Too many bloodthirsty prosecutors ...

Texas Monthly: Why We Need a Moratorium

Excerpt:

"As the Graves case makes clear, we need to pay attention to the conduct of our district attorneys. They're usually among the most powerful people in any county, and at present there are hardly any criminal or civil penalties for prosecutors who engage in misconduct. We need to create real incentives for our DAs to seek justice instead of convictions."

Expect to see more of this during the upcoming session.

The article picks up on the latest theory on how to abolish the death penalty: require that it be perfect or stop. That premise is an impossible one to meet. But the anti-DP people have adopted it because society has been quite resistant to arguments on the grounds that the DP is immoral or unpopular.

Perhaps we should apply it to the use of cars. No one should be allowed to drive until we can design the perfect car that won't kill anyone. And, when balanced against the mere convenience of transportation, surely avoiding the loss of any life is a worthy goal. And, yet, we don't do it.

Probably because we recognize that any human pursuit is subject to imperfection and that such a standard would be impossible to meet. The same is true of the criminal justice system.

We continue to drive cars because the risk of injury, although it involves lots of people (and far more than are involved in the DP), is very small when compared to the overall use and balanced against the social needs for fast, inexpensive transportation.

Anti-DP people demand perfection, well knowing that it can't be achieved, or can only be approached by making the standards so ridiculous that very guilty people go free. That's not a very rational discussion. And it is a logically flawed premise.

[This message was edited by JB on 12-17-10 at .]

Did you guys watch the 'Good Wife' this week?

Barry Sheck was on. They mentioned the Willingham case too - as evidence that arson investigation theories get people wrongfully executed.

Kinda pissed me off, actually.

I am very involved in the Catholic church, the Knights of Columbus, and a diocesan pro-life group. At one point earlier this year the nun who headed the pro-life group was arranging a presentation opposing the the death penalty under a broad defintion of pro-life. After I politely explained that I would not be able to be involved in that particular project like other presentations dealing with abortion and other pro-life topics, a member who was a retired federal officer and a local police officer who were members of the pro-life group did likewise.

After the presentation I learned that the main speaker had quoted a high percentage of cases in which they were claiming the death sentence was subject to question (as I recall, about 40%). Obviously, I knew that that figure was not even close to being accurate. When I started to check into the situation further, I discovered that the way that the anti-death penalty group involved was getting that high figure was to include as subject to debate every case in which the law of parties, of whatever variety, was involved. Of course, by doing so they were ig-noring the evidence against the person involved, however strong it was; skewing the statistics; and totally ignoring the constitutionally mandated anti-parties punishment phase special issue applied in cases in which the law of parties was involved at the guilt phase.

The point is that this is another example of the distortions which are commonly utilized in attempting to change public opinion concerning the death penalty. (Of course, as John Bradley certainly knows, that is the real agenda behind the many articles about the Willingham case which also ignore the total picture involved)

I don't recall the particular speaker or group brought in for the anti-death penalty presentation. However, I am curious whether anyone else has encountered this particular tactic of distorting the public's perception of the statistics. Or not, you might keep an eye out for it and challenge the accuracy of the figures being mentioned when you encounter this type of distortion from anti-death penalty groups in your community.

CJLF published a year-end Key Facts on the Death Penalty to debunk some of the Innocence Project myths. Interesting (and quick) read.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ted Hake:
... I am curious whether anyone else has encountered this particular tactic of distorting the public's perception of the statistics.

---

Ted,

I had a similar experience at a church-sponsored presentation on the death penalty. Two instructors were parroting what they had been taught, and when I started to question some of their information, they were unequipped or unable to respond. They were very well-meaning, and I'm certain that the factual information I provided did not dissuade them, but others in the room needed to hear the truth.

I was also at--forgive the expression--a Christmas party once and an old college friend was telling me how 7 people who had been executed in Texas were later exonerated by DNA evidence, and no matter how much I tried to explain otherwise, he was convinced that he was right because he remembered hearing it on NPR. And this was a man with a post-graduate degree. Scary.

I spent a fair amount of time dealing with professional anti-death penalty advocates in a previous job, and my dealings with some of them made me MORE supportive of the death penalty (about which I would otherwise be ambivalent), if only because I was repulsed by the win-at-all-costs, ends-justify-the-means tactics of those particular advocates. And it's only gotten worse in the ten years since that time.

[sigh]

You sigh a lot.

TIME magazine has another article about how the use of and support for the death penalty is dropping.

TIME article

And here I was still happy that they named me person of the year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
You sigh a lot.

---

Having children has forced me to cut down on my swearing. Sighing is all I have left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newell:
TIME magazine has another article about how the use of and support for the death penalty is dropping.

---

"Article"? More like a reprint of DPIC's press release. Check out Rob's next column in the Jan.-Feb. 2011 issue of our journal for more on how these types of "articles" get "written."

[sigh]

Right. I should've put "apparently" in there. My bad.

Or, better, "allegedly".

When I find myself in a conversation with an anti-DP member of the public, their position is often that innocent people are being executed, and death row inmates should have their sentences commuted to life to avoid the possiblity of executing an innocent man. I then like to point out they are advocating keeping possibly innocent men imprisoned for life.

It's very disconcerting that your view is that we shouldn't require the death penalty to be applied perfectly.
What you're saying is, "look, you can't expect us to put the right person to death everytime. Sometimes we're going to put to death an innocent person, and that's ok."
I would disagree. I say that if you are going to take someone's life, you have to do it perfectly.

You then go on to compare the intentional taking of someone's life to the fact that cars can't be made to 100% guarantee there won't be fatalities in the event of a crash. Really? That's what it's like?
That's ridiculous. Yes, we live in a world where we take risks everyday. There are always accidents that could take our lives. We weigh the pros and cons when make our decisions. Is it worth the risk that we could be involved in an accident to have the convenience of driving to work or the store? Is it worth getting somewhere in 1 hour instead of 6 knowing that if the plane crashes, we will likely die?

Somehow, you're comparing these things to the intentional killing of an innocent person.

I think whether you are for the death penalty or not, you should not be so callous as to have the opinion that we're going to kill some innocent people, but that's just the way the system works.

I feel like the death penalty is justified is some cases. But I can't ignore the people who are being exonerated these days, nor the reality that we have likely executed many, many people who were innocent.
If my child were murdered, I would want the offender to be put to death. THE OFFENDER. How does it help me as the father of the victim is the state executes the wrong person? What about everyone who helped put the person on death row? From the witnesses, to the jury, to the prosecutor? If my testimony helped convict an innocent person and comdemned them to die, it would certainly affect me forever.

I see nothing wrong with saying that if we can't be sure we putting the right person to death, then we just can't do it.

We are not talking about the intentional killing of an innocent person. We are talking about the application of a law to people that have been determined, after substantial due process, to be worthy of the penalty.

But, given your point of view, why don't you apply that same reasoning to any other social decision and reject the use of it on the ground that it leads to innocent deaths?

The people who die from your imperfect motor vehicle are just as innocent and die in far more predictable numbers. It seems to me that your desire for mobility and the convenience of a car should carry far less social weight than society's need to punish the wicked and protect victims of crime.

My guess is that you are more troubled by the application of the concept of punishment than making sure you have access to convenient transportation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LawAg:
I see nothing wrong with saying that if we can't be sure we putting the right person to death, then we just can't do it.

---

If there is doubt about a person's guilt, shouldn't he be released from prison? Is it OK to keep a possibly innocent person locked up, as long as he is not executed?

I don't know (or care) anything about this disciplinary case involving terrorist interrogations, but don't you just know that if it is successful, they're going to come after future dangerousness experts next:

Complaint against psychologist proceeding

I draw a distinction between activities have the possibility of resulting in accidental deaths and injecting someone with a substance that will cause their death with 100% certainty.

Quoting today's opinion from the CCA:

"The Supreme Court has never required human infallibility in its criminal laws or procedures."

Details.

Discussion over. The Supreme Court is never wrong.