What is Digg?127 Comments
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -2/+77What spineless lemmings were on the jury to convict her in the first place?
You do NOT have vote guilty simply because the prosecutor says so. It's called jury nullification and can be used by any jury on any case anywhere. Simply find the person not guilty. - andregriffin, on 04/29/2008, -0/+52How dare you make a title with that much suspense.
- fitqueenb, on 04/29/2008, -0/+46It is good to see that some state compensate for their errors, but feel the paperwork should immediately follow so that they can actually work. That they are flooded is one thing, all it means is that the government is staffed to arrest, but not fix it mistakes, just leaves them hanging, unfair situation. These people can't work, or get good paying jobs, could end them up on social assistance, costing the country more money.
- Pfkninenines, on 04/29/2008, -2/+37Wait, so you're supposed to know when someone is about to randomly go nuts and kill someone? If she would have known it was going to happen, my guess is that she wouldn't have stuck around.
What kid of moron would think that she's responsible for this in any way? - imacommi, on 04/29/2008, -12/+45Not that you should judge a book by it's cover, but that guy in the picture looks like a total slimebag...
- geneticlemon, on 04/29/2008, -3/+30In other news: US prisons overcrowded, because our federal government feels compelled to 1) wrongfully imprison innocent people for ***** and giggles, and 2) go after people smoking weed and downloading illegal files off the internet. Glad to know we have our priorities straight in this country.
- acdcfanbill, on 04/29/2008, -0/+26While I agree with you, there system is such that when the lawyers and judges whittle down the potential juror's they always get rid of people who can't be swayed, or those that would use jury nullification. When my father had jury duty a couple years back, he got into a big argument with the prosecuting attorney because the attorney asked if my father would convict if he could prove 95%. My father said no, you need prove beyond reasonable doubt, and if there was reasonable doubt in the 5% he wouldn't vote guilty. This apparently annoyed the Attorney and the Judge, but he wouldn't budge and was not selected to serve on the jury.
- str1fe, on 04/29/2008, -1/+17What?
I could understand, MAYBE, if she were given a reckless endangerment charge (which is comparatively a slap on the wrist), but that's still way over the top. Why should charges even be brought against her? I'm sure she saw no reason to not trust her boyfriend before that, people aren't mind readers. I'm glad the Illinois Supreme Court threw the conviction out, but that should have happened six years sooner. - Alexcarrier, on 04/29/2008, -4/+18Worst title ever.
- furi0us1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13mentioning the words jury nullification is the easiest way to not get selected as a juror
- DivisibleByZero, on 04/29/2008, -1/+12The headline and description here incredibly misleading. Going to prison unjustly for 6 years sucks a hell of a lot, but the story's more about her only being halfway exonerated. That's probably even worse.
- Defuser, on 04/29/2008, -1/+12It's wonderful that we have so many Telepaths, Lawyers, and members of the original Jury here this evening. Because otherwise, I'd be left with nothing but the assumption that most Diggers are ignorant ***** who make snap judgments without knowing anything at all about the topic at hand.
The reason the jury found that she "should have known" that her boyfriend was a danger was because he had a history of violent abuse. Here, try learning something before opening your mouths: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCou ...
The guy had been beating the kid for a long time prior to killing her. The doctors knew it, and the wife sure as hell SHOULD have known it. Should she have gotten 35 years? I guess it depends what you think the life of a 3 year old girl is worth. - greeniemeani, on 04/29/2008, -2/+12You don't know anything when your sleeping because your asleep. This is *****.
- Ohimesama, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9Do some research. The man who killed her daughter is Scott English. Not the same man who is in the photo with her.
- Bagos1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9This falls perfectly in line with our new thought crime legislation. Not only can you be brought to justice for thinking bad things, you can now be charged with other peoples bad thoughts, intentions and acts.
- Ladymongoose, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9I'm a little baffled by the 'she should have known' crap....No jury in the world would convinct a peson based on something that she or he 'might' have perpetrated. you cannot arrest a person based on a crime they might, in the future, commit.The same thing applies here.
- codefreakxff, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8I got the impression that her old boyfriend killed her child, and that this was a recent photo of her and her new fiance - but maybe I'm wrong...
- Ohimesama, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8The man in the picture is not the man who killed the little girl. The murderer is named Scott English.
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8Killer sweater, man. Killer sweater man!
- badenglishihave, on 04/29/2008, -2/+9So I guess since she was in "prision" she was a "prisioner"?
- skags, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8"This whole experience has taught me not to have any hopes or dreams."
Well at least she learned a valuable lesson.
/crying inside - inactive, on 04/29/2008, -4/+11you know it is funny that you said that when this woman was put in jail because she should have known he would kill someone. Perhaps, the judge was saying just look at this sketchy *****
- brbubba, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8And this is the problem with America today. The concept of a penal system is to ensure that criminals receive a punishment commensurate with their crime. It is not designed to ruin their lives and forever deny those individuals their basic rights, dignities, and ability to pursue happiness.
- oriondr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6More importantly, what kind of scum of a DA would press charges in the first place for this.
- tattertech, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7Did you shiver with antici...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
pation. - pintomp3, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6"Illinois law gives exonerated former prisoners fewer services than paroled convicts." wtf
- pintomp3, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5the article doesn't mention that this went to trial. 97% of all cases never see a trial, they are settled. they often use harsh punishments like the death penalty to push the person into taking a plea bargain. the combination of an underfunded court system, the prison industrial complex, and the fact that many localities actually profit from the parole system leads to many innocent people serving time they shouldn't be.
- j3ff86, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5She's no prized pony either.
- cathl, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5We have been trying to legalize marijuana through organizing and protesting for the last 40 years, and it hasn't worked.
On another point, civil disobedience sometimes involves breaking laws, particularly if they are unjust and impinging upon our personal freedoms. Rosa Parks is a good illustration of this. It was illegal to not give up your bus seat to a white person in Alabama in the 1950s if you were black. - akashra, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7Why is it that we're reading so many stores lately of people in the US having trouble going about their lives after they've been found not guilty of crimes, or having cases thrown out?
Sounds like a very broken system... or society. - centerblack, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Living in the USA is ***** sweet, but I'd hardly call anyone making legitimate critical comments about the USA a hate-monger. Obviously there's a reason to be critical in this case. Does it make sense that someone is released from prison but NOT cleared of the conviction because some Governor is "busy"?
This isn't about building a "magical" system of government that never makes mistakes, it's about making amends and reparations for mistakes ASAP. We can't give these people back the 10,20,30, ? years that were stolen from them, it's not right to unjustly punish them any longer than we already have. - Druc3, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6I don't understand it. Check out this one: http://digg.com/health/Please_Digg_Woman_charged_w ... A woman charged with contempt of court for seeking health care for her daughter. Seems that the punish the mother at all costs seems to be a pattern.
- MrZaiko, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5"Buy Photo"
WHy would I want such a creepy looking picture... - newbis, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5I want to start by saying I'm very close to the Tabitha Pollock case. I won't say how, but I am emotionally and physically very close to the case.
Tabitha Pollock is scum. She and her boyfriend, Scott English, were being watched by DCFS for child abuse and endangerment. She had three sons and a daughter. Tabitha and Scott regularly abused them regularly, and one night Scott took it to the next level and killed Jami Sue. Tabitha knew what was happening. She was a participant, not a bystander. She runs around now like a victim of the system.
Jami Sue was only hit twice the night she died, yet had over a hundred bruises on her body. All of her children had hundreds of bruises on them. So Tabitha didn't want her daughter to die. I'm sure Scott didn't want her to die either. Tabitha had been warned about the abuse and was told her take her children somewhere safe. How does it make sense that she goes completely unpunished? In my opinion, she's more evil than Scott. Scott apologized. Scott was sorry. Tabitha uses her daughter's death as a media tool.
P.S. I know both, Tabitha and Scott's, parents. If I had to guess which pair would raise a murderer I would have guessed Tabitha's. The Englishs are some of the nicest people I've ever met. - Ladymongoose, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Huh?
- Ladymongoose, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Ok, well DIGG did not allow me to edit my comment...let me further it: this woman could not have been expected to read this man's mind. She had no part in her baby's murder. I can't imagine what she is going through.
- Fatboy277, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5wait, wait so her boyfriend kills her daughter and she gets blamed? What the crap is wrong with the judge?
- Midtowner, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4The court system in America is heavily weighted against Defendants, particularly those who have insufficient resources to mount a good defense. Public Defenders, while noble, often good at what they do, etc. are just overworked and underpaid.
In the main case here, the story glosses over some details I would find interesting -- first off, why did the jury convict her 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that she "should have known" her boyfriend was a killer? I somehow get the feeling here that the Post is trying to filter the facts so that it can make a statement about the penal system rather than about this particular woman's plight. What I see here is that her conviction was thrown out because the judge and prosecutor interpreted the facts to fit a statute and a burden which the facts couldn't fit -- not because this woman was not culpable or responsible for the death.
All that said, I have no idea what to do about the system. I'd like to say it's as simple as restructuring our stance towards illegal drugs, especially marijuana. It really could be that easy. I'd like to think it might be. Unfortunately, I doubt any elected official has the cajones to fund such a study. - wafflesomd, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Holy ***** that guy is creepy.
- Risingashes, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4You have a link to verify this claim?
- allah6464, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Uhm. Is it so hard to spend a couple seconds to proofread -- or, scratch that, actually think of a good title before submitting a story?
- shamanlife, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4We should all start accepting the fines and imprisonments we are to get, for all of our future crimes.
- Charklii, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4I'm annoyed, that America has allowed this to happen. I don't consider it any decent way to treat a human.
Now some (emphasis on it only being "some") Americans claim that they're doing good in Iraq because previously Iraqis were not being treated fairly and being abused. As true as parts of this argument may be, when I have stories like this in mind - I can't help but think of hypocrisy.
Maybe though, I'm an ignorant little New Zealander? Please correct me if that is the case and I am mistaken somewhere. But isn't this system, not only broken (as some comments point out) but - inhumane? - azzy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4totally..sheeeesh. some ppl are just dumb.
- MLisa, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Try reading. That is NOT the murderer.
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Hmm, I didn't know gonorrhea mutated into a mental disease. Seek medical help.
- eryximachus, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Reading most of these responses really allowed me to undertand something of the typical suburban, antisocial digg reader. The internet has allowed such a twisted version of human nature to manifest, the first thing everyone assumes in this case is A) jurorers are retarded and the system is broken AND b) no one would kill a kid unless it was a random, freak occurence.
How can you possibly have such diametrically opposed visions of the typical citizen of this country? How can you have such contempt for the people as jurorers but assume that violent tendencies are freak intermittent occurences?
I read the headline and the first thing I assumed was exactly what you said - this couple had a long history of abuse and finally the kid just died from the cumulative trauma. I live in NYC, this kind of stuff happens all the time in housing projects here. I don't know - maybe when you live in the suburbs or go to a nice isolated school you just think life is like a nice sitcom?
Bizarre. - sirbeta, on 04/29/2008, -2/+5It's absolutely ludicrous that they thought she should have foreseen the danger that her child might be brutally murdered by her boyfriend. I hope she gets a full pardon for this. She didn't assist in the killing, didn't know her child was going to die. She had nothing to do with the murder other than getting involved with someone with a very secret side to them. I should not have to live my life worried that I'll be jailed wrongfully because someone I know killed someone and "I should have known it could happen possibly maybe at some point in time"
- sirbeta, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Dear *****: The article mentions no prior abuse. Care to back up your claims or do you make a habit of fabricating facts out of thin air? Obviously I do not know these details if the article completely avoids them.
- nomadbea, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Sadly, I agree. Someone should step up and make a change.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is