• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Convictions In The Arbery Case

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
All 3 men charged in Arbery's death convicted of murder | AP News
Excerpted...
BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — Jurors on Wednesday convicted the three white men charged in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, the Black man who was chased and fatally shot while running through their neighborhood in an attack that became part of the larger national reckoning on racial injustice.

The jury deliberated for about 10 hours before convicting Greg McMichael, son Travis McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan, who all face minimum sentences of life in prison. It is up to the judge to decide whether that comes with or without the possibility of parole.

Travis McMichael stood for the verdict, his lawyer’s arm around his shoulder. At one point, McMichael lowered his head to his chest. After the verdicts were read, as he stood to leave, he mouthed “love you” to his mother, who was in the courtroom.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
In this case, it was absolutely the right verdict, in my humble (non-legal-expert) opinion. I watched a great deal of this trial (as I did with Kyle Rittenhouse), and I was absolutely convinced.

Because I'm as old as I am, and remember the 1960s (and was told about previous decades), that's a part of the world where convicting white men of murdering a black person has been historically very, very hard in a jury trial. It might even be one of the reasons that these fellows thought they could get away with it -- that was the historical norm, after all.

I'm very glad that they did not.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
10 hours seems to be extremely quick for a triple murder sentence. The jury deliberated for bout 4 days in the Rittenhouse case if I remember correctly. I guess the prosecution evidences were indeed massive and its arguments very convincing.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I have to agree it seems justice was properly served givin the disclosed information about the case.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Travis McMichael stood for the verdict, his lawyer’s arm around his shoulder. At one point, McMichael lowered his head to his chest. After the verdicts were read, as he stood to leave, he mouthed “love you” to his mother, who was in the courtroom.

You know, after all this legal stuff that's been going on, and that we've all watched, the youtube algorithm has thrown me a spat of video suggestions showing these little 1 or 2 minute clips of people getting hauled away after verdicts.

I think that in some ways, these are sort of the most morbid scenes the public might lay eyes on, now instantaneously available to any and all. In the eyes of many, and mine as well, justice is there served - but that doesn't detract from the pure crushing reality that you might witness just by viewing those video bits. The fact that you are seeing then and there , the start of some long journey of punishment, should cause any to recoil somewhat

Just what does the bright orange clothing symbolize, how weird that is. A sort of color that runs too hot, with intractable energy

It might cause one to wonder just how efficacious such a journey is; is it meant as a cure for the individual, or is it meant to have bias towards mere punishment proper? A long hell through every moment of imprisonment, like a death by a thousand cuts of time, or is it the gate to some palliative hope, of relinquishing wrongs done

Our culture isn't exactly clear on this. For with religion, the thinking is that god would punish wrongs after death. With the secular, the thought is that life might be where wrongs are paid.

Prison then, seems to represent a sort of limbo that nests itself between the two views
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You know, after all this legal stuff that's been going on, and that we've all watched, the youtube algorithm has thrown me a spat of video suggestions showing these little 1 or 2 minute clips of people getting hauled away after verdicts.

I think that in some ways, these are sort of the most morbid scenes the public might lay eyes, now instantaneously available to any and all. In the eyes of many, and mine as well, justice is there served - but that doesn't detract from the pure crushing reality that you might witness just by viewing those video bits. The fact that you are seeing then and there , the start of some long journey of punishment, should cause any to recoil somewhat

Just what does the bright orange clothing symbolize, how weird that is. A sort of color that runs too hot, with intractable energy

It might cause one to wonder just how efficacious such a journey is; is it meant as a cure for the individual, or is it meant to have bias towards mere punishment proper? A long hell through every moment of imprisonment, like a death by a thousand cuts of time, or is it the gate to some palliative hope, of relinquishing wrongs done

Our culture isn't exactly clear on this. For with religion, the thinking is that god would punish wrongs after death. With the secular, the thought is that life might be where wrongs are paid.

Prison then, seems to represent a sort of limbo that nests itself between the two views
IMO we need prison reform to make it safer & rehabilitating.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
IMO we need prison reform to make it safer & rehabilitating.
Don't know why I find your comment somewhat astonishing -- but I do know that I think it's wisdom.

I know (and I use the word "know" deliberately) that many people can be rehabilitated. I won't tell you how I know -- but I do.

And I know that is an infinitely better outcome than locking somebody up forever and spending huge sums of taxpayers' money warehouse them.
 
All 3 men charged in Arbery's death convicted of murder | AP News
Excerpted...
BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — Jurors on Wednesday convicted the three white men charged in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, the Black man who was chased and fatally shot while running through their neighborhood in an attack that became part of the larger national reckoning on racial injustice.

The jury deliberated for about 10 hours before convicting Greg McMichael, son Travis McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan, who all face minimum sentences of life in prison. It is up to the judge to decide whether that comes with or without the possibility of parole.

Travis McMichael stood for the verdict, his lawyer’s arm around his shoulder. At one point, McMichael lowered his head to his chest. After the verdicts were read, as he stood to leave, he mouthed “love you” to his mother, who was in the courtroom.

There should be death penalty
 

Stonetree

Model Member
Premium Member
10 hours seems to be extremely quick for a triple murder sentence. The jury deliberated for bout 4 days in the Rittenhouse case if I remember correctly. I guess the prosecution evidences were indeed massive and its arguments very convincing.
Many convicted men have been on death row before new
evidence & arguments exonerated them. They were railroaded
by an incompetent &/or corrupt system. You're certain these
perps deserve it, but it would be applied to many more.
But would you be certain of all?
Not in favor of the death penalty unless the convicted are habitual killers,therefore obvious dangers to society. I've encountered one time killers and sadly even families of someone with multiple kills. There is a difference in my opinion. As to mental illness that has to be diagnosed and could make a difference in the decision whether the convicted should be confined(and treated)or even be included in a discussion of execution.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not in favor of the death penalty unless the convicted are habitual killers,therefore obvious dangers to society. I've encountered one time killers and sadly even families of someone with multiple kills. There is a difference in my opinion. As to mental illness that has to be diagnosed and could make a difference in the decision whether the convicted should be confined(and treated)or even be included in a discussion of execution.
Wouldn't all murderers have a mental defect of one kind or another?
Should murderer be punished less harshly just because the
psychiatric community calls it "mental illness"?
 
Many convicted men have been on death row before new
evidence & arguments exonerated them. They were railroaded
by an incompetent &/or corrupt system. You're certain these
perps deserve it, but it would be applied to many more.
But would you be certain of all?

No not certain of all
I'm certain for them :)
 

Stonetree

Model Member
Premium Member
Wouldn't all murderers have a mental defect of one kind or another?
Should murderer be punished less harshly just because the
psychiatric community calls it "mental illness"?
I do not believe all murderers have a mental defect. The Judicial system has always,in principle, considered mitigating circumstances during deliberations. The eighth amendment does not permit cruel and unusual punishment,convicted prisoners have constitutional rights.
xemption from full criminal punishment on such grounds dates back to at least the Code of Hammurabi.[2] Legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder are varied, and include the M'Naghten Rule, the Durham rule, the 1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report, the ALI rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of mens rea ("guilty mind").[1]: 613–635 [3] In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the M'Naghten Rules, with the terms defense of mental disorder, defense of mental illness or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder employed. Being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong is one basis for being found to be legally insane as a criminal defense.[1] It originated in the M'Naghten Rule, and has been reinterpreted and modernized through more recent cases, such as People v. Serravo.[1]: 615–625 

I
 
Top