Well, the context of the verse you cite means he also wants us to cut off our hands, pluck out our eyes, expect the judgment of hell if we call someone a fool (which makes this BBQ Pit a who’s who of the damned! LOL!), says you’re an adulterer just for looking, and pretty much expects perfection. No, in fact, demands perfection. It’s a great read in the context of this thread, actually. Lots of food for thought. Thanks.
Yes. I believe killing someone is wrong. I also believe imprisoning people is wrong…unless they’ve been convicted of a crime!!!
Same thing with the death penalty.
And on another note, I suggested that instead of the death penalty we imprison people for life, with no chance of parole, and that they be deprived of all pleasures such as t.v., newspapers, radio, art supplies, family visits and mail, etc. They deprived an innocent person of much more that this. The same people who are supposedly all for life in prison instead of the death penalty thought this was too harsh.
This is why the pro-death penalty people don’t listen to the anti-death penalty crowd: they are perceived as being soft on crime, as the criticism of the alternative I suggested demonstrates.
I’m glad you were able to glean one tiny morsel out of my entire post to heap on which to heap your impotent sarcasm. Now, why not address the rest of my points, or isn’t your leaden wit up to that ?
Diogenes, I believe that the moratorium imposed on the death penalty in light of the 1977 (approx.) Supreme Court decision was part and parcel of a growing judicial and popular revulsion to the death penalty. Certainly at that time the American public actually supported an end to the death penalty. Current support for the death penalty is something that has grown over the past 20 years because of the perception by the public at large that any sentence other than death can’t be counted upon to be fulfilled.
As an example, the Son of Sam Killer, sentenced to seven consecutive life senences, is going to be up for parole within the next three years. Certainly a number of Federal judges have commuted sentences for convicted murderers on long term sentences based on good behavior in prison, while ignoring psychological reccommendations against such actions.
It is my belief that the current popularity of the death penalty is a direct result of that kind of misplaced leniency. Two many people believe that prison is a merry-go-round for the convicted, and so support a death penalty as a means to guarantee some permanent solution in that case. Whether that is a moral thought process, I can’t say. Just trying to describe the shift in public views I’ve seen in the past 25 years.
Impotent? Methinks I hit the mark, and I wasn’t even trying! I think pulling quotes from scripture without context deserves a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun, but I haven’t been deliberately trying to bait you or be sarastic.
I’d address the rest of your points, but now find that I just don’t care. If I said more, I’d undoubtedly cross the wide path of your disdain, vast and unavoidable as it is.
See? That last bit was deliberate sarcasm.
Well, no, they are the result of a public policy of no death, to put it that way.
But I don’t see the moral relevance of distinguishing between innocent deaths and suffering that are caused by wrongful executions, and innocent deaths and suffering that are caused by wrongful lack of executions. Especially since the number of the latter hugely exceeds the number of the former.
A morally acceptable system would be one in which the minimum number of innocent people died. So far, it seems that a system that includes the death penalty is a system in which, overall, the smallest number of innocents die. Thus, a system including the option of the death penalty is the morally correct choice.
The decision to exclude innocents murdered by those who should have died seems too arbitrary. Obviously, if we pretend that there are no consequences to abolition of the DP besides eliminating the remote chance that someone will be wrongfully executed, it looks like a slam dunk. But those consequences are real - 824 times more real than the theoretical possibility that someone will be given the needle after decades of appeals.
I support the death penalty for attempted murder, and for some other crimes as well. I am not sure of the distinctions between attempted murder and assault with intent to kill, but I don’t know of any immediately obvious moral distinctions.
I don’t see that this makes much difference, especially to those who are murdered by people who should be dead. An innocent death is just as bad when caused by the state’s failure to fulfill the demands of justice. And I cannot see how 824 deaths is not lots worse than a death that, so far, exists only in theory.
If we act, an innocent may die, even though we take every possible precaution to avoid it. If we fail to act, many more innocents will die, and have died.
What is the morally correct thing to do?
Regards,
Shodan
This may be the crux of our disagreement here, and where we’ll simply have to agree to disagree. If you believe the death penalty is appropriate punishment for attempted murder, for aggravated assault, for crimes that could have resulted in death although they did not, then we simply place different values on the lives of felons.
- Rick
While I may not see the relevance here, I can indeed envision cases where having a poor attorney represent you on appeal and doing a very poor job of it, will cause a great deal of problems for a defendant to get his claims considered in subsequent appeals. So, yes, I think it can work to keep out valuable information and argument. However, it is my understanding that the defendant can file actual innocence and newly discovered evidence claims regardless of the original appeal. I may be wrong, I haven’t done an appellate brief in, oh…never.
However much these problems arise in regular appeals, I think in death penalty cases, appellate judges are much more likely to hear the evidence. Most of the death penalty opinions are exhaustive in their considerations, and many will out and out say that they shouldn’t consider the defendant’s argument, but will reach it on the merits anyway. It’s one of the special unspoken concerns in death penalty appeals that may not hold for non-capital cases. And it’s one of the main reasons I have a high degree of respect and certainty regarding the lack of the execution of innocents.
In Virginia, the rule is 21 days after final judgement is entered. After 21 days, any additional evidence is procedurally barred. (The state legislature’s Judiciary Committee recently voted to remove that limitation for DNA evidence only; the bar against any additional evidence remains).
Admittedly, Virginia has perhaps the toughest such rule in the nation. But we also execute more people than a lot of other states.
Does that cause you to reconsider, just a bit?
- Rick
Reconsider how draconian Virginia is? Yes. I find that rule, as it stands now, to be quite a problem. I’d actually support the proposal listed in this story, which would allow for extension of Rule 21. God knows those damn appellate public defenders don’t have nearly enough to do already.
Are there capital cases in Virginia where the courts have not considered actual evidence of innocence? Has the State of Virginia executed an innocent person? I think those are the more valuable questions. I dislike generalizations about capital punishment, because, to my mind, justice should be done on a case by case basis. That is why I’m not avidly for the capital punishment, and why I’m not avidly against it. I do think it can have a place in the criminal justice system.
So, to answer, yes it concerns me. Yes, I think they should change the 21 day rule. However, I don’t think it has led to the execution of an innocent, which has been my point in posting to this thread.
Or anywhere else, for that matter?
IOW, how common is it that the defense has iron-clad evidence of actual innocence, but the appeals court simply declines to examine the evidence? For instance, has any court refused to examine DNA evidence of innocence?
IANAL, but it seems to me from reading cites from death penalty opponents, that most of the new “evidence” they are always touting is testimony from people years after the fact, or evidence pinning the murder on someone who is conveniently dead and cannot refute the accusations.
Of course, this could be because new evidence has been located. It could also be because the defense has had eight or ten years to ask enough leading questions, and massage the memories of whoever they can find who is willing to swear to something now that they wouldn’t swear to then. Or they are simply re-presenting evidence that couldn’t pass muster at the original trial.
Perhaps I am naive, but I find it hard to believe that many of those executed over the last thirty years or so had obvious proof of their innocence that would convince even the most bloodthirstly, and had the judge say, “Tough cookies - you should have said something about this evidence eleven years ago. Say your prayers, sucker - it’s a short shrift and a long rope for you regardless”.
Regards,
Shodan
Sometimes the few can decide whats right. Screw the jury system.
I again direct your attention to Roger Keith Coleman, who certainly suffered from some procedural hurdles. His state habeas claim was dismissed for being filed late, and was not considered on the merits, which in turn precluded federal review. Coleman v. Thompson I, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). Because there was no constitutional right to an attorney in state PCR, he could not claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
His claims of actual innocence were never given a full hearing. See Blackmun’s dissent at Coleman v. Thompson II, 504 U.S. 188 (1992).
Shodan:
In Coleman’s trial, the forensic expert testified that the sperm sample found in the victim could have come from 2% of the population - Coleman being part of that 2%. Since then, DNA techniques have advanced dramatically. No court has permitted the material to be re-tested. In fact, Virginia has refused any post-execution proceedings or testing – see, for example, the cases of Derek Barnabei or Joseph O’Dell…
The main evidence against Coleman was NOT the DNA, which science was in its infancy during the trial, but rather the “consistent hair sample” and the testimony of a jailhouse informant. There has been no DNA testing beyond the simple “within 2%.” Since we now routinely expect DNA tests to conclusively identify the accused - or exonerate him - it’s simply wrong to suggest that DNA tests done on Coleman’s case mean anything.
- Rick
Well - I think it is an overstatement to say that the DNA tests mean nothing. At the very least, they indicate that the chance of his innocence is one in fifty - not necessarily probative in and of themselves, but a very long way from exoneration.
I thought DNA testing was not performed until after his conviction. I also understand there was other evidence indicative of guilt - the murder victim was Coleman’s sister-in-law, his pants legs were wet when he was arrested (he crossed a river to get to his sister-in-law), and some other stuff I don’t recall.
My understanding of the timetable was that DNA testing was supposed to clear him after his conviction. It did not, but provided another piece of evidence that he was guilty as Cain.
Regards,
Shodan
Whenever someone says that Jesus and/or CHristianity demands perfection, I’m always confident that they know what they’re talking about. :rolleyes:
Never mind the “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” or “forgive your brother seventy times seven times”.
You’ve got it alllll figured out, Joanie.
From the latest opinion regarding the newspaper’s attempts to get the DNA tested:
From the Supreme Court opinion you referred to:
It seems to me that Coleman raised the issue of his “actual innocence,” and had them repeatedly heard, and ruled on by the courts. The Supreme Court stated that the evidence and speculations that he did have to present, was so weak, so pathetic, that it could not even raise a colorable claim of actual innocence. And that evidence was attacking the testing THAT HE ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR.
You are correct that the federal court did not hear his appeal from his original habeus petition after he lost his appeals. However, my reading indicates that his habeus claims were indeed heard, and rejected, after a two day evidentiary hearing. But nothing you’ve said, nothing you’ve shown me, has indicated in any degree that Coleman’s claims of innocence have any merit whatsoever. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to be persuaded that because the federal court did not review his first habeus petition that that indicates that there was some kind of magic evidence, some kind of exculpatory information, that was out there but never heard.
Putting aside the arguments over Coleman’s mistreatment by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, do you honestly believe in your heart of hearts, that Coleman did not rape and murder Wanda McCoy?
I’m not familiar with the case, but…the main evidence against him was a consistent hair sample? From what I’ve read, hair analysis is only slighty more accurate than phrenology.
No shit.
To what extent must I be convinced?
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s much more likely than not that he did it. I’d say there’s clear and convincing evidence that he did it.
From where I sit, though, I have trouble saying there is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am troubled by my own failure to notice the distinction between “2%” and “.2%” - an order of magnitude that makes a huge difference.