State of Arkansas murdered a man
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
“He probably did some other crime, anyway”.
Signed,
HROT blowhards.
Signed,
HROT blowhards.
This case is notorious for every abuse in the book. Judge was sleeping with a prosecutor. His attorney failed to bring up his mental disability in sentencing. His fingerprints didn’t match those on the murder weapon. Arkansas refused to allow access to the DNA evidence until after his execution.
Everything about this was wrong and he shouldn’t have been executed.
But that doesn’t mean he was innocent.
Everything about this was wrong and he shouldn’t have been executed.
But that doesn’t mean he was innocent.
Well, I think we could do a little better in death penalty cases, don’t you? You just named four things that should have been disqualifying for application of the death penalty.
Of course Arkansas refused the DNA testing.
Watch West of Memphis or Paradise Lost for more on the Arkansas criminal law system.
Watch West of Memphis or Paradise Lost for more on the Arkansas criminal law system.
This is why the death penalty has to be abolished. If a state/country is going to execute folks they have to have a perfect system. No system is perfect.
I also think it’s not a deterrent and costs too much.
I agree 100% with this except possibly the last sentence. If even one innocent person is executed then it should be abolished.
I agree with that.
I'd also add with the way our justice system works....we don't have (broadly speaking) rich folks on death row. If you can afford good lawyers they'll at the very least usually get you off with a lighter sentence. If you're represented by a public defender you're probably headed to the Gallows.
One more thing....the counterargument is usually that some of the most heinous crimes deserve the death penalty....I agree. The problem isn't whether they "deserve" to die it's the imperfect system IMO. Can't have a system that put's people who "deserve" to die on death row but is also fallible and can make mistakes. Like I said before...humans haven't developed any "perfect" justice system....really isn't a possibility because of the human factor.
Last edited:
That's sort of my issue with the death penalty. It's not a deterrent, doesn't really protect us more than life in prison w/o parole.
I'm not morally upset by someone who committed a very heinous murder being put to death. If the guy they are looking at actually killed those girls in Delphi and they secure the death penalty on him I'm certainly not driving to Michigan City to protest his execution.
But overall I think it's bad policy because of what you laid out. We know the things that make you more likely to get the death penalty are being male, being poor, and being black in that order. For something like this when we can't even come close to applying it fairly than we just shouldn't have it.
In this case it shouldn’t have been applied. I’d even go so far as to disallow states that show these kinds of abuses from administering the death penalty.
That shouldn’t change anyone’s opinion of the punishment itself. There are grave abuses in the prison system, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t imprison people. It means we should fix the system.
This is why death penalty proponents lead with this argument. It's hard to look at the most heinous crimes and disagree with the death penalty. This is 100 percent why Bill Barr led with people who had committed crimes against children when he started his execution spree last year.
The most heinous crimes are not the ones you are most likely to find on death row, however. You see the cases you mention in your first sentence. The people from social or racial classes who don't get the full protection of the law far outnumber the wealthy and the white on death row.
Clinton executed a mentally handicapped man in 1992 in order to bolster his tough on crime image, and to avoid getting Willie Hortoned. A sad portion of Clinton's time as the Governor of Arkansas was his willingness to use the state to kill.
Can’t blame a Governor for not getting involved with the will of the people. The legislature passes laws that reflect the will of the people. The jury decides guilty. Judges pass sentence. Appeals courts hear these cease and has the power to overturn.
Not saying the governor doesn’t have the power to overturn...but should he? Why in the hell would any state have a death sentence should be the question.
This is why I have always been against the death penalty,.. as a society, we aren't smart enough to be making life and death decisions.
