|
Post by xray48 on Feb 5, 2005 21:31:33 GMT -6
James Findley
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Feb 5, 2005 22:01:46 GMT -6
Could you tell me what state this man is from and what year he was executed. I couldn't find information on him.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 6, 2005 22:52:34 GMT -6
Nope. It was just a name I made up.
I don't know who you are, Snowy111 and Laura, but apparently you two are the self appointed Big Bully Bitches. I've seen your kind before.
I came here, as a newbie, and stated a simple opinion, based on things that I have read, and believe to be true. So, right away, you put parameters on my opinion and take it upon yourself to challenge me and demand that I "prove it".
I'm not going to waste my time on that kind of crap. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, and I'm not going to waste one second proving anything to you.
I have to laugh, too. I'll bet you wet your pants, trying to find that name.
But as long as you're into research, why don't you look into the situation in Illinois, where the governor commuted the death penalty for over 100 people, within the last 5 or 10 years, because of the huge number of errors that were uncovered, with the advent of DNA testing, and I believe there were even a few corrupt police officers and prosecuters uncovered. But hey! I'll bet you don't even believe the governor of Illinois, so I'm sure you won't believe me.
|
|
|
Post by LW on Feb 6, 2005 23:08:11 GMT -6
Xray48,
By stating "There have been a number of documented cases, where an innocent person was convicted and executed." You posted like you knew what you were talking about. But you didn't have anything to back it up. Sorry you got called out and looked the fool, but it is not Laura or Snowy's fault. It was better they called you on it than have people believe the false infomation that you brought. Just as Anti do to Pros. It is to keep information truthful and has nothing to do with it being anti or pros because neither side wants false info out there. Sorry you don't agree. If you would have put "in my opinion many innocent persons have been executed" other than "There have been a number of documented cases, where an innocent person was convicted and executed." then it would have looked like an opinion not that you were stating facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2005 23:57:04 GMT -6
Nope. It was just a name I made up. I don't know who you are, Snowy111 and Laura, but apparently you two are the self appointed Big Bully *witch*es. I've seen your kind before. I came here, as a newbie, and stated a simple opinion, based on things that I have read, and believe to be true. So, right away, you put parameters on my opinion and take it upon yourself to challenge me and demand that I "prove it". I'm not going to waste my time on that kind of crap. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, and I'm not going to waste one second proving anything to you. I have to laugh, too. I'll bet you wet your pants, trying to find that name. But as long as you're into research, why don't you look into the situation in Illinois, where the governor commuted the death penalty for over 100 people, within the last 5 or 10 years, because of the huge number of errors that were uncovered, with the advent of DNA testing, and I believe there were even a few corrupt police officers and prosecuters uncovered. But hey! I'll bet you don't even believe the governor of Illinois, so I'm sure you won't believe me. You have posted 4 posts as of this writing. One had false info. When you were called on it - You then put up the next post of a lie (the name James Findley). Then when you know you will be called on that you insult me and Snowy because you can't say you were wrong. Guess what yes, that is what we do here. We make people responsible for what they post. Just as people do to me. There are a lot of intellegent people on this board (antis and pros). First impressions count and if you use your first 4 posts to post false info, lies and insults you are not going to be taken serious by either side, in my opinion. And no I didn't look up that name because I didn't even come back to this until you already wrote that you had to make a name up because you can't admit to a mistake in you other posting.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 0:51:06 GMT -6
And what "false information" did I post? Does everybody on this forum run around with an encyclopedia for fear that they are going to have to back up anything they say? I don't know if it is your slanted viewpoint or just a lack of general knowledge that would cause you to challenge my opinion. Do you read newspapers? You have never heard of anyone being wrongly executed? But, since you demand some proof, here is a little reading. Although I'm sure that you won't believe this either. (You don't have to take my word for anything. Check out this web-site for yourself. It is one of many) capitaldefenseweekly.com/25casesdraft.html(Keep reading) Strong Cases of Innocence Cases where a person has been executed despite a high likelihood of innocence: [1] Roy Stewart (Florida): Stewart's conviction of the murder of a woman in 1979 rested almost solely on the testimony of a witness who testified that he had confessed the killing. Several years after the trial witness recanted stating that she gave her story for the sole purpose of avoiding a jail sentence herself for forgery and possession of marijuana. She was released from jail following her testimony at Stewart's trial and was paid a cash reward for her false story. Three state's Attorneys who prosecuted Stewart later came forward opposing the execution for lack of evidence. One of the state's Attorneys said, "The state completely botched the investigation of the scene. They threw away critical evidence. I came to learn... that they also had not pursued other defendants who had much more legitimate contact with the decedent than Mr. Stewart." However, even over the objections of the prosecuting attorneys, Roy Stewart was executed on April 22, 1994. [2] Jesse Tafero (Florida) Tafero was sentenced to death along with Sonia Jacobs for the murder of two policemen at a highway rest stop in 1976. A third co-defendant received a life sentence after pleading guilty and testifying against Jacobs and Tafero. A childhood friend and filmmaker, Micki Dickoff, then became interested in Jacobs case. Jacobs's conviction was overturned on a federal writ of habeas corpus in 1992. Following the discovery that the chief prosecution witness had failed a lie-detector test, the prosecutor accepted a plea in which Jacobs did not admit guilt, and she was immediately released. Jesse Tafero, whose conviction was based on much of the same highly questionable evidence, had been executed in 1990, two years before the evidence of innocence had been uncovered. [3] Willie Darden (Florida): Darden was convicted of the murder of a store owner during an attempted robbery. Alibi evidence later surfaced from two independent witnesses came to light in 1986. The witness stated that Darden could not have committed the murder. State and federal rules governing the discovery of newly discovered evidence following trial, however, prevented the evidence from ever being addressed in any court. Even before this new evidence emerged, the U.S. Supreme Court was bitterly divided over the case and upheld the conviction by a narrow five to four majority. The dissenting justices criticized the majority for being "willing to tolerate a level of fairness and reliability so low it should make conscientious prosecutors cringe." Darden was executed on March 15, 1988. [4] David Spence (Texas): Spence, the prosecution argued, committed triple murder at the direction of Muneer Deeb, who the state claimed was a drug dealer. Deeb allegedly wanted several people dead and then presented evidence that linked the targets of the murder for hire to Deeb. The prosecution than argued that Spence killed the wrong people because he mistook them for the intended target. Someone other than Spence, Terry Harper, confessed to the crime on four separate occasions to four separate people including at least twice prior to the bodies being found. [fn 2] Under Texas evidentiary law at the time of trial the confession of a person not charged with the crime for which the accused is inadmissible and therefore the prosecution did not have to turn over the evidence. Following the trial, many, if not most, of the prosecution's jailhouse informants came forwarded and admitted either perjuring themselves or receiving some form of restitution for their testimony. Deeb, the person who supposedly hired Spence to do the killing, had his capital conviction reversed on appeal unrelated to innocence. At Deeb's new trial much of the evidence unearthed by Spence's legal team was used to obtain Deeb an exoneration. Spence was the -- execution under then Governor Bush. For more details see Bob Herbert's articles in the New York Times , as well as HBO's The Execution machine. [5] James Adams (Florida) Adams was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and executed in 1984. A witness who identified Adams as driving the car away from the victim's home shortly after the crime was later discovered that this witness was angry with Adams for allegedly dating his wife. A second witness heard a voice inside the victim's home at the time of the crime and saw someone fleeing. He stated this voice was a woman's; the day after the crime he stated that the fleeing person was positively not Adams. More importantly, a hair sample found clutched in the victim's hand, which in all likelihood had come from the assailant, did not mach Adams' hair. Much of this exculpatory information was not discovered until a skilled investigator a month before Adams' execution examined the case. [6] Dawud Abdullah Muhammad (formerly David Junior Brown) (North Carolina) Prosecution withheld eyewitnesses and physical evidence from Mr. Muhammad, both during his trial and on appeal. Withheld for 14 years was also a statement by a witness who saw the victims alive during the time the prosecution theorized the murders were being committed. The prosecution a witness who could have testified that the victims' car had been moved around the time they were seen by the witness who had seen them alive. Two witnesses saw a man with long blonde hair jump from the balcony of the victims' apt. when the murders could have occurred, Dawud was black. A long blonde hair found at the crime scene was later lost. The trial was before an all white jury.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 1:36:31 GMT -6
Do you still want me to say that I was wrong?
OK, so I gave a ficticious name. That is all your petty demand deserved. But, back to the theme of my original opinion. How would you like it if YOU were innocent and found yourself on death row?
Here is some more interesting reading.
State fought to keep innocent man in prison
CARL HIAASEN
At 3 a.m. Thursday, Wilton Dedge and his father took a walk. It was warm outside, but the air smelled glorious, and Dedge couldn't stop staring up at the crystal Florida sky.
''It was just unreal,'' he said, ''just to go out at night and see the stars.''
Dedge hadn't taken a walk with his dad in 22 years. Since May 3, 1982, every night had been spent under a prison roof, locked up for a crime he didn't commit.
He went away at 20 and came out as a middle-aged man, robbed of his youth by a colossal injustice.
Last week, the state of Florida admitted what Dedge has been claiming all along: He is completely innocent of the violent rape for which he was convicted.
His story is one of tragically mistaken identity, made worse by cold prosecutorial obstinacy.
It's awful enough that he spent more than half his life behind bars for something he didn't do. More outrageous is the fact that prosecutors have known for more than three years of a DNA test pointing to Dedge's innocence.
Yet they tenaciously battled to keep that evidence out of court -- and to keep Dedge imprisoned.
Dedge wrote to me in June, after I'd done a column about him: ''Had you told me 22 years ago that our justice system would do what it has done to me, I would have laughed in your face. . . . But I can no longer do this and it truly saddens and angers me that I can't.''
The case was shaky from the start. The 17-year-old victim initially described her attacker as six feet tall, balding and 200 pounds. Dedge weighed 130 pounds dripping wet, stood five-foot-six and had all his hair.
Unaccountably, the victim picked him from a photo shown to her by police. Today she is said to be ''devastated'' to know that she made a mistake.
At the first trial, six of Dedge's co-workers at an auto body shop testified that he was working there at the time the rape occurred.
But a technician from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement took the witness stand to say that a pubic hair found in the victim's bed was ''microscopically identical'' to Dedge's.
Brevard prosecutor Robert Wayne Holmes told jurors that the hair ''proves that Mr. Dedge was the rapist.'' A special crime-scene dog was also said to have detected Dedge's scent in the victim's room.
The jury convicted Dedge, though he was later given a new trial after the reputed talents of the crime-sniffing canine were embarrassingly discredited.
Exonerated by DNA testing
At the second trial, prosecutors produced a sleazeball prison informant who claimed that Dedge casually admitted to the rape. In exchange for his testimony, the informant had 120 years lopped off his own sentence.
Dedge was convicted again, and received 30 years to life. He served his time stoically, though he simmered on the inside.
As DNA testing evolved into an accepted forensic technique, Dedge saw hope for exoneration. In 1996, he asked that his DNA be matched against that of the pubic hair found at the rape scene.
Prosecutor Holmes opposed his request, and for eight long years would not yield.
In the meantime, the case caught the attention of attorney Barry Scheck, a DNA defense specialist and one of the founders of the Innocence Project. He, Nina Morrison and Miami defense lawyer Milt Hirsch took up Dedge's cause pro bono.
The DNA test was finally done in late 2000. The results were sobering and unequivocal: The hair from the rape victim's bed belonged to someone other than Dedge.
Judges seem incredulous
Prosecutor Holmes didn't challenge the findings but, astoundingly, shrugged them off. He insisted that Dedge still committed the crime, even if the telltale hair wasn't his.
The same physical evidence that Holmes once trumpeted as decisive was suddenly of ''little significance.'' Moreover, the state said that Dedge's test should be ignored because it had been conducted a few months before Florida finalized its rules on DNA procedure.
Assistant Attorney General Bonnie Jean Parrish carried that argument to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The judges seemed incredulous when she said that the issue was not Dedge's guilt or innocence, but the premature timing of his DNA test.
The panel bluntly rejected that position, so prosecutors launched a startling new tactic. After years of trying to block Dedge's DNA evidence, they abruptly embraced the science.
They asked a judge for a new test -- not on the hair, but on a semen sample taken from the victim.
The sample had degraded during the two decades, but new technical advancements enabled experts to check for a genetic match.
The result was the same as before: The semen, like the pubic hair, belonged to someone other than Wilton Dedge. He could not possibly be the rapist, and prosecutors could no longer duck the truth.
Holmes finally agreed to drop all charges. A judge signed the paper, and at 1 a.m. Thursday Wilton Dedge stepped out of the Brevard County Jail into the summer night and freedom.
The first thing he did was hug his mother and father.
''I'm just trying to soak it all in right now,'' he said.
Seminole-Brevard State Attorney Norm Wolfinger called a press conference. ''It is truly tragic,'' he intoned, ''to have an innocent person spend time behind bars, not to mention as much time as Wilton Dedge.''
As for the new DNA test, Wolfinger said, ''Frankly, we anticipated different results.''
Unbelievable. His office had seen similar exculpatory results three years ago, and wouldn't give Dedge a new day in court. It's worse than disgraceful; it's an abomination.
Dedge is a free man only because he and his lawyers never gave up. Prosecutors did everything in their power to keep him in prison, and he'd be rotting there still if they'd had their way.
Although Dedge is richly entitled to bitterness, there's no trace in his voice. ''Right now I'm not even thinking about that. I kind of blocked it out. I'm just enjoying being with my family.''
I asked if he always thought that someday he'd be free.
''I believed it,'' he said, ''but I was beginning to have doubts.''
Robert Wayne Holmes hasn't apologized to Dedge for taking 22 years of his life, and it wouldn't matter much if he did. The damage is done, the time is lost and nothing can give it back.
Nothing under the stars.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 1:51:37 GMT -6
I just can't believe that anyone who professes to be an intelligent person could be so totally unaware of this stuff. Are you Pro- death penalty? I'm not saying that is all bad, but maybe you need to think about what you are supporting.
Here is some more stuff. THINK!!!
Death-Row Inmate Freed After 17 Years
Wed Oct 6,10:49 PM ET U.S. National - AP
By MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer
HUNTSVILLE, Texas - With little more than the standard $100 in his pocket, Ernest Willis walked out of prison a free man Wednesday after 17 years on death row for a crime that may have never even occurred.
Willis, now 59, was convicted of setting a 1986 fire that killed two sleeping women in Iraan, about 230 miles west of San Antonio. But Ori White, Pecos County district attorney, dropped the murder case Tuesday, saying there were strong indications the fire was an accident.
White said that even if a crime was committed, he did not believe Willis was involved.
On Wednesday, Willis bounded down the prison steps and into the arms of his wife, Verilyn Willis, on their fourth wedding anniversary. It was the first time they had touched.
Willis, who at one point brushed aside a tear as his voice became choked with emotion, insisted he was not bitter about his incarceration, but added: "What goes around comes around."
"The people that knew I was innocent to start with — they'll get theirs," he said, explaining that he was referring to "all of them: prosecutors, all the Pecos County law enforcement."
In July, a federal judge in San Antonio threw out the conviction, saying authorities concealed evidence and gave Willis anti-psychotic drugs during his trial, leaving him too dazed to confer with attorneys. The judge ordered Willis retried or set free.
"This has been a long and difficult road," said James Blank, one of Willis' lawyers. "We are delighted for Ernest and his wife, and cannot begin to imagine what this newfound freedom must feel like."
When Willis was set free, he was given a plaid shirt, green pants and white running shoes, along with 10 days worth of medication and $100, the standard amount given to released inmates.
"For 18 years, $100," he said. But he said death row had made him a better person: "I used to drink, carouse, stuff like that. I'll never touch another drop."
Willis becomes the eighth death row inmate freed in Texas since capital punishment resumed in 1974. The last exoneration was in the late 1990s.
He met his wife on death row, where her brother, Ricky McGinn, was awaiting execution for the rape-slaying of his 12-year-old stepdaughter. McGinn was executed in 2000, the year she and Willis were wed by proxy.
"This is what kept me going," Willis said, his arm tightly around his wife. "It really didn't sink in until I walked out that door there."
|
|
|
Post by LW on Feb 7, 2005 2:00:16 GMT -6
I just can't believe that anyone who professes to be an intelligent person could be so totally unaware of this stuff. Are you Pro- death penalty? I'm not saying that is all bad, but maybe you need to think about what you are supporting. Here is some more stuff. THINK!!! Death-Row Inmate Freed After 17 Years Wed Oct 6,10:49 PM ET U.S. National - AP By MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer HUNTSVILLE, Texas - With little more than the standard $100 in his pocket, Ernest Willis walked out of prison a free man Wednesday after 17 years on death row for a crime that may have never even occurred. Willis, now 59, was convicted of setting a 1986 fire that killed two sleeping women in Iraan, about 230 miles west of San Antonio. But Ori White, Pecos County district attorney, dropped the murder case Tuesday, saying there were strong indications the fire was an accident. White said that even if a crime was committed, he did not believe Willis was involved. On Wednesday, Willis bounded down the prison steps and into the arms of his wife, Verilyn Willis, on their fourth wedding anniversary. It was the first time they had touched. Willis, who at one point brushed aside a tear as his voice became choked with emotion, insisted he was not bitter about his incarceration, but added: "What goes around comes around." "The people that knew I was innocent to start with — they'll get theirs," he said, explaining that he was referring to "all of them: prosecutors, all the Pecos County law enforcement." In July, a federal judge in San Antonio threw out the conviction, saying authorities concealed evidence and gave Willis anti-psychotic drugs during his trial, leaving him too dazed to confer with attorneys. The judge ordered Willis retried or set free. "This has been a long and difficult road," said James Blank, one of Willis' lawyers. "We are delighted for Ernest and his wife, and cannot begin to imagine what this newfound freedom must feel like." When Willis was set free, he was given a plaid shirt, green pants and white running shoes, along with 10 days worth of medication and $100, the standard amount given to released inmates. "For 18 years, $100," he said. But he said death row had made him a better person: "I used to drink, carouse, stuff like that. I'll never touch another drop." Willis becomes the eighth death row inmate freed in Texas since capital punishment resumed in 1974. The last exoneration was in the late 1990s. He met his wife on death row, where her brother, Ricky McGinn, was awaiting execution for the rape-slaying of his 12-year-old stepdaughter. McGinn was executed in 2000, the year she and Willis were wed by proxy. "This is what kept me going," Willis said, his arm tightly around his wife. "It really didn't sink in until I walked out that door there." So, you would have felt better if he was sentenced to Life without parole? Would you feel comfortable with the death penalty if there was video evidence or say DNA? Is it really the death penalty you are against or the standards that get people convicted? Or both? Because if you are only against it incase innocent people are sentenced - I still don't see you happy with it if someone was convicted on DNA evidence.
|
|
|
Post by LW on Feb 7, 2005 2:08:53 GMT -6
So, you would have felt better if he was sentenced to Life without parole? Would you feel comfortable with the death penalty if there was video evidence or say DNA? Is it really the death penalty you are against or the standards that get people convicted? Or both? Because if you are only against it incase innocent people are sentenced - I still don't see you happy with it if someone was convicted on DNA evidence. You seem to be more angry at the standards that get people convicted not so much the death penalty. I just don't see you happy if any of these people got sentence to Life Without Parole. In my opinioin the arguement of the standards that get people convicted is a very good one.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 2:41:29 GMT -6
Now you are getting close to the truth, LW. I never said that I was opposed to the death penalty. And I am all for any punishment, that is deserved. But, you are right when you say that I am angry and upset at some of the standards.
And, once again, I am sticking my neck out. But I believe that there are many, many documented incidences of haphazard court proceedings, lousy representation, crooked cops, racism, and the like, that result in innocent people being convicted of a crime that they didn't commit. That does make me angry and upset. Because, the next person that they convict might just be me. Or, it might even be you. Think it can't happen? Just go back and read those cases that I posted. Who knows when you or I might just happen to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time?
I do believe that our laws read that we are innocent until proven guilty, and that that proof must be "beyond the shadow of doubt". In that matter, Yes! I do expect our courts to hold themselves to the highest standard.
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Feb 7, 2005 9:07:06 GMT -6
Nope. It was just a name I made up. I don't know who you are, Snowy111 and Laura, but apparently you two are the self appointed Big Bully *witch*es. I've seen your kind before. I came here, as a newbie, and stated a simple opinion, based on things that I have read, and believe to be true. So, right away, you put parameters on my opinion and take it upon yourself to challenge me and demand that I "prove it". I'm not going to waste my time on that kind of crap. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, and I'm not going to waste one second proving anything to you. I have to laugh, too. I'll bet you wet your pants, trying to find that name. But as long as you're into research, why don't you look into the situation in Illinois, where the governor commuted the death penalty for over 100 people, within the last 5 or 10 years, because of the huge number of errors that were uncovered, with the advent of DNA testing, and I believe there were even a few corrupt police officers and prosecuters uncovered. But hey! I'll bet you don't even believe the governor of Illinois, so I'm sure you won't believe me. Interesting you really couldn't name someone so you had to make one up. Now you expect me to take you seriously. Actually I didn't spend that much time looking it up. That's why I asked you.
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Feb 7, 2005 9:14:54 GMT -6
Nope. It was just a name I made up. I don't know who you are, Snowy111 and Laura, but apparently you two are the self appointed Big Bully *witch*es. I've seen your kind before. I came here, as a newbie, and stated a simple opinion, based on things that I have read, and believe to be true. So, right away, you put parameters on my opinion and take it upon yourself to challenge me and demand that I "prove it". I'm not going to waste my time on that kind of crap. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, and I'm not going to waste one second proving anything to you. I have to laugh, too. I'll bet you wet your pants, trying to find that name. But as long as you're into research, why don't you look into the situation in Illinois, where the governor commuted the death penalty for over 100 people, within the last 5 or 10 years, because of the huge number of errors that were uncovered, with the advent of DNA testing, and I believe there were even a few corrupt police officers and prosecuters uncovered. But hey! I'll bet you don't even believe the governor of Illinois, so I'm sure you won't believe me. BTW when have I ever parameter your opinion? I don't think we have even talked. I just asked to a simple question. I was just trying to be fair. Now I know I can't believe you.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 10:50:38 GMT -6
BTW when have I ever parameter your opinion? I don't think we have even talked. I just asked to a simple question. I was just trying to be fair. Now I know I can't believe you. I really don't care whether you believe me or not. But I noticed that you were more than ready to jump on the band wagon when Laura was going to jump in my chit. Kind of like two bullies backing each other up, isn't it? So, I kinda have your number too. And just look at Laura's response. "Name 1 person . . ." The implication is that my statement was totaly untrue and was the most insane thing that anyone could say. That kind of information is a matter of common knowledge for anyone who reads newspapers, books, magazines, or listens to news casts on radio and TV. Unless you are a person who's views are so narrow and twisted and deviant that you have no tolerance for anyone saying anything contrary to your own viewpoint. So what if I didn't have the name of a single person, on the tip of my tongue? Statements, like that, in the middle of casual conversation, are an invitation for intelligent people to ask questions or to debate an issue, rather than throw out challenges of "Prove it!", like a third grade kid. No, you didn't put any parameters on my statement, but your buddy did. I don't have the quote, at hand, but it was something like "name 1 person who was wrongfuly executed 'since reimposing the death penalty'". And what difference does that make? Are my statements limited only to things that happened yesterday? I surely don't like it when people try to impose those kinds of limits on the things that I can say.
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Feb 7, 2005 11:00:50 GMT -6
I really don't care whether you believe me or not. But I noticed that you were more than ready to jump on the band wagon when Laura was going to jump in my chit. Kind of like two bullies backing each other up, isn't it? So, I kinda have your number too. And just look at Laura's response. "Name 1 person . . ." The implication is that my statement was totaly untrue and was the most insane thing that anyone could say. That kind of information is a matter of common knowledge for anyone who reads newspapers, books, magazines, or listens to news casts on radio and TV. Unless you are a person who's views are so narrow and twisted and deviant that you have no tolerance for anyone saying anything contrary to your own viewpoint. So what if I didn't have the name of a single person, on the tip of my tongue? Statements, like that, in the middle of casual conversation, are an invitation for intelligent people to ask questions or to debate an issue, rather than throw out challenges of "Prove it!", like a third grade kid. No, you didn't put any parameters on my statement, but your buddy did. I don't have the quote, at hand, but it was something like "name 1 person who was wrongfuly executed 'since reimposing the death penalty'". And what difference does that make? Are my statements limited only to things that happened yesterday? I surely don't like it when people try to impose those kinds of limits on the things that I can say. No I wasn't ready to jump on the bandwagon I was just trying to be fair. What you have done has not helped the antis side. Hope you realize that. Asking you where that person is from, how is that bullying? If you want to win a debate honesty is always best.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 12:33:33 GMT -6
What you have done has not helped the antis side. Hope you realize that. OK, Snowy. One more time, and then I am done with you. I am flabbergasted at your last response. Not surprised, just flabbergasted. My arguments have nothing to do with PRO or ANTI. They are all about "A . .F A I R . . TRIAL FOR EVERYONE!" Do you understand that concept? You said, "What you have done has hurt the anti side." What is this? Teams? Can you only say and think what the PRO coach tells you to think and say? It sure would seem that way. And, how has the information, that I have posted, hurt the cause of "justice"? Are you telling me that the PRO death penalty faction is totaly incapable of reading that information and seeing the wrong in what has taken place? And, again, I will state that I am not nor have I EVER said that I was anti DP. That is purely your assumption. However, if what you imply is true, it would seem that the hard core, PRO DP "team" may be a blood thirsty bunch, with no care for justice or right and wrong. They only want to see somebody's head roll, and to smell the blood. And that, would be a sad commentary on what we hope is a civilized nation.
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Feb 7, 2005 12:37:22 GMT -6
OK, Snowy. One more time, and then I am done with you. I am flabbergasted at your last response. Not surprised, just flabbergasted. My arguments have nothing to do with PRO or ANTI. They are all about "A . .F A I R . . TRIAL FOR EVERYONE!" Do you understand that concept? You said, "What you have done has hurt the anti side." What is this? Teams? Can you only say and think what the PRO coach tells you to think and say? It sure would seem that way. And, how has the information, that I have posted, hurt the cause of "justice"? Are you telling me that the PRO death penalty faction is totaly incapable of reading that information and seeing the wrong in what has taken place? And, again, I will state that I am not nor have I EVER said that I was anti DP. That is purely your assumption. However, if what you imply is true, it would seem that the hard core, PRO DP "team" may be a blood thirsty bunch, with no care for justice or right and wrong. They only want to see somebody's head roll, and to smell the blood. And that, would be a sad commentary on what we hope is a civilized nation. When I asked you what state and what year was, that an assumption? You're the one who started attacking me. Saying you made up a name what does that show or prove. I'm glad you're done with me goodbye. It was interesting though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2005 13:41:08 GMT -6
Xray wrote: I do believe that our laws read that we are innocent until proven guilty, and that that proof must be "beyond the shadow of doubt".
My reply: There is no such legal standard anywhere. Even to convict someone of first degree murder, the standard is beyond a "reasonable" doubt.
I understand you are angry at the standards that get people convicted. I do not understand how it relates to the death penalty except for the standard that gets them convicted. I am not going to reply to any more of your posts since I don't think it is death penalty related and that i what this forum is about. You can call me a bully if you want - I don't care. I know I have been called to prove things too. I know it offends you and with all honesty if I had the lack of knowledge you do on this subject I would use insults to try to hide that fact. BUT as I said I will not reply to any of your posts EXCEPT to correct your false information. Since you would rather lie and insult it is not worth my time NOR the space on this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2006 0:20:20 GMT -6
RUBIN CANTU "Texas executed its fifth teenage offender at 22 minutes after midnight on Aug. 24, 1993, after his last request for bubble gum had been refused and his final claim of innocence had been forever silenced. Ruben Cantu, 17 at the time of his crime, had no previous convictions, but a San Antonio prosecutor had branded him a violent thief, gang member and murderer who ruthlessly shot one victim nine times with a rifle before emptying at least nine more rounds into the only eyewitness -- a man who barely survived to testify. Four days after a Bexar County jury delivered its verdict, Cantu wrote this letter to the residents of San Antonio: "My name is Ruben M. Cantu and I am only 18 years old. I got to the 9th grade and I have been framed in a capital murder case." A dozen years after his execution, a Houston Chronicle investigation suggests that Cantu, a former special-ed student who grew up in a tough neighborhood on the south side of San Antonio, was likely telling the truth." www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3471520.htmlTHERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS... ALSO THOSE WHO HAVE COME CLOSE TO DEATH AND THEIR INNOCENCE PROCLAIMED IN TIME. MANY HAVE GONE TO THE CHAMBER PROCLAIMING THEIR INNOCENCE HOW MANY WERE ACTUALLY INNOCENT.. NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION YET IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT SOME DIED INNOCENT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2006 6:38:28 GMT -6
excert from an article composed by the American Bar Association. This is exactly why I have issues with the Death penalty.
" How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed?
An Illinois coalition moves to stop the death penalty in the wake of startling statistics By Ky Henderson
Their names spark vague recognition in many Illinois residents: Rolando Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez, Verneal Jimerson, Dennis Williams, Joseph Burrows, Gary Gauger, Carl Lawson, Perry Cobb, Darby Tillis.
Most people may at least remember hearing about some of them. Others could identify who a few of the men are, but come up blank on the rest. Yet the state and residents of Illinois owe a debt to these nine men that is so great, it cannot - and will not - ever be repaid.
They are the former Illinois Death Row inmates who have been found innocent and freed in the decade since the death penalty was reinstituted in the state. In the same period of time, the state executed only eight men. All together, those freed spent a total of 52 years on Death Row, and another 36 in county jails and state prisons.
In the last four years, 17 Death Row inmates in the nation have been found innocent and freed. Seven of those men were in Illinois. Many legal advocates in the state and around the country are dismayed that the state's justice system could have repeatedly failed so miserably. Throughout every one of the men's ordeals, corruption, flawed investigations, and inadequate legal representation plagued them. And in the cases of eight of the nine men, it took the intervention of people completely outside of the justice system for them to win back their freedom.
"Illinois' capital punishment system is in a state of intolerable crisis," says Locke E. Bowman, legal director of the MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Chicago. "It has an absolutely inexcusable and unsatisfactory record."
Last July, about 40 lawyers, judges, and legal organizations signed a petition asking the Illinois Supreme Court for a 1-year moratorium on setting execution dates so that an investigation could be made to find out why the state has sentenced so many innocent men to die. Written by Bowman, the request was filed as an amicus curiae brief, and asks the Court to create a special commission to be made up of highly qualified members of the criminal defense community, prosecutors, judges, academics, and other experts.
The coalition also requested Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar to grant reprieves to any defendants scheduled for execution and to appoint a death penalty commission, Attorney Gen. Jim Ryan to reexamine capital cases now on appeal, and Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine to review procedures for handling capital cases.
Not long after the brief was submitted, the Cook County state's attorney's office submitted a response in which it argued that Illinois is one of the leading states in the country for providing capital defendants numerous avenues of review of their cases. In other words, the state argued, the very fact that these men were freed is proof that the system works.
"One possible explanation for everything is that the state of Illinois is very, very good at finding error," says Renee Goldfarb, the supervisor of the criminal appeals division in the Cook County state's attorney's office who helped write the response. "There's no Constitutional right to have post-conviction appeals, let alone attorneys who the state pays for, yet the state of Illinois has provided these things."
One major criticism, however, of not only Illinois' capital punishment system, but of those in states all over the country, is that court-appointed counsel in capital cases is of extremely poor quality. People used to believe that capital cases were no different than any others, and therefore lawyers didn't see an overwhelming need to spend the time and money to exhaustively explore every possible avenue during investigation, says Richard C. Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
"The quality of lawyers at trial for defendants in capital case is often abysmal, such that you can wind up getting the death penalty more because of how bad your lawyer was than because of how bad you were," says New York lawyer Ronald Tabak, chair of the Individual Rights & Responsibilities Section's Death Penalty Committee and an architect of the ABA's death penalty moratorium resolution. "People who commit worse crimes often don't get the death penalty if they have a better lawyer than people who commit less aggravated crimes."
That may be changing in Illinois, however. Edgar recently approved legislation allowing some convicts the benefit of DNA and other scientific testing not available at the time of their trials. And after federal funding for state resource centers was eliminated last year, the state legislature approved funding for the Capital Litigation Division of the Illinois State Appellate Defender's Office. The division has essentially taken the place of the resource center, with legal teams assigned by the Illinois Supreme Court to represent Death Row inmates in pursuing post-conviction remedies. Significantly, even the division's director, Marshall J. Hartman, believes the moratorium should be put into place.
Dieter says the fact that eight of the nine men were freed after intervention from outside forces suggests that Illinois has an unusually active and resourceful community of legal crusaders willing to do pro bono work and investigations. Nationally, about 1 percent of Death Row inmates are found to be innocent. But Dieter adds that if other states had resources like Illinois', that percentage would probably rise.
Outside intervention certainly played a crucial role in last year's well-publicized release of the Ford Heights Four, two of whom - Williams and Jimerson - were sentenced to death. The men were convicted of murder and rape in 1978 after a recently engaged Caucasian couple were found dead in a predominantly African-American section of Chicago. It took private investigators, a Northwestern University journalism professor and his students to get a statement from a witness saying she had lied due to police pressure. In addition, they obtained confessions from the men who had actually committed the crime. The confessions were then corroborated with DNA testing.
Advocates and lawyers are quick to point out that exonerations like those of the Ford Heights Four are far from examples of the justice system working.
"It would be one thing if we could say the system works, and that individuals followed procedures and were found innocent, but in fact in all the cases it was really a fluke," says state Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), who with six other legislators is sponsoring a bill to amend the Illinois Criminal Code to suspend executions for one year. "We find persistent wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. It's really sheer luck that those convicted of these crimes were exonerated in the end."
All of the cases involved heinous crimes, and six of the nine involved people of color convicted and sentenced to death for interracial murders. In four of the cases, a rape was involved. Advocates say that the extreme pressure from the public on law enforcement to capture, convict, and give the death penalty in these cases leads to faulty police work - some accidental, some deliberate.
In the case of the Ford Heights Four, police learned who the real killers were just days after the fact, but police "deep-sixed the information because they had already gone about their frame and couldn't possibly expose it at that point," says Lawrence Marshall, a Northwestern law professor who participated in the cases of five of the nine men released.
The political force the death penalty has is unequaled in the criminal justice system. In Illinois, critics charge the justice system in big counties like Cook of being far too political, and say some of those within the system look at it as nothing more than a political stepping stone. Going for and getting the death penalty in well-publicized cases looks good to most constituents. Currently, the mayor of Chicago, attorney general, and a former governor are all former state's and district attorneys, and a current U.S. attorney is rumored to be planning a run for political office. "If you want to take politics out of it," says Marshall, "you have to do something about the fact that it's become a political office instead of a professional office."
How to remedy that problem and all the others is what supporters of the moratorium hope the Supreme Court-appointed commission will be able to do. Because of the many injustices inherent in the way the death penalty is administered not just in Illinois but all over the country, Tabak says that groups in many states are coming out in support of both national and state moratoriums, including the ABA's. Meanwhile, Death Row inmates like Ronald Jones, whose case in Illinois was reopened in July after DNA testing indicated his innocence, cling to the possibility of freedom.
"If you have a money judgment, you can appeal and it's reversed and everyone gets their money and it's fine," Hartman says. "But when somebody's executed, you can't bring them back. What if nine innocent people had been executed? That's a very frightening thought."
Ky Henderson is a writer in Chicago.
| Individual Rights & Responsibilities |"
Contact information: Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities American Bar Association, 740 15th Street, NW Washington, DC, 20005
|
|
|
Post by cookielady on Jan 3, 2006 15:20:32 GMT -6
IM ALSO DOING A PAPER ON THE ISSUE TOO SO I WAS LOOKING FOR INFORMATION AND OPINIONS TO COMPARE There are a lot of long-winded discussions of the death penalty. But here is a short summary I have been working on. The reason for having a death penalty today is to provide an approach to justice for the victims of murder. I use the phrase "an approach to justice" because even if a murderer were to be struck dead one second after the murder, that would not provide justice for the victim and the victim's family. The murderer, even when executed, always comes out ahead. The murderer always gets what he wanted The murderer wanted his victim dead and has gotten what he wanted. He has gotten what he wanted, even though he had no right to murder and his action was forbidden. THE MURDERER HAD NO RIGHT TO GET WHAT HE WANTED, YET HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED. The victim just wanted to live and did not get what she wanted, even though she had a right to live and society had promised her that she would be allowed to live. Usually she was also providing valuable benefits to society as well as not harming anyone. THE MURDER VICTIM HAD EVERY RIGHT TO GET WHAT SHE WANTED, YET SHE DID NOT GET WHAT SHE WANTED. WHO IS AHEAD AT THIS POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM? Can the victim ever catch up with her murderer? Is it just for the murderer to be better off than his victim? Is it fair for the murderer to be better off than his victim? Should we care about justice and fairness for the dead innocent victim? Once the murderer kills his victim, does he become more important than his victim? The murderer gains an unfair advantage over his victim the moment he begins to kill her. That is true even if he hasn’t already tortured her or raped her. After the victim dies, every second that the murderer lives, his unfair advantage over the victim is increased. That is the situation in a simple murder where the murder was done in a painless way. In such rare cases the murderer is given at least one fair trial, has appeals heard and then is given spiritual counseling and a last meal of his choice before his merciful execution. The victim had none of those things and has been dead for years before the murderer is executed. But the death penalty does provide the closest available approach to justice. Of course, many cases of capital murder are much worse than that, with the victim or victims being raped (sometimes many times by different rapists) and tortured, sometimes for hours or days, before a painful death. Then the victim's family has to go through a period of not knowing if their loved one is alive or dead. Then the victim's family has to relive the suffering of their loved one several times during the investigation, trial and appeals. If the murderer is not executed, the family members have to go through this for many years as the appeals and parole requests never stop. WHEN THE MURDERER IS EXECUTED YEARS AFTER THE MURDER, WHO WAS AHEAD AT THAT POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM? Is it good that the murderer’s unfair advantage has stopped increasing? Bear in mind that in many cases the murderer further benefits over the victim by raping or torturing her or both. The cases of Mary Adlay, Wendy Offredo and Heather Muller are instructive, just as a few of many examples. In those cases, the murderer can repeatedly relive the pleasure of the rapes or torture. He can sit with other rapists and murderers in prison and they can share their fond memories of the pleasure they drew from their victims’ suffering. They can laugh and joke about how the victim begged not to be raped the third or fourth time. They can swap stories about how their victims begged for their lives as they lay broken and bleeding. In one case a rape-murderer obtained the crime scene photographs of his victim to further increase his relived pleasures. Also in other cases, the murderer kills many victims. So in such cases, the murderer gains even larger advantages over his victim or victims. In no case does the murderer ever suffer as much as his victims There are also two beneficial byproducts from adequate use of the death penalty; deterrence and prevention. When the death penalty is used, as many as 20 potential murderers are deterred from murdering for each additional execution. When a murderer is executed, he cannot kill again. Thousands of innocent victims have been killed by previously convicted murderers who were not executed for their first murder. No innocent victim has ever been killed by an executed murderer. The DP also provides a benefit for the murderer, the opportunity for redemption. A murderer facing execution is given the benefit of a powerful incentive to review his past actions and seek the redemption of his soul. I am glad to see that someone ressurrected this thread from the archives because this thread was posted before my time . Donnie , I just have to say to you that I appreciate your words and they have given this anti something to think about . I struggle with my stand on this issue quite often and I honestly admit that . Thank you for your thoughts . Have a point .
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 3, 2006 22:03:49 GMT -6
I am glad to see that someone ressurrected this thread from the archives because this thread was posted before my time . Donnie , I just have to say to you that I appreciate your words and they have given this anti something to think about . I struggle with my stand on this issue quite often and I honestly admit that . Thank you for your thoughts . Have a point . You are certainly welcome. I was active against the DP for many years until a read about the horrible torture death of little Amy Sue Seitz. I was haunted by her suffering and began to struggle with my position on the death penalty. That struggle continued for several years until I read about the lengthy abuse and brutal murder of Heather Muller, Jason Befort, Aaron Sander and Brad Heyka. At that point I changed my position. Since then I have read of many other cases that were as bad. I no longer can say which are the worst, because they are all so horrible that I am incapable of comparing them. Also in many cases there are no surviving witnesses and the bodies are in such bad condition that details cannot be reconstructed.
|
|
|
Post by johnbgraf on Feb 23, 2006 2:07:01 GMT -6
In general I feel the time has come where the American judicial system needs to exercise the DP more effectively and that the time has come where these convicted murderers need to be put to death.I feel the time has come where the rights of these convicted murderers need to be reduced,and that their ability to continue getting appeals needs to stop.
Our countries prison systems have become the largest in the world,and for what reason?We have the most lawyers per capita than any other country in the world.These individuals are suppose to be some of the most educated minds in our society.But theres the problem.In the real world an honest lawyer have to use his or her education to serve justice.Mean while the rest of the bottom dwellers use their education to feed off the system for their own selfish gain.
These crooked lawyers are just as guilty as the murderers they defend.The DP is the purest form of justice.Anyone with any sense of right and wrong knows that.But the DP has become a source of controversy,and for what reason?To give murderers and crooked lawyers more legal power? or to quickly exercise justice and and bring restitution to the innocent who have suffered at the hands of evil murderers? I for one believe the DP is the ONLY way to bring restitution to the innocent who have suffered.Not LWOP and certainly no more rights for convicted murderers to appeal.After all,as Americans,what kind of example are we showing to the rest of the world?With out tougher DP laws the US will continue to become more attractive to every type of criminal from every part of the world.And believe me they're already here.
Our country harbors more international criminals than any other country.We not only have our own home grown murderers,but are now importing all kinds from all over the world.
In general,I feel the world would be a much better place if the DP was exercised quickly and that we enforce stronger restrictions for convicted murderers to appeal. Case closed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2006 4:05:19 GMT -6
the I'm strongly against the death penalty because: - it's cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is murder, planned from the long hand only legalised by the jurisprudence.
- the question about life and death can only be answered by God himself.
- it's irreversable. There's no chance to revise a mistake.
- it's against the basic rules of human rights. The right to live, for example.
- it's paradox to explain people that killing is wrong by killing another.
- it's dump revenge.
- it's easier to execute someone than putting down the circumstances which lead to the murder.
I am strongly pro death penalty because: * it's not cruel but just punishment. For some people even life sentence is cruel. So what, pardon the murderers? * the question of life and death cannot be left to the hands of God only. People fight to protect their lives from the killers and they are right to do so. * the wrong medical operation can be also irreversable. And the cases are far more than the court mistakes. Shall we ban surgery or let any potential murderer go for the lives of numberless victims? * the right to live should apply only to those who respect life. Have the convicts full civil rights or not? * it's no paradox to explain the killing of the killers. It's paradox to explain why they should to given the possibility to kill again. * it's no dump revenge. The killer has all the chances in court which his victim had not. * the explanation of the circumstances does not redeem the murderers less than the cases with the rapers or robbers.
|
|
|
Post by nydesha on Feb 25, 2006 8:29:27 GMT -6
I am absolutely for the death penalty. A murderer can't kill again from the grave, and it brings closure to the victim's families. Timmothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Danny Rolling, Bin Laden are perfect reasons why we need the death penalty to name a few!!! Your list is incomplete. You forgot Bush. Let's face the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Feb 25, 2006 18:07:25 GMT -6
You should list ted kennedy. Let us not forget mary jo kapechne...
|
|
|
Post by sweethonesty on Feb 25, 2006 18:13:11 GMT -6
Wow who dug up this old Thread lol its like 2 years old lol
|
|
|
Post by muddy22193 on Feb 25, 2006 18:25:59 GMT -6
I am absolutely for the death penalty. A murderer can't kill again from the grave, and it brings closure to the victim's families. Timmothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Danny Rolling, Bin Laden are perfect reasons why we need the death penalty to name a few!!! Your list is incomplete. You forgot Bush. Let's face the facts. Just curious? How does Bush make this list of yours?
|
|
|
Post by sweethonesty on Feb 25, 2006 18:29:50 GMT -6
I am absolutely for the death penalty. A murderer can't kill again from the grave, and it brings closure to the victim's families. Timmothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Danny Rolling, Bin Laden are perfect reasons why we need the death penalty to name a few!!! Your list is incomplete. You forgot Bush. Let's face the facts. exactly who has President Bush Killed? If your going to state the facts, you need back up or proof, i will wait for your proof on your next post.
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Feb 25, 2006 18:50:27 GMT -6
Your list is incomplete. You forgot Bush. Let's face the facts. exactly who has President Bush Killed? If your going to state the facts, you need back up or proof, i will wait for your proof on your next post. Exactly Gwen
|
|