Another court date on Wednesday
From the AP:
Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky are scheduled in New Haven Superior Court on Wednesday.
This is taking far too long.
Tim White
Monday, January 04, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogging on Cheshire, Connecticut USA To see a particular topic, click on the categories to the left.
Me in Haiti
Interesting sites
- CT Curmudgeon
- CT Capitol Report
- Cheshire Patch
- Tony Perugini Listens
- Underground Town Hall
- Cheshire Herald
- Meriden R-J
- New Haven Register
- CT Mirror
- CT News Junkie
- Politico
- Huffington Post
- Bloomberg News
- Campaign for Liberty
- Rasmussen Reports
- CT Political Reporter
- NYTimes
- CT Sunlight
- Waterbury Rep-Am
- My Left Nutmeg
- Ironman on DC
- Dennis House
- Sarah French
- MRJs community blogs
- Power to the People
- Dowd Muska
- Make Blue Red
- Levers and Pulleys
- Friends of Boulder Knoll
- Courant Capitol Watch
- Shelly Sindland
- Every Day Republican
- CT Energy
- New Haven Independent
- Nick Ragone
2012 candidates
Followers
2009 Candidate websites
Send LTTEs!
- letters@courant.com
- letters@nhregister.com
- letters@record-journal.com
- news@cheshireherald.com
- opinion@rep-am.com
Categories
- taxes n spending (891)
- community (435)
- energy (411)
- recreation (358)
- money (334)
- schools (325)
- town government (266)
- state government (248)
- 2010 election (216)
- Ron Paul (208)
- public works (202)
- environment (195)
- 2008 election (187)
- politics (175)
- federal government (173)
- public safety (173)
- council mtg (165)
- history (155)
- good government (142)
- employees (136)
- northend development (135)
- jobs (124)
- legislators (113)
- truthiness (112)
- Haiti (106)
- 2009 election (102)
- transportation (90)
- foreign affairs (74)
- open forum (70)
- war (69)
- blog (49)
- healthcare (46)
- council video (39)
- housing (37)
- underage drinking (32)
- veterans (29)
- 2007 election (28)
- Iraq (27)
- seniors (26)
- town manager (23)
- 2012 election (20)
- pool (15)
- travel (14)
- Cheshire elections (13)
- 2011 election (7)
- Charter revision (5)
Local websites
Council emails
- tslocum@snet.net
- dsschrumm@cox.net
- tomruocco@snet.net
- aafalvey@cox.net
- timwhite98@yahoo.com
- giddingsanne@yahoo.com
- michaele584@aol.com
Cheshire sports
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(519)
-
▼
January
(78)
- The "fact-finder" report should arrive soon
- Request for Korean War Veterans
- The budget: relevance of the grand list and the ra...
- Cheshire's tallest resident?
- New regulations coming for CTs waterways
- Introducing CTs newest online paper: CTMirror
- Bernanke reappointed, more reason to dump Dodd & L...
- Fall / Winter 2009 Town Council videos now online
- CRTC overflowing with GOP candidates tonight
- MRJ on SeeClickFix
- AIG and the Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke crime synd...
- The pool enclosure footprint
- The Goldman Sachs Bailout: Should Warren Buffett ...
- Taking a break from blogging
- Ron Paul advocates competing currencies
- The Maguire Group is back to business
- My 24 hr post-mortem on the Mass Senate race
- Superintendent concerned about infrastructure
- Some upcoming blood drives
- Council video of my advocacy of subpoena power
- Cheshire's voter turnout in 2009
- Frank Luntz & Cheshire
- Answer of the day
- Scott Brown's final ad
- Budget Committee agenda - January 19, 2009
- QU trend line on the legislature's approval rating
- The power of subpoena for the Chief State's Attorney
- The average annual BOE budget moves - 2001 / 2008
- The Hypocrite-in-Chief stumps in Massachusetts
- Jan 27 - Paulson, Geithner should testify under oath
- CTs burgeoning Tea Party movement
- Trail extension in Meriden
- Today I took a hike up Connecticut's second highes...
- Question of the day
- Geithner claims bailout necessary, bonuses incompr...
- Twist on the Mass Senate seat
- EDC - Focus Group Meeting - Retailers & Restaurants
- Ron Paul explains the root cause of the meltdown
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2007 / 2008
- Some ideas for helping Haiti
- "Ongoing" discussions on school labor contracts
- A preview of Election 2010?
- The earthquake in Haiti
- A comprehensive action plan for energy
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2006 / 2007
- The financial meltdown investigation begins on The...
- The Council gives the pool enclosure to the PBC
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2005 / 2006
- Some benefits of Election 2009
- Deauthorizing capital non-recurring money
- The resolution for a permanent structure for the pool
- Avatar in 3D
- PPP has GOP up by 1% in Mass Senate race
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2004 / 2005
- Spitzer: AIG is the center of the Wall Street web
- Cheshire's Lights of Hope kickoff
- Council meeting - January 12, 2010
- Perugini reacts to the Sptd's 2010/11 budget proposal
- Obama to create a new failed economic team?
- Anne Giddings gives an ORC update
- Cheshire's Lights of Hope is this Saturday
- Linear Trail grant tentatively approved
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2003 / 2004
- Obama promises transparency, delivers secrecy
- Library construction grant update
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2002 / 2003
- Another Linda mailer
- Another failed Geithner program to save America
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2001 / 2002
- Cheshire's Tea Party and Thursday's caucus
- Another court date on Wednesday
- PPP is polling Nutmeggers thanks to Peter Schiff
- Buchanan on the Council's 2010
- A hike for next weekend
- The upcoming BOE meetings
- The annual BOE budget moves - 2000 / 2001
- Ron Paul continues gaining street cred!
- Republican caucus - Thursday Jan 7, 7:30pm
-
▼
January
(78)
15 comments:
In China, they try them in the morning and execute them that afternoon. Not that we should do it like China, but doesn't the Constitution guarantee a "speedy trial"?
Yes, this is taking far too long, especially where there is 100% certainty of their guilt. For most lawyers, it's about raking up billable hours. For liberal true believers (ACLU, Esty, Nardello, etc) it's about seeing the criminals as 'victims'.
What do you mean this is taking far too long? This is the legal process adopted by our founding fathers. While I would like to see them put to death, they have a right as Americans to defend themselves against the claims made against them. Far too long? There are 2 more human lives involved with this case. Innocent until proven guilty applies to all criminals. This case will play out. Let it go without your stupid comments
5:42,
The Founding Fathers did NOT intend it to take 5-7 years to come to trial, and another 20 years of endless appeals to carry out executions. In fact, the 6th Amendment guarantees "a speedy trial".
Defendants' rights can be fully protected in trials happening within 1 or 2 years of the crime. The endless delays now typical of trials have less to do with protecting defendants' rights, and everything to do with billable hours and a system too skewed by the specious tactics of liberal defense lawyers.
With proper funding, it should take 2 years maximum for trials, and another 2 years max for appeals. Neither truth nor justice are served by endless procrastinations.
Given that this is a death penalty case, it should probably take about ten years to play out, with appeals and all. What's the hurry? The book banners will still be trying to get the books about this out of the library.
"This case will play out. Let it go without your stupid comments"
The case, as you call it shows if anything the stupidity of our legal system and not the stupidity of anyone who chooses to whine about justice postponed. So maybe next time try listening to what others have to say instead of just condemning those who you clearly disagree with as being stupid.
Don't forget either that the type of legal protections offered to each and every one of us comes with a monetary price attached to it. Possibly you relish spending money we don't have on routine legal tactics which in this case are just postponing the inevitable outcome in the first place.
Remember too that this is being brought to us in part by the very same legal system and CT state government which in the first place allowed the 2 defendants to be out and about within the community when in fact they were too dangerous to be out and about in the first place.
Looking at this case from say 50,000 ft there really seems to be more than enough S-T-U-P-I-D to go around except where you condemned the poster previous to you.
"Remember too that this is being brought to us in part by the very same legal system and CT state government which in the first place allowed the 2 defendants to be out and about within the community when in fact they were too dangerous to be out and about in the first place."
BINGO!
These are the same people who oppose Three Strikes laws. You have 20-plus felony convictions? No problem, we'll just keep unleashing you on society.
Our Constitution was put in place to protect the innocent. Unfortunately, it also protects the guilty.
There should be something that says if you get caught red-handed then you don't have any rights. You should be sentenced immediately.
Our legal system, made up by a bunch of lawyers who like to line theoir pockets, is ridiculous. They are the reason it costs so much to execute someone and are the reason why many feel we should just put these criminals behind bars for life.
You should be allowed 1 trial. If found guilty, you are sentenced immediately.
I know legal people won't agree with this method, but the common man will.
Remember, one of these criminals was quoted in a book as being part of a triple murder, yet he pleads innocent.
How is that justice?
What about the victims family, do they have any rights? The defense attornies prefer to drag the survivng families through the mud, making them re-live every horrific minute as his family was murdered.
Where is the justice?
And these are the same liberals demanding that Gitmo be shut down, and that terrorists be released or given the same rights as American criminals.
Well, 61 of the released Gitmo detainees have returned to active terrorism. No more surprise there than that the two Cheshire rapist-murderers, each with 20+ felony convictions, would do what they did when released.
But don't tell that to the Dem legislature (Lawlor, Nardello, Esty). Don't you know, they're Beautiful People who are more enlightened than those mean-spirited conservatives.
"You have 20-plus felony convictions? No problem, we'll just keep unleashing you on society."
Yes, and our Repub Governess is trying to close down some of the prisons - if we have 3 strikes, where do we put them???
By law, if you are charged with a capital felony, as the defendants were, you automaticly plead innocent. The legal system wants to make sure the right person is being charged. The defendants are not delaying the case, but are following the laws that were previously established.
As far as these cases doing nothing but waste money, they are compareable to union grievences. If a public works employee (or a police officer) files a grievance, that employee, the union rep, union legal advisor, town personel director, the Dept manager, and town attorney all have to sit down and decide if the employee's claim is worthy or not. If the employee wins, the town gets to pay him/her for doing nothing as well as pay everyone else their salary for attending. How does that make sense? Imagine that a public works employee clocks out 2 minutes late and doesn't get paid for it. Those 2 minutes end up costing the town thousands.
RE: Gov. Rell "is trying to close down some of the prisons - if we have 3 strikes, where do we put them???"
The state prison population has declined by 1600, and the Webster inmates are being transfered to other facilities. So this is really a consolidation.
Where would we put habitually violent criminals under a 3-Strikes law?
Re-open the closed prisons and fill the empty cells. Public safety is the state's #1 responsibility, period. If that means cutting wasteful spending in other areas, so be it.
7:20... has that ever happened in Cheshire? If so, how many times of which you are aware?
Your example is clearly an extreme, which is fine. But I'm confident it doesn't happen often because whenever anyone (including a union's leadership) makes an assertion, their credibility will be tested. And if you cry foul too many times, stakeholders will grow tired of it. Furthermore, it's not just town mgt that would grow tired of union leadership... the union members themselves would grow tired of filing numerous claims as you described. And the union leadership reports to the members. So they're probably not going to bring forward a lot of grievances as you described, IMO.
Although the discussion got off topic - unions have a legal obligation to represent their members - they don't pay dues for nothing. However, there does have to be a line drawn when the claims or appeals are frivolous.
Hangum High!
Post a Comment