Criminal justice questions - George Hutchins for U.S. Congress

Date: Wed Nov 25 00:19:00 2009

Criminal justice questions

George Hutchins · Senior Member

Answers to your questions:

Mr. Hutchins, you say that a person who cannot prove his innocence within a period of one year from conviction is "obviously" guilty. How did you arrive at this number? Isn't it true that almost all, if not all, of the 139 death row inmates exonerated since 1973 have needed more than one year, and often the hard work of individuals outside the criminal justice system, to get set free? Cameron Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for a crime allegedly committed in 1991, may even soon become the first person to be posthumously exonerated.

Within ONE YEAR, due to scientific crime scene methods, to include modern DNA, a convicted murderer, should be able to prove his guilt through all appeals, after conviction.

=> The appeals, to take place during the ONE YEAR period, after the conviction, should be based upon any crime scene investion, which did NOT take place according to modern criminal justice crime scene science ETC.

Take a look at the CHARLES MANSON Family.

The MANSON FAMILY or Gang, should have been exicuted ONE YEAR after they were convicted, instead of being alive in prison today.

You favour miserable prison conditions; some might go so far as to call them inhumane. Do you intend to impose these conditions on all federal inmates, regardless of the nature of their offense?

Taking away WEIGHT ROOMS, Basket Ball Courts, Gyms, and other special privileges for inmates, and letting them work or stay in their cells all day, is NOT cruel.

=> When working, each inmate will receive a benefit.

=> Inmates will do Jobs which illegal Aliens normally come to America to do, such as harvesting crops {under guard} ETC.

In addition, one has to do several wrongful acts before ending up in prison, in most cases.

Most inmates have been in and out of trouble, most of their lives.

Persons who made a FIRST TIME mistake, which put them in prison, SUCH A MISTAKE, was so terrible, where most Americans would have NEVER Thought of doing such a terrible Crime.

=> Also, don't forget about the victims of crimes. How Many Rights Did the Criminals provide them ?

Your web site indicates that you want to "stop marijuana use." What do you believe is the most effective strategy to do so? How would stopping marijuana use benefit taxpayers?

Do you think marijuana should be legal if prescribed by a doctor?

Yes, if a doctor says one needs Marijuana, that is fine, but for one who chooses to smoke Marijuana without a slip from a medical doctor, this should remain a crime.

Date: Sat Nov 28 13:25:41 2009

Answers to your questions:

Mr. Hutchins, you say that a person who cannot prove his innocence within a period of one year from conviction is "obviously" guilty. How did you arrive at this number? Isn't it true that almost all, if not all, of the 139 death row inmates exonerated since 1973 have needed more than one year, and often the hard work of individuals outside the criminal justice system, to get set free? Cameron Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for a crime allegedly committed in 1991, may even soon become the first person to be posthumously exonerated.

Within ONE YEAR, due to scientific crime scene methods, to include modern DNA, a convicted murderer, should be able to prove his guilt through all appeals, after conviction.

=> The appeals, to take place during the ONE YEAR period, after the conviction, should be based upon any crime scene investion, which did NOT take place according to modern criminal justice crime scene science ETC.

Real investigations are not like CSI, where the police arrive at the scene, find all the clues, and then put together what happened by drawing upon their encyclopedic knowledge of absolutely everything. In the case of Cameron Willingham, mentioned above, a recent report found that the original forensic investigation was seriously flawed, and the state fire marshal on the scene had "limited understanding" of fire science. Troy Davis in Georgia may soon be exonerated based on evidence that was not available at the time of his conviction in 1991; since then, seven of the nine eyewitnesses against him have recanted their testimony.

Ryan Matthews in Louisiana was convicted of the murder of a convenience store owner in 1999. His court-appointed trial attorney was unprepared, and unable to handle the DNA evidence. In March 2003, Matthews's attorneys had the physical evidence retested, and the results excluded Matthews. They pointed to a man who was already serving time for another murder committed only months later and a few blocks away. He was officially exonerated on August 9, 2004 when all charges were dropped at his retrial.

John Robert Ballard, in Florida, was convicted in 2003 of murdering two acquaintances in 1999. The state's primary evidence against Ballard was a hair and a fingerprint found at the scene, both of which he could have left during his many visits to the victims' apartment. Bloody fingerprints and 100 other hair samples were found at the scene, none of them belonging to Ballard. The state did not present evidence ruling out gang violence, nor did the prosecutors address the suspected motive of robbery. On February 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court acquitted Ballard of all charges.

Jonathon Hoffman, in your own state of North Carolina, was convicted of murdering a jewelry store owner in 1995 in the absence of physical evidence and sentenced to death. His cousin, who received thousands of dollars and immunity from federal charges for his testimony, later admitted that he lied to get back at Hoffman for stealing money from him. Charges were dismissed by the new DA in 2007 because there was "insufficient admissible evidence."

If it were up to you, all of these men would be dead. How would you justify this policy to them?

Take a look at the CHARLES MANSON Family.

The MANSON FAMILY or Gang, should have been executed ONE YEAR after they were convicted, instead of being alive in prison today.

You favour miserable prison conditions; some might go so far as to call them inhumane. Do you intend to impose these conditions on all federal inmates, regardless of the nature of their offense?

Taking away WEIGHT ROOMS, Basket Ball Courts, Gyms, and other special privileges for inmates, and letting them work or stay in their cells all day, is NOT cruel.

=> When working, each inmate will receive a benefit.

=> Inmates will do Jobs which illegal Aliens normally come to America to do, such as harvesting crops {under guard} ETC.

In addition, one has to do several wrongful acts before ending up in prison, in most cases.

Most inmates have been in and out of trouble, most of their lives.

Actually, 3.7 million of the 6.5 million inmates in the U.S. are first-time offenders.

Persons who made a FIRST TIME mistake, which put them in prison, SUCH A MISTAKE, was so terrible, where most Americans would have NEVER Thought of doing such a terrible Crime.

What is your source for this statement?

=> Also, don't forget about the victims of crimes. How Many Rights Did the Criminals provide them ?
t as long as there are prisons, I think decent treatment of inmates is an effective way of preventing riots and mass breakouts, and it's best to allow wardens to deny certain privileges on a case-by-case basis.

-- Edited by REAL REPUBLICAN on Sunday 29th of November 2009 12:09:26 PM

Date: Sat Nov 28 21:33:27 2009

I meant to add that the death penalty was abolished in California less than one year after Charles Manson and his followers were convicted, but I see your point. A quick execution might have been better in that particular case.

Date: Wed Feb 17 06:14:06 2010

what is the TRUTH

Date: Tue Mar 2 13:02:24 2010

Do you think marijuana should be legal if prescribed by a doctor?

Yes, if a doctor says one needs Marijuana, that is fine, but for one who chooses to smoke Marijuana without a slip from a medical doctor, this should remain a crime.

So, you support legalization of medical marijuana? B/c right now what you describe is illegal.

REAL REPUBLICAN · Senior Member

During the 21st Century, a medical doctor can perscribe Marijuana to patients as a pain killer, and for treatment, in some cases.

This is fine, in the same respect, medical doctors can perscribe pain killers to patients which contain opium also.

When there are NO other Medicines which to halt pain in patients, this is very legal in many U.S. States.

We would NEVER favor a non-medical use of Marijuana or Opium in North Carolina.

The law should reflect medical usage of such substances in North Carolina, ONLY.

There are U.S. States which do allow a legal non-medical use of Marijuana, and persons who smoke Marijuana in violation to North Carolina law, should move to these U.S. States, or face legal penalities for their illegal actions.