Did I miss your post that explained why execution is better for society than life in prison? Or the one that explained how it is more punishment? I’d be interested in reading a reasoned post on those issues. Or at least your thoughts.
Death Penalty
- Thread starter Thor 2
- Start date
Did I miss your post that explained why execution is better for society than life in prison? Or the one that explained how it is more punishment? I’d be interested in reading a reasoned post on those issues. Or at least your thoughts.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
DNA is not always a factor
You raise an important point. Once someone is executed, attention shifts to others on death row. Another thing to consider is that many cases do not have evidence associated with them that might yield DNA; therefore, a DNA-based exoneration is not possible. On the other hand, there have been a few exonerations not based on DNA. There is a mostly forgotten murder case from Illinois the 1950s, although it did end up at the Supreme Court (Miller v. Pate). Lloyd Eldon Miller was very nearly executed on the bases of a false confession and faulty forensic evidence. There are a couple of books on this case, one by Mr. Miller himself.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
An interesting case I just recently saw was a documentary on HBO concerning that very thing (lack of DNA evidence) and that was the Starved Rock murders.
I'm not going to rehash the whole case again, but basically the only DNA evidence in that case was destroyed when they put the clothes of the victims in together with the defendant's clothes.
Chester Weger actually avoided the DP because the jury (one of jurors even explained that in the doc) wasn't totally convinced of his guilt (the evidence was enough to get it past reasonable doubt though) and they decided to give him life so that he'd have a chance to prove his innocence.
The twist was that someone realized there was more evidence that could be tested for DNA, and that was the hairs that they had found clutched in one of the victim's hands.
The doc ended with an announcement that results of that DNA test would be revealed in 2022.
If you ever get the chance, you should watch this documentary. It was actually filmed by the original prosecutor's son.
He thinks the defendant might be innocent also, but he believes that he knows more about the case than he's admitting.
(BTW, Weger's over 60 and out on compassionate release IIRC)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16304360/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Weger
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
bloody fingerprints
Mr. Weger claimed that he confessed under duress, partially from being threatened with electrocution. This piece of information relates to a point that I brought up in an earlier comment about false witness testimony or false confessions made after the alleged threat of the death penalty. Chicago Magazine has a long article in the case; there were bloody fingerprints that might have made solving the case easier, or at least might have excluded Mr. Weger. "Members of the jury later explained they chose a life sentence instead of the death penalty because they saw it as a greater punishment for an outdoorsman." An interesting point, and it would also seem as if there is some doubt as to the reasons for the jury's choice of penalty in this case.
EDT
A tweet (18 February 2020) from the Friends of Chester Weger claimed that there were eight such prints, none of which matched Mr. Weger. Bloody fingerprints are time-stamped and identity-stamped. I would like to know more about these prints. If images still existed, they could be run through the FBI's database for possible identification. One wonders what the jury might have made of the fingerprint evidence, but they never saw it.
Mr. Weger claimed that he confessed under duress, partially from being threatened with electrocution. This piece of information relates to a point that I brought up in an earlier comment about false witness testimony or false confessions made after the alleged threat of the death penalty. Chicago Magazine has a long article in the case; there were bloody fingerprints that might have made solving the case easier, or at least might have excluded Mr. Weger. "Members of the jury later explained they chose a life sentence instead of the death penalty because they saw it as a greater punishment for an outdoorsman." An interesting point, and it would also seem as if there is some doubt as to the reasons for the jury's choice of penalty in this case.
EDT
A tweet (18 February 2020) from the Friends of Chester Weger claimed that there were eight such prints, none of which matched Mr. Weger. Bloody fingerprints are time-stamped and identity-stamped. I would like to know more about these prints. If images still existed, they could be run through the FBI's database for possible identification. One wonders what the jury might have made of the fingerprint evidence, but they never saw it.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
I don't remember the bloody fingerprints being discussed in the documentary.
I don't know anything about this case. But I note that it happened in 1961, before the Gideon (1963) and Miranda (1966) decisions. Cops then didn't have to advise you of your rights or let you have a lawyer, and, practically if not legally speaking, they could keep you in a box until you confessed.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
AEDPA considered
I found a couple of articles on the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. In the 21 June 2015 issue of the New Yorker, Lincoln Caplan wrote, "A landmark Columbia Law School of virtually every state and federal death penalty appeal from 1973 to 1995 reported that 'courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period.'...Without federal habeas corpus, those serious errors would have gone unchecked. Instead of later being found not to deserve the death penalty, as in seventy-three per cent of the cases, or instead of being found innocent, as happened in nine per cent of the cases, these defendants likely would have been put to death."
In the 4 May 2016 issue of The Intercept, Liliana Segura wrote, "Barry Scheck, co-founder and head of the Innocence Project, calls AEDPA “a disaster” and “a major roadblock since its passage.” Many would like to see it repealed." There is a discussion of the Jeffrey Deskovic case within this article. AEDPA, which I mentioned in a previous comment, put a time limit on filing for habeas corpus relief and also put limits on what could be appealed. Ms. Segura wrote, "Even more profound than the strict limits and deadlines it imposed in individual cases is the way AEDPA altered the balance of power between state and federal courts, favoring finality over fairness. Under AEDPA, federal courts may only grant habeas relief if a state court ran afoul of 'clearly established federal law,' or if its ruling was rooted in 'an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.' In the oblique language of the law, this drastically raised the bar for overturning state convictions."
I would like to know whether or not supporters of the death penalty think that AEDPA was a good or bad reform and why. Along the way perhaps they could discuss some of the exonerations mentioned in this thread, in the context of how AEDPA would affect their appeals.
I found a couple of articles on the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. In the 21 June 2015 issue of the New Yorker, Lincoln Caplan wrote, "A landmark Columbia Law School of virtually every state and federal death penalty appeal from 1973 to 1995 reported that 'courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period.'...Without federal habeas corpus, those serious errors would have gone unchecked. Instead of later being found not to deserve the death penalty, as in seventy-three per cent of the cases, or instead of being found innocent, as happened in nine per cent of the cases, these defendants likely would have been put to death."
In the 4 May 2016 issue of The Intercept, Liliana Segura wrote, "Barry Scheck, co-founder and head of the Innocence Project, calls AEDPA “a disaster” and “a major roadblock since its passage.” Many would like to see it repealed." There is a discussion of the Jeffrey Deskovic case within this article. AEDPA, which I mentioned in a previous comment, put a time limit on filing for habeas corpus relief and also put limits on what could be appealed. Ms. Segura wrote, "Even more profound than the strict limits and deadlines it imposed in individual cases is the way AEDPA altered the balance of power between state and federal courts, favoring finality over fairness. Under AEDPA, federal courts may only grant habeas relief if a state court ran afoul of 'clearly established federal law,' or if its ruling was rooted in 'an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.' In the oblique language of the law, this drastically raised the bar for overturning state convictions."
I would like to know whether or not supporters of the death penalty think that AEDPA was a good or bad reform and why. Along the way perhaps they could discuss some of the exonerations mentioned in this thread, in the context of how AEDPA would affect their appeals.
Last edited:
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Protecting people from abuses perpetrated by the State is something Conservatives claim is part of their core ideology. It seems to me that if this were true they would join Liberals in preventing the State from wrongfully executing people.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
...says the person who wants to bring back the lynching of black people.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
the politics of preventing wrongful executions
EDT
Given that Habeas Corpus is in the constitution, one might imagine that strict constructionists would guard it jealously.
Indeed. I recall reading conservative Michelle Malkin's words to the effect that preventing wrongful convictions was not a liberal-only or conservative-only issue (I have not been able to locate this exact quote).
EDT
Given that Habeas Corpus is in the constitution, one might imagine that strict constructionists would guard it jealously.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
The pretty good Writ
Suppose that a similar case happened today and that the defendant were sentenced to death. Now the defense would have a much harder time using habeas corpus, owing to AEDPA.
I have not seen the documentary, but they were mentioned the the magazine article to which I linked in a previous comment. I also looked over some circa 1960 newspaper clippings that had been reposted by a group that advocates for Mr. Weger. About 500 men were asked to give fingerprints for analysis; therefore, it is a logical inference that the bloody fingermarks on the clothing, of which there were at least half a dozen, were of good enough quality for comparison. That is why I think that the defense's failure to bring them up at the trial might be an example of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Suppose that a similar case happened today and that the defendant were sentenced to death. Now the defense would have a much harder time using habeas corpus, owing to AEDPA.
Last edited:
sarge
Penultimate Amazing
I don’t recall seeing a single post to this thread that says anything about coddling criminals or mourning McVeighs passing. I suppose you could fairly describe as liberal the notion that some of our punishment resources should be devoted to reducing the risks of recidivism through rehabilitation.
The death penalty as currently practiced in the US is significantly more expensive to administer than life imprisonment and is at best no more effective a deterrent. I get the whole conservative fetish with killing bad people, but I would think you would oppose the death penalty on practical grounds. It serves no useful purpose.
So, do you think McVeigh should not have been executed?
Did you send a sympathy card?
I have already made numerous posts suggesting reform, to improve the efficiency of the process. Others have made numerous posts suggesting that in no instance is the death penalty warranted.
Last edited:
You still hear "I'd pull the lever myself!" from death penalty fans.
Yes, they probably would, after the prisoner had been immobilized by a team of guards. What a thrill.
But I wonder: If it was just the fan and the condemned man, alone and bare handed in some quiet place, how courageous would our volunteer executioner be?
I'm not wondering about anybody in particular. Did you think I was?
Yes, they probably would, after the prisoner had been immobilized by a team of guards. What a thrill.
But I wonder: If it was just the fan and the condemned man, alone and bare handed in some quiet place, how courageous would our volunteer executioner be?
I'm not wondering about anybody in particular. Did you think I was?
Venom
Philosopher
They want to be part of a vigilante mob to have a greater chance of escaping justice after the dark deed.
Suddenly
No Punting
I'm not a supporter of the death penalty.
It just seems like more and more I find a lot of the arguments against the death penalty more disquieting than arguments for same. Not all of them, obviously, or I'd not be against the death penalty. Each of the following three bugs me, but that an awful lot of people (Looking at you Elizabeth Warren) seem to hold all three is where I get twitchy.
From least to most objectionable:
1. The idea that a life without parole sentence is reversible in a way a death sentence is not seems facetious without there being an actual mechanism to actively review cases as to matters of fact. Without that, it is almost entirely an emotional balm for those that want to be wishy-washy about taking a life away. Celebrating the rare cases where by chance a wrongful conviction is overturned that wouldn't have been if the person was executed is akin to perseverance porn. What should be shocking tragedy and evidence of systemic failure gets reported in a positive "never give up hope" type light in a way that is totally counterproductive.
2. The idea that the death penalty is bad because it is expensive. That added expense is the extra layers of review and care (states having higher qualifications for death penalty counsel, etc) that goes into the conviction. That it is cheaper to lock someone away for life is evidence of a broken system more than an argument against the death penalty.
3. Life in prison with no parole is better because it is the worse punishment. It's Democratic politics in a nutshell. They can't just come out and be against the death penalty based on cruelty because they've totally capitulated as to whether being cruel is a virtue and are more arguing about the optics of cruelty. Not that cruelty itself has no place in a lawful society, and that prison should not be cruel but a way to keep people safe from those unable to control themselves; that the worst crimes are usually committed by people with profound mental problems and making them suffer for that is sadism, not justice, etc.
It's the same thinking that leads people to believe that lethal injection is less cruel than a firing squad rather than just looking/seeming less grotesque. Shooting someone in the chest with multiple rifle shots from close range exploding the heart and causing immediate unconsciousness is way less likely to lead to unspeakable agony than can a clumsy application of a three drug cocktail. All about optics.
xxx
The point being that the death penalty is in the big picture symbolic. Albeit dramatic, it is a very small portion of the cases that go through the system and account for, all in all, a very small part of the harm. Advocating against it using rhetoric that legitimizes more far reaching problems (cruelty as a virtue, cost effectiveness is important, and minimizing the practical damage caused even when things can be fixed) does more harm than good.
It just seems like more and more I find a lot of the arguments against the death penalty more disquieting than arguments for same. Not all of them, obviously, or I'd not be against the death penalty. Each of the following three bugs me, but that an awful lot of people (Looking at you Elizabeth Warren) seem to hold all three is where I get twitchy.
From least to most objectionable:
1. The idea that a life without parole sentence is reversible in a way a death sentence is not seems facetious without there being an actual mechanism to actively review cases as to matters of fact. Without that, it is almost entirely an emotional balm for those that want to be wishy-washy about taking a life away. Celebrating the rare cases where by chance a wrongful conviction is overturned that wouldn't have been if the person was executed is akin to perseverance porn. What should be shocking tragedy and evidence of systemic failure gets reported in a positive "never give up hope" type light in a way that is totally counterproductive.
2. The idea that the death penalty is bad because it is expensive. That added expense is the extra layers of review and care (states having higher qualifications for death penalty counsel, etc) that goes into the conviction. That it is cheaper to lock someone away for life is evidence of a broken system more than an argument against the death penalty.
3. Life in prison with no parole is better because it is the worse punishment. It's Democratic politics in a nutshell. They can't just come out and be against the death penalty based on cruelty because they've totally capitulated as to whether being cruel is a virtue and are more arguing about the optics of cruelty. Not that cruelty itself has no place in a lawful society, and that prison should not be cruel but a way to keep people safe from those unable to control themselves; that the worst crimes are usually committed by people with profound mental problems and making them suffer for that is sadism, not justice, etc.
It's the same thinking that leads people to believe that lethal injection is less cruel than a firing squad rather than just looking/seeming less grotesque. Shooting someone in the chest with multiple rifle shots from close range exploding the heart and causing immediate unconsciousness is way less likely to lead to unspeakable agony than can a clumsy application of a three drug cocktail. All about optics.
xxx
The point being that the death penalty is in the big picture symbolic. Albeit dramatic, it is a very small portion of the cases that go through the system and account for, all in all, a very small part of the harm. Advocating against it using rhetoric that legitimizes more far reaching problems (cruelty as a virtue, cost effectiveness is important, and minimizing the practical damage caused even when things can be fixed) does more harm than good.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
Specifics requested
You have mentioned reform on several occasions, but I don't recall seeing anything specific. Can you provide comment numbers or comment links? The following is not intended as an exhaustive list: What is your reform so that the threat of the death penalty does not induce a potential witness to lie (I mentioned this and gave an example upthread)? What is your position on AEDPA? What can be done to minimize the number of cases in which bad forensics led to an execution (Willingham and Earhart)?
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
I'm sure there must be some right wing CT that claims he wasn't really guilty ore was just protecting people. If so they are likely just as nutty as every other right wing CT group, but I'd have been more than happy keeping him in solitary confinement the rest of his life on the remote chance some new evidence comes to light.
Reforms to reduce the number of wrongly convicted would be great but that will never stop them completely and we'd still be left with the State wrongfully executing it's own citizens. Reforms are nothing more than a distraction. The real question is whether you are fine with the Government executing innocent people or are you not fine with it.