Executed man may have been innocent [Archive]

MaNuMaNiAc

11-21-2005, 10:14 AM

Executed man may have been innocent

Witness, co-defendant tell newspaper man wasn't guilty

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

Ruben Cantu was 17 in 1984 when he was charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a man during an attempted robbery in San Antonio. The victim was shot nine times with a rifle before the gunman unloaded more rounds into the only eyewitness.

The eyewitness, Juan Moreno, told the Chronicle that it wasn't Cantu who shot him. Moreno said he identified Cantu as the killer during his 1985 trial because he felt pressured and was afraid of authorities. (Watch the reporter investigating the case -- 3:16 (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/law/2005/11/20/intvw.wrongly.executed.cnn');))

Meanwhile, Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.

Cantu was executed at age 26. He had long professed his innocence.

"Part of me died when he died," said Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder. "You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."

Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the panel's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial.

"With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information," Ward said. "The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that."

Sam D. Millsap Jr., then the Bexar County district attorney who decided to charge Cantu with capital murder, told the newspaper he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three separate times.

On the night of the attack, 19-year-old Moreno and his friend, 25-year-old Pedro Gomez, were sleeping in a house they were helping build for Moreno's brother. Burglars had recently struck, so they were guarding the home, located across the street from the trailer where Cantu lived.

Both were awoken by a pair of teenagers demanding money. The older of the two carried a .22-caliber rifle. Gomez was killed; Moreno was shot but survived.

Afterward, Moreno described his attackers as two Mexican-Americans he thought lived nearby.

After a South San Antonio High School teacher mentioned that students were saying Cantu had done the killing, police showed Moreno photos of five Hispanic men, including Cantu. Moreno, however, did not identify Cantu as his attacker and the case appeared closed.

About four months later, Cantu was involved in a bar shooting that injured an off-duty police officer. Cantu said the shooting erupted over a pool game and that he fired only when the officer flashed a gun and threatened him. The officer later said Cantu shot him four times in an unprovoked attack.

That case against Cantu was dropped.

"There was an overreaction, and some of the evidence may have been tainted. It could not be prosecuted," said former homicide Sgt. Bill Ewell, who oversaw the investigation.

Ewell, a friend of the officer, said the bar shooting prompted him to reopen the Gomez murder case.

He sent a bilingual homicide detective to show Cantu's photo to Moreno for the second time. Moreno still did not identify Cantu.

The next day, Ewell sent out a different bilingual detective who brought Moreno, who was then an illegal immigrant, back to the police station. Moreno was again shown Cantu's photo along with four others. The officer's report indicates that Moreno picked out Cantu, then signed and dated the back of the photo.

But the photo submitted into evidence at trial was not dated on the back, according to trial transcripts. Moreno said he felt compelled to do what police wanted, even though he knew it was wrong.

"The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer," Moreno said in a recent interview. "They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified."

Ewell, now retired, told the Chronicle, "I'm confident the right people were prosecuted."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-21-2005, 10:15 AM

This is why the death penalty should not exist!!

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 10:22 AM

Sounds like a poor case from the get go. This still doesn't sway my support of the death penalty.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 10:25 AM

This is why the death penalty should not exist!!

For this one case, even if it is proven that he was innocent, I can show you a hundred cases where someone was released from prison and killed again. All this case represents is that the system isn't perfect. Something most of us already know.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 10:35 AM

Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.

"Part of me died when he died," said Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder. "You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."

Then you probably shouldn't have let him take the blame knowing that, then....you think? :rolleyes

SA210

11-21-2005, 10:36 AM

boutons

11-21-2005, 10:38 AM

They should have dubya as governor, since he swears that not one of the 500+ people executed under his no-pardon governorhsip was innocent.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 10:40 AM

For this one case, even if it is proven that he was innocent, I can show you a hundred cases where someone was released from prison and killed again. All this case represents is that the system isn't perfect. Something most of us already know.

I don't think the choice is that either we have the death penalty or we release prisoners from prison to kill again. Once you get to the phase where the jury decides whether to sentence the party to death, the only other alternative is life in prison. Crimes committed by parolees doesn't support or provide evidence against the death penalty.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 10:43 AM

Alot of innocent ppl are executed. It's amazing when I watch "MSNBC Investigates" or those other documentaries, and you learn about ppl who did 20 years on death row and were released because of new DNA testing. My God, it's just sad.

What's sad is when you realize that race is a factor when it comes to being sentenced to death. How can the death penalty be a fair and just form of punishment if it is far more likely to be levied on a minority?

JoePublic

11-21-2005, 10:59 AM

Funny how those same people who want to save 'the innocent" are silent when it come to this subject.

SA210

11-21-2005, 11:10 AM

What's sad is when you realize that race is a factor when it comes to being sentenced to death. How can the death penalty be a fair and just form of punishment if it is far more likely to be levied on a minority?
I agree.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 11:10 AM

I don't think the choice is that either we have the death penalty or we release prisoners from prison to kill again. Once you get to the phase where the jury decides whether to sentence the party to death, the only other alternative is life in prison. Crimes committed by parolees doesn't support or provide evidence against the death penalty.

The problem is that even people who are serving "life" sentences can kill again. It may be another inmate or a guard but that happens. "Life" sentences are not always for the persons life either. Sometimes people are released early for good behavior or have the sentences cut short for other reasons.

If someone was on death row for 10-20 years and released due to new evidence or for other reasons, then I don't see how that would be any different than if the person were sent to prison for life and spent that same time behind bars.

I totally believe that there has been innocent people who have been executed. But what percentage of executed people are these cases? 1% or less? How many cases of a person who later was proven innocent after being executed are there? I know of several cases of people being put on death row and then released before, but none proven after the fact.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 11:32 AM

Sometimes people are released early for good behavior or have the sentences cut short for other reasons.

If you are sentenced to "life" in Texas, you are not eligible for "good conduct" time off of your sentence.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 11:36 AM

If someone was on death row for 10-20 years and released due to new evidence or for other reasons, then I don't see how that would be any different than if the person were sent to prison for life and spent that same time behind bars.

So, what you're saying is that we should sentence the condemned to death and hope that the exculpatory evidence comes to light within 10 years?

Also, I don't this for a fact, but I would imagine that serving 10-20 years on death row is nothing like serving 10 to 20 years of a life sentence. I think the mental and emotional trauma alone would make the time served much harder on the individual.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 11:39 AM

I totally believe that there has been innocent people who have been executed. But what percentage of executed people are these cases? 1% or less? How many cases of a person who later was proven innocent after being executed are there? I know of several cases of people being put on death row and then released before, but none proven after the fact.

Isn't one innocent person being executed enough? How many do you want or need to realize that the "imperfect system" that you described shouldn't have this punishment that can't be taken back once administered?

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 11:51 AM

So, what you're saying is that we should sentence the condemned to death and hope that the exculpatory evidence comes to light within 10 years?

Kill 'em, and let God sort them out.

Also, I don't this for a fact, but I would imagine that serving 10-20 years on death row is nothing like serving 10 to 20 years of a life sentence. I think the mental and emotional trauma alone would make the time served much harder on the individual.

I would agree with that. Unlike prisoners in the general population, death row inmates are out of their cells only 1 hour per day and are confined by themselves the rest of their hours. The 1 hour they get free is consumed with bathing and offers little possibility for recreation. Being on death row is nothing at all like being in general population, save the fact that in each instance, the person is incarcerated.

As for the subject, the number of recent instances in which exculpatory evidence has come to light concerning a death row inmate (or one who has already been executed) is relatively staggering. I don't understand the societal rush to execute people when prosecuting crimes is a fairly imprecise science. Even the DA who prosecuted Cantu admits to that. I can understand execution in open-and-shut cases with undisputed and corroborated scientific evidence or direct testimony. In those instances, there is virtually no doubt that the convicted defendant has done the crime. But in cases involving only circumstantial evidence (and little forensic or scientific evidence) seeking death strikes me as hubris on the part of the DA, who has most of the advantages in a criminal trial.

It's remarkable that some are unaffected by the execution of someone who didn't commit murder.

Guru of Nothing

11-21-2005, 12:02 PM

Thank God I'm white.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 01:24 PM

If you are sentenced to "life" in Texas, you are not eligible for "good conduct" time off of your sentence.

Are you a lawyer? Just asking not being a smartass.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 01:29 PM

So, what you're saying is that we should sentence the condemned to death and hope that the exculpatory evidence comes to light within 10 years?

Also, I don't this for a fact, but I would imagine that serving 10-20 years on death row is nothing like serving 10 to 20 years of a life sentence. I think the mental and emotional trauma alone would make the time served much harder on the individual.

I'm not saying that at all. Being convicted and sentenced to death is the threshhold or litmus for deserving a death sentence. The appeal process is just the system going the extra mile to ensure the verdict and sentence were just. If executions were carried out the day of the sentencing I could see some valid arguments against it. Just as you can serve 30 years of a life sentence al while being truly innocent, you can serve that same time mistakenly on death row and even be put to death. No, it's not right in that case, but I feel that is a small price to pay overall.

101A

11-21-2005, 01:33 PM

Funny how those same people who want to save 'the innocent" are silent when it come to this subject.

I'm not. The death penalty is expensive and there is not relevent evidence to show that it deters heinous crime. It takes a life - putting a life in jail forever also, effectively, takes it from society's point of view. "Though shalt not kill" is pretty clear, IMO.

Killing of unborn children is murder.

Happy?

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 01:34 PM

Isn't one innocent person being executed enough? How many do you want or need to realize that the "imperfect system" that you described shouldn't have this punishment that can't be taken back once administered?

No, one person wrongly executed isn't enough. Why should anyone be imprisoned if they could be innocent? Oh, is serving 20 years only to be released after you are eventually found innocent a fair deal? How can anyone be compensated for either loss? They can't be. But I'd like to wager that there are more innocent people serving life prison sentences than there are on death row.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 01:35 PM

don't some states have life without possibility of parole

Yes, also some states have prison escapes where lifers get out and kill or commit other crimes.

101A

11-21-2005, 01:37 PM

Yes, also some states have prison escapes where lifers get out and kill or commit other crimes.

Several weeks ago, a killer on Texas death row WALKED out of prison after changing clothes. What, exactly, is your point.

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 02:04 PM

No, one person wrongly executed isn't enough. Why should anyone be imprisoned if they could be innocent? Oh, is serving 20 years only to be released after you are eventually found innocent a fair deal? How can anyone be compensated for either loss? They can't be. But I'd like to wager that there are more innocent people serving life prison sentences than there are on death row.

The fundamental difference, of course, is that someone who is discovered to be innocent after 20 years of a life imprisonment can still be released, while someone who is discovered to be innocent after his execution is still dead.

I find that difference to be rather significant -- the State can at least try to compensate for lost years spent in prison and the person who has been imprisoned can at least have the opportunity to continue living a life (visiting family, developing friendships, and other such things) even if that life is one of confinement. The State equally can't compensate for someone who has been wrongfully executed, but it also has taken away the opportunity for that person to live a life.

I don't see how the State's execution in that circumstance is any different, really, from the crime that lead to the execution. In both instances, someone lost a life without any justifiable reason.

And, for the record, in capital cases Texas offers only 2 possible punishments for a conviction: death or life without possibility of parole.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-21-2005, 02:20 PM

The problem is that even people who are serving "life" sentences can kill again. It may be another inmate or a guard but that happens. "Life" sentences are not always for the persons life either. Sometimes people are released early for good behavior or have the sentences cut short for other reasons.

If someone was on death row for 10-20 years and released due to new evidence or for other reasons, then I don't see how that would be any different than if the person were sent to prison for life and spent that same time behind bars.

I totally believe that there has been innocent people who have been executed. But what percentage of executed people are these cases? 1% or less? How many cases of a person who later was proven innocent after being executed are there? I know of several cases of people being put on death row and then released before, but none proven after the fact.
well I guess it boils down to wether you think it is more important to risk executing innocent people so you can feel safe, or pay more taxes to keep guilty people in prison for the length of their lives. Me, I'd rather pay the taxes

MaNuMaNiAc

11-21-2005, 02:26 PM

MaNuMaNiAc

11-21-2005, 02:28 PM

it costs the state more money to execute someone than keep them in prison for life manumania
really? well then I don't see how anyone can be in favor of it! First I thougth the gready, but now I'm thinking vile, sadistic human beings.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 02:34 PM

I know it costs more. I feel the added cost and the very, very, very small chance that someone that is innocent is put to death are worth it in the end. I am in no way saying the capital punishment system is perfect. I do believe that costs can be reduced as well as the risks of the innocent being executed.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 02:38 PM

It costs more because of the APPEALS PROCESS(ES)....not just the housing and feeding if them.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 02:40 PM

What the hell kind of sense are you trying to make?? Are you comparing being dead to having spent 20 years in prison?? Do you honestly believe they are the same fucking thing?

yes smartass, and if they were in death row, half of them would be dead! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

You missed the point. I was pointing that there is a much larger percentage of people that are wrongly serving life sentences than those who sit on death row and are innocent. The cases of those who sit on death row are much more greatly scrutinized than any cases which result in life sentences. Is that fair?

Do you think that 20 years in prison is not a harsh penalty to serve? Everyone you know could be long gone before you get out. The prime of your life may be taken from you and you may be left with nothing. That to me is not that much better than death.

Again I ask, how many cases have there been PROVEN that a person was wrongly put to death? What is the %?

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 02:48 PM

It costs more because of the APPEALS PROCESS(ES)....not just the housing and feeding if them.

Certainly, you are not arguing that we do away with the appeals process. However, if you are not arguing that we should do away with the appeals process, I don't understand what point your observation supports/proves.

The appeals process is a necessary component of using death as a punishment. It still doesn't change the fact that it is more expensive to sentence one to death than it is to sentence them to life in prison.

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 02:55 PM

It costs more because of the APPEALS PROCESS(ES)....not just the housing and feeding if them.

I'm not sure that that is entirely true. The appellate process for a capital felon is only marginally different from that afforded any other felon.

In Texas, for example, a run-of-the-mill felony will result in at least two different appeals: an appeal to the court of appeals (which must pass on the merits of the appeal) and one to the Court of Criminal Appeals (which can choose whether to accept the case for further consideration or not). In many instances, the result in the Court of Criminal Appeals will be one on which the defendant seeks certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court (which, again, has discretion).

In a capital felony in which the death penalty is assessed, there are only two direct appeals: one to the Court of Criminal Appeals (which must take the case) and one to the United States Supreme Court (which has discretion to take the case or not). In a sense, then the death penalty case is likely to have less appellate costs associated with it than a non-death case that gets treatment at all three levels. There are some additional costs associated with habeas corpus proceedings, but recent changes in the law have limited the number of habeas proceedings that can be brought by a death row inmate.

And at that, in most instances, the only cost the State incurs past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (i.e., at the U.S. Supreme Court level or in the habeas context) is the cost to pay for representation of indigent defendants. If the Supreme Court doesn't request a response to a petition for certiorari, the State has no obligation to file a brief; the same is true in habeas proceedings.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 02:57 PM

No I wasn't arguing anything, thanks. It was nothing more than a little factoid for someone that's not from the United States and may have not known that.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 02:58 PM

Do you think that 20 years in prison is not a harsh penalty to serve? Everyone you know could be long gone before you get out. The prime of your life may be taken from you and you may be left with nothing. That to me is not that much better than death.

Again I ask, how many cases have there been PROVEN that a person was wrongly put to death? What is the %?

While I agree that a 20-year sentence would be a harsh penalty to serve, you can't compare it to death.

And again, I ask you, what percentage of people who are put to death need to be innocent before it is statistically relevant to you?

Think about it, if the system makes even one mistake (and this article is alleging that it did), that is one innocent person who was executed by the state. I know you feel that this is "a small price to pay overall," but tell that to the wrongly executed or his family.

Also, what if it was you that was sentenced to death even though you were innocent? As they are strapping you to the gurney for the lethal injection, would you be comforted by the thought that your death is but a small price to pay to ensure the safety of others?

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:01 PM

No I wasn't arguing anything, thanks. It was nothing more than a little factoid for someone that's not from the United States and may have not known that.

So, your factoid was strictly for the benefit of our foreign posters. :rolleyes

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 03:03 PM

Oh, and judging from a circumstance I've witnessed with my own eyes, a "without parole" sentence apparently doesn't mean a damn thing.

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 03:04 PM

You missed the point. I was pointing that there is a much larger percentage of people that are wrongly serving life sentences than those who sit on death row and are innocent. The cases of those who sit on death row are much more greatly scrutinized than any cases which result in life sentences. Is that fair?

It's not fair, but it's also remediable. If someone wrongly serves a life sentence, the window of opportunity to prove his innocence remains open in a meaningful way. If the guy gets out the day before he dies, that's one day that he can live as a free man with his innocence proven. I don't find that to be insignificant.

Do you think that 20 years in prison is not a harsh penalty to serve? Everyone you know could be long gone before you get out. The prime of your life may be taken from you and you may be left with nothing. That to me is not that much better than death.

I can't imagine that too many people would agree with your ultimate conclusion here. Twenty years spent wrongfully in prison is horrendous. But I don't see how you can equate 20 years wrongfully spent in prison with death. You may have the prime of your life taken from you and you may be left with nothing, but if your innocence is proven, you at least get your freedom back. Death removes that possibility in every circumstance.

Again I ask, how many cases have there been PROVEN that a person was wrongly put to death? What is the %?

The number is probably small. But that the percentage is even marginally above zero is shameful. It may not be convincing to you, but it is to me.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 03:04 PM

So, your factoid was strictly for the benefit of our foreign posters. :rolleyes

No, it was to see how quickly I could illicit a rude, condescending response. Good job, you win.

http://www.thecupcakefairy.com/cookie.jpeg

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:05 PM

I am in no way saying the capital punishment system is perfect.

How can you be in favor of a system that, as you admit, is flawed and yet, continues to decide who is fit to live and who should die?

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 03:06 PM

By the way, I am pro-death penalty ... but this was a very tragic circumstance.

If that's what I'd meant to imply, I'd have said so.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:07 PM

Oh, and judging from a circumstance I've witnessed with my own eyes, a "without parole" sentence apparently doesn't mean a damn thing.

So let's continue putting innocent people to death because you had a bad experience with our penal system.

Makes sense.

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 03:08 PM

Oh, and judging from a circumstance I've witnessed with my own eyes, a "without parole" sentence apparently doesn't mean a damn thing.

Are you talking about a capital felon? As I understand it, "without the possibility of parole" in the capital context means that the convicted party remains in prison for the remainder of his life and gets no good time credit or anything along those lines. A captial felon's sentence can be shortened only by: (1) clemency; (2) pardon; (3) exculpatory evidence proving innocence.

IIRC, other felons can be sentenced without the possibility of parole, but can get certain credits to reduce the actual length of the sentence and, thus, can be released from prison before their sentences actually end without being paroled. I may be wrong about the latter case, though.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:08 PM

By the way, I am pro-death penalty ...

No shit. And anti-due process judging from your responses to this thread and others.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 03:12 PM

So let's continue putting innocent people to death because you had a bad experience with our penal system.

Makes sense.

Whatever. :lol

I was pro-death penalty before any of that. I don't put an awful lot of stock in: "Oh, but he'll/she'll be in prison for the rest of their life."

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 03:16 PM

No shit. And anti-due process judging from your responses to this thread and others.

Yep, right on. :tu :rolleyes.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:17 PM

Whatever. :lol

I was pro-death penalty before any of that. I don't put an awful lot of stock in: "Oh, but he'll/she'll be in prison for the rest of their life."

Right, but if the system is flawed, can we continue to risk killing innocent people just so you feel a little safer?

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:18 PM

Yep, right on. :tu

And if your due process rights were violated, you'd be the first to complain.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 03:20 PM

No, not really, if I fucked up I deserve to be punished.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:21 PM

Whatever. :lol

I was pro-death penalty before any of that. I don't put an awful lot of stock in: "Oh, but he'll/she'll be in prison for the rest of their life."

Also, even if it turned out that every person we execute was guilty, the death penalty is still given to minorities at a much higher rate than for others for the exact same crimes. How could you support such a system, knowing that it's killing Blacks and Mexicans at much greater numbers than it would if the system was color blind?

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:22 PM

No, not really, if I fucked up I deserve to be punished.

That's the point. If your due process rights are violated, you may be punished even though you didn't fuck up. That's what this whole thread is about.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 03:30 PM

The system is flawed, sure, have I ever said it wasn't. Just because there are flaws doesn't mean we should do away with the death penalty. The SMALL chance that an innocent person is convicted AND put to death is worth having a such a punishment. No one has come forward with a single stat that shows how many people have wrongly been put to death yet. I'd honestly like to know the figures. If someone could show me a good percentage of cases where this was happening, then I'd have to reconsider my position. I'm already in favor of looking at what the qualifications are for receiving a death sentence.

DarkReign

11-21-2005, 03:32 PM

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 03:33 PM

That's the point. If your due process rights are violated, you may be punished even though you didn't fuck up. That's what this whole thread is about.

This thread has nothing to do with due process. It has everything to do with the death penalty and the case talked about in the article. Even so, I don't think due process was a real issue in that case. It seems more like witness tampering, ovsealous police/prosecuters, and lying witnesses had the main impact on the outcome.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 03:36 PM

Ask yourself; who/what is the source of the information you seek?

Then tell us why that information isnt available.

What I'm asking for is very simple.

"How many people that have been executed in the US have been later proven innocent?"

I honestly don't know the answer. I have never heard of a single case of this happening, but have heard stories simlar to the one in the article that atleast raised suspicions about a few cases. I certainly have heard of people being found innocent who were on death row or were serving life or other length sentences for crimes that they did not commit.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:42 PM

This thread has nothing to do with due process. It has everything to do with the death penalty and the case talked about in the article. Even so, I don't think due process was a real issue in that case. It seems more like witness tampering, ovsealous police/prosecuters, and lying witnesses had the main impact on the outcome.

My point to SpursWoman was that if due process rights are not respected, you could be punished without having committed any crime, just as Cantu was punished without having committed a crime. I never said that his due process rights were violated.

Dos

11-21-2005, 03:43 PM

and we've heard of cases where people fully found guilty of crime were let go .. due to some technicality in the process....

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 03:45 PM

and we've heard of cases where people fully found guilty of crime were let go .. due to some technicality in the process....

Again, it's a flawed system, which is why we can't trust the system to determine life or death.

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 03:48 PM

For a number of reasons, I don't know that there's a definitive answer to the question. But in an effort to further the discussion, here are some resources I found. To dispense with the bias arguments that are likely to surface, it stands to reason that the only people who would be opining on the likelihood of executing the innocent are those who favor the abolition of the death penalty. So, of course, these studies are derived from people or interest groups with that perspective. With that said, here you go:

1. Here's a Fall 1998 law journal article discussing the situation we're talking about here and providing some hard numbers on exonerations.

Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems (Fall 1998) (http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1998))

2. Here's a series of fact sheets from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty that provide numbers (as of January 1, 2005) related to death row populations by demographic and a survey of cases in which inmates were found to be innocent:

NCADP Main Page (http://www.ncadp.org/index.html)

1/1/05 Death Row Population (http://www.ncadp.org/facts_figures.html)

Fact Sheet on Innocence (http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet4.html)

3. Here's the prepared statement of Barry Scheck (famed DNA expert of the O.J. Simpson defense) provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2000, concerning DNA acquittals of death row inmates:

Scheck Testimony (http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_scheck.pdf#search='execution%20innocent')

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 03:52 PM

This thread has nothing to do with due process. It has everything to do with the death penalty and the case talked about in the article. Even so, I don't think due process was a real issue in that case. It seems more like witness tampering, ovsealous police/prosecuters, and lying witnesses had the main impact on the outcome.

Well, if you discount the possibility that due process has anything to do with assuring that defendants get fair trials (which seems to me to be the heart of due process, but why trifle?) then I guess you're right.

Usually, things like witness tampering, overzealous police/prosecutors, and lying witnesses directly present due process problems.

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 03:55 PM

and we've heard of cases where people fully found guilty of crime were let go .. due to some technicality in the process....

Yes, heaven forbid we make the State play by all of the rules before it punishes someone by taking away his life and liberty. If we think someone is guilty, why bother with the State's obligation to live up to the Constitution and trifling things like that?

If we think he's guilty, why bother with the need for probable cause to effectuate an arrest? If we think he's guilty, who cares about whether the search that found the instrumentality of the crime was proper or not? If we think he's guilty, send him up, even he wasn't aware of his rights and gave an incriminating statement without counsel present.

I mean, those are just insignificant matters, really. We know he's guilty; that should be enough.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 04:00 PM

The glove was too tight, or something like that.....right? *sigh*

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 04:05 PM

My point to SpursWoman was that if due process rights are not respected, you could be punished without having committed any crime, just as Cantu was punished without having committed a crime. I never said that his due process rights were violated.

You stated it was the point of this thread. I never saw anyone arguing that due process shouldn't be followed. In my support of the death penalty I am not taking lightly what it means to render a death sentence. It is a very serious thing to take a person's life. I also am well aware that there are flaws in the system today that gives out such judgments. I still believe, even despite these things, that capital punishment is necessary in today's society.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 04:08 PM

The glove was too tight, or something like that.....right? *sigh*

That wasn't a case were a sentence was overturned on a technicality. A jury found Simpson innocent of the crimes at his trial.

boutons2

11-21-2005, 04:10 PM

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 04:11 PM

You stated it was the point of this thread. I never saw anyone arguing that due process shouldn't be followed. In my support of the death penalty I am not taking lightly what it means to render a death sentence. It is a very serious thing to take a person's life. I also am well aware that there are flaws in the system today that gives out such judgments. I still believe, even despite these things, that capital punishment is necessary in today's society.

How necessary can it be when there are states, and entire nations, without the death penalty that continue to function? Also, this country did not fall into chaos during those years when the death penalty was not available. I think saying that it is "necessary" is a bit much.

101A

11-21-2005, 04:20 PM

Ask yourself; who/what is the source of the information you seek?

Then tell us why that information isnt available.

Well they aren't going to answer you so....

Police, DA's & prosecutors.

On what basis are those people promoted?

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 04:24 PM

Well they aren't going to answer you so....

Police, DA's & prosecutors.

On what basis are those people promoted?

On the basis of how fairly they administer justice...? :lol

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 04:41 PM

Well they aren't going to answer you so....

Police, DA's & prosecutors.

On what basis are those people promoted?

Sure, that is the reason why there isn't a documented case? I'd like to know of one that's out there. I don't believe that the death penalty has been 100% accurate, but I'd be very surprised if the percentage of wrongly accused people was greater than one tenth of one percent.

101A

11-21-2005, 04:46 PM

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 04:53 PM

Also, even if it turned out that every person we execute was guilty, the death penalty is still given to minorities at a much higher rate than for others for the exact same crimes. How could you support such a system, knowing that it's killing Blacks and Mexicans at much greater numbers than it would if the system was color blind?

Besides implying that all the cases involving sentencing blacks is based on racial bias, you'd have to ignore the fact that half the jury is black on those occasions and that would totally undermine your implication. If more blacks commit 1st degree murders than whites simply becuase of environmental reasons,( and i'm not talking about global warming, acid rain, or the ozone for all you who were about to jump the gun on qouting this one line to diminish my argument.), then you are going to have a disproportianate amount of blacks being executed.Even if what you said was so, i can assure you that the idea of capital punishment and the system that now executes the idea are two seperate entities. Capital punishment does not kill blacks for being blacks. That's like saying that guns intentionally kill african americans. IF the system is unjust. Fix it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:06 PM

Besides implying that all the cases involving sentencing blacks is based on racial bias, you'd have to ignore the fact that half the jury is black on those occasions and that would totally undermine your implication.

No, it wouldn't. The jury does not decide whether to make the death penalty available as punishment for cases. The prosecutors make that decision. If prosecutors make more Blacks death penalty eligible than whites, the numbers would be higher for Blacks regardless of the juries.

If more blacks commit 1st degree murders than whites simply becuase of environmental reasons,( and i'm not talking about global warming, acid rain, or the ozone for all you who were about to jump the gun on qouting this one line to diminish my argument.), then you are going to have a disproportianate amount of blacks being executed.

I am not saying that more minorities are being executed, I am saying that minorities are executed at a higher-rate than their non-minority counterparts who have committed comparable crimes.

Even if what you said was so, i can assure you that the idea of capital punishment and the system that now executes the idea are two seperate entities.

Obviously, you cannot implement the idea without the system. If either one is flawed, then the entire process is unjust.

Capital punishment does not kill blacks for being blacks. That's like saying that guns intentionally kill african americans. IF the system is unjust. Fix it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't know that it is possible to fix the system, since the system relies on people and people will always bring their biases, prejudices, and fears into the jury box, prosecutor's table, and judge's bench with them. That's why I think using death as a form of punishment is unworkable.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 05:07 PM

The point is, we'll never know how many are out there, because it is not in the people who would be able to supply that information to divulge it.

So you just assume it happens all of the time because it's happened once?

I truly understand and agree with a lot of the points the anti-death penalty side is making, and unlike some I don't feel the need to be an asshole to those that don't agree with me. But I believe in equal justice....and as long as I believe that sick, twisted bastards like this do not deserve to live:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/timothy-mcveigh/mcveighmugcrop.GIF

I'd be inconsistent if I said only certain murders deserved to fry and not others. I'm willing to bet the story that prompted this thread is a very isolated, atypical scenario...and as it should be, those sentenced to death have either admitted it and/or have evidence against them that is irrefutable, not just heresay as this seems to had to have been.
And no amount of insults are going to change how I feel about it as long as there are people like McVeigh out there committing beyond-heinous crimes.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 05:08 PM

I am saying that minorities are executed at a higher-rate than their non-minority counterparts who have committed comparable crimes.

If that's the case than obviously that is bullshit. :fro

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 05:10 PM

^the comparable crimes qualifier is idiotic since every case is different and has it's nuances.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:11 PM

^the comparable crimes qualifier is idiotic since every case is different and has it's nuances.

So all that nuances just so happen to be in favor of non-minority defendants. Wow. What a coincidence! :rolleyes

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:13 PM

If that's the case than obviously that is bullshit. :fro

How is that obviously bullshit?

Look at the numbers.

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 05:15 PM

So all that nuances just so happen to be in favor of non-minority defendants. Wow. What a coincidence! :rolleyes

Ofcourse not, but thinking that blacks are sentenced to death for being black by a mixed african american and white jury, is even more retarded.:rolleyes

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 05:15 PM

^the comparable crimes qualifier is idiotic since every case is different and has it's nuances.

Murder is murder....armed robbery is armed robbery....etc. The punishment for each should be handed out equally regardless of race. Whether it's the death penalty or life or whatever.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:15 PM

^the comparable crimes qualifier is idiotic since every case is different and has it's nuances.

You are right that every case has its nuances. Some defendants are minorities and some are not. Some victimes are white and some are not. These two "nuances" seem to play a large role in the sentencing of the death penalty.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 05:16 PM

How is that obviously bullshit?

Look at the numbers.

Did you even read what I quoted as being "bullshit"? I was agreeing with your point. :wtf

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:17 PM

Did you even read what I quoted as being "bullshit"? I was agreeing with your point. :wtf

:lol I read your statement as saying my assertion was bullshit.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:21 PM

Ofcourse not, but thinking that blacks are sentenced to death for being black by a mixed african american and white jury, is even more retarded.:rolleyes

Well, if race isn't a factor, why are minorities more likely to be sentenced to death than their non-minority counterparts? Do they all just commit more heinous crimes?

Why is a person more likely to receive the death penalty for killing a non-minority than for killing a minority? There has to be an explanation.

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 05:22 PM

Murder is murder....armed robbery is armed robbery....etc. The punishment for each should be handed out equally regardless of race. Whether it's the death penalty or life or whatever.

Chill out, i agree with you. But not all murder gets capital punishment. Crimes of passions are generally excluded.

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 05:26 PM

Well, if race isn't a factor, why are minorities more likely to be sentenced to death than their non-minority counterparts? Do they all just commit more heinous crimes?

Why is a person more likely to receive the death penalty for killing a non-minority than for killing a minority? There has to be an explanation.

Who knows? Minorities and non minorities doesnt paint the whole picture. The victims could range from various age groups to warrant the death penalty. The whole race bs is flawed since you are going to have a mixed court to decide that.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 05:26 PM

Well, if race isn't a factor, why are minorities more likely to be sentenced to death than their non-minority counterparts? Do they all just commit more heinous crimes?

Why is a person more likely to receive the death penalty for killing a non-minority than for killing a minority? There has to be an explanation.

You know the answer to that question. But to tear the entire system down for it is not the answer.

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 05:26 PM

Chill out, i agree with you. But not all murder gets capital punishment. Crimes of passions are generally excluded.

No, I think his point is that the sentence for a white man shooting a police officer should be exactly as that of a black man that shot a police officer...when more likely than not, the white man's won't be as severe as the black man's.

I absolutely don't agree with that that. They should both fry. :)

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 05:29 PM

I agree. But my post was saying in essence that killing a police officer and killing a child will warrant two different punishments. The study Peabody is using might be flawed if its accounting all cases of murder.

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:29 PM

No, I think his point is that the sentence for a white man shooting a police officer should be exactly as that of a black man that shot a police officer...when more likely than not, the white man's won't be as severe as the black man's.

I absolutely don't agree with that that. They should both fry. :)

I was so hopeful as I started reading this post. :lol

And so dissapointed in the end. :depressed

SpursWoman

11-21-2005, 05:31 PM

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :lol

Mr. Peabody

11-21-2005, 05:32 PM

FromWayDowntown

11-21-2005, 05:45 PM

Sure, that is the reason why there isn't a documented case? I'd like to know of one that's out there. I don't believe that the death penalty has been 100% accurate, but I'd be very surprised if the percentage of wrongly accused people was greater than one tenth of one percent.

This is from one of the sources I cited earlier, and seems to address teh empirical evidence that User is looking for:

* More than 118 people have been exonerated from death row since 1972, including 21 from the state of Florida and 18 from the state of Illinois. (Death Penalty Information Center)

* In the 25 years from 1973 to 1998, there were an average of 2.96 Exonerations per year. In the five years since 1998, thru 2003, that average has risen to 7.60 Exonerations. (Death Penalty Information Center)

* In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA tests. (“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” 2002, ACLU.)

* On the federal level, 3.5% of persons whom the Attorney General has attempted to execute have been innocent. In one example of state-level problems, Illinois (prior to Governor Ryan’s blanket commutation) had an error rate of at least 4.5%. (American Civil Liberties Union)

* A study identified 23 instances in the last century in which a person with an extraordinarily strong case of innocence had been executed by the government (H. Bedeau & M. Radelet, “Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases” Stanford Law Review, 1987). Since 1987, eight cases have been reported.

According to Barry Scheck:

There have been at least 73 postconviction DNA exonerations in North America; 67 in the United States, and 6 in Canada. Our Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has either assisted or been the attorney of record in thirtynine of those cases, including eight individuals who served time on death row. In sixteen of these seventy-three postconviction exonerations, DNA testing has not only remedied a terrible miscarriage of justice, but led to the identification of the real perpetrator.

The Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems notes that "Undoubtedly, there are many more cases in which innocent persons have been convicted of homicide that have yet to be thoroughly documented and acknowledged by government officials, much less publicized in a way that will allow those who care to learn lessons from them." But the article goes on to explain that "If the history of the last twenty years is any guide to the future, an average of 3 death row inmates per year will continue to be vindicated and released. How many equally innocent death row inmates will be unsuccessful in obtaining relief is impossible to know, but the number most certainly is not zero."

Puppy Dog

11-21-2005, 08:43 PM

I have changed my stance.

I am now anti-death penalty IN ALL CASES.

it is tragic if any innocent man should die...even though countless do every day, one way or another...

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 08:55 PM

The state must level the punishment fit for the crime. Would you rather have him buttraped and rot in jail.

RandomGuy

11-21-2005, 09:27 PM

1) Death penalty is the biggest waste of money we have in our criminal justice system. It costs more to execute a criminal than it does to hold them in prison for life. (in terms of additional trial costs, appeals, and extra detention costs)

2) I don't really think the death penalty deters as much as those who support it think it does.

3) The cost of making mistakes is more than I am willing to bear morally. Taking a life doesn't allow for a lot of room for error in my opinion.

gtownspur

11-21-2005, 11:10 PM

Well le' me take a poke at it.

1) Death penalty is the biggest waste of money we have in our criminal justice system. It costs more to execute a criminal than it does to hold them in prison for life. (in terms of additional trial costs, appeals, and extra detention costs)

So is the war on poverty, all the Great society programs, Border patrol, and airport security, but i don't see you make a move to slash those programs.

2) I don't really think the death penalty deters as much as those who support it think it does.

Incarcreration doesn't deter crime either, what do you propose? Time out?

George W. Bush

11-21-2005, 11:37 PM

There are casualties of War gentlemen.

Those are the facts. If you can't stand the heat? Stand aside.

Useruser666

11-22-2005, 09:22 AM

* A study identified 23 instances in the last century in which a person with an extraordinarily strong case of innocence had been executed by the government (H. Bedeau & M. Radelet, “Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases” Stanford Law Review, 1987). Since 1987, eight cases have been reported.

So there have been 997 executions since 1976 and out of those 23 have had strong cases of innocence. Now those cases have not been proven in a court of law that the executed were innocent, but even if we say they were without a doubt innocent, that is only 2.3% over the last ~30 years!

Now something that has not been brought up in here yet is how much better the system has become over time and expecially in recent years. DNA testing and modern forensics have been the major reasons why more people are being exonerated today. People who might have been executed in the past are now set free by these new technologies and advancements. Take a look at the following quotes about cases of people that have been recently found innocent or have strong cases proving their innocence. Notice the dates on these files. Now of course this doesn't mean the modern legal system is fool proof, just that we have come a long way since a majority of these death penalty cases were first in court.

RECENT CASES OF EXONERATION:

* In 1985, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death in Maryland for sexually assaulting and killing a nine year old girl. His arrest was based on an anonymous caller reporting to the police that he had seen Bloodsworth with the victim that day and the concurrence of five eyewitnesses who said they had seen Bloodsworth with the victim. AT trial, testimony was given, stating that Bloodsworth had said he had done something to affect his relationship with his wife and that he had mentioned a bloody rock (that was previously shown to him during interrogation). The only physical evidence presented was a shoe print, matching his size, left at the crime scene. Bloodsworth’s death sentence was overturned in appeals and converted to two life sentences, and in 1992 DNA testing was found to exclude Bloodsworth as the perpetrator. Bloodsworth was pardoned in 1993, and became the first death row inmate released through DNA testing, after having spent eight years on Maryland’s death row. (The Innocence Project)
* Verneal Jimerson and Dennis Williams were sentenced to death in Illinois as a part of the “Ford Heights Four,” a group of men convicted of murdering a young couple and raping the woman in 1978. The state’s chief witness claimed to have been present in the house where the couple was killed, and pinpointed Jimerson, Williams, and two others as the perpetrators. The witness recanted, and the charges against Jimerson were dropped. The other three defendants, however, were placed near the scene of the crime that night (which was in the neighborhood they resided in) and were indicted anyway. After her recantation, the witness was convicted as an accomplice to perjury, and in 1985, agreed to again testify according to her original story. Jimerson was subsequently sentenced to death. It was not until David Protess and a group of students from Northwestern University researched the case that police files were uncovered, documenting tips that named other possible suspects. Through their research, biological testing, including DNA testing, was performed, wherein the four defendants were excluded as perpetrators. They were released in 1996 after Williams and Jimerson has spent 18 and 11 years, respectively, facing the death sentence. (The Innocence Project)
* Frank Lee Smith was sentenced to death in Florida in 1986 for the murder and rape of an eight year old girl during an attempted burglary. His conviction was based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s mother, who claimed to have seen Smith through the front window of her house. Two neighbors also claimed to have seen Smith directly following the incident and their reports were used to compile a composite sketch which was used to arrest Smith. The testimony of these eyewitnesses, as well as the presentation of Smith’s criminal record, earned Smith the death sentence by a unanimous jury. Smith was granted a stay of execution in 1990 and the Florida Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing in 1998, based on defense claims of new evidence. One of the eyewitnesses had changed her story, and an investigation by the defense had led to another suspect. In January of 2000, while the renewed investigation continued to take place, Smith died of cancer, still on death row. It was not until December of that year that prosecutors and the FBI obtained DNA evidence that exonerated Smith of the crime. Frank Lee Smith spent a total of 14 years on death row and died in prison for a crime he did not commit. (The Innocence Project)
* In 1991, Ray Krone was arrested and subsequently convicted and sentence to death for the killing of a Phoenix, Arizona woman in the restroom of a bar. Krone, who had no prior criminal record, was arrested based on a statement by the victim’s friend that he was supposed to have helped her close the bar (where she worked) that night. Although saliva and blood were found on the victim’s body at the scene of the crime, no DNA testing was originally performed, and the only physical evidence presented at trial were the bite mark imprints left on the victim’s body that supposedly matched a Styrofoam impression made by Krone. Convicted in 1992 and sentenced to death, Krone received a new trial four years later, and was sentenced to life in prison. Finally, in 2002, DNA testing was performed on the blood and saliva present at the crime scene, and Krone was exonerated. He had spent a total of 10 years in prison, four of which were spent awaiting execution. (The Innocence Project)

RECENT CASES WITH STRONG POSSIBILITY OF INNOCENCE:

* Texas executed Gary Graham on July 22, 2000 despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available. (Death Penalty Information Center)
* Florida convicted Leo Jones on March 28,1998 - Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case. (Death Penalty Information Center)

Oh, Gee!!

11-22-2005, 10:42 AM

Would you rather have him buttraped and rot in jail.

what is your fascination with gay sex? It seems as though half of your posts include comments about anal penetration and the other half you accuse other posters of being gay.

Mr. Peabody

11-22-2005, 11:12 AM

what is your fascination with gay sex? It seems as though half of your posts include comments about anal penetration and the other half you accuse other posters of being gay.

I have mentioned this before. I think gtown is probably just a curious young man exploring alternative lifestyles.

Mr. Peabody

11-22-2005, 11:14 AM

what is your fascination with gay sex? It seems as though half of your posts include comments about anal penetration and the other half you accuse other posters of being gay.

On a related topic, what is your fascination with gtown?

Oh, Gee!!

11-22-2005, 11:18 AM

On a related topic, what is your fascination with gtown?

Reading his posts is like watching a car accident unfold before your eyes. You shouldn't look, you know it's going to turn out horribly, but you can't turn away.

BTW, what is your fascination with me?

Mr. Peabody

11-22-2005, 11:25 AM

Reading his posts is like watching a car accident unfold before your eyes. You shouldn't look, you know it's going to turn out horribly, but you can't turn away.

BTW, what is your fascination with me?

Reading your posts is like watching Jerry Springer. It's completely mindless entertainment.

*This post was sponsored by the AFI (American Fun Institute)

Clandestino

11-22-2005, 01:33 PM

sounds like his friend is the one who killed him to me.. he should've spoken up a long time ago...

mookie2001

11-22-2005, 01:34 PM

whoa Clandestino

have you and whottt been on a retreat for freedom or what?

Clandestino

11-22-2005, 01:38 PM

whoa Clandestino

have you and whottt been on a retreat for freedom or what?

some of us have to work

Mr. Peabody

11-22-2005, 01:48 PM

sounds like his friend is the one who killed him to me.. he should've spoken up a long time ago...

That's the flaw in the system. That and the fact that cops are a crooked bunch.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-25-2005, 08:58 AM

sounds like his friend is the one who killed him to me.. he should've spoken up a long time ago...
You don't get it do you!? Its doesn't matter who is at fault, the man was innocent! If an innocent man can be executed by mistake, no matter why or how, the death penalty shouldn't be implemented.

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 12:48 AM

You don't get it do you!? Its doesn't matter who is at fault, the man was innocent! If an innocent man can be executed by mistake, no matter why or how, the death penalty shouldn't be implemented.

Where does it say he was innocent?

This is the quote from the initial post in this thread:

Executed man may have been innocent

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 01:30 AM

How many innocent people do we sacrifice on the altar of vengence?

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 01:34 AM

So is the war on poverty, all the Great society programs, Border patrol, and airport security, but i don't see you make a move to slash those programs.
Incarcreration doesn't deter crime either, what do you propose? Time out?

I would rather see them in jail for life than executed. You dodged the fact that it costs more.

Time out of society is all we need. That is what prisons are for.

What is your point here, other than to slam whatever it is I happen to be saying?

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 01:47 AM

Funny how those same people who want to save 'the innocent" are silent when it come to this subject.
What's funny about it and why would you post this a mere 45 minutes after the thread was started?

I'm not against nor am I a diehard supporter of the death penalty but there have been 100,000 "innocent" people murdered since 1999 :wtf , are those the innocent people you are referring to?

My understanding is that there is no proof that any innocent man has been executed so how does that temotely justify an arguement against the death penalty in light of the fact that 100,000 innocent victims were brutally and unmistakenly identified as being murdered in the last 6 years alone?

Typical BS that goes on where the victims are virtually ignored while the criminals are treated by some as if they're the victims!

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/images/CarySmiling.JPG

^^^Cary Ann Medlin - "Jesus love you, Jesus loves you" said over and over to her rapist just before he murdered her.

Go ahead and support with your dying breath the right of scumbags like the one that murdered Cary having the right to live based on the hypothetical premise that somewhere down the line one innocent person might be executed.
How proud you must be, you that are so full of concern and compassion for those that have shown no regard for human life.
Sleep well in remembrance of Cary.

Trainwreck2100

11-26-2005, 01:52 AM

All this boils down to is the simple saying that has been around since Biblical times.

"You can't make an omelete without breaking an egg."

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 02:01 AM

How many innocent people do we sacrifice on the altar of vengence?

None have been that I know of but go present that arguement to the families of those whose cherished Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons and Daughters that have been senselessly and brutally murdered.

Personalize it RG, the question you pose may not be so easy to throw out there.

JoePublic

11-26-2005, 04:47 AM

What's funny about it and why would you post this a mere 45 minutes after the thread was started?

I'm not against nor am I a diehard supporter of the death penalty but there have been 100,000 "innocent" people murdered since 1999 :wtf , are those the innocent people you are referring to?

My understanding is that there is no proof that any innocent man has been executed so how does that temotely justify an arguement against the death penalty in light of the fact that 100,000 innocent victims were brutally and unmistakenly identified as being murdered in the last 6 years alone?

Typical BS that goes on where the victims are virtually ignored while the criminals are treated by some as if they're the victims!

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/images/CarySmiling.JPG

^^^Cary Ann Medlin - "Jesus love you, Jesus loves you" said over and over to her rapist just before he murdered her.

Go ahead and support with your dying breath the right of scumbags like the one that murdered Cary having the right to live based on the hypothetical premise that somewhere down the line one innocent person might be executed.
How proud you must be, you that are so full of concern and compassion for those that have shown no regard for human life.
Sleep well in remembrance of Cary.

WTF does the time of a post have to do with anything?
Where did I say I support "with my dying breath" scumbags?
And I sleep very well with a clear conscious and I guess your own BS makes you proud of yourself. Step off the pedestal you've put yourself on and get back to earth like the rest of.

Yeah..you are one to talk about typical BS. :rolleyes

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 08:34 AM

WTF does the time of a post have to do with anything?
Where did I say I support "with my dying breath" scumbags?
And I sleep very well with a clear conscious and I guess your own BS makes you proud of yourself. Step off the pedestal you've put yourself on and get back to earth like the rest of.

Yeah..you are one to talk about typical BS. :rolleyes
Hit a nerve did I? Good! That's what I meant to do!
The first sentence of my post that you alluded to was aimed directly at you, the rest of my post consisted of my personal feelings about the topic in general. Personalize if you need to.
My observation was that this thread was too top heavy in worrying about the hypothetical innocent"1" that might be executied with little or no thought for the multiplied thousands of innocents that without question are executed (murdered) on a yearly basis.

My compassion is with the victims of those on death row, not with the imaginary wrongfully executed person. If you consider that "sitting on a pedestal" then I sit there with a clear conscience.

JoeChalupa

11-26-2005, 10:05 AM

I'm sure that there have been innocent people executed.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 12:54 PM

My understanding is that there is no proof that any innocent man has been executed

In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1617&scid=64

Executive Summary

The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the criminal justice system is getting worse. A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate.

This report tells the stories of people like Rolando Cruz, released after 10 years on Illinois's death row, despite the fact that another man had confessed to the crime shortly after his conviction; and Ricardo Aldape Guerra, who returned to Mexico after 15 years on Texas's death row because of a prosecution that a federal judge called outrageous and designed to simply achieve another notch on the prosecutor's guns.

In 1993, the Death Penalty Information Center was asked by Representative Don Edwards, then Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, to prepare a report on the problem of innocent people on death row. The Center 's report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. The growing number of additional cases in the ensuing years has prompted us to issue another report.

This report particularly looks at the dramatic narrowing of the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence. The federal funding for the death penalty resource centers, which helped discover and vindicate several of the innocent people cited in this report, has been completely withdrawn. Some courts have now taken the position that it is permissible for executions to go forward even in the face of considerable doubt about the defendant's guilt.

The current emphasis on faster executions, less resources for the defense, and an expansion in the number of death cases mean that the execution of innocent people is inevitable. The increasing number of innocent defendants being found on death row is a clear sign that our process for sentencing people to death is fraught with fundamental errors--errors which cannot be remedied once an execution occurs.

Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent. -Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., 19941

Introduction

In mid-1993, the Death Penalty Information Center received a request from Rep. Don Edwards, then Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, to prepare a report on the problem of innocent people on death row. At that time, crime bills were being introduced which involved an expansion of the federal death penalty and a curtailing of the capital appeal process. There also had been a series of highly publicized releases of people from death row in which it had belatedly been discovered that the wrong person had been convicted and sentenced to death.

The Center prepared a report for the Subcommittee, basing its research on its own monitoring of this issue and on groundbreaking work done by other researchers, most notably Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo Bedau.2The report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. It also explored why such critical mistakes had been made in the legal process, and whether it was likely that such errors would continue.

The report was released as a Staff Report of Rep. Edwards's Subcommittee in October, 19933 and received considerable media coverage and public attention. It continues to be widely cited. The Appendix to this Report contains the original list of 48 cases of people released from death row because of evidence of their innocence.

The Need for a New Report

The problem of innocent people facing execution because of errors in the criminal justice process has in no way diminished since 1993. For example, in the summer of 1996, the state of Illinois dropped all charges against four men who had been convicted of a 1978 murder. Two of the men had been sentenced to death. The investigation which led to the discovery that the wrong men had been convicted was conducted by three journalism students who had been assigned the case in class. These releases came on the heels of the release from death row of two other men in Illinois, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez. Three former prosecutors have been indicted for obstruction of justice in that case. Although the public may have learned something about these dramatic reversals, they probably have heard little about the continuous string of mistakes in capital cases which throws doubt on the reliability of the entire death penalty process.

There is considerable evidence that the crisis of wrongful death penalty convictions has worsened: the annual average of people released from death row because of their innocence has increased since the first report was prepared, while the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence has recently shrunk dramatically. The federal funding for the death penalty resource centers, which helped discover and vindicate several of the innocent people cited in this report, has been completely withdrawn. Some courts have now taken the position that it is permissible for executions to go forward even in the face of considerable doubt about the defendant's guilt. Yet, recent research indicates that there may be a greater chance of mistaken convictions in death cases than in non-death cases.4

Part I of this report discusses why so many innocent defendants are being found on our nation's death rows and the prospects for lessening the danger of mistaken executions in the future. Part II lists the new releases from death row and also discusses additional cases which may be added to the list when the cases are concluded.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=292

If you really believe that there is no proof that any innocent person has ever been executed, you aren't as smart as I think you are. Retract this as baseless rhetoric.

Typical BS that goes on where the victims are virtually ignored while the criminals are treated by some as if they're the victims!

Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Secondly, you seem to be confusing opposition to the death penalty to opposition to punishing criminals. Again, you're smarter than that.

Go ahead and support with your dying breath the right of scumbags like the one that murdered Cary having the right to live based on the hypothetical premise that somewhere down the line one innocent person might be executed.
How proud you must be, you that are so full of concern and compassion for those that have shown no regard for human life.
Sleep well in remembrance of Cary.

It isn't hypothetical. I won't do your work for you, so why don't you look up the proof of innocent people executed yourself. If you truly are as educated and as smart as you think you are, don't you think that you might want to educate yourself on an issue instead of clinging to flawed logic and canned talking points? Have you really truly weighed this based on all the evidence or just that evidence that you agree with emotionally?

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 12:59 PM

Defining Critical Thinking

(A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction)

Summary

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 02:25 PM

If you really believe that there is no proof that any innocent person has ever been executed, you aren't as smart as I think you are. Retract this as baseless rhetoric.

Secondly, you seem to be confusing opposition to the death penalty to opposition to punishing criminals. Again, you're smarter than that

It isn't hypothetical. I won't do your work for you, so why don't you look up the proof of innocent people executed yourself. If you truly are as educated and as smart as you think you are, don't you think that you might want to educate yourself on an issue instead of clinging to flawed logic and canned talking points? Have you really truly weighed this based on all the evidence or just that evidence that you agree with emotionally?

I'm in the middle of preparing a belated Thanksgiving Dinner (au gratin potatoes at the moment :)) so I can't respond in full at this time. You seem to think that I have confused the issues which I have not, as I stated in an earlier post I am merely commenting on or drawing in another critical aspect of the death penalty (bye-bye strawman), the victims and I'm stating that there is no proof that anyone has been executed wrongfully. My homework assignment will not be to search for info contradicting this but feel free to present concrete evidence to support your premise that there have been.
I assume it wasn't at your googling fingertips or you already would have.

(I used text size 5 to trump your size 4 as you seem to think it matters in presenting persuasive arguements). :lol

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 02:41 PM

I'll again precede my post by saying that I'm rather ambivalent about the death penalty. I agree with others that with a "death row" sentence far more retributation is extracted from the murderer than to end that suffering with lethal injection.

If we were to apply the anti-death penalty rationale to war we'd lose every one. How could we possibly defend ourselves against the enemy if we knew that by retailiating we'd be almost sure to kill innocent civilians?

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 03:10 PM

Here's an interesting read for those interested, I'll post a small portion of it and the link if you'd be interest in reading it in its entirety.

INNOCENCE ISSUES -- THE DEATH PENALTY
by Dudley Sharp

A thorough review finds that death penalty opponents have lied, extensively, regarding the numbers of innocents sentenced to death, that such risk is extraordinarily low and that the cessation of executions will put many more innocents at risk.

I. Innocents Released from Death Row: A Critical Review of the Claims

Death penalty opponents claim that "Since 1973, 102 (now 114) people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence," (1)

That is a blatantly false claim.

The foundation for these claims begins in 1993, when a study, released by US Rep. Don Edwards, purported to find that 48 innocents had been released from death row since 1973 (2). Rep. Edwards concluded that "Under the law, there is no distinction between definitively innocent and those found innocent after a trial."

Rep. Edwards was wrong.

The law recognizes the specific distinction between those legally innocent and those actually innocent, just as common sense dictates. Yes, there is a difference between the truly "I had no connection to the murder" cases and "I did it but I got off because of legal error" cases.

Rep. Edwards and other death penalty opponents combine these two conflicting groups to increase their "innocents" number. This is a continuation of a pattern of deception by death penalty opponents, that had been obvious for years.

In addition, Rep. Edwards selected an anti death penalty group, The Death Penalty Information Center (the DPIC), to conduct the study, thereby negating objective confidence in the results.

The source for the updated 102 innocent number is also the DPIC (3). Richard Dieter, head of the DPIC, has confirmed, again, what their "innocent" means:

". . . according to death penalty opponents, who say they make no distinction between legal and factual innocence because there is no difference between the two under the law and because there is no objective way to make such a determination. 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' " (4)

What nonsense.

As this public policy debate is only about the actually innocent, we know why the DPIC fails to make that obvious distinction -- they wish to, deceptively, expand their "innocents" claims.

Furthermore, for many years, the United States' courts have repeatedly enforced the obvious, common sense, important distinction between the actually innocent and the legally innocent (5). Mr. Dieter and all of those active in this debate are well aware of this. Death penalty opponents have chosen to be deceptive. (also see Sections IV. OK to Execute the Innocent? and VI. The Innocent Executed, below). This is hardly surprising.

As Dieter and other death penalty opponents make no distinction between the actually innocent and the legally innocent, why don't they claim that over 2500 innocents have been "exonerated" from death row? That is the number of legally and actually innocent released from death row since 1973 (6). The answer is obvious. They hoped that the media and others might just assume that the 102 (and the previous lesser numbers) were actually innocent and not ask any questions. And that is exactly what has happened -- a successful deception, aided by the poor fact checking standards of the media. The 2500 number, even for the media, is just too large a number for such blind acceptance.

As this deception has begun to unravel, Dieter "clarifies" that all 102 former death row inmates on the innocence list have been exonerated in one of three ways.

"A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon." (7)

Dieter is consistent.

None of those exoneration categories establishes, or even suggests, actual innocence.

Acquittal, which is a "not guilty" verdict, means that the state was unable to meet the necessary burden of proof, in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with establishing actual innocence.

In a case that has been overturned on appeal, the prosecution may drop the charges because of many reasons, the least likely being actual innocence (insert citation). For example, appellate courts may rule that evidence or testimony was constitutionally inadmissible, thereby removing the specific evidence of actual guilt from any prospect of a new trial and, thereby, precluding another trial.

And an absolute pardon may have nothing to do with actual innocence.

Just recall all the uproar over the pardons granted by President Clinton on the eve of his leaving office. I recall only one of those many cases wherein the defendant claimed actual innocence, and I don't recall any appellate judge giving any support to such a claim. Or recall ex-President Richard Nixon, pardoned by President Gerald Ford? Does anyone doubt that President Nixon was actually guilty of obstructing justice? Of course not.

Once again, we have example after example, whereby Dieter tells us that the DPIC standards have nothing to do with actual innocence. And this is simply back peddling on his part. As more and more people observe the extent of the fraud within the innocence claims of death penalty opponents, Dieter and other opponents will continue to change their definitions to justify their deceptive numbers.

And the "innocence" standards get worse.

Death penalty opponents have " . . . included supposedly innocent defendants who were still culpable as accomplices to the actual triggerman." (8). The law often finds such criminal accomplices legally guilty for their involvement in murders, even if they, themselves, didn't "pull the trigger". For example: Does anyone think that Bin Laden was innocent in the 9/11 World Trade Center bombings?

The DPIC, and other opponents, allegedly so devoted to legal standards in one circumstance -- presumption of innocence -- abandon a legal standard -- the law of parties -- when doing so can further increase their false "innocents" claims.

What "standards" will death penalty opponents create next to deceptively raise their innocence claims?

As the innocence frauds of death penalty opponents continue to unravel, they are now changing their definitions, as if they never meant that all the cases were actually innocent. In other words, they are just piling lie upon lie.

The evidence is overwhelming that some death penalty opponents were stating that the 102, nationwide, were actually innocent people, who had no connection to the murders. They lied.

Now they are stating it was just some function of release, as related above, or that they were only speaking of the "presumption of innocence", the legal standard for defendants, during trial. They have always been lying about the collective innocence claims, now they deceptively change the definitions, as their previous claims are imploding.

<snip>
http://prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:07 PM

(I used text size 5 to trump your size 4 as you seem to think it matters in presenting persuasive arguements). :lol

I did that more to set what I was saying apart from the long text I quoted. Sorry if it seems a bit like shouting. I will stick to bold or something then.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:10 PM

Part II: The Cases of Innocence

I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me. -Marquis de Lafayette

What follows is the list of 21 individuals who had been sentenced to death and for whom there is now convincing evidence of their innocence. All of these defendants were formally exonerated. These cases are in addition to the 48 cases of innocence discussed in the original report. (See Appendix).

A second group of cases consists of eight individuals whose capital convictions have been reversed, but there has been no formal exoneration. In some of these cases there may be a re-trial, in other cases the charges may be officially dropped later. If the defendant is finally cleared, that case would be added to the list of cases in the first category. This list is not an exhaustive compilation of all reversals in death cases, but rather a collection of prominent cases in which exoneration appears probable.

A third group consists of eight cases in which the defendant has been taken off of death row and evidence of innocence has emerged, but a conviction against him or her in the underlying charges remains. Some of these cases are the result of compromise between the prosecution, which threatens to seek the death penalty again after a reversal on appeal, and the defense, which is claiming complete innocence. In order to avoid the uncertainty, expense and trauma of another trial, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for immediate release. In other cases, a governor, troubled by a defendant's possible innocence, has commuted the death sentence to a life sentence. Again, this list is not exhaustive of all cases in which the death sentence was lifted.

Finally, the report discusses a few cases which may fall into one of the above categories in the future, but for now remain unresolved.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:10 PM

57. Joseph Burrows Illinois Conviction 1989 Released 1994

No physical evidence linked Burrows to the murder of William Dulin. The prosecution's two chief witnesses recanted their testimony against Mr. Burrows, and one of them confessed to the murder for which Burrows had been sent to death row. One of the witnesses said he had been coerced by prosecutors and police. Burrows was released in September, 1994, and the Illinois appellate courts have upheld the overturning of his conviction.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:10 PM

60. Rolando Cruz Illinois Conviction 1985 Released 1995

Cruz was sentenced to death for the murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. Another man, Brian Dugan, who had already pled guilty to two rapes and murders, including that of an 8-year-old girl, authorized his lawyer to tell the prosecutors that he killed Nicarico. Cruz was convicted at a second trial in 1990, at which Dugan did not testify. In July, 1994, the state Supreme Court overturned Cruz's second conviction. An assistant state attorney general resigned because she thought the evidence showed Cruz was innocent and thought it wrong to pursue the prosecution. Other law enforcement officials also protested the continued efforts to prosecute Cruz. Cruz was finally acquitted at his retrial in November, 1995. The judge did not even wait for the defense to put on its case before entering a directed verdict of not guilty. Three prosecutors and four law enforcement officers involved with the prosecution of Cruz and his co-defendant (see below) have been indicted for obstruction of justice in this case.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:11 PM

61. Alejandro Hernandez Illinois Conviction 1985 Released 1995

Hernandez was sentenced to death along with Rolando Cruz for the murder of Jeanine Nicarico in 1983. Hernandez was re-tried in 1990, but the trial ended in a hung jury. A third trial in 1991 resulted in a conviction and an 80 year prison sentence. The conviction was overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court in January, 1995. Only his own indirect statements, not any direct physical evidence, linked Hernandez, who is borderline retarded, to the killing. He was released on bond, and charges were subsequently dropped on Dec. 8, 1995. The man who has confessed to the murder of Jeanine Nicarico, and whose DNA has been linked to the crime, has not been charged in the case. The U.S. Dept. of Justice is considering an investigation into civil rights violations in this case.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:11 PM

62. Sabrina Butler Mississippi Conviction 1990 Released 1995

Butler was sentenced to death for the murder of her nine-month-old child. When she found her baby not breathing, she performed CPR and took him to the hospital. She was interrogated by the police and then prosecuted. Her conviction was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 1992. Upon re-trial, she was acquitted on Dec. 17, 1995 after a very brief jury deliberation. It is now believed that the baby may have died either of cystic kidney disease or from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:11 PM

63. Verneal Jimerson Illinois Conviction 1985 Released 1996

Jimerson was sentenced to death in 1985 for a murder which occurred in 1978. The chief witness against him was Paula Gray, who has an IQ of 57. In her original story to the police, she did not mention Jimerson. Then she added his name to her account, along with three other names, including Dennis Williams (see #64). She later recanted her entire testimony, saying the police had forced her to lie. The original charges against Jimerson were dismissed, but they were resurrected seven years later when the police offered to drop some charges against Gray if she would implicate Jimerson. Gray's 50 year sentence was converted to 2 years probation. In 1995, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously reversed Jimerson's conviction, because Gray had been allowed to testify falsely about her bargain. Jimerson was released on bond in early 1996, and charges against him were subsequently dropped.

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 05:24 PM

Now a good critical thinker SHOULD be wary of these descriptions from the report of a death penalty opponent. I DO make the distinction between legally innocent and actually innocent.

FURTHERMORE:

Your own link provided admitted that there was some genuinely good evidence to conclude that there probably were actually innocent people exonerated and released.

http://prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm
What is the real number of actual innocents released from death row?

A review of the DPIC 102 case descriptions finds that only about 32 claim actual innocence, with alleged proof to support the claim. 12 of those 32 are DNA cases. That is 32 cases out of about 7300 death sentences since 1973, or 0.4%. National Review's Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru, independently, came up with the same number for his "Bad List" article (10).

These guys commited the logical mistake of concluding that ONLY people who were exonerated with good evidence were actually innocent.

What about the ones who were never exonerated and actually put to death?

The death penalty proponents neatly side stepped that.

Lastly

There IS proof that innocent people were sentenced to death, it's right there in the article that I don't think you read all the way through.

You very well did distort what death penalty opponents believe, and the fact that you aren't honest enough to admit it saddens me.

I firmly believe that heinous criminals should be punished, as do pretty much every death penalty opponent I have met.

We simply are not ready to accept the trade off between an error rate and people's lives.

You claim to be advocating for victims, but miss the fact that the death penalty creates more victims than would otherwise be the case.

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 07:51 PM

I did that more to set what I was saying apart from the long text I quoted. Sorry if it seems a bit like shouting. I will stick to bold or something then.
I understood RG, just keepin' it light :)

RandomGuy

11-26-2005, 08:10 PM

I understood RG, just keepin' it light :)

Heh, even so, you did have a point. There, I admitted you were right about
something. :lol

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by RandomGuy:Lastly

There IS proof that innocent people were sentenced to death, it's right there in the article that I don't think you read all the way through.
I'll post what it says since you didn't;

It is not at all uncommon for death penalty opponents to make false claims about innocents executed. As of 1/1/03, The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) claims that "Twenty three (23) innocent people have been mistakenly executed (in the US) this (the 20th) century." (32) This is a common false claim, even though the authors of that 1987 study, in response to a deconstruction of their work, stated, in 1988, that "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these (23) executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (33). The NCADP is well aware of this, yet it doesn't stop their deception.
RG, Please tell me that that's not what you were referring to.

The article clearly states that there is no proof whatsoever that an innocent has been executed in modern history i.e., post 1900.
And we're clearly discussing modern history where with the burden of proof now incorporating DNA testing, not executing innocents should stay that way.

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 08:48 PM

Heh, even so, you did have a point. There, I admitted you were right about
something. :lol

Thanks for the sop I'll cherish it forever. :lol

Oh, Gee!!

11-26-2005, 10:19 PM

Death penalty is racist

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 10:55 PM

Death penalty is racist

Powerful statement, way to back it up with facts OG...
I'll present some facts that refute that;

Fallacy #1: Racism

"The death penalty is racist.... [T]he federal death penalty is used disproportionately against minorities, especially African Americans.... According to [Justice Department] figures, nearly 80 percent of inmates on federal death row are Black, Hispanic, or from another minority group." (Campaign to End the Death Penalty)

"The imposition of the death penalty is racially biased: Nearly 90% of persons executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color make up over half of all homicide victims in the United States." (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty)

"Death row in the U.S. has always held a disproportionately large population of people of color relative to the general population." (ACLU Briefing Paper on the Death Penalty)

Correction: The claim that the death penalty unfairly impacts blacks and minorities is a deliberate fraud. The majority of those executed since 1976 have been white, even though black criminals commit a slim majority of murders. If the death penalty is racist, it is biased against white murderers and not blacks.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks committed 51.5% of murders between 1976 and 1999, while whites committed 46.5%. Yet even though blacks committed a majority of murders, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports: "Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up the majority of those under sentence of death." (Emphasis added.) Whites continued to comprise the majority on death row in the year 2000 (1,990 whites to 1,535 blacks and 68 others). In the year 2000, 49 of the 85 people actually put to death were whites.

So how can abolitionists claim that the death penalty unfairly punishes black people and other minorities? The statistics they cite are often technically accurate (though not always), but they don’t mean what most people assume they mean. Abolitionists often start by analyzing the race of the victims rather than the murderers. Because most murders are intra-racial (white murderers mostly kill other whites and most black murderers kill other blacks), imposing the death penalty more frequently on white murderers means that killers of white people will more likely be executed. In essence, abolitionists playing the race card argue that black murder victims are not receiving justice because only the murderers of white people are punished with the death penalty. Death penalty proponents may consider this denying justice to black people.

New "hate crimes" laws are likely to worsen the hypocrisy. A "hate crimes" mentality translates into tougher sentences for interracial "hate crimes." Because white people are killed by black people 2.6 times more frequently than black people are killed by white people, more killers of white people will be susceptible to receiving the death penalty than killers of black people.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htm

FromWayDowntown

11-26-2005, 11:05 PM

I'll post what it says since you didn't;

It is not at all uncommon for death penalty opponents to make false claims about innocents executed. As of 1/1/03, The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) claims that "Twenty three (23) innocent people have been mistakenly executed (in the US) this (the 20th) century." (32) This is a common false claim, even though the authors of that 1987 study, in response to a deconstruction of their work, stated, in 1988, that "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these (23) executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (33). The NCADP is well aware of this, yet it doesn't stop their deception.
RG, Please tell me that that's not what you were referring to.

The article clearly states that there is no proof whatsoever that an innocent has been executed in modern history i.e., post 1900.
And we're clearly discussing modern history where with the burden of proof now incorporating DNA testing, not executing innocents should stay that way.

That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes that someone has gone back through every case of execution and had the ability to investigate every aspect of the case in order to determine that someone may have actually been innocent.

You, however, cannot dispute that people who were demonstrably innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted have been sentenced to death. Only by the grace of someone caring enough to investigate those cases have those innocents lives been spared. It's scary to think that so many could care so little about those lives and not see the problem that they only narrowly avoided. It's the height of arrogance, I think, to suppose that we've discovered every one of the innocents before their scheduled execution dates -- and it's certainly isn't true that we sentence only the guilty to death.

bigzak25

11-26-2005, 11:18 PM

This country was built on the blood of the innocent.

See any American Indians today? Yeah, me neither.

Godbless them.

Their slaughter is a black eye on America.

End the Death Penalty.

But lets end this parole bullshit too.

Straight time is the answer.

Rape or Murder is either 50 years or a 100 years. NO PAROLE.

Jury can decide which length is appropriate.

End of story. Case closed. Nothing more to see here. :tu

Thou shalt not kill. :angel

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 11:31 PM

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes that someone has gone back through every case of execution and had the ability to investigate every aspect of the case in order to determine that someone may have actually been innocent.
I would think that in cases where a life is in the balance the defense would leave no stone unturned in an attempt to get a lighter sentence or exonerate the accused. Last I heard that's what they're paid to do.
On top of that I don't think it would be a stretch to believe that death penalty opponents both have and are reexamining each and every case that might provide them with "the case" that they believe would lend great credence and propel their position to the point where both public opinion and the courts are swayed.

jochhejaam

11-26-2005, 11:43 PM

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]
You, however, cannot dispute that people who were demonstrably innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted have been sentenced to death. Only by the grace of someone caring enough to investigate those cases have those innocents lives been spared.
No one's refuting that FWD.

It's scary to think that so many could care so little about those lives and not see the problem that they only narrowly avoided.
Why is it scary? Reexamining, reviewing and appealing death sentences is a natural process in the legal system and it's kept innocents from being executed.

It's the height of arrogance, I think, to suppose that we've discovered every one of the innocents before their scheduled execution dates...
And it's the height of presumptuousness and arrogance, I think, to claim that innocents have been executed without providing proof.

FromWayDowntown

11-27-2005, 12:58 AM

Why is it scary? Reexamining, reviewing and appealing death sentences is a natural process in the legal system and it's kept innocents from being executed.

The sort of reexamination and exoneration of innocents doesn't truly occur within the context of the legal system -- in most of the documented instances, it has occurred well after the normal course of appeals has ended and only because those who advocate against the death penalty are willing to undertake investigations that were not undertaken previously, handled incompetently when undertaken, or discounted when presented. The documented instances of individuals being let free from death row are examples of issue advocacy at its finest, but it's far from a natural process in the legal system per se. It takes extraordinary action by the advocates to seek and obtain exoneration of innocents on death row.

And it scares me that some are so cavalier about that fact and apparently indifferent to the possibilty (whether proven or not; whether proveable or not) that there may be some on death row who couldn't be saved by those advocates. Given the fairly large number of exonerations and commutations in death cases, the statistical probability is quite high that we have, indeed, executed an innocent person somewhere along the line. I can't be indifferent to that.

George W. Bush

11-27-2005, 03:59 AM

Lets just round'em up, kill'em all, and let God sort'em out.

Saves time and money. I never liked them there lawyars anyways.

jochhejaam

11-27-2005, 09:58 AM

And it scares me that some are so cavalier about that fact and apparently indifferent to the possibilty (whether proven or not; whether proveable or not) that there may be some on death row who couldn't be saved by those advocates. Given the fairly large number of exonerations and commutations in death cases, the statistical probability is quite high that we have, indeed, executed an innocent person somewhere along the line. I can't be indifferent to that.

I agree that indifference to the possibility of an innocent being executed would be shameful, I don't think being pro death penalty and having great concern for this possibility are mutually exclusive. As I stated earlier, my belief and that of many others is that a Death Row sentence is a form of prolonged torture and extracts a far greater mental and psychological toll because of the possible length of the sentence than execution. I believe it was you that stated they are allowed 1 hour of time out of their cell each day.

That being the case why is it more humane or noble (and this question would be posed to those that are against the death penalty because they consider it inhumane) to want to extract this toll on person rather than putting an end to these unbearable living conditions by lethal injections? Lethal injection would lessen those inhumane and torturous living conditions and suffering by, who knows, 10 to 45 years.

In an earlier post my friend RandomGuy made reference to an "altar of vengeance" perhaps suggesting that the death penalty is meted out to recompense families or societies rather than it being the punishment someone has brought upon themselves. If that's the case where's the outcry for those that are serving hard time on Death Row with it's torturous aspects. Couldn't that be just as aptly referred to as the "cell of vengeance"?

If you're against the death penalty in all cases I can understand the arguement, unsubstantiated thought it is, that an innocent may be executed.
If you would be for the death penalty if it weren't for the fact (it's actually a fallacy until proven) that an innocent might be or may have been wrongfully executed then from my perspective your position is weak and without much merit.

Where does this posturing on the possibility of wrongfully sentencing an innocent begin and end?
Who's the arbiter of this?
Should it only apply to the death sentence? If that then why would it not also apply to the inhumanity of just being on death row and what's the remedy, place them in the general prison population because they may be innocent? After all, most criminals maintain their innocense throughout their sentence.
How about the possibility of an innocent being given life with the possibility of parole, they could be innocent...the remedy? Lessen everyones sentence that maintains their innocent of the crime they're accused of commiting?
Where does it end? Ten to twenty? Three to Five? Six months? Who's to say?
If you concerned only for the possible innocents that are on death row, that would smack of hypocrisy wouldn't it?