Gary Graham - guilty or not

Great Debates
21

Appeals frequently have little or nothing to do with the facts of the case. Unfortunately, you often can’t introduce new evidence at a later point.

Executing someone based on solely one peice of evidence when that evidence is the testimony of an eyewitness who was thirty or forty feet away seems pretty shaky indeed. Eyewitness accounts are about as trustworthy as tea leaves, and in this case there were significant irregularities in the manner that one eyewitness was handled. You can change how people remember events with astonishing ease.

I’d hate to think Graham was executed because someone THOUGHT he was guilty. The idea is to convict people only when you KNOW they’re guilty.

22

Rickjay:

Wrong. The idea is to convict people when no reasonable doubt exists. You can always make up some story that, no matter how outrageous, will fit the facts of the case and show somebody to be innocent (“It must have been a shape-shifting alien! I was at home reading!”). The point is that if using the facts as presented, and using your brain and your ability to reason, there is no sensible doubt that the person committed the crime. You can never KNOW anything. You don’t even KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow. It could have burned out 6 1/2 minutes ago, and we only have 90 seconds until the earth starts to cool.

winky99:

No, the impartial jury decides the conviction. Not the sentence. Once a conviction is handed down, nobody is impartial anymore, because in the eyes of the law, the person is no longer a suspect, but a convict, and is GUILTY. His guilt and the severity of his crimes have to be considered in the sentencing, making it by no means impartial.

23

There’s this misconception that Graham was found guilty based on the testimony of only one witness while there were six other witnesses that “prove his innocence”. This is untrue. While Skillern was the only witness that positively identified Graham for the murder of Bobby Lambert, there were ten other witnesses that testified that he was guilty of a plethora of other heinous crimes. With the fact that Graham was shown to be bloodthirsty and vicious by eleven witnesses total, the fact that there is testimony indicating him to be a murderer leaves little room for “reasonable doubt” that he IS a murderer.

In addition, the witnesses proclaiming his innocence have been unable to keep their stories straight. Compare Mjollnir’s link (above) to Olentzero’s (also above).

Appeals have EVERYTHING to do with the facts of the case. The case, as it was presented by the prosecution and defense attorneys, is reviewed in its entirety. If there seems to be ground for appeal, an appeal is granted. If there DOESN’T seem to be grounds for appeal, as in the Gary Graham case, then an appeal isn’t granted.

24

**

I wouldn’t want him to be executed based on the crimes he’d done in the past. But on the other hand if I’d heard about him being killed some other way I wouldn’t exactly be sad either. The truth is we’re better off with people like him being dead or in prison for the rest of their lives. Think of how many people he harmed while he was free.

**

Nope. You could have some pacifist saying the criminal in question shouldn’t be jailed, executed, or receive any kind of punishment. The law should be as objective as possible. Yeah, as much as possible stop laughing.

Marc
**
[/QUOTE]

25

While I don’t think anyone, pro- or anti-DP will defend Mr. Graham as a good, decent human being, the question before us is whether he should have been executed for the last crime he was convicted of. Pro- or anti-DP debates are for another thread.

Mr. Graham was largely convicted with the eyewitness testimony of one credible witness. There seems to be some question about whether other eyewitnesses may have countered this testimony, thereby creating reasonable doubt.

I do not have transcripts of his trial; some question the effectiveness/competence of his defense attorney for not calling these other witnesses. I’ve even heard it suggested (on news-type talk shows) that the prosecution concealed exculpatory evidence.

It’s been reported that his case had been reviewed by no less than 30 judges in the long years between his sentencing and his execution; if there were irregularities, like the ones implied above, how come not one of those 30 judges took notice? How come not one anti-DP lawyer, or one civil-rights advocacy group, the kinds that like to work free because they believe in their cause, came forward to defend Graham and have his case reopened?

I belive in the DP, when there is no reasonable doubt that the convicted is guilty of the crime they are being sent to death for; it is (and should always be!) a tough, rigorous standard to uphold before we, as a society, take another human being’s life as punishment for transgressing against society.

There were enough questions raised around Mr. graham that even I initially questioned whether he should be put to death.

And yet, with his case having been reviewed by 30+ judges, and all these anti-DP civil-rights groups/attorneys looking for easy cases to champion to prove how broken the entire DP system is, how come Mr. Graham couldn’t find even one judge, one lawyer, one group willing to take on is cause, and stay or commute his death sentence?

One answer comes readily to mind: POLITICS.

The liberal media are having a hard time challenging Governor Bush’s growing popularity, and as Governor Bush isn’t playing the media’s word games, they can’t draw him onto their sound-bite dominated, creatively edited territory to smear him in the voting public’s eyes.

So they resort to this other form af attack: trying to discredit the candidate by attacking his state’s policies, even though he never created this policy.

One reason Governor Bush has large appeal in Texas is because even when he disagrees with the State Legislature, he doesn’t try to circumvent the Constitutional Process with Executive Authority; he doesn’t get on TV and whine and cry about how the Legislature is blocking his “reasonable, moderate” proposals; he doesn’t resort to scare tactics and feel-good sound bites to get the populace to call their State Reps. and demand action.

He quietly, and with he dignity becoming his office, swallows his medicine and moves on to the next item on the agenda, without rancor at his opponents.

Unlike the current occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave.

ExTank

26

The fact that he’s a proven coldhearted career criminal makes the possibility of him being a murderer a lot more likely. Considering that we have an eyewitness pinning him to the crime scene, AND the fact that every single one of his alibi witnesses, and his alibi itself, is fraudulent… I think that destroys any doubt to this man’s guilt as a murderer.

27

To Marc:
“Nope. You could have some pacifist saying the criminal in question shouldn’t be jailed, executed, or receive any kind of punishment. The law should be as objective as possible. Yeah, as much as possible stop laughing.”

What I mean is the victim (already dead) should decide on the punishment (for example, in his will), not guilt. Sure if the pacificist (who got killed) is against DP, then fine, the killer would get life, if convicted by a jury. But if the victim is me, and the killer convicted by a jury, then I would want the DP for him.

28

that this planet is a better place without the late mr. Graham!

29

What disturbed me the most about this case was the tearful eyewitness on television, talking about the death threats that she had recieved. She said that she saw what she saw, and no matter how much harassment she recieved, she couldn’t change her story. Death threats? Jesus! I know a lot of people are anti-death penalty, but it’s beyond the pale to threaten the woman’s life.

Gary Graham was definately not the ideal poster boy for the anti-death penalty stance. He was a vicious career criminal. While I don’t believe in the death penalty, because I believe it to be innefective in being a deterrent and it leads to a brutalization-effect in our society, I have to agree with egkelly that this world is a better place for his passing.

A friend of mine works at a prison that houses Death Row inmates. Every single one of them claims to be an innocent man, maliciously prosecuted by a giant conspriacy of judges and lawyers and prosecutors. If you listen to the inmates, our prisons are filled to the brim with innocent men who have been, for some unknown reason, singled out and mercilessly prosecuted. Most of them have files six inches thick filled with heinous crimes that they have comitted, all of which they deny. He gets reams of mail from activists and organizations, which bemuses him because, after all, what the hell could he do about it even if he agreed with them? He says that the worst thing about it is that the organizations and activists aren’t familiar with the particulars of the case, so they protest, write letters, etc, and don’t even know what they’re talking about.