I’m skeptical. I’m thinking there might be more to the story.
If true as the story reads, he probably doesn’t deserve the death penalty and maybe 17 years counts as time served. He was still an accessory and did take a part by mutilating the corpse and assumedly helping to hide the body, not to mention not turning in his co-conspirators. Maybe the courts add another few to take it to an even 20.
Interesting case.
Schiff happens.
Dindu Nuffin
Excellent summary of the Defense case.
Where can I read the Prosecution case?
Thanks.
A murder committed involves all in the group. Be careful of whom you associate with.
Seems like he was properly convicted of murder under the felony murder rule. Based on his own admissions, he participated in a robbery that resulted in the victim’s death.
Maybe it isn’t fair that the other guys got plea bargains, and maybe a death sentence is excessive, but I don’t see how anyone is supposed to be “exonerated” here.
Seems like he was properly convicted of murder under the felony murder rule. Based on his own admissions, he participated in a robbery that resulted in the victim’s death.
Maybe it isn’t fair that the other guys got plea bargains, and maybe a death sentence is excessive, but I don’t see how anyone is supposed to be “exonerated” here.
Felony murder. Having read this I don’t have too much sympathy for him.
Felony murder rule. If someone dies when you took part in the crime, legal consequence is the same as if you had done the deed yourself.
You don’t actually need to pull the trigger to land on death row. If the antecedent crime is itself a felony, that’s all that sufficient.
Don’t do the crime, stupid.
The scandal isn’t that he got the death penalty, but that the others were able to avoid it.
I...don’t actually see the problem here.
He participated in a murder, mutilated the body, no indication of attempt to stop or report the incident.
All participants should get what he got; that they didn’t (by working the broken system) doesn’t mean he should get off too.
Per well-established “felony murder” law, yes he did commit a murder - as part of a group intending to do so.
Part of the point of “felony murder” law is deterrent: yes, the state may very well execute you for knowingly participating in a group which, as a whole, murders - don’t. (Yes he was terrified of opposing the group. If he had, reason to believe the victim would have survived.)
It would be one thing if Bearup had rejected a plea bargain. But the prosecutor never offered? Did his attorney ever try to negotiate, make the first move?
Usually the culprits who get the plea bargains shift all blame to the one who didn’t, but that didn’t happen here.
Not the first such case I’ve heard of, where a less culpable accessory is sentenced more harshly than the most directly involved.
Don’t commit felonies with other bad people
Either Rachel is ignorant or a liar. She sets out a clear case that Bearup was, in fact, guilty of murder.
If one does buy her version of the story, there does appear to be reasonable grounds to question whether the death penalty is appropriate for the crime committed. But based upon her faulty conclusion, I'm not sure I'm willing to buy her spin on it at this point.
The moral of the story is simple.Guilty; cut a deal, innocent, put a gun in your mouth and appeal to Jesus. If you are a gambler who couldn’t win a hand with a quad of natural aces, ask for a public defender.
If you have watched this travesty involving in the justice department over the last three years and can still believe you can get a fair trail, I believe you are beyond help.