Executed man may have been innocent

[RandomGuy]

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 re ed, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I understood RG, just keepin' it light

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

[jochhejaam]

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]

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

Thanks for the sop I'll cherish it forever.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Death penalty is racist

[jochhejaam]

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/20..._fallacies.htm

[FromWayDowntown]

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]

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 bull 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.

Thou shalt not kill.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

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]

[QUOTE]

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]

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 do ented 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 do ented 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]

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]

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?

[ElMuerto]

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.

In your words...:"bring 'em on!"