|
Post by happyhaddock on Nov 3, 2008 21:24:28 GMT -5
Do DNA exonerations merit death penalty moratorium?Twenty men exonerated by DNA evidence all gathered in Austin on Friday to call for a moratorium on Texas' death penalty in light of the state's recent slew of long-time inmates proven innocent by applying modern forensics to old evidence, including most recently the exoneration by DNA of Michael Blair who'd been sitting on Texas' death row. Reported the Austin Statesman: "The exonerated men, members of Witness to Innocence, a Philadelphia-based organization that is holding its annual meeting in Austin, want Texas to create a commission to search for wrongful convictions. And while the commission works, they want a moratorium on executions in the busiest death penalty state — with 419 executions since 1982 and six more scheduled this month. ..."Sam Millsap, former Bexar County district attorney, said he slowly came to believe that the death penalty must be abolished because of the growing number of exonerated death row inmates — 130 since 1973, including nine in Texas, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. "I am no longer convinced that our courts will in fact guarantee the protection of the innocent," Millsap said. Millsap said he has taken responsibility for the 1993 execution of Ruben Cantu , a San Antonio man who Millsap said might have been innocent of a 1984 murder. The conviction was based on one eyewitness who later recanted, and no physical evidence tied Cantu to the crime, he said. "My decision to seek the death penalty was a mistake." The most recent Texas exoneration was in September , when a Collin County court dismissed the capital murder case against Michael Blair , sentenced to die for the 1993 murder of 7-year-old Ashley Estell. However, the reporter (perhaps rightly) warned the exonerees: "any bill to halt executions stands no chance of passing the Texas Legislature, [Austin state Representative Elliott] Naishtat said. Capital punishment has substantial support in Texas. The 2007 Texas Crime Poll by Sam Houston State University found 74 percent of Texans support the death penalty. And 66 percent said they were confident that innocent people are protected from execution".
|
|
|
Post by janet on Nov 6, 2008 17:18:25 GMT -5
DNA exhonerations do merit a death penalty moratorium. Texas, however, with the frontier mentality so apparent, will continue to execute indescriminately. It will take an outcry from the public in that State to change public perceptions of the death penalty. I doubt that anyone sees this on the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Dec 10, 2008 15:26:52 GMT -5
Truthfully, though, as DNA comes to be used in more and more cases, it holds the potential to convict someone almost as much as it does the potential to exonerate someone.
What is necessary is to point up the high cost of capital trials, particularly at this time of economic difficulties.
We can certainly talk among ourselves about the immorality of executing someone, but generally the public cares more about its collective purse than about anything else. Tell them just how expensive a capital trial actually is, show them the alternatives, and they will vote to save taxpayer dollars every time.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Dec 11, 2008 21:42:52 GMT -5
The trouble is that DNA is still at an early stage. It's an emerging technology and there are still cases where the DNA evidence overwhelmingly points to guilt and yet antis continue to cry 'innocent!' Equally there are cases where the opposite is true and pros continue to raise the cry of 'guilty!'
The fact is that if there was a death penalty moratorium - and there have been two in recent times, one in the late sixties and early seventies and the other while the SCOTUS verdict on LI was awaited - the reasons for it should rest on a firmer basis than the still dodgy DNA evidence.
I don't have a problem with using every possible technique to try to establish the possibility of a person's innocence. I'm all for it, in fact.
It would be heartrending to cut corners for quick results and end up with executing innocent people.
With regard to the last paragraph of YOUR post, Skyloom, I think you're wrong. People's views on the death penalty are overwhelmingly NOT based on their attitude towards cost.
In any case, if the government cut public spending in other areas the cost of the death penalty would hardly be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 11, 2008 22:27:28 GMT -5
The trouble is that DNA is still at an early stage. It's an emerging technology and there are still cases where the DNA evidence overwhelmingly points to guilt and yet antis continue to cry 'innocent!' Name them. In many cases, not only does the DNA prove that a convicted man is innocent, but it also proves another person guilty, often someone who the cops 'cleared' because of some careless work by them.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Dec 12, 2008 16:53:43 GMT -5
The trouble is that DNA is still at an early stage. It's an emerging technology and there are still cases where the DNA evidence overwhelmingly points to guilt and yet antis continue to cry 'innocent!' Name them. In many cases, not only does the DNA prove that a convicted man is innocent, but it also proves another person guilty, often someone who the cops 'cleared' because of some careless work by them. The most obvious counterexample is Darlie Routier where the DNA and blood evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of her guilt.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 12, 2008 23:47:53 GMT -5
The most obvious counterexample is Darlie Routier where the DNA and blood evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of her guilt. A perfect example. The DNA on the sock proves someone came in from outside and killed the boys. The only evidence for her guilt was the 'silly string birthday party' at the grave side and a supposed expert's opinion on the shape of the blood drops. No way in hell I'd convict on that, let alone sentence her to death. No way I can see her killing just two of the three children and doing it while her husband was in the house. All nonsense for a gullible jury.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Dec 16, 2008 15:40:59 GMT -5
The most obvious counterexample is Darlie Routier where the DNA and blood evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of her guilt. A perfect example. The DNA on the sock proves someone came in from outside and killed the boys. The only evidence for her guilt was the 'silly string birthday party' at the grave side and a supposed expert's opinion on the shape of the blood drops. No way in hell I'd convict on that, let alone sentence her to death. No way I can see her killing just two of the three children and doing it while her husband was in the house. All nonsense for a gullible jury. I am an anti and would not wish to sentence anyone to death no matter what their crime. That does not mean that I am naive or dishonest enough either to believe or to pretend that the overwhelming majority of those convicted of murder are in fact guilty. The evidence against Darlie Routier is in fact so compelling that it is difficult to understand how people can continue to protest her innocence when the DNA evidence actually DOES show that SHE was the guilty party and the blood evidence actually DOES show that SHE committed the murder. Of course, there are gullible antis who choose to believe her story just as there are those who choose to believe in the innocence of Richard Ramirez and Christa Pike. In the same way, there are gullible pros who choose to believe in the guilt of Timothy Evans. The fact that people, pro or anti, have closed minds not simply on the issue of the death penalty but that they are in denial about the elementary factual basis of the cases they protest about is an extremely $egregious but nonetheless wholly regrettable instance of the human mind's reluctance to face unpleasant realities. Is Darlie Routier guilty? Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt. Would I execute her? No. It annoys me intensely when antis try to make spurious claims of innocence when a child of five can clearly see that they are either being naive or else positively mendacious. Let us return to the GOOD arguments against the death penalty and stop this nonsensical pretence of thousands of innocents languishing unjustly on Death Row. It degrades the cause of opposition to the death penalty to stoop to such utterly dishonest tactics.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 16, 2008 19:31:10 GMT -5
Is Darlie Routier guilty? Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt. Then why is there no evidence against her?
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Dec 17, 2008 6:37:55 GMT -5
Is Darlie Routier guilty? Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt. Then why is there no evidence against her? There is overwhelming evidence against her. You are obviously too biased to examine it.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 17, 2008 14:08:20 GMT -5
There is overwhelming evidence against her. You are obviously too biased to examine it. Then why can nobody quote this 'evidence"? I note that I heard this statement 1,000 times, "There is a mountain of evidence against Scott Peterson". I challenged anyone, anywhere, to point me to the first piece of this evidence, valid under CA rules and going to guilt with no innocent explanation. I am still waiting. I haven't put the study time into the Routier case, but it has the stink of false conviction about it.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Dec 27, 2008 16:42:22 GMT -5
As a Texas who supports the death penalty, I would be in favor of the following:
1. Issue a moratorium on executions.
2. Review all potential DNA evidence, whether or not it was used in the original trial.
3. In very rare instance that DNA evidence shows someone inncocent was wrong wrongly convicted, release that person immediately and pay some form of reasonable compensation (give them $3,000 a month for remainder of life or something).
4. Where DNA evidence is sufficient and does not clear the individual, forego all future appeals and execute the person as soon as possible. Executing the person does not cost much...keeping them alive and paying for all of the appeals is what drives up the cost of capital punishment.
5. Where DNA evidence is insufficient, and barring a confession, then commute the sentence to life without parole.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Dec 27, 2008 17:05:02 GMT -5
Is Darlie Routier guilty? Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt. Then why is there no evidence against her? Happy - there is certainly evidence against her. In the immediate area of the crime scene there was no fingerprints or DNA except that of her and the boys. The medical coroner and other medical experts testified that, although the boys' wounds were savagely inflicted, hers appeared to have been self-inflicted. The entrance areas appeared to have been opended from the inside, not the outside. She was under financial duress. Her own testimony was inconsistent, filled with holes, and filled with amnesia. Her defense consisted of one, just one, medical expert who said that her wounds in the neck were very close to being fatal (very close to the arteries). This person did not say the wounds could not have been self-onflicted...just that they were close to being deadly. Her remaining defense consisted of character witnesses and her own, very damaging, testimony. Now, since the trial, evidence has come forth of a bloody handprint in a different room that did not belong to her or anyone in the family. Maybe that is reasonable doubt, and should be explored, but it is incorrect to say that there was no evidence against her.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 29, 2008 2:39:29 GMT -5
Are you claiming she killed the boys and then tried to kill herself but failed?
How do you explain the bloody sock found well away from the crime scene? How does that fit with suicide?
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Feb 13, 2009 15:31:52 GMT -5
Darlie killed the boys, faked an attack on herself and hoped she could get away with it.
|
|