Lies of the Anti-Death Penalty movement?

[sgtmac_46]

I have been pondering for a long time why, if the anti-death penalty movement is so convinced of the innocence of those they are fighting for, such as Gary Graham, why they have to blatantly lie and distort reality to get them out of jail. A perfect example is the following:

"Gary was miles away from the grocery store with at least four people when the crime occurred. Those four witnesses have all taken polygraph tests and passed, stating Gary was with them the night."

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/factsheets/garyGraham.html

This is a distortion of unimaginable proportions. The reality is explained here:

" Isn't anybody curious as to why none of these alibi witnesses came forward in 1981, knowing that Graham's life was on the line. They have all stated that none of them came forward on their own, that it was Graham's grandmother that got them together so they could give alibi statements to say Graham was with them. Defense attorney Thornton tried to get Graham's family members and friends to come forward to testify on Graham's behalf in 1981! "

"Three of the four alibi witnesses are Graham's relatives and when asked why they did not come forward in 1981, they say "No one asked me." One of the alibi witnesses was Graham's girlfriend, Mary Brown, who later became his wife. If a relative (or lover and future spouse) of yours was on trial for murder, and you knew that they were with you the night in question, would you wait 5 years until someone asked you to come forward?"

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/graham.htm

This is but one claim made, out of many, that are outright distortions of reality. Do we really give credibility to relatives who, years after the event, suddenly decide the guy was with them that night? These folks were supporters of Grahams during the trial, they were there while he was being tried, and they didn't mention "Hey, he couldn't have done it, it was me." The only reasonable explaination is, they were all sitting around one night and decided "Hey, I know, we'll tell them he was with us."

I peruse websites on both sides of this issue, but i've found, consistently, that the anti-death penalty websites are so packed with distortions and outright lies that it insults the intelligence and boggles the mind. This is but one example, I could provide dozens upon dozens.

In short, why the need to lie if they're innocent? Are they that stupid are simply that cynical? I guess it makes a perverse kind of sense. These criminals spent their entire lives lying and victimizing others. It seems appropriate that their supporters continue to do that in their names.

 

[Brother John]

Interesting stuff you point out there man. Seriously.
But I think that a lot of people that oppose the death penalty don't do so because they think that these criminals are innocent, but because they think that putting people to death is wrong....no matter the context. I understand where they are coming form, but I disagree.

thanks for bringing this forward.

Your Brother
John

 

[arnisador]

The governor of Illinois shut down his state's death penalty a few years back over concerns of fairness that included the fact that The Death Penalty Project has shown so many on death row to be actually innocent (via DNA). I don't know much about the case in question, but I can see why people are concerned in general.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The governor of Illinois shut down his state's death penalty a few years back over concerns of fairness that included the fact that The Death Penalty Project has shown so many on death row to be actually innocent (via DNA). I don't know much about the case in question, but I can see why people are concerned in general.

Funny you should mention DNA...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10028654/

Apparently, Chuck Avery, the poster boy for "DNA innocence" has a dead woman on his hands. This time, DNA is pointing towards his guilt. 18 years ago, Chuck Avery was convicted for rape. Allegedly, "DNA proved his innocence" (I remain unconvinced as physical evidence doesn't always prove anything of the sort).

At any rate, it seems police have found a missing woman's car in Chuck's backyard. Of course Chuck's story is that the police are trying to "Frame him" (aren't they all...and OJ's still looking for the REAL killers).

It seems to me that there is an awful lot of "fudging with the truth" in the name of getting guys out of prison these days.

My issue is this....SINCE WHEN DID LYING become a perfectly acceptable way of "proving someone's innocence"?

Again, DNA evidence is an interesting thing. Defense attorney's (And I know more than a few) are awfully clever in twisting facts and evidence. Lets say a man rapes a woman, who happened to have sex with another man a day or two before, and the police do a Rape kit and collect evidence and she positively ID's the guy who raped her. The guy gets convicted, serves 18 years in prison, then his lawyer has the rape kit DNA tested. The DNA doesn't match him (Because it matches the DNA belonging to the other guy). This in no way proves that he didn't commit the rape...It ONLY proves it wasn't his DNA.

There are leaps of logic here not supported by the facts, and THAT'S what I take great issue with. I find the whole issue insulting. Every day I see people presenting what they claim is "evidence" that is clearly a sham. What I find offensive is that many people are too ignorant to see it for the obvious sham it is. It's like watching a magic trick that you know how it's done. Everyone "oohhhs and ahhhss" and you're sitting there very annoyed.

The whole thing is nothing but a shell game by some very clever law firms backed by interest groups. 18 years after the fact, it's easy to come up with a bogus claim based on "DNA evidence". All the witnesses are dead or 18 years aged, physical evidence is mothballed. I'm aware of a couple incidents where the former police stations that housed the evidence had been burned many years before.

Again, i'm not particularly impressed by the DNA shell game. The number of "innocent people" on death row is distorted, bloated, exaggerated and out right lied about by the very same people who put out websites like above. Nothing I can do to keep them from achieving their agenda, but I can point out that they are the liars they are.

Moreover, they don't even care who's innocent, as far as they are concerned it's perfectly acceptable to lie about these criminals, because their motive is "pure". I find it disturbing, though, that we're not the slightest bit concerned about whether or not the people we are allowing to go free actually committed the heinous crimes they were convicted of. How can someone sleep at night if they lied to free someone who actually DID what they were in prison for, and that person then kills others. I would find someone who did that morally culpable (even if not legally).

Oh well, I guess it's not my world, i'm just living in it.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmm.... I oppose capital punishment. I wonder if that makes me part of the 'Anti-Death Penalty movement'.

 

[mrhnau]

Hrmm.... I oppose capital punishment. I wonder if that makes me part of the 'Anti-Death Penalty movement'.

in favor of lower case punishment?

sorry, could not resist ;-)

what are your motives for opposition?

MrH

 

[heretic888]

in favor of lower case punishment?

sorry, could not resist ;-)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

what are your motives for opposition?

Well, I did a lot of my research on this subject years ago, so the details may be off and newer information may supercede what I learned then. But, to put it simply:

1) I think killing someone for social retribution against a similar action (i.e., showing killing is wrong by killing the killers) is logically inconsistent and morally hypocritical.

2) While there are unscrupulous interest groups and lobbyists that fabricate numbers as sgtmac_46 pointed out, there are still many situations in which the guilt of the criminal is in question. Once you've executed the accused, there is no "taking back".

3) There are demonstrable biases and prejudices in our current capital punishment system, with men, non-whites, and the lower classes being substantially more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crimes than members of other social groupings.

4) Capital punishment does not, contrary to popular belief, prevent or deter violent crime. There seems to be no correlation at all (whether positive or negative) between the two.

5) The process of state execution actually costs more to the public economically than life imprisonment.

6) Sometimes the guilt of the accused is not due solely of their own volition. Chemical imbalances in the brain (there was one incident documented in my psychobiology class in which a man repeatedly exposed to chemicals from his job became violent and killed a woman, but returned to 'normal' when unexposed to these chemicals for several weeks), unbearable living conditions (such as the boy that shoots and kills his alcoholic father that abuses and beats his mother and siblings), and other factors should be taken into account here.

7) In some instances, the accused can be reformed and made into constructive members of society.

That about sums up my position on the subject.

Laterz.

 

[mrhnau]

Well, I did a lot of my research on this subject years ago, so the details may be off and newer information may supercede what I learned then. But, to put it simply:

1) I think killing someone for social retribution against a similar action (i.e., showing killing is wrong by killing the killers) is logically inconsistent and morally hypocritical.

2) While there are unscrupulous interest groups and lobbyists that fabricate numbers as sgtmac_46 pointed out, there are still many situations in which the guilt of the criminal is in question. Once you've executed the accused, there is no "taking back".

3) There are demonstrable biases and prejudices in our current capital punishment system, with men, non-whites, and the lower classes being substantially more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crimes than members of other social groupings.

4) Capital punishment does not, contrary to popular belief, prevent or deter violent crime. There seems to be no correlation at all (whether positive or negative) between the two.

5) The process of state execution actually costs more to the public economically than life imprisonment.

6) Sometimes the guilt of the accused is not due solely of their own volition. Chemical imbalances in the brain (there was one incident documented in my psychobiology class in which a man repeatedly exposed to chemicals from his job became violent and killed a woman, but returned to 'normal' when unexposed to these chemicals for several weeks), unbearable living conditions (such as the boy that shoots and kills his alcoholic father that abuses and beats his mother and siblings), and other factors should be taken into account here.

7) In some instances, the accused can be reformed and made into constructive members of society.

That about sums up my position on the subject.

Laterz.

Great post.

1) logically inconsistent? How so? morally hypocritical? Based on who's moral code? I know morals codes that condone capital punishment.

2) Which is one reason why the death penalty should be infrequent and only when totally indisputable.

3) I'd like to see the stats. I'd also like background data. Were those non-white repeat violent offenders on a higher average? were crimes identical in every aspect? (brutallity, intentionaly, ect) If indeed your numbers are true, I'd agree with you. Justice should be color-blind. For me, that would imply attempting to making it equal, not taking it away.

4) stats please? I'd be detered, but thats just me... Then again, I'm not wanting to kill anyone.

5) sadly, it does... that probably has to do with the basically unlimited appeals. I'd be in favor of limited appeals when the evidence is absolutely conclusive (ie DNA, video, multitude of witnesses, ect). I think the military has that kind of appeal process in place.

6) I would hope that would be considered in the sentencing phase.

7) perhaps... I would not want to have some guy who murdered my wife serving me fries at McD's though. I guess thats the case w/ any crime though...

MrH

 

[arnisador]

My understanding is that no useful conclusion can be drawn about the effects of capital punishment on crime.

 

[Flying Crane]

When my wife was a law student a few years ago, she spent a summer working as an intern with The Innocence Project in New York City. This is an anti-deathpenalty advocate group that works on old cases and attempts to get new evidence entered to answer the questions once and for all. Often, this means entereing DNA evidence from rape kits, as the DNA technology did not exist 30 years ago when many of these men were convicted and have been sitting on death row ever since.

While this evidence can show innocence, these workers are very blunt with the convicted individuals in telling them very clearly, that if they did indeed commit the crime, the DNA evidence will, if they agree to have it submitted, seal their fate beyond doubt.

These people who work with the Innocence Project have a terribly difficult time even getting access to the rape kits and other relevant evidence. It is often locked away in a deep dank dungeon, hidden behind the furnace, under a stack of aging Life Magazines amid the rat poop. The law enforcement agencies who are responsible for the safe keeping of the evidence don't want to dig it up so they stall and fight to keep from having to do anything on the case. The DNA evidence cost several thousand dollars to have tested. The cost is born by the convicts. Many of them have been locked up for many years without an income, and with few contacts on the outside who have stayed supportive of them. Often this alone dictates the failure of the evidence to ever be tested.

A man on whose case my wife worked was finally able to have the DNA testing done, and was found not guilty. He is now a free man.

The anti-deathpenalty movement is based on the belief that killing is wrong, whether it is done by an individual in a crime, or by the State as punishment for a crime. Along with this belief, is the truth that at least some people sitting on death row are actually innocent, and the erroneous execution of an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty person live.

 

[mrhnau]

This should make you happy heretic

I'm kind of suprised that California has a death penalty.

For a list of states with death penalties, look here. Not sure of the contents of the site, but it had a nice concise list.

MrH

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, California always seemed like the kind of place that would not have it--at least, in the pre-Terminator days.

Good post on DNA Flying Crane.