Flawed Texas Death Penalty System & Bush

[sailor]

Excited executioner exercising his excising powers excessively.

[oldscratch]

**
My only point is that the death penalty cannot be called murder any more than a prison sentence can be called kidnapping. It is a matter of definition and semantics and pretty simple to get (I would think).

**

Not to be rude sailor, but did you read any earlier posts? if you had you would have seen this
*
Scylla, Scylla, Scylla. You left out ": to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to " *

The state put’s an end to human life. It murders people. We can damn well call it murder if we like.

**
I may be willing to accept arguments about why the death penalty should be abolished but I am not willing to accept that it is “state sanctioned murder” because that is just a contradiction in terms.

**
and also

**
… and yet I fail to see the connection or the logic. First off, the state does not knowingly execute innocent people any more than it fines innocent people. The proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and I think that is a reasonable standard. If the state had to have god-like certainty for it’s actions it could not exist. Human societies are subject to human errors.

**

One. The supreme court has ruled that it is ok to execute innocent people. I repeat te supreme court has ruled that it is ok to knowingly execute innocent people. Now, while you can argue that the state at this point hasn’t knowingly killed innocent people (although I’m sure there are at least 1 or 2 cases where it has). Prosecuters have asked for the death penalty for people that they have known where innocent. Appeals courts have turned down appeals by people they knew where probably innocent. Governers have denied clemency to victims of the DP when overwhelming evidence existed that the person should not be executed. We have also killed mentally retarded people.
Two. True the state can not be certain about everything in life, but taking that into consideration should it be given the power of life or death over it’s citizens? Look at someone like Geronimo Pratt, finally freed several years ago. 20 some odd years after being put in prison. If the Death Penalty had existed when he was sentanced he would probably be dead now.

**
Excited executioner exercising his excising powers excessively.

** HAHAHA.

[pepperlandgirl]

Thank you Oldscratch. I have been too busy to really respond, and when I come in here to do that very thing, I see you have, in a very eloquent way, probably better than I could have put it.
So, ditto Oldscratch

[oldscratch]

No no pepperlandgirl. You always beat me to the punch. I deeply admire your moral convictions against the death penalty. The abolishinist movement could always use people like you.
BTW, despite the sarcastic subject I do mean every word.

[sailor]

As I say, I am not here taking any position on the issue. It could well be that it would be a good idea to abolish it. IF the penalty has been or is applied wrongly, that is not IMHO a reason to abolish it but rather to apply it correctly (like with any other issue). I do not believe anybody here or anywhere would support executing innocent people. I think the arguments for and against should be strictly on the merits and ethics of the issue (and I can see both sides).

Having said that, you wanna call it murder? Ok, that’s fine with me. The only thing I can say is that, not having a position on this, at least the people on the other side from you seem more rational and less demagogues to me. That does not make them right but I am much more attracted by reason than by rhetoric.

Anyway, I’m getting out of this thread since I really have nothing useful to add.

[pepperlandgirl]

Sailor, you were given an example of how it could be murder. The Definition of Murder was given not once, but TWICE. And you still can’t see how it can be called murder? Ok, I will say it AGAIN

Bolding mine

Not to be rude sailor, but did you read any earlier posts? if you had you would have seen this

                 Scylla, Scylla, Scylla. You left out ": to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
                 2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
                ** 3 a : to put an end to "** 

What part of that don’t you understand. Technically it can be called murder. And it’s definatley murder if the person is innocent.
How could it be more logically stated than that? Just because your personal connotations of the word MURDER doesn’t match the exact defintion doesn’t mean you can argue the defintion is wrong.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Oxford Illust Dict: “murder…:the UNLAWFUL…” (caps mine). executions are not unlawful. Neither is killing an enemy during war. Nor is killing in self defence. Also note, it is “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not kill”. Executions are not murder, nor is taxation theft, nor is prison kidnapping or slavery, etc, etc. Namecalling like this is childish. I really thought better of you, Pepper, you disappoint me. (but it IS what I expect from you, OldS).

[Typo_Negative]

I agree with sailor that executions are not murder and I do not believe that we can call GWB a murder for doing his job.
But the execution of an innocent person is a travesty and should never, ever happen. I think that the idea of an innocent man in prison should shock and sicken us.

Our justice system was founded on the presumption of innocence and our founding fathers thought it was better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to jail.
We are simply not living up to the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard. I heard someone say you’re ‘innocent until your name appears in the newspaper’. I recently served on a jury. Thats not that far from the truth.

We had a Supreme Court Justice say ‘Innocence is no bar to upholding a conviction’. (I think it was Rehnquist) Granted, the statement was not related to death penalty case but it still shows a cavelier attitude about a wrongful conviction.
Here in Los Angeles, over 60 convictions have been vacated in the ‘Rampart’ scandal, in which police officers have falsified evidence and perjured themselves on the witness and shot unarmed people. Thats just from one police station.

I belive the majority of people in prison desrve to be there. And I believe some crimes are worthy of the death penalty. But I do not believe in the efficacy of our justice system. IMHO, the death penalty is too final a solution for such a flawed system.

[Mr.Zambezi]

pepper said

The supreme court has ruled that it is ok to execute innocent people. I repeat te supreme court has ruled that it is ok to knowingly execute innocent people.

I have to call you on this one. I want a cite and context.

If this is true, tehn GWB is upholding the supreme law of the land

You know, if this is true, it would be usefull support for the right to bear arms. If the gov’t is killing the innocent with the blessings of the Supreme Court, then gov’t trulycan’t be trusted.

[pepperlandgirl]

pepper saidquote:
The supreme court has ruled that it is ok to execute innocent people. I repeat te
supreme court has ruled that it is ok to knowingly execute innocent people.

I didn’t say that sir. But thank you for paying attention.
You can actually attibute that comment to OldScratch. But don’t worry, I’ll own up to anything else I may have said.

[oldscratch]

Hey mr. Z. Actually I said that supreme court quote not pepper. But, here is the cite.

When Leonel Herrera’s attorneys tried to introduce evidence that his brother Raul had confessed to the crime for which Leonel was facing execution, the federal courts concluded that such evidence was irrelevant to their deliberations.

The actual supreme court ruling can be found here.

To this ruling the dissenting judge had this to say

Of one thing, however, I am certain. Just as an execution without adequate safeguards is unacceptable, so too is an execution when the condemned prisoner can prove that he is innocent. The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder. -Justice Harry Blackmun, Herrera v. Collins, 1993

Hey look even the supreme court justices call it murder.

Also on the state level.

Most states have stringent time limits on presenting the court with new evidence of one’s innocence.22 For example, under Virginia’s “21-day rule,” the defendant must present new evidence of his innocence within 21 days of his conviction in order for it to be considered by the courts on appeal.

and two more facts

-Illinois has released as many from death-row as it has executed since 1976. As a result, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice said, “Despite the courts’ efforts to fashion a death penalty scheme that is just…, the system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to death… If this is the best our state can do, we have no business sending people to their deaths.”

-President Clinton has called appeals by death-row prisoners “ridiculous” and “interminable.” He signed a law that limits prisoners to a single habeas corpus appeal within one year of conviction. Under this law, many of those released from death row due to innocence since 1976 would be dead.

enjoy mr. z

[SuaSponte]

The closing essay in this week’s Newsweek (hey, I’d finished the Economist and needed something to read for the commute home) addressed the Texas death penalty system in terms of Dubya’s character. The author (Anna Quindlen) was most disturbed that during the debate a year ago about the execution of that woman who had become a born-again Christian (name?), Dubya, during an interview, mocked her. She said that that kind of behavior, not his alleged coke use, should be the real character issue.

Personally, I am pro-death penalty, but I’m starting to feel that we, as humans, cannot get it right, and this is one area we HAVE to get right, so mebbe we should call the whole thing off.

V.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Mr. Zambezi, here is the cite and context.

Amnesty International publication discussing the death penalty in the USA

See US Supreme court decision, Herrera vs. Collins.

In 1992, the supreme court decided (6-3) to deny the appeal of Leonel Herrera, Texas deah row inmate, despite new exonerating evidence.

The court ruled that innocence claims alone are not sufficient grounds for habeas corpus relief through the Federal courts.

Leonel Herrera was executed.

(There is a longer discussion at the link I mentioned above.)

[Mr.Zambezi]

Mea culpa Pep and Scratch.

Scratch, the link did not show up. COuld you repost. But not hearing certain evidence is not the same as ruling that it is OK to kill the innocent. I think you misrepresented that a bit.

It seems to me that the problem is not so much the death penalty per se, but rather teh appeals process and the strict time limits on teh introduction of new evidence. Still, I can see why there would be some limit.

I handled a claim where a man killed one of our employees. HE cam into the store with a gun chased him around and finally shot him execution style. He is appealing like crazy and introducing all kinds of half baked “evidence” into the case. I can see the problem with letting these nuts introduce evidence forever. HTere should be a limit, but I have to admit, 21 days seems harsh.
Does anyone have more specific info on GWB “mocking” this inmate. I never heard of this before.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

And oldscratch beat me to it. (I got interrupted while typing my post.) Thank you oldscratch.

[oldscratch]

You should be able to click on the word “here” and it will take you to the link.

On bush mocking Karla Fay Tucker here is a quote

In Talk magazine during the summer of 1999, Bush mocked the 11th hour plea for mercy by female death row inmate, Karla Fay Tucker, imitating her by whimpering “Please, don’t kill me.” Tucker was the first woman to be executed by the state of Texas since the Civil War. She was a born-again Christian who had married the prison chaplain and become a model inmate. She gained widespread support throughout Texas and the world. Yet Bush had no problem making a joke out of her pain.

I got it from this site

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/
also in response to this from Mr.Zambezi

**
But not hearing certain evidence is not the same as ruling that it is OK to kill the innocent. I think you misrepresented that a bit.

**

I do not think so. The supreme court has ruled that actuall innocence is not the deciding factor in death penalty cases. Sure, they didn’t say “FROM NOW ON YOU CAN KILL THE INNOCENT” but, what they stated was that innocence is not the deciding factor. I think that means pretty much the same thing. Also, this isn’t the only precendent set in this manner, there are other cases where state courts and the federal court have said much the same.

[Mr.Zambezi]

OK scratch, now I know that you are misrepresenting the case.

I quote from the site you linked:

. In criminal cases, thetrial is the paramount event for determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Where, as here, a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the constitutional presumption of innocence disappears. Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution. See, e.g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88. Thus, claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the course of the underlying state criminal proceedings. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317. The rule that a petitioner subject to defenses of abusive or successive use of the habeas writ may have his federal constitutional claim considered on the merits if he makes a proper showing of actual innocence, see, e.g., Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. ___, ___, is inapplicable in this case. For Herrera does not seek relief from a procedural error so that he may bring an independent constitutional claim challenging his conviction or sentence, but rather argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because new evidence shows that his conviction is factually incorrect. To allow a federal court to grant him typical habeas relief–a conditional order releasing him unless the State elects to retry him or vacating his death sentence–would in effect require a new trial 10 years after the first trial, not because of any constitutional violation at the first trial, but simply because of a belief that in light of his new found evidence a jury might find him not guilty at a second trial. It is far from clear that this would produce a more reliable determination of guilt or innocence, since the passage of time only diminishes the reliability of criminal adjudications

In other words, it is up to the lower court to determine guilt. Once guilt is determined by due process, then the presumption of innocense is gone. Furthermore, it is not the Supreme court’s nor the federal court’s job to determine whether certain evidence is exculpatory or not.

If the Supreme court decided to find in favor of the plaintiff here, he would have gone free. I can’ imagine why the Supreme court should make a ruling setting a precedent wherein they listened to testimony and made factual findings on criminal cases. Their job is to decide constitutionality

You also forgot to mention that his ‘evidence’ was a few afadavits regarding his DEAD brother. He was fingering someone who could not testify!

Sorry, I am not buying your assertion here Scratch.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Mr. Zambezi, I will quote from the Amnesty International link I had mentioned above.

The Supreme Court ruled that, although the execution of a truly innocent person might arguably be unconstitutional, innocence claims alone are not grounds for habeas corpus relief through the Federal courts “absent an independent constitutional violation”. federal habeas courts sit “to ensure individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution, not to correct errors of fact”.

The Court grudgingly admitted that some rare cases might warrant a judicial review of new evidence where “a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to process the claim”. Given the need for finality and the “enormous burden” of having to retry old cases, “the threshold showing for such an assumed right would necessarily be extraordinarily high”.

So the Court did not specifically say “an innocent person can be executed”, but they came very close to it with the statement “innocence claims alone are not grounds for habeas corpus relief through the Federal courts” (in a death penalty case).

The Supreme Court said in its decision that Herrera could take his claim to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (TBPP). But the TBPP consistently refuses to hold clemency hearings in capital cases, even when confronted with doubts over the actual guilt of condemned prisoners. To many observers, this would then for all intents and purposes conform to the condition “no state avenue open to process the claim”, mentioned by the Supreme Court as a situation that would warrant federal habeas relief.

[SuaSponte]

Mr. Zambezi - you’re off point here (and, as someone pro-death penalty, I’m on your side. Further, as an attorney, I pretend to know what I’m talking about.)

What the Supremes said was that, even if you present new exculpatory evidence, that is not a sufficient reason for the federal courts to intervene in your case. Because the Supremes set no qualification on this rule, it makes no difference how strong or weak the new exculpatory evidence is. (Therefore, your statement about how weak the allegedly exculpatory evidence was is legally irrelevant - it’s the precedent that counts. This may be an example of “hard cases make bad law”, but the point is that the law is made.

So, let’s set up a thought experiment. This recent Texas case, where Dubya granted the 30-day stay – let’s say the DNA test is done, and it shows the condemned prisoner didn’t do it. He’s innocent.

The condemned prisoner goes to the Texas courts, and they say, “so what?” You’re already convicted, end of story. (that may or may not actually happen, though there are legal doctrines that would support this result, - remember, this is a thought experiment). At this point, the condemned prisoner goes to federal court. Under Herrera, federal courts cannot get involved and stop the execution. Herrera says that Federal court doe not have the authority to consider (the possibility of) innocence when hearing death penalty appeals, they may only look at the procedure applied during the trial for flaws.

Since innocence is not a reason that federal courts can use to stop a state from going forward with an execution, Herrera says that innocence (more accurately, exculpatory evidence) is not a defense in federal courts against being executed.

Not saying this is right or wrong - I’m simply giving the legal analysis of Herrera

[Mr.Zambezi]

Sua, I was going to add this part of the decision but was running to long. I disagree with you interpretation based on this:

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that in a capital case a truly persuasive post-trial demonstration of “actual innocence” would render a defendant’s execution unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to process such a claim, Herrera’s showing of innocence falls far short of the threshold showing which would have to be made in order to trigger relief. That threshold would necessarily be extraordinarily high because of the very disruptive effect that entertaining such claims would have on the need for finality in capital cases, and the enormous burden that having to retry cases based on often stale evidence would place on the States. Although not without probative value, Herrera’s affidavits are insufficient to meet such a standard, since they were obtained without the benefit of cross examination and an opportunity to make credibility determinations; consist, with one exception, of hearsay; are likely to have been presented as a means of delaying Herrera’s sentence; were produced not at the trial, but over eight years later and only after the death of the alleged perpetrator, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay or for why Herrera pleaded guilty to the Rucker murder; contain inconsistencies, and therefore fail to provide a convincing account of what took place on the night of the murders; and do not overcome the strong proof of Herrera’s guilt that was presented at trial. Pp. 26-28. [bolds mine]

There is a threshhold that can be met. The court ruled that Herrera didn’t meet it. Your hypothetical case would indeed have met the threshhold and the petitioner would have prevailed. The court states that if there were “actual evidence” of innocence, the execution would be unconstitutional.

Herrara simply did not have a good case.