What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
01-12-2005 | 08:24 PM
#11
Registered
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 1
From: atlantic city, NJ
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Originally Posted by Comanche3Six
01-12-2005 | 08:30 PM
#12
Registered
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,606
Likes: 0
From: Lewis Center, Ohio
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Did Kramer appeal it? I wouldnt think an appeal would be worth while on something like 6 life's?
Edit- D'oh! Thanks Commanche
Edit- D'oh! Thanks Commanche
01-12-2005 | 09:06 PM
#13
Registered
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,915
Likes: 0
From: Toledo Oh
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
The guy is a scumbag, murdering drug dealer, why would any sane person want him out. Whats next. Free Charles Manson? Free The Unibomber? Free Terry Nichols? How about Mark David Chapman, he probably got a bum rap. It's bad enough that OJ is walking around we don't need any more trash on the street. 
01-12-2005 | 10:49 PM
#14
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 1
From: Monroe, LA
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Originally Posted by Troutly
And then there is this part....
" As these dispositions indicate, we must apply today's holdings--both the Sixth Amendment holding and our remedial interpretation of the Sentencing Act--to all cases on direct review. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 (1987) ("[A]new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases ... pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the past"). See also Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U. S. 749, 752 (1995) (civil case); Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 97 (1993) (same). That fact does not mean that we believe that every sentence gives rise to a Sixth Amendment violation. Nor do we believe that every appeal will lead to a new sentencing hearing. That is because we expect reviewing courts to apply ordinary prudential doctrines, determining, for example, whether the issue was raised below and whether it fails the "plain-error" test. It is also because, in cases not involving a Sixth Amendment violation, whether resentencing is warranted or whether it will instead be sufficient to review a sentence for reasonableness may depend upon application of the harmless-error doctrine. "
" As these dispositions indicate, we must apply today's holdings--both the Sixth Amendment holding and our remedial interpretation of the Sentencing Act--to all cases on direct review. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 (1987) ("[A]new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases ... pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the past"). See also Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U. S. 749, 752 (1995) (civil case); Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 97 (1993) (same). That fact does not mean that we believe that every sentence gives rise to a Sixth Amendment violation. Nor do we believe that every appeal will lead to a new sentencing hearing. That is because we expect reviewing courts to apply ordinary prudential doctrines, determining, for example, whether the issue was raised below and whether it fails the "plain-error" test. It is also because, in cases not involving a Sixth Amendment violation, whether resentencing is warranted or whether it will instead be sufficient to review a sentence for reasonableness may depend upon application of the harmless-error doctrine. "
Ummmm... Doesn't that say it IS retroactive in a case like Benny's? That's what it looks like.
01-12-2005 | 10:51 PM
#15
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 1
From: Monroe, LA
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Originally Posted by Madcow
The guy is a scumbag, murdering drug dealer, why would any sane person want him out. Whats next. Free Charles Manson? Free The Unibomber? Free Terry Nichols? How about Mark David Chapman, he probably got a bum rap. It's bad enough that OJ is walking around we don't need any more trash on the street.
01-13-2005 | 07:04 AM
#17
Registered
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 3
From: Waterford,MI
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Ben Kramer is yesterday's news. Why does anyone even care? It's not like he's going to jump right back into offshore racing. He'd have to start his business back up to finance it.
01-13-2005 | 07:38 AM
#18
Platinum Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,346
Likes: 10
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Originally Posted by Madcow
The guy is a scumbag, murdering drug dealer, why would any sane person want him out. Whats next. Free Charles Manson? Free The Unibomber? Free Terry Nichols? How about Mark David Chapman, he probably got a bum rap. It's bad enough that OJ is walking around we don't need any more trash on the street.
01-13-2005 | 07:45 AM
#19
Registered
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,819
Likes: 14
From: cleveland
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Originally Posted by offshore-drillin
I never knew the whole story, still dont, but if there were drugs involved throw away the key...Just my humble opinion...Rob
offshore racing? drugs? the 80s? nah.....
01-13-2005 | 08:05 AM
#20
Registered
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,900
Likes: 10
From: Vice City & Tavernier, FL
Re: What part of "Ben Kramer is coming home" do you not understand?
Originally Posted by Madcow
The guy is a scumbag, murdering drug dealer, why would any sane person want him out. Whats next. Free Charles Manson? Free The Unibomber? Free Terry Nichols? How about Mark David Chapman, he probably got a bum rap. It's bad enough that OJ is walking around we don't need any more trash on the street.
donz jr mike
