View Full Version : Tonight, Alabama Will Execute a Man Who Didn't Commit Murder
Tonight, Alabama Will Execute a Man Who Didn't Commit Murder
https://reason.com/2020/03/05/tonight-alabama-will-execute-a-man-who-didnt-commit-murder/
Prosecutors contend that on June 17, 2004, the three officers, as well as Officer Michael Collins, arrived at the house, which they knew to be a place where people bought drugs, and were insulted by Woods. They ran his name through the police database and found he had an outstanding warrant from Fairfield, Alabama. In a letter to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) contesting Woods' commutation request, Alabama Attorney General Steven T. Marshall says that Woods refused to come outside the house, and that officers followed him inside and arrested him on the Fairfield warrant. After they had Wood in handcuffs, however, Kerry Spencer, a friend of Woods who was already inside the house, opened fire on the officers, killing three and wounding Collins.
For his role in the incident, Woods' jury convicted him and voted 10-2 that he be executed.
Spencer, who is also on death row, told The Appeal that Woods is "100 percent innocent. All he did that day was get beat up and he ran."
Executing people who don't deserve is why they'll sadly take away the death penalty one day.
It's a messed up case, and people have been asking questions about both sides, and what really happen for years now.
He was a drug dealer and refused a police order so he got the death penalty. It’s bullshit.
Kay Ivey could’ve commuted the death sentence but nobody wants to appear weak on crime. It’s messed up for sure.
Look like he got a last minute stay of execution from the SCOTUS.
https://thehill.com/legal/486253-supreme-court-orders-last-minute-temporary-stay-of-execution-of-alabama-man
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
The stay was lifted w/o comment by the Supreme Court, from the article linked in the OP:
**UPDATE: The temporary stay of execution was lifted hours after it was enacted. The Supreme Court did not provide comment on why it dismissed the motions in Woods' case. Woods' execution resumed on Thursday evening. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m.
UPDATE: In a last-minute order signed by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court ordered a temporary stay in Woods' execution "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court."
I'm pro-death penalty but this seems way screwed up. ONLY way it could be justified is if it could be proven (and it wasn't) that there was some grand plan to allow himself to be taken into custody and his buddy then ambushes the "unsuspecting" officers.
Executing someone cannot be taken back. You have to be 100% sure in 100% of the cases that who the state is killing deserves it. I'm not talking mitigating circumstances, don't really give a shit about that (Mommy didn't love me enough, Daddy used to beat me, etc.). I'm talking the actual circumstances of the case itself.
Our government isn’t sufficiently evolved enough to be trusted with such punishment over us...
Our government isn’t sufficiently evolved enough to be trusted with such punishment over us...
Oh in many cases the guilt or innocence of the perp isn't in question. I have no problem whacking those scumbags. Contriving the law to "fit" a crime I have an issue with. Woods obviously didn't kill the cops, the other douchebag did. That is a known fact. Killing Woods over it is wrong. Killing the other guy? Sure, have at it, he's the one who did it.
The death penalty is not even a deterrent due to the fact its not carried out swiftly.
The death penalty is not even a deterrent due to the fact its not carried out swiftly.
I used to be a staunch capital-punishment guy, but Im becoming less for this reason, and because of cases like this.
This case is pretty ****ed. So what happed to the guy that actually killed people?
I used to be a staunch capital-punishment guy, but Im becoming less for this reason, and because of cases like this.
This case is pretty ****ed. So what happed to the guy that actually killed people?
Bout to get executed as well.....I think tonight.
eta: not sure now after re reading the article.
Our government isn’t sufficiently evolved enough to be trusted with such punishment over us...
I would up vote you, if it were an option
Woods was involved in an incident where people were murdered, for me it is no different than if Woods and his friend went to do an armed robbery and his friend murdered someone.
As long as the State kills both of them, I got no issues with it.
However, I do have an issue with taking someones life with a 10-2 jury.
I thought it was common knowledge that if you are involved in a crime with other people and someone dies, everyone can go for murder.
That article is just an incoherent and random mixture of every anti death penalty talking point. Am I really expected to believe the type of execution makes any difference to his guilt or innocence? Not that his counsel was specifically ineffective or generally inexperienced, but that because they hadn't previously defended a death penalty case, I should just assume they were?
What crime was he involved in?
Edit, so evading police is a crime- I initially thought it was a misdemeanor.
I will say, committing Robbery, its reasonable to think someone may die, and you are committing violence.
Did this guy think his friend was going to shoot cops? If so, I dont have a problem with it, but thats not how its being portrayed.
Edit- just saw below- yeah, thats a different story, and they both deserve removal.
It looks like he lured them in to get executed by the other thug. The world is not worse off without him.
Woods, Jefferson County prosecutors told the jury at his 2005 trial, hated law enforcement and had lured the officers into the house so Spencer could kill them. Though he did not fire the fatal shots, Woods had masterminded the plan, making his actions as equally significant as Spencer's, argued assistant district attorney Mara Sirles. "He wanted them to be fish in a barrel," she said during her closing argument.
I’m just saying that a vote of 10-2 for the death penalty and a last minute stay issued by SCOTUS (evidently too late) is a good reason to stop and take another look at this.
We talk about how emotions rule liberals yet we don’t apply the same logic to ourselves here anymore apparently.
Dr. Bullseye
03-07-20, 13:25
Bye Now!
BoringGuy45
03-07-20, 15:00
I thought it was common knowledge that if you are involved in a crime with other people and someone dies, everyone can go for murder.
Not sure exactly this guy's involvement in this case, or how Alabama applies this law, but I do know it varies from place to place how everyone involved gets charged in a murder. In some states, anyone involved can get the death penalty. In other states, the death penalty only applies to accessories if they were directly and intentionally involved in the murder, but lesser degrees of murder would be used if they were only indirectly involved. Example: The getaway driver for a guy who just committed a contract killing would also get the needle. The getaway driver for a bank robbery gone bad that resulted in one of the other robbers killing someone would get charged with murder, but not capital murder.
I thought it was common knowledge that if you are involved in a crime with other people and someone dies, everyone can go for murder.
That article is just an incoherent and random mixture of every anti death penalty talking point. Am I really expected to believe the type of execution makes any difference to his guilt or innocence? Not that his counsel was specifically ineffective or generally inexperienced, but that because they hadn't previously defended a death penalty case, I should just assume they were?
But he wasn't involved in the actual crime that killed the police. He evaded from the police into a dwelling that just so happen to have separate, other criminal activity, and that activity was what got the police killed.
I'm pro death penalty, although I think it's completely broken in actual usage. That said, this was not a good execution at all imho. As a resident of Alabama, I do not agree at all with the killing of this man, and don't like our death penalty being used for cases like this.
But he wasn't involved in the actual crime that killed the police. He evaded from the police into a dwelling that just so happen to have separate, other criminal activity, and that activity was what got the police killed.
I'm pro death penalty, although I think it's completely broken in actual usage. That said, this was not a good execution at all imho. As a resident of Alabama, I do not agree at all with the killing of this man, and don't like our death penalty being used for cases like this.
Well, to be fair he was charged with being involved in a scheme to lure the police there and was convicted of it. We can all debate on whether the death penalty was warranted or not but apparently 2 out of 10 jurors disagreed.
If I’m reading right, SCOTUS may have also. It just so happens some of the members here disagree on whether that should hold weight or not. They already have their minds made up and that’s never going to change.
AL resident here as well.
But he wasn't involved in the actual crime that killed the police. He evaded from the police into a dwelling that just so happen to have separate, other criminal activity, and that activity was what got the police killed.
Apparently a jury of his peers saw things differently than you. Do you think it's possible they were given a more complete picture of what happened than the MSM is giving you?
I thought it was common knowledge that if you are involved in a crime with other people and someone dies, everyone can go for murder.
He was in police custody when the crime was committed. I did not see if while in custody, he participated in the crime. Typical journalism to not give the most important facts.
It looks like he lured them in to get executed by the other thug. The world is not worse off without him.
That is the prosecutions version. Seems like a ridiculously complicated plan to shoot cops. I will go with Occam's Razor instead.
Apparently a jury of his peers saw things differently than you. Do you think it's possible they were given a more complete picture of what happened than the MSM is giving you?
Exactly.
The MSM is anti-DP, so they have an interest in ignoring the facts that do not fit their agenda.
That is the prosecutions version. Seems like a ridiculously complicated plan to shoot cops. I will go with Occam's Razor instead.
That was my takeaway too, they desperately wanted to paint this guy as some Bond Villain, while the reality was the exact opposite.
Even the shooter said,
Spencer, who is also on death row, told The Appeal that Woods is "100 percent innocent. All he did that day was get beat up and he ran."
Well, to be fair he was charged with being involved in a scheme to lure the police there and was convicted of it. We can all debate on whether the death penalty was warranted or not but apparently 2 out of 10 jurors disagreed.
If I’m reading right, SCOTUS may have also. It just so happens some of the members here disagree on whether that should hold weight or not. They already have their minds made up and that’s never going to change.
AL resident here as well.
If that was indeed the case I stand corrected and it looks like he DID deserve it.....if that is true.
The death penalty is not even a deterrent due to the fact its not carried out swiftly.
That was never the point. While somewhat conflicted on this one, it's pretty much if somebody gets killed while robbing a bank, everyone involved in the bank robbery takes a murder rap. So not a good idea to roll with cop killers.
Our government isn’t sufficiently evolved enough to be trusted with such punishment over us...
So open the jails and let everyone out? I understand your basic objection that the system is full of holes, but not sure how we make it better, especially with lawyers being the ones to write laws and directly influence the system.
To me we need some kind of oversight, defenders need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get a guilty person acquitted and punished rather than rewarded and prosecutors need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get an innocent person convicted and should be punished rather than rewarded.
The whole promotion by stats creates an incentive to win regardless of guilt or innocence.
That was never the point. While somewhat conflicted on this one, it's pretty much if somebody gets killed while robbing a bank, everyone involved in the bank robbery takes a murder rap. So not a good idea to roll with cop killers.
So open the jails and let everyone out? I understand your basic objection that the system is full of holes, but not sure how we make it better, especially with lawyers being the ones to write laws and directly influence the system.
To me we need some kind of oversight, defenders need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get a guilty person acquitted and punished rather than rewarded and prosecutors need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get an innocent person convicted and should be punished rather than rewarded.
The whole promotion by stats creates an incentive to win regardless of guilt or innocence.
Steyr, if the jury says "not guilty", it's over. You know that. If what you say was the standard then ALL of OJ Simpson's defense team would be in jail!
Steyr, if the jury says "not guilty", it's over. You know that. If what you say was the standard then ALL of OJ Simpson's defense team would be in jail!
And I'd be ok with that.
That was never the point. While somewhat conflicted on this one, it's pretty much if somebody gets killed while robbing a bank, everyone involved in the bank robbery takes a murder rap. So not a good idea to roll with cop killers.
So open the jails and let everyone out? I understand your basic objection that the system is full of holes, but not sure how we make it better, especially with lawyers being the ones to write laws and directly influence the system.
To me we need some kind of oversight, defenders need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get a guilty person acquitted and punished rather than rewarded and prosecutors need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get an innocent person convicted and should be punished rather than rewarded.
The whole promotion by stats creates an incentive to win regardless of guilt or innocence.
That's the catch. It is apparent the side running the show is frequently free to lie without real consequences for their actions.
So open the jails and let everyone out? I understand your basic objection that the system is full of holes, but not sure how we make it better, especially with lawyers being the ones to write laws and directly influence the system.
A bit of a straw man... I’m against the death penalty due to the incompetence and corruption that pollutes every level of our criminal justice system, I’m all for keeping people locked up for life. If police or prosecutorial misconduct is proven then it’s a hell of a lot easier to open a cell and let an innocent man go than to open up the grave of an executed innocent man...
Yes, something has to be done to hold corruption and incompetents accountable and I’m all for jailing prosecutors and cops who get innocents convicted.
Dr. Bullseye
03-08-20, 11:47
I haven't heard this much whining since Caryl Chessman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
From multiple articles I’ve read, it seems the prosecution really had no credible witnesses and relied on jailhouse snitches who got deals.
I haven't heard this much whining since Caryl Chessman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
Perhaps start a petition to get Judge Ken Anderson back on the bench?
Strange that they don't lead with that, and stay focused on it, as that is the only relevant question.
It would be interesting to know when, how, and with what evidence the prosecution decided this was planned.
MountainRaven
03-08-20, 14:48
To me we need some kind of oversight, defenders need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get a guilty person acquitted and punished rather than rewarded and prosecutors need to be accountable if they knowingly and willfully get an innocent person convicted and should be punished rather than rewarded.
How would you prove that someone knowingly and willfully got a guilty person acquitted?
How would you prove that someone knowingly and willfully got a guilty person acquitted?
Yeah that is a ridiculous standard, because defense attorneys successfully defend "guilty" people everyday in courtrooms all across this country.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "better 100 guilty go free than that one innocent suffer"
A bit of a straw man... I’m against the death penalty due to the incompetence and corruption that pollutes every level of our criminal justice system, I’m all for keeping people locked up for life. If police or prosecutorial misconduct is proven then it’s a hell of a lot easier to open a cell and let an innocent man go than to open up the grave of an executed innocent man...
Yes, something has to be done to hold corruption and incompetents accountable and I’m all for jailing prosecutors and cops who get innocents convicted.
Once you put a man in jail, who is innocent, you destroy his life. Yes you can let him out, but he will still never be the same person again.
Being on death row for decades doesn't fix things.
Once you put a man in jail, who is innocent, you destroy his life. Yes you can let him out, but he will still never be the same person again.
Being on death row for decades doesn't fix things.
People are financially compensated for being wrongly jailed all the time. Some states do it automatically as a matter of law, the rest are successfully sued and/or settle. The state putting people to death don't fix anything either when you consider that 1 out of every 25 (4%) of people on DR may be innocent.
ONE IN 25 SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE U.S. IS INNOCENT, STUDY CLAIMS
https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889
The study, released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "tells you that a surprising number of innocent people are sentenced to death," Samuel R. Gross, the lead author, said in an interview with Newsweek. "It tells you that a lot of them haven't been exonerated. Some of them no doubt have been executed."
Yeah that is a ridiculous standard, because defense attorneys successfully defend "guilty" people everyday in courtrooms all across this country.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "better 100 guilty go free than that one innocent suffer"
I am more interested in the times when prosecutors/judges let &/or get the obviously guilty off the hook.
Same here on preferring the guilty get an underserved pass than the innocent getting undeserved punishment. The latter is intensified when reading about the details where innocents have been convicted.
People are financially compensated for being wrongly jailed all the time. Some states do it automatically as a matter of law, the rest are successfully sued and/or settle. The state putting people to death don't fix anything either when you consider that 1 out of every 25 (4%) of people on DR may be innocent.
ONE IN 25 SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE U.S. IS INNOCENT, STUDY CLAIMS
https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889
Financial compensation is not restoration. The issue is also painfully complex, made more difficult by the fact that criminals lie and manipulate the system successfully which makes truly innocent people the most vulnerable.
How would you prove that someone knowingly and willfully got a guilty person acquitted?
We convict people of knowingly and willfully doing things every day.
ChattanoogaPhil
03-08-20, 16:36
Governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey: In the past 15 years, his conviction has been reviewed at least nine times, and no court has found any reason to overturn the jury's decision."
-----
Jury heard the case and made their decision. Reviewed nine times over fifteen years.
Gee... just one more review? Enough.
I haven't heard this much whining since Caryl Chessman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
The fact that anyone defended that POS is depressing. Rape and kidnapping are serious violent crimes.
MountainRaven
03-08-20, 16:52
We convict people of knowingly and willfully doing things every day.
Do we convict people of knowingly and willfully doing things that didn’t legally happen everyday?
What are you going to do? Put every defense attorney on trial after every acquittal they get? And then put their defense attorney on trial when they’re acquitted?
That's the catch. It is apparent the side running the show is frequently free to lie without real consequences for their actions.
Oh ain't that the truth, and it applies to those actually "running the show" at the time and those deeply infested into the so-called justice system who can have sway with shit that happened after they're not in power anymore
;)
I haven't heard this much whining since Caryl Chessman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
I'm kind of back and forth on capital punishment. Up front, I believe that capital punishment has little or no impact in terms of crime reduction. The whole pick pockets working the crowd at the public hangings of pick pockets thing comes to mind as an example of it's ineffectiveness.
On the other hand, there are actions/crimes so heinous that death is seemingly the only just punishment. The Carr brothers and Dennis Rader are current cases in point.
Against that proposition is the fact that in the past there have been numerous cases where wrong verdicts have been handed down based on the unwavering belief in eye-witness identification. This fact coupled with statistics that indicate that the death penalty is applied unevenly across racial and socioeconomic lines gives many folks pause. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that we are aware of these past errors, and often have DNA evidence to ensure that TODAY'S decisions are less likely to be rendered in error.
Despite my beliefs that the death penalty is just in some cases, the major problem I see is the expense of hearing the appeals of death row inmates.
One answer might be suspension of the death penalty in favor of life with no possibility of parole. I'm not necessarily in favor of that for several reasons:
1) the cost to the government in keeping an offender who has no possibility of release for 40+ years. As an example Charles Manson cost California well over a million dollars in his 46 years behind bars.
2) It seems to me that in some cases life w/o parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Case in point, Dennis Rader. Rader, aka BTK, is 75 years old. For the last 14 years Rader has been held in solitary confinement with one hour of exercise per day, and showers three times per week, he has access to TV and radio, as well as reading material. IMHO this is messing with both Rader, and his victims' families. They live in torment that he is alive, he lives a meager existence. In his shoes I would prefer death.
3) I'm unsure of statistics, but it seems to me that inmates serving life w/o parole would be an increased danger to guards and other inmates, what do they have to lose?
I would suggest a Constitutional Amendment addressing Capital Punishment that dictates the circumstances under which such a sentence would warranted and the evidence required for conviction. At a minimum I would recommend uncontroverted DNA evidence, verified by two sources and/or multiple eyewitnesses to the crime - no single eyewitness death sentences.
I would advocate for the Amendment over State's Rights, simply because I believe this is a circumstance where we as a nation should be united.
And, in the case of Chessman, he showed continued sociopathic behavior which was not arrested by incarceration. Had he ever been allowed to return to society, he would have, no doubt, ended up killing someone in the commission of his crimes.
(in case this post is oudated at the time I hit 'post' please be advised this has been all day affair interrupted by range, dinner out, and getting my ass kicked at cards.)
I'm kind of back and forth on capital punishment. Up front, I believe that capital punishment has little or no impact in terms of crime reduction. The whole pick pockets working the crowd at the public hangings of pick pockets thing comes to mind as an example of it's ineffectiveness.
On the other hand, there are actions/crimes so heinous that death is seemingly the only just punishment. The Carr brothers and Dennis Rader are current cases in point.
Against that proposition is the fact that in the past there have been numerous cases where wrong verdicts have been handed down based on the unwavering belief in eye-witness identification. This fact coupled with statistics that indicate that the death penalty is applied unevenly across racial and socioeconomic lines gives many folks pause. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that we are aware of these past errors, and often have DNA evidence to ensure that TODAY'S decisions are less likely to be rendered in error.
Despite my beliefs that the death penalty is just in some cases, the major problem I see is the expense of hearing the appeals of death row inmates.
One answer might be suspension of the death penalty in favor of life with no possibility of parole. I'm not necessarily in favor of that for several reasons:
1) the cost to the government in keeping an offender who has no possibility of release for 40+ years. As an example Charles Manson cost California well over a million dollars in his 46 years behind bars.
2) It seems to me that in some cases life w/o parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Case in point, Dennis Rader. Rader, aka BTK, is 75 years old. For the last 14 years Rader has been held in solitary confinement with one hour of exercise per day, and showers three times per week, he has access to TV and radio, as well as reading material. IMHO this is messing with both Rader, and his victims' families. They live in torment that he is alive, he lives a meager existence. In his shoes I would prefer death.
3) I'm unsure of statistics, but it seems to me that inmates serving life w/o parole would be an increased danger to guards and other inmates, what do they have to lose?
I would suggest a Constitutional Amendment addressing Capital Punishment that dictates the circumstances under which such a sentence would warranted and the evidence required for conviction. At a minimum I would recommend uncontroverted DNA evidence, verified by two sources and/or multiple eyewitnesses to the crime - no single eyewitness death sentences.
I would advocate for the Amendment over State's Rights, simply because I believe this is a circumstance where we as a nation should be united.
And, in the case of Chessman, he showed continued sociopathic behavior which was not arrested by incarceration. Had he ever been allowed to return to society, he would have, no doubt, ended up killing someone in the commission of his crimes.
(in case this post is oudated at the time I hit 'post' please be advised this has been all day affair interrupted by range, dinner out, and getting my ass kicked at cards.)
I go back to Confucius on this one. "No man should have to live under the same heaven with the murderer of his father."
Also not crazy about the feeding and housing of people like the Manson family.
But the devils detail is you better well be damn sure, if you send an innocent man to his death...well then you are the murderer.
I'm also for including rape and kidnapping with capital crimes. I know they aren't dead, but they aren't ever gonna be right again. You steal a huge part of what it is to be human, alive and feel safe when you do that to someone. The problem with allegations of rape is that sometimes that is all they are and once again the devil has the details.
In principle, I'm in favor of the death penalty. In this case? Absolutely not. Let's say he was some criminal mastermind, and coordinated this attack. Why death? There should be enough doubt on that point to warrant life imprisonment instead. But of course, it was cops who were killed, and so everyone involved must be made to suffer.
sundance435
03-09-20, 14:27
Our government isn’t sufficiently evolved enough to be trusted with such punishment over us...
Well said. That's what I struggle with on this. I believe some criminals deserve to die, regardless of any deterrent effect. I don't have faith in our government to exercise the death penalty with the utmost discretion.
Well said. That's what I struggle with on this. I believe some criminals deserve to die, regardless of any deterrent effect. I don't have faith in our government to exercise the death penalty with the utmost discretion.
Where I am at too.
Pretty sure we both fully approve intended victims thwarting their attackers plans to include using any firearm that is handy which also separates us from the stereotypical anti death penalty crowd that turns out on behalf of a Ted Bundy.
I wish death penalty cases in America were reserved for the most cut and dried examples of utterly heinous, evil behavior. I say this because we've seen too many examples where prosecutors outmaneuvered their opposing counsel for the win, rather than winning on an iron clad case.
If the post sentencing process was a complete top to bottom review by an impartial investigative panel, where cooperation by the prosecution and law enforcement was a weighted value, I'd at least feel better about it. As others have eloquently stated, there's too much trust placed on the "infallibility" of the system in death penalty cases.
I wish death penalty cases in America were reserved for the most cut and dried examples of utterly heinous, evil behavior. I say this because we've seen too many examples where prosecutors outmaneuvered their opposing counsel for the win, rather than winning on an iron clad case.
If the post sentencing process was a complete top to bottom review by an impartial investigative panel, where cooperation by the prosecution and law enforcement was a weighted value, I'd at least feel better about it. As others have eloquently stated, there's too much trust placed on the "infallibility" of the system in death penalty cases.
Do you mean multiple killings, like a serial killer or a mass murderer? What about the scumbag who walks into a Quickie Mart and shoots the clerk in the face? It's "only" one victim but the perp deserves to die IMHO.
I assume you're talking about cases where there is no doubt. That I agree with. Circumstantial cases should never be adjudicated with a death sentence.
Further, any DA (or his minions) involved in prosecutorial misconduct that results in a false conviction and puts someone on Death Row should take the place of that person on Death Row.
Do you mean multiple killings, like a serial killer or a mass murderer? What about the scumbag who walks into a Quickie Mart and shoots the clerk in the face? It's "only" one victim but the perp deserves to die IMHO.
I assume you're talking about cases where there is no doubt. That I agree with. Circumstantial cases should never be adjudicated with a death sentence.
Further, any DA (or his minions) involved in prosecutorial misconduct that results in a false conviction and puts someone on Death Row should take the place of that person on Death Row.
Yes to every bit of that.
sundance435
03-10-20, 08:19
I wish death penalty cases in America were reserved for the most cut and dried examples of utterly heinous, evil behavior. I say this because we've seen too many examples where prosecutors outmaneuvered their opposing counsel for the win, rather than winning on an iron clad case.
If the post sentencing process was a complete top to bottom review by an impartial investigative panel, where cooperation by the prosecution and law enforcement was a weighted value, I'd at least feel better about it. As others have eloquently stated, there's too much trust placed on the "infallibility" of the system in death penalty cases.
There really are no "cut and dry" examples in criminal cases, though, and most evidence is circumstantial. Even DNA has been demonstrated to have flaws. Plus, there's no such thing as "impartial" when humans are involved. Maybe certain reforms would make us sleep easier thinking the death penalty was sought, obtained, and administered as fairly and judiciously as possible, but it's all really window dressing. As I see it, there's no rational/logical middle ground on the death penalty, and, again, I struggle with that because I still believe some criminals deserve to die. At the very least it should be up to the jury, not some arbitrary list of enumerated crimes, an elected prosecutor, etc. There should also never be a case where anything less than a unanimous jury verdict results in applying the death penalty. I might even go as far as saying that a divided appellate court would result in the death penalty being overturned (as long as the dissent can be tied to evidentiary/procedural issues). That all might result in only a handful of executions or none at all, but that's as close to rational as I can get while still allowing the state to seek and administer the ultimate punishment.
Besides that, before I read this, I was fairly certain the supreme court had already ruled that anything less than a unanimous jury verdict in the death penalty sentencing phase was unconstitutional. I guess maybe it was anything less than 10-2, now that I think about it. Still, even 2 "No"s gives me a lot pause.
There are literally tens of thousands of incarcerated, violent felons that deserve to die more than this guy did.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.