Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 8:43:19 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

the opponents of the D.P. have not presented convincing cases. They've made them well enough so that if the question is asked in this form: "Would you prefer the death penalty or life imprisonment with no chance of parole?", the majority of Americans choose the latter. This site presents the case against the death penalty as well as any. Bedau is probably the leading anti-dp scholar in the world, imo: aclu.org On innocents executed, I'd guess you haven't read a great deal on the subject. Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder. Scores of these individuals were sentenced to death. In many cases, a reprieve or commutation arrived just hours, or even minutes, before the scheduled execution. These erroneous convictions have occurred in virtually every jurisdiction from one end of the nation to the other. Nor have they declined in recent years, despite the new death penalty statutes approved by the Supreme Court.38 I'll post some specific cases a bit later. One discomfiting aspect of this is that most saved innocents have been saved not by the system, but by outsiders who got interested and went to the trouble of proving the condemned man's innocence before they'd killed him. Another item to keep in mind is that once an innocent man is executed, no one looks further into the case. Yes, man. Males are discriminated against in the lottery that decides who is put to death for a crime.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 8:44:36 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 21057

I don't think it is necessary to show that an innocent has been executed. It is possible that they have been, and possible that they will be. That possibility alone is enough to turn me against executions, unless empirical evidence can be produced to show that executions serve some compelling purpose that can be achieved in no other way. As it is, I see no benefit sufficient to justify the risk. I suppose that in Bill's book this is a left-wing position, though it seems to me to be a quite conservative one. Labels can be so confusing....

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:03:55 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Some representative cases, all from aclu.org (but there are many other sites with cases listed, if you search.) (I'll post one at a time so they aren't so hard to read.) In 1985, in Maryland, Kirk Bloodsworth was sentenced to death for rape and murder, despite the testimony of alibi witnesses. In 1986 his conviction was reversed on grounds of withheld evidence pointing to another suspect; he was retried, re-convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. In 1993, newly available DNA evidence proved he was not the rapist-killer, and he was released after the prosecution dismissed the case. A year later he was awarded $300,000 for wrongful punishment.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:04:48 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

In Mississippi, in 1990, Sabrina Butler was sentenced to death for killing her baby boy. She claimed the child died after attempts at resuscitation failed. On technical grounds her conviction was reversed in 1992. At retrial, she was acquitted when a neighbor corroborated Butler's explanation of the child's cause of death and the physician who performed the autopsy admitted his work had not been thorough.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:05:26 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

In 1985, in Illinois, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were convicted of abduction, rape, and murder of a young girl and were sentenced to death. Shortly after, another man serving a life term in prison for similar crimes confessed that he alone was guilty; but his confession was inadmissible because he refused to repeat it in court unless the state waived the death penalty. Awarded a new trial in 1988, Cruz was again convicted and sentenced to death; Hernandez was also re-convicted, and sentenced to 80 years in prison. In 1992 the assistant attorney general assigned to prosecute the case on appeal resigned after becoming convinced of the defendants' innocence. The convictions were again overturned on appeal after DNA tests exonerated Cruz and implicated the prisoner who had earlier confessed. In 1995 the court ordered a directed verdict of acquittal, and sharply criticized the police for their unprofessional handling of the case. Hernandez was released on bail and the prosecution dropped all charges.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:06:02 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

In Alabama, Walter McMillian was convicted of murdering a white woman in 1988. Despite the jury's recommendation of a life sentence, the judge sentenced him to death. The sole evidence leading the police to arrest McMillian was testimony of an ex-convict seeking favor with the prosecution. A dozen alibi witnesses (all African Americans, like McMillian) testified on McMillian's behalf, to no avail. On appeal, after tireless efforts by his attorney Bryan Stevenson, McMillian's conviction was reversed by the Alabama Court of Appeals. Stevenson uncovered prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence and perjury by prosecution witnesses, and the new district attorney joined the defense in seeking dismissal of the charges.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:06:39 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

Another 1980s Texas case tells an even more sordid story. In 1980 a black high school janitor, Clarence Brandley, and his white co-worker found the body of a missing 16-year-old white schoolgirl. Interrogated by the police, they were told, "One of you two is going to hang for this." Looking at Brandley, the officer said, "Since you're the nigger, you're elected." In a classic case of rush to judgment, Brandley was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The circumstantial evidence against him was thin, other leads were ignored by the police, and the courtroom atmosphere reeked of racism. In 1986, Centurion Ministries – a volunteer group devoted to freeing wrongly convicted prisoners – came to Brandley's aid. Evidence had meanwhile emerged that another man had committed the murder for which Brandley was awaiting execution. Brandley was not released until 1990.39

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:08:27 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

Each of the above cases has a reassuring ending: The innocent prisoner is saved from execution and released. But other cases are more troubling. In 1992, Roger Keith Coleman was executed in Virginia despite widely publicized doubts surrounding his guilt and evidence that pointed to another person as the murderer – evidence that was never submitted at his trial. Not until late in the appeal process did anyone take seriously the possibility that the state was about to kill an innocent man, and then efforts to delay or nullify his execution failed.40 Coleman's case was marked with many of the circumstances found in other cases where the defendant was eventually cleared. Were Coleman still incarcerated, his friends and attorneys would have a strong incentive to resolve these questions. But because Coleman is dead, further inquiry into the crime for which he was convicted is extremely unlikely. (What could be more obviously the case, where proving dead people were innocent is concerned? - E)

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:14:00 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

(This is probably the clearest case in recent years of the execution of a dead person. The reason this person was shown to be innocent is that he was convicted along with his wife, who was still alive. The dead don't have a whole lot of power. -- E) In 1990, Jesse Tafero was executed in Florida. He had been convicted in 1976 along with his wife, Sonia Jacobs, for murdering a state trooper. In 1981 Jacobs' death sentence was reduced on appeal to life imprisonment, and 11 years later her conviction was vacated by a federal court. The evidence on which Tafero and Jacobs had been convicted and sentenced was identical; it consisted mainly of the perjured testimony of an ex-convict who turned state's witness in order to avoid a death sentence. Had Tafero been alive in 1992, he no doubt would have been released along with Jacobs.41

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/19/2002 9:17:01 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Also from Bedau. Obvious, but sometimes the obvious is overlooked. How could anyone be so naive as to believe, in a system in which people get fried on the testimony of convicts who get rewarded, for example by escaping execution themselves, for their helpful testimony, that the innocent won't be put to death as a result of perjury?: Several factors help explain why the judicial system cannot guarantee that justice will never miscarry: overzealous prosecution, mistaken or perjured testimony, faulty police work, coerced confessions, the defendant's previous criminal record, inept defense counsel, seemingly conclusive circumstantial evidence, and community pressure for a conviction, among others. And when the system does go wrong, it is volunteers outside the criminal justice system – journalists, for example – who rectify the errors, not the police or prosecutors. aclu.org

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (3553)	3/20/2002 1:27:57 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 21057

Any system run by mere mortals will make mistakes. That is price we pay for our frailties Of course, you are correct in that. Making mistakes is indeed a price we pay for our frailties. We certainly agree on that point. Mistakes have consequences. Most of us would hope that the consequences of mistakes involving our loved ones were limited such that no permanent injury is possible. I don't mind missing a meal over a mistake; but missing all the meals left in the universe is a fairly high consequence to pay for someone else's human "frailties". Note that I have said nothing about allowing someone "thought" to be a murderer out on the street again. No, I have not said that. Instead, I have said that innocent people get convicted everyday of something. If they remain alive, they may someday be compensated and receive some small measure of justice. I do not find it unreasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the living rather than to the dead. It is respect for human life which is the basis for human rights...and indeed the arch stone of civilization. Murderers (the actual factual ones) can afford to eschew this quality. The rest of us, if we wish to continue to do our hunting in the grocery store...cannot.