The state wants to kill AL's client. Really?

[JBean]

Thinkin you are absolutely right by the definition of the word. The fact is, if you are a supporter of the death penalty, you have to be able to reconcile your belief even in the face of someone calling you a killer.
I am not uncomfortable with AL referring to me (I support the DP, and live in a greater community of like minded people-Virginians) as someone who would "kill," because the foundation of my beliefs are solid in the face of this verbal challenge.
Another example, to me, would be if someone broke into my home and posed a mortal threat to me or my family-He's gonna meet the mortal end of my 40mm. And that means I may have killed. It is a verb, not necessarily an assignment of wrong-doing, IMO.

Exactly. If one accepts killing another as a penalty for the crime, then why is what she is saying an affront to the law of the state? IMO, Ashton should just say yes, that is the goal as outlined in the DP sentencing guideline.

 

[Just Jayla]

Exactly. If one accepts killing another as a penalty for the crime, then why is what she is saying an affront to the law of the state? IMO, Ashton should just say yes, that is the goal as outlined in the mandatory DP sentencing guideline.

Precisely. I have always wondered why AL did not go into legislation rather than practicing law (and maybe she will one day), because she seems to have a passion for getting to the fundamentals of this part of the law. As a lawyer, she can only effect the DP after the person has already been charged with it. As a legislator, she could potentially take that possibilty out of the arena all together.
Anyway, referring to jurors or the state as killers will work one of two ways, IMO: If you are comfortable with the possibility of the DP, you will do just fine with her utilzing "kill'...if you are a little conflicted about it to begin with, her words may sway you. This is why the vetting of the jury during selection is paramount to both sides.

 

[Spangle]

Misleading to whom Spangle?

When using the word 'want', it is inflicting a thought that it's just a desire to do so. Not that one is required or forced, etc.

She is miss leading the public. On several different levels.

When she says the "State wants to kill."

Is she talking about the Prosecution, SA, Judge, LE, Courts, voters? Whom is she talking about? For those listening, it would be any or all of those. And implying that they have a choice, when all they are doing is their job.

But for her statement to be even remotely factual, she would be talking about the STATE LAW. It isn't a 'they'. It is an "it." Totally impersonal. And not out to 'get' her client. It does not 'want' anything. So it can NOT want to kill her client.

 

[Spangle]

I understand what you mean and as pointed out it does come down to wordplay.
But wouldn't you agree that the state of FL would like to put murderers to death by virtue of the fact that it is apparently a mandatory punishment?

Ah, not mandatory.
The option is available for certain crimes. But it isn't mandatory.

 

[LandAuxvasse]

According to her own lectures....everything is about humanizing your client and dehumanizing the victim.....

That said.......WHY in the world would AL say in court that "the state wants to kill my client", instead of "the state wants to kill Casey Anthony"?????

Is that indicitave of her true feelings that KC is guilty, or because Casey sounds much like Caylee, or some other reason? I am big on word selection and semantics. We use words for a reason. What is her reason???????

Thoughts????

Respectfully snipped... could it be because right now, "client" is more humanizing than the name "Casey Anthony"?? :waitasec:

 

[JBean]

Ah, not mandatory.
The option is available for certain crimes. But it isn't mandatory.

Then if the state is putting it on the table , but they don;t have to, thenwouldn't it be safe to assume it is desired by the state and that they do indeed want to kill her?
I am not sure what the issue is. The state does want to execute KC and they are asking a jury to do so if found guilty. If we try to reword it to make us more comfortable, then we are doing exactly what AL is doing but from another perspective. KWIM?

 

[DaughterAlice]

Respectfully snipped... could it be because right now, "client" is more humanizing than the name "Casey Anthony"?? :waitasec:

OOOOOOOOO!!! Good one!!!

KC's name is well known for all the wrong reasons. To many negative connections.

Smart.

 

[Just Jayla]

When using the word 'want', it is inflicting a thought that it's just a desire to do so. Not that one is required or forced, etc.

She is miss leading the public. On several different levels.

When she says the "State wants to kill."

Is she talking about the Prosecution, SA, Judge, LE, Courts, voters? Whom is she talking about? For those listening, it would be any or all of those. And implying that they have a choice, when all they are doing is their job.

But for her statement to be even remotely factual, she would be talking about the STATE LAW. It isn't a 'they'. It is an "it." Totally impersonal. And not out to 'get' her client. It does not 'want' anything. So it can NOT want to kill her client.

What you have written above pinpoints the reason I believe AL would be better suited as a legislator. In her home state, there is a moritorium on the DP and many people that feel the same way she does. In tandem with the people of Illinois, she can address "it" (the law) effectively. Many in Illinois do not wish to kill criminals and have set that forth in their laws by allowing a governor, elected by the people, to enact a moritorium.
However, as a lawyer, she can bring her viewpoint to other states. This shows a great committment to her cause, but at the same time, it is not lost on the people of Florida that this is really an assault on them and their laws. I think AL despises the DP so much that she, deep down inside, does question the culture of Floridians. But as an attorney defendnig a Floridian, she may have to choose her words more wisely, hence throwing the responsibility on the prosecution themselves.

ETA: And I do agree with JBean in this sense: The state does want to kill Casey, but they are elected officials, so they presumably are carrying out the will of the people, in order to be re-elected-Ah, politics!

 

[Just Jayla]

Awesome thread, BTW-It is nice to discuss the tactic, rather than attempting to persuade one another why the DP is or is not right.

 

[Spangle]

So, in Florida the state does not have the option of seeking the death penalty, it is mandatory in first degree? I did not know that, but even if that is the case, then the state definitely wants to put her to death. I am not implying at all that it is personally based, it sounds like it is just a simple fact.

I do believe we have a whole thread on this with the experts that explains it in legalize detail. Which I am not able to do. :blushing:

In her case, It seems that the death happening during child abuse on a person under a certain age, has alot to do with making the crime DP eligible. Notice I did not say mandatory.

It's interesting that you claim that the 'state wants' when it can just as easly be said that the 'criminal wants'. Since the law was in effect before the criminal did the crime. And as they say, don't do the crime, if your not willing to do the time. What ever that time might be.

Why is the law being blamed, when it is very open about the situation. The Criminal is choosing to do the crime.. hence they are choosing to do the time.. one could say they WANT to do the time..

 

[The World According]

Frankly, I think that is what Mr. Ashton was saying....if IF it is determined that she maliciously, purposely planned and murdered this baby....damn straight...the state has that as an option for the jury and the judge. Yes.

The good news is that life in Florida means forever. There is no parole, a life sentence means that person will die in jail.

 

[SallyLu]

Awesome thread, BTW-It is nice to discuss the tactic, rather than attempting to persuade one another why the DP is or is not right.

Excellent point!

 

[kaRN]

We should all be so lucky to die as painlessly as with lethal injection. AL should maybe go on a tour of her local paediatric hostice before she plays with semantics and makes really dumb comments IMO. If any juror has watched a loved one die, slowly and in pain, they won't appreciate her emotional outburst about killing a baby killer.

Choose another tactic AL if you read here. The person killed was murdered, likely by your client.

 

[Spangle]

What you have written above pinpoints the reason I believe AL would be better suited as a legislator. In her home state, there is a moritorium on the DP and many people that feel the same way she does. In tandem with the people of Illinois, she can address "it" (the law) effectively. Many in Illinois do not wish to kill criminals and have set that forth in their laws by allowing a governor, elected by the people, to enact a moritorium.
However, as a lawyer, she can bring her viewpoint to other states. This shows a great committment to her cause, but at the same time, it is not lost on the people of Florida that this is really an assault on them and their laws. I think AL despises the DP so much that she, deep down inside, does question the culture of Floridians. But as an attorney defendnig a Floridian, she may have to choose her words more wisely, hence throwing the responsibility on the prosecution themselves.

ETA: And I do agree with JBean in this sense: The state does want to kill Casey, but they are elected officials, so they presumably are carrying out the will of the people, in order to be re-elected-Ah, politics!

It seems that the only hold outs for DP these days, are those that realize that without DP, some folks will be able to get out of jail for being 'good. The person who was killed don't get that option.

I think that if LWOP was a real, solid and believable sentence, then more folks would be for that option.

Then again, I think some want to keep the option, just for the sake of the real monsters. Or to be able to remind folks that its still there and still a possibility.

However, while laws are made by the politicians, the politicians are beholding to the public for their jobs. So they can not change laws, unless the public would support them in doing so. (public opinion) Someone has to be out there, working to change public opinion. Which is part of what AL is all about. Seemed to be making major head way, until this case.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Respectfully snipped... could it be because right now, "client" is more humanizing than the name "Casey Anthony"?? :waitasec:

Well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The name Casey Anthony may well be bitter to swallow (or schwallow).

 

[Spangle]

Andrea lectures, in detail, about how capital jurors are already predisposed to sentence a client to death. She feels that the terms Capital Punishment, Death Penalty, et al do not carry the impact and the weight of the word "KILL".

In a capital case like this, there has been a death....you will not hear her say "murder or kill" regarding Caylee. She wants to impact the jury with the word "kill" because it is RAW and leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Given a choice....would a juror want to sign a statement saying "KILL HER" or "Impose the Death Penalty"?

In a backward sort of way......her motive is "how can one justify killing her client, when killing has been deemed unacceptable"?

I understand. Actually, some of that is the point of a DP qualified jury in the first place. It was all ready noted that some folks would feel responsible for the death of the criminal, if they voted 'guilty.' So they just could not 'do it.' They believed the person was guilty. But they also felt they were voting on that persons death.

So yes, a DP qualified jury would be more likely to put a person to death. Cause everyone on it can vote strictly on wither a person is guilty or not guilty, based solely on the evidence against or for that person.

 

[Jolynna]

The reason I think KC didn't take a plea before Caylee's body was found is because if KC did that she'd have to say where Caylee was. And then, everybody,would know about the 3 layers of duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose.

I agree with AL that the state is trying to kill KC.

I consider a mother who would execute her own trusting child to "get a man" or "be free" down there with the worst-of-the-worst of monsters.So, if a jury of KC's peers determines that is what happened and KC doesn't get the ultimate punishment, imo, it won't be because she didn't earn it.

 

[Spangle]

I can't help but wonder what influence prevented her from taking a plea early on in the case.

Was it because:
She was convinced by others that she could beat the charges?
She was banking on a body never being found and thus assumed it would lessen the chances that she would face LWOP.
She was confident in her ability to cover her tracks, and assumed that she would be found innocent.
She knew she was innocent.
<snip to focus on just this part>

I've been thinking about how KC might have become so delusional. Lots have been said about how smart KC was to have fooled so many people. And how strange it is that she got away with lying about something so major as work ,etc.

I don't think she was really all that smart. And I think to many folks are giving her way to much credit for something rather basic.

It seems wild to us that she would be able to get away with her big woppers, and for so long.

IT was rather easy, cause she didn't have to pay rent, utilities, food, car, insurance. Which most adults have to use their paychecks for. Which all her friends had to use their pay checks for. They had no money left over and didn't expect her to have any either. So they wouldn't notice anything odd about her not having money.

They were to busy with their own life, to be checking to see if KC was telling the truth. Not that they really cared.

Her parents knew she wasn't paying those things. But Cindy was so afraid she would leave and take Caylee with her, that she wouldn't dare ask KC to pay her own expenses. So Cindy wasn't asking her to pony up, and had no reason to realize that KC wasn't making money to pay those bills.

THAT is about all KC knew about life. Folks don't check out your stories. You can say what ever you want, and everyone believes it to be true. That is the way her adult life had been going.

Until Caylee died. She didn't realize that the only reason she was getting away with it, is because there was really no reason for anyone to check or care about her lies.

 

[JBean]

I do believe we have a whole thread on this with the experts that explains it in legalize detail. Which I am not able to do. :blushing:

In her case, It seems that the death happening during child abuse on a person under a certain age, has alot to do with making the crime DP eligible. Notice I did not say mandatory.

It's interesting that you claim that the 'state wants' when it can just as easly be said that the 'criminal wants'. Since the law was in effect before the criminal did the crime. And as they say, don't do the crime, if your not willing to do the time. What ever that time might be.

Why is the law being blamed, when it is very open about the situation. The Criminal is choosing to do the crime.. hence they are choosing to do the time.. one could say they WANT to do the time..

I understand now that you were not saying it was mandatory. But your post seem to imply (to me) that the state's hands were tied (ie 3 strikes law)and that was why the death penalty is on the table. But subsequent posts clarify that death penalty is an option that the state is taking full advantage of.
So what I am saying is the death penalty is an accepted option for the crime and the the state had chosen to pursue it. From that, it is reasonable to say that the state would like to put KC to death,kill her, execute her,whatever we want to call it, the state will ask a jury to impose the sentence of death upon her.
So, imo,AL is correct in what she is saying and the state should stand behind it and say yes that would be our desire. Nothing wrong with that if you accept the death penalty, which FL does. So while AL may be playing with words, the state would seem to be doing similar if they argue this notion.
Softening the terms, rearranging them,making them so that we don't feel like wanting to kill her is harsh, it is the same as AL trying to make it sound like it is a crime to impose the DP.

 

[JBean]

It seems that the only hold outs for DP these days, are those that realize that without DP, some folks will be able to get out of jail for being 'good. The person who was killed don't get that option.

I think that if LWOP was a real, solid and believable sentence, then more folks would be for that option.

Then again, I think some want to keep the option, just for the sake of the real monsters. Or to be able to remind folks that its still there and still a possibility.

However, while laws are made by the politicians, the politicians are beholding to the public for their jobs. So they can not change laws, unless the public would support them in doing so. (public opinion) Someone has to be out there, working to change public opinion. Which is part of what AL is all about. Seemed to be making major head way, until this case.

Life sentence in Fl means life, there is no parole with a death sentence in that state.