Innocent Man was Executed in TX

[TrainingDummy]

Absolutely.

So easy to say for the man with a decent chunk of capitalism's bounty at his disposal.

EDIT: From The New Yorker "In 2000, a Dallas Morning News investigation revealed that roughly a quarter of the inmates condemned to death in Texas were represented by court-appointed attorneys who had, at some point in their careers, been 'reprimanded, placed on probation, suspended or banned from practicing law by the State Bar.' " Would this describe your own hypothetical lawyer, Inq?

[TrainingDummy]

I suspect that we very rarely execute an "innocent" person. Occasionally we execute one who's been wrongly convicted of the crime for which he is punished, but odds are that he committed many more for which he was never caught, convicted or punished. Let's use the correct terminology instead of plucking at heart-strings with "innocent"...

How conveniently postmodern of you! YOU decide the definition for the term by determining which crimes YOU decide make a man "guilty," then react to my terminology accordingly. While a lawyer would say "not guilty," "innocent" is a common colloquialism for someone who's been found not guilty of a crime. I stand by its usage.

Even true life imprisonment does not suffice to keep murderers from murdering. I have posted the example of Robert "Bonsai" Vickers before. He killed two other inmates while in an Arizona prison, the second while on death row for killing the first. He also escaped from death row once, although he didn't get out of the prison complex.

The man is a sociopath and deserves to spend his life in prison. I'm often amazed how many "libertarians" (not picking on you here) are so willing to allow citizens to be stripped of citizenship and executed by *gasp* THE STATE! because they are ignorant of the faults of the legal system.

It is impossible to prevent this sort of thing unless each inmate is kept in isolation, like in a deep hole where he can have no contact with any other human being, inmate, guard, doctor or what have you. And we could afford such a system, even if it were politically feasible.

Solitary confinement is unconstitutional and should be abolished. Most murderers are capable of being reformed when given rigorous psychological care, you just chose the Vickers case because it's sensational (to be fair, I chose the case I did to make a point, too).

The alternatives therefore are: execute or risk further depredations, including murders. If you are really serious about protecting the "innocent", the choice is clear.

We have one of the highest crime rates in Western civilization. Criminologists have proven over and over again that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, and prison breaks are so rare that your point is very weak. If we are REALLY serious about protecting the innocent (I'm talking about the general public), we would end the cycle of violence that produces crime in teh first place. With the exception of people born with a defective amygdala/limbic system, murderers are made, not born.

[TrainingDummy]

Excellent question to which I don't have a good answer.

Let's say at least in some few cases the situation is obvious; anyone want to parole Charles Manson? And certainly repeat offenders at some point raise a flag.

But I'm sure judges in conjunction with psychiatric professionals would be a fair choice, or maybe put it back in front of a jury? I'm open to reasonable ideas, as long as there is due process.

Actually the Manson case isn't obvious since he didn't actually kill anyone and is now a mosly harmless old caricature of a man. I wouldn't personally parole him, though.

You are talking about extending a jail sentence for no crime, a definite violation of due process. We cannot jail people for no crimes. I understand the sentiment, but I believe this slope is too slippery to be realistically implemented. Still, with sentence reductions for non-violent drug offenders and the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences we could free up prison space for those who seriously need to be in there. There ARE dangerous, incorrigible menaces to society. The way I see it, cases like these are in the minority - it is FAR more likely for someone to be sentenced to too long a sentence than too short a sentence. Of course, that's based on the way I view law and the penal system. REAL attempts at reform and rehabilitation could also cut down on the necessary length of prison sentences. As it stands now, prisons are schools for criminals and get gang members street cred when they get out. Many of the heads of the most violent gangs are in prison - it gives them MORE power, not less!

[I_luv_saber]

I agree that there should be more work put into reforming criminals. Especially when people go in for (reasonable) petty crimes, the system just makes things worse.

However I think it's a reasonably naive stance to say that all criminals, with enough care, can be reformed. I believe many more could be reformed, and it would help alleviate stress on our system... but I don't think everyone can be reformed. I'm sorry, but there are big bad people out there who will continue their acts of crime. Period.
(Not to mention, which is worse? Being executed by the State, or being brainwashed by the State (which many argue "reform" basically is))

With that in mind, this is not just an argument of principle (a much as we'd like it to be), but of reality also. If someone is going to live a life behind bars, has no (or almost no) hope of an appeal, and has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, should we spend thousands of dollars to keep him alive the rest of his life behind bars, or spend a fraction of that cost and execute them? It's cold sounding, but it's a reality we must face.

On the legal system: No, no system will ever be perfect. But we have to draw a line somewhere. If we want there to be zero innocents wrongly punished, we can't imprison anyone. Someone will always fall through the cracks. If we want all criminals punished, we'd have to punish every person suspected of a crime or we might miss someone.

The reality is, some innocents will always get caught in the system. Either extreme is silly. All we can do, is try and make the system as fair as possible and try to mitigate the amount of people, on either side, who slip through the cracks. I think we do a reasonably good job now (though there is, and always is, room for improvement).

Personally, I have mixed feelings on the matter, and I don't think I'm really at a point to dedicate myself to a stance. I see both sides of it...

[pigeonmeister]

Back when I was in school, I recall reading the theory that England had such low crime rates in the 19th and early 20th centuries because during the 18th a large array of what we would consider petty crimes---like poaching and pickpocketing---were capital offenses. The idea was that imposing the death penalty so decimated the criminal population that (1) to the extent that their behavior was genetic fewer were able to pass on their deviant tendencies, and that (2) to the extent behaviors were learned, fewer were left to teach future generations of criminals "the ropes"...

Perhaps the simplification to end all simplifications?

When I did History at University I remember all sorts of methodological problems in recording crime (and unrecorded crime) 1700-1900. All sorts of local and social-economic factors, population increases, urbanisation, an emerging effective police force from the mid 19th century, enhanced crime fighting techniques and legislative and judicial reforms.

If only we'd known the situation was much simpler...

I think that, in any case, captial offenses rose considerably more in the 19th rather than 18th centuries. I also believe that crime rose in the 19th century and that poaching and pickpocketing were capital offenses throughout most of the Victorian period. Either that or they were fortunate to get an all expenses paid holiday to Australia.

All in all, I think your arguments have been unusually weak in this thread. An argument that most of the executed probably deserved to die for past deeds regardless of them being guilty of the crime they were convicted seems a pretty horrendous moral sidestep. But if you do take this view, I wonder why you are concerned about murderers committing more murders amongst the prison population?

I'm also surprised you didn't stick to familiar economic grounds. Is capital punishement cost effective (cost of litigation is apparently $1 million)? How much does it cost to keep someone in high security p/a?

My $2 is that you cannot prove that the death penalty in America has been an effective deterrence. Its existence in my humble opinion has a lot to do with biblical notions of retribution and the cultural resonance of arbiters of justice (judicial and even extra-judicial, but particularly at a local level) being associated with violence. Hence people when interviewed on the matter bang on about 'an eye for an eye'- which gives a biblical justification to a human instinct. It encompasses both religious and secular appeal and can apply to God, the State of Texas or Dirty Harry!

I found this a short but informative piece on the statistical, legal and economic approaches to the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html

The problem seems to be that you don't execute enough criminals to provide sufficient data for proper stastical analysis!

[I_luv_saber]

I'm also surprised you didn't stick to familiar economic grounds. Is capital punishment cost effective (cost of litigation is apparently $1 million)? How much does it cost to keep someone in high security p/a?

There will be litigation either way, though. I think a more apt question would be: How much more does litigation cost when pursuing the death penalty as opposed to something else.

I have no numbers, but I can't imagine the costs of keeping someone in a high security prison are less than the costs of prosecuting someone with the death penalty in mind, and carrying out the execution. I have little doubt in my mind that, from a pure cost standpoint, the death penalty is a more cost-effective punishment than life prison sentences.

I'm less sure of the deterring effect, although I think it plays a hand in it. Another point not noted yet (nor I think in the article) is that a criminal confronted with possible death but offered a deal if he confesses, may be more likely to confess in order to avoid the death penalty. Wouldn't this act as another tool to keep more criminals off the street (a reasonably solid case vs. what could be a longer/costlier/tougher case)?

With these in mind, I think only strong argument against the death penalty would be a moral one (which, it IS a strong one... part of the reason I'm not 100% planted in my opinion).

[pigeonmeister]

FINANCIAL FACTS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY
• The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.
Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)
• In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration.
(Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
• In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming
that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).
• The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the
costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).
• Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in
prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each
execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
• In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at
the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactShee…

Of course, if you argue, and I personally don't think you can, that the death penalty prevents crime then you are looking at a reduced policing, imprisoning and court bill.

[lindajdunn]

Stating that criminals are made, not born, is (imho) wishful thinkng and ignores much research that shows we are more our biology than we'd like to admit. Studies done with identical twins, for example, show how incredibly alike they are even when separated at birth and raised in profoundly different environments.

While socioeconomic conditions have a considerable impact, we are who and what we are and our reactions to these conditions can be predicted with reasonable success rates.

The bottom line is that we need to protect society and that means those who commit violent acts need to be denied access to those they would injure. Since we no longer have penal colonies and no one wants to turn their back yard into a criminal preserve where they can live out their lives in a relatively unrestricted area, we're left with few options.

Tattooing their faces and bodies neon green might be effective in alerting most citizens to avoid contact with these people. Implanting high tech governors in ther brains that will cause them to lose consciousness if they attempt to commit an illegal activity are solutions that could work. However, we don't yet have the technology and it would probably be deemed cruel and unusual punishment.

So we're stuck with prisons, which become overcrowded, and which release deviants into society who are dangers to society or... we kill the worst of the lot.

I'm in favor of killing the worst of the lot if only to remove them from the gene pool.

====

Note: My ex-brother-in-law was arrested and convicted for murdering an old man by beating him to death with his own cane. He then set the house on fire, called the fire department to report he'd seen it in a dream, led the firefighters to the house, and pulled the dead man from the burning home. He served about 10 years and (imho) this person should not be walking among us. He's always been this way. This is someone who used to climb out the bedroom window at night, go into town with friends, walk into bars and yell racial slurs and then lure the men who chased them into a dark alley where friends were waiting with baseball bats.

[pigeonmeister]

Note: My ex-brother-in-law was arrested and convicted for murdering an old man by beating him to death with his own cane. He then set the house on fire, called the fire department to report he'd seen it in a dream, led the firefighters to the house, and pulled the dead man from the burning home. He served about 10 years and (imho) this person should not be walking among us. He's always been this way. This is someone who used to climb out the bedroom window at night, go into town with friends, walk into bars and yell racial slurs and then lure the men who chased them into a dark alley where friends were waiting with baseball bats.

[/QUOTE]

Not a nice man then. The point is that the death penalty is unlikely to deter the pychopathic, sociopathic or mentally disadvantaged. Are you suggesting that this man's actions would have been any different had the DP existed?

The second point is that the argument for the DP cannot be reduced to a stark choice of death or 10 years in jail. Those are not the only alternatives available to the state.

[Superscribe]

You know, when the Mongols basically conquered the world, what they'd do is conquer a town, and and tell them to not mess around. They'd set their guidelines about what was acceptable and what wasn't. The Mongols would make the people they conquered understand they were conquered. The Mongols would leave a few officials to watch over the town and then leave, to go conquer more stuff. Sometimes, the conquered town would revolt, and kill the Mongol officials. When the Mongols came back, and discovered their officials were dead, they would slaughter most everyone and leave a few to spread the word. It took a few burnt towns, but people were actually very well behaved. VERY well behaved.

People should be encouraged to do good things, not prevented from doing bad. Preventing people from doing bad things is a losing battle. It's the difference between taking a well behaved child on vacation, and have a brat on vacation. The difference between walking a well trained dog and walking a dog that is not trained at all. It's the difference between why some large societies have lots of crime, and some societies don't.

Whatever we do, the signals have to be more clear. not this, "oh you're going to serve 50 years, just kidding you only have to serve 10 years," crap. "oh you're going to die... just kidding you got off have fun with life."

Liberals are terrible when it comes to the valuation of human life.

[Superscribe]

Not a nice man then. The point is that the death penalty is unlikely to deter the pychopathic, sociopathic or mentally disadvantaged. Are you suggesting that this man's actions would have been any different had the DP existed?

The second point is that the argument for the DP cannot be reduced to a stark choice of death or 10 years in jail. Those are not the only alternatives available to the state.[/QUOTE]

Death penalty may not deter them, but it's a great way to get rid of them. An inexpensive way of getting rid of them.

[Superscribe]

Actually the Manson case isn't obvious since he didn't actually kill anyone and is now a mosly harmless old caricature of a man. I wouldn't personally parole him, though.

You are talking about extending a jail sentence for no crime, a definite violation of due process. We cannot jail people for no crimes. I understand the sentiment, but I believe this slope is too slippery to be realistically implemented. Still, with sentence reductions for non-violent drug offenders and the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences we could free up prison space for those who seriously need to be in there. There ARE dangerous, incorrigible menaces to society. The way I see it, cases like these are in the minority - it is FAR more likely for someone to be sentenced to too long a sentence than too short a sentence. Of course, that's based on the way I view law and the penal system. REAL attempts at reform and rehabilitation could also cut down on the necessary length of prison sentences. As it stands now, prisons are schools for criminals and get gang members street cred when they get out. Many of the heads of the most violent gangs are in prison - it gives them MORE power, not less!

You are terrible. Harmless old caricature of a man? Manson? He didn't kill any body, but he got people to kill other people. If a man liked to strangle and beat people to death by himself, and then he became old and feeble and arthritic, then i'd be willing to say there might be less to fear from this person. Charles Manson did not rely on physical capacities to get people killed, and yet you're telling me that because he doesn't have much physical capacities no, i should no longer be afraid of him? It was his mentality and intentions that were and are to this day potentially dangerous, you moron. Let's focus on what's important, dummy.


it is FAR more likely for someone to be sentenced to too long a sentence than too short a sentence.
You are just terrible. Are you kidding me? What do you mean TOO long? Do you even know how people get sentenced, or what a parole is? All your ideas are generally very expensive, unsustainable, and based upon complete fiction.

[pigeonmeister]

Hello Supersribe,

"Liberals are terrible when it comes to the valuation of human life". Whilst conservatives uphold the value of human life presumably by citing the example of the Mongols slaughtering entire villages as a useful basis for setting a judicial system?

It cannot be proved that the death penalty saves lives. However, it is an irrefutable fact that the enforcement of the DP has resulted in the wrongful killing of entirely innocent people. How is a determination to rule out the latter known scenario anything other than the superior valuation of human life?

In any case, you then totally abandon the notion of deterrence by admitting that really it's an economic argument - it's the cheapest means of removing people from society. If you had actually bothered to read some of the earlier posts you would see that it appears that the death penalty costs more than perpetual incarceration.

Also, the idea that those who oppose the death penalty support 10 year sentences for murder is at best disengenous.

[Superscribe]

Hello Supersribe,

"Liberals are terrible when it comes to the valuation of human life". Whilst conservatives uphold the value of human life presumably by citing the example of the Mongols slaughtering entire villages as a useful basis for setting a judicial system?

There are several ways to slice this pie. Mongols killed a town. The story spreads, no people don't fight when Mongols are around. They don't kill anybody, because murder is punished harshly. I wasn't clear on why i told this story, so forgive me. The anecdote was used to support my theory that if people try hard enough, it is possible for them to behave. They don't even have to live in terror either, they just have to not be mean to each other. In the long run, people are nicer to each other, and less people die because of crime.

It cannot be proved that the death penalty saves lives. However, it is an irrefutable fact that the enforcement of the DP has resulted in the wrongful killing of entirely innocent people There was a discussion about this How is a determination to rule out the latter known scenario anything other than the superior valuation of human life? People try harder to make sure that there isn't the remote possibility that they could ever be associated with murder, so there is less murder? In the long run, more lives are saved and the quality of those lives are better?

In any case, you then totally abandon the notion of deterrence by admitting that really it's an economic argument - it's the cheapest means of removing people from society. If you had actually bothered to read some of the earlier posts you would see that it appears that the death penalty costs more than perpetual incarceration. No. The death penalty costs more because of the round about way we carry out the death penalty right now. That is different. My problem is with he way we pussy foot around dealing with criminals. Don't kill them if you not supposed to kill them. If you're supposed to kill, make it clear, obvious, and quick. I also disagree with what deserves a death penalty, and what doesn't

Also, the idea that those who oppose the death penalty support 10 year sentences for murder is at best disengenous.

BTW my name is superscribe.

[Bayou Bum]

Hello Supersribe,

"Liberals are terrible when it comes to the valuation of human life". Whilst conservatives uphold the value of human life presumably by citing the example of the Mongols slaughtering entire villages as a useful basis for setting a judicial system?

It cannot be proved that the death penalty saves lives. However, it is an irrefutable fact that the enforcement of the DP has resulted in the wrongful killing of entirely innocent people. How is a determination to rule out the latter known scenario anything other than the superior valuation of human life?

In any case, you then totally abandon the notion of deterrence by admitting that really it's an economic argument - it's the cheapest means of removing people from society. If you had actually bothered to read some of the earlier posts you would see that it appears that the death penalty costs more than perpetual incarceration.

Also, the idea that those who oppose the death penalty support 10 year sentences for murder is at best disengenous.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty overall, but I am opposed to many aspects of how it is applied and carried out. First, I think it should only be used in cases where the crimes committed were so heinous that mankind is better served by removing the person from the face of the earth forever. Such as the person torturing and killing lots of people without any remorse whatsoever and the evidence is so clear that even his mother admits he did it. I don't think the case mentioned falls into that category. Second, it shouldn't take years and years to execute someone. They should fast track all appeals and resolve the issue promptly.

[lindajdunn]

Not a nice man then. The point is that the death penalty is unlikely to deter the pychopathic, sociopathic or mentally disadvantaged. Are you suggesting that this man's actions would have been any different had the DP existed?

The second point is that the argument for the DP cannot be reduced to a stark choice of death or 10 years in jail. Those are not the only alternatives available to the state.[/QUOTE]

No. The DP existed as an option in this state at the time of the crime (and is still an option in this state). It's not a deterent except that dead people can no longer commit crimes (I do not believe in ghosts). The ex-bil wrote bad checks, ran scams, physically injured people, and eventually killed someone.

Treatment was ineffective.

If you're going to eliminate the DP, then I want measures in place to protect (for example) my former bil's ex-wife and kids (who are now adults) and anyone else he might injure.

My ex-bil killed that old man for two old lamps that probably weren't worth $50. What can we do to protect members of society from people like that without impeding upon their constitutional rights?

[TrainingDummy]

Stating that criminals are made, not born, is (imho) wishful thinkng and ignores much research that shows we are more our biology than we'd like to admit. Studies done with identical twins, for example, show how incredibly alike they are even when separated at birth and raised in profoundly different environments.

While socioeconomic conditions have a considerable impact, we are who and what we are and our reactions to these conditions can be predicted with reasonable success rates.

The only twin studies on biology and crime have found that psychopathy, a very rare trait, is shared between twins from a young age. It is much more likely to be created by societal conditions. Aggression is somewhat biological, but doesn't necessarily lead to violent crime. Impulse control is somewhat biological, but, again, doesn't necessarily lead to violent crime. The most serious thing we have to worry about are mental disabilities like language disorders, because not being able to read is the single biggest predictor of who will go to prison. Can't read, can't work, can't work, better steal!

[pigeonmeister]

BTW my name is superscribe.

So I see.

The first part of your post relates to this issue of deterrence. I am unable to find compelling proof that this exists. You offer none either- only your own observations on human behaviour.

Your second point re-cost is actually related to this. As it stands, even if you do commit a murder in a state that nominally has the DP on the books- you are still unlikely to have it enforced. Basically, in order for the DP as it currently stands (i.e rarely and slowly) to carry real deterrence, America would have to start executing a lot more people, more quickly. Perhaps in even more colorful or painful ways.

That will cost money and almost certainly lead to miscarriages of justice. It will be politically very difficult.

You also have to ask why the appeal system has developed to be such a slow and protracted affair. Clearly, this is because of a history of new evidence emerging over time that if not totally exhonerating people who have been executed then casting considerable doubt on the verdict.

Another reason why appeals are both successful and lengthy is because the representation of often very poor African Americans is, how shall we say, not at the OJ simpson standard.

So you would need to find the political will to speed up the system, whilst in tandem raising the standard of legal representation and eliminating all notions of jury prejudice etc. Whilst handling more cases. The result is unlikely to be an economy or efficiency drive.

If we are talking practicalities, you have to basically admit that politically and legally the process of executing a convicted murderer is only going to go in one direction. Slower. All else is pie in the sky stuff.

[TrainingDummy]

People should be encouraged to do good things, not prevented from doing bad. Preventing people from doing bad things is a losing battle.

I'll ignore the Mongol example. Do you even read what you write? "Encouraging people do to good things" describes well-funded and staffed voluntary education, drug treatment, and career programs in prison. "Preventing people from doing bad things" can be defined by locking them away for decades or killing them. I wouldn't call reducing sentences for no reason a "Liberal" stance. Most American liberals I know are really ignorant (not much less than conservatives) when it comes to crime and punishment issues, but the ones who are educated don't want shorter sentences, they want reform.

[TrainingDummy]

Second, it shouldn't take years and years to execute someone. They should fast track all appeals and resolve the issue promptly.

From - http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

"Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release. "

This is starting in 1989, so almost 1 a year nationally. Fast-tracking these cases will lead to more innocent deaths.