The problem with the death penalty

[LittleRedToyota]

while i am 100% in favor of actual murderers, rapists, etc. potentially being put to death for their crimes, i oppose the death penalty because i understand just how flawed our legal system is...while you can release a wrongly convicted person from prison, you cannot undo an execution.

it seems texas may have executed an innocent man...and now the governor seems to be in CYA mode...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/...obe/index.html

Shakeup in Texas execution probe draws criticism, questions

DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- An investigation into claims that faulty evidence led Texas to execute a man in 2004 was at a "crucial point" when the state's governor replaced three of its members this week, one of the three said Thursday.

Gov. Rick Perry's shake-up of the Texas Forensic Science Commission came two days before it was to hear from the author of a scathing report in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. That Friday session has been postponed indefinitely in the wake of Perry's new appointments.

Willingham was put to death for killing his three daughters in a fire that arson investigators said had been deliberately set.

Yet death-penalty opponents say an impartial review of the case could lead to an unprecedented admission -- that the state executed an innocent man.

Three reports, including one commissioned by the Forensic Science Commission, have concluded that arson was not the likely cause of the 1991 fire.

Perry's office described the governor's replacement of commission members as routine, saying the terms of Chairman Sam Bassett and commissioners Alan Levy and Aliece Watts had expired. But Levy said he told the governor's office "that it would be disruptive to make the new appointments right now."

"The commission was at a crucial point in the investigation," he told CNN on Thursday.

Asked about the future of the Willingham investigation, he said, "I don't know if it will ever be heard."

Levy, a top prosecutor in Fort Worth, said he had asked to remain on the commission, but received no response from the governor's office. Sam Bassett, the panel's former chairman, said he also asked to remain on board.

Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said the governor "thanks the former appointees for their service." Asked whether the governor wants to see the Willingham investigation go forward, she said, "That's a decision of the commission."

"The governor has made his position on this case clear, and has said that he has not seen anything that would cause him to think that the decisions made by the courts of Texas was not correct," Cesinger said. "Beyond that, the business of the commission is up to the commission."

Perry refused to issue a last-minute stay of execution for Willingham in 2004 and has said he remains confident that Willingham was guilty. So have authorities in Corsicana, south of Dallas, who prosecuted him for his daughters' deaths.

The lead investigator in the case, Corsicana Police Sgt. Jimmie Hensley, dismissed subsequent reviews of the case as "Monday-morning quarterbacking" by experts unfamiliar with the whole of the evidence.

"I'm firmly a believer that justice was served," he told CNN this week.

But Craig Beyler, the expert hired by the Forensic Science Commission to investigate the Willingham case, concluded that the ruling at the heart of Willingham's conviction -- that the fire that killed his daughters was set deliberately -- "could not be sustained" by modern science or the standards of the time.

Beyler's report also said that the state fire marshal who testified in Willingham's trial approached his job with an attitude "more characteristic of mystics or psychics" than with that of a detective who followed scientific standards.

Wednesday's personnel moves raised concern among Willingham's relatives, who worked to avert his execution and to clear his name after his death.

"It sounds like someone made Governor Perry mad," his stepmother, Eugena Willingham, said after hearing the news during an interview with CNN at her home in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

"I think it's going to delay things," she added. "It makes me wonder why."

Neither Bassett nor Levy would say whether they believed political considerations were behind their replacement, though Bassett said in a written statement that the investigation should go on.

"In my view, we should not fail to investigate important forensic issues in cases simply because there might be political ramifications," he said.

Others were sharply critical of Perry on Thursday.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck compared the shakeup to the Watergate scandal's "Saturday night massacre," when embattled President Richard Nixon sought the removal of a special prosecutor probing his administration.

"Rather than let this important hearing go forward and the report be heard, the governor fires the independent chairman and two other members of this commission," Scheck said. "It's like Nixon firing Archibald Cox to avoid turning over the Watergate tapes."

The Innocence Project seeks to help prisoners who were wrongfully convicted. Its 2006 report on the Willingham case concluded that "an innocent man was executed." That report led to Beyler being hired by the Forensic Science Commission to review the case.

And Scott Cobb, president of the Texas Moratorium Network, said Perry "saw the writing on the wall" -- that the commission was "moving in the direction that he didn't want them to go."

Cobb said Bassett's replacement, John Bradley, is "one of the most hard-line prosecutors in the entire state," who had opposed efforts in the Legislature to restrict capital punishment.

"I really don't have a lot of confidence with him on this commission," Cobb said. On the other hand, however, "If he is convinced by the evidence, it would make an even bigger impact."

there have been numerous cases of people being proven innocent while they were on death row awaiting execution. that seems to imply that we have likely executed innocent people in the past. it seems this may have been such a case.

imho, executing even 1 innocent man is too many to allow the death penalty to continue to be used.

[General Geoff]

Better to have 100 guilty men go free than for a single innocent man to be robbed of his freedom and/or life.

[pirateron]

Unfortunately, our science is not advanced enough. Twenty years ago, we patted ourselves on the back in regards to how advanced we were. Now, that science seems prehistoric. Twenty years from now, our science of today will seem neanderthalish. Until we can "prove" without a shred of doubt, no one should be executed. On the flip side, those that we CAN prove, they should be executed without the benefit of years of appeals. If you're caught on tape, they should walk you out of the courtroom into the gas chamber.

Just my opinion.

[General Geoff]

If you're caught on tape, they should walk you out of the courtroom into the gas chamber.

Unless of course the tape caught someone who was made up to LOOK like you, in a frame up. Or the tape was doctored. As long as evidence can be tampered with, and the justice system is made up of fallible people, proof beyond a shred of doubt is impossible.

[GunLawyer001]

Some crimes demand the death penalty. We don't allow the victims to get their own justice, because the government says it will do it for them.

If you take the death penalty off the table, you deny justice for some victims. That's the sort of thing that leads people to burn down the local crack house, or shoot the guy who raped their sister, or kill the owner of the corporation that declares bankruptcy after making their savings vanish. A lot of people won't just grab their ankles and accept that the person who hurt them will be mildly punished.

What would you expect to happen when a parent is told that the guy who kidnapped, raped, killed and mutilated their infant will be "punished" by being housed in comfort at taxpayer expense for a period of years?

Some people say "we can't kill people to show that killing is wrong". Well, that's just stupid. How do we punish that guy who kidnapped and imprisoned that girl for 18 years? Should we imprison him against his will for a period of years, to show that imprisonment is wrong? Of course we should, unless we execute him. That's how we deter evil people from doing evil things, by having the full tool box of punishments. That sick bastard spent 18 years with that victim (and he may have kidnapped and killed others), he indulged his sick fantasies, we need to have a horrifying consequence to deter others.

Some people believe that every punishment is "cruel and unusual". We've been softening punishment for decades, and crime has been rising in response.

We used to treat military draftees worse than we treat convicted murderers today. No system is perfect, and it's a nightmare to be executed for a crime that you know you didn't commit. It's also a nightmare to spend your life in prison for a wrongful conviction, to be put through a trial when you know you're innocent, or to be arrested for something you didn't do. We as a society accept that some mistakes will be made, some people will pay the price for a fallible system. To me, that's better than formalizing the notion that a monster can murder 100 children without risking death himself, unless one of the victims' parents gets to him first.

[Philbert]

Some people say "we can't kill people to show that killing is wrong". Well, that's just stupid. How do we punish that guy who kidnapped and imprisoned that girl for 18 years? Should we imprison him against his will for a period of years, to show that imprisonment is wrong? Of course we should, unless we execute him. That's how we deter evil people from doing evil things, by having the full tool box of punishments. That sick bastard spent 18 years with that victim (and he may have kidnapped and killed others), he indulged his sick fantasies, we need to have a horrifying consequence to deter others.

A thousand times THIS. That canard always drives me nuts, second only to the ridiculous idea that one's opinion on abortion rights should determine one's opinion on the death penalty.

[PocketProtector]

Better to have 100 guilty men go free than for a single innocent man to be robbed of his freedom and/or life.

Solitary confinement ...yeah. Unleashing them on the public....no

[Philbert]

Solitary confinement ...yeah. Unleashing them on the public....no

And this is an important point, because we are willing to imprison some innocent people. Maybe it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than to imprison an innocent man, but what about 1000? 10000? Somewhere there is a line to be drawn and I don't think it's realistic to say that we can guarantee no innocent people will be punished.

I would rather imprison people because we can release them if they are found to be innocent. I realize this is not a cost-free alternative to execution because we can't give them back their lost years of freedom. But it beats a posthumous apology, IMO.

[Don T.]

Some crimes demand the death penalty. We don't allow the victims to get their own justice, because the government says it will do it for them.

If you take the death penalty off the table, you deny justice for some victims. That's the sort of thing that leads people to burn down the local crack house, or shoot the guy who raped their sister, or kill the owner of the corporation that declares bankruptcy after making their savings vanish. A lot of people won't just grab their ankles and accept that the person who hurt them will be mildly punished.

What would you expect to happen when a parent is told that the guy who kidnapped, raped, killed and mutilated their infant will be "punished" by being housed in comfort at taxpayer expense for a period of years?

Some people say "we can't kill people to show that killing is wrong". Well, that's just stupid. How do we punish that guy who kidnapped and imprisoned that girl for 18 years? Should we imprison him against his will for a period of years, to show that imprisonment is wrong? Of course we should, unless we execute him. That's how we deter evil people from doing evil things, by having the full tool box of punishments. That sick bastard spent 18 years with that victim (and he may have kidnapped and killed others), he indulged his sick fantasies, we need to have a horrifying consequence to deter others.

Some people believe that every punishment is "cruel and unusual". We've been softening punishment for decades, and crime has been rising in response.

We used to treat military draftees worse than we treat convicted murderers today. No system is perfect, and it's a nightmare to be executed for a crime that you know you didn't commit. It's also a nightmare to spend your life in prison for a wrongful conviction, to be put through a trial when you know you're innocent, or to be arrested for something you didn't do. We as a society accept that some mistakes will be made, some people will pay the price for a fallible system. To me, that's better than formalizing the notion that a monster can murder 100 children without risking death himself, unless one of the victims' parents gets to him first.

Well put sir. I have to spread the rep elsewhere though.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Better to have 100 guilty men go free than for a single innocent man to be robbed of his freedom and/or life.

Yeah but at least if someone is unjustly imprisoned, there is a chance to correct it. The reason I oppose the death penalty is that if a mistake gets made, it can't be taken back. If the system could guarantee all those convicted were really guilty, then I'd be all for the death penalty, but until then, I say life without possibility of parole should be the maximum option.

Unfortunately, our science is not advanced enough. Twenty years ago, we patted ourselves on the back in regards to how advanced we were. Now, that science seems prehistoric. Twenty years from now, our science of today will seem neanderthalish. Until we can "prove" without a shred of doubt, no one should be executed. On the flip side, those that we CAN prove, they should be executed without the benefit of years of appeals. If you're caught on tape, they should walk you out of the courtroom into the gas chamber.

Just my opinion.

Agree 100%. Take forensic ballistics, for example-- that is not nearly as exact a science as police departments and prosecutors would have you believe.

Some crimes demand the death penalty. We don't allow the victims to get their own justice, because the government says it will do it for them.

If you take the death penalty off the table, you deny justice for some victims. That's the sort of thing that leads people to burn down the local crack house, or shoot the guy who raped their sister, or kill the owner of the corporation that declares bankruptcy after making their savings vanish. A lot of people won't just grab their ankles and accept that the person who hurt them will be mildly punished.

What would you expect to happen when a parent is told that the guy who kidnapped, raped, killed and mutilated their infant will be "punished" by being housed in comfort at taxpayer expense for a period of years?

Unless you can show me there are more revenge killings in Massachusetts or Illinois than Texas or Georgia, then I'm not buying that argument.