Disgusting Miscarriage of Justice

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Well, even though I am against the death penalty for a lot of different reasons, the application of it in the case of a murder of a child is one of the few places I find it appropriate.

Emotionally, I feel similarly about the murder of a police officer. Intellectually and morally, though, I still have a problem with it: what if the defendant turns out to be not guilty? An execution, obviously, is irreversible.

And then there's another reason: my own feeling is that the death penalty debases society, which is supposed to operate on a higher moral plane level than does a mere individual. Individually, I'd like to kill a murderer. But then I'm placing myself on his level by emulating his act. Society, by killing a murderer who, by virtue of his incarceration, has become a minimized future risk, is bringing itself down to the same level of that murderer.

WWJD? Lock him up forever, probably.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Emotionally, I feel similarly about the murder of a police officer. Intellectually and morally, though, I still have a problem with it: what if the defendant turns out to be not guilty? An execution, obviously, is irreversible.

And then there's another reason: my own feeling is that the death penalty debases society, which is supposed to operate on a higher moral plane level than does a mere individual. Individually, I'd like to kill a murderer. But then I'm placing myself on his level by emulating his act. Society, by killing a murderer who, by virtue of his incarceration, has become a minimized future risk, is bringing itself down to the same level of that murderer.

WWJD? Lock him up forever, probably.

Any lingering doubts I might have had about the death penalty went away early last year when I served on a jury in a murder trial. It was not a death penalty case, and I (and all of my fellow jurors) still felt the weight of our decision quite heavily. I felt fortunate to serve with 11 other people who respected the process, took it seriously, and all did their best to carefully consider the evidence presented and make the right decision based on the evidence presented. It was not a slam dunk case with a smoking gun, we had a lot of small pieces of evidence to consider.

It was a great example of how difficult police work and legal work can be, and how the answers really aren't that easy as the procedural dramas make them seem, even when you do have 12 jurors of above-average intelligence who were taking the process and their role in it quite seriously.

The decisions juries are asked to make every day aren't that easy, and they're not decided in the way the court of public opinion makes its decisions, and, imperfect though the criminal trial justice and trial process may be, that's a good thing.

All in all, I came out of it more acutely attuned to how flawed our system is, but more convinced that it's better than any of the alternatives that have been developed thus far.

End to end, it is a less-than-perfect process run by less-than-perfect humans from start to finish. To offer up the death penalty as a possible punishment at the end of that process is a mistake that we ought not to make anymore.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Well, even though I am against the death penalty for a lot of different reasons, the application of it in the case of a murder of a child is one of the few places I find it appropriate.

Why? Is it for some reason significantly less likely that botched or wrong convictions will result from child murders than adult murders?

Quote

So, I don't see how the application of the death penalty would have been unreasonable in this particular case, had the woman been guilty and had the prosecutors and police actually followed the rules.

OK. So in future we'll just make sure that every child murder prosecution runs perfectly and convicts the right person. Easy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

Quote

Quote

Well, even though I am against the death penalty for a lot of different reasons, the application of it in the case of a murder of a child is one of the few places I find it appropriate.

Why? Is it for some reason significantly less likely that botched or wrong convictions will result from child murders than adult murders?

Quote

So, I don't see how the application of the death penalty would have been unreasonable in this particular case, had the woman been guilty and had the prosecutors and police actually followed the rules.

OK. So in future we'll just make sure that every child murder prosecution runs perfectly and convicts the right person. Easy.

Maybe I didn't say it very well.

I am against the death penalty in all cases. The adversarial nature of the court system, where it's more important to win that to get to the truth; the clear bias against poor and minority defendants; and the simple imperfection that is human nature make the death penalty imperfect.
History has shown it so.

Even if it could be perfected, I would be against it in most cases. But there would be a few that I would be in favor of it, again, if it was a perfect process (which it isn't and never will be).

Murder of a child is one of those. I think it's an evolutionary reaction, protecting the young. Lot of species have it. Parents will put themselves at great risk to save their young.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]I am against the death penalty in all cases.

[ryoder 1,401]

Quote

What does one do with a person who kills people while imprisoned?

Solitary confinement, of course.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

All in all, I came out of it more acutely attuned to how flawed our system is, but more convinced that it's better than any of the alternatives that have been developed thus far.

Totally agree... as with our Constitution.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Any system of holding people accountable for crimes will have the potential for abuse. What is your solution to the problem? Would it be better if the government (i.e. "we") did not ever prosecute anyone for anything, just in case the prosecution is tainted in some way?

Well, the solution starts with Principles.

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 (1935).

I would say the DA in the OP, needs to brush up on his duty.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

[Reply]I am against the death penalty in all cases.

I am against the death penalty in MOST cases. I think it should be reserved for those who kill while imprisoned, in custody, etc. What does one do with a person who kills people while imprisoned? Let them kill others? Kill more? Sentence others to death?

We segregate people to prevent them from killing. If they kill even while segregated, then I think death is appropriate.

But as it stands, capital punishment (which I think should be for the worst of the worst) is being used for far too many...

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

Any system of holding people accountable for crimes will have the potential for abuse. What is your solution to the problem? Would it be better if the government (i.e. "we") did not ever prosecute anyone for anything, just in case the prosecution is tainted in some way?

Well, the solution starts with Principles.

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 (1935).

I would say the DA in the OP, needs to brush up on his duty.

It's a fundamental aspect of human nature that rules, such as the ones you cited, will come to be ignored if there is no penalty for violating them, or even worse if people are rewarded for violating them.

As a research scientist, I face penalties that start with a ban on receiving funding for my research, and can escalate to criminal prosecution, if I am caught fabricating data. I don't need the penalties to motivate me to be honest, but continued employment, tenure, promotion, and all the other aspects of a successful career depend on maintaining a successful research program. Medical schools typically require their faculty to obtain most or all of their salary from research grants. So when things aren't going well in the lab, and inability to get papers published directly threatens your continued funding and so your ability to support yourself and your family, temptation can certainly rear it's ugly head. However, even the minimum penalty for falsifying data (loss of eligibility to receive research grants) is career ending, so the more prudent course is to work even harder to get things done honestly.

For prosecutors, on the other hand, there seems to be no adverse consequences of any sort attached to even the most egregious violations of the rules. Innocent people can rot in prison for decades, while the prosecutor who concealed evidence that would prove that person's innocence reaps the rewards of a successful career, knowing that even if the truth comes to light they are shielded by prosecutorial immunity.

Why do some face harsh penalties for unethical conduct, while others escape even the most cursory wrist slap? I can only assume it's because it's usually lawyers who get to write the rules.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt

Sometimes it can.

Quote

and why not put them to death?

For the reasons stated in my post #26: because (IMO) it debases society more than it protects it.

Here's a list of the top-20 death penalty countries in terms of numbers of people executed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution

1 China
2 Iran
3 Saudi Arabia
4 Iraq
5 United States
6 Yemen
7 North Korea
8 Somalia
9 Sudan
10 Bangladesh
11 Vietnam
12 South Sudan
13 Taiwan
14 Singapore
15 Palestinian National Authority
16 Afghanistan
17 Belarus
18 Egypt
19 United Arab Emirates
20 Malaysia
21 Syria

The US is #4 on the list. In terms of culture, values, society, government or legal system, I think you'd be damned hard-pressed to find much else the US has in common with the other 19 on the list.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]For prosecutors, on the other hand, there seems to be no adverse consequences of any sort attached to even the most egregious violations of the rules.

[Andy9o8 0]

Supports your thesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/gideons-muted-trumpet.html

Quote

Op-Ed Contributor
Gideon’s Muted Trumpet
By PAUL BUTLER
Published: March 17, 2013 [NY Times]

[wmw999 2,155]

As a by-the-by, the book, Gideon's Trumpet, about the case that led to the right to counsel, was absolutely fascinating. It's on the list that I keep around because it bears re-reading periodically.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

As a by-the-by, the book, Gideon's Trumpet, about the case that led to the right to counsel, was absolutely fascinating. It's on the list that I keep around because it bears re-reading periodically. Wendy P.

One of the first law-related books I read, I'm pretty sure in high school social studies class. For good or ill, it began a certain effect on me.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Supports your thesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/gideons-muted-trumpet.html

Quote

Op-Ed Contributor
Gideon’s Muted Trumpet
By PAUL BUTLER
Published: March 17, 2013 [NY Times]

Here's more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/the-right-to-counsel-badly-battered-at-50.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Quote

Editorial | Sunday Observer
The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50
By LINCOLN CAPLAN
Published: March 9, 2013 [NY Times]

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[Reply]I am against the death penalty in all cases.

I am against the death penalty in MOST cases. I think it should be reserved for those who kill while imprisoned, in custody, etc. What does one do with a person who kills people while imprisoned? Let them kill others? Kill more? Sentence others to death?

We segregate people to prevent them from killing. If they kill even while segregated, then I think death is appropriate.

But as it stands, capital punishment (which I think should be for the worst of the worst) is being used for far too many...

There was a recent death row inmate that killed two other inmates, in protest that the state of VA was delaying his just punnishment of death. And he treatened even more murders should VA not execute him. Now, if you have to murder more people to finally get the punnishment you deserve, and want to get, is beyond belief.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/17/man-who-killed-2-fellow-inmates-executed-in-virginia-after-uttering-expletive/

ALSO, MARYLAND JUST ABOLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY.

If DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Now, if you have to murder more people to finally get the punnishment you deserve, and want to get, is beyond belief.

I didn't realise that one of the purposes of the justice system was to give convicted criminals what they want.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rifleman 61]

If you can find a copy I'd also recommend Executioner: Pierrepoint - the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint.

It's a very good discussion on the subject of capital punishment from the viewpoint of an official executioner (btw the book is much better than the film)

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

If DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?

It's not always perfectly cut and dried. For example, there was DNA evidence that was submitted as part of the evidence in the case for which I was a juror.

Had the DNA evidence been the only piece of evidence in this case, I doubt the jury would have convicted. It wasn't strong enough on its own, but combined with all the other evidence provided by the prosecution, we believed there was enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it's not as simple as saying "DNA evidence = death penalty eligible, no DNA evidence = no death penalty."

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ryoder 1,401]

On the topic of evidence, everyone should see this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

Here is the summary: The *only* forensic "science" that is actually based on real science is DNA testing.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?

Because CSI isn't real life and DNA evidence is not perfect.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,155]

I read once that a single episode of CSI costs more than the entire Las Vegas crime lab's annual budget

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

On the topic of evidence, everyone should see this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

Here is the summary: The *only* forensic "science" that is actually based on real science is DNA testing.

That was definitely an eye-opener.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9