Thread: Aaron Hernandez commits suicide in prison

Originally Posted by BeefStew25

With DNA testing I think it's getting better.

It is getting better - but there is a lot of evidence in regards to doctored up and falsified tests coming back. A lot of the forensic labs are also tied to police departments and that conflict of interest is pretty obvious.

It also does nothing to deter crime, the largest predictor of who gets the death penalty is the race of the victim. It costs so much money, and the state can't undue it. The justification for the death penalty is essentially that we're angry and we want to kill them. There's no actual logistical benefit to doing so.

Its a solid punishment.

Originally Posted by BeefStew25

Its a solid punishment.

If you told me that some people deserve to die, I'd agree with you. If you told me that others should be endangered in a flawed system so those people who deserve to die do die I disagree.

Saw this in the MMQB and thought I would post it here:

“We would hang out and we would talk. When we first exchanged numbers, he called me over and said, ‘Hey I just want you to know, you’re my guy. If you need anything let me know, I will help you out if I can. But I just want you to know, if you f--- me over, I’ll kill you.’ I sort of laughed a little bit, and I said, ‘Don’t worry, I got you. I’ll take care of you.’”

—Ian Rapoport of NFL Network, a former Patriots beat reporter, to The MMQB’s Kalyn Kahler for her “Talking Football,” on a meeting he had early on in his relationship with Aaron Hernandez.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/04/24/c...sky-peter-king

AH's actions definitely put this in a different light than people usually take comments about killing someone.

Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction was vacated today. Massachusetts law allows for throwing the conviction out because he died while awaiting an appeal. The DA says he will appeal the decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court if need be.

What a terrible law. They can still hold the appeal hearing and make whatever determination they need to without Hernandez present.

Originally Posted by Davii

Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction was vacated today. Massachusetts law allows for throwing the conviction out because he died while awaiting an appeal. The DA says he will appeal the decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court if need be.

What a terrible law. They can still hold the appeal hearing and make whatever determination they need to without Hernandez present.

Massachusetts....

his estate will be getting a good chunk of money from the Patriots and NFL pension

Only semi-decent thing he ever did was killing himself to set his family up for a payday.

Hopefully Bob Kraft's wallet is adversely affected by this.

Originally Posted by Davii

Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction was vacated today. Massachusetts law allows for throwing the conviction out because he died while awaiting an appeal. The DA says he will appeal the decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court if need be.

What a terrible law. They can still hold the appeal hearing and make whatever determination they need to without Hernandez present.

I'm not sure it's a terrible law, because a person has the right to defend themselves. Even if convicted because there have been cases of someone innocent being convicted.

Now, in the case of suicide? That's another story.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I'm not sure it's a terrible law, because a person has the right to defend themselves. Even if convicted because there have been cases of someone innocent being convicted.

Now, in the case of suicide? That's another story.

The appeal can still be heard on the grounds it was made in the first place. The judge can then determine whether the presence of the appellant would have caused significant change to the proceedings and then rule if the prior conviction should be vacated. If you die before you have your day in court then you will not be found guilty, but he had his day in court, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and made an appeal based on something particular (either he didn't get a fair trial, there is new evidence, his defense was negligent, etc). The judge can very easily rule on the specific item(s) the appeal was for without the appellant present.

Aaron didn't even testify in his defense at his initial hearing, yet him not being present at an appeal is a legal reason to just completely vacate the initial ruling? Garbage.

Originally Posted by Davii

The appeal can still be heard on the grounds it was made in the first place. The judge can then determine whether the presence of the appellant would have caused significant change to the proceedings and then rule if the prior conviction should be vacated. If you die before you have your day in court then you will not be found guilty, but he had his day in court, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and made an appeal based on something particular (either he didn't get a fair trial, there is new evidence, his defense was negligent, etc). The judge can very easily rule on the specific item(s) the appeal was for without the appellant present.

Aaron didn't even testify in his defense at his initial hearing, yet him not being present at an appeal is a legal reason to just completely vacate the initial ruling? Garbage.

I get your point, but the law states people have a right to defend themselves. If the appeal was already "approved" and scheduled, I don't really have a problem with that law. It doesn't matter if he testified or not in the original case.

I do have a problem in the case of suicide though. Believe me - I'm not defending this POS, but I don't think the law is necessarily bad.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I get your point, but the law states people have a right to defend themselves. If the appeal was already "approved" and scheduled, I don't really have a problem with that law. It doesn't matter if he testified or not in the original case.

I do have a problem in the case of suicide though. Believe me - I'm not defending this POS, but I don't think the law is necessarily bad.

I think it is. I think the law should allow for the appeal to move forward and allow the judge to make that call.

I'm not persuaded either way.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

I'm not persuaded either way.

Wait. What? I thought you'd be on my side for SURE!

I'm disappointed in you, King.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Wait. What? I thought you'd be on my side for SURE!

I'm disappointed in you, King.

I haven't read enough to have an informed opinion on it. I think one thing that Davii should consider is if it's worth it for the state to foot the bill for a dead man's appeal? I think continuing legal actions after a person's death can be important -liability like poisoned water/products, actual claims of innocence, estate/will issues- but in this case it seems like it was just filed so he could do this legal maneuver.

On the other hand, if an appeal exists so the innocent aren't locked up -even if they're mostly just formalities in most instances- and Hernandez did it just to send money to his family...isn't that subversive? Doesn't that make a mockery of the system? My questions both operate on the same presupposition of 'he's super guilty, his estate is broke, so he's doing (at least as one motivation) as a last gasp to provide for his family...

I don't know what I think the law should state as I don't know the precedent. I don't know what I think the law should be, morally speaking, too.

I just don't know.