I'm 100% in favor of capital punishment, but...

[DVS]

I'm 100% in favor of capital punishment...as long as they have the right person. But, that puts a lot of pressure on police and the court system to make sure they have the right person. Sometimes I think society puts too much pressure on police to always get their man.

This particular case makes me wonder if some court systems are sometimes too hasty to arrest and convict. It makes me wonder if they have become complacent or even a little biased in some of their decisions. We have gained some very advanced technology in recent years, that we didn't have just 20 or even 10 years ago. Back then, I'm sure it was a little scary for someone accused, because the whole case could stand on an eyewitness account of what or who they saw.

I'm sorry, but that's just a crappy way of justice. Just someone's say that they saw the accused leave the scene or was in the vicinity of the crime scene at the right time. People make mistakes and they also have agendas of their own. An eyewitness accounting of the crime might be all you have to go on, but I'd damn well want to be sure that eyewitness was correct in what they saw if you're going to use capital punishment for an offense.

Once about 25 years ago, someone pointed a gun at me. He didn't like what I had accused him of. He didn't intend to shoot me though, he just wanted to show um, show me he was a big and tough guy. Then he got into his car and drive away. I got the make of the car (Chevrolet), the color (light blue) the complete license number and a rough estimate of the year of the model (Monte Carlo) and went to police. With all of that information I had given her, the lady police officer asked me if I could give her the year of the Monte Carlo. I told her I couldn't, because some model changes were rather small in some of the years. She insisted that I give it a try, so I told her I could only guess it was maybe early 1980s model.

Still not happy that I could only estimate the year, she reluctantly took down the information I had given her and then brought out a group of pictures for me to look at. She said the person that pointed the gun at me was in that group, and asked if I could point him out.

What I wasn't told was that the person had a record and the last picture they had of him was as a juvenile. People change over the years, and I couldn't identify that kid in the picture as the 25 year old that pointed the nickle plated 38 revolver at me. Oh, the lady cop tried her best to tell me the pictures could be old and the person could have changed. I still couldn't identify the person, and she was not happy.

As it turns out, the person was a rather slippery repeat offender and they never could get anything to stick. But even though she had my eyewitness account of what had happened, my description of the gun, my description of the person who pointed at me as well as the make, model, color and license number of the car he drove off in, that wasn't enough to go after him. As pissed as I was that the guy had pointed that gun at me and gotten away with it, I was just as happy that it took more than just my word that he had done it.

Today, we have many advances in crime scene investigation. And every year that goes by, we gain more advances. Technology is a wonderful thing because it can now whittle down the people who could have done something to 1 in quadrillions. But what of those who are in jail and on death row now, convicted by lesser means maybe 20 or more years ago? While the law says a jury of your peers can decide if your are guilty or innocent, even those 12 people are taking someone's word for it, as the law says they are suppose to do. It all comes down to what evidence there is, how good the prosecutor is and how good the defense attorney is. Life in prison is one thing, but there's a way to fix that, if you've made a mistake. I'm sorry, but if I'm going to kill someone, I need more proof that he did it.

Like I said, I was pissed that that kid pointed the gun at me and got away with it. It probably made him feel stronger, maybe tougher and more likely to point it at the next guy. Maybe it made him more likely to even shoot the next guy, I never found out. But, in just that small incident, that lady cop needed more evidence than I had given her to go after him. I like that. Did the system work? Yes and no, but capital punishment wasn't involved.

It wouldn't be cheap, but I seriously think anybody who is condemned to die should have their case reopened by someone, maybe by a group of go getter college kids like the linked case, just to satisfy that we have the right guy. It's only fair, because we are only human and humans make mistakes. If the new technology that wasn't available when the crime was committed can prove that we got the right guy, proceed as the law states. But, if there is any doubt that we got the right guy, the least we can do is try to find where we made the mistake, correct it if possible, and give lady justice back her clean name.

 

[Shankara20]

I'm 100% in favor of capital punishment...as long as they have the right person.

And this story in one of the reasons I'm 100% against capital punishment.

I'm sorry to read your story, it feels to me like so many others times when the criminal justice system lets people down.

It has been a long day today, so I will not expand on my views. I hope to in the next several days.

I'm OK with you and I having opposing views and do look forward to following this thread.

 

[Keroin]

And this story in one of the reasons I'm 100% against capital punishment.

Ditto. There are too many stories like this one. And even one is too many, IMO.

As long as there are humans involved, there will be errors.

 

[DVS]

And this story in one of the reasons I'm 100% against capital punishment.

I'm sorry to read your story, it feels to me like so many others times when the criminal justice system lets people down.

It has been a long day today, so I will not expand on my views. I hope to in the next several days.

I'm OK with you and I having opposing views and do look forward to following this thread.

Oh, I have no problem with anybody having different views than I do, as long as they can base them on something substantial. That's a little different than a recent thread in another forum that's making waves.

Thank God some people aren't in law enforcement. Sad how it kind of fits right in. I look forward to your opinion. I'm sure it has merit.

 

[DVS]

Ditto. There are too many stories like this one. And even one is too many, IMO.

As long as there are humans involved, there will be errors.

If you read my post I'm 100% in favor of capital punishment as long as there is no doubt they have the right person. But, if there is any doubt, that's a different story. We should have the necessary technology to find the truth in most cases. But, if there's any doubt when using our advanced technical skills, I vote for life in prison, maybe even setting someone free, if technology finds the evidence from the past case is not credible. Not only do humans make mistakes, they can also lie and falsify evidence to satisfy the desires of society to close a case.

 

[4bidnfruit]

This story just makes me roll my eyes because it doesn’t say anything about the death penalty cases that are happening today with modern technology. A book was written on the research so I have to wonder if that persuaded their opinion of “probably led to the wrong man dying” theory.

I do believe that if someone is on death row and they truly intend on putting the person to death, after sitting there for 20 years, they may as well see if they can collect DNA from the evidence. Unfortunately it wasn’t available back then.

I remember when Roger Coleman was put to death while claiming his innocence, I said, “turn on the lights, maybe we will get a flicker”. I know that’s atrocious behavior and I’m glad I’m not there anymore but I still support it. He was proven guilty after his execution with DNA because people kept saying he was innocent. My personal opinions on the matter would be justifications to keep me off any jury where death was on the table because I could never separate myself and would never vote for it. I believe that is unfair either way but I’ll be damned if I’d live with the guilt of not knowing if it was truly deserved, DNA or not.

I would vote against a governor that doesn’t support it.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm not averse to capital punishment, but I'm not exactly thrilled by what Ron White called the "express lane." In some states, politicians seem to have made a career off of "While I was in office, we executed 5,000 people." That's not right no matter how you slice it.

I don't think we should be able to execute people based on circumstantial evidence only. If there's not compelling DNA evidence, then life in prison should be the most we can do.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

A lot of the regulars here know what I do for a living: I type trial transcripts. I've listened to hundreds of trials from beginning to end, hearing every word the jury heard... and probably some they didn't hear because the witness slurred the words or was soft-spoken, and no one in the courtroom pointed out that if the microphone in front of the witness stand wasn't picking up every word clearly, there was no freakin' way the jury, 15 to 35 feet away, was getting every word. (In the district for which I type transcripts, the microphones are only for recording what's said. They don't go to any sort of public address system or otherwise amplify speakers' voices.)

I would estimate that in somewhere between five and ten percent of the cases for which I've typed transcripts, the jury got it wrong. Having listened to so many cases, so many witnesses, I can often tell when a witness is lying, exaggerating, or simply saying what he/she believes the attorneys who call him/her to the stand want him/her to say. I also have a pretty damn good memory (even at my advanced age), and can remember when a witness who testifies for the State one day is cross-examined the next day by the Defense and contradicts the testimony of the previous day. And yes, sometimes I go back into what I've already typed and say, "Shit! This idiot said it was a blue Ford Taurus in direct exam, and now on cross-exam, says it was a red Chevy Volt! How could they not have questioned the idiot about that?" and there is no answer.

I've typed about a dozen murder trials (10 years to life as potential sentences, depending on the degree and the circumstances), about the same number of rape trials (five years to life), and three or four times as many armed robbery trials (ten years to life). (I've never had a death penalty case.) It is my judgment, because I listened to every single word spoken in each trial, that some of those jury verdicts (guilty or innocent) in each category were just flat wrong.

I used to support the death penalty - before I got into this line of work. Having heard over my decade in trial transcription what actually happens in our justice system (which is *still* the best in the world, even though it has serious flaws!), I can no longer do so. It is too easy for lawyers - on both sides - to twist words and evidence until even a conscientious juror's judgment is warped and their verdict a miscarriage of justice. Until the flaws are repaired, I can't justify that final "payment" for any crime, unless there is always uncontrovertible evidence that it was committed by the person charged.

 

[Keroin]

If you read my post I'm 100% in favor of capital punishment as long as there is no doubt they have the right person. But, if there is any doubt, that's a different story. We should have the necessary technology to find the truth in most cases. But, if there's any doubt when using our advanced technical skills, I vote for life in prison, maybe even setting someone free, if technology finds the evidence from the past case is not credible. Not only do humans make mistakes, they can also lie and falsify evidence to satisfy the desires of society to close a case.

Mmm, I'm just not behind taking lives - deserved or not.

Would I kill someone in self defense? On a battlefield? If they seriously harmed or killed someone I loved? Possibly.

But institutionalized murder? Nope. I can't get behind that. Especially if "the system" puts innocent people at risk, which it does in its current state.

But that's just me.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Mmm, I'm just not behind taking lives - deserved or not.

Would I kill someone in self defense? On a battlefield? If they seriously harmed or killed someone I loved? Possibly.

But institutionalized murder? Nope. I can't get behind that. Especially if "the system" puts innocent people at risk, which it does in its current state.

But that's just me.

Me three. Society ought to be better than its worst elements.

Why do we inflict capital punishment? To say, this is so heinous, so evil an act that we want to set it apart, to make a statement that killing is the ultimate transgression of our laws.

And we will do that by killing.

It reminds me of parents I see smacking the hell out of their kids, screaming "DON'T YOU EVER - EVER - HIT SOMEONE AGAIN!!!!! DO YOU HEAR ME?????!!!!!!"

 

[JMohegan]

I'm glad they shot OBL. Without a trial, no less. Not only did he brag about orchestrating the mass murder of thousands, he was - by his own account - plotting more slaughter. He got "due process," straight through the head.

There are times to rise above principle, and that was one of those times. So I can't agree with the 'no state-sanctioned killing' absolute.

As for capital punishment for the alleged perpetrators of heinous domestic crimes, I'll be in favor of it as soon as they make cops and coroners, witnesses and DNA specialists, prosecutors and defense lawyers, judges and juries, infallible.

 

[DVS]

I'm glad they shot OBL. Without a trial, no less. Not only did he brag about orchestrating the mass murder of thousands, he was - by his own account - plotting more slaughter. He got "due process," straight through the head.

There are times to rise above principle, and that was one of those times. So I can't agree with the 'no state-sanctioned killing' absolute.

As for capital punishment for the alleged perpetrators of heinous domestic crimes, I'll be in favor of it as soon as they make cops and coroners, witnesses and DNA specialists, prosecutors and defense lawyers, judges and juries, infallible.

I agree with you. But, if the DNA shows someone did it, I don't think anybody can dispute that. But I also understand what you mean about everybody else being above the law. That's partly what I meant by my first post. A lot of the case can depend on who tested the DNA.

Anybody who was convicted before our new advanced DNA technology should get the benefits of it, to prove or disprove they did it. I also think dis-associated labs should do the testing, but I don't think the courts would go for that, mostly because who would dare think their labs would be biased? If you ask me, it's just good common sense and keeps everybody honest. It would help keep things less likely to be tainted by someone with a bias, likely or not.

There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, and I don't think someone should be put to death unless there is absolutely no doubt they did it. But then, we go back to the tainted evidence thing, which does happen. There is also proof of that. There are good and bad people in every profession. I know of judges who have been paid off and a coroner who had such a fantastic record that she was finally investigated. It was found that she was fixing evidence she tested to show the accused was guilty. It wasn't to help police as much as it was just to show she was good at her job.

It caused a mass review of every trial she had been involved in. That is scary that someone in her position would go to that extent just to be right. I don't think she was involved in any death penalty cases, but this is enough evidence for me that changes need to be made.

Yes, I'm all for capital punishment, but we need to be absolutely sure we have the right person. And I don't know if we can say that in every case, even with all of the fancy DNA tests we have at our disposal. Everybody involved must be above reproach and that's too difficult to do, without changes. But I know the DNA doesn't lie, as long as the tester doesn't.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I am not in favour of capital punishment. Too many mistakes have been made in the past (capital punishment or just wrongful imprisonment), and I really don't feel there is a human alive or dead who has the right to decide if another's life should end. It is good to qualify it with 'as long as they have the right person', but history has shown there have been many times they felt they had the right person, juries felt they had the right person, evidence seemed to support that view, only to find out later they didn't. That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Catalina

 

[Cattypuss]

Mmm, I'm just not behind taking lives - deserved or not.

[snip]

institutionalized murder? Nope. I can't get behind that.

[snip]

But that's just me.

Well it's me too. Totally agree.

 

[graceanne]

I agree with you. But, if the DNA shows someone did it, I don't think anybody can dispute that. But I also understand what you mean about everybody else being above the law. That's partly what I meant by my first post. A lot of the case can depend on who tested the DNA.

Anybody who was convicted before our new advanced DNA technology should get the benefits of it, to prove or disprove they did it. I also think dis-associated labs should do the testing, but I don't think the courts would go for that, mostly because who would dare think their labs would be biased? If you ask me, it's just good common sense and keeps everybody honest. It would help keep things less likely to be tainted by someone with a bias, likely or not.

There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, and I don't think someone should be put to death unless there is absolutely no doubt they did it. But then, we go back to the tainted evidence thing, which does happen. There is also proof of that. There are good and bad people in every profession. I know of judges who have been paid off and a coroner who had such a fantastic record that she was finally investigated. It was found that she was fixing evidence she tested to show the accused was guilty. It wasn't to help police as much as it was just to show she was good at her job.

It caused a mass review of every trial she had been involved in. That is scary that someone in her position would go to that extent just to be right. I don't think she was involved in any death penalty cases, but this is enough evidence for me that changes need to be made.

Yes, I'm all for capital punishment, but we need to be absolutely sure we have the right person. And I don't know if we can say that in every case, even with all of the fancy DNA tests we have at our disposal. Everybody involved must be above reproach and that's too difficult to do, without changes. But I know the DNA doesn't lie, as long as the tester doesn't.

Yeah, this is my point of view on it. I agree that they should send the evidence out to an impartial lab. I also worry, I know at the time our system was made up a trial by peers was the most fair way to do it, but juries are often swayed by emotion not logic. This works to the wrong, both ways, too often. Just as often as someone is wrongly convicted, so is someone who should have been convicted. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any other way, because I SURE AS HECK don't think we should allow the government to decide who is or is not guilty. In 'make believe land', because computers are logical, it would seem to me that a computer program would be the best bet for this, but what if the program gets a glich?

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I am not in favour of capital punishment. Too many mistakes have been made in the past (capital punishment or just wrongful imprisonment), and I really don't feel there is a human alive or dead who has the right to decide if another's life should end. It is good to qualify it with 'as long as they have the right person', but history has shown there have been many times they felt they had the right person, juries felt they had the right person, evidence seemed to support that view, only to find out later they didn't. That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Catalina

We should at least pay for their headstones, with the epitaph:

OOPS!

Think that will comfort the grieving families?

 

[Shankara20]

I'm glad they shot OBL. Without a trial, no less. Not only did he brag about orchestrating the mass murder of thousands, he was - by his own account - plotting more slaughter. He got "due process," straight through the head.

There are times to rise above principle, and that was one of those times. So I can't agree with the 'no state-sanctioned killing' absolute.

The issue with OBL did challenge my somewhat sanctimonious "no state sponsored taking of a life" POV.

 

[catalina_francisco]

We should at least pay for their headstones, with the epitaph:

OOPS!

Think that will comfort the grieving families?

Doubt it.

Catalina

 

[Tabea]

I would estimate that in somewhere between five and ten percent of the cases for which I've typed transcripts, the jury got it wrong.

Having heard over my decade in trial transcription what actually happens in our justice system (which is *still* the best in the world, even though it has serious flaws!), I can no longer do so. It is too easy for lawyers - on both sides - to twist words and evidence until even a conscientious juror's judgment is warped and their verdict a miscarriage of justice. Until the flaws are repaired, I can't justify that final "payment" for any crime, unless there is always uncontrovertible evidence that it was committed by the person charged.

I am really curious. How do you know that it is the best system in the world?

 

[DVS]

As it looks right now, unless you say you're against capital punishment because taking a life is wrong, no matter what the reason, I think we are all in agreement that the present system isn't working as it should.

While I believe in capital punishment, I'm against the way it's handled in the present system. There are just too many mistakes, too many lies, too many biased individuals, those with vendettas, or just those in the system that feel they need to corrupt it in their favor, so they can keep their job.

If we had a pure system, where there were accurate checks and balances, that would be one thing. But there is far too much collusion behind the scenes to make me feel secure in knowing with absolute surety the one we're killing is the right one.

If you'd seen some of the crime scenes I've seen, I think you'd agree that we need some kind of extreme punishment for the extreme cases. While I don't know if capital punishment is working, I still think we need something that tells these people you will pay for your vicious crime in a vicious way, when you are captured. Many (but not all) families of murder victims prefer capital punishment for the convicted felon, but I don't think they would want it, if they were unsure about their guilt. I don't think anybody wants that.

Anyway, I respect everybody's opinion, because I understand this isn't a cut and dried subject. I still have issues, myself.

 

[janeyruth]

There are just too many mistakes, too many lies, too many biased individuals, bla bla and bla....

Jesus, you're a squeamish little fuck, aren't you? Queasy, too. Not to mention fastidious. I have it! Why don't we make it a requirement that anyone connected with the Death Penalty process be topheavy with anal retentive DNA? That way, we'd be certain that no "t" is left uncrossed and no "i" undotted before the guilty motherfucker gets the needle up the kazoo (or wherever they stick it).

The only other alternative I can think of to allay your qualms would be to let machines run it. Of course, if the network goes down....

 

[DVS]

Jesus, you're a squeamish little fuck, aren't you? Queasy, too. Not to mention fastidious. I have it! Why don't we make it a requirement that anyone connected with the Death Penalty process be topheavy with anal retentive DNA? That way, we'd be certain that no "t" is left uncrossed and no "i" undotted before the guilty motherfucker gets the needle up the kazoo (or wherever they stick it).

The only other alternative I can think of to allay your qualms would be to let machines run it. Of course, if the network goes down....

Oh, I understand you completely and I agree that it seems there is just no way to be sure. That's the shit of it. I've been accused of things I didn't do and because of the situation, I couldn't prove otherwise. While it wasn't anything as serious as what we're talking about, I do understand how someone can be "seen" as guilty by association, just by how the charges look or are presented.

I'd love to have the system work, because I think we need it. But, I know of too many times when it didn't. Killing the guilty is one thing. I really don't care what they think, if we're sure they committed a vicious killing. Killing an innocent person? I have to put myself in that person's shoes and say that would be an unthinkable hell to go through. I won't be a party to that. We need to fix the system. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to how.

 

[Netzach]

Morally and scientifically, if we were more perfect creatures with a more perfect system, I don't have a philosophical misgiving, but I don't think this society is one in a position to make these decisions. We have to err on the side of safety and you can't bring back the dead.

Isn't it bad enough that people exonerated based on DNA who have spent decades in prison and get out alive are given nothing not even an "oops we fucked up" letter?

Do you feel a lot safer, because there's a death penalty? Do you feel like this is keeping you, personally any safer? I don't. So what's the point? The satisfaction of revenge after the fact? Too many innocent people, almost overwhelmingly black, have died because of our craving for some kind of cathartic ritual revenge. "Preventing them from ever doing it again" is a joke, when you're moving someone like Donald Blom to a mini security facility and shuffling child rapists neighborhood to neighborhood while prosecuting agorophobic middle aged women for writing sick internet stories. Rehabilitation and prevention are NOT the aims of our corrections industry. Making money and quotas are.

Isn't OBL basically an enemy combatant if ever one was? Different story.

The way it's run, the way the entire corrections industry (and it IS an industry) is run is a stain on justice. This is one of MANY incidents like this, and Texas seems to be a repeat offender. I don't know how the fuck Perry sleeps at night.

 

[Keroin]

Isn't OBL basically an enemy combatant if ever one was? Different story.

Ah, I was looking for a good way to phrase this - you captured it perfectly.

 

[JMohegan]

Ah, I was looking for a good way to phrase this - you captured it perfectly.

So does this mean you're in favor of state-sponsored assassination of enemy combatants while they are not only off the battlefield but in fact relaxing with their families in their own homes?

You want to talk about what you call "institutionalized murder," let's go have a chat with the families of some of those folks we've picked off with drones.

As I've already said, I think taking out OBL was the right thing to do. But this "enemy combatant" issue is complicated. Somewhere between OBL and the average schmuck running around Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever is a line that I don't think we should be crossing.