Missing staple lets murderers appeal

[Dreamer128]

SYDNEY (Reuters) - A missing staple from a court document has allowed two murderers found guilty of one of Australia's most brutal killings to appeal against their convictions.

Under a technical loophole, the murderers will argue that an earlier lost appeal was not finalized because the indictment paperwork was never fixed to the court file as required by law.

"It just seems so wrong," said Bev Balding, mother of Janine Balding who was abducted and brutally gang raped and drowned by a group of men on the outskirts of Sydney in 1988.

Balding's murderers are serving life sentences, with a judge's recommendation they never to be released.

"How do they know someone has not removed the staple on purpose? You can't rely on the law when it relies on a solitary staple," Bev Balding told reporters Monday.

The New South Wales (NSW) state government said it was looking at ways to close the technical loophole.

"I understand that closing this loophole through an amendment to the court rules of the supreme court is currently being considered...to avoid it being an issue of discussion in any future case," said NSW acting state premier John Watkins.


http://www.reuters.com/article/oddly...29539820070709

[Black Baron]

Stupid bureaucracy, but unfortunately legal.
Do not they have a death sentence over there? Far easier in my opinion.

[Dreamer128]

..and generally much more expensive. Besides, I don't think there's much of a difference between letting them wait for death behind bars and killing them straight away.

[Larry_OHF]

"How do they know someone has not removed the staple on purpose?

Because there would be two holes in the paper that is not so easily covered up...unless a staple in Australia is something other than what I call a staple.

However, the next part of that statement is more sensible.

You can't rely on the law when it relies on a solitary staple"

[ 07-10-2007, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[johnny]

Some people shouldn't be allowed to appeal to anything. Just feed them to the sharks, it's in everyone's best interrest.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: ..and generally much more expensive. Besides, I don't think there's much of a difference between letting them wait for death behind bars and killing them straight away.

How is execution more expensive than housing them for 60 or so years? It's not like they'll have any more access to the courts than they do now, and you wouldn't be feeding them for an extended period, just long enough to stick the needle in, or flip a switch.

[Dreamer128]

It is my understanding that the extreme expenses related to the death penalty are mainly due to the additional safeguards that are taken by the state to ensure that no innocent person is ever sentenced to death. You can, for example, check http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...08#From%20DPIC for more information. Although googling under 'death penalty cost' also reveals a wealth of information.

Some information copied from site posted above:

* At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.

* On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.

* Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional $137,000 in public defense costs.

[robertthebard]

Ok, in reading through some of the materials in that link, I think somebody isn't doing their math. In the Kansas example, it says that executing the sentence, not just the prisoner, but the sentence, a death penalty case incurs half the costs of a non death penalty case. In the long run then, one could surmise that the trial costs would be partially balanced out by this.

The example above, for Tennessee, I believe, says at the beginning that there are no records kept for cost, then continues on to say that the trial costs 48% more. If there are no records, where does that number come from?

Logic dictates that a 25 year old man, sentenced to life, without possiblility of parole could very well live 60+ years, drawing resources for Medical, Housing, Dental for all of those years. The State is responsible for those, on top of the day to day expenses involved in maintaining a legal environment for detainment.

In Kansas, the "Super Max" inmates are housed in a cell house where they are in their cells 23 hours a day. They have access to items from the commissary, such as TV's, etc, depending on whether they are on suicide watch or not. These add additional costs to maintaining them.

I don't see how housing an inmate for 60+ years can be counted as more expensive than housing a death row inmate for 10 years prior to their execution, if they are housed that long. One aspect of the sentencing may be more expensive, of that there can be little doubt, as everyone wants to be sure they have the right person, however, these costs are balanced out by the amount of time they won't be serving, compared to a non death penalty case, as can be evidenced by the Kansas example in your link.

[Black Baron]

Sometimes i miss Lynch trials...

[Aerich]

Leaving aside the whole death penalty sidebar, just because they may get another appeal does not mean that they will be set free, or even that they will get another trial. It's a little short-sighted to condemn the process as a failure at this stage.

To be successful, appeals generally have to prove that the trial judge made an error in applying the law. Also notice that they have appealed once already and lost; it is the fact that the appeal paperwork was technically not "complete" that may allow for further court submissions. Considering that they or their lawyers are likely to have tried (and failed) to argue almost every possible error by the trial judge on the previous appeal, their chances of having the conviction overturned now are slim to none, even if the appeal is allowed to continue on technical grounds.