Good news/Bad news

[Donut]

Good news

The conviction of George Kelly for the murder of a cinema manager during a bungled robbery has been overturned because of the discovery of a document that proved that a key prosecution had lied in court.

A criminal, Robert Graham, had told the court that Kelly had confessed to him that he had committed the murder. A document has now been found that shows that Graham had in fact approached the Police two months earlier to implicate another man, Donald Johnston.

Bad News

We hung George Kelly in 1950.

[Barry the Sprout]

You win some, you lose some.

Ah, who am I kidding. To be honest this doesn't change my opinion on the issue. Even if we had conclusive proof that everyone we executed was guilty I still wouldn't want to have the state kill people.

[Timber Loftis]

When there is conclusive proof I'm fine with the state murdering folks -- if the crime is one that rises to that level, which IMO would would be murder at the least.

But, this mistake, as with so many here in the US, is the exact reason I am against the death penalty. The state, as any of us, should never take remedial or punitive action against someone when that action has ultimate consequences and no no way to right mistakes.

[Davros]

I am pretty much in total agreement with you TL - the one snag being how do you legally define conclusive proof. Some idiot runs amok in a shopping mall and shoots 20 people in front of hundreds of witnesses. They tear the gun out of his demented hand - yup - here is somthing that I can support the death penalty for. People absolutely caught in the act. Whenever it gets down to testimonies and "balance of evidence" and someone's sworn word, then the chances of making a mistake start to elevate unacceptably. For the case that Donut has highlighted - ya can't just say sorry afterwards and believe that makes it all better. Does 99% of correct rulings validate the 1-2% of mistakes?

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: When there is conclusive proof I'm fine with the state murdering folks -- if the crime is one that rises to that level, which IMO would would be murder at the least.

I understand Timber, but for me justice should not be based on deserving a punishment. I'm not a big fan of procedural justice in general frankly, which makes me somewhat of a radical. But hey, whats new.

from a strictly mathematical perspective, I think a 1% or 2% error rate is not too shabby...sucks to be you when you are that one to two percent. Punishments should be equally harsh for anyone who perjurs himself, lies, falsifies evidence or in any other way leads to the death of the wrong person.

But then we all know Im a murderous old coot who will kill ya dead merely for breaking into my house [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

The problem is responsibility. If you do a wrong to someone, you should pay the price. That is the justification for the death penalty altogether. 99% right is NOT ENOUGH to kill someone when you can jail all 100 for life and let the 1 innocent one out when you find out you are wrong. Maybe 99.99% is enough. Personally, I think 1 in 10,000 wrong is acceptable (just barely -- this is LIFE, after all) -- but that is only MY opinion.

But, to ensure prosecutors have REAL REASON when they go for the death penalty, I say we put them on the hook. If a prosecutor (or the boss ordering that the death penalty be sought), is willing to sign a "Life Waiver" then I would truly support the death penalty. That way, when we find out Joe Somebody was killed wrongly, we can go back to the "Life Waiver" and execute that person for the wrong done to Mr. Somebody.

This serves the dual purpose of (1) putting someone on the hook for the wrong and (2) making damn sure prosecutors don't get overzealous. BTW, just so you know, prosecutors are *supposed* to have a different set of elevated ethical rules, and "zealous representation" is specifically NOT their job. They ignore this by and large of course and these days they seek media cases and all sorts of other cases to put medals on their lapels.

So, if no one is willing to sing the "Life Waiver" then that means we shouldn't be seeking the death penalty in the first instance -- jail the guy for life instead. If you can't find a prosecutor willing to say "I'd stake my life on it" then you can't say "we should take a life for it."

Well, that's my "Solve the Problem" system. Radical, I know. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The problem is responsibility. If you do a wrong to someone, you should pay the price. That is the justification for the death penalty altogether. 99% right is NOT ENOUGH to kill someone when you can jail all 100 for life and let the 1 innocent one out when you find out you are wrong. Maybe 99.99% is enough. Personally, I think 1 in 10,000 wrong is acceptable (just barely -- this is LIFE, after all) -- but that is only MY opinion. But, to ensure prosecutors have REAL REASON when they go for the death penalty, I say we put them on the hook. If a prosecutor (or the boss ordering that the death penalty be sought), is willing to sign a "Life Waiver" then I would truly support the death penalty. That way, when we find out Joe Somebody was killed wrongly, we can go back to the "Life Waiver" and execute that person for the wrong done to Mr. Somebody. This serves the dual purpose of (1) putting someone on the hook for the wrong and (2) making damn sure prosecutors don't get overzealous. BTW, just so you know, prosecutors are *supposed* to have a different set of elevated ethical rules, and "zealous representation" is specifically NOT their job. They ignore this by and large of course and these days they seek media cases and all sorts of other cases to put medals on their lapels. So, if no one is willing to sing the "Life Waiver" then that means we shouldn't be seeking the death penalty in the first instance -- jail the guy for life instead. If you can't find a prosecutor willing to say "I'd stake my life on it" then you can't say "we should take a life for it." Well, that's my "Solve the Problem" system. Radical, I know. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I hate to say it, but it has to be said; what if you were right all along and after you've executed the prosecutor you have to execute the person that conducted the investigation etc. This may seem like a pretty daft point but it basically sums up my less daft and more important one. By making it ok for the state to kill people killing people becomes, on at least one level, an acceptable way of resolving a problem. As a result I'd rather not live in a state that sanctions the death penalty.

[Larry_OHF]

I like what TL and MaGik have both said just above. I could say no more than that for my own feelings.

[ 06-11-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

GOOD NEWS: Theodore "Ted" Bundy (a suspect in several different murders ranging across 3 states) is finally put in jail on an unrelated offense.

BAD NEWS: After serving a two year sentence, Bundy is released from prison. Unable to control the homicidal tendencies that he has kept "bottled up" for two years, Bundy breaks into a sorority house in Florida and bludgeons 4 girls to death with a stick of firewood.

GOOD NEWS: Bundy is captured and receives the Death Penalty for his crimes. The sentence is finally carried out about 12 years later - preventing him from killing any more innocent girls.

BAD NEWS: According to Bundy himself, this sentence and punishment comes to late for as many as 100 other girls that died by his hand during the previous years. While it can be argued that his imprisonment would not have prevented the majority of these deaths....it is absolutely certain the girls in the sorority house would not have been killed if he had been kept in jail.


Volley to you, Donut. For every case of wrongful execution you produce, I can match it with another case where a convicted criminal killed again after being released from jail. I understand your viewpoint, but I feel there IS a time and place when the Death Penalty is the only acceptable and fitting punishment.

Also, our judicial system has improved dramatically since 1950. There are many more "checks and balances" in place now to prenent the execution of an innocent person. I realize the system still isn't perfect - not by any stretch of the imagination - but there are many legal obstacles that have to be overcome now before the Death Sentence can actually be carried out.