|
|
|
|
This doesn't include where, if anywhere, one could write and protest any lesser sentance...but maybe somebody can find an email address or something. I'm not a believer in the death penalty, but neither am I in favor of letting this guy out...
By ROBERT W. BLACK, Associated Press Writer
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - A man sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard is seeking a lesser term.
Russell Henderson's attorney alleges the state's lawyers failed to properly inform Henderson of his options after he pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony murder and kidnapping in order to avoid a possible death sentence.
Attorney Tim Newcomb said in a petition filed Friday that, if properly advised, Henderson could have sought a lesser sentence. He also argued the sentence didn't fit Henderson's role in Shepard's death.
According to authorities, Henderson and Aaron McKinney, both 21, kidnapped, pistol-whipped, robbed and left Shepard tied to a fence outside Laramie in October 1998. The 21-year-old died five days later in a hospital from massive head injuries.
Henderson admitted driving Shepard to the area and tying him to the fence but said he tried to prevent McKinney from inflicting a more severe beating. McKinney's attorney said Henderson's story was fabricated.
McKinney was convicted by a jury and also received two consecutive life sentences.
Newcomb declined comment on the petition Wednesday, as did the prosecutor in the case.
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Disgusting as the crime was, I have a tendency to allow the legal arguments to run their course. The man is in jail. He has a right, even if we despise him, to seek an earlier release than he might otherwise have. And it is not public opinion that should keep him in jail, but a measure of his danger to society.
If we allow world opinion to influence justice, then it is no longer "done", and, not really "seen to be done", for public opinion might also have said:
"It was only a fag kid who died. Let them free"
There are massive dangers when opinions get in the way of justice, even if we do not like the eventual justice that is administered.
Change the laws by all means, but do not seek to influence individual cases.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Certainly he has a right to seek a lesser sentence, but should one be granted? Sometimes these legal technicalities get carried way too far. The appeal is based on allegations that "the state's lawyers" did not advise him of his option to seek a lesser sentence. Why is this "the state's lawyer's" responsibility. Henderson would have had an attorney of his own. His attorney should have been the one advising him, not the state's. Far too often, criminals are let off because of stupid technicalities. This would appear to be one.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, e...you put my thoughts well. When this guy was sentanced, he got 2 CONSECUTIVE life sentences, which means essentially that he'll never live long enough to get a chance at parole. He got the 2 sentences due to the brutality and pre-meditated nature of the crime. At the time of the trial, they tried to get the 2 life sentences to run concurrently, which would have allowed for a parole hearing sometime in the future. He didn't get it then, maybe he wants to re-visit it now.
The second of the 2 killers didn't get the death penalty because he begged Mathew's parents to ask that it be commuted to life in prison. Amazingly, the parents agreed and asked for life in prison for him, which he got.
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
What saddens me is that these slime are in protective custody or isolation because the other inmates would rip their hearts out.I"m sorry to sound hawkish but public hanging for those two sub humans would be just too nice.The French had a good idea in dispensing capitol punishment and thats all im going to say except to point the finger at *gentle people* and that they do a disservice to gays or for that matter to any one that is the victim of murder.Perhaps it would be a good idea if these *do gooders* spend about a year interning in a metro trama ward. one pissed off spark! s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Which brings me back to something very simple.
If you want the law changed, get your elected representative to change it. Otherwise, buy definition, you have consented to be governed by the laws enacted currently.
Those laws govern this sentence, with or without technicalities.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Most likely there is no "law" that governs this "technicality." In matters like this, the courts tend to make their own laws. While a legislative body can sometimes legislate such matters, usually the new "law" is some judge's interpretation of the state of federal constitution. Amending a constitution to eliminate such a "law" could have adverse effects in other areas.
An example of this is the "Miranda warning" which was a US Supreme Court decision. The warning is given to all person when they are arrested to advise them of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney. There is nothing in the US Constitution that specifically says such a warning must be given, but the Court interpreted certain sections to "imply" that such a warning is required. Changing the US Constitution so that it would do away with the need for this warning would likely result in the loss of several other rights which are specifically stated and granted. It is better to simply give the warning. Also there is no "law" specifically stating how to handle the failure to give the Miranda warning. The way it is handled is also based on that same Supreme Court decision.
In this way courts frequently make their own law and it can be impossible for the legislature to do anything about it. what this attorney is now asking is for the court to make its own law, then to overturn and reduce the sentence of his client based on the court's new "law." Depending on what the court sites as its basis for making such a law, the legislature may have a very difficult time trying to enact legislation to reverse it. The best recourse would be for the state to appeal the court's decision and try to have it reversed in a higher court.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He now says he was not properly informed of his options at the time of giving his guilty plea, the Associated Press reports. He wants his sentence to be reduced from two consecutive life sentences, arguing that the murderer of his own mother, who was raped and left to die in freezing conditions as Henderson was awaiting trial, only received five to seven years.
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
However well xpressed, public opini shoudl not carry the day here. However horrible the crime that also should not carry the day. If he was or was not informed of his reights, that is a matter for technical argument by the courts. If soe jerk failed to make sure he knew his rights, frankly, distasteful as it may be, that is not Henderson's fault, the jerk's fault who failed to tell him of his rights.
The point is that the law must be fair, even if something allows people like this back onto the streest it must be fair.
You need to put yourself in the position of the accused person, even if that is distasteful. The legal system operated by the USA and the UK and many other nations seeks to ensure total fairness for the accused, and then also when found guilty for the guilty person. If you were accused of a crime, which would obviously be "unfair", then you need the full assurance that you are going to be treated fairly.
Note that nowhere am I saying that the man deserves leniency. I am only saying that he must be treated fairly and within the rules.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
I am so outraged.Not one damned word in memory of Matt Sheppard.Tears a-flowing for the scum that murdered the boy.I expected a lot more from this board.Not one word of simpathy for the tragic loss of life for a young man to be cut down in his prime.I am in total shock. s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel sick to my stomach every time I hear about Matt Shephard or kids just like him, but what I think Timmy and maybe others are saying is we shouldn't let our emotions overpower our sense of justice. Even criminals needs to be treated fairly and according to the law, no matter how despiccable the crime they've committed.
After all... That sense of justice is what separates us from Matthew's killers.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Part of my point is for the law to be "fair." By the time the man entered his guilty plea, he would have already had his own attorney representing him. It should no longer be the responsibility of the state to advise him. That responsibility should have fallen to the attorney hired to represent him. He is claiming that "the State's attorney" failed to advise him of his options. In all fairness, the state's responsibility to advise the people it is prosecuting should end when that person obtains their own legal representation. Otherwise it becomes a conflict of interest. A prosecutor cannot both prosecute and defend (or advise) a person at the same time. If his attorney failed to advise him properly, then he should be suing his attorney for malpractice, if malpractice can be shown, then and only then, should he be permitted to attempt to have his sentence reduced. In no way should a defense attorney be permitted to manipulate circumstances through his own malpractice so that his client can later have grounds for appeal. A person should be entitled to a competent defense, but he should also have to show that his defense was incompetent before being permitted an appeal.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I did not view this thread as being about Matthew. I viewed it as being about one of his killers and the legal system. While what happened to Matthew was quite tragic and I do feel a great deal about that, I did not see the need to comment on that in this particular thread.
{{HUGS}}
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
There are times and places for total shock and outrage. This is not one of those times. The thread is about something different.
That the crime was horrific is beyond doubt. That the poor boy suffered greatly is beyond doubt.
Even so you miss the point, and, while doing so, you criticise people here:
sparks wrote:
> I expected a lot more from this board.Not one word of simpathy for the tragic loss of life for a young man to be cut down in his prime.
Please try very hard not to do that. Usually a contribution made gently is more persuasive than one made in more strident tones. Here it is posisble to discuss items often left unspoken elsewhere. Doing this without raised hackles is best.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Does the phrase "the State's Attorney" also refer to one provided by the state to the defendant in cases of financial hardship? Or could the reporting surrounding this case be referring to such a perosn (assuming henderson was entitled to such aid)?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You have read me correctly, Lenny. We have to live within the society we create. If we create one where something done yesterday was not a crime, but could be tomorrow if public opinion says so without a change in the law then we have a dangerous place in which to live. That is an extreme example of public opinion swaying things. It does not hold true in this example. But it serves to illustrate the dangers we all face if "lynch law by public opinion" is allowed to rule
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am, nor was I ever worried, or
concerned in any way, shape, or form about that
scum-bag. To-day, what happened to Matthew still
wrenches my gut, it still plies tears from my eyes.
I feel sick sometimes just knowing these things happen.
You said when you'd die that you'd walk with me every day
And I'd start to cry and say please don't talk that way
With the blink of an eye the Lord came and asked you to meet
You went to a better place but He stole you away from me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
The scum bag? No. Nor am I. I am concerned about him as a concept, not as a person. As a perosn he may rot in hell. As a concept he must be treated totally fairly. And this is however awful his crime was.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
In America,For poor defendents that cannot afford an atty.the state will provide an atty. free of charge to a defendant that cannot afford an atty.This state provided atty. is called a *public defender*.In most instances this public defender is a junior atty. with at best only a few years of trial experience.The flip side of the coin is the state prosicuter who usually prosicutes against the defendent and has MANY years of trial experience.Most likely both defendants had their eyes open at the time of trial and were well aware of their options.What is going on here is a ploy to get the case retried in another court hoping for a lesser sentence.The disgusting aspect of this event is the anti-gay media whipping up a frenzy of simpathy for this scum and it looks like our overseas friends are swallowing this anti-gay media bullshit hook,line and sinker.I will be more than glad to provide the parents (Matt Sheppard) address so that one can express their simpathies for the two murderers.I just wonder what their reply would be. s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Thanks for the info.
The rest of your post seems to be assumptions, though. And hectoring us all with your assumptions.
I am one of your overseas friends. I have swallowed nothing. Equally I detest and despise lynch law.
I am also not keen on the tone you insist on using to express your opinion, nor the language. This is a formal request to moderate both tone and wording. I can go to the trouble of banning words if I have to, but it is more the phraseology that is aggravating me. Thsi is meant to be a peaceful place. please stay peaceful.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
As Sparks said, the attorney appointed to defend him would be referred to as a "public defender" unless he hired his own attorney. The public defender would generally be employed by the city or county, not the state. A "state's attorney" would generally be an attorney that is representing the state, in this case the prosecutor. I suppose that the writer of the article that David posted could have been confused and may have referred to a public defender as a "state's attorney." There are a ton of really poor journalists out there that might make that mistake.
Still my point stands. He should first have to prove his attorney did not provide him with an adequate defence before being permitted to appeal his sentence.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
And that proof is, presumably, a part of his appeal? So the matter seems perfectly simple
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
From what I've been able to find out, Henderson is alleging "the state" did not advise him that he could have sought a lesser sentence. Henderson was represented by Wyatt Skaggs, a public defender. Skaggs is apparently one of the higher ups in the PDs office and not just some run of the mill flunky fresh out of law school. Skaggs is currently Chief Trail Counsel for the Wyoming PDs office (#3 on the totem pole). One article I found indicates that Henderson did seek a lesser sentence than the one he received. Henderson sought to have the sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively. This would seem to indicate that he is lying when he says that he was not advised that he could seek a lesser sentence. Another indication that Henderson may be willing to say anything is his story that he only watched while his accomplice, Aaron Mckinney, beat Matthew. McKinney called the story a fabrication.
No way should this allegation simply become part of Henderson's appeal. there needs to be an inquiry. It isn't likely that Skaggs just made a mistake that gives his client the benefit of an appeal and if he did, then there should be sanctions on the way for Mr. Skaggs.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
I share the anguish of Sparks at the very thought that the sentence passed on these callous killers should be ameliorated. But I also share the insistence of Timmy and Lenny that the mills of justice be allowed to grind their laborious course unhindered. The time for "public opinion" to express itself is after the judges have ruled on the appeal.
But this discussion leads me to a basic question: what is the purpose of judicial punishment? I am thinking particularly of the Matthew Shepherd case as an example. Three possible answers occur to me.
Is the punishment passed down by the court in order to "avenge" Matthew's cruel death?
Is it in order to "teach a lesson" to Henderson and McKinney?
Is it because of the infringement of a law of the legislature?
It seems to me that if we ponder (not answer!) this question and the possible answers we will find it easier to relate to the specific case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
And yet this whole element is part of the preparation for and application for an appeal.
One does not expect the truth to have any bearing on a set of judicial procedings, of course. But one expects lies to be minimised by the process.
An inquiry? that will simply put the whole thing yet again into another forum.
If Henderson can prove that his claim had a material effect on the outcome of the trial then he has a right to include it. If not then the appeal judges have the right to delete it form his appeal, or not to permit his appeal.
But press coverage is not the accurate reporter of what transpired. Court records from the court stenographer are (usually) the right place to go. Advice between lawyer and client is not always recorded, so whatever transpired there simply transpired.
The main point here is that the public has insufficient data to work on. The court and legal process has that data and can use it. All public opinion can do is to lynch the guy. Now, while I might approve of a lynching in my heart my head says no.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being treated fairly, yes, that is an important issue.
However, "fairly" is a really vague term.
So all we have to go on is the "fairly' the law describes.
Love it or hate it, the law is the law. And this must be respected.
Personally, I do support capital punishment.
I do not see why I must pay taxes for scum-bags like that.
it does sound callous, I know that.
But it is within the law, and that is the only definition of "fairly" that we have, be if truly "fair" or not.
You said when you'd die that you'd walk with me every day
And I'd start to cry and say please don't talk that way
With the blink of an eye the Lord came and asked you to meet
You went to a better place but He stole you away from me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Punishing those convicted of crimes serves several purposes. In no particular order:
Vengence. Frequently victims, their families, and the public in general need to satisfy a need for retribution.
To teach a lesson. Absolutely. The lesson may not be learned, but those who break the law need to be taught that they cannot get away with it.
Order. If society took no action against those who violate its rules, it would likely fall into chaos.
Deterrence. If those who break laws are punished, others may become more likely to refrain from breaking those laws.
Control. Laws frequently serve those who are in positions of power and allow governments to control their citizens through the threat and/or use of punishment.
There are probably other purposes served by punishment of those who violate the law, but this is what I could think of off the top of my head.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Update on one of Matthew Shephard's killers 
There is lots of sympathy I'm sure! 
Re:a respectful opinion 
