|
Post by grandma on Oct 8, 2007 8:53:38 GMT -6
Going to Court, but Not in Time to Live
By ADAM LIPTAK Published: October 8, 2007
Let us consider the arithmetic of death.
Sidebar
There are nine justices on the Supreme Court. It takes four votes for the court to agree to hear a case. But it takes five votes to stay an execution.
It is possible, then, for a death row inmate to persuade the court that his case is so important that it deserves a place on the court’s tiny docket of roughly 80 cases a year — but not so important that he should be allowed to stay alive in the meantime.
Consider the case of Luther J. Williams, who was put to death on Aug. 23 in Alabama. Four justices had voted to stay the execution.
Mr. Williams’s appeal included a challenge to the constitutionality of the chemicals used in lethal injections, which have the potential to cause excruciating torture if administered improperly. A month after his execution, the court agreed to hear that question in another case.
“They knew they were going to consider the issue and let a man die,” Joel L. Sogol, who represented Mr. Williams, said of the justices. “May he haunt their nights for the rest of their lives.”
Mr. Sogol acknowledged that smart lawyers could distinguish between the two cases, but he said the central issue was the same. In any event, he said, he got four votes for a stay, which suggested he would have had four votes to hear the case had his client lived.
Since the Supreme Court accepted the new lethal-injection case last month, even the most pro-execution states seem to have begun an informal death-penalty moratorium. But Mr. Sogol said he was so angry he could not bear to read about those developments.
“It doesn’t make any sense to me that an issue is important enough that there are four votes to take it up,” he said, “but let’s execute him anyway.”
Last Monday, in terse legalese, the court denied Mr. Williams’s now posthumous request that it consider his case. “The petition,” the docket entry said, “is dismissed as moot.” Moot, in other words, because the petitioner is dead.
Supreme Court math used to yield different results. As Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote in a 1986 decision, “the court has ordinarily stayed executions when four members have voted” to hear an appeal.
But Justice Powell, who was in those days often the swing vote, grew testy about the practice. It “illustrates how easily the system is manipulated in capital cases,” he wrote to the other justices after providing the fifth vote for a stay as a courtesy in a 1985 case.
By 1990, things had changed. “For the first time in recent memory,” Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote, “a man will be executed after the court has decided to hear his claim.” The man was James E. Smith, and he was put to death in Texas the day the stay was denied.
At his Supreme Court confirmation hearing two years ago, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was asked what he would do “if you had four other justices now voting for a stay of execution?”
“Do you feel, as chief, you should do the courtesy,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, asked, “and kick in the fifth one?”
“I don’t want to commit to pursue a particular practice,” Judge Roberts said. “But it obviously makes great sense.”
“You don’t want to moot the case by not staying the sentence,” he added.
The available information is sketchy, and the court seldom issues explanations for why it declines to hear cases or issue stays. But it does not seem that Chief Justice Roberts has consistently adopted the practice he had tentatively endorsed.
Last Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens issued an unusual statement in the case of Christopher S. Emmett. The court had been set to consider Mr. Emmett’s appeal on Sept. 24 after returning from its summer break. “Nevertheless,” Justice Stevens wrote, “Virginia set an execution date of June 13.”
Four justices voted in favor of a last-minute stay of execution, but that was not enough. Two hours before Mr. Emmett was to die, Virginia’s governor, Tim Kaine, a Democrat, stepped in to do what the court would not.
“Basic fairness demands that condemned inmates be allowed the opportunity to complete legal appeals prior to execution,” Mr. Kaine said in a statement. “The irreversibility of an execution and the fact that four justices of the court believe a stay is needed to consider the appeal warrant my intervention in this case.”
In the end, the court turned down Mr. Emmett’s appeal, which had been based on a claim of ineffective counsel. He is now scheduled to be executed in October, and his lawyers are working on a stay or reprieve based on the lethal-injection case.
Justice Stevens drew a lesson from the experience. Both justice and efficiency would be served, he wrote, by routinely staying all executions until the court can hear a condemned inmate’s first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That would “accord death row inmates the same, rather than lesser, procedural safeguards as ordinary litigants.”
Justice Stevens said he hoped a majority of the court would “eventually endorse” his thinking. But only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his statement.
New York Times
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 8, 2007 11:00:21 GMT -6
The decision to hear an appeal, but not stay an execution, can only mean one thing -- the issue isn't important.
I have to agree with the justices that feel that way. These DR appeals are all frivolous, borne, as they are, of desperation and not of any legitimate concern for the law.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Oct 8, 2007 18:37:40 GMT -6
Yet another anti whiner. Ho-hum. Workaday.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 9, 2007 13:12:07 GMT -6
There are nine justices on the Supreme Court. It takes four votes for the court to agree to hear a case. But it takes five votes to stay an execution.
can't get a much better rule than that. if the majority doesn't vote for a stay, there shouldn't be one. thust the idea of a courtesy vote is stupid on it's face
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Oct 19, 2007 12:18:02 GMT -6
Let us consider the arithmetic of death. OK, 1 pos plus X victim(s) divided by 12 jurors, carry the 1 judge, times 5-.30-30 rounds plus 17 feet, divided into 1 heart equals a 100%, 0 recidivism rate and a little bit better world
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 19, 2007 17:50:25 GMT -6
Let us consider the arithmetic of death. OK, 1 pos plus X victim(s) divided by 12 jurors, carry the 1 judge, times 5-.30-30 rounds plus 17 feet, divided into 1 heart equals a 100%, 0 recidivism rate and a little bit better world the math is flawless
|
|
|
Post by crappieboy on Nov 12, 2007 6:38:40 GMT -6
After waiting more than a decade for justice, closure, peace, whatever you want to call it - I'm no longer impressed with the circuit courts, the state supreme court, nor the United States Supreme Court, all of them witnessed up close. When it takes decades to carry out a punishment that is decided repeatedly by a jury, then undone by an appeal on techincalities having nothing to do with the crime itself, it is insulting to the deceased, the victim's family, friends and most of all the jury that made the decision for death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 10:51:14 GMT -6
Ditto, well said.......
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 20, 2009 22:54:48 GMT -6
There are nine justices on the Supreme Court. It takes four votes for the court to agree to hear a case. But it takes five votes to stay an execution. How many votes does it take to stay a murder?
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 4, 2009 7:34:09 GMT -6
Let us consider the arithmetic of death. OK, 1 pos plus X victim(s) divided by 12 jurors, carry the 1 judge, times 5-.30-30 rounds plus 17 feet, divided into 1 heart equals a 100%, 0 recidivism rate and a little bit better world Couldnt agree more
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 4, 2009 21:28:53 GMT -6
The decision to hear an appeal, but not stay an execution, can only mean one thing -- the issue isn't important. I have to agree with the justices that feel that way. These DR appeals are all frivolous, borne, as they are, of desperation and not of any legitimate concern for the law. To say that all DR appeals are frivolous is absolute nonsense. Case in point: Ron Williamson was within 5 days of an execution before a routine habeas corpus appeal began a process that would eventually prove that he was innocent.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 4, 2009 21:31:35 GMT -6
Let us consider the arithmetic of death. OK, 1 pos plus X victim(s) divided by 12 jurors, carry the 1 judge, times 5-.30-30 rounds plus 17 feet, divided into 1 heart equals a 100%, 0 recidivism rate and a little bit better world Numbers don't lie.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 4, 2009 22:32:03 GMT -6
To say that all DR appeals are frivolous is absolute nonsense. Case in point: Ron Williamson was within 5 days of an execution before a routine habeas corpus appeal began a process that would eventually prove that he was innocent. OK, so you've actually read hundreds of DR appeals, like me? I think not. If you did, you'd know they're frivolous. And Ron Williamson's "innocence" has yet to be established. It's beside the point, anyway. Perfect justice isn't possible or desirable.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 5, 2009 2:44:37 GMT -6
To say that all DR appeals are frivolous is absolute nonsense. Case in point: Ron Williamson was within 5 days of an execution before a routine habeas corpus appeal began a process that would eventually prove that he was innocent. OK, so you've actually read hundreds of DR appeals, like me? I think not. If you did, you'd know they're frivolous. And Ron Williamson's "innocence" has yet to be established. It's beside the point, anyway. Perfect justice isn't possible or desirable. And your last line concedes the point made, you silly pillock! For gawds sake! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 5, 2009 21:06:15 GMT -6
To say that all DR appeals are frivolous is absolute nonsense. Case in point: Ron Williamson was within 5 days of an execution before a routine habeas corpus appeal began a process that would eventually prove that he was innocent. OK, so you've actually read hundreds of DR appeals, like me? I think not. If you did, you'd know they're frivolous. And Ron Williamson's "innocence" has yet to be established. It's beside the point, anyway. Perfect justice isn't possible or desirable. Wrong! Innocence yet to be established? You just made a mistake. Since you are apparently clueless about the case, allow me to fill you in. DNA evidence offically exonerated Ron Williamson. You do know what the meaning of exonerated is, right? You can read all about the case in the book "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. The point is that without routine, and frivolous according to you, appeals from DR, an innocent man would have been executed. Granted, a large number of dr appeals are frivolous. However, to say that all appeals are frivolous is an exercise in lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2009 8:55:01 GMT -6
You do know what the meaning of exonerated is, right? Yes it means a court disagrees with a jury verdict. It's not exculpation. You can read all about the case in the book "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. Right. A fiction writer, like Norman Mailer. The point is that without routine, and frivolous according to you, appeals from DR, an innocent man would have been executed. The innocent are going to be executed either way. Granted, a large number of dr appeals are frivolous. However, to say that all appeals are frivolous is an exercise in lunacy. Ninety nine percent of them are, which is plenty of justification to streamline the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 10:21:59 GMT -6
OK, so you've actually read hundreds of DR appeals, like me? I think not. If you did, you'd know they're frivolous. And Ron Williamson's "innocence" has yet to be established. It's beside the point, anyway. Perfect justice isn't possible or desirable. Wrong! Innocence yet to be established? You just made a mistake. Since you are apparently clueless about the case, allow me to fill you in. DNA evidence offically exonerated Ron Williamson. You do know what the meaning of exonerated is, right? You can read all about the case in the book "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. The point is that without routine, and frivolous according to you, appeals from DR, an innocent man would have been executed. Granted, a large number of dr appeals are frivolous. However, to say that all appeals are frivolous is an exercise in lunacy. From my perspective, Joe is right. We're so interested in exonerating ourselves from guilt that we're killing our own death machine. Pros, who want to get it right every single time and need to pretend like it's virtually impossible to execute an innocent oughtn't support the system at all, since it's virtually impossible the system will always get it right. Nothing man-made and man-managed can ever be perfect. But, let's do keep trying. Such an attitude sucks the life out of any human endeavor. Mistakes happen. Either we suck it up and acknowledge that, or end the process altogether. Instead, we've got a jury system that we trust will get it right, only we don't trust they'll get it right, so we have umpteen years of appeals upon appeals ~ because, of course, death is different ~ and then maybe if you're very unlucky and you haven't died of old age, we'll off you and be damned proud of our sureness and of your guilt. And, all the while, sooner or later, odds are in favor of executing an innocent ~ if we haven't already ~ and we'll be guilty of executing an innocent.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 6, 2009 21:41:18 GMT -6
You do know what the meaning of exonerated is, right? Yes it means a court disagrees with a jury verdict. It's not exculpation. Right. A fiction writer, like Norman Mailer. The innocent are going to be executed either way. Granted, a large number of dr appeals are frivolous. However, to say that all appeals are frivolous is an exercise in lunacy. Ninety nine percent of them are, which is plenty of justification to streamline the process. First, the book is nonfiction. An innocent man was within 5 days of being executed by Oklahomia based on mainly testimony from a jailhouse snitch and bad police work. However, DNA evidence proved beyond a doubt that Williamson's hair and semen were not on the victim, which means Williamson had nothing to do with the murder. And you still want to tell me his appeals were frivolous? Hypothetically, if you were arrested for a murder you didn't commit, are you telling me your appeals are frivolous? Bottom line is I only needed one example to destroy your position that all are frivolous. By your own words you put the percentage at 99% (which might be high). However, that is not 100% and it is not ALL. Had you simply used 'most' instead of 'all', I would be in complete agreement. However, the point is, and even by your own admission, you cannot say that all dr appeals are frivolous. You also said that "the innocent are going to be executed either way". Posting 36, 000+ times has warped your brain. Please provide one example where an innocent was executed. Take your time.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 6, 2009 21:51:38 GMT -6
Wrong! Innocence yet to be established? You just made a mistake. Since you are apparently clueless about the case, allow me to fill you in. DNA evidence offically exonerated Ron Williamson. You do know what the meaning of exonerated is, right? You can read all about the case in the book "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. The point is that without routine, and frivolous according to you, appeals from DR, an innocent man would have been executed. Granted, a large number of dr appeals are frivolous. However, to say that all appeals are frivolous is an exercise in lunacy. From my perspective, Joe is right. We're so interested in exonerating ourselves from guilt that we're killing our own death machine. Pros, who want to get it right every single time and need to pretend like it's virtually impossible to execute an innocent oughtn't support the system at all, since it's virtually impossible the system will always get it right. Nothing man-made and man-managed can ever be perfect. But, let's do keep trying. Such an attitude sucks the life out of any human endeavor. Mistakes happen. Either we suck it up and acknowledge that, or end the process altogether. Instead, we've got a jury system that we trust will get it right, only we don't trust they'll get it right, so we have umpteen years of appeals upon appeals ~ because, of course, death is different ~ and then maybe if you're very unlucky and you haven't died of old age, we'll off you and be damned proud of our sureness and of your guilt. And, all the while, sooner or later, odds are in favor of executing an innocent ~ if we haven't already ~ and we'll be guilty of executing an innocent. You missed the point entirely. Joe said that ALL dr appeals are frivolous. However, I cited one case where the exact opposite was true. Some dr appeals do in fact, as in the case of Williamson, raise issues that need to be addressed. It is in this process that prevents an innocent from being executed. Given the fact that the U.S. hasn't executed one innoncent person, the jury and the appeal system must be working.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 23:33:38 GMT -6
From my perspective, Joe is right. We're so interested in exonerating ourselves from guilt that we're killing our own death machine. Pros, who want to get it right every single time and need to pretend like it's virtually impossible to execute an innocent oughtn't support the system at all, since it's virtually impossible the system will always get it right. Nothing man-made and man-managed can ever be perfect. But, let's do keep trying. Such an attitude sucks the life out of any human endeavor. Mistakes happen. Either we suck it up and acknowledge that, or end the process altogether. Instead, we've got a jury system that we trust will get it right, only we don't trust they'll get it right, so we have umpteen years of appeals upon appeals ~ because, of course, death is different ~ and then maybe if you're very unlucky and you haven't died of old age, we'll off you and be damned proud of our sureness and of your guilt. And, all the while, sooner or later, odds are in favor of executing an innocent ~ if we haven't already ~ and we'll be guilty of executing an innocent. You missed the point entirely. Joe said that ALL dr appeals are frivolous. However, I cited one case where the exact opposite was true. Some dr appeals do in fact, as in the case of Williamson, raise issues that need to be addressed. It is in this process that prevents an innocent from being executed. Given the fact that the U.S. hasn't executed one innoncent person, the jury and the appeal system must be working. I know what the point was ~ yours and his. You cannot know (anymore than I) whether an actual innocent has been executed or will be. And, that's my point, as well as, I believe, Joe's, when he calls appeals frivolous. We're so busy making so absolutely sure because we can't stomach the thought of innocent blood on our hands that we're willing to take 10, 20, 30 years or more to get it done. To me, that seems frivolous too, since there is no way to prevent the inevitable 'oops'. And showing us an innocent who was spared by those appeals doesn't change what he's saying. Not only that, (and this is an aside) but while we're busy taking that 10, 20, 30 years or more to dole that death, we're releasing the vast majority of murderers ~ and we don't seem to have a care in the world over how much innocent blood dirties our hands over that. Far fewer innocents would be lost if we stopped appeals for those convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to die, altogether ~ and also stopped treating most murderers and other violent offenders as though they were naughty children, duly given a time out and then sent back to the playground.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 7, 2009 12:22:47 GMT -6
You missed the point entirely. Joe said that ALL dr appeals are frivolous. However, I cited one case where the exact opposite was true. Some dr appeals do in fact, as in the case of Williamson, raise issues that need to be addressed. It is in this process that prevents an innocent from being executed. Given the fact that the U.S. hasn't executed one innoncent person, the jury and the appeal system must be working. I know what the point was ~ yours and his. You cannot know (anymore than I) whether an actual innocent has been executed or will be. And, that's my point, as well as, I believe, Joe's, when he calls appeals frivolous. We're so busy making so absolutely sure because we can't stomach the thought of innocent blood on our hands that we're willing to take 10, 20, 30 years or more to get it done. To me, that seems frivolous too, since there is no way to prevent the inevitable 'oops'. And showing us an innocent who was spared by those appeals doesn't change what he's saying. Not only that, (and this is an aside) but while we're busy taking that 10, 20, 30 years or more to dole that death, we're releasing the vast majority of murderers ~ and we don't seem to have a care in the world over how much innocent blood dirties our hands over that. Far fewer innocents would be lost if we stopped appeals for those convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to die, altogether ~ and also stopped treating most murderers and other violent offenders as though they were naughty children, duly given a time out and then sent back to the playground. I am not certain how you can still say appeals are frivolous when I just showed an example - one of many I could cite- where an appeal set an innocent person free. How is that frivolous? So you want to do away with appeals for convicted murderers? Have you totally lost your mind? Why not elminate appeals all together? I suppose you would be bold enough to tell me if, for example, a prosecutor intentionally violates Brady Vs Maryland, the defendant is not entittled to appeal his sentence? I respectfully submit that appeals are needed to correct any potential errors in trial, which the principle that the U.S. Justice system works. I will grant that some, but not all, of the gangplank appeals are frivolous. However, as I pointed out, there are a number of valid claims.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 21, 2009 9:30:16 GMT -6
You cannot know (anymore than I) whether an actual innocent has been executed or will be. But we do know that scores of innocent people have been killed by murderers who were not executed after their first murder convictions. We also know that such murders of innocents continue. Thus, this whole debate about the accidental execution of innocents is pointless. Anybody who is truly concerned about the killing of innocents can do many things that would be much more fruitful than opposing the death penalty for murder.
|
|