# I support the death penalty, however ...



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

...I see waste, mishandling and cost over runs in this case in our state's death row case.

In my final perusal of my Friday paper after returning home from our weekly card game before adding the paper to the dog's indoor mess tray stock, I read the daily update of the execution stay saga of the death row inmate who was to die at 6 pm. today.

The news finally disclosed the details that convinced the appeals court to finally stay the execution.

It all started in 1984 when a Mobile officer responded to a domestic disturbance and after arriving, the suspect involved in the disturbance slipped up behind the officer and shot him in the back of the head in front of witnesses.

In 1985, he was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death and sent to death row and the appeals process began and has dragged on for 21 years.

During that time the convict has had multiple strokes, cant walk without a walker, exhibits dementia and apparently has a post stroke I.Q. of 70 and is delusional.

The state code says that a convict not in command of their mental faculties cannot be executed.

The article stated that this convict started having the strokes in the 1990 and early 2000's.
Seems to me rather than appealing for stays of this murderer's execution for the last decade, his continuing mental deterioration should have been basis to convert his sentence to life in the convicts old folks lock up and open a room on death row.

Just 6 months ago we had a death row inmate who had been appealing since the late 1970s that after his most recent appeal was found dead on his rack having died in his sleep.

Like I say, I support the death penalty but sometimes I can't help but go :facepalm:


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I would say the most important opinions would be those of the wife, children, mother, father, and siblings of the slain officer.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Don't know the details of this particular case, but one of the reasons appeals get dragged out forever is often because the government does not adequately fund indigent defense (i.e. public defenders) such that they can attract quality lawyers and have copious amounts of time, money and support staff to adequately represent these people. The whole appeals process is often about high quality lawyers with lots of time, money and support staff volunteering after the fact to represent the person on appeal dragging the defense counsel through the mud when those same people never defend the people actually at trial. 

We had a local case that went to the SCOTUS on the issue of whether or not the defense attorney had adequately represented his client. The whole thing boiled down to the defense attorney not introducing certain evidence at sentencing. There was a split among different courts up to the SCOTUS about whether representation had been adequate. The SCOTUS decided it hadn't been but it didn't matter and upheld the death sentence anyway. Quite a bizarre waste of time.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-13-23-19-03

As of last Friday, Ptizer/Hospira is blocking it's use of drugs in lethal injections. This means there are no federally approved drug manufacturers whose drugs could be used for executions as they have been put off limits. 
Texas has turned to compounding pharmacies for their execution drugs.

Pfitzer states it's attitude change came about when it bought out Hospira who had previously refused to make execution drugs. "Pfitzer "makes drugs to enhance lives..."

I say it's all about the fact there is no money to be made in drugs specifically designed for executions. 

This raises the question of what are states going to do with those on death row ready to be executed? It's farcical to have a court condemn a person to death if it can't be done.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-13-23-19-03
> 
> As of last Friday, Ptizer/Hospira is blocking it's use of drugs in lethal injections. This means there are no federally approved drug manufacturers whose drugs could be used for executions as they have been put off limits.
> Texas has turned to compounding pharmacies for their execution drugs.
> ...


I used to support the death penalty but as DNA test became more available the number of people on death row that have had there convictions reverse through DNA testing has made me rethink my stance. 

That being said it is ridiculous that we are stumbling over how to kill prisoners. The FDA decides what drugs are approved for. If a manufacturer wants to sell a certain drug they should be required to sell it for any purpose it is approved for. 

Jim


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Shrek said:


> ...I see waste, mishandling and cost over runs in this case in our state's death row case.
> 
> In my final perusal of my Friday paper after returning home from our weekly card game before adding the paper to the dog's indoor mess tray stock, I read the daily update of the execution stay saga of the death row inmate who was to die at 6 pm. today.
> 
> ...


How about the nearly 300 people who were proven not-guilty and acquitted.....posthumously?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

My dealings with the legal system in the United States have convinced me that it's wrong more often than it's right. 
Do You really have enough faith in the United States government to let it decide whether to kill you or not with no possible chance of redemption? 
Life without parole would seem to offer as many benefits as the death penalty and the additional chance to correct errors.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

wiscto said:


> How about the nearly 300 people who were proven not-guilty and acquitted.....posthumously?


They were spared a painful death of cancer or heart failure or stroke. Quite humanitarian it is in the end. :gossip:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wolf mom said:


> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-13-23-19-03
> 
> As of last Friday, Ptizer/Hospira is blocking it's use of drugs in lethal injections. This means there are no federally approved drug manufacturers whose drugs could be used for executions as they have been put off limits.
> Texas has turned to compounding pharmacies for their execution drugs.
> ...


States are considering renovating their electric chairs and one is considering bringing back the firing squad.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

I too support the death penalty but have concerns about the high rate of convictions which have been overturned by DNA evidence. Hopefully going forward DNA testing being used now will make irrefutable the question of guilt, and the absence of it will preclude the use of the death penalty even if found guilty. But all of that is beside the point. I've never understood why they can't use the drugs which we use to euthanize animals. Anyone who has ever witnessed it knows that it is a peaceful, painless death that is beyond humane. Very simple, no cocktail needed, readily available, and inexpensive.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

We are the only developed nation aside from China with a death penalty. Every other developed country in the world does not have the death penalty. In casts us in the exact same light us those Muslim countries so many detest.

I am opposed to it because I'm basically a pacifist. Some of them need to die, sure, but who's going to make that call? Rotting in prison tends to be worse, anyways.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> We are the only developed nation aside from China with a death penalty. Every other developed country in the world does not have the death penalty. In casts us in the exact same light us those Muslim countries so many detest. *BS. We don't kill innocent people wholesale just because they don't believe in the same fairy tale that we do. Go try living in one of those Muslims countries that you love so much, and see how much your open minded love for their differences is returned.*
> 
> I am opposed to it because I'm basically a pacifist. Some of them need to die, sure, but who's going to make that call? Rotting in prison tends to be worse, anyways.


Rotting in prison is worse, but we have to pay for it. I'll make the call, gladly. Ask the families of the victims if they would too.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Agriculture said:


> Rotting in prison is worse, but we have to pay for it. I'll make the call, gladly. Ask the families of the victims if they would too.


This is true. The average inmate costs $40k a year. I wouldn't mind if the government just sent me a check that size - I'd be fine the whole year!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I donât support the death penalty, and it has nothing to do with preserving the lives of miserable, worthless people who have committed unspeakable crimes. It has a lot to do with several things listed by *Shrek* and a few others.

First, for exactly the reason *wistco* pointed out: Itâs fallible. Generally-accepted statistics show that we get it wrong about *one-sixth* of the time. Thatâs a lot of âcollateral damage.â However, itâs not âthe governmentâ that gets it wrong. Itâs juries. Death penalty cases are almost invariably tried by juries, and often convictions are obtained on the basis of eye witness testimony. That, unfortunately, can be very unreliable.

A common misunderstanding is that the appellate review process reviews the *facts* in death penalty cases and acts as a vanguard against wrongful conviction. Not true. The appellate process reviews *only whether or not the law was properly applied to the facts as they were established by the trial court*. If new facts emerge post-trial, it is very, very difficult to get these new facts in front of the trial court for a hearing. Both prosecutors and judges are reluctant to admit they got it wrong.

If you watch a lot of criminal forensic television shows, you may have the impression that DNA evidence is lying around for almost any case thatâs tried. Far from true. DNA has exonerated some on death row, but DNA isnât available for every case. So such exonerations are only the *documented* cases of errors. There may be many more.

Second, the death penalty is immensely expensive. The argument that it's cheaper to execute someone than to house and feed them for a lifetime is false, not borne out by factual information. Even in Texas, where they like to cattle-car 'em through for relatively quick convictions, the average cost for a death case is 2.3 million. In California, it costs more than 6 times as much as your average run-of-the-mill homicide case. 

From the instant a case is declared a death penalty case, the costs are guaranteed to run into *millions* of dollars. Few venues can afford this. The last death penalty case I worked, the defendant had 3 full-time attorneys assigned, one death qualified, meaning the attorney is familiar with death penalty law. It is a specialty, and death-qualified lawyers are scarce.

Again, death penalty cases are subject to automatic appellate review. At each stage, the defendant is assigned new attorneys and the case is again reviewed. The appeals process takes years and years. None of the defendants who were convicted of the death penalty in my years working for the court have yet been put to death. I started there in 1988 and left in 2002.

That brings me to my third reason. Contrary to what is commonly stated, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent by any objective measurement. A punishment that takes more than 25 years to carry out is no deterrent at all. And yet, despite all the stopgaps intended to prevent wrongful convictions, they still occur to a disturbing degree.

Fourth, and one reason few people think about, is that defendants are far from the only persons who suffer when the death penalty is imposed. If someone says to me, âI could pull the lever and not even flinch,â I know theyâve never sat on a death case. Some jurors never get over the experience. It changes their lives, irrevocably and forever. In the last death penalty case I worked, the defendant was an admitted serial killer. We had a platinum conviction from the guilt phase enhanced by the defendantâs confession and the fact that he led investigators to where he had buried the bodies. The jury still deliberated in the penalty phase for more than 3 days. When they returned, I knew I was going to read out a death verdict without even seeing it beforehand, because none could look at the defendant and all â *all* â were crying. This was true in both death penalty cases I did.

Imagine yourself to be a jury member on a death penalty case. Now imagine that many years after the event, you learn that the defendant who has since been put to death was, in fact, innocent. Think your life wouldnât be affected?

Fifth, in death cases I worked, the defendants expressed a preference to die rather than spend the rest of their lives caged in a supermax. I believed them. I've come to believe that LWOP is a harsher punishment than being put to death, no matter what method is chosen.

Lastly, itâs easy to want revenge, an eye for an eye. But many in our society aspire to be better than that. If you doubt the strength of such feelings, I offer the family of one of the victims in the serial killer case I mentioned. They were against the death penalty before their daughter was murdered, and they were against the death penalty after. Their lovely 23-year-old daughter was killed in a ghastly way after having been held as a hostage for a long period of time and repeatedly raped. For all that, the family never wavered in their opposition to the death penalty. They refused to attend the trial because despite their wishes, it was pursued as a death penalty case. They shunned all publicity. That is courage. That is strength. I admire them beyond expression to this day.

If you think it's no big deal to get this ultimate penalty wrong, then I invite you to be the one to tell the family members of the innocent persons executed. You can tell the jurors, too. 

I will never support a practice so final and so fallible. And I had a front row seat to it.


----------



## wvcabin (Dec 9, 2009)

I agree that if there is any doubt that someone is guilty, they should be able to appeal it, but there are cases everyday where people commit horrible acts of violence and murder, and admit that they did it. or they where caught on camera doing it. or what about the ones that do the crime in front of a large group of people, not just one witness, why should we spend the next 30 years in court battles, when we know they are guilty. these people should be put to death in a very short and timely matter, Tim


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

WC cabin because none of the things you listed means someone really did it. 
All of them are fallible .


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

The whole capital case with death penalty makes no sense to me. Often life in prison is about 25 years and then out. Our death row inmates use up 14-20 years in just appeals which cost the citizenry a bunch more money. It just seem to me that if you are found guilty of an offense and sentenced to death by a jury of your peers then you and your attorney should be given one year only to determine if there was some horrible flaw in the process of obtaining the conviction. At the end of that year the convicted should be taken out back against a wall in full view of anyone who wants to watch and shot in the head till dead. The end.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So sister pine you are good with killing the innocent as long as the process is quick and the punishment cruel?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

wvcabin said:


> I agree that if there is any doubt that someone is guilty, they should be able to appeal it, but there are cases everyday where people commit horrible acts of violence and murder, and admit that they did it. or they where caught on camera doing it. or what about the ones that do the crime in front of a large group of people, not just one witness, why should we spend the next 30 years in court battles, when we know they are guilty. these people should be put to death in a very short and timely matter, Tim


So the clever ones get away with it, and the dumb ones get executed? Doesn't really seem like justice to me.

I've seen a number of people coerced into false confessions. I guess they're too dumb to live, too.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> So the clever ones get away with it, and the dumb ones get executed? Doesn't really seem like justice to me.
> 
> I've seen a number of people coerced into false confessions. I guess they're too dumb to live, too.


I'd say it's safe to say the dumb criminal get caught for often. I'm sure the smarter criminals like it that way, too - less competition.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> So sister pine you are good with killing the innocent as long as the process is quick and the punishment cruel?


What pray tell is "cruel" about depositing a quarter ounce of lead into a fellers brain? It's lights out before the sound of the shot reaches his ears.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I am against the death penalty because I don't trust government to have the combined intelligence to fix a pot hole, much less pick the correct person to kill.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> So sister pine you are good with killing the innocent as long as the process is quick and the punishment cruel?


The entire judicial system is built on this premise. You not knowing that does not keep it from being true. With very little effort, this popped up. Since it is so widely known, surely a better search could even yield the numerous SCOTUS ruling. 

You are guilty not because you did it, but because 12 people said you are guilty. Innocence at that stage of the process no longer has anything at all to do with it. 

Even the prosecuting DA, if they changed their mind, can do nothing to stop the system. Only a pardon. 

So wail on about the innocent all you like. Thats not how it works. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ration_scalia_s_embarrassing_question_is.html


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I am against the death penalty because I don't trust government to have the combined intelligence to fix a pot hole, much less pick the correct person to kill.


I am *NOT *against the death penalty, *BUT* I don't trust government to have the combined intelligence to fix a pot hole, much less pick the correct person to kill.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

tamarackreg said:


> I am *NOT *against the death penalty, *BUT* I don't trust government to have the combined intelligence to fix a pot hole, much less pick the correct person to kill.


Yeah, that is about where I am. There are crimes that deserve the death penalty, but, government is far to inept to be trusted to administer said punishment.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Raeven said:


> So the clever ones get away with it, and the dumb ones get executed? Doesn't really seem like justice to me.
> 
> I've seen a number of people coerced into false confessions. I guess they're too dumb to live, too.


There are only 2 differences in a felony and a misdemeanor . A good lawyer and a great plea deal....


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Want to remove race from the equation? Never let the jury see the defendant. Judge on facts presented only. If testifying, they testify via a court appointed "answerer". Now race means nothing as it is unknown. Why dont we have this? Centuries old custom so people can see if you look guilty.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

American Stand I would kill no innocent persons. Only those tried and convicted by a panel of their peers. I would even permit a 12 month period for those that are of that ilk to go over the process with a fine tooth comb looking for errors and omissions that might require a retrial. Then I would be willing, personally, to put the person to death.

We currently have no absolute way to determine guilt or innocence. I was going to say a confession would take care of it but folks do confess to stuff all the time just to get attention or due to mental disease. We humans do our best to listen to the evidence provided to us by trained professionals and that is the best we have. Will someone along the way, who is innocent of the crime, be put to death...of course that will happen. All things that are possible will eventually happen in this universe. There really is no "certainty" about anything. The system we have now sometimes kills innocent people, not with malice but with human error. Fer cryin out loud, if you are looking for the perfect solution to a problem you are barking on the wrong planet. Doing away with the death penalty serves no purpose in stopping horrible crimes.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

sisterpine said:


> Doing away with the death penalty serves no purpose in stopping horrible crimes.


Having the death penalty hasn't stopped horrible crimes either. So what purpose does it serve?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> Having the death penalty hasn't stopped horrible crimes either. So what purpose does it serve?


What penalty would you ascribe to a lifer for killing a prison guard at every opportunity? To serve snother term after death?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> What penalty would you ascribe to a lifer for killing a prison guard at every opportunity? To serve snother term after death?


The threat of death didn't stop him from killing all those guards now did it?


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I firmly believe that a legal system providing fair, sure, quick, punishment will deter criminals. And if nothing else it is unlikely that the deceased criminal will arise and commit more crimes so the death penalty, when carried out, does deter crime.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

sisterpine said:


> I firmly believe that a legal system providing fair, sure, quick, punishment will deter criminals. And if nothing else it is unlikely that the deceased criminal will arise and commit more crimes so the death penalty, when carried out, does deter crime.


Our legal system is supposedly one of the best out there, and yet we throw more people in prison than ANY OTHER COUNTRY OUT THERE. Go figure. I highly doubt a good legal system deters criminals.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm all for victims, or their families, offing their supposed offenders. I don't want my Government doing it, and I sure as heck don't want them doing it behind closed walls. If you want to kill someone, have at it, and it's on you. If you support your government killing people, that's on you too, but, it's also on me, and I don't want it on me.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> The threat of death didn't stop him from killing all those guards now did it?


No. How many can they kill after getting dead on a table?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Our legal system is supposedly one of the best out there, and yet we throw more people in prison than ANY OTHER COUNTRY OUT THERE. Go figure. I highly doubt a good legal system deters criminals.


When you drive a car, assuming you obey the laws, is it out of morale obligation to your fellow citizens and your concern for their safety, or because you dont want to pay a $250 fine?


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

The threat of death doesn't stop them from killing, because getting sentenced to death rarely results in actual application of the death penalty. If so it takes years to get it done.

If you walked them out back and shot this scum right after the court proceedings wrapped up, they might think twice before committing these horrible crimes, plus you would eliminate a whole lot of wasted jail time, attorney expense, etc.

Yes, there have been a few falsely accused folks put to death, but that number is very, very small. Most charged with the death penalty are no question guilty, and scum of the earth.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> When you drive a car, assuming you obey the laws, is it out of morale obligation to your fellow citizens and your concern for their safety, or because you dont want to pay a $250 fine?


Both. be careful when you goalpost a question.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Our legal system is supposedly one of the best out there, and yet we throw more people in prison than ANY OTHER COUNTRY OUT THERE. Go figure. I highly doubt a good legal system deters criminals.


Private Criminal housing is big business now for a few Companies and a breeding ground for corruption on a large scale.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Fishindude said:


> Yes, there have been a few falsely accused folks put to death, but that number is very, very small. Most charged with the death penalty are no question guilty, and scum of the earth.



A few ? FEW ?
How many does it take to make it wrong ? What if the FEW included You ?

In my state that FEW has been shown to average over HALF. 
Hard to get behind a system that is wrong more than it's right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

sisterpine said:


> American Stand I would kill no innocent persons. ........The system we have now sometimes kills innocent people, not with malice but with human error. Fer cryin out loud, if you are looking for the perfect solution to a problem you are barking on the wrong planet. Doing away with the death penalty serves no purpose in stopping horrible crimes.


 Ok how about a perfect system that guarantees you never kill an innocent person would you go for that?
Yes a perfect system can exist on this planet!
It's very simple don't kill anybody and you will never kill the wrong person. 
Simple perfect easy Peazy !


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*A few ? FEW ?
How many does it take to make it wrong ? What if the FEW included You ?*

In the interest of putting some teeth in our legal system, I'll take my chances.



*In my state that FEW has been shown to average over HALF. 
Hard to get behind a system that is wrong more than it's right.*

No way, over half given the death penalty are "not guilty".
Don't know where you came up with your data, but that is simply untrue.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

First how can you say "Ok how about a perfect system that guarantees you never kill an innocent person would you go for that?
Yes a perfect system can exist on this planet!
It's very simple don't kill anybody and you will never kill the wrong person. 
Simple perfect easy Peazy ! " What about all the folks that get killed and maimed by those who might be given the death penalty. Do their lives no longer count? Should we merely allow your wrongfully "sentenced to death" people to continue to cause such great harm just to make you feel better.

Ok, I'll play. If we had a "perfect" system on this planet where no one ever murdered anyone ever, no one ever did huge irreparable physical or mental harm to another being---then i would do away with the death penalty.

Fortunately, for most of us, we live in a reality where we must make decisions about things such as a death penalty. I often wonder if those who are against the DP are the same ones who are against putting drug addicts who maim and steal in prison, are the same ones who think disciplining your kids is a poor idea etc.

My person belief is that we are all children either of Gods or of the universe and as children we function better with rules and boundaries. Those of us who refuse to follow the rules and respect the boundaries need/want/should be disciplined. The discipline needs to fit the action. Breaking the arm of another needs to bring on a discipline of equal order. Not that we should break someones arm - though we could bind up the others arm so it too could not be used and would be painful for six weeks or so. Then how do we discipline for the fear/terror/pain that the victim felt...do we just blow that off? Obviously this is not a cut and dry issue and I personally resent folks who take a hard line stance and do not even admit that the playing field is filled with other players.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Sorry fishing dude but it was in all the papers. , the governor stated it was the reason he commuted all death sentences.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SisterPine the victims of a crime are not served in anyway by killing an innocent man. 
Life in prison is an alternate sentence that is acceptable except in the matter of revenge. So it really comes down to a matter of hate is your hate going to outweigh the rights of a innocent man to live?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> SisterPine the victims of a crime are not served in anyway by killing an innocent man.
> Life in prison is an alternate sentence that is acceptable except in the matter of revenge. So it really comes down to a matter of hate is your hate going to outweigh the rights of a innocent man to live?


You are not innocent if 12 people said you are guilty. I already explained that to you. If you did not do it, once that verdict gets read, that no longer matters AT ALL. SCOTUS has ruled so many times, innocence is not grounds for an appeal. It just flat doesnt matter. Society says you die, you die. Period. Should have lived a better life.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> You are not innocent if 12 people said you are guilty. I already explained that to you. If you did not do it, once that verdict gets read, that no longer matters AT ALL. SCOTUS has ruled so many times, innocence is not grounds for an appeal. It just flat doesnt matter. Society says you die, you die. Period. Should have lived a better life.



Ok I'll bite,
If you didn't do the crime. How do you live a better life ?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok I'll bite,
> If you didn't do the crime. How do you live a better life ?


Lets start with not having a rap sheet 3 miles long starting at age 12. In and out of juveline detention until you finally graduated to a capital crime charge. Lets just start there. Would that be fair?

Go find me a case against some person who just held a job, never in trouble past a speeding ticket, suddenly and wrongly charged with a capital crime and found guilty in the absence of extreme prejudicial evidence. Please. Hint: it wont exist.

Your theoretical inncocent person who never did anything wrong is a fantasy. Remember the childhood story about the boy who cried wolf? We each must answer for the reputation we earn.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Rice guy each of those builds on the one before. 
So stealing a pack of gum at 5 leads to a undeserved death penalty. 

Worse yet is your insinuation that being bad for other things means you should randomly die for something you wouldn't do.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Rice guy each of those builds on the one before.
> So stealing a pack of gum at 5 leads to a undeserved death penalty.
> 
> Worse yet is your insinuation that being bad for other things means you should randomly die for something you wouldn't do.


It is NOT undeserved. You stood before a sample of your community who voted and said you die. That is not random. Your hypothetical person is not part of the debate. Real people in real trials who are found real guilty and get real dead are. See the "real" theme? They had a chance. They knew the consequences. Now cry like a girl and wet yourself while the govt injects you. Not so tough now.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Texas leads that nation in executions. Its not enough for me. All raped commited with a weapon? Dead. All premeditated murder? Dead. All nonconsensual child molestors? Dead.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You can be found guilty and still be innocent.

The problem is two fold. People and evidence. Jurors and people working in the court system are human and fallible. Add into that the witnesses and even law officers are human as well and you have a flawed system. Evidence is not always what it appears to be. DNA has often proved that those found guilty in court may have not committed the crime.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You can be found guilty and still be innocent.
> 
> The problem is two fold. People and evidence. Jurors and people working in the court system are human and fallible. Add into that the witnesses and even law officers are human as well and you have a flawed system. Evidence is not always what it appears to be. DNA has often proved that those found guilty in court may have not committed the crime.


You have demonstrated an affection for SCOTUS. SCOTUS says you are wrong. When found guilty, you are guilty. Period. Its the law. It has been the law for a very very long time. That is why Obama is letting drug dealers out every week. It is the only means to end a sentence.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> You have demonstrated an affection for SCOTUS. SCOTUS says you are wrong. When found guilty, you are guilty. Period. Its the law. It has been the law for a very very long time.


Yes, it is the law until an appeal or future evidence changes that.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Yes, it is the law until an appeal or future evidence changes that.


Future evidence does not matter. You can prove innocence and still be put to death. What part of innocence is not grounds for an appeal keeps getting by? Pls go read the link on the matter I posted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Future evidence does not matter. You can prove innocence and still be put to death. What part of innocence is not grounds for an appeal keeps getting by? Pls go read the link on the matter I posted.


You can be prove innocence and be let free with that future evidence.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You can be prove innocence and be let free with that future evidence.


Mo, you most certainly will NOT. Your verdict may be set aside on due process. In evidence was improperly handled or tampered with, your verdict will be set aside for failing to give you due process. You are not innocent. The DA csn recharge you 1 second later and have you arrested. You are just flat incorrect here.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Innocense is NOT grounds for an appeal. There are cases wherea DA convicted someone, them spent 15 years trying to free them because they discovered they were innocent of the crime. Doesnt matter. Jury said guilty.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Mo, you most certainly will NOT. Your verdict may be set aside on due process. In evidence was improperly handled or tampered with, your verdict will be set aside for failing to give you due process. You are not innocent. The DA csn recharge you 1 second later and have you arrested. You are just flat incorrect here.


You either get a guilty or not guilty in court. Nothing about innocent or not in there at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Rice guy are you ok with killing some one that didn't commit a crime ?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You either get a guilty or not guilty in court. Nothing about innocent or not in there at all.


Bingo. Right on. And when they say guilty, you are guilty. It has absolutely nothing to do with did you do it. Glad to see you understand now.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

You are arguing with SCOTUS here, not me. You are just flat out wrong. SCOTUS has ruled people must serve sentences for crimes they did not commit.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Bingo. Right on. And when they say guilty, you are guilty. It has absolutely nothing to do with did you do it. Glad to see you understand now.


I always understood. Just proving that your posts often argue with people when you don't really know what they are saying.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I always understood. Just proving that your posts often argue with people when you don't really know what they are saying.


Well, you keep saying some evidence of innocence will free people. You are wrong. Only due process will. Fact. To be complete, or a pardon, which is how proof of innocence bypasses a conviction, but is not guaranteed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Well, you keep saying some evidence of innocence will free people. You are wrong. Only due process will. Fact.


You are entertaining. Due process may include proving the evidence of innocence.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You are entertaining. Due process may include proving the evidence of innocence.


source for all data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

*Because most forms of post-conviction collateral relief are limited to procedural or Constitutional flaws in the trial itself, claims of "actual innocence" generally are recognized only in those states which have adopted specific "actual innocence" statutes.* Otherwise, in order to obtain post-conviction collateral relief,* a defendant must often plead a specific statutory grounds for relief, i.e., that the conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution of the United States.* In jurisdictions that restrict a court's power to hear a post-conviction petition to a time period defined by statute, the court cannot grant post-conviction relief upon expiration of the time period regardless of the discovery of proof of "actual innocence" of the crime for which he was convicted. The jurisdictional bar is often rationalized by citing the requirement of finality of the judicial process in order to maintain the integrity of the system. While some argue that this is unjust for the convicted, it is rationalized that continued specter of "actual innocence" after the conclusion of a trial would make the adjudication process moot, which may lead to rule of law problems.

In the United States, this tradition has been heavily revised. As DNA testing grew more sophisticated, every state adopted statutes or rules allowing newly discovered DNA results to form the basis of a challenge to a conviction on grounds of "actual innocence." The scope and breadth of an inmate's ability to bring a DNA-based claim of actual innocence varies greatly from state to state. *The Supreme Court has ruled that convicted persons do not have a constitutional due process right to bring DNA-based post-conviction "actual innocence" claims. District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). Thus, the way such claims are handled may vary greatly from one jurisdiction to the next.*

Following reports of a sizable number of DNA-based exonerations, some states also have adopted broader "actual innocence" statutes allowing post-conviction challenges on the basis of newly discovered evidence in general. The Commonwealth of Virginia adopted such a law in 2004, subjecting petitioners to a very high standard of proof to overturn a conviction: that "the previously unknown or unavailable evidence is material and, when considered with all of the other evidence in the current record, will prove that no rational trier of fact would have found proof of guilt or delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt." Va. Code Ann. Â§ 19.2-327.11. Upon the presentation of such evidence, the Virginia Court of Appeals (its intermediate appellate court) may reverse the conviction. In 2009 the State of Maryland adopted a law with a significantly lower standard: the new evidence must "create[] a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different[.]" Md. Code Ann., Crim. Pro. Art. Â§8-301. However, the Maryland law allows for a retrial rather than a summary reversal. The State of Utah has adopted an actual innocence statute. The legislatures of Wyoming and Missouri were considering similar laws in 2013.

Even in those jurisdictions without formal "actual innocence" provisions in their post-conviction statutes, actual innocence can have a procedural effect, in that it will excuse procedural default and permit the filing of a successor collateral relief petition. This is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995)[1], in which a death row inmate filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, asserting as substantive claims the claims that his trial lawyer had ineffectively failed to present alibi witnesses and that the Government had wrongly concealed exculpatory evidence. Schlup also argued that he was actually innocent --- not because that was a substantive ground for relief, but because his actual innocence excused his failure to raise his ineffective-counsel and prosecutorial-nondisclosure claims in his state court pleadings and in his first federal habeas petition. Whether or not relief was to be granted, the Schlup Court held, depended on the merits of his ineffective counsel and prosecutorial nondisclosure claims.

You are wrong. In the absence of a state law regarding inocence as relief, you will rot in jail or die. Period. Please read and learn.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> source for all data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence
> 
> *Because most forms of post-conviction collateral relief are limited to procedural or Constitutional flaws in the trial itself, claims of "actual innocence" generally are recognized only in those states which have adopted specific "actual innocence" statutes.* Otherwise, in order to obtain post-conviction collateral relief,* a defendant must often plead a specific statutory grounds for relief, i.e., that the conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution of the United States.* In jurisdictions that restrict a court's power to hear a post-conviction petition to a time period defined by statute, the court cannot grant post-conviction relief upon expiration of the time period regardless of the discovery of proof of "actual innocence" of the crime for which he was convicted. The jurisdictional bar is often rationalized by citing the requirement of finality of the judicial process in order to maintain the integrity of the system. While some argue that this is unjust for the convicted, it is rationalized that continued specter of "actual innocence" after the conclusion of a trial would make the adjudication process moot, which may lead to rule of law problems.
> 
> ...


Where did I ever post that in all cases in all states that you would automatically get off if you were proven innocent. You do often assume that people are saying things that they are not. So to be wrong I would have actually had to say that.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You can be prove innocence and be let free with that future evidence.


Care to decypher this for me?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Care to decypher this for me?


Does it say " in all circumstances" or did you just read that into the sentence?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Does it say " in all circumstances" or did you just read that into the sentence?


Right  I think all reasonable people reading this know how it went. You just forgot type to type maybe sorta not real sure depends on the state. Wasnt at all about being overcome by the emotion that a person might serve a sentence for a crime they did not commit. No way. 

I was 200% right. Proved it. Have a nice day.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

This is why we must have death penalty. The "perfect system" cannot exist. 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/2...ugs-after-leaving-prison-recordings-show.html


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> This is why we must have death penalty. The "perfect system" cannot exist.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/2...ugs-after-leaving-prison-recordings-show.html



Since we can't be perfect we should kill randum people ?
What's the logic in that ?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Since we can't be perfect we should kill randum people ?
> What's the logic in that ?


They are not random. They stood trial. They put up a fight. Society said die. Nothing random about it. Does that make your heart sad? Does it wound your inner child?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A trial doesn't change the randomness. 
Yes the killing of people makes my heart sad and wounds my inner child. 
You never answered the question in post 60.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> A trial doesn't change the randomness.
> Yes the killing of people makes my heart sad and wounds my inner child.
> You never answered the question in post 60.


It doesnt hurt my heart or inner child in the least. Shoot them in the face with a bazooka.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What if it were your child or you ?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> What if it were your child or you ?


My children are not drug dealers, thieves, murderers, or rapists. I am not afrsid of the police. Care to tell us what you do to make you fear police?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Crickets.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

First off I said nothing about the relatives of the murder victim being served by executing the person found guilty of committing the murder. I said that the executed convicted murderer would commit no more murders and thus society as a whole is served. I also believe that sure and fast punishment in the case of execution will in the not too distant future have a direct impact on the number of murders committed. If people know, for a fact, that they will be executed for certain crimes then the committing of those certain crimes will decrease. Criminals are not stupid they know how to play by the rules and knowing the penalty (for sure) of breaking the rules will cause their behaviors to change.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I so not understand why it is so difficult for us, on this forum, to follow a topic and not go off on tangents about stuff the OP is not even discussing. Maybe this is part of the reason we have so many problems in this country, we do not listen well, we do not comprehend well and we are unable to stay focused. I include even myself in this opinion though I am working hard to change that facet of me.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

That's balderdash. People commit premeditated murder because they think they'll get away with it. Killing people to show that killing is wrong, well, it just doesn't work.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> This is why we must have death penalty. The "perfect system" cannot exist.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/2...ugs-after-leaving-prison-recordings-show.html


The death penalty is the most heathen part of our justice system. It is injustice. Many people deserve the punishment, but since our system is not perfect like you think, we end up with innocent people in prison and death row.

Since you just showed PW that it's next to impossible to prove someone innocent after a jury trial, why do you support the death penalty when there is a chance they're innocent?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> It doesnt hurt my heart or inner child in the least. Shoot them in the face with a bazooka.


I think you've been playing too many video games.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> The death penalty is the most heathen part of our justice system. It is injustice. Many people deserve the punishment, but since our system is not perfect like you think, we end up with innocent people in prison and death row.
> 
> Since you just showed PW that it's next to impossible to prove someone innocent after a jury trial, why do you support the death penalty when there is a chance they're innocent?


I dont run the country or SCOTUS, do I smart fella? Same 9 men you all hang your progressive dreams on said it. Talk to them. Maybe they will completely rip apart the entire justice system while ripping apart our norms. Either way, has nothing to do with me, does it?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> I think you've been playing too many video games.


I think you have been watching too much Sesame Street. So?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I dont run the country or SCOTUS, do I smart fella? Same 9 men you all hang your progressive dreams on said it. Talk to them. Maybe they will completely rip apart the entire justice system while ripping apart our norms. Either way, has nothing to do with me, does it?


No, it has nothing to do with you, aside from your arguments.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Vicker...and I think what you say is balderdash as well...so what. I do not know how many murders you have taken the time to speak with but I can claim about 2 dozen in my years as a cop/detective/and prison therapist. In many cases i was told - I did not do it, I am innocent or I was framed or it was an accident or it was the victims fault. In several cases I was told things like "Ya, I did it and I would do it again" "I did it but I actually thought I would get away with it cause the cops are stupid" Never once did I hear anyone say...."if it thought they would kill me in response to my killing him/her I would not have done it" because we rarely if ever kill the killer!


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, it has nothing to do with you, aside from your arguments.


Fact remains, however much it hurts you to see those poor victim serial rapists killed, even if they are being killed for a rape they didnt commit, in the absence of a state law, the United States of America says lay down or we will lay you down. Lets all cry. In the end, they die. Goodbye.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Fact remains, however much it hurts you to see those poor victim serial rapists killed, even if they are being killed for a rape they didnt commit, in the absence of a state law, the United States of America says lay down or we will lay you down. Lets all cry. In the end, they die. Goodbye.


But very few rapists get put on death row. So what's the point of even having it?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> But very few rapists get put on death row. So what's the point of even having it?


It kills people taking up valuable oxygen. Some of them have to be liberals. Cant be all bad.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

That rice guy is pretty much saying, just kill them all and let God sort them out, they must be guilty of something. I'm not quite sure what the pine lady is saying. Boy, the quality of conversation sure has dried up around here. I'm going to just sit it out.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The whole point of Mosaic Law is to point out that we all deserve to die. Rice guy gets points there. The New Testament doesn't change that, it just throws in a wild card. The wild card is love, understanding and compassion. Grace. I need it, except it and am glad to have it. 
People aren't executed in this country for murdering someone, they are executed for crimes against the State. There is a difference. They label it as murder, but they remove the passion. Only passion can justify the taking of a life. And, then, it is still wrong.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> It kills people taking up valuable oxygen. Some of them have to be liberals. Cant be all bad.


Disgusting. You're barely worthy of the label Christian.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

That's the problem with Christianity. You still think he qualifies. Don't call me Christian.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Disgusting. You're barely worthy of the label Christian.


You definately dont deserve the title scientist or intellectual. We are even.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

vicker said:


> That's the problem with Christianity. You still think he qualifies. Don't call me Christian.


Fine. He doesn't qualify at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> My children are not drug dealers, thieves, murderers, or rapists. I am not afrsid of the police. Care to tell us what you do to make you fear police?



In your world they don't need to be for you to kill them. As soon as they are accused of something you are ready to shoot them in the face with a bazooka.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> In your world they don't need to be for you to kill them. As soon as they are accused of something you are ready to shoot them in the face with a bazooka.


So to your brain, someone who went to trial and was found guilty, went thru automatic mandatory appeal is exactly the same as someone accused. My my, the emotions are strong in this one.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

thericeguy said:


> source for all data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence
> 
> *Because most forms of post-conviction collateral relief are limited to procedural or Constitutional flaws in the trial itself, claims of "actual innocence" generally are recognized only in those states which have adopted specific "actual innocence" statutes.* Otherwise, in order to obtain post-conviction collateral relief,* a defendant must often plead a specific statutory grounds for relief, i.e., that the conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution of the United States.* In jurisdictions that restrict a court's power to hear a post-conviction petition to a time period defined by statute, the court cannot grant post-conviction relief upon expiration of the time period regardless of the discovery of proof of "actual innocence" of the crime for which he was convicted. The jurisdictional bar is often rationalized by citing the requirement of finality of the judicial process in order to maintain the integrity of the system. While some argue that this is unjust for the convicted, it is rationalized that continued specter of "actual innocence" after the conclusion of a trial would make the adjudication process moot, which may lead to rule of law problems.
> 
> ...


That would be incorrect. McQuiggin v Perkins SCOTUS 2013.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

elevenpoint said:


> That would be incorrect. McQuiggin v Perkins SCOTUS 2013.


This ruling and case has little to nothing to do with actual innocence or sentences being served by innocent people. If there exists a statute regarding actual innocence as relief, it overrides procedural statutes of limitations.

It does NOT establish innocence as a valid appeal for relief.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

While it may bother you to think an innocent person may be sitting in a jail, the reality is that no perfect system exists made by man. The system must accomplish the most good most of the time. That is how public policy is done. You cannot allow your emotions over a few isolated cases to prevent you from installing a decent system that will accomplish many good goals for society. 

I suspect some of you would be completely unable to order soldiers to war under any circumstance. People would have to die so others may live. Reality bites doesnt it?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

No need for any statutes, habeus has been around for a bit.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Sigh. Nevermind. I hope you never get convicted for something you didnt do. Your lawyer will have to explain it to you unless your state has a statute. Your innocence means mothing once 12 say guilty. Its just a hard pill to swallow.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> No. How many can they kill after getting dead on a table?



Post of the day award.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

thericeguy said:


> While it may bother you to think an innocent person may be sitting in a jail, the reality is that no perfect system exists made by man. The system must accomplish the most good most of the time. That is how public policy is done. You cannot allow your emotions over a few isolated cases to prevent you from installing a decent system that will accomplish many good goals for society.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect some of you would be completely unable to order soldiers to war under any circumstance. People would have to die so others may live. Reality bites doesnt it?



Yes it bothers me when innocent people are in jail. It should bother you too. Like you I belive no system is perfect. 
But I believe it's our duty to make it as good as can be. 
I belive it's our duty to correct our mistakes as much as possable. 
Since we can't correct our mistakes if one is found after death It seems reasonable to not put people to death. 

Moreover a system that is wrong more that right seems irrational.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Sigh. Nevermind. I hope you never get convicted for something you didnt do. Your lawyer will have to explain it to you unless your state has a statute. Your innocence means mothing once 12 say guilty. Its just a hard pill to swallow.


Why would 12 witnesses profess to an untruth?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> In your world they don't need to be for you to kill them. As soon as they are accused of something you are ready to shoot them in the face with a bazooka.


Apparently if they're liberals it makes it even easier.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Think jury. Geez.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

thericeguy said:


> Sigh. Nevermind. I hope you never get convicted for something you didnt do. Your lawyer will have to explain it to you unless your state has a statute. Your innocence means mothing once 12 say guilty. Its just a hard pill to swallow.


Read Hererra and get back with me on actual innocence. There is no time limit on a actual innocence claim with newly discovered evidence. Even after all appeals have been exhausted.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

elevenpoint said:


> Read Hererra and get back with me on actual innocence. There is no time limit on a actual innocence claim with newly discovered evidence. Even after all appeals have been exhausted.


Umm, did you read the case? this is going to be funny, and might taste bad in your mouth. I will quote for you.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

*Chief Justice William Rehnquistâs majority opinion held that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence did not state a ground for federal habeas relief.* Herrera had claimed that, because the new evidence demonstrated innocence, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendmentâs ban on cruel and unusual punishment which applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Rehnquistâs opinion noted that â[f]ew rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual innocence.â Rehnquistâs opinion, although not explicitly holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit executing an innocent person, emphasized that Herrera was not raising a constitutional violation. In discussing what relief Herrera would be entitled to were he to succeed on his claim of âactual innocence,â Rehnquist wrote

Were petitioner to satisfy the dissent's âprobable innocenceâ standardâ¦the District Court would presumably be required to grant a conditional order of relief, which would in effect require the State to retry petitioner 10 years after his first trial, not because of any constitutional violation which had occurred at the first trial, but simply because of a belief that in light of petitioner's new-found evidence a jury might find him not guilty at a second trial.

*Rehnquistâs opinion also held that Texas courtsâ refusal to even consider Herreraâs newly discovered evidence did not violate due process and suggested that Herrera file a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles.*

Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion. Although she joined the majority opinion, in her concurring opinion, O'Connor wrote that "the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event." Dispositive for Justice O'Connor, however, was that "[Herrera was] not innocent in any sense of the word." O'Connor took the position that* Herrera could not be "legally and factually innocent" because he "was tried before a jury of his peers, with the full panoply of protections that our Constitution affords criminal defendants. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found [Herrera] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."* O'Connor reiterated *the majority's conclusion that the execution of an innocent person was not unconstitutional* by assuming that there was no constitutional issue raised:


Consequently, the issue before us is not whether a State can execute the innocent. It is, as the Court notes, whether a fairly convicted and therefore legally guilty person is constitutionally entitled to yet another judicial proceeding in which to adjudicate his guilt anew, 10 years after conviction, notwithstanding his failure to demonstrate that constitutional error infected his trial.

O'Connor concluded by asserting that the majority did not hold that the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent person.

Antonin Scalia joined the majority, but added in passing that* he found no basis, either in the Constitution or in case law, to conclude that executing an innocent but duly convicted defendant would violate the Eighth Amendment.* He sharply criticized the dissenting justices' appeal to conscience:

Do you want to continue this ridiculous line of reasoning where you continue to assert that you know something SCOTUS is not aware of? Totally hilarious that you throw up a case which CLEARLY states what I have said all along is right. You cannot be innocent if found guilty. It has been ruled in many cases. You are just plain wrong.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

thericeguy said:


> Umm, did you read the case? this is going to be funny, and might taste bad in your mouth. I will quote for you.
> 
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins
> 
> ...


 Herrera is a case that is very narrow in its interpretation of the basis for which a defendant may employ a writ of habeas corpus as a means of bringing their claim of innocence before the Supreme Court. You would do well to acknowledge that in your writings, instead of attempting to bootstrap it into a blanket excuse to deny a defendant a re-hearing on the question of his guilt or innocence. As usual, you cherry pick the quotes you think make your case favorable, then employ your customary tactics of ridicule and personal attack, as if this makes your case stronger. It doesnât.

The Supreme Court is simply saying in Herrera that a defendant must pursue other avenues than SCOTUS to offer new exculpatory evidence. To pretend it is a basis to deny a defendant any further access to the courts to present such evidence is idiotic and a fundamental misunderstanding of the case law.

You appear to not understand the following rather important dicta from Rehnquistâs majority opinion: âChief Justice William Rehnquist's majority opinion held that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence did not state a ground for *federal habeas relief*. Herrera had claimed that, because the new evidence demonstrated innocence, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendmentâs ban on cruel and unusual punishment which applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Rehnquistâs opinion noted that _â[f]ew rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual innocence.â *Rehnquistâs opinion*, although not explicitly holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit executing an innocent person*, emphasized that Herrera was not raising a constitutional violation. In discussing what relief Herrera would be entitled to were he to succeed on his claim of âactual innocence,â Rehnquist wrote,â Were petitioner to satisfy the dissent's âprobable innocenceâ standardâ¦the District Court would presumably be required to grant a conditional order of relief, which would in effect require the State to retry petitioner 10 years after his first trial, not because of any constitutional violation which had occurred at the first trial, but simply because of a belief that in light of petitioner's new-found evidence a jury might find him not guilty at a second trial*_*.*ââ

You also failed to appreciate Justice Sandra Day OâConnorâs concurring opinion: "*the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event." *Further, OâConnor opined that this defendant was not factually innocent.

So let me break this down for you. The case is strictly for the holding that a defendant could not bring his case for a determination of legal and/or factual innocence to SCOTUS via this legal mechanism, meaning a writ of habeas corpus. It certainly doesnât mean the defendant has no avenue or right to pursue his innocence through other means. Get it now? It's a procedural matter, nothing more.

The case does not stand for what you are arguing it stands for.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

thericeguy said:


> Umm, did you read the case? this is going to be funny, and might taste bad in your mouth. I will quote for you.
> 
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins
> 
> ...


Do you know what a Herrera type claim is? Do you know what a Schlup type claim is? No, you do not. You won't learn on Wiki either. Herrera is a moot point, McQuiggin v Perkins is the rule now. One interesting fact though about the Herrera dissent, the Texas Appeals court ran with it. Read Elizondo, 1996...Thompson, 2005.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Raeven said:


> Herrera is a case that is very narrow in its interpretation of the basis for which a defendant may employ a writ of habeas corpus as a means of bringing their claim of innocence before the Supreme Court. You would do well to acknowledge that in your writings, instead of attempting to bootstrap it into a blanket excuse to deny a defendant a re-hearing on the question of his guilt or innocence. As usual, you cherry pick the quotes you think make your case favorable, then employ your customary tactics of ridicule and personal attack, as if this makes your case stronger. It doesnât.
> 
> The Supreme Court is simply saying in Herrera that a defendant must pursue other avenues than SCOTUS to offer new exculpatory evidence. To pretend it is a basis to deny a defendant any further access to the courts to present such evidence is idiotic and a fundamental misunderstanding of the case law.
> 
> ...



And you conveniently forgot to mention that right after that statement of had the defendant been innocent is the very clearly worded statement that they cannot be innocent if found guilt by a legal constitutional trial. Period. End of story. You can be denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness IF you get due process. Period. Again, end of story. Are you unable to read the words that say a man can be executed while innocent? If the jury says you are guilty, you are guilty. This means you cannot be innocent. Must we debate the meaning of words in this very simple matter that is extremely well documented over many years of SCOTUS ruling, written out in plain language.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

thericeguy said:


> And you conveniently forgot to mention that right after that statement of had the defendant been innocent is the very clearly worded statement that they cannot be innocent if found guilt by a legal constitutional trial. Period. End of story. You can be denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness IF you get due process. Period. Again, end of story. Are you unable to read the words that say a man can be executed while innocent? If the jury says you are guilty, you are guilty. This means you cannot be innocent. Must we debate the meaning of words in this very simple matter that is extremely well documented over many years of SCOTUS ruling, written out in plain language.


Sorry, but saying it over and over again doesn't make it true in the way you want to make it true. It's one case, it stands for a very limited purpose. It speaks *only* to a defendant using habeas corpus as a means of disputing his legal and/or factual innocence before SCOTUS. It far from precludes a defendant from pursuing his innocence through other legal avenues, such as the trial court or the state. Rehnquist went so far as to say that even if it meant an innocent defendant would be executed, it doesn't make habeas corpus to SCOTUS the appropriate venue for relief. I'm sorry you don't understand this. It's very clear.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Raeven said:


> Sorry, but saying it over and over again doesn't make it true in the way you want to make it true. It's one case, it stands for a very limited purpose. It speaks *only* to a defendant using habeas corpus as a means of disputing his legal and/or factual innocence before SCOTUS. It far from precludes a defendant from pursuing his innocence through other legal avenues, such as the trial court or the state. Rehnquist went so far as to say that even if it meant an innocent defendant would be executed, it doesn't make habeas corpus to SCOTUS the appropriate venue for relief. I'm sorry you don't understand this. It's very clear.


Every case is one case. Can you point to one case that is more than one case? Is that like saying the sun is the sun because it is the sun? That one case is congruent with all other cases. They all say the same thing. Do you think a Scotus judge was having an off day when they wrote you can execute an innocent person if they got a fair trial with full due process. 

If it helps you sleep at night to believe there is some true justice out there, by all means believe it. While you are doing that, Scotus is going to keep ruling that innocence is not grounds for relief, and recommending innocent ppl appeal for clemency, which is exactly what happened in this ONE case. 

The rationale used by Scotus to support that position? Undue burden on the govt. Good night. Rot in jail. Hope you have a governor friend or Obama holds office. He turns free people even he says are guilty.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Go find a case where Scotus freed someone based on innocence. Just one.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

thericeguy said:


> Every case is one case. Can you point to one case that is more than one case? Is that like saying the sun is the sun because it is the sun? That one case is congruent with all other cases. They all say the same thing. Do you think a Scotus judge was having an off day when they wrote you can execute an innocent person if they got a fair trial with full due process.
> 
> If it helps you sleep at night to believe there is some true justice out there, by all means believe it. While you are doing that, Scotus is going to keep ruling that innocence is not grounds for relief, and recommending innocent ppl appeal for clemency, which is exactly what happened in this ONE case.
> 
> The rationale used by Scotus to support that position? Undue burden on the govt. Good night. Rot in jail. Hope you have a governor friend or Obama holds office. He turns free people even he says are guilty.


I can see I need to make this even simpler for you.

All Herrera is saying is this: "Dude, we hear ya that you're saying you're innocent and believe you have new evidence to share with us that will get you out of prison and off death row. *We're just not the place to present your new evidence.* If we let you do this, we'll never get anything done, because we'll be flooded with habeas corpus pleadings. *Go talk to the trial court or the state.* Sorry if this means you might be executed in the meantime. Hope not, though, if you are actually innocent (but we think you aren't)."

Please feel free to share all those other "congruent" cases.  I look forward to reading them and helping you grasp what they are actually saying.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Burden of proof is on you. I already showed two cases where SCOTUS said innocence does not matter. Your turn to go find a case, any case, where an innocent person was freed on grounds of innocence. Hint: it doesnt exist. 100% will be a due process ruling. SCOTUS does not recognize innocence as grounds for appeal. Never had. Never will. It will undo the entire justice system to allow it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

thericeguy said:


> Burden of proof is on you. I already showed two cases where SCOTUS said innocence does not matter. Your turn to go find a case, any case, where an innocent person was freed on grounds of innocence. Hint: it doesnt exist. 100% will be a due process ruling. SCOTUS does not recognize innocence as grounds for appeal. Never had. Never will. It will undo the entire justice system to allow it.


Since the entire point of Herrera was for SCOTUS to say they wouldn't be freeing *any* persons, innocent or guilty, because it's not their wheelhouse, isn't it silly of you to ask me to find such a case?  Do you not understand the incongruity of asking me to do that? 

Cute red herring, but nothing more.

I think you forgot to include this:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Raven, I don't think he has a clue what you do for a living.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Raeven said:


> Since the entire point of Herrera was for SCOTUS to say they wouldn't be freeing *any* persons, innocent or guilty, because it's not their wheelhouse, isn't it silly of you to ask me to find such a case?  Do you not understand the incongruity of asking me to do that?
> 
> Cute red herring, but nothing more.
> 
> I think you forgot to include this:


I didnt think you would be posting evidence. I will allow uou to save face. You were right while saying nothing. Good job. Innocence will not grt you out of jail folks UNLESS your state has a specific law. Scotus says your state can murder you even if you didnt do it. Remember that each time uou file your taxes.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Raven, I don't think he has a clue what you do for a living.


LOL, that's probably true (and surely doesn't care). It's what I used to do, not what I do now. Still, reading case law is like riding a bike. You never forget how to do it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

thericeguy said:


> I didnt think you would be posting evidence. I will allow uou to save face. You were right while saying nothing. Good job. Innocence will not grt you out of jail folks UNLESS your state has a specific law. Scotus says your state can murder you even if you didnt do it. Remember that each time uou file your taxes.


Okay.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

And with that, I would like to request a recess.:bow:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Dibs on the seesaw!


----------

