top of page

Lit Painting Group

Public·4 members
Eli Anderson
Eli Anderson

Death Sentence - Sweet Thing Of Innocence (1986)

The jurors deliberated for four hours before finding Palombo and Phillips guilty of conspiracy to murder and first-degree murder. Before handing down a sentence of life in prison, the judge asked Phillips if he had anything to say.

Death Sentence - Sweet Thing Of Innocence (1986)


On October 20, 2009, the Michigan Parole and Commutation Board granted Phillips a public hearing. If he said the right things, the governor might commute his life sentence, and he might go free.

And so he let Mitchell go, and Mitchell drank himself to death at age 49, and Phillips stayed in his cell, painting his way to freedom. He looked old when he came out of prison, blinking in the cold sunlight, but he got new clothes and dyed his hair, and he began to look younger, as if he had turned back time. Now he rides on the highway in the late afternoon, singing that song again: always old, forever new, the sound of wisdom and innocence.

Five days after Dailey was sentenced to death, Skalnik was released from jail on his own recognizance, which meant he did not have to put up bail on the pending grand theft charge. Then he skipped town.

On 15 December 1985 they were transferred to Kuala Lumpur for their appeal to the Malaysian Supreme Court. There they were imprisoned in Pudu Prison. Barlow continued to profess his innocence.[21] Pudu Prison had been built in 1895 to hold about 700. By 1986 it held around 6,000 prisoners, almost 50 of whom were drug dealers sentenced to death.[19]

Due process considerations can also come into play in sentencing if the state attempts to withhold relevant information from the jury. For instance, in Simmons v. South Carolina, the Court held that due process requires that if prosecutor makes an argument for the death penalty based on the future dangerousness of the defendant to society, the jury must then be informed if the only alternative to a death sentence is a life sentence without possibility of parole.1243 But, in Ramdass v. Angelone,1244 the Court refused to apply the reasoning of Simmons because the defendant was not technically parole ineligible at time of sentencing.

1247 Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973). The Court concluded that the possibility of vindictiveness was so low because normally the jury would not know of the result of the prior trial nor the sentence imposed, nor would it feel either the personal or institutional interests of judges leading to efforts to discourage the seeking of new trials. Justices Stewart, Brennan, and Marshall thought the principle was applicable to jury sentencing and that prophylactic limitations appropriate to the problem should be developed. Id. at 35, 38. Justice Douglas dissented on other grounds. Id. at 35. The Pearce presumption that an increased, judge-imposed second sentence represents vindictiveness also is inapplicable if the second trial came about because the trial judge herself concluded that a retrial was necessary due to prosecutorial misconduct before the jury in the first trial. Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986).

For the past decade, about two out of three people in the United States have said yes, they are. But at the same time, the death penalty has been on the decline. In 2000, 224 people were sentenced to death in the United States. In 2010, half as many were given death sentences.

Jason SmithOdds of receiving a death sentence in North Carolina, when compared to a white defendant convicted of killing someone of another race in North Carolina, 1993 to 1997. Data: Isaac Unah and John Boger

But the idea of studying the death penalty intrigued him. Unlike a lot of public policy issues, the death penalty has straightforward outcomes you can count: numbers of death sentences and executions. That appeals to someone who would rather point to hard data than sit around discussing theory.

Baumgartner got on the train at the right time: in 2002, public discussion about the death penalty had just flipped, the same way that nuclear power had. What once seemed a sure thing was now fraught with questions. Were innocent people being executed? Was race a factor in convictions? How could a defendant be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, only to be exonerated through DNA evidence years later?

The train on its own could arguably represent death, being the thing that knocks Ray Brower out of his Keds. Within the group, the boys acknowlegde the train before removing themselves from the tracks. But Teddy, unaffected by fear of death, faces a train head on, pretending to shoot it with a machine gun like in all his father's war stories. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


  • thejourney27
  • Hanah Baring
    Hanah Baring
  • Landon Diaz
    Landon Diaz
  • Eli Anderson
    Eli Anderson
bottom of page