Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
Richard J.
If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
serial killer
The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
--
Teflon
A day is worth more than 24 hours to Coral Eugene Watts.
It's worth 72, a three-for-one bargain, a triple-time countdown to May
8, 2006. On that date, Watts, a man known to have killed 13 women and
suspected of more than six times that many slayings, is scheduled to
walk out of the Texas prison system.
He will be the nation's only known serial murderer to be released.
He will be 52 years old.
Next month will mark the 20th year since state District Judge Doug
Shaver sentenced Watts to what was then thought to be an immutable 60
years without parole for burglary with intent to commit murder. If
something is to be done in the Texas Legislature or in court to prevent
Watts' release, the work must begin now.
It was a compromise that sent Watts to prison, the best that could be
done with a case with scant evidence, and it brought some minuscule
measure of relief to dozens of survivors of Watts' victims. A glitch in
that sentencing, however, a missing phrase, gave Watts the opportunity
to have that charge reduced and to become eligible for "good time"
benefits of three days' credit for each day served.
And that leaves Watts with a sentence that will be satisfied on the
second Monday in May 2006.
On that day it will have been 24 years since Watts was halted in an
11-month rampage in which he killed 12 Texas women. It will have been 24
years since Watts killed his last Houston victim and was caught in an
attempt to kill another. It will have been two decades since Watts'
arrest and its subsequent revelations made him an albatross of
embarrassment around the neck of the Houston Police Department.
It will be almost 40 years earlier than anyone might have hoped.
"It makes me kind of sick," said Shaver, now retired. "It's the most
unforgettable case I ever had before me, and he's the most dangerous
person I've ever come face to face with.
"When he gets out, some woman is going to die."
Oddly, except for the efforts of a few individuals, the Watts case has
gone largely untouched for the past two decades. Despite the advances in
the science of DNA, no sample has been taken from Watts. In Michigan and
Canada, where Watts is suspected of scores of murders, only Ann Arbor
has examined its files to see if DNA material might be available,
unfortunately without success.
Now, as Watts' release date approaches, the compliant, soft-spoken
inmate is becoming the focus of 1th-hour efforts to keep him in prison.
In Ann Arbor, Mich., detectives are attempting to group information
from other cities and neighboring Canada to determine if any DNA
evidence might tie to Watts.
"It takes time to gather this material," said Ann Arbor special crimes
Detective Mauro Cervantes. "We do have four years, so it's not pressing
yet, but we do recognize the need to get it done."
In the Houston Police Department, homicide Detective Tom Ladd
periodically reviews old files, hoping to happen on a case he might link
to Watts.
In Brookshire, investigators are searching for lost evidence from a
killing Watts is known to have committed there.
At City Hall, Andy Kahan, the mayor's victims' advocate, is organizing
a rally of survivors of Watts' victims to bring attention to Watts' case
and put pressure on legislators to amend the laws that would free him.
And in the Ellis Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Watts spends his days working as a machinist in the wood shop, counting
the days until his release.
Watts was born in Killeen. His parents divorced when he was a toddler,
and his mother, an elementary school art teacher, moved to the Detroit
suburb of Inkster. There, Watts became an outstanding athlete who won a
Golden Gloves boxing championship and, later, received a football
scholarship to college.
He was a predator as well. He began assaulting women at age 15 and
later turned to killing them. He was suspected in a series of attacks
between October 1979 and November 1980 in which 14 women were attacked
and eight killed in the Detroit area, in Windsor, Ontario (just across
the border), and in Ann Arbor.
Michigan police then began around-the-clock surveillance of Watts.
"He couldn't stand it," said Paul Bunten, a former Ann Arbor homicide
detective. "He was street-smart, and he knew how to cover his crimes,
but he couldn't shake us. Every time he turned around, one of us was
there, watching him. So he left and moved to Texas."
Watts arrived in Columbus in April 1981 and began working as a diesel
mechanic. Bunten called Houston police to warn them of Watts' arrival
and sent them an 18-page bulletin, detailing Watts' crimes and personal
information.
It was a bleak period for Houston police.
More than 700 murders occurred in Houston in 1981, overwhelming an
understaffed, underpaid department that had no permanent police chief.
As a result, it took weeks for police to locate Watts, and then little,
if any, surveillance was conducted.
Watts took advantage of his new freedom. Nightly he would cruise the
freeways and side streets until he spotted a woman he believed to have
"evil eyes" and then follow her home.
He would wait until she had placed her key in the door, then grab her
from behind, choke her into semiconsciousness and drag her inside. He
stabbed, strangled or drowned his victims, and over the next 11 months
he killed nine in Houston, one in Brookshire, one in Austin and one in
Galveston.
He rarely took anything from a victim, and he never raped or sexually
molested one.
Then, it all culminated on the night of May 22, 1982. At some point
that evening, Watts drowned Michele Maday, 20, in her bathtub. He left
that scene and was soon hunting again when he happened on Lori ister,
who was entering her apartment in the early dawn.
Watts choked Lister, then dragged her into her apartment. He had filled
the tub and was in the process of drowning Lister when he was surprised
by her roommate, Melinda Aguilar. Aguilar escaped, screaming for help,
and in the ensuing confusion, Watts was arrested.
Within hours he had hired an attorney, Zinetta Burney, who was aghast
when her client, apparently believing police had a better case against
him than they did, revealed to her that he had killed a string of women.
"There's something evil in the man," Burney later recalled. "He never
threatened me. He was always quiet and polite to me, but he scared me
more than anyone I've ever dealt with."
Burney began wearing a crucifix to her meetings with Watts, but she
didn't stop working on his behalf. She cobbled an agreement with
Assistant District Attorneys Jack Frels and Ira Jones that resulted in
Watts' pleading guilty to burglary with intent to commit murder in
exchange for the 60-year sentence and immunity in the slayings to which
he had confessed. Travis and Galveston counties and one county in
Michigan made similar agreements, though others declined.
The burglary charge was considered aggravated because the water in
which Watts was attempting to drown Lister was construed to be a deadly
weapon, leaving Watts ineligible for parole.
Watts began detailing the killings he had committed since coming to
Texas. He alluded to others as well, though he was not as explicit. At
his last interrogation by police, he admitted to more than 80 slayings,
though he refused to give specifics in any crime for which he was not
offered immunity.
Watts has never granted a media interview, and he did not respond to a
request to be interviewed for this story.
Many families of victims, already angered at the failure by police to
monitor Watts, were doubly offended at the immunity agreement.
"I've taken a lot of grief over that plea bargain over the years," said
former Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes. "But we had
absolutely no evidence in these murders. We could never have tried him
on any of them, and it was the only thing we could do."
Two mistakes occurred, however.
One was in Watts' favor. Shaver failed to specify the water as a deadly
weapon in the court record. The other mistake may work against Watts:
Investigators mistakenly placed the killing of Emily LaQua, 14, in
Harris County.
The first mistake allowed Watts to appeal his conviction, and in 1989
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reduced his crime to burglary
because there was no evidence a deadly weapon had been used. The
decision made Watts eligible for parole, good time, bonus time (for acts
such as donating blood) and, eventually, release.
The second error could work against Watts. The LaQua slaying occurred
in Waller County, placing it outside the immunity blanket Watts received
from Harris County prosecutors.
That leaves Watts vulnerable in the LaQua slaying if evidence other
than his confession can be found. The science of DNA, in its infancy in
1982, might be applied if a single hair from Watts' head was left on
LaQua's clothing.
That evidence, however, has been misplaced.
Sherry Robinson, Waller County district attorney since 1993, is now
attempting to locate LaQua's clothing, which disappeared from the
Brookshire Police Department shortly after LaQua's body was recovered.
"We think it's in the Department of Public Safety lab (in Austin),"
said Robinson. "We just haven't been able to locate it there."
In Seattle, Elizabeth Young, LaQua's mother, was shocked to learn that
the evidence in her daughter"s case was missing, that Watts' sentence
had been reduced and that he had been scheduled for release.
In Grosse Pointe, Mich., Michael Clyne, the widower of one of Watts'
victims and a suspect in his wife's slaying until Watts confessed,
similarly was unaware of Watts' impending freedom. So were Beverly
Searles of Des Moines, Iowa; Phyllis Tamm of Memphis, Tenn.; and Laura
Allen of Dallas, all mothers whose daughters were killed by Watts.
In Waltham, Mass., Jane Montgomery has kept abreast of developments in
Watts' case, as has Harriet Semander of Houston. Both lost daughters to
Watts, and both have been active in opposing his release.
Many of those survivors, already ired over the original handling of the
Watts case, are further exasperated at the thought that he could go
free.
Several plan to attend a rally Aug. 3 in Houston, organized by Kahan,
the mayor's victims' advocate. There, survivors will attend a memorial
service and pass a petition that will ask the governor to form a
committee to study Watts' case and come up with a way to prevent his
release.
"The purpose of this rally is twofold," said Kahan. "We want to draw
attention to Watts before his release date draws too near, and we want
to bring some pressure on the Legislature.
"That's one reason we're starting now. It's a slow process to get
things moving in the Legislature.
"We call it the beginning of a four-year war."
Kahan, citing previous errors in the Watts case, has called Watts "a
poster child for incompetence." Kahan agrees, however, that it is
unlikely any legislation will rescind Watts' good time. Previous efforts
have failed in committee.
In the event Watts is released, the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles will
be forced to make special efforts to monitor him, said Perry Ivey,
deputy director of field operations for that bureau.
Under the guidelines of that bureau, Watts would be sent to some
facility in Houston. To the prison system, he is a burglar. As a result,
there would be no public notice of his release or whereabouts, no
posting of his name on a list of sex offenders or violent criminals.
"But we'd have to have him under high control," said Ivey. "Electronic
monitoring; global positioning satellite monitoring; he could only
engage in work or school; otherwise, he'd be locked down.
"With someone like this, if we have to put someone on him 24-7, we
will."
That does little, however, to appease the families of those who died at
Watts' hands or the police who investigated those deaths.
"He'll kill some other woman," said Houston police homicide
investigator Tom Ladd. Ladd spent days interrogating Watts, listening to
his confessions and building a rapport with his prisoner.
"Coral Watts is as streetwise as any killer I ever saw," said the
detective. "I remember the last time I
spoke to him. He was calling me Ladd by then.
"As he was heading off to prison, the last thing he told me was, `Ladd,
you know if I ever get out, I'm
gonna do it again.' "
Euro
Texas actually has), but because of the flaws of the justice system. Texan
justice system being flawed is actually no scoop: it executes innocents and
does not guarantee adequate jail punishments for serial killers. Too bad.
Euro
"Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> ??????:3D3AC897...@hotmail.com...
John Rennie
"Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D3AC897...@hotmail.com...
July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
serial killer
The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
--
Teflon
A day is worth more than 24 hours to Coral Eugene Watts.
What you need in Texas is a decent Police force.
They could only get Watts on a burglary charge!
Reminiscent of Al Capone being incarcerated for
evading income tax. He was released after a relatively
short sentence after being responsible for infinitely
more deaths than Watts. However, his excesses
led to an even worse death than electrocution, he died
from syphilis. If he hadn't he would have been free
to resume his life of crime.
j...@home.net
Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The "death
penalty", naturally.
Richard J.
Euro wrote:
>
> You don't free serial killers because of the lack of death penalty (which
> Texas actually has), but because of the flaws of the justice system. Texan
> justice system being flawed is actually no scoop: it executes innocents and
> does not guarantee adequate jail punishments for serial killers. Too bad.
>
> Euro
Prove one innocent executed in Texas since 1973.
As far as flawed, I agree. We have no real LWOP. What with "good
time", etc., the same heavy sentences protested so much by many liberal
humanitarians (many of whom are European) are not as lengthy as would
seem. Remember, the killer in question was originally sentenced to what
everyone thought would be a minimum of 60 years. It turns out he will
serve only 24 of those unless the law is changed. Not only that, he's
promised he will kill again if released.
We don't need to execute less, but more.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:43:35 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
> >
> > If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
> > serial killer
> > The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
> > says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
>
> Richard, what's all this horseshit, 'Here's Why We Need the Death
> Penalty' ? Texas _has_ the death penalty, and yet this person is
> being released.
>
> If you want to stop people like this being released, then change the
> rules on LWOP, but frankly, stating that this person's release
> shows proof of the 'need' for the death penalty, in a state that
> already has it ... well, it's not too good an argument. :-(
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
People like this animal are the reason we not only need to retain the
death penalty, but need to expand its use.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
We have a very good state investigative force, John. The problem was
that this guy was very street smart and a hardened criminal before he
started killing. He left little evidence behind. Remember, the
Michigan state police also tried to get the goods on this criminal and
in fact the 24 hour surveillance they kept on him eventually made him
move out of that state. Police powers are a bit limited here compared
to some nations.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:18:53 -0400, j...@home.net <j...@home.net> a écrit :
>
> > Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
> >
> > Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The "death
> > penalty", naturally.
>
> Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
--
Teflon
John Rennie
--
Teflon
They know he killed 12 women! How do they know? And why isn't this
knowledge acceptable evidence?
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3B0DB6...@hotmail.com>...
No, not at all. What you actually are in need of is a reasonable law and
executive, both to guarantee society's security, particularly in view of
offenders like above. After repeatedly reading about an absolutely sloppy
and reckless way to deal with criminals showing severest and persistent
mental defects I am beginning to suppose intent. I think your system
produces fully deliberatedly the "proof" that the DP were "needed". The
argumentative situation constituting the basis of this suspicion is well
known: 'We need the DP because we have no LWOP' is accompained by severest
resistence of exactly the guys using this argument against a legislation to
permit LWOP. So they want not only to retend the DP, they also want to
uphold their only argumentation for the DP. The status quo that dangerous
criminals are released and the happening of recidivist crimes in consequence
is simply *NECESSARY* for the pro-DP'ers.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:51:23 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >> > Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
> >> >
> >> > Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The "death
> >> > penalty", naturally.
>
> >> Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
>
> > proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>
> there is no procedure in place to achieve this !!!
Nor is there a procedure in place to determine 'true' guilt after
a finding of 'not guilty.' The point being that our entire justice
system is recognized as an imperfect system, and that is the
reason we use 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in both the
determination of guilt and innocence. Once that burden has
been met (in the case of innocence a finding of not guilty. In
the case of guilt the conclusion of all due process), we have
met the burden of the law. There is no burden of ABSOLUTE
proof of either guilt or innocence. Which is what you presume
we must have. But only in the direction of innocence. A
continual process forever and ever until all the evidence has
vanished, the witnesses are dead, and you can, proud as a
peacock, proclaim that the U.S. has executed an 'innocent'
(sic) man post-Furman.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
PLMerite
If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free serial killer
(snip for brevity)
This guy (also) sounds like a good reason for women to pack heat.
Regards, PLMerite
Richard J.
Knowing and proving in a court of law are two different things. Much of
the knowledge they have comes from the murderer as part of his plea
bargain and cannot be used against him. There is one case which
investigators believe they might tie to him through new DNA testing
techniques that were not available when he was tried, however.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:51:23 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >> > Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
> >> >
> >> > Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The "death
> >> > penalty", naturally.
>
> >> Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
>
> > Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
> > proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>
> Oh come on, Richard, this is beneath you !! You know that right now,
> there is no procedure in place to achieve this !!!
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
Procedure be damned. I'm talking about incontrovertible evidence, not a
legal proceeding. There are procedures in DNA testing and such which
were not available a couple of decades ago, yet none have, to date,
proven innocence of an executed murderer.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Nope. It's just fact, Jürgen, fact.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
--
Teflon
Plenty of murders where DNA evidence is irrelevant. The USA does not have
a Criminal Cases Appeals procedure as does the UK.
John Rennie
--
Teflon
The plea bargain should never have been accepted especially
if the only thing he was charged with was a burglary. Good
thing about the new DNA evidence tho'.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:04:15 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:51:23 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit
>:
>
>>> > Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
>>> >
>>> > Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The
>"death
>>> > penalty", naturally.
>
>>> Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
>
>> Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
>> proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>
>Oh come on, Richard, this is beneath you !! You know that right now,
>there is no procedure in place to achieve this !!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!fr.clara.net!heighliner.f
r.clara.net!151.189.0.75.MISMATCH!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!u
ni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:04:15 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 20
>Message-ID: <slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
><slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027281899 29704962 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:16:49 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:14:06 GMT, PLMerite <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> a
>écrit :
>
>> > If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free serial killer
>
>> This guy (also) sounds like a good reason for women to pack heat.
>
>I agree. Fishermen's Friends should be mandatory everywhere ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!fr.clara.net!heighliner.f
r.clara.net!151.189.0.75.MISMATCH!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.belwue.de
!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:16:49 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 13
>Message-ID: <slrnajmcmh.1n97....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><OmG_8.16148$927....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027289950 30023305 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:29:40 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:18:53 -0400, j...@home.net <j...@home.net> a écrit :
>
>> Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
>>
>> Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The
>"death
>> penalty", naturally.
>
>Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!un
i-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:29:40 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027279843 29945649 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:06:39 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:43:35 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit
>:
>
>> July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
>>
>> If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
>> serial killer
>> The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
>> says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
>
>Richard, what's all this horseshit, 'Here's Why We Need the Death
>Penalty' ? Texas _has_ the death penalty, and yet this person is
>being released.
>
>If you want to stop people like this being released, then change the
>rules on LWOP, but frankly, stating that this person's release
>shows proof of the 'need' for the death penalty, in a state that
>already has it ... well, it's not too good an argument. :-(
>
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-ou
t.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-
berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:06:39 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <slrnajljfv.1krp....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027264099 29593054 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3D3B4CFC...@hotmail.com...
From what I understand in the case of the pedophile murder of a
5-year-old girl in California (Samantha Runnion), it quite possibly
will prove guilt.
PV
--
Teflon
Peter Morris
July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
serial killer
The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
Really, Richard? Explain why, please? How exactly does this provide
an example of "Why we need the death penalty"?
Just a few points you dont appear to have considered.
1) The only crime that could be proved against him is burglary.
He is suspected of many murders, but there is no proof, virtually
no evidence at all, only suspicion and hearsay.
So, Richard, please tell me. Do you support the death penalty
for burglary? Do you support the DP for persons suspected of
murder without evidence?
If so, then please explain how you justify it.
If not, then what is your point?
2) Suppose he had been sentenced to death (for burglary).
Would that have made any difference? He has been given
the possibility of an early release (possibility, not certainty)
due to negligence? If he HAD been tried for his life, what
would have prevented a similar blunder from occurring?
3) "why we need the death penalty" indeed.
Richard, it seems to have escaped your notice that you HAVE
the death penalty. This is something that has happened IN
SPITE OF the death penalty. The ONLY argument for the DP
is that allegedly it prevents things like this happening, but quite
obviously it doesn't. This case is a good example that the
DP is useless.
4) The DP actually helps to HIDE cases such as these.
There could be hundreds of such cases where dangerous
criminals are given early release. But then a tiny number of
high publicity DP cases draws attention away from them.
This allows politicians to gain a "tough on crime" reputation,
without in fact being tough on crime. Without the DP to hide
behind, they would be forced to spend the money to sort
out the problem, this sort of thing could become LESS frequent.
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3B4D7A...@hotmail.com>...
R.:
Nope. It's just fact, Jürgen, fact.
J.: Another fact is that there *is* significant resistence from the DP-side
against a legislature permitting LWOP. The reason is clear.
Jürgen
Richard J.
I assume you are speaking of a formal procedure to appeal a case finding
after the defendant is dead. We have extensive appeals procedures for
living defendants. In your assumption, you are both correct and
incorrect. While there is no criminal court remedy for wrongful
execution findings, there are avenues are available in civil actions,
the most promising, IMO, a wrongful death suit WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE
OF SUCH. Remember, though, unlike defense in a criminal trial where
only reasonable doubt must be raised to gain an acquittal, in such a
civil case, the claim must be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence. That's where the claim of wrongful executions has so far
fallen short. There is no preponderance of evidence to support any such
claim in any one particular case.
Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that the
state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
been made. I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
Show something other than supposition and generalities supporting your
argument.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
If I remember the case correctly, the judge was to give the defendant
consecutive sentencing. This meant as he finished the term for one
sentence, he would had started the next, and even with good time he
would spend sixty years n prison before coming up for parole. The judge
used the term concurrent in the sentence which meant the penalties would
be served all at the same time, thus the present predicament.
The assistant DA making the deal has taken a great deal of heat for it.
In truth, it was the best shot they had at the time, and they thought
the length of sentence would be sufficient to be a de facto LWOP. Point
in case, it was not because of the way the judge phrased the sentencing,
there was and still is no way for the state to appeal what they felt an
insufficient sentence.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
The authorities haven't disclosed the exact type of evidence found, but
leaks lead to the assumption that seminal fluid as well as scrapings
from the child's fingernails have pretty much already sealed the fate of
her attacker. I hope so, and hope they give him an appropriate
punishment.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Peter Morris wrote:
>
> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3AC897...@hotmail.com...
> July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
>
> If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
> serial killer
> The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
> says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
>
> Really, Richard? Explain why, please? How exactly does this provide
> an example of "Why we need the death penalty"?
This is exactly the type of criminal we simply need to execute. There
should be no way he should walk free again, no matter how short the time
is.
>
> Just a few points you dont appear to have considered.
>
> 1) The only crime that could be proved against him is burglary.
> He is suspected of many murders, but there is no proof, virtually
> no evidence at all, only suspicion and hearsay.
He admitted to murdering, and admitted he would again. Because of the
plea bargaining, his admissions cannot be used against him.
>
> So, Richard, please tell me. Do you support the death penalty
> for burglary? Do you support the DP for persons suspected of
> murder without evidence?
>
> If so, then please explain how you justify it.
> If not, then what is your point?
No, I support executing people for murder. Kiss my arse, Peter.
John Rennie
Richard: I assume you are speaking of a formal procedure to appeal a case
finding
after the defendant is dead.
John: No, we don't have the DP in the UK. If we did there would be very
little
point in having an appeals procedure for those who have been executed.
Then those who supported the retention of the DP could chant to their
heart's content 'no proof exists that an innocent person has ever been
executed'. Get the point, Richard?
Richard: We have extensive appeals procedures for
living defendants.
John: As you should have, but our procedure, happily, includes appeals
against murder convictions even capital murder convictions.
Richard: In your assumption, you are both correct and
incorrect. While there is no criminal court remedy for wrongful
execution findings, there are avenues are available in civil actions,
the most promising, IMO, a wrongful death suit WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE
OF SUCH. Remember, though, unlike defense in a criminal trial where
only reasonable doubt must be raised to gain an acquittal, in such a
civil case, the claim must be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence. That's where the claim of wrongful executions has so far
fallen short. There is no preponderance of evidence to support any such
claim in any one particular case.
John:: And of course any such case if it were ever embarked upon lacks
the evidence of a main witness, the alleged murderer.
Richard: Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that
the
state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
been made.
John: See above and endeavour to comprehend.
Richard: I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
Show something other than supposition and generalities supporting your
argument.
John: Cannot be done because when you execute, you automatically
remove a large part of the evidence.
Richard J.
There is no resistance from me, Jürgen. I would be glad to see Texas
enact LWOP. Even with LWOP, I believe there are some people for whom
execution is still the best option to protect society.
--
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnajnv6h.1qkp....@lievre.voute.net>
Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:08:28 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> > Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
>> > proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>> Oh come on, Richard, this is beneath you !! You know that right now,
>> there is no procedure in place to achieve this !!!
> Procedure be damned. I'm talking about incontrovertible evidence, not a
> legal proceeding. There are procedures in DNA testing and such which
> were not available a couple of decades ago, yet none have, to date,
> proven innocence of an executed murderer.
Tell that to the states and prosecutors who have resisted requests
for release of executed murderers' DNA.
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
They have already been found guilty by the state. It is no longer their burden
to help prove innocence.
If the convicted person can demonstrate that his is in fact innocent a judge
can order a new trial and then the burden of guilt returns to the state.
Richard J.
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:08:28 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
> >> > proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>
> >> Oh come on, Richard, this is beneath you !! You know that right now,
> >> there is no procedure in place to achieve this !!!
>
> > Procedure be damned. I'm talking about incontrovertible evidence, not a
> > legal proceeding. There are procedures in DNA testing and such which
> > were not available a couple of decades ago, yet none have, to date,
> > proven innocence of an executed murderer.
>
> Tell that to the states and prosecutors who have resisted requests
> for release of executed murderers' DNA.
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
And just how many instances would that be, Desmond? I can recall one.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
I said defendant. I assume you have criminal appeals procedures to find
unjust criminal findings even after the defendant, regardless of the
crime, is dead?
>
> Richard: We have extensive appeals procedures for
> living defendants.
>
> John: As you should have, but our procedure, happily, includes appeals
> against murder convictions even capital murder convictions.
AS does ours. In fact, the first procedural appeal in a capital murder
case where the death penalty is assigned is mandatory and automatic.
>
> Richard: In your assumption, you are both correct and
> incorrect. While there is no criminal court remedy for wrongful
> execution findings, there are avenues are available in civil actions,
> the most promising, IMO, a wrongful death suit WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE
> OF SUCH. Remember, though, unlike defense in a criminal trial where
> only reasonable doubt must be raised to gain an acquittal, in such a
> civil case, the claim must be proven by a preponderance of the
> evidence. That's where the claim of wrongful executions has so far
> fallen short. There is no preponderance of evidence to support any such
> claim in any one particular case.
>
> John:: And of course any such case if it were ever embarked upon lacks
> the evidence of a main witness, the alleged murderer.
Perhaps it does, and perhaps it does not. That depends upon the
situation. If a suit was brought upon the grounds of testimony from the
actual murderer, your claim would be completely false. If other,
scientific, new evidence arose to support the case, the alleged murder
would not be needed to provide proof of wrongful execution of an
innocent.
>
> Richard: Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that
> the
> state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
> incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
> using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
> been made.
>
> John: See above and endeavour to comprehend.
It is not I who should endeavor, but you. Stop thinking a court of law
is needed to prove this. Incontrovertible evidence or testimony is what
is needed. You don't have it.
>
> Richard: I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
> judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
> your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
> one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
> condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
> police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
> different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
>
> Show something other than supposition and generalities supporting your
> argument.
>
> John: Cannot be done because when you execute, you automatically
> remove a large part of the evidence.
Not necessarily. If an innocent person was executed, there still would
be a guilty one somewhere. Where's the evidence? You appear to attempt
substituting testimony and argument in court for evidence. Testimony,
if it is proven to disclose facts not available to the general public
and known only to investigators and the murderer, is acceptable.
Otherwise, new hard scientific evidence will do. NEITHER of those
things has shown up in any of the supposed cases of an innocent being
executed.
It is really quite simple despite all the smokescreen put up by
abolitionists. Show me such evidence or testimony, John.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
(Excuse me for snipping all comments below this line. Something
peculiar is happening to your posts - they cannot be replied to
without looking like part of the reply - that's why I did the Richard
and John sequence in my last reply)
"Perhaps it does, and perhaps it does not.", and "Not necessarily"
- these two temporising comments of yours are sufficient to damn
the ultimate penalty. Our criminal appeals procedure has been
responsible for the release of two prisoners supposedly murderers
in the past two years. One of them, Stephen Dowding, imprisoned
for 28 years could have been released some ten years previously -
all he had to do was admit that he had committed the murder that
he had been convicted for. He wouldn't. A courageous
local newspaper editor took up his case and the criminal appeals
commission challenged the original conviction. This wasn't
a case where your beloved forensic science had any great relevance.
It was to do with local dignitaries, 'scratch my back and I'll scratch
yours' mentality, withholding of evidence from the defence, browbeating
a man with a limited intelligence into signing a confession without
any legal representation being present. In other words, a wrongful
prosecution. The local editor was 'courageous' because the same
elements I.a. police and local bigwigs were still around and they
were outraged when Downing was released. He will also receive
well over £1,000 compensation. Not worth 28 years of his
life but better than being dead. This sort of case has occurred
in most countries innumerable times - it is the sort of conviction that
I refer to when I say, as I frequently do, that although techniques
have improved, those that use them haven't and why the use of
the DP becomes an insane game of chance.
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NrV_8.1153$tg4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
>. He will also receive
> well over £1,000 compensation.
Make that £1,000,000
Peter Morris
Peter Morris wrote:
>
> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3AC897...@hotmail.com...
> July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
>
> If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
> serial killer
> The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
> says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
>
>> Really, Richard? Explain why, please? How exactly does this >>provide
>> an example of "Why we need the death penalty"?
Richard Says :
>"This is exactly the type of criminal we simply need to execute. There
>should be no way he should walk free again, no matter how short the time
is."
>
>> Just a few points you dont appear to have considered.
>
>> 1) The only crime that could be proved against him is burglary.
>> He is suspected of many murders, but there is no proof, virtually
>> no evidence at all, only suspicion and hearsay.
Richard Says:
>"He admitted to murdering, and admitted he would again. Because of the
>plea bargaining, his admissions cannot be used against him."
>>
>> So, Richard, please tell me. Do you support the death penalty
>> for burglary? Do you support the DP for persons suspected of
>> murder without evidence?
>
>> If so, then please explain how you justify it.
>> If not, then what is your point?
Richard Says:
> "No, I support executing people for murder. Kiss my arse, Peter."
Well, Richard, three of my four point you do not address at all,
the only one you even attempt to answer, you dodge the point
and then respond withv cusswords. My previously high opinion
of you has just fallen a notch or two.
Your point is that "This is exactly the type of criminal we
simply need to execute"
In fact, this is a criminal who is SUSPECTED of murder
without proof, with very little evidence at all in fact, and the
only crime that could be proved was burglary. The DP
was never an option in this case, even by Texas standards.
You say you think he should be executed. This gives you
two options. Either you can advocate extending the DP
to burglary, or you can back the DP for people SUSPECTED
of murder without proof.
If you are not willing to one or the other, then the DP has
no relevence at all to this case.
How about answering my other three points?
Peter Morris
>
> > Procedure be damned. I'm talking about incontrovertible evidence, not a
> > legal proceeding. There are procedures in DNA testing and such which
> > were not available a couple of decades ago, yet none have, to date,
> > proven innocence of an executed murderer.
>
> Tell that to the states and prosecutors who have resisted requests
> for release of executed murderers' DNA.
> And just how many instances would that be, Desmond? I can recall one.
One is too many.
Peter Morris
> If I remember the case correctly, the judge was to give the defendant
> consecutive sentencing. This meant as he finished the term for one
> sentence, he would had started the next, and even with good time he
> would spend sixty years n prison before coming up for parole. The judge
> used the term concurrent in the sentence which meant the penalties would
> be served all at the same time, thus the present predicament.
According to the article you posted, he attempted to drown a woman,
and the water was classified as a "deadly weapon". It was use of this
so called "deadly weapon" that made him inelligible for "good time"
reduction of sentence. The error that allows possible early release was
the accidental ommision of the term "deadly weapon" from the deal,
giving him elligibility for "good time" after all.
He was only charged with one crime, and given immunity for the others,
and given a sixty year sentence for that single crime. There is no question
of serving sentences "consecutively" or "concurrently" because it was a
single sentence.
> The assistant DA making the deal has taken a great deal of heat for it.
> In truth, it was the best shot they had at the time, and they thought
> the length of sentence would be sufficient to be a de facto LWOP. Point
> in case, it was not because of the way the judge phrased the sentencing,
According to the article you posted, it was. Are you saying it was wrong?
Peter Morris
> Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that the
> state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
> incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
> using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
> been made. I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
> judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
> your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
> one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
> condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
> police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
> different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
Just a thought, Richard.
Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found is
that no-one is looking? All the people actively searching for proof
of innocence concentrate on the still living. Think for example of
Anthony Porter. He came close to being executed, then had his
execution postponed. After this postponement, a bunch of students
investigated his case and uncovered conclusive proof of his innocence.
But ask yourself this, Richard, if Porters execution had gone ahead
as scheduled, if he had already been dead, would those students
have bothered? Or would they have concentrated their efforts on those
that are still alive? If Porter had been executed, do you think that the
proof of his innmocence would have EVER been discovered?
My own belief is that there have been several innocents actually executed,
but nobody is looking for proof of their innocence - there just isn't time.
If they were still alive, there would still be people looking for evidence
of innocence, and eventually finding it.
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3C0205...@hotmail.com>...
<...........>
R.:
There is no resistance from me, Jürgen. I would be glad to see Texas
enact LWOP.
J.:
You are not typical, Richard. The perception of the immense resistance by
large parts of (a) the legislators and (b) your combattants however speaks
volumes about what the DP really imagines in the minds. They are *scared* to
loose the DP's *justification* if LWOP is viable - and they are straight on
point in their misgivings.
R.:
Even with LWOP, I believe there are some people for whom
execution is still the best option to protect society.
J.:
I have frequently stated my position on this. I regard the US for unable to
maintain the DP anyway; and even you yourself spoke out for a lot of death
sentences and executions that I deem fundamentally wrong, as they had
absolutely nothing to do with society's protection. The overwhelming lot of
death row inmates can in no way compete with this a style mass murderer
Coral Eugene Watts, neither viewing their crimes nor viewing issues like
premediation or culpability.
Others made this point already, but nevertheless again: This case is all
other but an argument for the DP. Miserable investigation, a cynical plea
bargain and a pathetic sentence led to an unbearable situation, totally
independent of any viability of capital punishment.
The case, should Watts be actually released, will provide us with the
opportunity to make another experience of importance. We will see whether
the guy will be observed 7/24 and whether the states manage a proper
cooperation. In short, we will see whether the lives of innocent women are
worth as much an amount and as much an efford as any US-death sentence.
Jürgen
St.George
July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
serial killer
The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
--
Teflon
A day is worth more than 24 hours to Coral Eugene Watts.
It's worth 72, a three-for-one bargain, a triple-time countdown to May
8, 2006. On that date, Watts, a man known to have killed 13 women and
suspected of more than six times that many slayings, is scheduled to
walk out of the Texas prison system.
**
Do you know what the big problem here _actually_ is, Richard?
It is the evident failure of the system ever to actually _convict_ this man
of murders, or any murder.
Having not actually been _convicted_, which I'm sure you will agree is just
a little more than a mere technicality, it is quite tough to justify
_executing_ him, is it not?
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnajoekj.1rma....@lievre.voute.net>
Le 22 Jul 2002 12:54:22 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> Tell that to the states and prosecutors who have resisted requests
>> for release of executed murderers' DNA.
> They have already been found guilty by the state. It is no longer their
> burden to help prove innocence.
>
> If the convicted person can demonstrate that his is in fact innocent a judge
> can order a new trial and then the burden of guilt returns to the state.
And exactly how is the 'convicted person' supposed to do that when he
or she is dead, and the state refuses to release his or her DNA samples
to the families or their lawyers ?
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
Why keep evidence in storage after the murderer has been executed?
Richard J.
John Rennie wrote:
>
> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3C065B...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "Perhaps it does, and perhaps it does not.", and "Not necessarily"
> - these two temporising comments of yours are sufficient to damn
> the ultimate penalty. Our criminal appeals procedure has been
> responsible for the release of two prisoners supposedly murderers
> in the past two years. One of them, Stephen Dowding, imprisoned
> for 28 years could have been released some ten years previously -
> all he had to do was admit that he had committed the murder that
> he had been convicted for. He wouldn't. A courageous
> local newspaper editor took up his case and the criminal appeals
> commission challenged the original conviction. This wasn't
> a case where your beloved forensic science had any great relevance.
> It was to do with local dignitaries, 'scratch my back and I'll scratch
> yours' mentality, withholding of evidence from the defence, browbeating
> a man with a limited intelligence into signing a confession without
> any legal representation being present. In other words, a wrongful
> prosecution. The local editor was 'courageous' because the same
> elements I.a. police and local bigwigs were still around and they
> were outraged when Downing was released. He will also receive
> well over £1,000 compensation. Not worth 28 years of his
> life but better than being dead. This sort of case has occurred
> in most countries innumerable times - it is the sort of conviction that
> I refer to when I say, as I frequently do, that although techniques
> have improved, those that use them haven't and why the use of
> the DP becomes an insane game of chance.
Where applicable, the new techniques are used. Investigators want to
use everything at their disposal to put criminals in jail. That's their
job. In the case of convicted felons, the onus is upon the defense to
provide new evidence, or the reason the state should institute such.
Remember, in other posts (and I believe this string as well) I have
stated that new forensic techniques are only one thing I can accept as
evidence of innocence. I will readily accept confessions from others if
those confessions contain information only the police and murderer know.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
No. delete the word "not" from the above sentence. Hands working
without the brain in gear.
Richard J.
Peter Morris wrote:
>
> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3BFCB9...@hotmail.com...
>
> > Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that the
> > state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
> > incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
> > using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
> > been made. I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
> > judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
> > your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
> > one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
> > condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
> > police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
> > different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
>
> Just a thought, Richard.
>
> Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found is
> that no-one is looking?
You must be joking! Every abolitionist on both sides of the Atlantic
would masturbate for a week if they could find just one case of an
innocent being executed that they could conclusively prove. That is the
best chance they have of seeing the US abolish the death penalty.
All the people actively searching for proof
> of innocence concentrate on the still living. Think for example of
> Anthony Porter. He came close to being executed, then had his
> execution postponed. After this postponement, a bunch of students
> investigated his case and uncovered conclusive proof of his innocence.
> But ask yourself this, Richard, if Porters execution had gone ahead
> as scheduled, if he had already been dead, would those students
> have bothered? Or would they have concentrated their efforts on those
> that are still alive? If Porter had been executed, do you think that the
> proof of his innmocence would have EVER been discovered?
I believe it would have. The existence of conclusive proof of a
wrongful execution is the "smoking gun" of abolitionism.
>
> My own belief is that there have been several innocents actually executed,
> but nobody is looking for proof of their innocence - there just isn't time.
> If they were still alive, there would still be people looking for evidence
> of innocence, and eventually finding it.
So go looking for the proof.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Of course, but this person, IMO, is an excellent example of the type of
person which requires we keep the death penalty, even if this time we
did not have a murder conviction. Sooner or later, we will either find
new evidence admissible to try him for capital murder, or he WILL be
released and murder again.
In any event, it got everyone writing again, didn't it? ;-)
-
Teflon
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:53:35 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:52:15 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit
>:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> If so, then please explain how you justify it.
>>> If not, then what is your point?
>
>> No, I support executing people for murder. Kiss my arse, Peter.
>
>I think that executing Peter would be a preferable fate, Richard ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newspump.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!u
ni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:53:35 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <slrnajo02f.1qtg....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><ahft0k$j6t$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <3D3BFFFF...@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027342512 30704506 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:02:11 +0000
>
>Le 22 Jul 2002 12:54:22 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Tell that to the states and prosecutors who have resisted requests
>>> for release of executed murderers' DNA.
>
>> They have already been found guilty by the state. It is no longer their
>> burden to help prove innocence.
>>
>> If the convicted person can demonstrate that his is in fact innocent a
>judge
>> can order a new trial and then the burden of guilt returns to the state.
>
>And exactly how is the 'convicted person' supposed to do that when he
>or she is dead, and the state refuses to release his or her DNA samples
>to the families or their lawyers ?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspum
p.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198
-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:02:11 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <slrnajoekj.1rma....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnajnv6h.1qkp....@lievre.voute.net>
><20020722085422...@mb-ce.aol.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027357537 30317501 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:38:41 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:08:28 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit
>:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
>>> > proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>
>>> Oh come on, Richard, this is beneath you !! You know that right now,
>>> there is no procedure in place to achieve this !!!
>
>> Procedure be damned. I'm talking about incontrovertible evidence, not a
>> legal proceeding. There are procedures in DNA testing and such which
>> were not available a couple of decades ago, yet none have, to date,
>> proven innocence of an executed murderer.
>
>Tell that to the states and prosecutors who have resisted requests
>for release of executed murderers' DNA.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!fu-berl
in.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:38:41 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnajnv6h.1qkp....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
><slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>
><slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B4CFC...@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027341638 29995302 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
JIGSAW1695
<Snipped>
Second, I seem to recall a study about two or three years ago, which
suggested that 48% of Americans believe that an innocent has been
executed. Yet (IIRC) 60 - 70% still support the death penalty. I do
not believe that 'conclusive proof' (if your legal system were even
equipped with a mechanism to determine it) would result in the abolition
of the death penalty.
{ snip }
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
>Second, I seem to recall a study about two or three years ago, which
>suggested that 48% of Americans believe that an innocent has been
>executed. Yet (IIRC) 60 - 70% still support the death penalty. I do
>not believe that 'conclusive proof' (if your legal system were even
>equipped with a mechanism to determine it) would result in the abolition
>of the death penalty.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
Well, right of the bat one sees the contridiction of 48% support of "innocence"
being executed versus 60-70 per cent of the US population support the death
penalty.
Since the high perventage of support has been well documented over the years,
we can only view the 48% with a jaundiced eye..in other words, it is a
fabricated figure with no basis od truth.
Now, about your statement about evidence being tampered with. Tellme, how do
you tamper with a blood sample. Im just curious on how a technician would go
about doing it.
Lets face, the "execution of a innocent" is the last straw that and andi DP
support can grasp at. Without it, there were be very little legal argument.
There nay well be argument in the US on moral grounds against the DP, but the
supprt of the DP on morals grounds would drown out the
naysayers.
If Europe has such little regard for its victims, so be it. But their bias
against the DP goes deeper, much deeper than that. Their relecutance to support
the DP in their own countries is based on the inherant mistrust of the
corruption of their own judicial system.
The so called "European Justice" system has been corruct since the first Manor
Lord appointed his own sheriff, justice of the peace and balliff.
In essesence, if I were European, based on history alone, I would mistruct any
court on handing out the DP. As an American, I find the justice administration
to be fundementally fair and honest.
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnajq4l9.1uq8....@lievre.voute.net>
Le 23 Jul 2002 06:50:28 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>> Second, I seem to recall a study about two or three years ago, which
>> suggested that 48% of Americans believe that an innocent has been
>> executed. Yet (IIRC) 60 - 70% still support the death penalty. I do
>> not believe that 'conclusive proof' (if your legal system were even
>> equipped with a mechanism to determine it) would result in the abolition
>> of the death penalty.
> Well, right of the bat one sees the contridiction of 48% support of
> "innocence" being executed versus 60-70 per cent of the US population
> support the death penalty.
That is the entire point, Jigsaw. 48% of the public believe an
innocent has been executed, and _despite this_, 60-70% of them still
support capital punishment. One can infer from this that either Americans
are stupid, or sadistic bastards. Your choice.
===============================
A typical Dezi Are-You-Still-Beating-Your-Wife Question.
There are no cold hard verified facts that this fortyeight per cent figure
exists.
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020723050223...@mb-cn.aol.com...
All that Desmond's study proves is that most people don't know what they're
voting for anyway which is why I am pleased we don't live in a democracy.
Peter Morris
> >
> > Just a thought, Richard.
> >
> > Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found is
> > that no-one is looking?
>
> You must be joking! Every abolitionist on both sides of the Atlantic
> would masturbate for a week if they could find just one case of an
> innocent being executed that they could conclusively prove. That is the
> best chance they have of seeing the US abolish the death penalty.
Not correct.
Just answer me one question here, suppose I did provide proof of
one single innocent executed 15 years ago, would YOU suddenly admit
that you'd been wrong all these years? I doubt it, somehow.
The risk of executing an innocent is only a tiny part of reason to oppose
the DP. Discovering conclusive proof of an innocent executed would
vindicate what we've been saying, but really wouldn't make that much
of a difference.
> > All the people actively searching for proof
> > of innocence concentrate on the still living. Think for example of
> > Anthony Porter. He came close to being executed, then had his
> > execution postponed. After this postponement, a bunch of students
> > investigated his case and uncovered conclusive proof of his innocence.
> > But ask yourself this, Richard, if Porters execution had gone ahead
> > as scheduled, if he had already been dead, would those students
> > have bothered? Or would they have concentrated their efforts on those
> > that are still alive? If Porter had been executed, do you think that the
> > proof of his innmocence would have EVER been discovered?
>
> I believe it would have. The existence of conclusive proof of a
> wrongful execution is the "smoking gun" of abolitionism.
I think you are wroing, Richard. Those people who are actively involved
in searching for evidence of innocence concentrate on the living.
Once somebody has actually been executed efforts to prove their innocence
generally cease. The lawyers representing them have other clients,
ones that are still alive. The dead are dead, and cannot be saved, Richard.
The living can still be helped. All the efforts concentrate on the living.
They have to.
Do you REALLY think that the students at the Innocence Project
spend their time looking at cases of dead people? What would be
the point of that? Their objective is to save innocent lives,
they search for evidence of innocence for people that are still
alive. They are not about trying to undermine the DP. Their purpose
is to help wrongly convicted innocents who are still alive. If Porter's
execution had gone ahead on schedule, they wouldn't have wasted
time looking for proof of his innocence, not when there are so many
living people that need their help.
> >
> > My own belief is that there have been several innocents actually
executed,
> > but nobody is looking for proof of their innocence - there just isn't
time.
> > If they were still alive, there would still be people looking for
evidence
> > of innocence, and eventually finding it.
>
> So go looking for the proof.
Your response baffles me. What part of this don't you understand.
I tell you that there isn't time to go looking for proof, you repond
"so go looking for the proof." There isn't time Richard.
Hypothetically speaking, if I were to emigrate to the USA, and take
an active part in searching for evidence of innocence, I would
concentrate on those that are still alive, people that could actually
be helped. I would have to. I wouldn't have time to search for
proof of innocence for dead people, not when there would be living
people who could be saved.
Nobody is really searching for proof of an executed innocent, Richard.
There isn't time to do so.
Richard J.
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:08:53 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >> > Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that the
> >> > state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
> >> > incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
> >> > using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
> >> > been made. I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
> >> > judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
> >> > your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
> >> > one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
> >> > condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
> >> > police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
> >> > different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
>
> >> Just a thought, Richard.
> >>
> >> Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found is
> >> that no-one is looking?
>
> > You must be joking! Every abolitionist on both sides of the Atlantic
> > would masturbate for a week if they could find just one case of an
> > innocent being executed that they could conclusively prove. That is the
> > best chance they have of seeing the US abolish the death penalty.
>
> Two things. First, it all depends on _who_ is looking. Once the
> execution takes place, the resources of the defence lawyers move onto
> the next person who is threatened with execution. They are already
> in many cases, stretched for money, and using what little cash they do
> have, to go up against the power of the state, would be of little use.
> The families of the victims don't have the resources, either. More so
> when the state stonewalls them, with regard to releasing DNA samples,
> or evidence. Especially when (as is too often the case) the evidence
> has been tampered with by prosecutors, to obtain a conviction.
>
> Second, I seem to recall a study about two or three years ago, which
> suggested that 48% of Americans believe that an innocent has been
> executed. Yet (IIRC) 60 - 70% still support the death penalty. I do
> not believe that 'conclusive proof' (if your legal system were even
> equipped with a mechanism to determine it) would result in the abolition
> of the death penalty.
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
Again. Abolitionists need to forget the legal aspect of proving
innocence in court and concentrate of establishing innocence outside of
court. That does not require the aid of defense lawyers so much as it
does investigative work that anyone with a reasonable amount of
intelligence should be able to accomplish. With as many abolitionists
as the posters profess to have on this newsgroup in the US, it should
not be that difficult to have at least proven ONE case in the last
thirty years to go along with all the unproved allegations.
I understand it might be somewhat easier to convince a jury, using
indirect evidence that such an execution may have occurred. That
requires lawyers and a good deal of money which might well take away
resources from critical investigation that might turn up direct and
incontrovertible evidence. Once the evidence is found, THEN it should
be presented in court. Until that occurs, until that "smoking gun" is
presented, retentionists will still be able to make the statement:
"Prove one case where someone was executed for a murder they did not
commit."
--
Teflon
Sharpjfa
>Date: 7/22/02 10:59 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ahha5h$mef$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3D3BFFFF...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>Peter Morris wrote:
>>
>> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3D3AC897...@hotmail.com...
>> July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
>>
>Richard Says :
>>"This is exactly the type of criminal we simply need to execute. There
>>should be no way he should walk free again, no matter how short the time
>is."
>
>>
>>> Just a few points you dont appear to have considered.
>>
>>> 1) The only crime that could be proved against him is burglary.
>>> He is suspected of many murders, but there is no proof, virtually
>>> no evidence at all, only suspicion and hearsay.
What idiot wrote this? He confessed to some of his crimes, in detail. They plea
bargained and got his many confessions.
snip
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Sharpjfa
sentenced get 2-3 days credit for every day served.
Richard J.
Peter Morris wrote:
>
> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3CACA5...@hotmail.com...
>
> > >
> > > Just a thought, Richard.
> > >
> > > Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found is
> > > that no-one is looking?
> >
> > You must be joking! Every abolitionist on both sides of the Atlantic
> > would masturbate for a week if they could find just one case of an
> > innocent being executed that they could conclusively prove. That is the
> > best chance they have of seeing the US abolish the death penalty.
>
> Not correct.
>
> Just answer me one question here, suppose I did provide proof of
> one single innocent executed 15 years ago, would YOU suddenly admit
> that you'd been wrong all these years? I doubt it, somehow.
I would admit I'm right. I happen to be one of those who believes there
is a likelihood of a person being executed for a murder they did not
commit. I'm also one who believes the chance of such an execution is
much less than the possibility that should we commute those on death row
to other sentences will commit murder again either in or out of prison.
>
> The risk of executing an innocent is only a tiny part of reason to oppose
> the DP. Discovering conclusive proof of an innocent executed would
> vindicate what we've been saying, but really wouldn't make that much
> of a difference.
I disagree. I believe that is exactly the type of validation needed to
cause the general public to sit back and take a long look. Then if
they, as I am, are willing to take the chance and continue with the
death penalty, so be it. If they wish to abolish the death penalty, so
be that as well.
>
> > > All the people actively searching for proof
> > > of innocence concentrate on the still living. Think for example of
> > > Anthony Porter. He came close to being executed, then had his
> > > execution postponed. After this postponement, a bunch of students
> > > investigated his case and uncovered conclusive proof of his innocence.
> > > But ask yourself this, Richard, if Porters execution had gone ahead
> > > as scheduled, if he had already been dead, would those students
> > > have bothered? Or would they have concentrated their efforts on those
> > > that are still alive? If Porter had been executed, do you think that the
> > > proof of his innmocence would have EVER been discovered?
> >
> > I believe it would have. The existence of conclusive proof of a
> > wrongful execution is the "smoking gun" of abolitionism.
>
> I think you are wroing, Richard. Those people who are actively involved
> in searching for evidence of innocence concentrate on the living.
> Once somebody has actually been executed efforts to prove their innocence
> generally cease. The lawyers representing them have other clients,
> ones that are still alive. The dead are dead, and cannot be saved, Richard.
> The living can still be helped. All the efforts concentrate on the living.
> They have to.
If abolitionists wish to validate their arguments in the minds of the
two thirds majority of Americans favoring retention, they best
concentrate some decent effort finding just such a case as I said.
>
> Do you REALLY think that the students at the Innocence Project
> spend their time looking at cases of dead people? What would be
> the point of that? Their objective is to save innocent lives,
> they search for evidence of innocence for people that are still
> alive. They are not about trying to undermine the DP. Their purpose
> is to help wrongly convicted innocents who are still alive. If Porter's
> execution had gone ahead on schedule, they wouldn't have wasted
> time looking for proof of his innocence, not when there are so many
> living people that need their help.
And that's fine. I thought the overall aim of abolitionists was
eliminate the death penalty. If so, I believe they have ot fight in two
fronts: the finding of innocently condemned to save life, and the
finding of that one case of an innocent executed to validate their claim
that they have not been able to prevent a miscarriage of justice with
other means.
>
> > >
> > > My own belief is that there have been several innocents actually
> executed,
> > > but nobody is looking for proof of their innocence - there just isn't
> time.
> > > If they were still alive, there would still be people looking for
> evidence
> > > of innocence, and eventually finding it.
> >
> > So go looking for the proof.
>
> Your response baffles me. What part of this don't you understand.
> I tell you that there isn't time to go looking for proof, you repond
> "so go looking for the proof." There isn't time Richard.
Time has to be taken if the case is to be made.
>
> Hypothetically speaking, if I were to emigrate to the USA, and take
> an active part in searching for evidence of innocence, I would
> concentrate on those that are still alive, people that could actually
> be helped. I would have to. I wouldn't have time to search for
> proof of innocence for dead people, not when there would be living
> people who could be saved.
And that's fine. It still does not invalidate what I said. Besides,
with all the help attempting to save the living, you cannot tell me
there are not cases which were not saves, yet have a good bit of
investigation already behind them. Take one of those cases, say Gary
Graham, and finish the job.
>
> Nobody is really searching for proof of an executed innocent, Richard.
> There isn't time to do so.
I'm sorry for your cause then. You are fighting an uphill battle and
really not making that much headway. Perhaps after a few decades,
abolitionists will prevail, but if you wish to see a dramatic change,
you must find an actual case of an executed innocent, IMO.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Unfortunately, all of those confessions are inadmissible in a court of
law due to the plea bargain. The Houston DA's office believes there is
a good possibility to convict him of a murder using new evidence
obtained with DNA testing not available at the time of his trial. If
so, it may well be possible to get a capital murder conviction.
For general information of abolitionists who might want to say this is
double jeopardy. Evidence not available at the time of trial to either
side is admissible is discovered later. It does not fall under the
particular problem of time limitation for introduction of evidence since
it was not available. We may yet see this serial killer get the
sentence he deserves.
--
Teflon
Peter Morris
>
>
> Peter Morris wrote:
> >
> > "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D3CACA5...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Just a thought, Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found
is
> > > > that no-one is looking?
> > >
> > > You must be joking! Every abolitionist on both sides of the Atlantic
> > > would masturbate for a week if they could find just one case of an
> > > innocent being executed that they could conclusively prove. That is
the
> > > best chance they have of seeing the US abolish the death penalty.
> >
> > Not correct.
> >
> > Just answer me one question here, suppose I did provide proof of
> > one single innocent executed 15 years ago, would YOU suddenly admit
> > that you'd been wrong all these years? I doubt it, somehow.
>
> I would admit I'm right. I happen to be one of those who believes there
> is a likelihood of a person being executed for a murder they did not
> commit. I'm also one who believes the chance of such an execution is
> much less than the possibility that should we commute those on death row
> to other sentences will commit murder again either in or out of prison.
So in fact proof of an executed innocent wouldn't change your mind,
actually. I didn't think it would. That is why despite your frantic claims,
executing an innocent is only a tiny part of the overall argument.
> >
> > The risk of executing an innocent is only a tiny part of reason to
oppose
> > the DP. Discovering conclusive proof of an innocent executed would
> > vindicate what we've been saying, but really wouldn't make that much
> > of a difference.
>
> I disagree. I believe that is exactly the type of validation needed to
> cause the general public to sit back and take a long look. Then if
> they, as I am, are willing to take the chance and continue with the
> death penalty, so be it. If they wish to abolish the death penalty, so
> be that as well.
You think that you are disagreing with me, yet your own words
just prove my point. You say that YOUR mind wouldn't be changed
by a few executed innocents, but you think that everyone else's would be.
You are wrong about that. All the others feel the same way you do,
that you would STILL support the DP if we proved a few executed
innocents. Your belief that this is a major part of the debate is based
on the wrong assumption that most other supporters feel differently
from you. What makes you think that, anyway?
It wouldn't make any dkifference to YOU, would it. You have already
admitted that.
Yes it does. Totally. There is no proof of an executed innocent
because all the work concentrates on the living.
> Besides,
> with all the help attempting to save the living, you cannot tell me
> there are not cases which were not saves, yet have a good bit of
> investigation already behind them. Take one of those cases, say Gary
> Graham, and finish the job.
Please try to understand. Gary Graham is dead. He cannot be helped.
Proving his innocence would achieve nothing.
In the meantime, there are many others with execution dates looming
and claims of innocence. Should the Innocence Project stop
investigating their claims, and concentrate on the dead instead?
And while they are searching for proof in the Graham case, how
many innocents would be executed for lack of help?
Answer this question, Richard. What if the students at the Innocence
Project had been investigating the Herrera case, for example?
If they had been, would they have had time to investigate Porter?
I don't think so. THERE ISN'T ENOGH TIME, Richard.
If they spend time looking for evidence in cases of the already
executed, they dont have time to spend helping the still living.
>
> >
> > Nobody is really searching for proof of an executed innocent, Richard.
> > There isn't time to do so.
>
> I'm sorry for your cause then. You are fighting an uphill battle and
> really not making that much headway.
If you think that, you are blind. There are constant victories.
The DP is becomming more and more restricted. There's hardly
any of it left as it is, and keeps on becoming less and less.
We are winning, Richard. Live with it.
> Perhaps after a few decades,
> abolitionists will prevail, but if you wish to see a dramatic change,
> you must find an actual case of an executed innocent, IMO.
If we did waste time searching for an executed innocent, and
in the meantime let several other innocents be executed, there
woulkd be no dramatic change, Richard, you and many others
like you would simply accept the death of innocents and still
support the death penalty.
Peter Morris
"Sharpjfa" <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020723090109...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> >>
> >>> Just a few points you dont appear to have considered.
> >>
> >>> 1) The only crime that could be proved against him is burglary.
> >>> He is suspected of many murders, but there is no proof, virtually
> >>> no evidence at all, only suspicion and hearsay.
>
> What idiot wrote this? He confessed to some of his crimes, in detail. They
plea
> bargained and got his many confessions.
The fact still remains that it was impossible to prove a single
murder charge against him, and he remains convicted of only
burglary and nothing else.
Since Richard is advocating a death sentence for him,
that means he either wants to execute people convicted of
burglary, or he wants to execute murder suspects who have
not been proved guilty, without trial, with little evidence,
simply on the unproven suspicion of murder.
He still hasn't said which of the two it is.
alex
Victims, Seem's I was WRONG.
Richard J. wrote in message <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>...
July 21, 2002, 12:10AM
If schedule holds, Texas may be first to free
serial killer
The following article by Evan Moore of the Houston Chronicle more than
says it all. Here's one for you Jürgen.
--
Teflon
A day is worth more than 24 hours to Coral Eugene Watts.
It's worth 72, a three-for-one bargain, a triple-time countdown to May
8, 2006. On that date, Watts, a man known to have killed 13 women and
suspected of more than six times that many slayings, is scheduled to
walk out of the Texas prison system.
He will be the nation's only known serial murderer to be released.
He will be 52 years old.
Next month will mark the 20th year since state District Judge Doug
Shaver sentenced Watts to what was then thought to be an immutable 60
years without parole for burglary with intent to commit murder. If
something is to be done in the Texas Legislature or in court to prevent
Watts' release, the work must begin now.
It was a compromise that sent Watts to prison, the best that could be
done with a case with scant evidence, and it brought some minuscule
measure of relief to dozens of survivors of Watts' victims. A glitch in
that sentencing, however, a missing phrase, gave Watts the opportunity
to have that charge reduced and to become eligible for "good time"
benefits of three days' credit for each day served.
And that leaves Watts with a sentence that will be satisfied on the
second Monday in May 2006.
On that day it will have been 24 years since Watts was halted in an
11-month rampage in which he killed 12 Texas women. It will have been 24
years since Watts killed his last Houston victim and was caught in an
attempt to kill another. It will have been two decades since Watts'
arrest and its subsequent revelations made him an albatross of
embarrassment around the neck of the Houston Police Department.
It will be almost 40 years earlier than anyone might have hoped.
"It makes me kind of sick," said Shaver, now retired. "It's the most
unforgettable case I ever had before me, and he's the most dangerous
person I've ever come face to face with.
"When he gets out, some woman is going to die."
Oddly, except for the efforts of a few individuals, the Watts case has
gone largely untouched for the past two decades. Despite the advances in
the science of DNA, no sample has been taken from Watts. In Michigan and
Canada, where Watts is suspected of scores of murders, only Ann Arbor
has examined its files to see if DNA material might be available,
unfortunately without success.
Now, as Watts' release date approaches, the compliant, soft-spoken
inmate is becoming the focus of 1th-hour efforts to keep him in prison.
In Ann Arbor, Mich., detectives are attempting to group information
from other cities and neighboring Canada to determine if any DNA
evidence might tie to Watts.
"It takes time to gather this material," said Ann Arbor special crimes
Detective Mauro Cervantes. "We do have four years, so it's not pressing
yet, but we do recognize the need to get it done."
In the Houston Police Department, homicide Detective Tom Ladd
periodically reviews old files, hoping to happen on a case he might link
to Watts.
In Brookshire, investigators are searching for lost evidence from a
killing Watts is known to have committed there.
At City Hall, Andy Kahan, the mayor's victims' advocate, is organizing
a rally of survivors of Watts' victims to bring attention to Watts' case
and put pressure on legislators to amend the laws that would free him.
And in the Ellis Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Watts spends his days working as a machinist in the wood shop, counting
the days until his release.
Watts was born in Killeen. His parents divorced when he was a toddler,
and his mother, an elementary school art teacher, moved to the Detroit
suburb of Inkster. There, Watts became an outstanding athlete who won a
Golden Gloves boxing championship and, later, received a football
scholarship to college.
He was a predator as well. He began assaulting women at age 15 and
later turned to killing them. He was suspected in a series of attacks
between October 1979 and November 1980 in which 14 women were attacked
and eight killed in the Detroit area, in Windsor, Ontario (just across
the border), and in Ann Arbor.
Michigan police then began around-the-clock surveillance of Watts.
"He couldn't stand it," said Paul Bunten, a former Ann Arbor homicide
detective. "He was street-smart, and he knew how to cover his crimes,
but he couldn't shake us. Every time he turned around, one of us was
there, watching him. So he left and moved to Texas."
Watts arrived in Columbus in April 1981 and began working as a diesel
mechanic. Bunten called Houston police to warn them of Watts' arrival
and sent them an 18-page bulletin, detailing Watts' crimes and personal
information.
It was a bleak period for Houston police.
More than 700 murders occurred in Houston in 1981, overwhelming an
understaffed, underpaid department that had no permanent police chief.
As a result, it took weeks for police to locate Watts, and then little,
if any, surveillance was conducted.
Watts took advantage of his new freedom. Nightly he would cruise the
freeways and side streets until he spotted a woman he believed to have
"evil eyes" and then follow her home.
He would wait until she had placed her key in the door, then grab her
from behind, choke her into semiconsciousness and drag her inside. He
stabbed, strangled or drowned his victims, and over the next 11 months
he killed nine in Houston, one in Brookshire, one in Austin and one in
Galveston.
He rarely took anything from a victim, and he never raped or sexually
molested one.
Then, it all culminated on the night of May 22, 1982. At some point
that evening, Watts drowned Michele Maday, 20, in her bathtub. He left
that scene and was soon hunting again when he happened on Lori ister,
who was entering her apartment in the early dawn.
Watts choked Lister, then dragged her into her apartment. He had filled
the tub and was in the process of drowning Lister when he was surprised
by her roommate, Melinda Aguilar. Aguilar escaped, screaming for help,
and in the ensuing confusion, Watts was arrested.
Within hours he had hired an attorney, Zinetta Burney, who was aghast
when her client, apparently believing police had a better case against
him than they did, revealed to her that he had killed a string of women.
"There's something evil in the man," Burney later recalled. "He never
threatened me. He was always quiet and polite to me, but he scared me
more than anyone I've ever dealt with."
Burney began wearing a crucifix to her meetings with Watts, but she
didn't stop working on his behalf. She cobbled an agreement with
Assistant District Attorneys Jack Frels and Ira Jones that resulted in
Watts' pleading guilty to burglary with intent to commit murder in
exchange for the 60-year sentence and immunity in the slayings to which
he had confessed. Travis and Galveston counties and one county in
Michigan made similar agreements, though others declined.
The burglary charge was considered aggravated because the water in
which Watts was attempting to drown Lister was construed to be a deadly
weapon, leaving Watts ineligible for parole.
Watts began detailing the killings he had committed since coming to
Texas. He alluded to others as well, though he was not as explicit. At
his last interrogation by police, he admitted to more than 80 slayings,
though he refused to give specifics in any crime for which he was not
offered immunity.
Watts has never granted a media interview, and he did not respond to a
request to be interviewed for this story.
Many families of victims, already angered at the failure by police to
monitor Watts, were doubly offended at the immunity agreement.
"I've taken a lot of grief over that plea bargain over the years," said
former Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes. "But we had
absolutely no evidence in these murders. We could never have tried him
on any of them, and it was the only thing we could do."
Two mistakes occurred, however.
One was in Watts' favor. Shaver failed to specify the water as a deadly
weapon in the court record. The other mistake may work against Watts:
Investigators mistakenly placed the killing of Emily LaQua, 14, in
Harris County.
The first mistake allowed Watts to appeal his conviction, and in 1989
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reduced his crime to burglary
because there was no evidence a deadly weapon had been used. The
decision made Watts eligible for parole, good time, bonus time (for acts
such as donating blood) and, eventually, release.
The second error could work against Watts. The LaQua slaying occurred
in Waller County, placing it outside the immunity blanket Watts received
from Harris County prosecutors.
That leaves Watts vulnerable in the LaQua slaying if evidence other
than his confession can be found. The science of DNA, in its infancy in
1982, might be applied if a single hair from Watts' head was left on
LaQua's clothing.
That evidence, however, has been misplaced.
Sherry Robinson, Waller County district attorney since 1993, is now
attempting to locate LaQua's clothing, which disappeared from the
Brookshire Police Department shortly after LaQua's body was recovered.
"We think it's in the Department of Public Safety lab (in Austin),"
said Robinson. "We just haven't been able to locate it there."
In Seattle, Elizabeth Young, LaQua's mother, was shocked to learn that
the evidence in her daughter"s case was missing, that Watts' sentence
had been reduced and that he had been scheduled for release.
In Grosse Pointe, Mich., Michael Clyne, the widower of one of Watts'
victims and a suspect in his wife's slaying until Watts confessed,
similarly was unaware of Watts' impending freedom. So were Beverly
Searles of Des Moines, Iowa; Phyllis Tamm of Memphis, Tenn.; and Laura
Allen of Dallas, all mothers whose daughters were killed by Watts.
In Waltham, Mass., Jane Montgomery has kept abreast of developments in
Watts' case, as has Harriet Semander of Houston. Both lost daughters to
Watts, and both have been active in opposing his release.
Many of those survivors, already ired over the original handling of the
Watts case, are further exasperated at the thought that he could go
free.
Several plan to attend a rally Aug. 3 in Houston, organized by Kahan,
the mayor's victims' advocate. There, survivors will attend a memorial
service and pass a petition that will ask the governor to form a
committee to study Watts' case and come up with a way to prevent his
release.
"The purpose of this rally is twofold," said Kahan. "We want to draw
attention to Watts before his release date draws too near, and we want
to bring some pressure on the Legislature.
"That's one reason we're starting now. It's a slow process to get
things moving in the Legislature.
"We call it the beginning of a four-year war."
Kahan, citing previous errors in the Watts case, has called Watts "a
poster child for incompetence." Kahan agrees, however, that it is
unlikely any legislation will rescind Watts' good time. Previous efforts
have failed in committee.
In the event Watts is released, the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles will
be forced to make special efforts to monitor him, said Perry Ivey,
deputy director of field operations for that bureau.
Under the guidelines of that bureau, Watts would be sent to some
facility in Houston. To the prison system, he is a burglar. As a result,
there would be no public notice of his release or whereabouts, no
posting of his name on a list of sex offenders or violent criminals.
"But we'd have to have him under high control," said Ivey. "Electronic
monitoring; global positioning satellite monitoring; he could only
engage in work or school; otherwise, he'd be locked down.
"With someone like this, if we have to put someone on him 24-7, we
will."
That does little, however, to appease the families of those who died at
Watts' hands or the police who investigated those deaths.
"He'll kill some other woman," said Houston police homicide
investigator Tom Ladd. Ladd spent days interrogating Watts, listening to
his confessions and building a rapport with his prisoner.
"Coral Watts is as streetwise as any killer I ever saw," said the
detective. "I remember the last time I
spoke to him. He was calling me Ladd by then.
"As he was heading off to prison, the last thing he told me was, `Ladd,
you know if I ever get out, I'm
gonna do it again.' "
John Rennie
"alex" <al...@agarrett.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahjr9l$67p$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> This Bastard should of FRIED at least, I fought American Law favoured the
> Victims, Seem's I was WRONG.
"I fought American Law . . ." Oh Jiggy - this is really serious
competition.
Peter Morris
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnajqsr5.1vss....@lievre.voute.net...
> It all hinges on what constitutes 'proof'. For the retentionists,
> 'proof' would be a posthumous pardon. An official (read 'government')
> declaration.
I disagree. Sacco & Vanzetti have been given one, yet the Rets
don't agree that is proof.
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:ahk1qp$t7l$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
And one idiot on this group (Reed) doesn't think that
Governor Dukasis' Declaration constitutes a pardon.
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>...
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:18:53 -0400, j...@home.net <j...@home.net> a écrit :
>
> > Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
> >
> > Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it. The
"death
> > penalty", naturally.
>
> Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
R:.
Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
J.:
No point, Richard. The standard to sentence anyone to any penalty is 'Beyond
a reasonable Doubt'. The very worst mistake already happened with the raise
of reasoned and reasonable QUESTIONS about any executed's guilt.
Jürgen
GeneralZod
"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> You don't free serial killers because of the lack of death penalty (which
> Texas actually has), but because of the flaws of the justice system. Texan
> justice system being flawed is actually no scoop: it executes innocents
and
Really? Name one.
Put up or shut up.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:ahk1qp$t7l$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
enormous number of inhuman events in Europe which followed the
time frame of this rather silly argument.
Sharp's argument is silly to me as well. The DP is in constant
evolution, as demonstrated by some recent rulings. Any presumed
'proof' of its unsuitability, must stand the test of post-Furman.
Especially in the case of the presumed execution of an innocent.
Certainly we no longer execute for rape, or armed robbery. But
I believe that some extremist abolitionists believe THAT also has
some validity to the present day U.S. DP. While more rigorous,
logical and reasonable minds on both sides of this issue know
otherwise.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ahk2u2$315$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
raised by those having a quite different agenda then to simply 'raise those
questions.' I suppose we must, using your argument, presume that
no 'reasoned and reasonable QUESTIONS' can be raised of those
certainly guilty, yet who managed to murder innocents AGAIN.
As 'my list' offers a great number of those examples, which asks
those very questions. But at least I am not hypocritical enough to claim
I have no agenda.
PV
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
Exactly. If after an execution even one question arises that reasonably
challenges "guilty BARD", that casts doubt on the verdict, then the system
already made the greatest imaginable fault. (So as for instant 'CPresponse'
once raised a couple of this questions concerning O'Dell Barnes)
GeneralZod
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:w2g%8.1321$7h7.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
And if you actually took the time to read this declaration, you
would find that, unlike the public document where Gerald Ford pardoned
Richard Nixon, the word, "pardon" does not appear in it at all. In fact, the
entire tone of the document signed by Dukakis does not even suggest that was
what he had in mind.
To suggest otherwise would be a bold new step in disingenousness and
intellectual dishonesty.
>
>
JIGSAW1695
Date: 7/23/2002 3:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <Zyi%8.833$cm6.18...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
==============================
Dukakis's "pardon" was seen exactly as it was meant to be... a publicity stunt
to garner the favor of the Italian-American vote.
As I recall, a spokeman for a radical groupp of lefties proclaimed it is as a
vindication of two working class hero's.
Just about every other Italian-American in the country had a good laugh over
what they considered a desperate politician and went on to vote against him for
one reason and one reason only. They didnt want an idiot for a president.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ahk9d7$sr4$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
'Not Guilty BARD,' after a finding of such 'not guilty? In point of fact,
we recognize that those questions are MEANINGLESS, because
they cannot change what was the finality of Justice as we write our
laws. Are you presuming that we should fashion laws which provide
for an eternal examination of those found guilty in our laws? When
can guilt be 'finalized,' under your conditions? Under what I
presume are 'my conditions,' guilty and not guilty are finalized when
the law says they are.
Just as the questions you presume are the ONLY questions that can
be seen as 'imaginable fault,' what about other questions? What about
those questions that put a 'reasonable challenge' to a penalty other
than the DP, when new innocents are murdered as a result of those
penalties? Are those lives of lesser value?
Richard J.
I will always support the death penalty for serial killers, rapist
killers, and child molester killers as well as multiple murderers and
murderers for hire. Outside of those types of murderers, I could accept
LWOP.
>
> > >
> > > The risk of executing an innocent is only a tiny part of reason to
> oppose
> > > the DP. Discovering conclusive proof of an innocent executed would
> > > vindicate what we've been saying, but really wouldn't make that much
> > > of a difference.
> >
> > I disagree. I believe that is exactly the type of validation needed to
> > cause the general public to sit back and take a long look. Then if
> > they, as I am, are willing to take the chance and continue with the
> > death penalty, so be it. If they wish to abolish the death penalty, so
> > be that as well.
>
> You think that you are disagreing with me, yet your own words
> just prove my point. You say that YOUR mind wouldn't be changed
> by a few executed innocents, but you think that everyone else's would be.
> You are wrong about that. All the others feel the same way you do,
> that you would STILL support the DP if we proved a few executed
> innocents. Your belief that this is a major part of the debate is based
> on the wrong assumption that most other supporters feel differently
> from you. What makes you think that, anyway?
Most supporters of the death penalty believe in its use for ALL
murderers, justifying it under the Biblical, "An Eye For an Eye." I
personally do not, but continue to support the dp as it stands because I
do not wish to see the classes of murderers above have a chance to be
freed. I admit the possibility of an innocent's death. I have not yet
seen such a death proven. Until I do, I shall continue to support the
death penalty. When the time comes that one of you proves such an act,
I will reconsider my position. As yet, I consider such claims as pure
supposition without hard proof.
No, I admitted I thought the possibility much less than the possibility
those on death row would murder again if they have their sentences
commuted. You take that to mean I would not change my mind if
confronted with evidence to the contrary. Show me the evidence, and I
will make up my mind at that point.
Sure it would, but it is much easier to assert his innocence and prove
nothing.
> In the meantime, there are many others with execution dates looming
> and claims of innocence. Should the Innocence Project stop
> investigating their claims, and concentrate on the dead instead?
> And while they are searching for proof in the Graham case, how
> many innocents would be executed for lack of help?
None until you prove the fact.
>
> Answer this question, Richard. What if the students at the Innocence
> Project had been investigating the Herrera case, for example?
> If they had been, would they have had time to investigate Porter?
>
> I don't think so. THERE ISN'T ENOGH TIME, Richard.
>
> If they spend time looking for evidence in cases of the already
> executed, they dont have time to spend helping the still living.
There are others. Your argument is, IMO, simply an excuse for no hard,
conclusive evidence.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Nobody is really searching for proof of an executed innocent, Richard.
> > > There isn't time to do so.
> >
> > I'm sorry for your cause then. You are fighting an uphill battle and
> > really not making that much headway.
>
> If you think that, you are blind. There are constant victories.
> The DP is becomming more and more restricted. There's hardly
> any of it left as it is, and keeps on becoming less and less.
>
> We are winning, Richard. Live with it.
If you win, fine, as long as it is the will of the people.
>
> > Perhaps after a few decades,
> > abolitionists will prevail, but if you wish to see a dramatic change,
> > you must find an actual case of an executed innocent, IMO.
>
> If we did waste time searching for an executed innocent, and
> in the meantime let several other innocents be executed, there
> woulkd be no dramatic change, Richard, you and many others
> like you would simply accept the death of innocents and still
> support the death penalty.
Prove one case of an executed innocent and let us see.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > an active part in searching for evidence of innocence, I would
> >> > concentrate on those that are still alive, people that could actually
> >> > be helped. I would have to. I wouldn't have time to search for
> >> > proof of innocence for dead people, not when there would be living
> >> > people who could be saved.
>
> >> And that's fine. It still does not invalidate what I said.
>
> This is in fact true, but Richard's (and other retentionists') claim
> that there is no proof of an executed innocent is also true ... but
> devious.
>
> It all hinges on what constitutes 'proof'. For the retentionists,
> 'proof' would be a posthumous pardon.
You know that is exactly the opposite of what I have been saying,
Desmond. What I've said several times on this thread is to forget the
judicial review, and present conclusive proof of one person who has been
wrongfully executed in the form of new scientific evidence or a
confession of someone to a murder in such a manner that their confession
cannot be doubted. Damn, are you going to start twisting my words next?
An official (read 'government')
> declaration. By the same token, there is no proof of the existence
> of God, yet that doesn't stop millions of Americans from getting down
> on their knees every Sunday (or Saturday) to worship Him.
>
> The proof will come. When it does, the goalposts will be shifted. The
> person or persons responsible for the prosecution will (if they're still
> around) be sent to gaol.
I don't believe so unless there was a conscious effort to execute a
known innocent person. You are dreaming otherwise.
The Supreme Court will strike down all
> sentences passed under the same conditions (if there are any),
Quite possible.
and
> a Congressional Sub-Committee on Crime and Punishment will report to
> the Attorney General. There will be an election just after that, the
> new President will have 'clean hands', will appoint two 'hawk' Supreme
> Court Justices as the last remaining two 'liberals' will have been
> assassinated by the CIA carrying out the wishes of the Great Right-Wing
> Conspiracy. The Court will then, in Crawford v. Anderston
> (678 US 432 (2010)) approve death sentences passed under the new rules.
>
> There will be protests, of course, but the new Governer of Florida,
> Gov Jigsaw, will, in signing the first death warrant, let the world
> know that 'it's a states' rights issue.'
>
> A month later, Tracy Winston Jeffries will become the first person
> put to death since the posthumous pardon was accorded to Roger
> Coleman, in 2004.
>
> And so it goes on ...
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
WOOOOP! WOOOP, WOOOP! Attention, this is an official troll alert.
Good one Desmond. Had me going at first.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
I guess if I raise reasonable questions about the motives of Germany in
the EU, that makes that union invalid too, Jürgen? Questions are just
questions. Where's your proof?
--
Teflon
Peter Morris
> > So in fact proof of an executed innocent wouldn't change your mind,
> > actually. I didn't think it would. That is why despite your frantic
claims,
> > executing an innocent is only a tiny part of the overall argument.
>
> I will always support the death penalty for serial killers, rapist
> killers, and child molester killers as well as multiple murderers and
> murderers for hire. Outside of those types of murderers, I could accept
> LWOP.
Something of a non-sequitor there, Richard. What has that to do
with what I wrote?
> > You think that you are disagreing with me, yet your own words
> > just prove my point. You say that YOUR mind wouldn't be changed
> > by a few executed innocents, but you think that everyone else's would
be.
> > You are wrong about that. All the others feel the same way you do,
> > that you would STILL support the DP if we proved a few executed
> > innocents. Your belief that this is a major part of the debate is based
> > on the wrong assumption that most other supporters feel differently
> > from you. What makes you think that, anyway?
>
> Most supporters of the death penalty believe in its use for ALL
> murderers, justifying it under the Biblical, "An Eye For an Eye." I
> personally do not, but continue to support the dp as it stands because I
> do not wish to see the classes of murderers above have a chance to be
> freed. I admit the possibility of an innocent's death. I have not yet
> seen such a death proven. Until I do, I shall continue to support the
> death penalty. When the time comes that one of you proves such an act,
> I will reconsider my position. As yet, I consider such claims as pure
> supposition without hard proof.
Another load of non-sequitors. Please answer the question.
> > >
> > > If abolitionists wish to validate their arguments in the minds of the
> > > two thirds majority of Americans favoring retention, they best
> > > concentrate some decent effort finding just such a case as I said.
> >
> > It wouldn't make any dkifference to YOU, would it. You have already
> > admitted that.
>
> No, I admitted I thought the possibility much less than the possibility
> those on death row would murder again if they have their sentences
> commuted. You take that to mean I would not change my mind if
> confronted with evidence to the contrary. Show me the evidence, and I
> will make up my mind at that point.
Richard, that is EXACTLY what you said. Here are your own words:
Peter :<QUOTE>
The risk of executing an innocent is only a tiny part of reason to
oppose
the DP. Discovering conclusive proof of an innocent executed would
vindicate what we've been saying, but really wouldn't make that much
of a difference.
<UNQUOTE>
Richard : <QUOTE>
I disagree. I believe that is exactly the type of validation needed to
cause the general public to sit back and take a long look. Then if
they, as I am, are willing to take the chance and continue with the
death penalty, so be it. If they wish to abolish the death penalty, so
be that as well.
<UNQUOTE>
According to what you wrote, given proof of an innocent executed
you personally would STILL "be willing to take the chance". Yet you
argue that everyone else except you would change their minds.
I simply think that everyone else would do as you do.
> > Please try to understand. Gary Graham is dead. He cannot be helped.
> > Proving his innocence would achieve nothing.
> >
>
> Sure it would, but it is much easier to assert his innocence and prove
> nothing.
>
> > In the meantime, there are many others with execution dates looming
> > and claims of innocence. Should the Innocence Project stop
> > investigating their claims, and concentrate on the dead instead?
> > And while they are searching for proof in the Graham case, how
> > many innocents would be executed for lack of help?
>
> None until you prove the fact.
Of course they would be. Please answer the question, Richard.
If the students in the Innovence Project had spent their time
searching for proof of Herrera's innocence, they would not have
had enough time left to save Porter. If Errol Morris had spent his time
researching the Coleman case, would he have had time left to
save Randal Dale Adams? Of course not.
These people working hard to prove innocence, they aren't doing
it to prove a point. It isn't intended to undermine the DP. Its
intention is TO SAVE INNOCENT LIVES. In order to save
lives, they concentrate on the living.
There are maybe about 1000 people on Death Row claiming
innocence at the moment, and many others in normal prison.
There are people investigating these, and their investigations
keep on turning up innocent people. Some of these innocents
have death sentences hanging over their heads, some are just
in prison. The first 3000 DP cases post Furman turned up 100
innocents, and there is probably the same number of innocents
currently on Death Row.
When the investigators are convinced that they have found
every single one of the innocents alive today on death row,
then thay can afford to spend time searching for evidence
for the dead. Not before.
> >
> > Answer this question, Richard. What if the students at the Innocence
> > Project had been investigating the Herrera case, for example?
> > If they had been, would they have had time to investigate Porter?
> >
> > I don't think so. THERE ISN'T ENOGH TIME, Richard.
> >
> > If they spend time looking for evidence in cases of the already
> > executed, they dont have time to spend helping the still living.
>
> There are others. Your argument is, IMO, simply an excuse for no hard,
> conclusive evidence.
excuses nothing, Richard, its an attempt to show you why nobody
is looking for evidence. Its because there is no time.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:28:41 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:22:57 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> This Bastard should of FRIED at least, I fought American Law favoured the
>>> Victims, Seem's I was WRONG.
>
>> "I fought American Law . . ." Oh Jiggy - this is really serious
>> competition.
>
>He's posting from the UK. He probably wrote 'thought' the way he
>pronounces it. 'Ah fought you was alright [sic] I did ...'
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:28:41 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnajqth9.1vss....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><ahjr9l$67p$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
><hxe%8.1192$7h7.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027438232 16377193 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:25:30 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:06:38 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> > It all hinges on what constitutes 'proof'. For the retentionists,
>>> > 'proof' would be a posthumous pardon. An official (read 'government')
>>> > declaration.
>
>>> I disagree. Sacco & Vanzetti have been given one, yet the Rets
>>> don't agree that is proof.
>
>> And one idiot on this group (Reed) doesn't think that
>> Governor Dukasis' Declaration constitutes a pardon.
>
>It doesn't. It constitutes a clear indication on the part of the
>Massachussetts authorities, that they executed two innocent men,
>but it is not a posthumous pardon.
>
>If the death penalty isn't murder, then an admission of 'a mistake'
>isn't a posthumous pardon.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:25:30 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <slrnajr7sq.1vss....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
><slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>
><slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B4CFC...@hotmail.com>
><L4I_8.2086$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><3D3BFCB9...@hotmail.com> <ahhmtg$ha9$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><3D3CACA5...@hotmail.com> <ahjffh$ek2$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><3D3D579D...@hotmail.com> <ahjqbr$294$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><slrnajqsr5.1vss....@lievre.voute.net>
><ahk1qp$t7l$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><w2g%8.1321$7h7.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027449031 31292973 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 08:24:09 +0000
>
>Le 23 Jul 2002 06:50:28 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>>> Second, I seem to recall a study about two or three years ago, which
>>> suggested that 48% of Americans believe that an innocent has been
>>> executed. Yet (IIRC) 60 - 70% still support the death penalty. I do
>>> not believe that 'conclusive proof' (if your legal system were even
>>> equipped with a mechanism to determine it) would result in the abolition
>>> of the death penalty.
>
>> Well, right of the bat one sees the contridiction of 48% support of
>> "innocence" being executed versus 60-70 per cent of the US population
>> support the death penalty.
>
>That is the entire point, Jigsaw. 48% of the public believe an
>innocent has been executed, and _despite this_, 60-70% of them still
>support capital punishment. One can infer from this that either Americans
>are stupid, or sadistic bastards. Your choice.
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Now, about your statement about evidence being tampered with.
>> Tellme, how do you tamper with a blood sample. Im just curious
>> on how a technician would go about doing it.
>
>By 'finding' that the blood samples on the suspect's clothing, match
>those of the victim. You believe it's never been done ? The police
>could even do it, before it got to the technician. Wasn't that one of
>the things that got O.J. Simpson off ?
>
>{ snip }
>
>> In essesence, if I were European, based on history alone, I would
>> mistruct any court on handing out the DP. As an American, I find
>> the justice administration to be fundementally fair and honest.
>
>You trust your government to kill people, but not to keep them locked
>up ?
>
>'Go figure' ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 08:24:09 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 45
>Message-ID: <slrnajq4l9.1uq8....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnajpu51.1ugo....@lievre.voute.net>
><20020723025028...@mb-fu.aol.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027412733 30733917 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 06:33:05 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:08:53 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit
>:
>
>>> > Both you and Desmond are wrapped up in a way to legally find that the
>>> > state wrongfully executed someone. What I am asking you to present is
>>> > incontrovertible evidence of such an execution. PROOF! Prove, to me,
>>> > using scientific methods or convincing testimony that the mistake has
>>> > been made. I'm not talking about convincing a jury of twelve, or a
>>> > judge there is a possibility injustice was done, but simply showing me
>>> > your hard evidence. One instance where DNA evidence shows innocence,
>>> > one instance where another prisoner admits to the crime the executed was
>>> > condemned for where the prisoner discloses things known only to the
>>> > police investigating the crime. Show me fingerprints of the murderer
>>> > different from the accused using new forensic techniques.
>
>>> Just a thought, Richard.
>>>
>>> Has it occurred to you that the reason no proof has been found is
>>> that no-one is looking?
>
>> You must be joking! Every abolitionist on both sides of the Atlantic
>> would masturbate for a week if they could find just one case of an
>> innocent being executed that they could conclusively prove. That is the
>> best chance they have of seeing the US abolish the death penalty.
>
>Two things. First, it all depends on _who_ is looking. Once the
>execution takes place, the resources of the defence lawyers move onto
>the next person who is threatened with execution. They are already
>in many cases, stretched for money, and using what little cash they do
>have, to go up against the power of the state, would be of little use.
>The families of the victims don't have the resources, either. More so
>when the state stonewalls them, with regard to releasing DNA samples,
>or evidence. Especially when (as is too often the case) the evidence
>has been tampered with by prosecutors, to obtain a conviction.
>
>Second, I seem to recall a study about two or three years ago, which
>suggested that 48% of Americans believe that an innocent has been
>executed. Yet (IIRC) 60 - 70% still support the death penalty. I do
>not believe that 'conclusive proof' (if your legal system were even
>equipped with a mechanism to determine it) would result in the abolition
>of the death penalty.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacama
r.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
>n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 06:33:05 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 48
>Message-ID: <slrnajpu51.1ugo....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
><slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>
><slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B4CFC...@hotmail.com>
><L4I_8.2086$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><3D3BFCB9...@hotmail.com> <ahhmtg$ha9$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><3D3CACA5...@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027406063 30525723 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:16:54 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > an active part in searching for evidence of innocence, I would
>>> > concentrate on those that are still alive, people that could actually
>>> > be helped. I would have to. I wouldn't have time to search for
>>> > proof of innocence for dead people, not when there would be living
>>> > people who could be saved.
>
>>> And that's fine. It still does not invalidate what I said.
>
>This is in fact true, but Richard's (and other retentionists') claim
>that there is no proof of an executed innocent is also true ... but
>devious.
>
>It all hinges on what constitutes 'proof'. For the retentionists,
>'proof' would be a posthumous pardon. An official (read 'government')
>declaration. By the same token, there is no proof of the existence
>of God, yet that doesn't stop millions of Americans from getting down
>on their knees every Sunday (or Saturday) to worship Him.
>
>The proof will come. When it does, the goalposts will be shifted. The
>person or persons responsible for the prosecution will (if they're still
>around) be sent to gaol. The Supreme Court will strike down all
>sentences passed under the same conditions (if there are any), and
>a Congressional Sub-Committee on Crime and Punishment will report to
>the Attorney General. There will be an election just after that, the
>new President will have 'clean hands', will appoint two 'hawk' Supreme
>Court Justices as the last remaining two 'liberals' will have been
>assassinated by the CIA carrying out the wishes of the Great Right-Wing
>Conspiracy. The Court will then, in Crawford v. Anderston
>(678 US 432 (2010)) approve death sentences passed under the new rules.
>
>There will be protests, of course, but the new Governer of Florida,
>Gov Jigsaw, will, in signing the first death warrant, let the world
>know that 'it's a states' rights issue.'
>
>A month later, Tracy Winston Jeffries will become the first person
>put to death since the posthumous pardon was accorded to Roger
>Coleman, in 2004.
>
>And so it goes on ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.F
R!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:16:54 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 51
>Message-ID: <slrnajqsr5.1vss....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
><slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>
><slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B4CFC...@hotmail.com>
><L4I_8.2086$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><3D3BFCB9...@hotmail.com> <ahhmtg$ha9$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><3D3CACA5...@hotmail.com> <ahjffh$ek2$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><3D3D579D...@hotmail.com> <ahjqbr$294$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027437570 30316774 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Richard J.
Peter Morris wrote:
>
> "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3DD955...@hotmail.com...
>
> > > So in fact proof of an executed innocent wouldn't change your mind,
> > > actually. I didn't think it would. That is why despite your frantic
> claims,
> > > executing an innocent is only a tiny part of the overall argument.
> >
> > I will always support the death penalty for serial killers, rapist
> > killers, and child molester killers as well as multiple murderers and
> > murderers for hire. Outside of those types of murderers, I could accept
> > LWOP.
What you state is not what I said, but your interpretation, which is
incorrect. My feelings about the death penalty are not set in stone
except in the case of the above mentioned murderers. Should a case of
an innocent actually be proven instead of inferred, I would reconsider
my stance supporting the death penalty as it stands currently, but I
would not consider total abolition.
>
> Something of a non-sequitor there, Richard. What has that to do
> with what I wrote?
>
> > > You think that you are disagreing with me, yet your own words
> > > just prove my point. You say that YOUR mind wouldn't be changed
> > > by a few executed innocents, but you think that everyone else's would
> be.
That is not what I said. I said I accepted that there may have been an
innocent executed (as yet still unproved), but I felt the risk less than
the risk from death row inmates if their sentences were commuted.
> > > You are wrong about that. All the others feel the same way you do,
> > > that you would STILL support the DP if we proved a few executed
> > > innocents. Your belief that this is a major part of the debate is based
> > > on the wrong assumption that most other supporters feel differently
> > > from you. What makes you think that, anyway?
> >
> > Most supporters of the death penalty believe in its use for ALL
> > murderers, justifying it under the Biblical, "An Eye For an Eye." I
> > personally do not, but continue to support the dp as it stands because I
> > do not wish to see the classes of murderers above have a chance to be
> > freed. I admit the possibility of an innocent's death. I have not yet
> > seen such a death proven. Until I do, I shall continue to support the
> > death penalty. When the time comes that one of you proves such an act,
> > I will reconsider my position. As yet, I consider such claims as pure
> > supposition without hard proof.
>
> Another load of non-sequitors. Please answer the question.
I did. When you show me concrete proof of an innocent executed, I will
be glad to reconsider my stance. Until that time, I see no reason to.
You don't know squat then.
>
> > > Please try to understand. Gary Graham is dead. He cannot be helped.
> > > Proving his innocence would achieve nothing.
> > >
> >
> > Sure it would, but it is much easier to assert his innocence and prove
> > nothing.
> >
> > > In the meantime, there are many others with execution dates looming
> > > and claims of innocence. Should the Innocence Project stop
> > > investigating their claims, and concentrate on the dead instead?
> > > And while they are searching for proof in the Graham case, how
> > > many innocents would be executed for lack of help?
> >
> > None until you prove the fact.
>
> Of course they would be. Please answer the question, Richard.
> If the students in the Innovence Project had spent their time
> searching for proof of Herrera's innocence, they would not have
> had enough time left to save Porter. If Errol Morris had spent his time
> researching the Coleman case, would he have had time left to
> save Randal Dale Adams? Of course not.
If shit was candy no one would mind sucking ass either. I don't deal in
ifs. What occurred, occurred. I will give you another hypothetical.
If those students had spent their time searching for innocence in
Herrera's case and been successful, thus raising doubt in the whole
system, they may not have succeeded in helping Porter, but they could
have possibly raised enough doubts in the system as a whole to cause a
nation wide moratorium and examination. You see one specific picture
while I think global.
>
> These people working hard to prove innocence, they aren't doing
> it to prove a point. It isn't intended to undermine the DP. Its
> intention is TO SAVE INNOCENT LIVES. In order to save
> lives, they concentrate on the living.
The battle is not going to be thus won. All that does is give
retentionists the ability to say, "See, although the system was slow and
needed help, it still worked, and an innocent person was eventually
released instead of being executed." If abolitionists cannot muster
enough effort to do both the help for innocents and find cases of
executed innocents, the battle will be extended. Only with the big
splash of a proven wrongful execution will abolition come quickly. It's
going to take something drastic to shake joe public American enough to
get him to stop supporting the death penalty.
Most Americans believe in the death penalty, but are little involved in
either supporting or renouncing it on a personal basis. They see a
brutal murderer executed, and think that is what should occur. If you
cannot shake them from that viewpoint and make them take a long and
serious look at their stance, your battle is going to continue to be a
long one. The gains abolitionists made, have been countered with legal
adjustments by death penalty supporters at every avenue, and will
continue to be so. Only when a larger portion of the voting public
begins to have doubts about their belief in it will the politicians who
really control such things make the changes you want.
>
> There are maybe about 1000 people on Death Row claiming
> innocence at the moment, and many others in normal prison.
> There are people investigating these, and their investigations
> keep on turning up innocent people. Some of these innocents
> have death sentences hanging over their heads, some are just
> in prison. The first 3000 DP cases post Furman turned up 100
> innocents, and there is probably the same number of innocents
> currently on Death Row.
Yep, and those 100 innocents found are not on death row now. The
assumption of the public is that the system will make mistakes and
discover them. You have to prove that they are wrong. The way to do
that is with a wrongful execution.
>
> When the investigators are convinced that they have found
> every single one of the innocents alive today on death row,
> then thay can afford to spend time searching for evidence
> for the dead. Not before.
Then, perhaps, you will reach your ambition.
>
> > >
> > > Answer this question, Richard. What if the students at the Innocence
> > > Project had been investigating the Herrera case, for example?
> > > If they had been, would they have had time to investigate Porter?
> > >
> > > I don't think so. THERE ISN'T ENOGH TIME, Richard.
> > >
> > > If they spend time looking for evidence in cases of the already
> > > executed, they dont have time to spend helping the still living.
> >
> > There are others. Your argument is, IMO, simply an excuse for no hard,
> > conclusive evidence.
>
> excuses nothing, Richard, its an attempt to show you why nobody
> is looking for evidence. Its because there is no time.
You fight to win individual battles, but the executions continue. You
must decide which is the most important issue, stopping execution for
all, or saving just the innocent. Personally, I still think you are
copping out because there is not one case which there is conclusive
proof of a wrongful execution post Furman.
==
Teflon
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snipped old>
>> Exactly. If after an execution even one question arises that reasonably
>> challenges "guilty BARD", that casts doubt on the verdict, then the
system
>> already made the greatest imaginable fault. (So as for instant
'CPresponse'
>> once raised a couple of this questions concerning O'Dell Barnes)
>>
>What about those questions that arise which reasonably challege
>'Not Guilty BARD,' after a finding of such 'not guilty? In point of fact,
>we recognize that those questions are MEANINGLESS, because
>they cannot change what was the finality of Justice as we write our
>laws.
A question that challenges a 'not guilty'-verdict is a reason to do
investigation, and not any more. The argumentation above tries to construct
a symmetry where there is none. The complementary set to 'Guilty BARD' is
not 'Innocent BARD' but 'Innocent, because not proven guilty BARD'. Hence
the justice system makes a fatal, a class-a mistake if anyone is sentenced
to death and finally even executed by once missing the standard BARD
concerning the proof for his guilt. BUT: The system makes ABSOLUTELY NO
mistake if a murderer goes free for the reason that evidence for 'guilty
BARD' is simply not *obtainable*. THE SYSTEM CAN NOT EVEN BE BURDENED IF
THIS ONCE UNPROVEN MURDERER ACTUALLY MURDERS AGAIN, IF "UNPROVEN" BASED UPON
UNPROVABILITY! This is the consequence to bear for a law's fundament 'in
dubio pro reo'.
Are you presuming that we should fashion laws which provide
>for an eternal examination of those found guilty in our laws?
In a certain way: Yes.
When
>can guilt be 'finalized,' under your conditions? Under what I
>presume are 'my conditions,' guilty and not guilty are finalized when
>the law says they are.
There is no need to ever finalize the examination of the cause for a
penalty - except if the penalty is death. Even if any prisoner is
incarcerated since 45 years, if reason to doubt in the accuracy of the
evidence emerges then there's the (!moral!) obligation to re-open the case.
Even if Mr Justice Scaria (sp?) represents another opinion.
>
>Just as the questions you presume are the ONLY questions that can
>be seen as 'imaginable fault,' what about other questions? What about
>those questions that put a 'reasonable challenge' to a penalty other
>than the DP, when new innocents are murdered as a result of those
>penalties?
If a recidive murder happens then a severe fault was made prior to the crime
by the CJS. A penalty and executive other than the DP, that nonetheless
guarantees sufficiently the security of anyone is imagineable IN ANY CASE. A
theoretical ground for any fundamental unavoidability of the DP, as implied
in 'other penalties lead to new innocent victims', does not exist.
>Are those lives of lesser value?
"Those lives" are not *quantifiable*, simply.
The here implying utilitarian argument is in grave contradiction to any
modern Law's philosophy, and this most particularly if the DP is discussed.
The mere existence of the 'Guilty BARD'-standard does strictly prevent the
argument 'Killing a number of people, including a couple of innocents, is OK
as long as the number of innocents executed does not exceed the number of
innocents [probably] saved by executing dangerous offenders'. The latter
statement would allow, diametrically against the intent of the
BARD-standard, a totally speculative, unsubstantiated and unspecifiable
quantity of future crimes to function as a qualitative justification and a
quantitative measurement for actually happening cruelties, including fatal
injustices.
Jürgen
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3DDC89...@hotmail.com>...
"Jürgen" wrote:
>
> Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>...
>
> Desmond Coughlan wrote:
> >
> > Le Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:18:53 -0400, j...@home.net <j...@home.net> a écrit
:
> >
> > > Executes innocents? Prove it!!!
> > >
> > > Damn liberal minded european. We have it, you want it, forget it.
The
> "death
> > > penalty", naturally.
> >
> > Ah, school's out 'stateside', then .......
> >
> > --
> > Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> > Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> > desmond @ zeouane.org
> > http: // www . zeouane . org
>
> R:.
> Good point though, Desmond. Which of those executed since 1973 is
> proven with incontrovertible evidence to have been innocent?
>
> J.:
> No point, Richard. The standard to sentence anyone to any penalty is
'Beyond
> a reasonable Doubt'. The very worst mistake already happened with the
raise
> of reasoned and reasonable QUESTIONS about any executed's guilt.
R.:
I guess if I raise reasonable questions about the motives of Germany in
the EU, that makes that union invalid too, Jürgen? Questions are just
questions. Where's your proof?
J.:
The proof is that the US executed people while a statement 'guilty BARD' can
not be assigned to them within any scope of reason. That is what is meant
with 'questions'; so if even one essential question about the evidence can
be raised for which the prosecuting side lacks a plausible answer to then
you executed a human not basing upon 'guilty BARD', but upon 'probably
guilty' or 'perhaps guilty', or even worse.
Retentionists are quickly demanding for foolproof, of course without
defining what exactly ever would satisfy them, and if anyone comes up with
actually most serious and disturbing stuff then the posts are widely
ignored. Even worse: Often the posters are even called names for putting up
inconvenient considerations.
As to the abolitionist claims of executed innocents: 'Innocent' means of
course 'Innocent before the LAW'. Another standard is neither visible nor
viable, because the answer to the 'actually guilty'-question is left to the
charged all alone, all external statements are not absolute. This is the
reason why the standard 'BARD' exists, and an execution of any human
founding on a standard 'perhaps guilty' *EQUATES* the execution of an
innocent. Any other statement, like '...oh, he was probably guilty
nonetheless...', means simply to drop the standard 'BARD'.
Jürgen
Richard J.
You want something definite that a retentionists can accept as proof of
a wrongful execution? Here it is. Show me one case since 1973 where
new forensic evidence has definitively eliminated the executed innocent
as a suspect for the murder he was executed for, or a murder which
another confessed to in such a manner that the information in his
confession could only have be known by the murderer and investigators.
Is that concrete enough for you? Do that, and I will reconsider my
position on the death penalty.
--
Teflon
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:32:53 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:42:17 -0400, Richard J. <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit
>:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> It all hinges on what constitutes 'proof'. For the retentionists,
>>> 'proof' would be a posthumous pardon.
>
>> You know that is exactly the opposite of what I have been saying,
>> Desmond. What I've said several times on this thread is to forget the
>> judicial review, and present conclusive proof of one person who has been
>> wrongfully executed in the form of new scientific evidence or a
>> confession of someone to a murder in such a manner that their confession
>> cannot be doubted. Damn, are you going to start twisting my words next?
>
>Erm, Richard ... this is AADP. You've been here long enough to know
>that only newbies and them poofters from across the Channel, make posts
>_without_ twisting words ... :-)
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!newsrouter.chello.at!fu-berlin.de
!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Here's Why We Need the Death Penalty.
>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:32:53 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 25
>Message-ID: <slrnajtekl.23jp....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D3AC897...@hotmail.com>
><3d3aa...@news1.meganetnews.com> <3D3B091D...@home.net>
><slrnajm2t4.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B10BB...@hotmail.com>
><slrnajm4tv.1m55....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3B4CFC...@hotmail.com>
><L4I_8.2086$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><3D3BFCB9...@hotmail.com> <ahhmtg$ha9$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><3D3CACA5...@hotmail.com> <ahjffh$ek2$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><3D3D579D...@hotmail.com> <ahjqbr$294$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><slrnajqsr5.1vss....@lievre.voute.net>
><3D3DDBC9...@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027521327 31468448 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3D3F55E6...@hotmail.com...
Why would you want to do thatm Richard? One innocent?? To be
truthful (And I always wish to be so, even if others believe otherwise);
one innocent, in the face of 780 or so ACTUAL TRUE murderers, I
can morally live with, and not hide my face in shame. Others might
not be able to, and I have no problem with that. But I certainly believe
that those 780 ACTUAL TRUE murderers that were executed
would have, of a certainty, been able to murder many times that
number of one innocent, had they not been executed. Setting
aside the obvious morality issue of execution of some of the most
evil people that have ever walked this planet.
Now I agree with you, that the evidence of ANY innocent having
been executed post-Furman, is paltry to non-existent, depending
on the agenda of the viewer. And I agree that ANY execution of
an innocent is a horrendous prospect. But there is no doubt that
it IS a possibility. And once we recognize that possibility, we
cannot say (IMHO) that we would change our view if the possibility
we recognize as a possibility were suddenly to show its face.
If we accept the possibility, we must accept the consequences
of such a possibility when we form our views. I find it hard to
say that 'I accept the possibility,' while also saying 'my view
would change if that possibility became a fact.' It's rather like
locking the barn door after the cow's got out.
I am certain that the DP would suffer grave consequences (perhaps
fatal consequences), should such an event occur. But I do believe
if it were to be fatal, I would simply be in the minority in the view of
the DP in the U.S. It would take more than ONE innocent being
executed to change my view. And I believe it there was ONE, and
the DP survived, it would survive as monumentally stronger than now,
because the strings to insure guilt would be drawn so tightly, that
it would be inconceivable that another innocent would slip through.
And many of those now on DR, would certainly be reexamined
for TRUE guilt. But not Bundy, and Gacy, and Frank and McDuff',
and others, where there is no doubt of the absolute necessity
to execute.
Just my opinion.
PV
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Since not even ONE such case has been forthcoming in the last three
decades, I'm not too worried. The fact that such evidence hasn't
arisen, despite the search by death penalty opponents, is telling.
Remember, I said I would seriously reconsider my position. I did not
say I would become an abolitionist overnight.
--
Teflon
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D3F55E6...@hotmail.com>...
R.:
You want something definite that a retentionists can accept as proof of
a wrongful execution? Here it is. Show me one case since 1973 where
new forensic evidence has definitively eliminated the executed innocent
as a suspect for the murder he was executed for, or a murder which
another confessed to in such a manner that the information in his
confession could only have be known by the murderer and investigators.
Is that concrete enough for you? Do that, and I will reconsider my
position on the death penalty.
J.:
Well, let's examine your demands.
(1) Forensic evidence, after 10++ years?? Or a DNA-test, after all samples
have been destroyed and the corpse of the executed has been burned? And even
if I happen to put up a DNA-sample truly belonging to the executed, how'd
you suggest me to prove it?
(2) Who the hell should confess to a murder after he got away with it for
10++ years, particularly under the condition that his confession would not
even help the already executed man?
Both this is most unlikely to happen, and it is in view of the chances for
success absolutely nonsensical to invest large an efford in this endeavour.
This recognitions above are not too difficult to obtain, an average
intelligent person can figure this out. So I think this factual
improvability of *ANY* executed's innocence is used as a sorry excuse for to
uphold the illusion of no innocents executed p.F.
The real situation is as I described in the unanswered parts of my posts.
'Guilty BARD' is the standard for any sentencing, and a death sentence
without meeting 'G-BARD' is already the worst mistake a justice system can
make. This mistake the US made over and over. It is consequently
unreasonable to claim only guilties to have been executed. An examination of
the original trial's quality plus considering the switch of proof's burden
afterwards leads instantly to the conclusion that an unknown, but quite
significant number of innocents have been executed. I guess 50% of true
innocence claims can not be proven by a prisoner and his supporters matching
the required standard in the appellate instances.
Jürgen
Richard J.
That's a cop out, Jürgen. Plenty of abolitionists work on active cases
which end in executions eventually. Much of the investigation is
already done by the time the murderer is executed, yet not one of these
cases has ever been proven a wrongful execution. You spoke of wanting
something concrete, I gave you the example. Now find one or your
speculation will remain just that, speculation.
--
Teflon
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D40281C...@hotmail.com>...
<snip>
R.:
That's a cop out, Jürgen. Plenty of abolitionists work on active cases
which end in executions eventually. Much of the investigation is
already done by the time the murderer is executed, yet not one of these
cases has ever been proven a wrongful execution. You spoke of wanting
something concrete, I gave you the example. Now find one or your
speculation will remain just that, speculation.
J.:
Not all truth is provable.
Jürgen
Richard J.
But surely, in all the capital penalty death penalty cases which ended
with executions in the last thirty years, there should be at least ONE
with some concrete evidence of a wrongful execution such as I
mentioned. Why is it, do you think that despite the fact many of those
cases were examined prior to the execution and after, there are NONE
with any such evidence, only supposition?
In truth, your argument of mental anguish is better than the argument
that innocents have been executed, Jürgen. At least one can see that
impending death is distressful to condemned men and women. Not that that
distress bothers me, but it is something one can use to provide concrete
evidence of rather than supposition.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:l8N%8.97813$DS.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
>
> >You want something definite that a retentionists can accept as proof of
> > a wrongful execution? Here it is. Show me one case since 1973 where
> > new forensic evidence has definitively eliminated the executed innocent
> > as a suspect for the murder he was executed for, or a murder which
> > another confessed to in such a manner that the information in his
> > confession could only have be known by the murderer and investigators.
> > Is that concrete enough for you? Do that, and I will reconsider my
> > position on the death penalty.
>
> Why would you want to do that Richard? One innocent?? To be
> truthful (And I always wish to be so, even if others believe otherwise);
> one innocent, in the face of 780 or so ACTUAL TRUE murderers, I
> can morally live with, and not hide my face in shame.
It does rather depend on how much shame one can stand in the first
place. Timothy Evans execution and the undeniable proof
that he was innocent was a telling factor in the struggle to overturn
the DP in the UK.
Others might
> not be able to, and I have no problem with that. But I certainly believe
> that those 780 ACTUAL TRUE murderers that were executed
> would have, of a certainty, been able to murder many times that
> number of one innocent, had they not been executed.
How about the 200,000 thousand or so of true murderers who were
not executed since 1976. Many of these have been allowed to
leave prison after trivial terms of imprisonment and all too many
have murdered again. Your one innocent excutee should be
measured not against the 780 who were executed and who if
imprisoned would have been held, hopefully, in secure conditions,
but against the over whelming number that weren't. I have once
again to remind you that no murderer convicted to a life term
in prison in the UK has murdered again. If our over burdened
prison system can manage that, why not yours.
Setting
> aside the obvious morality issue of execution of some of the most
> evil people that have ever walked this planet.
>
> Now I agree with you, that the evidence of ANY innocent having
> been executed post-Furman, is paltry to non-existent, depending
> on the agenda of the viewer. And I agree that ANY execution of
> an innocent is a horrendous prospect. But there is no doubt that
> it IS a possibility. And once we recognize that possibility, we
> cannot say (IMHO) that we would change our view if the possibility
> we recognize as a possibility were suddenly to show its face.
> If we accept the possibility, we must accept the consequences
> of such a possibility when we form our views. I find it hard to
> say that 'I accept the possibility,' while also saying 'my view
> would change if that possibility became a fact.' It's rather like
> locking the barn door after the cow's got out.
>
> I am certain that the DP would suffer grave consequences (perhaps
> fatal consequences), should such an event occur. But I do believe
> if it were to be fatal, I would simply be in the minority in the view of
> the DP in the U.S. It would take more than ONE innocent being
> executed to change my view.
Out of interest just how many would it take? Two?
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ahplm5$jfo$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
negante, which I have to keep continually referring to for some reason.
This is known as the law of contradiction. The presumption is ALWAYS
in the negative. In the absence of the acceptance of your proposition
that an innocent exists, you, as the one who has advanced the
proposition, have the task of PROVING it to be true. Richard has NOTHING
to prove, since the presumption is always IN the negative.
Without ACTUAL proof, you have only your opinion to fall back on.
PV
> Jürgen
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:yRS%8.15065$vN6.7...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Are we talking about the DP, or those who did not receive the
DP? If we are talking about those who did not, and they murdered
again (my list) that would rather substantiate that those 780 I
speak of would have certainly murdered again. Now, if it's your
idea that we should execute ALL 200,000 true murderers, you've
obviously lost my support in retention.
> Many of these have been allowed to
> leave prison after trivial terms of imprisonment and all too many
> have murdered again. Your one innocent excutee should be
> measured not against the 780 who were executed and who if
> imprisoned would have been held, hopefully, in secure conditions,
> but against the over whelming number that weren't.
That's one of the most illogical thoughts that's left your pen, rivaling
your expression of 'morality,' after you discussed that it held no
meaning for you. We measure the success of a practice by what
it achieves, not what it doesn't achieve when it's not used. If I
have a weapon, kept for self-defense, and I don't use it when I
am attacked, that weapon had NOTHING to do with my protection.
I might as well have thrown the Brady Bill at my attacker.
It is apples and oranges to compare the DP with non-use of
the DP, in terms of safety to the public. Certainly, I agree
that the Justice System needs deep repair, but that is separate
and distinct from the DP, where we are examining the 780
we DID execute, and the possibility that one of them might
be innocent. Every person, murderer or otherwise, outside
of those 780 represents a non sequitur to the argument of
the DP, in respect to the possibility of executing an innocent
(since he could ONLY come from that 780), weighed against
the possibility of those other 779 possibly committing a new
murder, had they not been executed, which could only come
from those 779.
> I have once
> again to remind you that no murderer convicted to a life term
> in prison in the UK has murdered again. If our over burdened
> prison system can manage that, why not yours.
>
And I have once again to remind you that I DON'T CARE. It
is as meaningless as saying no one from Mars has murdered
again. We are speaking of a nation having over 14,000
homicides a year. It's simply not fair to try to make comparisons
and expect them to make sense.
> > Setting
> > aside the obvious morality issue of execution of some of the most
> > evil people that have ever walked this planet.
> >
> > Now I agree with you, that the evidence of ANY innocent having
> > been executed post-Furman, is paltry to non-existent, depending
> > on the agenda of the viewer. And I agree that ANY execution of
> > an innocent is a horrendous prospect. But there is no doubt that
> > it IS a possibility. And once we recognize that possibility, we
> > cannot say (IMHO) that we would change our view if the possibility
> > we recognize as a possibility were suddenly to show its face.
> > If we accept the possibility, we must accept the consequences
> > of such a possibility when we form our views. I find it hard to
> > say that 'I accept the possibility,' while also saying 'my view
> > would change if that possibility became a fact.' It's rather like
> > locking the barn door after the cow's got out.
> >
> > I am certain that the DP would suffer grave consequences (perhaps
> > fatal consequences), should such an event occur. But I do believe
> > if it were to be fatal, I would simply be in the minority in the view of
> > the DP in the U.S. It would take more than ONE innocent being
> > executed to change my view.
>
> Out of interest just how many would it take? Two?
>
I have no idea. What it would take is a perception that we have
executed more than we have saved THROUGH execution. And
as I said, I believe if one were to be proven, the drawstrings would
draw even tighter against the possibility of another. So it is
absurd to try and place a specific number on it. How many
new murders of innocents would YOU accept before you would
accept the possibility of executing one innocent? Suppose you
KNEW, in omnipotence, that of those 780 murderers, they
would commit 2 new murders if not executed (regardless of
your vaunted perfect prison system), but you didn't know which of
those 780 would do so. And you also knew that one of them
was innocent, and you didn't know which one he was. Would
you sacrifice that one extra innocent who would be murdered to
save those 779 murderers? Clearly, even if you deny 'morality,'
this represents a rather grave choice. My view, is a thoroughly
pragmatic, save innocent lives opinion. Coupled with my belief
that murderers, all murderers, have forfeited any 'right to life,'
they might presume they hold which society provided them.
At that point, they are at the 'mercy' of society, which should
naturally, express that mercy very often, almost all the time
in fact. Thus, there is always the trade-off of the more we
execute the more we can possibly execute an innocent, while
the less we execute the more we can possibly allow a murderer
to murder again. It is not a mechanical process, but should
be a very close scrutiny of the murderer, and the circumstances.
And only when we are as sure as we can possibly be that
they are absolutely guilty, and absolutely certain of murdering
again if given the slightest human possibility, should execution
be considered. And there are certainly some murderers who
deserve absolutely no mercy, and represent a grave threat to
the rest of us.
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D4068E5...@hotmail.com>...
"Jürgen" wrote:
>
> Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D40281C...@hotmail.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> R.:
> That's a cop out, Jürgen. Plenty of abolitionists work on active cases...
...the part that students, private supporters, donators and pro bono lawyers
are playing in the dp-system is by itself a most disturbing fact...
....which end in executions eventually. Much of the investigation is
> already done by the time the murderer is executed, yet not one of these
> cases has ever been proven a wrongful execution. You spoke of wanting
> something concrete, I gave you the example. Now find one or your
> speculation will remain just that, speculation.
>
> J.:
> Not all truth is provable.
>
R.:
But surely, in all the capital penalty death penalty cases which ended
with executions in the last thirty years, there should be at least ONE
with some concrete evidence of a wrongful execution such as I
mentioned.
J.:
Not at all! The thesis is clear: An innocent *ABLE* to provide
incontrovertible proof for his innocence will have his case dropped
(...after almost a decade...), an innocent on death row *UNABLE* to put up
satisfactory evidence will doubtlessly be executed. The death penalty
syndicate is not suicidal, you know.
R.:
Why is it, do you think that despite the fact many of those
cases were examined prior to the execution and after, there are NONE
with any such evidence, only supposition?
J.:
For exactly the reason above. There are remaining most disturbing questions,
as for instant to O'Dell Barnes, and there is today *NO* possibility to
clear them. My suppositions base upon a sound logical string, and sound
logics is as good as evidence. I pointed the situation out again and again:
(1) The original trial is frequently gravely inaccurate and (2) there exist
in view of the number of definitely exonerated people doubtlessly innocent
humans on death row who are unable to prove their innocence.
R.:
In truth, your argument of mental anguish is better than the argument
that innocents have been executed, Jürgen.
J.:
Right, I do not need innocents on death row for to be abolitionist.
Innocents on death row and innocents on the gurney however are an issue, and
I explained exactly inhowfar the retentionist demand for foolproof is
equivalent to 'guilty until proven innocent', regarding the set of people on
death row for severely flawed trials and/or "overzealous" prosecutoral jobs.
My argument is and remains of statistical and principled nature, and I will
not claim innocence for any concrete executed (wo)man. Once again, merely
for to do respect to my own exorbitant stubborness: At the very moment you
found a respectable number of people on death row who could after the
original trial prove their innocence you are BOUND and SOUND to conclude to
a number of condemned who are "actually innocent" and are actually unable to
prove so. Even more: The magnitude of the exonerated's number is a valid
orientation for the magnitude of the unknown number of innocently executed.
R.:
At least one can see that
impending death is distressful to condemned men and women. Not that that
distress bothers me, but it is something one can use to provide concrete
evidence of rather than supposition.
J.:
Really? My argument concerning the torturing nature of unavoidable and
continuously aggravating fear founds on just the same methodology than the
argument above: Observations and conclusions. So should my way of
argumentation be flawed then one of my steps must be wrong. Either is wrong:
(1)'Original trials show a significant number of grave mistakes', or is
wrong:
(2)'An exoneration of a death row inmate requires not afew hints, but a
high-standardized PROOF of his/her innocence'.
Are both the statements right, then you of course have already executed
innocents, and not too few.
Objection? Then tell me whether (1) or whether (2) is wrong.
Jürgen
Richard J.
Obviously, and there have been ample examples of that.
an innocent on death row *UNABLE* to put up
> satisfactory evidence will doubtlessly be executed. The death penalty
> syndicate is not suicidal, you know.
So those left afterward can continue the work and prove his innocence
after his death, but they have not, till this time, done so.
>
> R.:
> Why is it, do you think that despite the fact many of those
> cases were examined prior to the execution and after, there are NONE
> with any such evidence, only supposition?
>
> J.:
> For exactly the reason above. There are remaining most disturbing questions,
> as for instant to O'Dell Barnes, and there is today *NO* possibility to
> clear them. My suppositions base upon a sound logical string, and sound
> logics is as good as evidence.
No, it is not, Desmond. You need to prove your argument. Otherwise, it
simply remains a theory with logic but without proof.
I pointed the situation out again and again:
> (1) The original trial is frequently gravely inaccurate and (2) there exist
> in view of the number of definitely exonerated people doubtlessly innocent
> humans on death row who are unable to prove their innocence.
Prove any of them have been executed.
>
> R.:
> In truth, your argument of mental anguish is better than the argument
> that innocents have been executed, Jürgen.
>
> J.:
> Right, I do not need innocents on death row for to be abolitionist.
> Innocents on death row and innocents on the gurney however are an issue, and
> I explained exactly inhowfar the retentionist demand for foolproof is
> equivalent to 'guilty until proven innocent', regarding the set of people on
> death row for severely flawed trials and/or "overzealous" prosecutoral jobs.
No. You make the assertion that innocents are executed. It is not the
job of the state to prove your claim, but you. From the state's
standpoint, the proof of guilt is established with the end of the
capital murder trial. At that point, any proof must come from the
defense.
>
> My argument is and remains of statistical and principled nature, and I will
> not claim innocence for any concrete executed (wo)man. Once again, merely
> for to do respect to my own exorbitant stubborness: At the very moment you
> found a respectable number of people on death row who could after the
> original trial prove their innocence you are BOUND and SOUND to conclude to
> a number of condemned who are "actually innocent" and are actually unable to
> prove so.
Not so. I am bound ot say there are those on death row who have been
released for innocence upon disclosure of new evidence. Those releases
occurred because of the legal appeals processes or pardons which are an
internal part of our justice system. It matters not that some releases
were obtained with evidence gained by those outside the justice system.
Once a guilty verdict is found, the burden of proof becomes the
defense's.
Even more: The magnitude of the exonerated number is a valid
> orientation for the magnitude of the unknown number of innocently executed.
Or ample proof that the appeals and pardons system works when new
evidence is presented.
>
> R.:
> At least one can see that
> impending death is distressful to condemned men and women. Not that that
> distress bothers me, but it is something one can use to provide concrete
> evidence of rather than supposition.
>
> J.:
> Really? My argument concerning the torturing nature of unavoidable and
> continuously aggravating fear founds on just the same methodology than the
> argument above: Observations and conclusions.
The observations of condemned prisoners upon their approaching execution
is a recordable behavior, and thus hard evidence of their psychological
state. It is not the same with claims of wrongful execution.
So should my way of
> argumentation be flawed then one of my steps must be wrong. Either is wrong:
> (1)'Original trials show a significant number of grave mistakes', or is
> wrong:
> (2)'An exoneration of a death row inmate requires not afew hints, but a
> high-standardized PROOF of his/her innocence'.
> Are both the statements right, then you of course have already executed
> innocents, and not too few.
>
> Objection? Then tell me whether (1) or whether (2) is wrong.
>
> Jürgen
Show me concrete evidence or a confession. The reasoning is the same,
but the one MAJOR difference is that while we might gather hard data
showing the distress of condemned prisoners prior to their execution,
there is no evidence that wrongful executions occur. There is only hard
evidence that wrongfully convicted people have been released.
Let me explain what I mean another way.
I compare it to those concerned about two plants, one which produces
visible pollution and one steam. The plant producing steam on a cold
day is often pointed to by the uninitiated as polluting as much as the
plant pouring black smoke out of its smokestacks. In reality, such
claims have no validity without the data from each specific plant to
back up the claims. Without the data from sensors or the admission of
the individual companies, claims of pollution from either plant are
theory without supporting evidence.
What you have done is similar to above. You take data from the released
accused and attempted to apply it to those still on death row. The
logic is sound, but in the instance of wrongful executions, not proven.
Prove the theory.
--
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ahmk5a$4ed$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>
> <snipped old>
>
> >> Exactly. If after an execution even one question arises that reasonably
> >> challenges "guilty BARD", that casts doubt on the verdict, then the
> system
> >> already made the greatest imaginable fault. (So as for instant
> 'CPresponse'
> >> once raised a couple of this questions concerning O'Dell Barnes)
> >>
> >What about those questions that arise which reasonably challege
> >'Not Guilty BARD,' after a finding of such 'not guilty? In point of fact,
> >we recognize that those questions are MEANINGLESS, because
> >they cannot change what was the finality of Justice as we write our
> >laws.
>
> A question that challenges a 'not guilty'-verdict is a reason to do
> investigation, and not any more.
I don't know what you mean here, Jürgen. Unless you've
confused 'guilty' and 'not guilty.' A question that challenges
'not guilty' is senseless. Having been found 'not guilty' it
is simply a waste of time to consider the person as a
suspect or a possible perpetrator. We can do nothing about
it. We must look elsewhere. They have been found 'not
guilty,' and they will remain ETERNALLY 'not guilty' in
respect to being legally so.
> The argumentation above tries to construct
> a symmetry where there is none. The complementary set to 'Guilty BARD' is
> not 'Innocent BARD' but 'Innocent, because not proven guilty BARD'. Hence
> the justice system makes a fatal, a class-a mistake if anyone is sentenced
> to death and finally even executed by once missing the standard BARD
> concerning the proof for his guilt. BUT: The system makes ABSOLUTELY NO
> mistake if a murderer goes free for the reason that evidence for 'guilty
> BARD' is simply not *obtainable*. THE SYSTEM CAN NOT EVEN BE BURDENED IF
> THIS ONCE UNPROVEN MURDERER ACTUALLY MURDERS AGAIN, IF "UNPROVEN" BASED UPON
> UNPROVABILITY! This is the consequence to bear for a law's fundament 'in
> dubio pro reo'.
>
What!!!! The 'system' most certainly makes a 'mistake' when it
frees a TRUE guilty. There is no question about that. Innocent
lives are LOST, when a TRUE guilty murderer is freed with a
finding of 'not guilty' and murders again. It has happened before,
and it will happen again. One cannot say that 'in dubio
pro reo' means mistakes CANNOT happen. It simply expresses
the concept of 'BARD' itself, which makes such a presumption.
A concept which does not ask for 'beyond even unreasonable doubt.'
All 'mistakes' which cost innocent lives MUST be consider
'fatal' mistakes, in the very meaning of 'fatal.' If you claim that it
is NOT a 'mistake' to find a TRUE guilty 'not guilty,' then you
certainly cannot presume that finding a TRUE not-guilty 'guilty' IS.
The entire principle of the Justice System rests on a recognition
of non-perfection, recognizing that 'mistakes' can always enter
into the process. In EITHER direction. Thus setting the standard
of 'BARD,' rather than a standard of 'perhaps,' or in the other
direction 'beyond even unreasonable doubt.'
> >Are you presuming that we should fashion laws which provide
> >for an eternal examination of those found guilty in our laws?
>
> In a certain way: Yes.
>
Well, then you're silly. No other word for it... because no reasonable
person would assume such a condition in the pursuit of justice.
Certainly there is nothing in 'in dubio pro reo,' or 'BARD' which
would make such a presumption.
> >When
> >can guilt be 'finalized,' under your conditions? Under what I
> >presume are 'my conditions,' guilty and not guilty are finalized when
> >the law says they are.
>
> There is no need to ever finalize the examination of the cause for a
> penalty - except if the penalty is death. Even if any prisoner is
> incarcerated since 45 years, if reason to doubt in the accuracy of the
> evidence emerges then there's the (!moral!) obligation to re-open the case.
> Even if Mr Justice Scaria (sp?) represents another opinion.
>
Legal remedies cease upon the demise of the person, and upon
a finding of 'not guilty' in either of those directions. Even if a person
is incarcerated for 45 years, upon his death all legal remedies cease.
The dead have no 'rights' in that respect. Just as abolitionists always
claim the 'dead victim' no longer has 'rights.' Society FINALIZES
what are presumed to be 'rights.' And after speaking for the victim,
or the demise of the convicted, 'rights' are no longer available.
> >Just as the questions you presume are the ONLY questions that can
> >be seen as 'imaginable fault,' what about other questions? What about
> >those questions that put a 'reasonable challenge' to a penalty other
> >than the DP, when new innocents are murdered as a result of those
> >penalties?
>
> If a recidive murder happens then a severe fault was made prior to the crime
> by the CJS. A penalty and executive other than the DP, that nonetheless
> guarantees sufficiently the security of anyone is imagineable IN ANY CASE. A
> theoretical ground for any fundamental unavoidability of the DP, as implied
> in 'other penalties lead to new innocent victims', does not exist.
>
I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to say here.
Sorry. I really can't spend a great deal of time trying to decipher
your meaning.
> >Are those lives of lesser value?
>
> "Those lives" are not *quantifiable*, simply.
>
Huh???? Now YOU would claim that ONE innocent life is DIFFERENT
from ANOTHER innocent life? Who are you to presume what we
can 'quantify'?
> The here implying utilitarian argument is in grave contradiction to any
> modern Law's philosophy, and this most particularly if the DP is discussed.
> The mere existence of the 'Guilty BARD'-standard does strictly prevent the
> argument 'Killing a number of people, including a couple of innocents, is OK
> as long as the number of innocents executed does not exceed the number of
> innocents [probably] saved by executing dangerous offenders'. The latter
> statement would allow, diametrically against the intent of the
> BARD-standard, a totally speculative, unsubstantiated and unspecifiable
> quantity of future crimes to function as a qualitative justification and a
> quantitative measurement for actually happening cruelties, including fatal
> injustices.
>
Again... I seem to get your drift.. but it seems to be a drift off into
la la land. Jumping on your soapbox again, without saying anything
that makes any constructive sense. Let me say that EVERYTHING
in respect to the execution of an innocent, and the possibility that
an executed murderer would have murdered again is ALL 'probably.'
As is the very concept of guilt/innocent. We find guilt, beyond a
reasonable probability, as that 'probability' relates to 'doubt.'
PV
> Jürgen
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D419155...@hotmail.com>...
....My suppositions base upon a sound logical string, and sound
> logics is as good as evidence.
R.:
No, it is not, Desmond.
J.:
Well, in the first place you would need to prove me to be Desmond. Or should
it read: 'No, it is not Desmond'?
R.:
You need to prove your argument.
J.:
I am of course aware that any theory is as good as its predictions can be
verified in reality. Now (1) I am not omnipotent, I can analyze the given
states and come to a reasonable assessment and not more, unfortunately. And
(2) has to be considered what the odds are at all to prove any executed's
actual innocence. These are, bluntly said, pathetic. See below.
<snip>
R.:
Show me concrete evidence or a confession. The reasoning is the same,
but the one MAJOR difference is that while we might gather hard data
showing the distress of condemned prisoners prior to their execution,
there is no evidence that wrongful executions occur. There is only hard
evidence that wrongfully convicted people have been released.
Let me explain what I mean another way.
I compare it to those concerned about two plants, one which produces
visible pollution and one steam. The plant producing steam on a cold
day is often pointed to by the uninitiated as polluting as much as the
plant pouring black smoke out of its smokestacks. In reality, such
claims have no validity without the data from each specific plant to
back up the claims. Without the data from sensors or the admission of
the individual companies, claims of pollution from either plant are
theory without supporting evidence.
J.:
Well, another comparizon comes in mind.
Secret services are institutions fitted with the power to violate the
democratic ideas and philosophy - but they are doubtlessly necessary. So we
have to grant them their existence, and we have to tolerate their -
hoplfully limited - operations in a legally grey area. We establish the
priority of state's existence even over core-values.
Now, proceeding reversedly, I establish the priority of the US-citizens'
trust in their justice system - and their president - over a limited number
of mistakes by this system. Proof for an executed's innocence were a quite
dangerous thing, for many powerful people as well as in respect to the
enormous loss of public trust in the justice system. In other words, such
proof is not WANTED by the people holding the POWER. Consequently the
possession of this proof is not healthy a thing.
<snip>
Jürgen
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ahmk5a$4ed$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>>
>> <snipped old>
>>
>> >> Exactly. If after an execution even one question arises that
reasonably
>> >> challenges "guilty BARD", that casts doubt on the verdict, then the
>> system
>> >> already made the greatest imaginable fault. (So as for instant
>> 'CPresponse'
>> >> once raised a couple of this questions concerning O'Dell Barnes)
>> >>
>> >What about those questions that arise which reasonably challege
>> >'Not Guilty BARD,' after a finding of such 'not guilty? In point of
fact,
>> >we recognize that those questions are MEANINGLESS, because
>> >they cannot change what was the finality of Justice as we write our
>> >laws.
>>
>> A question that challenges a 'not guilty'-verdict is a reason to do
>> investigation, and not any more.
>
>I don't know what you mean here, Jürgen. Unless you've
>confused 'guilty' and 'not guilty.'
Gee, read your own stuff: "What about those questions that arise which
reasonably challege 'Not Guilty BARD,' after a finding of such 'not guilty?"
I am perfectly on point, the answer to exactly your question is, as exactly:
"A question that challenges a 'not guilty'-verdict is a reason to do
investigation, and not any more."
.....BUT: The system makes ABSOLUTELY NO
>> mistake if a murderer goes free for the reason that evidence for 'guilty
>> BARD' is simply not *obtainable*. THE SYSTEM CAN NOT EVEN BE BURDENED IF
>> THIS ONCE UNPROVEN MURDERER ACTUALLY MURDERS AGAIN, IF "UNPROVEN" BASED
UPON
>> UNPROVABILITY! This is the consequence to bear for a law's fundament 'in
>> dubio pro reo'.
>>
>What!!!! The 'system' most certainly makes a 'mistake' when it
>frees a TRUE guilty.
Read the text. Under the condition of *IMPROVABILITY* of a charged's actual
guilt the system makes *NO* mistake to speak out a 'not guilty' verdict.
There is no question about that. Innocent
>lives are LOST, when a TRUE guilty murderer is freed with a
>finding of 'not guilty' and murders again.
This is of course most regrettable, but it is only then a fault of the CJS
if proof was available and had not been discovered. It was not a formal
fault if it was plainly impossible to prove the actual guilt. This is the
prize to pay for the standard 'BARD'.
It has happened before,
>and it will happen again. One cannot say that 'in dubio
>pro reo' means mistakes CANNOT happen. It simply expresses
>the concept of 'BARD' itself, which makes such a presumption.
>A concept which does not ask for 'beyond even unreasonable doubt.'
>All 'mistakes' which cost innocent lives MUST be consider
>'fatal' mistakes, in the very meaning of 'fatal.'
I disagree wholeheartly. As regrettable the getaway of an actually dangerous
murderer with all awful consequences ever is, at the very moment that the
court can not prove 'guilty BARD' the only RIGHT thing is to return a 'not
guilty' verdict. Your definition of this outcome as a mistake implies that
the court and the CJS could have avoided the mistake and could have judged
better. But exactly this was NOT possible, for that the necessary proof was
not OBTAINABLE.
If you claim that it
>is NOT a 'mistake' to find a TRUE guilty 'not guilty,' then you
>certainly cannot presume that finding a TRUE not-guilty 'guilty' IS.
Oh well, I can state exactly so. It is the abundantly clear inference of the
standard 'guilty-BARD'.
............... What about
>> >those questions that put a 'reasonable challenge' to a penalty other
>> >than the DP, when new innocents are murdered as a result of those
>> >penalties?
>>
>> If a recidive murder happens then a severe fault was made prior to the
crime
>> by the CJS. A penalty and executive other than the DP, that nonetheless
>> guarantees sufficiently the security of anyone is imagineable IN ANY
CASE. A
>> theoretical ground for any fundamental unavoidability of the DP, as
implied
>> in 'other penalties lead to new innocent victims', does not exist.
>>
>I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to say here.
>Sorry. I really can't spend a great deal of time trying to decipher
>your meaning.
Your problem.
<snip>
>> The here implying utilitarian argument is in grave contradiction to any
>> modern Law's philosophy, and this most particularly if the DP is
discussed.
>> The mere existence of the 'Guilty BARD'-standard does strictly prevent
the
>> argument 'Killing a number of people, including a couple of innocents, is
OK
>> as long as the number of innocents executed does not exceed the number of
>> innocents [probably] saved by executing dangerous offenders'. The latter
>> statement would allow, diametrically against the intent of the
>> BARD-standard, a totally speculative, unsubstantiated and unspecifiable
>> quantity of future crimes to function as a qualitative justification and
a
>> quantitative measurement for actually happening cruelties, including
fatal
>> injustices.
>>
>Again... I seem to get your drift.. but it seems to be a drift off into
>la la land. Jumping on your soapbox again, without saying anything
>that makes any constructive sense. Let me say that EVERYTHING
>in respect to the execution of an innocent, and the possibility that
>an executed murderer would have murdered again is ALL 'probably.'
>As is the very concept of guilt/innocent. We find guilt, beyond a
>reasonable probability, as that 'probability' relates to 'doubt.'
That does not change the fact that the existence of the standard 'guilty
BARD' kills the utilitarian argument.
Jürgen