the dead. Too, the accused could not testify or defend himself.

So near as I could ascertain in the VERY small amount of reading I did it seems to come down on those two issues: the wrong doer can no longer be punished thus the reason for trial is non-existent vs. victim's rights.

It would seem an impossible burden to place on the court to have to determine which cases qualified for deciding in favor of victim's rights vs. abatement.

Amnorix · 05-12-2017, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

Agreed, it is nonsensical to prosecute the dead. Too, the accused could not testify or defend himself.

So near as I could ascertain in the VERY small amount of reading I did it seems to come down on those two issues: the wrong doer can no longer be punished thus the reason for trial is non-existent vs. victim's rights.

It would seem an impossible burden to place on the court to have to determine which cases qualified for deciding in favor of victim's rights vs. abatement.

Yeah, agreed.

Bad news though -- based on your position here Marcellus thinks you're an idiotic liberal.

vailpass · 05-12-2017, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Yeah, agreed.

Bad news though -- based on your position here Marcellus thinks you're an idiotic liberal.

I got nothin' but love for Marcellus. Reasonable minds can disagree.

04-19-2017, 04:39 AM
Silock MVP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $10020882	Holy DAMN! Aaron Hernandez dead in his jail cell http://www.kshb.com/news/national/aa...d-in-jail-cell Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez was found dead in his jail cell early Wednesday morning, according to the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.
Posts: 19,908

05-12-2017, 08:36 AM	#266
vailpass Psycho Bag Of Squanch Join Date: Sep 2001 Casino cash: $9594244	Fordham Law Review offers one view of the abatement doctrine. I tend to agree with the view that the law is intended to punish the criminal not the criminal's family though I see the victim's rights view as well. Dying To Get Away With It: How the Abatement Doctrine Thwarts Justice--And What Should Be Done Instead ... II. ANALYSIS OF ABATEMENT AND ITS ALTERNATIVES This part provides an analysis of each major option, articulating the advantages and disadvantages of each. A. Option 1: Abate the Proceedings Ab Initio Why did courts invent this doctrine in the first place? First, as discussed earlier, this doctrine is logical considering the environment in which it was created. 20 1 The Pomeroy court held that the "fundamental principle ... is that the object of criminal punishment is to punish the criminal. ' 20 2 If a defendant has died, it is impossible to punish the defendant, so the conviction must abate. 20 3 Some courts use formalistic logic-reasoning that when the defendant died, the court lost jurisdiction to enforce the judgment against him.20 4 Second, continuing on the theme of futility, courts that use abatement also do so because hearing an appeal is pointless. 20 5 If the defendant has died, then there is no reason to waste the time hearing an appeal-if the appeal results in a need for a new trial, for example, the trial could not be had without a defendant.20 6 If the appeal upheld the conviction, then the judgment could not be enforced anyway-resulting in essentially a waste of the court's time. 207 A third rationale, related to the idea that criminal law is meant to punish the defendant, is that criminal law does not work to punish the defendant's family, heirs, or next of kin.20 8 In fact the U.S. Constitution supports this concept because it does not allow punishment for treason to "work corruption of blood. '20 9 This expresses an attitude that only one who commits a crime should be punished, and not someone related to him or her. A final and more modem rationale for keeping abatement relates to the "right" to appeal. There is no federal constitutional right to a criminal appeal. 2 10 However, forty-seven of fifty states grant at least one appeal of right, with the others providing a procedure that is essentially an appeal of right, but is ostensibly discretionary. 211 The constitutions of fifteen states enshrine the right to appeal. 212 Commentators have said that the right to appeal is so important and so respected that it should be considered a fundamental right.213 Because review of a conviction is held in high regard in our legal system, many courts that use abatement hold that depriving a defendant of review of his conviction would be unfair. 214 The criminal justice system relies on appellate review to make society confident that a criminal conviction is valid and correct.215 If this appeals process is necessary to validate a conviction, then we cannot say that a defendant who has died pending a review of right has truly been convicted.216 The major disadvantage of abatement is that it completely ignores the interest of the victim, which, as this Note has pointed out, has only recently become important in criminal law.217 It deprives the victim of any interest in restitution.218 It also stymies any collateral civil proceedings against the defendant's estate, by depriving the plaintiff of the benefit of offensive collateral estoppel.219 Other disadvantages of abatement are discussed below in Part II.B as advantages of the non-abatement option. Read more here: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...51&context=flr __________________ “Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” Joseph Stalin
Posts: 69,591

05-12-2017, 08:45 AM	#267
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	It's not a slam-dunk. In many cases, abatement is the right answer in the sense that it makes no sense to continue the legal proceedings at government expense, given that the defendant is dead and cannot be punished. There are collateral effects, however, especially on the victim, in some cases; especially those where the defendant has the financial wherewithal to pay compensation to the victim or the victim's family. It does seem stupid on its face, but do we really want prosecutors, judges and potentially public defendants all spending time fighting over this issue at public cost?!? __________________ "I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 43,125