Death Penalty DNA testing

[sgtmac_46]

"An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight,"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10823771/

This according to Roger Keith Coleman, just before his 1992 execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law. Anti-Death penalty activists had hoped this would be the case that would show an innocent man was executed. Apparently they put a little too much stock in his last words. According to DNA testing, he was absolutely guilty as charged.

Well, we have now learned that rapists and murderers....are also liars. Some of us already knew this, but others, I guess, are a little more gullible.

 

[michaeledward]

If similar tests were possible for every one of the more than one thousand people executed since the re-institution of the death penalty, are you confident that there would be zero positive results?

It does not follow that because a person is a rapist they are a liar.
It does not follow that because a person is a murderer they are a liar.

I do believe this, if a criminal was holding a gun to my head, threatening my life, I would lie like Joe Isuzu to try and prevent the criminal from firing the weapon. Does it surprise you that someone under threat of death by the state would behave in a similar manner?

I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I welcome the results of this test. It is bad enough that the state takes a life. It is comforting that the state did not take an innocent life.

 

[shesulsa]

sgtmac, surely ... SURELY ... you're not saying that every person on death row deserves to die? SURELY you're not saying our justice system is infallible? SURELY you're not saying there hasn't been a single convict executed wrongly?

Oh please resurrect my hopes that you are indeed a sensible person and do say you REALLY ... DON'T ... THINK ... THAT....

 

[jdinca]

What got me the most was the comment that the anti-death penalty group felt "betrayed" by a convicted felon on death row.

 

[michaeledward]

Heard an interview from the producer of this movie on the radio today. Currently showing only in Los Angeles. Look for wider distribution in upcoming weeks.

http://www.afterinnocence.com/

 

[Ray]

I do believe this, if a criminal was holding a gun to my head, threatening my life, I would lie like Joe Isuzu to try and prevent the criminal from firing the weapon. Does it surprise you that someone under threat of death by the state would behave in a similar manner?

No criminal would be holding a gun to your head; only a person persumed innocent until a trial and appeals.

Unless you mean a person who has already been convicted of something...in which case he would be happy to hear that you're totally opposed to the death penalty...I don't know if that would help mitigate the sentancing phase "Yes, your honor, my client shot him in the head; but the deceased was strongly opposed to the death penalty and we should give my client life in prison as a tribute to the humanity reflected in deceased's wishes."

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.

 

[michaeledward]

No criminal would be holding a gun to your head; only a person persumed innocent until a trial and appeals.

You, of course, Ray, are correct.

And you would, I presume, in a similiar situation, would be a paragon of virtue and tell the innocent man with a gun pointed at your head the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... right?

 

[michaeledward]

I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.

Please see the last paragraph of my first post in this thread ...

here, I'll help

I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I welcome the results of this test.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Why do you always seem to think that statements are directed at you? If I were talking TO YOU I would say so.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that DNA testing and personal feelings about the use of the death penalty are two different issues.

DNA testing is a tool. It can prove, or disprove, guilt. DNA testing should be used to test old cases to make sure people who are now on death row are not there erroneously. As Michaeledward stated, it is comforting to know that an innocent life was not executed. But this can go both ways. Whether or not you believe ANYONE should ever be executed is a different matter.

When my wife was a law student, she worked as an intern with the Innocence Project in New York. This is an organization that represents convicts on death row and pushes to get DNA testing done on the rape kits and other evidence, since this tool was not available 20 years ago when many of these people were found guilty. They often have to battle with the police dept. that has the evidence in storage, just to get access to it. These departments often do not want to dig up the old evidence, and actively stall and attempt to avoid the issue.

The DNA test costs several thousand dollars to do. This cost is carried by the inmate. Many of these inmates have been incarcerated for many years, and have few assets, and few friends and family members who have stood by them all this time who would be able and willing to pay the bill. This fact alone means that often the test is not done.

Before the test is done, the inmates are told very clearly that if they are guilty of the crime, the test will absolutely doom them. All doubt will be removed.

My wife told me a story about a convict who convinced a worker that he was innocent, but he did not have the money for the test. The worker footed the bill for the test. Guess what? He was guilty. He scammed her and there is no way this worker will be able to recover the money from him, because he has none. It happens, people are sometimes gullible.

After my wife was finished working at the Project, she got word that one of the cases she had worked on finally got his DNA test done. The man was in fact innocent, after spending some 18 years in prison. He is now free. Like I said before, DNA testing is a tool, and the results can go both ways. I don't see this as any reason for anyone to gloat, one way or the other.

 

[michaeledward]

I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.

Why do you always seem to think that statements are directed at you? If I were talking TO YOU I would say so.

Gee ... I guess I just identified with those you call the "anti-death penalty crowd". And maybe, "People" are interested in making certain innocent people are not put in jail, or put to death.

And, if you don't want to talk TO ME, you can certainly add me to your IGNORE LIST. I promise, I won't be offended.


oh, and did I mention this ... www.afterinnocence.com

 

[Flying Crane]

I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt?

The thing is, DNA testing IS a reliable way to prove guilt, or innocence, whatever it may be. It is not a political tool that favors one side or the other. It is a reliable tool that should be used in the legal process, in determining guilt or innocence. It should also be used to examine old cases where there may be some question about guilt, even if the convicted individual has already been executed. It makes sense to double-check our legal systems, whether it means uncovering some errors or reinforcing decisions that were made. We just need to be willing and ready to face the situation if any horrible mistakes are uncovered. I don't have the answers to what that would mean, but it is important to do it. In addition to possibly uncovering mistakes, it may also shed light on fundamental problems with our legal system as a whole. It is all really about making the system as fair, unbiased, and even-handed as possible.

The Anti Death Penalty side has a valid point: Mistakes are made, and innocent people are sitting on Death Row, and innocent people have probably been executed. DNA testing can help shed light on this situation and may ultimatly lead to a reconsideration of the Death Penalty laws.

The Pro Death Penalty people have a valid point: DNA testing has confirmed the guilt of some convicted individuals, and maybe there are fewer mistakes than some people assume.

The morality of the Death Penalty is a different topic for discussion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac, surely ... SURELY ... you're not saying that every person on death row deserves to die? SURELY you're not saying our justice system is infallible? SURELY you're not saying there hasn't been a single convict executed wrongly?

Oh please resurrect my hopes that you are indeed a sensible person and do say you REALLY ... DON'T ... THINK ... THAT....

I think I just said this one surely did exactly what he denied doing, despite the gullible pleas of 'innocence' among his supporters. If an innocent man has been executed in the US in the last 30 years, name him and i'll concede your point.

 

[sgtmac_46]

If similar tests were possible for every one of the more than one thousand people executed since the re-institution of the death penalty, are you confident that there would be zero positive results?

Confidence is irrelavent. I'm from Missouri...Show me.

It does not follow that because a person is a rapist they are a liar.
It does not follow that because a person is a murderer they are a liar.

:rofl: Hahahahaha!

I do believe this, if a criminal was holding a gun to my head, threatening my life, I would lie like Joe Isuzu to try and prevent the criminal from firing the weapon. Does it surprise you that someone under threat of death by the state would behave in a similar manner?

Does it surprise me that a man who would rape and murder an innocent woman, to get his jollies, would then lie about it? No.

I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I welcome the results of this test. It is bad enough that the state takes a life. It is comforting that the state did not take an innocent life.

I never believed the guy to begin with, this really did nothing but confirm what I already believed.....that a vicious troll died that day, and the world's a better place for it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You, of course, Ray, are correct.

And you would, I presume, in a similiar situation, would be a paragon of virtue and tell the innocent man with a gun pointed at your head the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... right?

Well, it's an interesting point.....until we realize the 'lie' is about a rape and murder of a young woman.

 

[shesulsa]

If an innocent man has been executed in the US in the last 30 years, name him and i'll concede your point.

Well, let's start here - and I'll forgive your lackadaisical use of the word "man" because you're you:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Lots of "likely", "possibles" and "probables" there. I think your missing his point.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, let's start here - and I'll forgive your lackadaisical use of the word "man" because you're you:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

A bit of a dodge there. You have yet to name anyone who has been executed in this country for a crime they did not commit in the last 30 years. Why? Because you can't. Listing websites of both dubious intent and even more dubious facts don't really make your case.

I'll see if I can sum up the argument being used to it's most concise form...'It could have happened, so it MUST have happened'. That's a bit of a logical fallacy.

 

[shesulsa]

hmmm....

Leo Jones
Leo Jones, convicted of killing policeman Thomas J. Szafranski on May 23, 1981, was executed in Florida on March 24, 1998. Jones' conviction was based on the testimony of a police interrogator who had been forced out in 1988 after being identified by a fellow officer as a torturer. In upholding Jones' conviction and sentence, Florida's appellate system refused to take into consideration the following.
First, at the time of the shooting, witnesses reported seeing another man running down an alley near the crime scene with a rifle in his hands. These witnesses did not immediately tell the police what they saw, fearing the rifleman's reputation for violence.
On the day after the shooting, the man with the rifle asked his girlfriend to lie to police and provide him with an alibi for the previous night. Neither the testimony of the eyewitnesses nor that of the rifleman's girlfriend was presented at Jones' trial.
Very soon after the killing took place, police searched Jones' apartment, finding him and a friend with some rifles that could have fired the shots that killed Officer Szafranski. Feeling that they needed more evidence to connect Jones and his friend to this crime, the arresting officers proceeded to beat them continually. They beat Jones and threatened to kill him until he gave them a two-line confession. They beat Jones' friend to the extent that he was "barely recognizable." He too gave the confession that the police wanted. They were then taken to a hospital.
The man who was seen running with the rifle later openly admitted to family members, friends, and fellow inmates that he killed Officer Szafranski.

Is this one a "probably?"

Baldwin was convicted of the murder of an elderly woman in 1978. After the trial his lawyers found a hotel receipt proving he was hundreds of miles away in another state on the night of the murder. The prosecution promptly claimed that he had driven to the hotel in order to establish an alibi and then returned to Louisiana to commit the murder.

... and this one?

Baldwin was convicted by an all-white jury. Prosecutors excluded Black jurors, and black residents of the county said that the white population was committed to Baldwin's conviction before the trial was held. The judge, the prosecutor and Baldwin's own court-appointed attorney used racially derogatory language during the trial. A man who was a sheriff's deputy at the time swore in a statement shortly before the execution that Baldwin had been beaten and tortured into a confession by white officers. Prosecutors shifted their theory of the murder. Baldwin's codefendant, executed for the crime in 1996, stated that Baldwin wasn't present at, nor had any knowledge of, the murder. This statement was corroborated by physical evidence. The trial transcript was defective, inhibiting Baldwin's appeals. The trial defense was not granted funding for investigation.

Probablys and possiblys and maybes are not my job to prove one way or the other, it is the job of lawyers to introduce and juries to make accurate decisions on. Their failings are not mine. Legalese is not my fault. Read the ****.

If your philosophy is "kill them all and let God sort them out" then that's your problem, not mine.