He should have received Death or Life without Parole, but to spare the family of Mr. Duncan a verdict of GUILTY of MURDER with a LIFE sentence was given to Buttram and the family didn't have to suffer through a trial. When he accepted this plea it did away with any appeals, etc. so he is in prison to stay.
Mr. Duncan's family and friends will make sure Buttram indeed does serve a LIFE sentence and doesn't ever get parole. He doesn't deserve to ever walk free. I might add the Murderer never showed any remorse for taking Mr. Duncan's life.
The family of Mr. Duncan will never be able to recover from this ever. And no Forgiveness will ever be offered.
SEveral years ago the talk was all about "truth in sentencing" and holding criminals accountable for their crimes. THere is no such thing in America anymore and the criminals know it. I think we should go with let the punishment fit the crime ... you kill, you get killed (with or without appeals is optional to me)...you steal you get your hand cut off...you rape, you get your pecker cut off and if you are a woman who rapes we'll figure out something...I'm so sick of criminals getting out and doing it over and over and over and when they get tired of trying to make ends meet they commit an offense to get sent back...it is ludicrus...
quote:
Originally posted by bubbaluck:
He will be eligible for parole after 15 years. It will be cheaper to keep him in prison than it would be to prosecute and defend appeals in a death penalty case for the next 20 years.


With the right atty., he could get an earlier hearing date, and with the right contacts, he could be released. The Board will simply stipulate he stay away from this area. We should all hope he benefits from the drug program in prison.
quote:
Originally posted by bubbaluck:
He will be eligible for parole after 15 years. It will be cheaper to keep him in prison than it would be to prosecute and defend appeals in a death penalty case for the next 20 years.


quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
We should all hope he benefits from the drug program in prison.


At least until if & when he gets out. From what I see on Court TV & hear on the news, drugs are available in prison as much if not more than on the streets.
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
SEveral years ago the talk was all about "truth in sentencing" and holding criminals accountable for their crimes. THere is no such thing in America anymore and the criminals know it. I think we should go with let the punishment fit the crime ... you kill, you get killed (with or without appeals is optional to me)...you steal you get your hand cut off...you rape, you get your pecker cut off and if you are a woman who rapes we'll figure out something...I'm so sick of criminals getting out and doing it over and over and over and when they get tired of trying to make ends meet they commit an offense to get sent back...it is ludicrus...


That sounds good on paper, until it is an innocent person getting their hand cut off for a simple crime they didn't commit, or a man getting his pecker cut off because some woman lies about a rape that never occurred.

You have got to have appeals. Do you realize the number of innocent people on death row? Have you seen the statistics of the number of people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison?

I think a bigger problem is with the police and prosecutors who latch onto a theory just in order to punish someone -- anyone, even if the evidence is weak. This happens quite often.
Just like with OJ, right, SittinPurdy?

As far as the statistics on the people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison, have YOU seen them? I kinda doubt it, or you'd realize it's not very many. And usually those cases are not the result of overzealous police; rather, someone lied or the defendant convicted himself with his mouth.
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
SEveral years ago the talk was all about "truth in sentencing" and holding criminals accountable for their crimes. THere is no such thing in America anymore and the criminals know it. I think we should go with let the punishment fit the crime ... you kill, you get killed (with or without appeals is optional to me)...you steal you get your hand cut off...you rape, you get your pecker cut off and if you are a woman who rapes we'll figure out something...I'm so sick of criminals getting out and doing it over and over and over and when they get tired of trying to make ends meet they commit an offense to get sent back...it is ludicrus...


[QUOTE]Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
That sounds good on paper, until it is an innocent person getting their hand cut off for a simple crime they didn't commit, or a man getting his pecker cut off because some woman lies about a rape that never occurred.

That's simple, do the DNA testing before you cut off their hands & pecker.

You have got to have appeals.

And appeals, & appeals, & appeals....need I go on?
Besides, we're speaking of the guilty ones, not those cleared by DNA.


I think a bigger problem is with the police and prosecutors who latch onto a theory just in order to punish someone -- anyone, even if the evidence is weak. This happens quite often.

Not if the DNA evidence is there.
What is the talk of DNA I believe it was just the fact that Buttram will not get out of prison. Buttram pled GUILTY to MURDER he said he DID it no-one decided it for him no trial he wanted the deal because I am sure he knew he would have gotten the Death Penalty.
When you take a deal you do not get appeals you do not get out early you do your time. The only way out is through parole and as stated friends and family will NEVER let that happen.
who cares about drug program? who cares if he does drugs?
quote:
Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
SEveral years ago the talk was all about "truth in sentencing" and holding criminals accountable for their crimes. THere is no such thing in America anymore and the criminals know it. I think we should go with let the punishment fit the crime ... you kill, you get killed (with or without appeals is optional to me)...you steal you get your hand cut off...you rape, you get your pecker cut off and if you are a woman who rapes we'll figure out something...I'm so sick of criminals getting out and doing it over and over and over and when they get tired of trying to make ends meet they commit an offense to get sent back...it is ludicrus...


That sounds good on paper, until it is an innocent person getting their hand cut off for a simple crime they didn't commit, or a man getting his pecker cut off because some woman lies about a rape that never occurred.

You have got to have appeals. Do you realize the number of innocent people on death row? Have you seen the statistics of the number of people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison?

I think a bigger problem is with the police and prosecutors who latch onto a theory just in order to punish someone -- anyone, even if the evidence is weak. This happens quite often.



Yes, I have seen all the shows on tv and the statistics etc., but I think that there comes a point that you have to have a deterrant effect and prison/punishment as it is -- is no deterrant to anyone at this point. They look at it like -- oh, I'll get 25 and I'll do 5 no big deal.

If an innocent person gets their hand cut off and it deters the many many many criminals -- that is for the better good.

Go ahead and bash me -- I have seen it, but I'm also seeing the other side of this as well -- and in the end, the greater good would be served...look at history -- it's not like innocent people haven't been punished before for something that they didn't do -- you are not throwing anything new at my opinion to deter me from the opinion. When you are on the receiving end of that repeat offender that continues to flip through the system -- you get tired of hearing those kind of arguements.

I know my opinion doesn't jive with the rest of the world and I'm fine with that...it is still my opinion...
quote:
Originally posted by butterflier:
What is the talk of DNA I believe it was just the fact that Buttram will not get out of prison. Buttram pled GUILTY to MURDER he said he DID it no-one decided it for him no trial he wanted the deal because I am sure he knew he would have gotten the Death Penalty.
When you take a deal you do not get appeals you do not get out early you do your time. The only way out is through parole and as stated friends and family will NEVER let that happen.
who cares about drug program? who cares if he does drugs?


We should all care about the drug program. He will be out and if he is still on drugs, you or I could be his next victim. He will serve life with the possibility of parole. In Alabama, it's who you know. He may not know anyone, but his family may in the near future, and he may be on the streets much more quickly than you think. BTW, one biggie with the parole board is admitting the crime and he seems to have done just that with his plea.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Just like with OJ, right, SittinPurdy?


I think most rational people know OJ is guilty, but factors outside of the evidence contributed to his acquittal. The defense attorneys did a fine job in getting the jury they wanted -- a jury that wouldn't let a black man be convicted by the evil white L.A. cops. It also didn't help the prosecution that the Rodney King incident happened in LA just a few years prior. There was a lot of racial tension in that city then. But this is really beside the point and not relevant to DNA.

quote:
As far as the statistics on the people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison, have YOU seen them?


I have seen the statistics of "The Innocence Project" who releases the number of successful exonerations they have been involved with. Here is an excerpt from a website dealing with this issue:

quote:
Last year’s best-seller Actual Innocence by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer suggested the true rate of wrongful convictions may be closer to ten percent than to one-half of one percent. DNA tests used before trial have exonerated at least 5000 prime suspects out of the first 18,000 DNA suspect samples at the FBI and other crime labs-suggesting a pre-trial error rate of more than 25 percent. Since 1977, some 553 people have been executed in the United States while another eighty death row inmates have been released after they were found innocent. For every seven executed, one innocent person is freed-an “error rate” of more than twelve (12) percent. In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving their innocence-an error rate of 52 percent.


link: http://www.caught.net/innoc.htm

Not too promising for all of those "criminals" who some want to chop the hands and peckers off of, eh?

It's probably fair to say that the error rate with murder convictions is around 10%, if not higher. The error rate for other crimes is likely much higher than 10%.

quote:
And usually those cases are not the result of overzealous police; rather, someone lied or the defendant convicted himself with his mouth.


I don't deny that. Eyewitness testimony, for example, is horribly unreliable, especially when the witness is attempting to identify someone they have never met before. There have been many studies on the eyewitness issue, and a Google search should bring up many sites dealing with it.

The same goes for polygraph exams. Many experts say that the error rate for false positives is as high as 25-30%, and that's before taking into account all of the techniques out there for beating the test. Too often the Police will "rule out" an initial suspect because he passed the polygraph. This could be a mistake just as often as it is when they focus in on someone who "failed" it but was really innocent.

The point is, the appeals process is necessary if for no other reason than that too many innocent people are convicted. The same argument could be used against the death penalty in general.
Sittin Purdy -- appeals are necessary, but there should be limitations to how many and the nature of the appeal. 55 appeals is excessive...3 or 4 I understand, but when you drag something out for 30 years ... you should have copped a plea for life in prison and you would have been better off...


As far as the ones that got something chopped off...in my opinion, that would be a small price for some of the sex offenders that are out there today, but according to our laws, they have served their time. I also know that they are the top ones to recidivate and wind up offending again...so yea, let's let them keep their peckers...NOT...if you'd cut it off...they would stop or they would find a different outlet...

I'll meet you in the middle here SittinPurdy -- 1st offense is probation or community service...2nd offense is jail time and community service...3rd time is the charm -- cut it off...that is proof that they will continue to commit this crime so they have proved they don't deserve to get to keep it...
Okay, here's me being tacky. Feel free to not read the rest of this... and don't say I didn't warn you!

I know nothing about the case y'all are talking about, but am I understanding that someone named "Buttram" is going to be in prison? Talk about apropos! Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Ed@Bama:
Okay, here's me being tacky. Feel free to not read the rest of this... and don't say I didn't warn you!

I know nothing about the case y'all are talking about, but am I understanding that someone named "Buttram" is going to be in prison? Talk about apropos! Big Grin


Thanks for reminding me Ed --

He is a horrible person that changed the lives of dozens of people by taking the life of an innocent man. Too bad our taxes have to pay for him to rot in jail but that is better than him getting out and killing other people. His history indicated he was a career criminal before he ever killed Mr. Duncan. 

 

 

Originally Posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
SEveral years ago the talk was all about "truth in sentencing" and holding criminals accountable for their crimes. THere is no such thing in America anymore and the criminals know it. I think we should go with let the punishment fit the crime ... you kill, you get killed (with or without appeals is optional to me)...you steal you get your hand cut off...you rape, you get your pecker cut off and if you are a woman who rapes we'll figure out something...I'm so sick of criminals getting out and doing it over and over and over and when they get tired of trying to make ends meet they commit an offense to get sent back...it is ludicrus...


That sounds good on paper, until it is an innocent person getting their hand cut off for a simple crime they didn't commit, or a man getting his pecker cut off because some woman lies about a rape that never occurred.

You have got to have appeals. Do you realize the number of innocent people on death row? Have you seen the statistics of the number of people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison?

I think a bigger problem is with the police and prosecutors who latch onto a theory just in order to punish someone -- anyone, even if the evidence is weak. This happens quite often.

 

------------------------------------

You know most cops are honest. But is this one that just pulled you over one of the honest ones, or a cop that is no better than the crooks he arrests, and worse than the people he frames. We like to think police and prosecutors are upstanding, honest public servants. Your faith will be shattered in such, however, should you be on the receiving end of "justice" such as is recounted below. 


Utica Police Officers Caught on Tape on 02-11-2011

Planting drugs; watch the officer pull a bag out of his back pocket, then exit the door as if drugs have been “discovered” inside the vehicle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7oenshcwPk

 

 

Cops Plant Drugs On Suspect video

Pulls bag out of his right shirt pocket and “discovers” on the suspect.

Well now that we know what the hand signal for planting false evidence is, EVERYONE who examines these video's should be looking for additional hand signals as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhHd6M2Sjg&feature=related

 

Even if you have a bogus charge with planted evidence by corrupt cops, that “evidence” is supposed to be reviewed by the district attorney, if not before the preliminary hearing, certainly before trial. However, many D.A.s are as corrupt as the cops.

 

 

EDITORIAL

Justice and Prosecutorial Misconduct

December 28, 2011

Michael Morton was exonerated by DNA evidence this month after being wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife and serving nearly 25 years in prison in Texas. In seeking to prove Mr. Morton’s innocence, his lawyers found in recently unsealed court records evidence that the prosecutor in the original trial, Ken Anderson, had withheld critical evidence that may have helped Mr. Morton.

 

Prosecutors have enormous power in determining who is subjected to criminal punishment because they have broad discretion in deciding criminal charges. The Brady rule, established by the Supreme Court in 1963, is supposed to be an important check on that power. It requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant. But their failure to comply is rarely discovered, and, even then, prosecutors are almost never punished.

 

The Supreme Court, in an outrageous decision earlier this year, further weakened the ability of wronged defendants to make prosecutors’ offices liable by giving them nearly absolute immunity against civil suits. Justice Clarence Thomas justified the ruling, noting that an “attorney who violates his or her ethical obligations is subject to professional discipline, including sanctions, suspension, and disbarment.” But bar associations hardly ever punish this behavior; judges seldom discipline prosecutors for such violations; and criminal sanctions are rarely imposed against prosecutors.

 

This is why the Morton inquiry is crucial. The Innocence Project report found that Mr. Anderson willfully failed to disclose police notes that another man committed the murder, concealed from the trial judge that he did not provide the full police report and advised his successor as prosecutor “to oppose all of Mr. Morton’s postconviction motions for DNA testing.” If a court confirms these findings, it must hold Mr. Anderson accountable — or it will send a message to prosecutors in Texas and elsewhere that the criminal justice system is incapable of deterring or punishing this conduct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12...rial-misconduct.html

 

 

Congress Must Act to End Prosecutorial Misconduct

04/11/2012

When federal prosecutors charged the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) with failing to report more than $250,000 in illegal gifts and home renovations, they knew the stakes were sky high. Stevens, after all, was only the 11th senator in history to be indicted while in office. In 2008, the prosecutions succeeded in convincing a Washington, DC jury to convict Stevens. A month later, Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator in history, was defeated in his bid for re-election by fewer than 4,000 votes; most observers think the conviction helped to sway the election. Stevens died two years later in a plane crash.

 

Thanks to a two-and-a-half year independent investigation ordered by the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, and finally released several weeks ago, we now know how prosecutors won Stevens' conviction: they cheated. They violated his constitutional rights by intentionally concealing evidence that they knew would have supported Stevens' claim that he intended to pay for all work performed on his house. They hid documents and they allowed a cooperating witness to testify falsely to the jury. The investigators' 514-page report is a chilling reminder that not even the most powerful leaders in the nation are safe when federal prosecutors ignore their duty to seek justice, and instead pursue victory at any cost.

 

Sadly, the Ted Stevens case was not an isolated incident. Although the failure to disclose evidence is a constitutional violation that by its very nature often goes undiscovered (anything that the government chooses not to disclose to the defense generally remains unknown), we still know it occurs with disturbing frequency. For example, a 2010 USA Today investigation documented 86 cases since 1997 in which judges found that federal prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that they were legally required to disclose. A number of organizations have reached similar conclusions about the frequency of these violations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-end-_b_1415695.html

 

Congress reacts to prosecutorial misconduct findings

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/15/...o-prosecutorial.html


I know that all of these replies were from many many years ago, and that you all are over it by now, or atleast you should be. And I doubt anyone will read this who commented above this. Frankie Buttram was not a bad man. Yes, he did get into drugs and he has had a criminal record in the past but tell me, honestly do any of you who judged him know him? Have you ever met him? No, I'm sure you haven't. I'm sure you never saw the side of him that wasn't on drugs, or wasn't doing anything wrong. He has a family that is so sweet, and so special.. Meet any of them, and you wouldn't dare to think for a second that he did what he was accused of. Yes he did kill a man, but who shot first? Duncan did. Frankie was defending his own self. Before you think anything wrong, ask yourself if a man started shooting at you what could you do? let yourself get killed? The report written about what happend is no where close to what really happend. And Duncas attorney was his own friend, who knew people in the law business and worked his way into getting justice for the man. I agree, Frankie did deserve some time in prison because he did kill a man but he deserves himself Justice. And he knows what he did, that's why he took the plea.. Also for his family, because he was unselfish enough to think about them. I'm sure he will think about what he has done. And wishing he could've been put to death is so wrong on anybody who thought that's part. What if it was Duncan in his place? if it was switched around? I'm sure nobody would be so cruel enough to say anything about him as they did Frankie. You all think he's such a bad person, while if you had met him your opinions would be so different. He made mistakes, and he's putting in the time for them so don't write something so low as to say he deserves more; because he doesn't. He deserves to live his life, with the people he loves and have a second chance. He was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.. Hopefully he will get out soon, and I promise you he won't be back in there again because he will learn. Frankie was and still is a good man. 

zippadeedoodah posted:
Just like with OJ, right, SittinPurdy?

As far as the statistics on the people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison, have YOU seen them? I kinda doubt it, or you'd realize it's not very many. And usually those cases are not the result of overzealous police; rather, someone lied or the defendant convicted himself with his mouth.

_____

Not very many DNA cases?  You certainly need to reconsider that conclusion. I got your STATISTICS right here. Check out all the DNA-associated exonerations on this lengthy list (link below) of persons exonerated for various reasons in the U.S., prepared by the University of Michigan Law School. It will resolve any doubts you have.

As to defendants lying, you should understand that often such "lies" are false confessions ("FC" on the chart provided) extorted from indigent and innocent defendants who are told that if they confess to a lesser crime, they can be plea-bargained to a shorter sentence, but otherwise would face stiffer penalties, in some cases a death sentence.  Another active practice in our criminal injustice system!.

It is also interesting to note just how many exonerations were in cases that involved OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT or FALSE or  MISLEADING FORENSIC EVIDENCE. Check out list I have provided.  Often false convictions are the result of over-zealous prosecutors working hard, but not ethically, to keep their box scores on convictions looking good so that in the next election they can brag about how many convictions they have achieved.

This list might be a big surprise to some folks, but it is a reality that we live with, like it or not and we ought to be very uncomfortable with it:

http://www.law.umich.edu/speci...ages/detaillist.aspx

justsomeone posted:

I know that all of these replies were from many many years ago, and that you all are over it by now, or atleast you should be. And I doubt anyone will read this who commented above this. Frankie Buttram was not a bad man. Yes, he did get into drugs and he has had a criminal record in the past but tell me, honestly do any of you who judged him know him? Have you ever met him? No, I'm sure you haven't. I'm sure you never saw the side of him that wasn't on drugs, or wasn't doing anything wrong. He has a family that is so sweet, and so special.. Meet any of them, and you wouldn't dare to think for a second that he did what he was accused of. Yes he did kill a man, but who shot first? Duncan did. Frankie was defending his own self. Before you think anything wrong, ask yourself if a man started shooting at you what could you do? let yourself get killed? The report written about what happend is no where close to what really happend. And Duncas attorney was his own friend, who knew people in the law business and worked his way into getting justice for the man. I agree, Frankie did deserve some time in prison because he did kill a man but he deserves himself Justice. And he knows what he did, that's why he took the plea.. Also for his family, because he was unselfish enough to think about them. I'm sure he will think about what he has done. And wishing he could've been put to death is so wrong on anybody who thought that's part. What if it was Duncan in his place? if it was switched around? I'm sure nobody would be so cruel enough to say anything about him as they did Frankie. You all think he's such a bad person, while if you had met him your opinions would be so different. He made mistakes, and he's putting in the time for them so don't write something so low as to say he deserves more; because he doesn't. He deserves to live his life, with the people he loves and have a second chance. He was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.. Hopefully he will get out soon, and I promise you he won't be back in there again because he will learn. Frankie was and still is a good man. 

This post by justsomeone has to be a joke.  A good man?

==================================

The Shoals man accused of gunning down an elderly man near Florence has now officially been charged with capital murder.    

27-year-old Frankie Buttram was notified of his new charges late Monday. 

Police say he shot and killed 74-year-old John Duncan Sunday morning. 

Investigators say Buttram's stolen vehicle ran out of gas, leaving him stranded near Duncan's home on Robbins Beach Road along Shoal Creek. 

Buttram told investigators he was looking for a gasoline can inside the victim's boathouse and decided to take several boxes of ammunition.  

"Mr. Buttram went inside the boathouse and initially only took a cup-full of gas but it wasn't enough to start his car.  He went back and got some more and also collected several items and was taking them with him when Mr. Duncan confronted him," says Lauderdale County Detective Richard Richey.

Duncan and Buttram then exchanged gunfire. 

Duncan died near his front door.

As of Tuesday night, Buttram is still being held without bond

It doesn't matter if it was an intended kill or not. It still counts as murder. Nor can it be mitigated to self-defense. For one to be able to legally claim self-defense, one must not have been doing anything illegal oneself, at the time, at all. He had illegally entered that man's address in the first place, and armed, I should add. Just like if a bank robbery occurs. If a robber accidentally shoots and kills an innocent bystander, and/or if, say, a cop or security guard fired at a robber and missed and accidentally killed a bystander, the robber would be guilty of that person's murder. And I'm sure he does have good people in his family. But having good, likable people in one's family does not mean that one himself/herself is a good person. Many evil people come from good families. This in no way excuses or justifies one's own behavior. The fact that he was illegally broken into that man's address, and armed completely destroys any attempt to claim self-defense, regardless of whether he actually meant to kill him or not. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×