Yup. Unless they escape and kill again (see history of the Texas Seven). Or attack and kill fellow inmates or guards.
Out of sight, out of mind?
Not so, according to this columnist (who supports additional testing):
So apparently, the trial had enough evidence independent of any DNA testing to convince a jury. Subsequently DNA testing showed that in addition to the previous evidence that the jury found convincing on its own, there was also enough DNA evidence to narrow it down to a 1 in 500 chance of someone other than Coleman being a match.
Looks to me like a fishing expedition.
Your most recent post is an argument that could be made of any number of issues. (Ronald Reagan once said “I notice that all the people who are in favor of abortion have already been born themselves”). I don’t think it is a meaningful argument in this case. The obvious answer is that of course I would feel terrible. But general government policy cannot be made based on how one guy might feel.
But what if a mistake is not discovered? In that case, you won’t give him back the rest of his life. Outlaw all lifetime sentences. Or all sentences, FTM. Obviously, society has to accept some risk of miscarriage of justice.
Of course. So this debate comes down to the question of where we draw the line. For me, the line between life, even a wrongfully imprisoned life, and death is an easy one to draw. If a mistake is found, my side of the line can at least offer some correction. If a mistake is never found, then even life in prison is better than death.
As to the argument about prisoners escaping: How many of the Texas Seven were on death row?
How many death row inmates have escaped, ever?
We have the capability to treat these capital murder convicts as high escape risk inmates, and place them in highly secure (China Lake-ish) facilities. I believe the issue of them potentially escaping is a red herring.
- Rick
What is a bigger miscarriage of justice, a guilty person going free, or an innocent person going to the gas chamber? (remember, in the latter case, the guilty person still goes free)
Obviously we cannot have a system which can perfectly separate the guilty from the innocent. therefore we must weigh it in favor of one error over another. In our system we tilt towards innocence. It is better for a hundred guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted.
Not much to add other than a quote:
“Better (for honest justice) that one thousand guilty go free, than even one innocent should hang.” - Thomas Jefferson
Seems like reviewing a DNA test is not too much to ask for, if we truly believe we are just.
-T
Exactly. You can draw the line anywhere. It is important to bear this in mind when such arguments are being made - it is not an absolutist argument, as much of the rhetoric would suggest. You draw yours, I’ll draw mine.
Before I start with the namecalling, I’d like to deal with Coleman’s case:
On March 10, 1981, Wanda McCoy, 19, was brutally raped and murdered. He husband, Brandon, was at work, but had called her at 9:00 p.m. to check on her. They talked for a while about how they were going to spend their income tax refund. When her husband returned home from work, he found Wanda dead, with two stab wounds in her chest and her throat cut. Her underpants were around her ankles, and there were signs of sexual assault.
The evidence against Roger Keith Coleman was enough to convince the jury he was guilty, and that finding held up after over a dozen appeals, post conviction petitions and clemency hearing. The evidence included expert testimony that 1) Pubic hairs found on the victim came either from Coleman, or, by a possible but unlikely coincidence, from some other person of the same race whose hair had the same color, diameter, general configuration, and microscopic characteristics. 2) Coleman was a secretor of his Type B blood (10% of the population) . Wanda was Type O, and her husband was Type A. The vaginal specimen from Wanda showed the semen was deposited by a Type B secretor. 3) Blood found on Coleman’s jeans was type O. The only explanation he offered was that his cat must have scratched somebody with that kind of blood at some point. 4) Coleman confessed to committing the crime with another man to his roommate in prison, and offered additional information that wasn’t given in the trial.
It seems clear to me, and to every appellate court that considered the case, that the defendant raped and murdered Wanda. The jury at sentencing heard about his Prior attempted rape charge where he tied up a girl to a chair and proceeded to attempt to rape her mother. They decided to impose the death penalty.
Since then, as is the case in almost every case, Coleman had tried every attempt to prove his “innocence”, all of which were discussed and completely rejected by the appellate courts. He said somebody else had told him that somebody else had told her that somebody told him he committed the rape and murder. The person who supposedly heard the confession died of a drug overdose the day after appearing before TV cameras giving her account. Her account, as described by the appellate court, was completely discounted. On appeal, he also asked for earlier kinds of DNA testing (PCR), and (GASP!) they were done. They showed that Coleman matched 2 alleles and he could not be excluded as the source of the spermatozoa. As the appellate court said: “When combined with the PCR-DNA testing, the ABO narrows the percentage of the population with these characteristics to .2%.” He asked the governor for clemency, the Governor of Virginia told Coleman that he would grant him clemency if he passed a polygraph test. He failed.
Don’t kid yourself, Roger Keith Coleman was guilty.
Escapes? Does this ring a bell?
Lots of escapes by murderers from secure lockups? Not that many. But a hell of a lot more have done so than have been shown to have been executed wrongly in the modern era. So if anything is a “red herring”, it’s the claim about the “wrongfully executed”.
And I notice that the issue of subjecting other inmates and prison guards (at least two of whom were taken hostage on death row in Texas in recent years) to the risk of death at the hands of killers has gone unaddressed. The same for the question of what happens to all the current death row inmates if the death penalty is overturned again. They will not all automatically be safely locked away for the rest of their lives. Look what happened in '72, and think about Kenneth McDuff.
What Diogenes and others want in this search for DNA evidence from old crimes is to find what they think will be a “smoking gun”, so they can say “See! The system’s imperfect!! Ban the death penalty!!!”.
The system is imperfect. And the grievous imperfections of a death penalty-less system have already been demonstrated.
The death penalty’s supporters believe it has saven far more innocent lives than it might have wrongly taken.
At least you made your bias clear from your question, but still, in the interest of truth, I’ll answer.
Prosecutors do care about the truth, moreso than anybody else. They are the only ones who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and to seek justice in each case. Every single prosecutor I’ve ever met, worked with, or had any dealing with has taken those oaths seriously and try, each and every day, to do what is right. Are there some who are more concerned with convictions? Possibly. But maligning an entire profession based on the actions of a few (which, you have yet to offer an example) shows your ignorance.
To reitterate, NO.
First, they are not just as prone to self-serving tactics and manipulation of the system. Second, Have you read a paper in the last 2 years? Ever check out the internet? You’re way off the base on this one.
Hey, whatta know. We agree.
Because the case is over. At some point, there has to be an end to a case. Why not make the State try everybody 2 times? Why not 3? That way, we’ll be really, really sure they’re guilty. Why not only do cases with DNA evidence available? No murder cases unless there is DNA involved?
Their has been 12 rounds of appeals. Is there no end. The sample has already been tested, twice.
**
I’ll go out on a limb and say, not too shaken. Mostly because it extremely rarely IF EVER happens.
I’m not championing Coleman as a likely innocent.
But you mention, as part of your laundry list of reasons that we should accept the verdict, that “…every appellate court that considered the case…” agreed with his guilt.
How can you put such strong faith in an appellate system that can refuse to consider the merits of a particular issue because it was procedurally defaulted at trial, and then, in the same opinion, refuse ineffective assistance of counsel relief? It has always seemed to me that if an issue is not considered because the record wasn’t preserved, then the appellate court ought to acknowledge that counsel was deficient - or, if they don’t like that, then waive the procedural default and consider the merits of the issue.
Or how about the liberal application of the Chapman v. California “harmless error” doctrine – hey, who cares if you suffered an error of constitutional dimension? It was harmless,we’re sure.
Hell, how about the rampant abuse at the trial level of the Batson procedure, that permits prosecutors to strike minority jury members with virtual impunity?
All of this is part of the system, i grant. And we have little choice but to accept it, as the best of a set of imperfect alternatives.
But doesn’t it raise the stakes in your mind, just a bit, when we’re talking about killing the accused, instead of just imprisoning him? Are you really so sure we’re right that you’re willing to do that?
I’m not.
- Rick
Let me get rid of this little misconception that seems to plague those who have no idea what they are talking about.
Doing the right thing is thousands of times better for your career as a prosecutor than sending an innocent person to jail. Many prosecutors careers have been destroyed by misconduct, and it is no badge of courage to be overturned on appeal for hiding evidence. Prosecutors will have much longer, successful careers if they do the right thing.
Let me get rid of another little misconception of yours: THEY DON’T. A vast majority of prosecutors are at the front lines when it comes to dismissing cases of actual innocence. You seem to think Coleman is innocent, but, as I’ve shown, he’s guilty as sin. So, should I just bow to your judgement and release him? Or Mumia, should he be released because you, and other death penalty opponents think he’s not guilty?
Again, you seem to be working under a misconception that permeates your posts. IF DNA EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE IT IS TESTED!!! Nobody is hiding sperm samples or blood. Shit, as a prosecutor, I always request for lab testing be done on everything possible because I want to know the truth. And guess what? So does everybody else.
If a prosecutor knowingly sends an innocent person to prison, they can be sent to prison. But sending somebody to prison for disagreeing with your assessment of the evidence seems a little harsh.
I had a very detailed post in response to some points in this debate, but the board crashed (or “was shut down for maintenance”) when I attempted to submit it.
Fortunately, IzzyR covered most of what I had to say.
But in response to this:
The question is framed incorrectly.
It should read, “What is a bigger miscarriage of justice, an innocent person going to the gas chamber, or a substantially larger number of innocents being victimized by repeat murderers?”
We know for a fact that there have been instances of murderers who should have been executed, but were not, and went on to murder again. We do not know that there have been any cases of innocent people being actually executed.
A partial list of repeat murderers:
[ul]
[li]Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz[/li][li]Arthur Shawcross[/li][li]Ed Kemp[/li][li]Kenneth McDuff (thanks, Jackmanii[/li][li]Ted Bundy[/li][li]Henry Lee Lucas[/li][/ul]
A complete list of those wrongfully executed since the Supremes re-instated the death penalty in the US -
If you see my point.
I would feel terrible. So did the people Willie Horton attacked, and the families of the victims of Ed Wein, who was sentenced to die, had his sentence changed to life without parole (by Pat Brown, governor of CA before the Gipper), then had his sentence changed again to life, was paroled - and kidnapped, raped, and murdered a woman he grabbed from a bus stop.
We cannot eliminate the chance that someone innocent will needlessly die. We can only reduce it - by executing murderers.
The list I supplied of repeat murderers accounts for some dozens of victims. Where is your list of dozens of innocents actually executed?
Should we not then choose the system with the greatest chance for justice?
Regards,
Shodan
**
Actually, that’s wrong. The prosecutor’s job is to do justice and uphold the Constitution.
Well said.
Not prosecutors. Congress. That example is for another rant.
Ummmmm, it was Ryder’s right to a trial by jury, not the State’s. She didn’t plead guilty, so they had a trial. Should they have dismissed the charges because she wouldn’t plead? Again, not a good example.
**
Here’s a tough call for prosecutors. They are sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution, and that includes laws that the legislature enacts, including the three strikes cases. Some prosecutors are loathe to supplant enacted laws with their own personal feelings. Same can be said of mandatory sentencing laws. Again, a tough question, but I personally am against mandatory sentencing, so there you go.
Seems like she’s guilty of what she was charged with. Wait and see how this plays out before casting aspersions.
First of all, how exactly has it “saven” [sic] any lives?
Secondly, Are YOU willing to be one of the innocents?
Then why would they pass up a chance to find it out for sure?
Are prosecutors somehow more virtuous or less prone to human weakness than anybody else. Do you think that prosecutors are just better people than defense attorneys?
What a lame excuse. It is never to late to find out the truth.
It has not been tested within anything like the accuracy we have today. What would it hurt? What are you afraid of? If the prosecutors and the appelate courts are so damn sure they’re right, then wouldn’t they be VINDICATED by a dispositive test?
You must have taken Shrub’s psychic training course. :rolleyes:
Oh Pretty Please? And leave your computer in the State’s, OK?
I think they left out the ACTUAL FUCKING INNOCENCE language.
The Court determined that access to judicial proceedings does not extend to access to samples taken from a rape/murder victim that was used at trial. These samples are not “public records”, hence the newspapers have no right to get access to them. The Court was concerned that allowing third parties access to actual evidence, regardless of when requested, would lead to a multitude of issues involving access to illegal items, chains of evidence, competing claims to access. The Court also relied on the fact that there is no controlling precedent ever allowing media access to evidence.
Which countrymen are those? The prosecutors? The Appellate judges? Everybody who doesn’t agree with you?
Bricker, if you wish to debate the acceptablility of appellate rules, I’d end up spending way too much time researching. To do it in brief, though, I have little to no problem with the “harmless error” doctrine. If an error is made, but, in the opinion of the appellate court it wouldn’t effect the outcome of the trial, I’m fine with that. I guarantee you I’ve made mistakes at trials, and to make prosecutor’s try perfect cases is insane. The determination is whether the defendant got a fair trial or not. In every single case of harmless error, the determination is yes.
“Rampant” abuse in violation of Batson is a reason to overturn a verdict. The “virtual impunity” to strike minorities is, rightfully so, illegal. It isn’t “part of the system,” striking minorties is wrong, and should/is treated as such.
“Death is different.” It’s drilled into your head as a prosecutor, and death eligible cases are treated differently (and rightfully so) every step of the way. I agree wholeheartedly that putting an innocent person to death is a tragedy and should be avoided in all cases. But that is true for any case of actual innocence.
I have yet to find a case where an innocent person was put to death. Every case that becomes a cause celeb that I actually research, I find myself convinced of their guilt. Remember, there is a huge difference between “actual innocence” and “not guilty.”
As I pointed out, I am sure. The prosecutors are sure. The appellate courts are sure. With the exception of death penalty opponents, most people are convinced he’s guilty. And I’d bet you a dollars to donuts that any subsequent test would end up like the first one, with him being guilty. But it has to end sometime. Personally, I have no problem with the substance being tested, I know what the results would be, I just don’t think that a bunch of newspapers have the right to demand/test it themselves.
To be honest, yes I’d say a majority of prosecutors are better people than defense attorneys. However, there certain defense attorney’s I’d trust more than one prosecutor I met, so whatta know? I won’t be spouting off about how all defense attorneys are scum who should be shot on sight. How’s about you not painting with that broad brush you like so much. And you’re not saying prosecutors are weak, you’re saying they are obstructive, glamour seeking jerks who would do anything for a win. That’s what I have a problem with.
**
As I said, I’m not afraid of the results. There would be vindication. However, what you are saying is that all prosecutors are hiding the truth for saying that newspapers don’t have the right to test evidence in a case. For that, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
No. But, I have the ability to look at evidence, I know about DNA, I have experience with recantations, false “newly discovered evidence”, and a modicum of intelligence.
With that modicum of intelligence, you won’t catch me making broad accusations about shit I know nothing about. With that modicum of intelligence, you won’t see me saying that nobody who is actually innocent has ever been sent to prison. With that modicum of intelligence, I have serious misgivings about the death penalty. And with that modicum of intelligence, I’ll ignore your idiotic personal attacks.
It’s not their role. The attorney’s role is to present facts that support a case and, when legal, suppress those that hurt it. If you think it should be illegal to suppress DNA evidence, then your beef is with legislators, not prosecutors.
Hamlet
I need to learn to be more like you. In terms of making arguements, I mean. Lately, I’ve thought that if I had it all to do over again, I would like to be a lawyer, specifically a criminal defense attorney. But reading your tempered and well framed argument reminds me that I am a very passionate man. In your opinion, would that passion help or hurt me?
As a defense attorney? To be completely honest with you, most of the defense attorneys I deal with have been practicing for awhile and have had most of their passion sapped away by their jobs. The same goes for some of the prosecutors, though. Every day they both show up for work and have to deal with the worst society has to offer and year after year, it can take that passion and dull it. However, when the case does come where you are convinced one way or the other that justice isn’t being done (i/e your guy really is innocent), then that passion can help you stay up late drafting motions and writing your opening argument for the 10th time. It can help you go that extra mile to track down some guy who may have seen your guy at a bar when the crime occurred, etc. God knows it has helped me prosecute, so I imagine it’s a help as a defense attorney.
I guess what I’m saying is that it’s like anything else. The passion can be a great asset. It can also speed up the burnout that sometimes happen when you’re talking to a 6 year old girl whose Dad raped her. Or, if you’re convinced your guy is sitting in jail unjustly and you can’t do anything about it. But passion should never, never blind me from my job to do justice. You just have to be conscientious and self-aware, which it seems you won’t have a problem with.
But don’t get me started on the evils of law school…