Innocent Man was Executed in TX

[TrainingDummy]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/2149.php. This is a truncated version of a full investigative piece from the New Yorker, all 17 pages of which can be found here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...7fa_fact_grann. I can't remember the last time we had a death penalty/capital punishment thread, so have at it!

P.S. Abolish the death penalty.

[lindajdunn]

P.S. Abolish the death penalty.

Not until they stop converting life imprisonment into life parole. Just look what that situation did for Jaycee Dugar.

There are some people who need to be removed from society and I while I would much prefer they be placed in a secure facility where they can live out their lives without harming others, it's obvious that the present system practices a catch-and-release program with hardened criminals.

[Superscribe]

better safe than sorry?

Sometimes we let loose a criminal that is actually guilty. Sometimes we execute someone who is innocent. That shouldn't come as a surpise to anybody.

[TrainingDummy]

better safe than sorry?

Sometimes we let loose a criminal that is actually guilty. Sometimes we execute someone who is innocent. That shouldn't come as a surpise to anybody.

Who said I was surprised? Who is safer?

[TrainingDummy]

Not until they stop converting life imprisonment into life parole. Just look what that situation did for Jaycee Dugar.

There are some people who need to be removed from society and I while I would much prefer they be placed in a secure facility where they can live out their lives without harming others, it's obvious that the present system practices a catch-and-release program with hardened criminals.

The system itself hardens criminals and is forced to release them because it's a bloated, massively expensive machine.

[Superscribe]

That's why it's good to just execute them.

[Hauptman]

In theory I don't have a problem with the death penalty, the problem is in the actual practice.

The problem lies in our executing innocent people. If we could truly determine guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt then we wouldn't have a problem. But that is unlikely to happen.

Another related problem is the idea of incarceration being about punishment. I believe that the more important issue is removing dangerous people from normal society. We shouldn't just be releasing criminals because they've done their time, or been well-behaved while in prison (WTF?). If they still pose a threat, most likely because their crimes are prompted by mental illness, they need to remain in custody.

Uh oh.... does this affect my standing as a card-carrying liberal?!?!

[TrainingDummy]

That's why it's good to just execute them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrI7QUJfkvI

[TrainingDummy]

If they still pose a threat, most likely because their crimes are prompted by mental illness, they need to remain in custody.

Who decides this?

[Inquartata]

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"...

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.

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.

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

[Philistine]

I suspect that we very rarely execute an "innocent" person.

Heck, we rarely execute a guilty person. According to here there are on average, 10,000 murder convictions a year, of which about 3,000 are eligible for the death penalty, and 125 death sentences actually handed down--and 50 executions. (The numbers are claimed to be from BJS--I didn't check them, but they seem to be more or less in line with my understanding of the order of magnitude).

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"...

Well--to be fair, in this particular case the only crime he was ever suspected of that carried the death penalty was the one he was convicted of. I mean, I freely admit, I've run stop signs and habitually exceed the speed limit--but I'd like to think that if I was accused of a murder I didn't commit I'd still be termed "innocent."

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.

Doesn't this second murder show that even the death penalty does not suffice to keep murderers from murdering?

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

Are you suggesting that the only murders in prison are done by those who were convicted of murder (1st degree murder, at that)? Bit of a false binary, isn't it? Following that logic, if you are really serious about protecting the "innocent", one should sentence all violent felons to death. (And to prevent another Bonsai Vickers incident--carry out the death penalty immediately after trial).

On a side note--I think this case really goes to show the dangerousness of the junk science that gets admitted by the prosecution in criminal cases. Despite the various CSI and clones, forensic "science" often isn't.

--Philistine

[keith]

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"...

I like the idea. How about we simplify much of the legal process. Police departments everywhere can randomly select individuals from the motor vehicle registry and just send them traffic violation tickets.

Who always comes to a complete stop after all .

*suspects that Inq may have been raised by wee frees*

[erooMynohtnA]

Doesn't this second murder show that even the death penalty does not suffice to keep murderers from murdering?

I'd say the next murder clearly shows that it does.

[pigeonmeister]

Kill 'em all and let God decide?

[Inquartata]

Well--to be fair, in this particular case the only crime he was ever suspected of that carried the death penalty was the one he was convicted of. I mean, I freely admit, I've run stop signs and habitually exceed the speed limit--but I'd like to think that if I was accused of a murder I didn't commit I'd still be termed "innocent."

Aren't verdicts usually "guilty" or "not guilty"? I thought courts didn't like to go so far as to say that a defendant was "innocent"?

Doesn't this second murder show that even the death penalty does not suffice to keep murderers from murdering?

No. It shows that a death sentence doesn't. The actual penalty would. ( Barring a zombie apocalypse, that is. )

Are you suggesting that the only murders in prison are done by those who were convicted of murder (1st degree murder, at that)?

Nope. The aforementioned Vickers was in only for multiple burglaries when he killed his first. He got the death sentence ( and was eventually executed ) for that...

I can say for a fact that he has not killed anyone else since his execution.

Bit of a false binary, isn't it? Following that logic, if you are really serious about protecting the "innocent", one should sentence all violent felons to death. (And to prevent another Bonsai Vickers incident--carry out the death penalty immediately after trial).

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"...

And yes, I would advocate both of the policies you named, although perhaps not quite to that extreme degree. A hanging behind the courtroom after a conviction for a bar fight might be taking matters a bit too far. But reducing the interminable opportunities for appeals of a capital sentence would be IMO a good thing; in the case cited, for example, we see that they did the "innocent man" no particular good. I would also like to see more things than murder added to the list of capital offenses. As an example, that Garridos fellow out in California fills the bill to a T in my book.

On a side note--I think this case really goes to show the dangerousness of the junk science that gets admitted by the prosecution in criminal cases. Despite the various CSI and clones, forensic "science" often isn't.

Indeed...but then, why are we accepting the science of the criminalists who "debunked" the original science as superior? Why assume that the second fellow is somehow automatically right because his results found the first guy wrong? Strikes me as tendentious...

Who always comes to a complete stop after all?

Me, oh creator of straw men!

[Hauptman]

Who decides this?

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.

[Hauptman]

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"...

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.

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.

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

So what is a reasonable standard, Inq? One innocent person per 100 executions? How about one in a 1000? Are you willing to take your chances with the legal system? Let me tell you that it is nothing like what is portrayed on TV, and as flawed as can be.

[keith]

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"...

Well I suppose since there wasn't much history they had to teach something.

Shame their prognostications weren't that accurate. I'm glad they never got around to debtors gaol or who knows what you'd be advocating.

[Inquartata]

Are you willing to take your chances with the legal system?

Absolutely.

Well I suppose since there wasn't much history they had to teach something.

[TrainingDummy]

I'd say the next murder clearly shows that it does.

I'd say it shows that people with nothing to lose act accordingly.