quote:



Sam Millsap, a former Texas district attorney from San Antonio, recently called for DNA testing in the case of Hank Skinner, who is scheduled for execution on March 24.  Texas has so far refused to conduct additional DNA tests on critical evidence from the crime scene that could support Skinner's claim of innocence. For the last decade, the state has blocked DNA testing of key pieces of evidence, including a knife that might be the murder weapon and a man's windbreaker found next to the victim's body, which had blood, sweat and hair on it. Skinner's trial attorney failed to investigate another potential suspect, a man who was a relative of the victim and wore a windbreaker like the one found at the murder scene.  Millsap stated, "Since 1973, 139 people in 26 states have been released from death row based on evidence of their innocence. Eleven of them were in Texas. Many of these people were freed because of DNA evidence. But DNA testing works only if we use it … It is cases like Skinner's that ended my lifelong support for the death penalty. Any system driven by the decisions of human beings will produce mistakes."

quote:

ORIGINAL: intenze

I am confused about why they won't do DNA testing. It is simple and very reliable. That doesn't make any sense to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: intenze

I am confused about why they won't do DNA testing. It is simple and very reliable. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Because of the fallout of having an innocent man spending 25 years behind bars in a case where the prosecutors clearly withheld evidence.  In Colorado, the same thing happened - an innocent man was jailed for years on a silly murder charge that never should have held up.  He was shown to be innocent and sued and got millions for his incarceration, and the people are howling for the blood of the prosecutors that withheld evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Steven, now that's a case where the death penalty *should* be applied!
What kind of monsters would knowingly let an innocent person remain in jail?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage

I believe in the Death Penalty, but only because I think it is inhumane to keep any living creature behind bars for the entirety of its life. [snip]

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage

I believe in the Death Penalty, but only because I think it is inhumane to keep any living creature behind bars for the entirety of its life. [snip]

Ask the convicts if they find it inhumane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

That's cool. But not at all what the death penalty is about.

Prosecutors are charged with finding truth. Defense attorneys are charged with giving their clients the best defense they can.

The problem with the system is that prosecutors don't work for truth but for convictions. And defense attorneys work for money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

They're doing that, love, but it's expensive and courts refuse.

Also too, even DNA isn't always reliable.

The only way, the ONLY way to assuredly not execute an innocent person is to not have a death penalty. It can all be corrupted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

That's cool. But not at all what the death penalty is about.

Prosecutors are charged with finding truth. Defense attorneys are charged with giving their clients the best defense they can.

The problem with the system is that prosecutors don't work for truth but for convictions. And defense attorneys work for money.

Not true. A good portion of death penalty cases are defended by Public Defenders. They ain't in it for the money, because compared to private practice, they aren't making any.

The prosecutors should be concerned with the truth and many are. But they also have a boss they have to answer to, and if that boss is telling them to go forward with the evidence they are given, they don't have a lot of choice to do otherwise.

It would be nice if we could blame all the injustice on the attorneys, but that just isn't always the case.

I did some research on this case since my first post. This case was a clusterfuck from the word go. The case against Skinner is not entirely out of line. The son who was there? Yes he was a big boy. He was also developmentally challenged and suffered from Muscular Dystrophy, not exactly the big strong defender of mom the press would have you believe. Skinner apparently does have some violence in his background.

His trial counsel was pathetically ineffective. What I didn't find was an appeal based on effective counsel, which would have been helpful in the long run. This uncle was never investigated by the police regardless of his rather odd behavior and previous convictions, but what is more strange is why the defense didn't call him as a witness. The neighbor who initially lied because she was worried about being named as accessory? What would give her such an idea? Especially if Skinner was so incoherent that nothing he was saying was making sense? The wound on Skinner's hand is still very odd. While the defense calls it a defensive wound, that he was essentially attacked and then fled the house, they also claim he was so staggeringly inebriated and drugged that he couldn't even walk. If he isn't the killer, and the real killer wanted to kill everyone in the house, why did he let Skinner go? He would have certainly be easy to catch being falling down drunk. That doesn't add up. Skinner admitted he was drinking and said he had taken Xanax. Xanax wasn't found in his system, codiene was. He claims to be allergic to codiene, so where did the codiene come from?

At the end of the day, the Governor is likely to grant the Request for A 30 Day Reprieve. The request is very public, and there is enough public outcry on the case that the Governor has nothing to lose by granting the request. The problem, though is that in this case, the DNA will definately leave some questions unanswered. The person that they are claiming is the "real" killer is now dead. Is his DNA even available?

I will be watching to see how this one plays out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

They're doing that, love, but it's expensive and courts refuse.

Also too, even DNA isn't always reliable.

The only way, the ONLY way to assuredly not execute an innocent person is to not have a death penalty. It can all be corrupted.

Actually, portions of the DNA have already been tested. It was ordered by the Prosecutor in, I believe, something like 2000. They have requested the notes from the testing center (which they are entitled to) and all the results because for some reason they did not receive reports on it all.

Also the Medill Innocence Project has already offered to absorb 100% of the expense of the testing, so the cost isn't an issue.

Actually, DNA is more often than not extremely reliable. If it wasn't, it wouldn't even be admissible in a trial. It can, with complete certainty EXCLUDE people, which in this case is what they are attempting to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Right on public defenders take these cases. They are usually fresh out of law school or they are so incompetent they can't sustain private practice. They need the money. Good defense attorneys make their fees and they don't gamble them on the low and downtrodden. Having a history of crime should in no way implicate guilt in a death penalty case. Take a look at who is on death row--it isn't the rich and white folks. It's those who are presumed guilty so that neither prosecutor nor defense attorney needs expend much energy for a result that is far too predictable. Now put yourself in that position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Like I said, it can all be corrupted. Therefore, the ONLY WAY to assure that an innocent person is not put to death is to not have a death penalty.

Would you rather an innocent person be put to death so that most of the guilty are also put to death? Or would you rather a guilty person go free in order that no innocent person be put to death. It is a foundation of "American justice."