• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Death Penalty

rjequalsmj

rjequalsmj

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
9,077
Reaction score
405
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/05/15/carlos_deluna_columbia_law_professor_james_liebman_details_wrongful_execution_.html

A Columbia law professor and his students detail how Texas executed an innocent man.
The Guardian explains how DeLuna, a 20-year-old eighth-grade dropout at the time of his arrest, told authorities that not only was he not Wanda Lopez's killer, but that he knew the man who was: Carlos Hernandez, a notorious criminal who shared Deluna's first name and looked so much like him that the two were frequently mistaken for twins. The prosecution, however, successfully argued that they searched for this elusive Hernandez without success, and that DeLuna had simply made him up.
Click to expand...

This really puts a damper on Scalia's belief that no innocent person has been put to death in modern times in the US:

It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.
Click to expand...
 
There was another innocent man executed in TX in an arson murder. Neither Rick Perry or the Supreme court would allow evidence in that proved the man was innocent.
 
Doesn't the discussion of this particular case mean that a particular case has been addressed. He's making a decision on the case they actually are reviewing and claiming that a case has never been made. It's nonsensical.
 
There is no function in law to allow for exculpation of an individual AFTER execution has been carried out. Christ, in many cases it's a arduous task taking a long time to gain the release of individuals who have been exonerated by DNA or subsequent evidence. The risk of EVER executing an innocent person is the main reason I oppose the DP. We have proven there are far too many innocent people who've been found guilty and incarcerated. That is a hard enough offense to undo. DP is permanent.
 
94Deac said:
There is no function in law to allow for exculpation of an individual AFTER execution has been carried out. Christ, in many cases it's a arduous task taking a long time to gain the release of individuals who have been exonerated by DNA or subsequent evidence. The risk of EVER executing an innocent person is the main reason I oppose the DP. We have proven there are far too many innocent people who've been found guilty and incarcerated. That is a hard enough offense to undo. DP is permanent.
Click to expand...

Ur a fan of the Double Pen. 94?:dancindeac:
 
RJKarl said:
There was another innocent man executed in TX in an arson murder. Neither Rick Perry or the Supreme court would allow evidence in that proved the man was innocent.
Click to expand...

What case was this? What exculpatory evidence came to light that proved the man's innocence? Was it forensic evidence or was it a case of witnesses recanting their story?
 
Les Grossman said:
What case was this? What exculpatory evidence came to light that proved the man's innocence? Was it forensic evidence or was it a case of witnesses recanting their story?
Click to expand...

I think his name was Cameron Todd Willingham. Supposedly, he burned down his house with his two kids inside. The state used so called arson "experts" to prove it was arson. Other experts showed the good ole' boy arson investigators based their findings on shitty science. Here's a link from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
 
I can't say that I'm opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, but don't we have a lot of evidence that the death penalty just doesn't work as a deterrent? It's a huge financial burden to the system, and if it doesn't result in its intended consequences, then I object to it on practical grounds.
 
If you want to effectively use the death penalty, you need to do two things.

First, use it in every murder one trial.

Second, each state needs to hire a pool of fulltime criminal defendant lawyers who only handle death penalty cases and provide compensation that actually attracts talent and staff. This would actually reduce the costs of appeals, which are frequently raised on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The bizarre thing is that if you do get the death penalty, you are far more likely to get (afterwards) real legal assistance. And the waste is that by the time they come in to help, a ton a procedural barriers waste 90 percent of their time. Most of my pro bono work was death penalty cases because that is what gets headlines (and therefore gets people to come ask lawyers to help in a particular case) and dealing with the issues of 96 "reforms" takes most of the time in the work and briefs.
 
Last edited:
DeacinBama said:
I can't say that I'm opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, but don't we have a lot of evidence that the death penalty just doesn't work as a deterrent? It's a huge financial burden to the system, and if it doesn't result in its intended consequences, then I object to it on practical grounds.
Click to expand...

I think there is little debate that the death penalty acts as a deterrent or is cheaper than life in prison. Anyone who argues for the death penalty on these grounds is really ignoring a lot of evidence, in my opinion.

The only true reason to keep the death penalty is because there are some crimes that are so heinous, that the only proper retribution is the death penalty. The rape/murder case in Connecticut recently comes to mind. Or, the Jessica Lunsford case is another. Along with a number of serial killer cases. I have long advocated for a higher standard during the penalty phase of death cases to make sure that not only is the death penalty used sparingly, but also, it's used only in cases where guilt can never be doubted.
 
mfdeacs99 said:
If you want to effectively use the death penalty, you need to do two things.

First, use it in every murder one trial.

Second, each state needs to hire a pool of fulltime criminal defendant lawyers who only handle death penalty cases and provide compensation that actually attracts talent and staff. This would actually reduce the costs of appeals, which are frequently raised on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The bizarre thing is that if you do get the death penalty, you are far more likely to get (afterwards) real legal assistance. And the waste is that by the time they come in to help, a ton a procedural barriers waste 90 percent of their time. Most of my pro bono work was death penalty cases because that is what gets headlines and dealing with the issues of 96 "reforms" takes most of the time in the work and briefs.
Click to expand...


I dont care if Roy Black is your defense attorney. If you get the death penalty, you're appealing on every ground imagineable and filing any motion you can. Including ineffective assistance of counsel.
 
I agree, but it would address what is a recurrent and sadly frequent issue of real factual dispute.
 
Les Grossman said:
I think there is little debate that the death penalty acts as a deterrent or is cheaper than life in prison. Anyone who argues for the death penalty on these grounds is really ignoring a lot of evidence, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand, is there a word missing here? Overall, it seems like you're saying that the death penalty doesn't do its job, but this part confuses me.
 
This with the addendum that yes, the DP doesn't deter shit. That said, it is the one punishment many argue isn't about detterence but instead retribution.

The DP is a blight on humanity.

DeacinBama said:
I can't say that I'm opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, but don't we have a lot of evidence that the death penalty just doesn't work as a deterrent? It's a huge financial burden to the system, and if it doesn't result in its intended consequences, then I object to it on practical grounds.
Click to expand...
 
There are a lot of people who do want retribution for the most heinous of acts.
 
Yeah, I'm not so sure I get the retribution angle, with the caveat I am sure I would feel differently if a loved-one were the victim of a heinous crime. But our prison system (at least initially) was built around the concept of rehabilitation. Once rehabilitation is no longer considered reasonable, then the point is to remove the threat from society and deter others. If life in prison accomplishes both of those more reliably and less costly than the death penalty, then I can't justify the cost and - frankly - the spectacle of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top