08-06-2021, 01:28 PM
(08-06-2021, 01:11 PM)Dill Wrote: "Might be" is not a particularly strong argument, nor an explanation for why the governor would/did pardon in one case that didn't require it, but wouldn't/didn't in the other, which was a strong candidate for it.
And "maybe more to the story" is not a good principle for defending one-sided political and legal decisions in a liberal democracy, especially in such one-sided fashion.
Ugh. I'm not defending anything. What I am saying is that you're basing you position on this topic on a single, extremely brief, news article. Now, because I'm talking to you I have to explain this before I continue. The comparison I am about to make is not intended to be a direct parallel between the circumstances of the convicted person. It is solely being used to demonstrate how important details can, and are, omitted from this type of story.
Do you recall the case of Cyntoia Brown?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/us/tennessee-cyntoia-brown-granted-clemency/index.html
When this story first became a topic of national attention it was framed as a teenage girl killing her "john". Who wouldn't be sympathetic to that? Then more details emerged when the prosecutor became displeased at the one sided nature of the reported story that omitted rather pertinent details. Details such as the man was asleep when she shot him in the head, and thus in no position to harm anyone. Additionally, the fact that she then proceeded to rob him after murdering him.
Now, am I saying there's this level of important facts about the Missouri case that are being omitted? No, I am stating that we have nothing but a single article to go on, so assuming that everything in that article is pure fact and that they are telling the whole story is rather short sighted. It may well be the case that everything is factual and no important details are being omitted, but you don't know that, I don't know that and your buddy doesn't know that. Hence the position I've had on this subject since it was raised; I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.
Quote:We should indeed be able to 'rank' injustice, in this case the difference between 43 years in prison on a false conviction and a case in
which defendants pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. Dismiss charges, fine. Overturn the convictions. I am sure that happens often enough in Missouri--but I am not sure that pardons for misdemeanors are a regular occurrence.
Probably because most misdemeanor cases don't become national news stories?
Quote:So how does "pardon" become the "correct decision" in this MISDEAMEANOR case? It cannot simply be because of "prosecutorial misconduct" that could easily overturn the conviction, leaving nothing to pardon.
Why not? Because Dill says so? Quite the compelling case you're making.
Quote:Perhaps the distinction between "dismissal/overturn" and "pardon" has always been material to the issue here, and why the latter was chosen in the McCloskey case. Pretty sure THAT'S what my ugly little buddy's "outrage" turns around right now.
Perhaps. Maybe we'd know for sure if your little buddy actually explained himself instead of dropping snide hints and insinuations. But that would mean actually taking a factual stand, which he's shown to be rather averse to, especially in this thread. BTW, you're leaping to his defense is as predictable as it is amusing. I am pleased he at least has one friend.
