LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subtee
Consider the following:
A recent op-ed in the Florida Times-Union pointed to continuing problems in Florida’s death penalty system despite prior recommendations for change in an American Bar Association report three years ago. The article was written by Raoul Cantero III, a former Florida Supreme Court justice appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, and Mark Schlakman, a senior program director for Florida State University's Center for the Advancement of Human Rights. The authors state that little has been done by either the state government or the Florida Bar Association in response to the ABA's findings. The ABA report addressed the often abysmal legal representation of defendants in post-conviction proceedings, socioeconomic and geographic bias in seeking the death penalty versus a life sentence, and lack of fairness and accuracy in the system. The authors note that these problems remain, but there is a chance that new political leaders could still bring about change: "The challenge for those who hold and aspire to elected office is to ensure that personal perspectives pertaining to capital punishment, and the public outrage arising out of heinous crimes, do not overshadow the fact that Florida's death penalty process is fraught with problems. Floridians expect a system of justice that engenders confidence based upon fairness and accuracy. With regard to the state's death penalty process, in many respects that standard has proven to be elusive."
The ABA report does not necessarily mean what you think it might. I was unable to find that particular report, but it easily could have been done by attorneys who are member of the ABA who are against the death penalty. Further, Mark Schlakman is against the death penalty, so anything he writes will be skewed to support his opposition of the death penalty. Statistics on these things can easily be manipulated and reported to support either side.
One VERY important thing to note. While there is all this talk about "socioeconomic" and "geographic" bias (which is politically correct way of saying "poor black/minority folk"), the REALITY is that there are more WHITE people on death row than any particular minority group. Why do I say "any" minority group? Because those against the death penalty will say simply "minorities." If you group all the minorities together, then yes it is a higher percentage, HOWEVER, you can't single out "whites" and say "all minority groups," because if you are going to do that, then "all minority groups" represent a larger portion of the total population of the United States than just "whites." See how easy it is to manipulate the statistics?
quote:
ORIGINAL: subtee
Scott Phillips, a professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Denver, recently published a study that revealed disparities in who receives the death penalty inTexas. Phillips studied the 504 death penalty cases that occurred between 1992 and 1999 in Harris County (Houston and surrounding areas). Harris County is the largest jurisdiction in the United States to use a court-appointment system for selecting lawyers to defend indigent defendants. Phillips’s research showed stark differences between the defendants who were represented by hired counsel and those who were not, regardless of their socio-economic status. His study revealed that “those who can hire counsel for the entire case, or even a portion of the case, appear to be treated in a fundamentally different manner than those who cannot.” For the 504 death penalty cases examined, hiring counsel for the entire case eliminated the chance of a death sentence and resulted in more acquittals, and hiring counsel for at least a portion of the case substantially reduced the chance of a death sentence.
What is the criteria for "appears?" In his opinion? Again, this really isn't concrete data, is it? I have a huge issue with your quoted material here. Mr. Phillips has no problem stating the number of cases (504) that he "studied," yet he offers no data about how they "appear" to be treated better. He also states that those with hired counsel garnered different results but without any actual numbers? How many of those cases had hired counsel? How many had hired counsel for a portion of their case? Those numbers would be listed in huge bold print if they were actually significant enough to enumerate. The fact that he doesn't is questionable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: subtee
On September 22, the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Crime and Homeland Security of the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the re-authorization of the Innocence Protection Act. Among those making presentations were noted defense attorneys Stephen Bright (pictured), President of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, and Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project in New York. Mr. Bright emphasized that the best way to prevent wrongful convictions is to provide defendants with adequate representation: "The best protection against conviction of the innocent is competent representation for those accused of crimes and a properly working adversary system. Unfortunately, a very substantial number of jurisdictions throughout the country do not have either one." He noted that DNA testing is no substitute for good lawyers, especially since such evidence is not available in most cases: "Some people believe that we can rely on DNA testing to protect the innocent, but DNA testing reveals only a few wrongful convictions. In most cases, there is no biological evidence that can be tested. In those cases, we must rely on a properly working adversary system to bring out all the facts and help the courts find the truth."
Although both of these men are anti death penalty, stating that "competent representation" is the best protection is pretty much a "no brainer." If you have an idiot for an attorney, then you can't expect much.
quote:
ORIGINAL: subtee
On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two death penalty cases. Both cases are likely to be argued in the fall. The Court accepted the defendant's petition in Wood v. Allen (No. 08-9156), a case from Alabama. Holly Wood claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, mental retardation, and discrimination in the jury selection process during his trial. After the trial, state and defense experts found that Wood, with an IQ below 70, had serious deficits in intellectual functioning and in at least one area of adaptive functioning--clear evidence of mental retardation. However, despite obvious pre-trial indications of this disability, the defense attorney presented no mitigating evidence on this issue to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial. The novice attorney had no experience in death penalty cases or in any criminal law. In federal habeas proceedings, the District Court vacated Wood’s death sentence due to ineffectiveness of counsel, stating that “[c]ounsel’s failure to investigate and present any evidence of intellectual functioning…is sufficient to undermine confidence in the application of the death sentence.”
Without actual knowledge of the case, and even though mental retardation can eliminate the death penalty, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't. The criteria for mentally incompetent is that the defendant is incapable of rationally recognizing what they did to be wrong.
There was a case in Florida several years ago. A man killed his ex girlfriend's new boyfriend by chopping off his head with a machete. He then took the severed head and placed it on the hood of a car in front of a mirror, "in case the head wanted to look at itself." Clearly, this man is not mentally competent. He also had several other violent offenses in his past. The State of Florida needed to prove his competency to be tried for that horrible murder. Now, many of you might ask "why? He needs psychological help." As I said, he had several other violent crimes in his past. He was found incompetent to stand trial for those. Florida law, however, only permits him to be committed to a psychiatric facility for 5 years maximum. Regardless of his mental issues, he obviously can not be safely released into society, yet if he didn't stand trial, he would be released in 5 years for a heinous murder. The whole "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" scenario where one would be committed for the term of their sentence may not be the case. Facilities for the "criminally insane" aren't really available.
The only other option everyone suggests is life without parole. But no one seems to be able to answer how that serves society, or the very real fact that sentences of "life without parole" can and have been changed and the convicted given parole due to overcrowding.
|
RE: Isn't it now time for a moratorium? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread