There are certainly people on death row who without a doubt are guilty of their crimes.
Hang those guys high.
If the case was built on less than overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence, get them off death row.
Former Texas prosecutor disbarred for sending innocent man to death row
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
There are certainly people on death row who without a doubt are guilty of their crimes.
Hang those guys high.
If the case was built on less than overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence, get them off death row.
He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced to death. Where do you draw the line?
There are some cases where it's absolutely incontrovertible who did it. The Colorado movie theater shooter. The Fort Hood shooter. These men did it. There is no doubt.
But if your case is built with circumstantial evidence and innuendo.... if the witnesses aren't very credible... then take the death penalty off the table.
The justice system is absolutely imperfect. Until an absolutely perfect justice system is enacted, an ultimately and final penalty, i.e. death, should not be implemented. No matter the standard you choose to implement, an imperfect person will sit as judge, juror, and prosecutor, with their own imperfections and preconceptions.
This guy can sue the prosecutors. We had a high profile case here in Iowa recently where a couple guys out of Council Bluffs got some big $$$$ suing the prosecutors that framed them for murder. One of the guys names was Harrington. Gerry Spence was his attorney. Google and read up.
But how do you draw the line? What is the standard for absolute certain guilt? Guilt will still be judged by an imperfect system using imperfect people who will implement a final, non-reversible punishment. You will still be susceptible to issues like this, where a person involved in the trial manipulated and withheld evidence to prevent an acquittal.
Look, you get caught red-handed holding the smoking gun, you can be given the death penalty.
If they had to figure out who did it and linked you to the crime with something less than the above, you can't be given the death penalty.
It's really not that hard.
I'm not talking about a defendant having to undertake a civil case to obtain remuneration. I'm talking about a law that will forcibly remove assets from a DA/attorney who knowingly and willfully falsified evidence or withheld evidence from a defendant. You engage in that behavior, and you deserve to lose all of your assets to the person you wronged, and the taxpayers deserve to recover ALL of the money they paid you when you were SUPPOSED to be doing your job upholding the law.
No 'civil' case of more lawyers needed. Simply draw the line in the sand on unethical behavior, and enforce it mercilessly against those who pervert our system of justice.
Agree, obviously, but nor do you I'm afraid. Your hyperbolic punishments (what, kill em twice?) (gonna take the kids Christmas presents with the 401k?) reflect a naiveté about the nature and frequency of these cases. And it is not votes at all, its the nature of the adversarial system. While votes might be wrongly a factor in some charging decisions, they are almost never a factor at trial. The lawyer wants to win at trial, period. And should, just stay within those pesky ethical boundaries of zealous representation within the bounds of the law.
Rarely are these cases as cut and dried as this one appears to be. Often the line between exoneration and getting out on a technicality is in the eye of the beholder. As is the line between prosecutorial misconduct and good faith error in judgment.
Juries are instructed their duty is to find the truth, and most lawyers talk about finding the truth during jury selection (technically in Iowa called voir dire, which is reputedly french for truth telling), fwiw.
OK. A dishonest cop breaks into a house and is confronted by a husband. Cop shoots the husband and tells everyone he caught the wife with a "smoking gun". He was absolutely "caught" red handed with a smoking gun by the police.
Again, the system is imperfect. Can you develop a scenario that there is no plausible way that the crime could have been committed by anyone else, yes, I suppose so. However, significant potential exists, as we see in this Texas case, for abuse to rear its head. The death penalty is not a deterrent, is not cheaper, and only serves society's need for retribution. That's not enough.
The only reason it's not cheaper is because of the gawddamn lawyers and the endless appeals. If they were dragged out back of the courthouse and executed by firing squad immediately after conviction, it would be MUCH cheaper than life in prison.
Makes that "let's speed up the death penalty" crowd look kinda silly...doesn't mean they'll recognize how silly they look.
I'm glad there are appeals available...
I also believe people like Bundy,Gacy,Westley A. Dodd,etc...etc....etc...all earned the right to die by execution..
The availability of the death penalty can be an arrow in the quiver for a DA..There have been crimes solved due to the threat of the death penalty being used.
Obviously DA's have misused/abused this "arrow" over time..I don't know the solution...As long as there are child rapos/killers, serial killers, murderers,out there, they need to keep the death penalty available in some way...
I also believe people like Bundy,Gacy,Westley A. Dodd,etc...etc....etc...all earned the right to die by execution..
The availability of the death penalty can be an arrow in the quiver for a DA..There have been crimes solved due to the threat of the death penalty being used.
Obviously DA's have misused/abused this "arrow" over time..I don't know the solution...As long as there are child rapos/killers, serial killers, murderers,out there, they need to keep the death penalty available in some way...
They also tout how tough they are on crime, and in death penalty states they puff out their chests and boast of how many people they've sent to death row. This is no way to apply justice.
That's $77,777.78 per year.
You'd think people would be lining up at the courthouse to be falsely convicted for that kind of money.
