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

[JBean]

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.

The state is represented by the SA. The charges are filed by the State's Attorney and they have opted to seek the death penalty. therefore the state would like to put KC to death. It is a desire to do so and it is not required or forced.
But the bigger issue to me is so what? they have opted for it, why not call it what it is? Why distance themselves from the decision by saying it is not the state's decision to execute her, it is up to the jury.
Because if the state doesn't ask for it, the jury can't choose it.

ETA: Good discussion Spangle, thank you.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

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?

No, because one way is true and in context and one way is intentionally manipulative.

 

[sleutherontheside]

No, because one way is true and in context and one way is intentionally manipulative.

But....AL discussed the importance of language in trying cases. She has a reason.

 

[Spangle]

The state is represented by the SA. The charges are filed by the State's Attorney and they have opted to seek the death penalty. therefore the state would like to put KC to death. It is a desire to do so and it is not required or forced.
But the bigger issue to me is so what? they have opted for it, why not call it what it is? Why distance themselves from the decision by saying it is not the state's decision to execute her, it is up to the jury.
Because if the state doesn't ask for it, the jury can't choose it.

ETA: Good discussion Spangle, thank you.

If it happened during child abuse to a child under a certain age, Then it isn't something they are choosing to go after or a desire they have. They are required to state that it is DP eligible so a DP eligible jury could be seated.

I"m one of those folks that think the person should be considered the one responsible. Not the Jury, not anyone else.

If they cut down a tree, and they knew the punishment was $50. He went to court, the jury found him guilty of cuting the tree. The said yes, the law says he should pay $50 and so it shall be..

Is it really the Jury's fault that he has to pay $50? Is it the Law's fault that he has to pay $50? Or is it his fault that he has to pay $50?

Blaming the jury is for folks that can not accept responsibility for their own actions.

It's also a good strategy to discourage jurys from finding criminals guilty. ALL a jury is doing is deciding if the person is guilty of a crime being charged.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

But....AL discussed the importance of language in trying cases. She has a reason.

Yeah she does have a reason...it has nothing to do with justice, it's about manipulation. She is a win at all costs lawyer, and that is not a good thing.

 

[Spangle]

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

Yes, I had heard that.

 

[Amil]

The state is represented by the SA. The charges are filed by the State's Attorney and they have opted to seek the death penalty. therefore the state would like to put KC to death. It is a desire to do so and it is not required or forced.
But the bigger issue to me is so what? they have opted for it, why not call it what it is? Why distance themselves from the decision by saying it is not the state's decision to execute her, it is up to the jury.
Because if the state doesn't ask for it, the jury can't choose it.

ETA: Good discussion Spangle, thank you.

I think it is required under circumstances in which you are charged with certain "death penalty" crimes.
I don't think it is a choice made by the state attorney. The legislature writes the laws voted by the people. The law states if you are charged with certain crimes, you may be facing death.

 

[Spangle]

Back to the topic at hand.

The father of the baby got 15 years. He is 30 years old and will be, what 45 when he gets out. Still young enough to have a family.

Sleutherontheside,
I think it's all you said. She believed everyone would believe her lies. And I'm really believe that she went with JB cause he said he could beat the charges. While her court appointed wasn't rolling that way.

She had been living lies, but no one called her one them. She thought she was getting away with it. But up until then, none of her friend really had any reason to check out her lies about work,etc. Everyone has to work and pay bills. They just didn't realize that KC didn't have to pay bills. The ONLY person to realize that KC wasn't paying up her responsiblities was her family. And the only reason Cindy didn't push it, was because if KC had to pay rent, etc.. she could just as easy done that elsewhere..and take Caylee with her.

Another words, it most likely never really clicked in her head that there never really was a reason for folks to check out her story's. It wasn't that they believed them, it was that they had their own life, etc.

And after watching Cindy and the way she sticks to a story and demands others do so as well.. or 'else.' I can see why KC would think that would be the way to go. And why she would expect everyone to believe her..

So I can see why she would think that the LE would believe her. Not realizing that NOW folks would have a reason to check out all her little stories. And how having an aghm atty tell you that he can win the case, as is.. why should she change?? I think it's both of those.

Good grief, this guy killed his child cause it was the wrong sex. And the body showed repeated abuse. Not just one time. All he got was 15yrs. That sounds like a monster.

If KC had worked with them and told where the body was.. maybe she could have gotten a decent deal. IF she an Atty that knew what was what.

 

[JBean]

I think it is required under circumstances in which you are charged with certain "death penalty" crimes.
I don't think it is a choice made by the state attorney. The legislature writes the laws voted by the people. The law states if you are charged with certain crimes, you may be facing death.

I think "may" and "required" are the operative words here.

In Florida can one be charged with what KC is charged with and not be facing the DP?

 

[JBean]

This has good info in it and has good explanations of the process Click here

It addresses the notion of having the ability " to seek the death penalty" and it is more accurate to say that the SA has the ability to exclude the death penalty. That might cause me to rethink my position.

 

[TorisMom003]

I would ask Lyons one simple question........if someone killed your child do you think they should receive the death penalty? It seems easy for someone to be against the death penalty when they have not had someone taken away from them by the hands of another person. When you have lived through that kind of pain it may be easier to agree with the death penalty. I personaly believe in the death penalty. What is the point in keeping a person in prison for life and making the state and it's people pay for a person that committed a murder (or more than one, whatever the case may be)? For me it is all about what the person deserves. If they kill someone and it is not in self defense then what gives them the right to breathe everyday, eat 3 meals a day, watch tv or enjoy any other day to day activities? They took a life and the punishment should be their own life in return.

MOO

 

[precious]

If it happened during child abuse to a child under a certain age, Then it isn't something they are choosing to go after or a desire they have. They are required to state that it is DP eligible so a DP eligible jury could be seated.

I"m one of those folks that think the person should be considered the one responsible. Not the Jury, not anyone else.

If they cut down a tree, and they knew the punishment was $50. He went to court, the jury found him guilty of cuting the tree. The said yes, the law says he should pay $50 and so it shall be..

Is it really the Jury's fault that he has to pay $50? Is it the Law's fault that he has to pay $50? Or is it his fault that he has to pay $50?

Blaming the jury is for folks that can not accept responsibility for their own actions.

It's also a good strategy to discourage jurys from finding criminals guilty. ALL a jury is doing is deciding if the person is guilty of a crime being charged.

The thank you button wasn't enough. Thank you . Very precise,accurate,
and well said. The law is the law and all are suppose to be equal under
the law. AL likes to manipulate words and Juries to win her case.

 

[RR0004]

This has good info in it and has good explanations of the process Click here

It addresses the notion of having the ability " to seek the death penalty" and it is more accurate to say that the SA has the ability to exclude the death penalty. That might cause me to rethink my position.

IMO the DP was put back on the table after Caylee's body was discovered and due to the (purported) heinous nature of the crime. She is attempting, IMO, to steer us away from focusing on the murdered child and the one who has been accused of said murder. She obviously doesn't perceive the DP as punishment, but rather as murder. Her language is purposeful.

 

[JBean]

IMO the DP was put back on the table after Caylee's body was discovered and due to the (purported) heinous nature of the crime. She is attempting, IMO, to steer us away from focusing on the murdered child and the one who has been accused of said murder. She obviously doesn't perceive the DP as punishment, but rather as murder. Her language is purposeful.

Hi RR. I agree and think that is her goal.

 

[JBean]

Guys, please do not get into a death penalty debate. please please.

 

[flourish]

Yeah, the reason above all others, that I cannot tolerate AL is because of this issue exactly. She is fighting her cause in the wrong venue, and is well aware of that fact. It just suits her better to fight it out this way, for a variety of reasons previously mentioned, mostly involving publicity, it seems.

IMHO, AL in general, and this particular ploy in particular, is disrespectful to most of the people and establishments/entities involved not only in this case, not only in Florida, but to Americans and humans in general.

As the parent of a murdered child, this kind of ploy offends me in a deep, personal manner, which I will admit does affect my outlook on this case and life in general. At the sentencing for my son's killer (aka "bio dad")'s lawyer even had the sand to say that if I'd had an abortion, then, well... $^#-ing disgusting, IMHO, and AL "smells" exactly the same way that lawyer did. All my personal opinion, of course.

and FWIW, I could take or leave the death penalty but would be more comfortable leaving it if all states' "life sentences" were actually life sentences, which, from what I've heard, Florida's is

ETA: just making it clear that I am totally not arguing and am absolutely fine with everyone's opinion on the death penalty...

 

[JBean]

If it happened during child abuse to a child under a certain age, Then it isn't something they are choosing to go after or a desire they have. They are required to state that it is DP eligible so a DP eligible jury could be seated.

I"m one of those folks that think the person should be considered the one responsible. Not the Jury, not anyone else.

If they cut down a tree, and they knew the punishment was $50. He went to court, the jury found him guilty of cuting the tree. The said yes, the law says he should pay $50 and so it shall be..

Is it really the Jury's fault that he has to pay $50? Is it the Law's fault that he has to pay $50? Or is it his fault that he has to pay $50?

Blaming the jury is for folks that can not accept responsibility for their own actions.

It's also a good strategy to discourage jurys from finding criminals guilty.

Fault ,blame, and accepting responsibility for a crime is whole new issue, imo.

ALL a jury is doing is deciding if the person is guilty of a crime being charged.

The jury will also decide life or death in the penalty phase and the judge will confirm the death penalty if it is chosen by the jury. (well at least here in CA)

 

[TorisMom003]

Sorry JB for going OT. I am curious though how Lyons would see it if the death penalty was being sought for someone that killed her child.

It seems like it is going to come down to semantics. The defense is claiming the state wants to kill their client. The state is claiming that the client did kill her own daughter. The question is, which one will the jury side with and will the defense's use of "kill my client" tick them off so they vote for life (if found guilty) or tick them off so they vote death (if found guilty).

 

[RR0004]

Well one thing we can be pretty certain of...AL isn't "an eye for an eye" kinda gal.

 

[JBean]

Well one thing we can be pretty certain of...AL isn't "an eye for an eye" kinda gal.

I am not an eye for an eye person either, so I can understand that. Bottom line, i think she wants to make sure her client is not put to death in the event of a conviction. I can understand that also.