|
LafayetteLady -> RE: Isn't it now time for a moratorium? (3/15/2010 7:48:36 PM)
|
I'm going to start (please withhold the flames, they mean nothing) that I AM a supporter of the death penalty. I don't dispute that in this case, it is not clear cut. However, I also dispute how there is a "better" alternative for Charles Manson (whose death sentence was commuted), Terry McNichols, Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer just to site a few.
But moving on....
Texas has the highest number of executions in the entire country. In all states (that still have the death penalty), the prosecution must request the death penalty, and the crime must meet certain heinous criteria to even qualify. Even then the defendant may not get a sentence of death. Some states, I believe, allow a jury to determine sentencing, but most, again I believe, leave that decision to a judge.
Once a death sentence is handed down, there are automatic appeals and the case is supposed to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Each upper branch of the judiciary reviews the case for errors and the defense is also supposed to be reviewing the case to determine if there is any appealable error and investigate (to a point) in search of new evidence. If there is no appealable error, only new evidence can be brought on appeal. It must be evidence that was unavailable and reasonably undiscovered at the original trial. The "timeline" for appeals on Death Row cases goes straight to the time of execution. The public defenders provided to death row inmates (if they don't have private counsel) specialize ONLY in death row cases.
In the article you provided the link for, one thing is very puzzling. Although written by a previous Prosecutor who has practiced law for 35 years, he makes the statement that "Skinner's attorney failed to investigate another potential subject." It is not the job of the defense to investigate other leads. Yes it can help to prove innocence, but ultimately those leads are supposed to be provided to the police and the police should be investigating them. This man was arrested in 1995, not 1985. He has spent 15 years in prison. In 1995 I am not sure if DNA testing was as conclusive as it is today, but again, the evidence should have been tested for DNA even when it was not because in the early stages, while it could not conclusively prove that someone committed a crime, it very much could conclusively exclude someone as a suspect. It was always possible to exclude someone beyond all doubt. Admittedly though, there were times when it could not exclude or include someone conclusively. Obviously, for someone who is claiming innocence, the risk is worth it.
His attorneys have sent a Request for 30 day Reprieve to the Governor and an Order from the Governor to grant the DNA testing. In that letter they also state that substantial NEW evidence has come to light.
The Reqest for 30 Day Reprieve is 17 pages long, and outlines the trial and the new evidence. I'm going to read that letter and possibly pull up the actual case to get more details.
On the face of what I have read so far (which is NOT the article you provided Stella), it does seem as though the police and prosecutorial investigators did not properly do their job.
I do believe that the reprieve will be granted, but I haven't read everything yet to really see what is going on.
For the record, while I support the death penalty, I also believe that ALL DNA evidence must be tested to either confirm or exclude the defendant as the actual perpetrator. I think the death penalty should not be permitted unless the percentage of circumstantial evidence is at an absolute minimum. In the cases I listed at the beginning of this post, there is NO doubt at all about the guilt of those defendants. Typically, the cost of imposing the death penalty actually costs MORE than a life sentence. It has cost the state of California far more to keep Charles Manson incarcerated at this point than it would have cost to execute him, but that situation is quite rare.
After I have reviewed all the rest of the information, I will post more.
DarkSteven,
Many states have put "caps" on what the wrongfully imprisoned can recover. However, in this case, again on the face of what I have read so far, it would appear that there is much more at play than the wrong person simply being convicted, and therefore, much more at stake than the "fear" of a large monetary award.
When there is a case where the police or the prosecution has failed to in their duty to fully investigate and has willfully ignored other evidence, ALL the cases that those particular people were involved in investigating are now brought into question and EACH AND EVERY one of them must be reviewed.
|
|
|
|
