Another dubious murder conviction to be punished by death

[Klingsor]

And of course the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that beyond reasonable doubt there is positive evidence that the defendant is guilty, the defendant does not have to provide positive evidence of innocence.

But is the burden of proof different when the man has already been convicted of the crime? At that point he's no longer "presumed innocent," so does he face tougher requirements before he can be exonerated?

 

[B_Nick8]

I don't understand how even proponents of the death penalty could have proceeded when there was just a scintilla of doubt. How do they live with themselves? I am actually ashamed of our justice system right now.

 

[Calboner]

Next up: Reggie Clemons, convicted and sentenced to death, not for murder, but for being an accomplice to murder (!), and slated for execution in Missouri on November 7, 2011.

Could Troy Davis Save Reginald Clemons? | Crooks and Liars

justice for reggie clemons

Reggie was sentenced in connection with the 1991 murder of two young women, who drowned after plunging from the Chain of the Rocks Bridge into the Mississippi River. At the time of his arrest, Reggie was a teenager with no criminal history, living with his family in suburban St. Louis and studying to become a mechanic. He was among a group of four youths (all teens except one) who encountered the victims and their cousin, Thomas Cummins, on the Chain of the Rocks Bridge. Even though prosecutors conceded that Reggie neither pushed the women nor planned the crime, he was convicted on the theory that he was an accomplice. There was no physical evidence linking Reggie to the crime for which he received the death penalty: no fingerprints, no DNA, no hair or fiber samples. . . .

Two police detectives picked up Reggie, without a warrant, at his home in suburban St. Louis and took him to police headquarters for questioning. Although Reggie asked for an attorney, he was denied one. Instead, Reggie was subjected to several hours of threats and police beatings. He was slapped, punched in the head, choked and beaten about the chest. As a result of these beatings, Reggie’s face became visibly swollen. After five hours of violent interrogation, Reggie made a coerced statement in which he admitted to the rapes but denied pushing the girls off the bridge. He was subsequently arrested and charged with rape and murder, although the rape charges were dismissed. At his arraignment, a state judge saw that Reggie was injured and sent him to the hospital.

(Source (PDF file))

 

[deleted213967]

What's always eluded me is the apparent contradiction between the professed adhesion to the "culture of life" and the fascination for capital punishment in those corners of the US.

I have to give credit to the Holy Catholic Church of Rome for at least being consistent on the topic.

 

[monel]

Next up: Reggie Clemons, convicted and sentenced to death, not for murder, but for being an accomplice to murder (!), and slated for execution in Missouri on November 7, 2011.

Could Troy Davis Save Reginald Clemons? | Crooks and Liars

justice for reggie clemons

I have previously stated that I am anti-death penalty. Having said that I must say that, in many of these cases we lose sight of the fact that there were victims and people who loved them left behind. I question the accuracy of the accounting you attached, Calboner. I am in the legal system and, in this day and age, I view skeptically claims that a suspect asked for an attorney and was denied. Even if the police disregarded his request, a court is unlikely to ignore such a breach of a person's civil rights. The case law in this area is so well established that even a new law school graduate could win a motion to suppress were the facts as stated.

 

[BIGBULL29]

There are so many ways to punish persons who have committed heinous crimes, but death is not one of them (except in rare cases where their being alive still harms others, as is the case with certain terrorists perhaps). People dying is never justice in my opinion, but rotting in prison with minimal survival necessities is.

I will never understand how people can protest the death a person who murdered in cold blood, but thinks nothing of killing an unborn baby. That is so warped, so 2 + 2 = 5! Why cannot we be against all forms of unnecessary death? Why cherry pick and be illogical? Support life the whole way around the clock -- it is that precious.

 

[hypoc8]

And the Bible also says that if someone kills another person his punishment is death.

 

[Meniscus]

Think for a moment if it was your son, brother, husband, or father--or yourself--who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to die? Would you not think, "This can't be happening." Would you not think that at some point, somebody would have enough common sense to realize that the sentence/conviction was wrong and put a stop to this outrageous injustice? Would you not expect people to see the danger this represents to all of us, to our lives, our families, and our freedom? Wouldn't you think that people wouldn't stand for it, that they'd put a stop to it?

And yet as I watched the news coverage leading up to Mr. Davis's executive, I knew that there was little hope for him, and I felt completely helpless to do anything about it. I felt like I should be doing something to stop it, like we all should, but what? What are we to do when we live in a society when "justice" is deaf as well as blind?

 

[Drifterwood]

The U.S. has an extradition treaty with Mexico- a country that does not have the death penalty. Prosecutors here merely have to agree to not seek the death penalty in those cases.

But routinely they don't http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/08execute.html

 

[Jason]

What are we to do when we live in a society when "justice" is deaf as well as blind?

We can all speak out about such issues. To our friends, workmates, families, but also on lpsg, on social media. In time attitudes of those in power will change.

 

[Calboner]

I have hitherto regarded the inherent fallibility of our criminal justice system as the strongest argument against the death penalty. A piece by Ross Douthat that appeared in last Sunday's New York Times raises serious doubts about such an argument:

If capital punishment disappears in the United States, it won’t be because voters and politicians no longer want to execute the guilty. It will be because they’re afraid of executing the innocent.

This is a healthy fear for a society to have. But there’s a danger here for advocates of criminal justice reform. After all, in a world without the death penalty, Davis probably wouldn’t have been retried or exonerated. His appeals would still have been denied, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison, and far fewer people would have known or cared about his fate. . . .

Simply throwing up our hands and eliminating executions entirely, by contrast, could prove to be a form of moral evasion — a way to console ourselves with the knowledge that no innocents are ever executed, even as more pervasive abuses go unchecked. We should want a judicial system that we can trust with matters of life and death, and that can stand up to the kind of public scrutiny that Davis’s case received. And gradually reforming the death penalty — imposing it in fewer situations and with more safeguards, which other defendants could benefit from as well — might do more than outright abolition to address the larger problems with crime and punishment in America.

 

[Klingsor]

I have hitherto regarded the inherent fallibility of our criminal justice system as the strongest argument against the death penalty. A piece by Ross Douthat that appeared in last Sunday's New York Times raises serious doubts about such an argument:

Well . . . do you really buy his argument, though? We have to keep the death penalty in order to ensure a due vigilance in our justice system?

By that same argument, reinstituting torture on a large scale, along with the death penalty, would be an even more effective way to guarantee that we don't make our judgments lightly.

But we don't see that potential benefit as a reason to bring back torture. So why should it be a reason to keep the death penalty?

 

[Calboner]

(Replying to Klingsor, immediately above It is actually not easy to figure out exactly what positive position Douthat means to argue, but I think that his main point is that anyone who is concerned about the justness of our system of criminal law--as we all should be concerned--should aim rather at the correction of its failings (such as inequities in the processes of prosecution and conviction and inhumane conditions in prisons) than at the abolition of the death penalty itself. Abolishing the death penalty would not correct those failings, and, he argues, would even undercut efforts to correct them.

As I understand him, he is not making a positive defense of the death penalty but an argument from consequences against one argument for abolishing the death penalty.

Your counter-argument by analogy fails because it rests on the assumption that the death penalty is inherently unjust (like torture). Douthat does not argue from any such premise. His argument only addresses those who argue that the death penalty should be abolished because of the fallibility of the criminal justice process.

I agree with you that there is something very fishy about Douthat's argument, but I find it difficult to say what it is.

 

[Klingsor]

(Replying to Klingsor, immediately above It is actually not easy to figure out exactly what positive position Douthat means to argue

It seems pretty clear to me, at least from the excerpt you quoted, that he's arguing against any outright abolition of the death penalty. He may want to restrict its use and introduce other legal reforms, but that's not the same thing.

Maybe that's not really what he means. But I don't see anything in the passage itself to indicate otherwise.

I think that his main point is that anyone who is concerned about the justness of our system of criminal law--as we all should be concerned--should aim rather at the correction of its failings (such as inequities in the processes of prosecution and conviction and inhumane conditions in prisons) than at the abolition of the death penalty itself. Abolishing the death penalty would not correct those failings, and, he argues, would even undercut efforts to correct them.

I don't accept the false dichotomy: either we abolish the death penalty or we revamp the rest of our justice system.

There's no reason we can't do both. If we're to advance as a just society, we have to.

As I understand him, he is not making a positive defense of the death penalty but an argument from consequences against one argument for abolishing the death penalty.

Perhaps. But if that's the case, you've just made that distinction a lot more clearly than he does (again, I'm only going by the passage you presented).

Your counter-argument by analogy fails because it rests on the assumption that the death penalty is inherently unjust (like torture). Douthat does not argue from any such premise. His argument only addresses those who argue that the death penalty should be abolished because of the fallibility of the criminal justice process.

Douthat may not assume that the death penalty is inherently unjust, but I do. So from my standpoint, the analogy works just fine.

Maybe Douthat wouldn't accept my argument because he works from a different basic premise. If that's case, I have no reason to accept his argument, either, and for the same reason.

So let me turn it over to you: Do *you* think the death penalty is inherently unjust? If so, by your own admission Douthat's argument doesn't address your concern.

I agree with you that there is something very fishy about Douthat's argument, but I find it difficult to say what it is.

Hope I've been of some help. :smile:

 

[Drifterwood]

there is something very fishy about Douthat's argument, but I find it difficult to say what it is.

It is a syllogism.

They are separate issues that should be addressed separately rather than being paired to infer a new supposedly logical conclusion.

Justice is fallible, we should endeavour always to improve our implementation of it.

Societal murder is a barbaric form of revenge that serves no beneficial purpose other than to pander to our baser instincts. To reinforce this, the US is very well aware of painless methods of killing people but will not adopt these. The "guilty" must be seen to suffer in death.

His argument is also derogatory to the attitudes to seeking justice and the inherent laziness of the American people in this respect. You will have to comment on that.

 

[Calboner]

Here we fucking go again. Anybody would think that the state of Texas was getting paid by the head for the number of prisoners that it puts to death.

David Protess: Texas to Condemned Man: Execution First, DNA Later

Skinner, 49, has been on death row in Texas since 1995 for the murders of his girlfriend and her two adult sons in their Panhandle home. He has steadfastly professed his innocence. In recent years, the State's star witness recanted her testimony to my journalism students and others, and several witnesses told the students that the female victim's uncle (now deceased) was the likely killer.

And, there is DNA. Some DNA tests, including on a trail of blood leading from the home, excluded Skinner. Other tests placed Skinner at the scene. (He was a frequent visitor to the home and claims he passed out the night of the crime from a combination of codeine and alcohol. A witness and two experts back his story.)

But most stunning is the physical evidence that has never been tested. The rape kit was not tested. The murder weapons were not tested. Several hairs clutched in the female victim's hand were not tested. A distinctive windbreaker strongly resembling the uncle's found two feet from her body and covered in blood? Not tested.

The Texas judges have even taken the outrageous measure of rescheduling Skinner's execution date so as to evade the force of a state law giving condemned prisoners the right to DNA testing. They are plainly acting as if the important thing were to put a man to death, while all questions of ascertaining his guilt were secondary.


Note the link to an on-line petition to the Texas prosecutor demanding that Skinner be granted the DNA testing.

 

[Drifterwood]

How about the judges are tried for murder if the subsequent DNA shows him to be innocent.

 

[Calboner]

How about the judges are tried for murder if the subsequent DNA shows him to be innocent.

Well, some form of homicide, anyway. Yes, I think that would be only fair.