|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 13, 2008 21:58:59 GMT -5
NEW VOICES: Former Texas Prosecutor Now Opposes Death Penalty as New Study is Released on Wrongful Convictions Posted: October 13, 2008 A former Dallas County prosecutor has abandoned his longstanding support of the death penalty and is now opposed to capital punishment based on recent exonerations in Texas and elsewhere. James Fry, who prosecuted Charles Chatman--a man recently exonerated from prison in Dallas County--said he was “shaken to the core” by the high number of exonerations throughout the nation and by evidence of flawed eyewitness testimony. Formerly a staunch supporter of capital punishment, Fry pointed to the risk of mistakes: “I don’t think the system can prove who is guilty and who is innocent,” he said in a recent interview. More evidence of such mistakes has been revealed in a recent study by the Dallas Morning News. The paper conducted an 8-month investigation into wrongful convictions (primarily non-death penalty cases) in Dallas County, prompted by numerous exonerations, including that of Michael Blair, who was freed from Texas' death row in 2008 . DNA testing led to capital murder charges against Blair being dismissed in late August, bringing the total number of people exonerated from death row since 1973 to 130. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins recently announced that he will re-examine nearly 40 death penalty convictions and would halt executions, if necessary, to give the reviews time to proceed. "I don't want someone to be executed on my watch for something they didn't do," he explained. Earlier this year, Mr. Watkins granted a request from the Dallas Morning News to review prosecution files to analyze the root causes of the wrongful convictions. The paper’s reporters also consulted more than 70 current and former prosecutors and police officers, defense lawyers, judges, jurors and exonerees, as well as legal scholars and those who pursue wrongful conviction cases. The News highlighted the following findings from its 8-month investigation: •Thirteen of the 19 wrongly convicted men were black. Eight of the 13 were misidentified by victims of another race. Police investigators and prosecutors in the cases were all white, as were many of the juries of the 1980s. •Police officers used suggestive lineup procedures, sometimes pressured victims to pick their suspect and then cleared the case once an identification was made. •Prosecutors frequently went to trial with single-witness identifications and flimsy corroboration. Some tried to preserve shaky identifications bywithholding evidence that pointed to other potential suspects. •Judges, governed by case law that has not kept pace with developments in DNA testing or research on eyewitness testimony, routinely approved even tainted pretrial identifications as long as an eyewitness expressed certainty in court. As a result, victims who sought only justice sent innocent men to prison while the real criminals went free and committed other violent crimes. Taxpayers spent more than $3 million in compensation and incarceration for the Dallas County cases alone. And some of the discredited police practices continue to this day. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-voices-former-texas-prosecutor-now-opposes-death-penalty-new-study-released-wrongful-convictions
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Oct 27, 2008 21:45:23 GMT -5
With all respect to the former prosecutor's specialist knowledge, I have to say that what he has put forward is NOT an argument against the death penalty but an argument against any rush to judgement.
When we are talking about a person's freedom it is essential that we get it right and that if there is the smallest degree of doubt we must let them go and find them not guilty.
When a human life is at stake that argument is even more important.
There are a number of individuals on Death Row about whose guilt there is NO doubt and the question of wrongful conviction simply does not apply.
Why are the likes of Richard Ramirez, Christa Pike, Michelle Tharp and others still languishing in prison when there is NO doubt of their guilt?
It's fair enough to oppose their execution on MORAL grounds but to do so on the basis of some conviction of their INNOCENCE puts you on the same level as people who believe that the Earth is flat.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 29, 2008 9:23:54 GMT -5
Former Death Row Inmates Seek Changes in Texas Posted: October 28, 2008 Two dozen exonerated ex-death row prisoners from across the country will hold a news conference on October 31 in Austin to call for the establishment of a statewide commission on wrongful convictions and a moratorium on executions in Texas. The 24 men spent a combined total of nearly 200 years on death row before being freed. They will be joined by State Rep. Elliot Naishtat and former Bexar County District Attorney Sam Millsap (pictured). Texas has executed 417 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty, accounting for 37 percent of all executions nationwide, including 12 so far this year. An additional 16 executions are scheduled in Texas this fall and winter. Nine death row inmates have been exonerated in Texas since 1973, including Michael Blair whose charges were dismissed this year. (Witness to Innocence Press Release, Oct. 27, 2008). See Innocence and Recent Legislation www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/former-death-row-inmates-seek-changes-texas
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Dec 10, 2008 15:16:39 GMT -5
With all respect to the former prosecutor's specialist knowledge, I have to say that what he has put forward is NOT an argument against the death penalty but an argument against any rush to judgement. When we are talking about a person's freedom it is essential that we get it right and that if there is the smallest degree of doubt we must let them go and find them not guilty. When a human life is at stake that argument is even more important. There are a number of individuals on Death Row about whose guilt there is NO doubt and the question of wrongful conviction simply does not apply. Why are the likes of Richard Ramirez, Christa Pike, Michelle Tharp and others still languishing in prison when there is NO doubt of their guilt? It's fair enough to oppose their execution on MORAL grounds but to do so on the basis of some conviction of their INNOCENCE puts you on the same level as people who believe that the Earth is flat. Nope. There always remains the chance that someone is innocent. Until you eliminate that possibility entirely, the deeath penalty remains open to discussion. After that, we'll discuss the morality of the death penalty... and conclude that there is no morality in it.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Dec 11, 2008 21:53:58 GMT -5
With all respect to the former prosecutor's specialist knowledge, I have to say that what he has put forward is NOT an argument against the death penalty but an argument against any rush to judgement. When we are talking about a person's freedom it is essential that we get it right and that if there is the smallest degree of doubt we must let them go and find them not guilty. When a human life is at stake that argument is even more important. There are a number of individuals on Death Row about whose guilt there is NO doubt and the question of wrongful conviction simply does not apply. Why are the likes of Richard Ramirez, Christa Pike, Michelle Tharp and others still languishing in prison when there is NO doubt of their guilt? It's fair enough to oppose their execution on MORAL grounds but to do so on the basis of some conviction of their INNOCENCE puts you on the same level as people who believe that the Earth is flat. Nope. There always remains the chance that someone is innocent. Until you eliminate that possibility entirely, the deeath penalty remains open to discussion. After that, we'll discuss the morality of the death penalty... and conclude that there is no morality in it. Yep. Please tell me how you can defend the innocence of Ramirez, Pike and others of their kind. Was Ted Bundy innocent? Or John Gacey? Or Adolf Eichmann? I'll do you the credit of assuming that you're not expecting anyone to swallow such obvious nonsense. If you'd bothered to read my post properly you would have seen that my comment was that WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT the question of innocence does not apply and we can then only focus on the moral issue. I'd be quite happy to demonstrate to you how capital punishment IS morally right but believe me I'm not your typical gung-ho bloodthirsty pro at all. I'm even married to an anti!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 11, 2008 22:20:47 GMT -5
Yep. Please tell me how you can defend the innocence of Ramirez, Pike and others of their kind. Was Ted Bundy innocent? Or John Gacey? Or Adolf Eichmann? I'll do you the credit of assuming that you're not expecting anyone to swallow such obvious nonsense. If you'd bothered to read my post properly you would have seen that my comment was that WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT the question of innocence does not apply and we can then only focus on the moral issue. I'd be quite happy to demonstrate to you how capital punishment IS morally right but believe me I'm not your typical gung-ho bloodthirsty pro at all. I'm even married to an anti! There's aways doubt. The 'system' has shown over and over again that there are too many people in it, cops, prosecutors and even judges who are prepared to rig the system to get the results they want. Too many will actually break the law to get a conviction, knowing all the time that the accused is innocent. The system has to be right 100% of the time. It only has to be wrong once.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Dec 12, 2008 16:42:42 GMT -5
Yep. Please tell me how you can defend the innocence of Ramirez, Pike and others of their kind. Was Ted Bundy innocent? Or John Gacey? Or Adolf Eichmann? I'll do you the credit of assuming that you're not expecting anyone to swallow such obvious nonsense. If you'd bothered to read my post properly you would have seen that my comment was that WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT the question of innocence does not apply and we can then only focus on the moral issue. I'd be quite happy to demonstrate to you how capital punishment IS morally right but believe me I'm not your typical gung-ho bloodthirsty pro at all. I'm even married to an anti! There's aways doubt. The 'system' has shown over and over again that there are too many people in it, cops, prosecutors and even judges who are prepared to rig the system to get the results they want. Too many will actually break the law to get a conviction, knowing all the time that the accused is innocent. The system has to be right 100% of the time. It only has to be wrong once. There's NOT always doubt and it's DISHONEST to PRETEND that there IS. I'm asking you a direct question and maybe you'll do me the courtesy of giving me a straight answer for once. What would be your reasons for OPPOSING the execution of Hoess and Eichmann? Even they admitted their guilt, to say nothing of the overwhelming evidence against them. How would it have been better to have locked them up for the rest of their life than to execute them? What shred of innocence could either of them possibly claim? Hoess was responsible for the murder of my Uncle Jaime's mother, father, sister and brother in Auschwitz for the 'crime' of being gypsies. He is sadly dead now but if you'd ever met him how could you have looked him in the face and said 'Hoess didn't deserve to die but your family did.'
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 12, 2008 23:41:16 GMT -5
I'm asking you a direct question and maybe you'll do me the courtesy of giving me a straight answer for once. What would be your reasons for OPPOSING the execution of Hoess and Eichmann? Even they admitted their guilt, to say nothing of the overwhelming evidence against them. Those are war crimes. I believe this penalty should be reserved for war crimes and terrorism. Using it in cases such as that of Darlie Routier in TX where the evidence is both negligible and inconclusive degrades any value it has.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Dec 16, 2008 15:48:01 GMT -5
What an interesting piece of self-revelation, happy haddock. You have just 'outed' yourself as a 'wowie' pro POSING as an anti.
You also draw a curious ethical distinction between the likes of Eichmann or, for the sake of argument, bin Laden and those of, for instance, Ramirez and Pike.
Where is the moral distinction between the actions of Ramirez and those of Hoess?
I could understand your point of view more if you were a wowie pro across the board (as my wife is, for instance) but to state that war crimes and terrorism should ALONE merit the death penalty and NOT equally horrific peacetime murders seems to me a wholly egregious, not to say bizarre, attitude that leads one to question your judgement and intellectual veracity.
You appear obsessed with the notion that Darlie Routier is innocent. She is NOT and it is at best futile and at worst dishonest to persist in that lunacy.
That does not of course mean that I support her execution.
Unlike you, I am an ANTI.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 16, 2008 19:29:02 GMT -5
What an interesting piece of self-revelation, happy haddock. You have just 'outed' yourself as a 'wowie' pro POSING as an anti. Wrong. I merely allow it because almost everyone affected wants it. I also note, however, that very few are ever subjected to this penalty, despite horrific crimes. Further, these crimes strike at the very heart of the legal system. They are extra-legal crimes and as such I cannot say I oppose an extra-legal punishment. You also draw a curious ethical distinction between the likes of Eichmann or, for the sake of argument, bin Laden and those of, for instance, Ramirez and Pike. Where is the moral distinction between the actions of Ramirez and those of Hoess? Ramirez can be fairly adjudged and punished by the country he committed his crimes in. But the Nazis were subjected, arguably, to victor's justice. Many of their 'crimes' were legal acts under laws they passed. The US has committed such crimes itself, in S America notably, but will never be brought to account for them. It is simply a different set of rules. I could understand your point of view more if you were a wowie pro across the board (as my wife is, for instance) but to state that war crimes and terrorism should ALONE merit the death penalty and NOT equally horrific peacetime murders seems to me a wholly egregious, not to say bizarre, attitude that leads one to question your judgement and intellectual veracity. You appear obsessed with the notion that Darlie Routier is innocent. She is NOT and it is at best futile and at worst dishonest to persist in that lunacy. That does not of course mean that I support her execution. Unlike you, I am an ANTI. I fail to see sufficient evidence to convict Routier, let alone execute her. She was convicted by prejudice in a lynch mob atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Dec 17, 2008 6:46:49 GMT -5
What an interesting piece of self-revelation, happy haddock. You have just 'outed' yourself as a 'wowie' pro POSING as an anti. Wrong. I merely allow it because almost everyone affected wants it. I also note, however, that very few are ever subjected to this penalty, despite horrific crimes. Further, these crimes strike at the very heart of the legal system. They are extra-legal crimes and as such I cannot say I oppose an extra-legal punishment. Ramirez can be fairly adjudged and punished by the country he committed his crimes in. But the Nazis were subjected, arguably, to victor's justice. Many of their 'crimes' were legal acts under laws they passed. The US has committed such crimes itself, in S America notably, but will never be brought to account for them. It is simply a different set of rules. I could understand your point of view more if you were a wowie pro across the board (as my wife is, for instance) but to state that war crimes and terrorism should ALONE merit the death penalty and NOT equally horrific peacetime murders seems to me a wholly egregious, not to say bizarre, attitude that leads one to question your judgement and intellectual veracity. You appear obsessed with the notion that Darlie Routier is innocent. She is NOT and it is at best futile and at worst dishonest to persist in that lunacy. That does not of course mean that I support her execution. Unlike you, I am an ANTI. I fail to see sufficient evidence to convict Routier, let alone execute her. She was convicted by prejudice in a lynch mob atmosphere. Wrong. I merely allow it because almost everyone affected wants it. I also note, however, that very few are ever subjected to this penalty, despite horrific crimes. Further, these crimes strike at the very heart of the legal system. They are extra-legal crimes and as such I cannot say I oppose an extra-legal punishment. Right. Either you oppose the death penalty or you do not. You can argue about who or how many but if you support the execution of even one person you are a pro and NOT an anti. As I said earlier, haddock, you ARE a PRO posing as an anti. Surely ALL crimes by definition are 'extra-legal?' Surely murder strikes at the heart of society? *Deleted- no insults please.* I note that as usual you fail utterly to address the SUBSTANTIVE part of my post which was that it is illogical to support the death penalty for terrorist offences and yet not for murder. You fail completely to explain why the likes of Ramirez, Pike, the Hillside Stranglers et al are any less deserving of the death penalty than bin Laden. As I say, I oppose the death penalty in ALL cases and am an anti. You do NOT and are therefore a PRO.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Dec 17, 2008 12:45:47 GMT -5
I have to share the reservations about the conviction and DP sentence against Darlie Routier! The attempts to falsely make the mother of Jon Benet Ramsey into a murderess were also very disturbing.. Although the evidence suggesting that Mrs. Routier is guilty is present this is still not a "slam dunk" case of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt! I fail to see any history of evil on Mrs. Routier's part, e.g. child abuse, insurance fraud, etc..
Some MVSs will show the behavior that Mrs. Routier showed at the graves of her children.. A denial of the tragedy or the belief that their murdered loved one(s) is (are) triumphant over death and present in a beautiful afterlife, which should be celebrated, etc..There are many faces of grief and dealing with loss and tragedy..
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Dec 19, 2008 13:23:51 GMT -5
I'm asking you a direct question and maybe you'll do me the courtesy of giving me a straight answer for once. What would be your reasons for OPPOSING the execution of Hoess and Eichmann? Even they admitted their guilt, to say nothing of the overwhelming evidence against them. Those are war crimes. I believe this penalty should be reserved for war crimes and terrorism. Using it in cases such as that of Darlie Routier in TX where the evidence is both negligible and inconclusive degrades any value it has. I'm rather saddened to see Mike go. I have no problem with Haddock's view that the DP should be reserved for "political murderers" only.. I get attacked by extremist pros too for not supporting the all or nothing DP position! They learn that i can turn the spotlight on their extremist fantasy world in a hurry!
I personally see an "extremist political ideology and or indoctrination", which leads to murder as being a step towards mental illness and thus a mitigating circumstance.. The non-political, self serving, sadistic and deliberate hobby murderers are in my eyes the most DP eligible of all the murderers.
Hope Mike gets another chance here!
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Dec 19, 2008 18:33:07 GMT -5
I'm somewhat saddened to see that on a board which is so inactive that the admin team feel that banning a constructive poster is worthwhile (especially since he's my husband and it was Pumpkinpie who suggested I should invite him here in the first place.)
Mike opposes the death penalty in all cases and I favour it for the worst murders.
That makes me a pro.
Actually, supporting the death penalty in ANY circumstances makes you a pro. Whether you favour it for murder, terrorism, war crimes, or simply (as I do) for the worst murderers if you favour it at all that makes you a pro.
The fact that a former prosecutor now opposes the death penalty isn't really significant. His opinion is no more valuable than if he'd been a former defence counsel who now supports it.
Lawyers, judges, clerics and anyone else is entitled to their opinion.
What they have to remember is that they are ONLY expressing their opinion and that their status gives them no special rights.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 19, 2008 23:06:24 GMT -5
Lawyers, judges, clerics and anyone else is entitled to their opinion. What they have to remember is that they are ONLY expressing their opinion and that their status gives them no special rights. Rights, no; value, yes. When the lion says that eating meat is wrong it does have a greater impact than when the sheep says the same.
|
|