Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man

[cprenegade]

Show me any evidence that the death penalty brings the crime rate down.

Find me one western European country (none of which has the death penalty) with a crime rate close to ours.

Hmmmm.

That it is ineffective is one big problem; the "oops" factor is another; the company of nations this puts us in is another; lastly, it diminishes us as a people.

It is obviously impossible to really show what is a deterrent and what isn't. Capital punishment is used so infrequently in the US that it probably isn't even a threat as a deterrent. That is not likely to change as the trend seems to be going the other way. One thing I can tell you is that I can guarantee that someone executed will not commit another murder and destroy another families life. You cannot give me that same guarantee through life imprisonment or any other penalty. As far as diminishing us as a people, that is simply your opinion. You are entitled to it, and it is a fair opinion. But it is my opinion that someone who takes another's life no longer has the right to their own. If you don't want to be executed, don't commit a murder. I don't see where it is that hard to do.

Twenty years ago, when James Ealy’s conviction in the slaying of a pregnant woman and three children was thrown out on appeal, a Chicago judge warned that a menace to society was about to be turned loose.

Two decades later, prosecutors believe Judge Thomas J. Maloney has been proven horribly right.

Ealy, now 42, shuffled into a suburban Chicago courtroom this week, again accused of murder. Prosecutors say he strangled a Burger King employee last month with the bow tie from her uniform.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16095797...ed-kill-again/

[Just Pondering]

I always thought it was quite odd how Liberals were for abortion, but against the death penalty and Conservatives were against abortion, but for the death penalty.

I am pro abortion and pro death penalty!

I am also. Does that makes us moderates? I never thought I could be considered conservative if I was for a woman's right to choose.

Don't worry about labels. Most people hate being flatly called a Democrat, a Republican, a Liberal, a Conservative, or even a Moderate. These terms are the kindling that start discussion flame-wars.

Interesting though to think about the relationship between abortion and death penalty sentencing and why some people treat them differently. Maybe it's about the unborn child's inability to control his or her destiny, whereas the adult chose to commit a death penalty offense?

[Contumacious]

But on the second, if the individuals who are convicted of murder would not have chosen their path, .

The ISSUE is whether he/she who was convicted is actually factually guilty.

.

[Cetshwayo]

Use drones...you get no blood on your hands and you get to keep your Nobel Peace Prize...Yes you can!

Does Erkel Holder have blood on his hands from fast and furious?

Erkel Holder, that's funny, thanks for the laugh!

[Dryfire]

Show me any evidence that the death penalty brings the crime rate down.

I can't say 100% but I'll go out on a limb and say that 99.94% of all criminals that have been executed do not commit anymore crimes from the that time on.

There, you have it.

[cprenegade]

The ISSUE is whether he/she who was convicted is actually factually guilty.

.

If that is the issue, then the issue is really not the penalty, but our system of justice and convictions. Work to insure that false convictions do not happen, and that problem is ended. Eliminating a sentence is not fixing the problem of wrongful convictions.

[Contumacious]

If that is the issue, then the issue is really not the penalty, but our system of justice and convictions. Work to insure that false convictions do not happen, and that problem is ended. Eliminating a sentence is not fixing the problem of wrongful convictions.

Excuse me vern.

But we are talking about CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - once the sentenced is carried out nothing left to do but bury the mistake.

First, the system must ascertain ACTUAL FACTUAL GUILT THEN PUNISH.

But, like I have indicated before, Texas Judges appoint counsel who is not going to to force them to read lots of motions or sit through trials. They have more important things to do.

The Federal Habeas Corpus System is busting at the seams - judges do not read those complaints.

So, defendants are executed WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

READ MORE HERE:

42 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1 (1973)

Defective Assistance of Counsel, The; Bazelon, David L.
(former chief Judge DC Federal Court of Appeals

.

[cprenegade]

Excuse me vern.

But we are talking about CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - once the sentenced is carried out nothing left to do but bury the mistake.

First, the system must ascertain ACTUAL FACTUAL GUILT THEN PUNISH.

But, like I have indicated before, Texas Judges appoint counsel who is not going to to force them to read lots of motions or sit through trials. They have more important things to do.

The Federal Habeas Corpus System is busting at the seams - judges do not read those complaints.

So, defendants are executed WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

READ MORE HERE:

42 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1 (1973)

Defective Assistance of Counsel, The; Bazelon, David L.
(former chief Judge DC Federal Court of Appeals

.

So everything you have stated is a problem with the process, vern, not a problem with the penalty. Fix the process so that if the penalty is going to be carried out, it is only done so when there is 100% proof of guilt. Don't end the penalty because the process is flawed, fix the process.

[Contumacious]

So everything you have stated is a problem with the process, vern, not a problem with the penalty. Fix the process so that if the penalty is going to be carried out, it is only done so when there is 100% proof of guilt. Don't end the penalty because the process is flawed, fix the process.

Gee, man, how long is that going to take? The mo'fo's is Texas will continue executing because they have too much pride to admit they are wrong. The Prosecutors and Judges are elected to office so they don't want to give in to namby pamby "liberal arguments". Furthermore, the defendants are either Mexican or Negroes. Who gives a shiite?!?!?!?!?

.

[Kenect2]

Supporting the death penalty in itself requires accepting that occasionally the government is going to get the wrong person. There is no perfect method and never will be one. Personally I don't see how anyone can trust the government to administer something like the death penalty it in anything approaching a rational or morally acceptable manner, absent serious ignorance about how our criminal justice system functions.

You don't get to look at one side of the problem while you ignore the other side. It is very rare that an innocent person is killed. Also very rare, a heinous criminal escapes or is let out of prison and commits more heinous crimes. You must account for both problems.

I do not accept that it is a matter of necessity that innocent people be accidentally killed by the death penalty. I believe that the problem of innocent deaths should be easier to resolve than the problem of heinous criminals getting out of prison. Only the most extreme criminals should be executed. Criminal masterminds like Anders Breivik, where no one doubts his guilt, should certainly be executed.

[NCBirdfan]

You don't get to look at one side of the problem while you ignore the other side. It is very rare that an innocent person is killed. Also very rare, a heinous criminal escapes or is let out of prison and commits more heinous crimes. You must account for both problems.

I do not accept that it is a matter of necessity that innocent people be accidentally killed by the death penalty. I believe that the problem of innocent deaths should be easier to resolve than the problem of heinous criminals getting out of prison. Only the most extreme criminals should be executed. Criminal masterminds like Anders Breivik, where no one doubts his guilt, should certainly be executed.

I consider myself completely pro-life. Not only anti-abortion, but also anti-death penalty. However, I do understand there are gray areas for both. In the case of abortion, I believe there are individual decisions to be made when rape, etc. are involved.

Also, if my wife would be in danger of dying if going full-term, it would be a tough decision I hope we never have to make. As far as the death penalty, I cannot be completely opposed to your reasoning. Of course, I would not be the one doing the killing.

[cprenegade]

Supporting the death penalty in itself requires accepting that occasionally the government is going to get the wrong person. There is no perfect method and never will be one. Personally I don't see how anyone can trust the government to administer something like the death penalty it in anything approaching a rational or morally acceptable manner, absent serious ignorance about how our criminal justice system functions.

But it is not necessarily the government that is getting it wrong or right. It is the evidence in any case that proves or does not prove a suspect guilty. The problem does not lie with the penalty, but rather the process. There are cases where the evidence is indisputable that a suspect did indeed commit the murder. I believe in order to use the death penalty, the evidence has to be 100% indisputable that the suspect did indeed commit the murder. If there is even a small reason to believe that the suspect may not have done it, then the death penalty should be off the table. But in some cases, the evidence is insurmountable. Charles Mansion is a good example. Has there really been any value in keeping him alive? He has been up for parole at least 10 times since his conviction. Denied every time, as it will be until he dies in prison. He has been interviewed and made a cult hero in that span of time. He is almost 80 years old. Has letting him live really been any better than had he just been executed nearly 40 years ago? It is simply my opinion, just like the abortion argument is opinionated on both sides. But I believe when the evidence is such that it is undeniable as to who the murderer is, that person has forfeited his right to life. I am of the belief that you fix the process so that capital punishment cannot take the life away from an innocent person, but do not remove the penalty that should be used against those who are obviously guilty and have taken it upon themselves to use capital punishment against perfectly innocent people.

[SomeIdiot]

You don't get to look at one side of the problem while you ignore the other side. It is very rare that an innocent person is killed. Also very rare, a heinous criminal escapes or is let out of prison and commits more heinous crimes. You must account for both problems.

I do not accept that it is a matter of necessity that innocent people be accidentally killed by the death penalty. I believe that the problem of innocent deaths should be easier to resolve than the problem of heinous criminals getting out of prison. Only the most extreme criminals should be executed. Criminal masterminds like Anders Breivik, where no one doubts his guilt, should certainly be executed.

With Brevik you're talking about another country's legal system so it's hard to comment on that.

However, in the U.S., this idea that the death penalty can stay on the books for only the worst of the worst about whose guilt there is no doubt is in my mind precluded by our constitutional structure. Under our separation of powers, the person who makes the call is always going to be the local executive branch, essentially the DA. Now, in most places the DA is an elected position (or at least they're appointed by an elected official) which means that the decision to seek the death penalty is a political one. That's why mass murderers will get life in prison in some places despite the death penalty being available while in others the death penalty is sought in situations where there are serious questions about the defendant's guilt.

Essentially it's always going to depend on local culture and politics more than evidence or the nature of the crime. That's why the application of the death penalty is so arbitrary. Use of the death penalty has much more to do with where a crime was committed than what sort of crime it was and there isn't much you can do about that, short altering the separation of powers in the state constitution (not that I'm even sure how that would work).

[SomeIdiot]

But it is not necessarily the government that is getting it wrong or right. It is the evidence in any case that proves or does not prove a suspect guilty. The problem does not lie with the penalty, but rather the process. There are cases where the evidence is indisputable that a suspect did indeed commit the murder. I believe in order to use the death penalty, the evidence has to be 100% indisputable that the suspect did indeed commit the murder. If there is even a small reason to believe that the suspect may not have done it, then the death penalty should be off the table. But in some cases, the evidence is insurmountable. Charles Mansion is a good example. Has there really been any value in keeping him alive? He has been up for parole at least 10 times since his conviction. Denied every time, as it will be until he dies in prison. He has been interviewed and made a cult hero in that span of time. He is almost 80 years old. Has letting him live really been any better than had he just been executed nearly 40 years ago? It is simply my opinion, just like the abortion argument is opinionated on both sides. But I believe when the evidence is such that it is undeniable as to who the murderer is, that person has forfeited his right to life. I am of the belief that you fix the process so that capital punishment cannot take the life away from an innocent person, but do not remove the penalty that should be used against those who are obviously guilty and have taken it upon themselves to use capital punishment against perfectly innocent people.

See my comment above to Kenect regarding how our government is structured. No matter what, the decision to seek the death penalty will depend on the local executive branch which means it's going to be very arbitrary. That's why this idea that we can somehow keep it around and only use it on those handfuls of people who are undeniably guilty of horrendous crimes isn't tenable. It's going to be used at the whims of local officials and there isn't much you can do about that. It's how our system works.

Now in most cases, this shortcoming is offset by the fact that you can remedy the wrong, even if imperfectly. You can't give someone back years they spent in prison, but at least you can free them and let them sue the government for a whole lot of money. However, there is no remedy for a dead person.

[Contumacious]

Under our separation of powers, the person who makes the call is always going to be the local executive branch, essentially the DA. ).

The separation of power doctrine no longer applies. The corrupt scumbags in SCOTUS ***USURPED**** the power of judicial immunity in 1967. . Not one single Founding Father ever dreamt that federal judges would be immune from federal civil rights lawsuits. Now the tyrants can collude until their hearts are content.

.

[grggngll]

The ISSUE is whether he/she who was convicted is actually factually guilty.

.

Nope the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt"

words have meaning, the operative word is reasonable.

[Contumacious]

Nope the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt"

words have meaning, the operative word is reasonable.

"Justice Scalia would pretermit all of these unresolved legal questions on the theory that we must treat even the most robust showing of actual innocence identically on habeas review to an accusation of minor procedural error. Without briefing or argument, he concludes that Congress chose to foreclose relief and that the Constitution permits this. But imagine a petitioner in Davis's situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man. The dissent's reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The Court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning."

In re Davis, 130 S.Ct. 1, 174 L.Ed.2d 614 (U.S. 08/17/2009)


Ideally, the prosecution will fail to prove its case when a defendant is not actually factually guilty.


.

[bullmikey]

bullshiite:

Unfortunately for this guy, the jury didn't agree with you. So it was same same. Right?

[bullmikey]

Yeah, I really like bullmikey and thought he was better than this. This investigation was botched so badly that EVEN IF I brought the argument that Deluna was an accessory (and it was planned ahead of time to murder someone and he went along with it) and would have probably done the killing himself if he could have, the fact is NO DEFENDENT in a capital case esp, should ever have to be put through such an incompetent trial , esp with the bare minimum legal representation he had.

This is a recipe for convicting innocent people and/or covering up prosecutorial/police misconduct and I don't care how much one doesn't like the defendent or thinks he/she might deserve it for another reason, we shouldn't put up with such a crappy justice system.

Was Deluna a part of the robbery or not? If he was a part of the robbery then he was an accessory to the murder. Did he deserve to die for that? I don't know. I'm neither for nor against the death penalty, and if it were up to me I probably wouldn’t execute anyone; not because mistakes might happen but because I’m not entirely sure the taking of another human life is a moral option for me anymore. Anyway, Deluna may or may not have been railroaded at his trial, but don't try to make him out as innocent. He’s no lamb. Also, if the death penalty is wrong for moral reasons, which I suspect it may well be, it is wrong for everybody, the guilty and the innocent alike, and not because mistakes did happen, could happen, or might happen.

[Calamari]

Report: 101 People Sentenced To Die Were Later Exonerated

A new report by the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint project of Michigan and Northwestern law schools, chronicles over 2000 cases where a person convicted of a crime was later exonerated between 1989 and 2012. More than half of these exonerated persons “were cleared since 1995 in 13 ‘group exonerations,’ that occurred after it was discovered that police officers had deliberately framed dozens or hundreds of innocent defendants, mostly for drug and gun crimes.” Perhaps most distressingly, however, 101 of the exonerated individuals were convicted of murder and sentenced to die — nearly all of whom spent years or even decades behind bars before their criminal conviction was eventually overturned.

Kind of makes the weird instant execution/no death row fantasies of certain folks here a bit problematic.