The Death Penalty

So this just happened... http://gu.com/p/3nenq Exonerated after 30 years in prison, 25 on death row.

Lucky for Glenn Ford that America's capital "justice" system is even more incompetent, inefficient and dysfunctional than it used to be. Used to be that the average time on Death Row before the state got around to killing you was 12 years. At least this man only had 30 years of his life stolen from him instead of all of it. He could very easily be dead now, killed by the state for something he didn't do, and even though the state had clear reason to believe he was not guilty. Every time these cases crop up - and this is #144 - the already hopelessly threadbare "justifications" for the warped and ineffective perversion of justice that is the death penalty fall apart all the more.

The US death penalty system is a joke - discriminatory, arbitrary, inconsistent, incoherent and demonstrably ineffective in achieving its supposed aims. The notion that it apportions justice, that it effectively reduces crime, that it makes society safer than life imprisonment is nothing but so much self-deluding horseshit. If those who defend the death penalty would stop appealing only to moral outrage and revenge, and instead have sense enough to use reason and consider the actual objective facts, they would see what a complete and hopeless failure the death penalty is in terms of real justice.

It's time the US grew up and caught up with the rest of the developed democratic world in putting this worthless, backwards, ethically bankrupt practice behind it, and actually start dealing in something that can meaningfully and responsibly be called justice. Until then, the miscarriages of justice will just keep piling on up.


Death row inmate Glenn Ford released 30 years after wrongful conviction

Man found guilty of murder by all-white jury in deeply flawed trial had one of America’s longest-ever waits for exoneration

Ed Pilkington in New York
theguardian.com, Wednesday 12 March 2014 06.36 GMT


Glenn Ford has been freed from the notorious Angola prison in Louisiana having lived under the shadow of the death sentence for 30 years. He becomes one of the longest-serving death row inmates in US history to be exonerated.

Ford was released on the order of a judge in Shreveport after Louisiana state prosecutors indicated they could no longer stand by his conviction. In late 2013 the state notified Ford’s lawyers that a confidential informant had come forward with new information implicating another man who had been among four co-defendants originally charged in the case.

He was sentenced to death in 1984 for the murder the previous November of Isadore Rozeman, an older white man who ran a Shreveport jewellery and watch repair shop. The defendant had worked as an odd jobs man for Rozeman. In interviews with police Ford said that he had been asked to pawn a .38 revolver and some jewellery similar to that taken from Rozeman’s shop at the time of the murder by another man who was among the initial suspects.

Asked as he walked away from the prison gates about his release, Ford told WAFB-TV, “It feels good; my mind is going in all kind of directions. It feels good.”

Ford said he did harbour some resentment at being wrongly jailed: “Yeah, cause I’ve been locked up almost 30 years for something I didn’t do.

“I can’t go back and do anything I should have been doing when I was 35, 38, 40 stuff like that.”

Ford’s conviction bears all the hallmarks of the glaring inconsistencies and inadequacies of the US justice system that are repeatedly found in cases of exoneration. The fact that despite serious qualms among top judges about his conviction this innocent man was kept on death row for so long is certain to be seized upon by anti-death penalty campaigners.

Among the many all too typical problems with his prosecution was the composition of the jury. An African American, Ford was sentenced to death by a jury that had been carefully selected by prosecutors to be exclusively white.

His legal representation at trial was woefully inexperienced. The lead defence counsel was a specialist in the law relating to oil and gas exploration and had never tried a case in front of a jury; the second attorney was two years out of law school and working at the time of the trial on small automobile accident insurance cases.

At the trial the state was unable to call any eyewitnesses to the crime, nor was it able to produce a murder weapon. Instead Ford was convicted largely on the testimony of a witness who was not a detached observer – she was the girlfriend of another man initially suspected of the murder.

Under cross-examination the witness, Marvella Brown, admitted in front of the jury that she had given false testimony. “I did lie to the court… I lied about it all,” she said.

In another classic element frequently found in exoneration cases, cod science provided by “expert” witnesses also helped to put Ford on death row. One such expert testified that the evidence pointed to the defendant because he was left-handed; another expert told the jury that particles of gunshot residue had been found on his hand; and a third talked about fingerprint evidence implicating him.

The testimony from all three expert witnesses was later shown to have been at best inconclusive, at worst wrong.

Ford continued to profess his innocence throughout the 30 years. In the appeal process that ensued, the Louisiana supreme court, the state’s highest legal panel, acknowledged that the evidence against him was “not overwhelming” and that the prosecution case was open to “serious questions”, yet it decided to keep him on death row.

More recently it emerged that state prosecutors had failed to disclose evidence to Ford’s legal team that could have been crucial in his defence. It included evidence from confidential informants pointing the finger at Ford’s co-defendants, who faced initial charges that were then dismissed as the prosecution bore down against the wrong man.

In a statement Ford’s current lawyers, Gary Clements and Aaron Novod, said they were pleased by the exoneration. “We are particularly grateful that the prosecution and the court moved ahead so decisively to set Mr Ford free.”

Ford becomes the 144th death row inmate to be exonerated over the past four decades.


(emphasis mine)

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I've said before, the prospect of executing an innocent man is the strongest argument against the DP- one that is hard to refute.

And the following fact doesn't enter into your calculations?

'According to the Death Penalty Information Center, between 1990 and 2010, the murder rate in states that don’t have the death penalty was consistently lower than the murder rate in states that have the death penalty.'

No.

Byrnzie, geezuz man. There might be a correlation there, but I've painfully detailed to you the fact that drawing any conclusions- either for or against the DP serving as a deterrent- is impossible given it's very rare application (0.0007% of the time).

But if you insist on going there:

Bronx just offered a piece that detailed China's liberal usage of the DP. And, wouldn't you know it? China's murder rate was nearly the lowest in the world, well below countries such as Japan and Switzerland, according to statistics from the Ministry of Public Security, the People's Daily reported Tuesday. China's homicide rate stands at 0.8 cases per 100,000 people.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/764415.shtml

The US homicide rate is 4.8 per 100,000.

One country employs the DP with great frequency and nearly has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Another country rarely uses it (0.0007% of the time)... and enjoys a homicide rate 6X greater,

Hmmmm? Interesting.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I've said before, the prospect of executing an innocent man is the strongest argument against the DP- one that is hard to refute.

And the following fact doesn't enter into your calculations?

'According to the Death Penalty Information Center, between 1990 and 2010, the murder rate in states that don’t have the death penalty was consistently lower than the murder rate in states that have the death penalty.'

No.

Byrnzie, geezuz man. There might be a correlation there, but I've painfully detailed to you the fact that drawing any conclusions- either for or against the DP serving as a deterrent- is impossible given it's very rare application (0.0007% of the time).

But if you insist on going there:

Bronx just offered a piece that detailed China's liberal usage of the DP. And, wouldn't you know it? China's murder rate was nearly the lowest in the world, well below countries such as Japan and Switzerland, according to statistics from the Ministry of Public Security, the People's Daily reported Tuesday. China's homicide rate stands at 0.8 cases per 100,000 people.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/764415.shtml

The US homicide rate is 4.8 per 100,000.

One country employs the DP with great frequency and nearly has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Another country rarely uses it (0.0007% of the time)... and enjoys a homicide rate 6X greater,

Hmmmm? Interesting.

It might be interesting if you were able to demonstrate evidence that the only limiting factor in curtailing China's homicide rate is the presence of the threat of execution.

Aside from that, considering the enormous societal differences between the US and China and the fact that the death penalty is on the cards in China for 54 other offences, from producing counterfeit medicine on up, I don't think it's particularly likely that you're going to be able to nail down such a simple and direct correlation to make that a valid analogy. It's hardly a case of "all other things being equal."

Byrnzie said:

wolfamongwolves said:

One country employs the DP with great frequency and nearly has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Another country rarely uses it (0.0007% of the time)... and enjoys a homicide rate 6X greater,

Hmmmm? Interesting.

As Wolf said, there's no comparison. The majority of those executed aren't executed for committing violent crimes, which is a rarity in this country, but for anything from tax evasion, to 'subversion of State power' (I.e, upsetting those in authority), and a long list of petty crimes, including minor drug offenses. The low homicide rate in China has nothing to do with any deterrence effect from the application of the death penalty.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The threat of a strong-armed judicial system may very well have some influence on the homicide rate- it's remarkably low. You haven't offered alternative reasons for the remarkably low homicide rate when discounting the possibility that the heavy hand of the law might have a part in it.

I offered the comparison because it is at least as strong as some of the unsubstantiated assertions you continue to make that have no legitimate statistical backing (as expressed by the scientific community after comprehensive review).

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

No argument is strong enough to convince me that people like Breivik or Joshua Komisarjevky do not deserve a death sentence for their depravity.

Also, a life behind bars is a far worse punishment than a needle in the arm and a switching off of the lights. It forces the prisoner to have to live with the gravity of his crime for the rest of his life. And not only that, but it would free up millions of $$ which could be used to get more dangerous individuals off the streets.

Yah. Brevik is really remorseful right now. You can tell by the way he's threatening a hunger strike because his game modem is outdated and he doesn't get his choice of video games and that his allowance is not enough and... and...

In a recent post I acknowledged that Stephen Hayes is a remorseful type, but he's a rarity. Most of the losers on death row care very little for the people rotting in pieces, in the ground, at their hands- they care about themselves and thankfully for them, despite the fact that you suggest otherwise, there are others that care for them as well.

Justice for 77 people gunned down as a madman played real life video game is not affording their murderer a country club experience and a university degree on the taxpayers' dime. This doesn't make us 'enlightened' and 'sophisticated'... this makes us soft. We don't ask to deal with these events- we are forced to deal with them. Given such... the punishment should fit the crime.

Everywhere I look in society we have lowered the bar and consequences and look at how our society has degenerated. For example, in schools, kids now cannot receive late marks because it is not a true indication of their level of achievement. In other words, measure the learning outcomes and not the process. Heaven forbid a kid gets a zero for not turning an assignment in on time. While some kids legitimately need more time to complete assignments, many others, who do not need it, take the time anyways and submit pieces of crap well after the deadline. The nice sounding concept, in effect, has resulted in many kids taking the path of least resistance knowing full well the consequences for doing so are... nothing.

On the larger scale, look at our governments and how they conduct themselves with impunity.

Standard operating procedure for mankind: do what the fuck you want because really... who's going to do anything about it and what are they going to do if they bother?

We will never solve murder. There are serial murderers conducting their business right now. As we speak, someone is at the hands of some sick lunatic and as they are in their final moments... they can take some comfort in knowing that, with any luck, their captor will get caught and they will be forced to eat three squares a day, play outdated PS3s and sub-rate video games, earn a pension, get an allowance, and access internet and fan mail.

Tell them that's justice. You might feel better that we've taken the high road... but I can pretty much assure you the victims wouldn't be feeling the same way.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

No argument is strong enough to convince me that people like Breivik or Joshua Komisarjevky do not deserve a death sentence for their depravity.

Also, a life behind bars is a far worse punishment than a needle in the arm and a switching off of the lights. It forces the prisoner to have to live with the gravity of his crime for the rest of his life. And not only that, but it would free up millions of $$ which could be used to get more dangerous individuals off the streets.

Yah. Brevik is really remorseful right now. You can tell by the way he's threatening a hunger strike because his game modem is outdated and he doesn't get his choice of video games and that his allowance is not enough and... and...

In a recent post I acknowledged that Stephen Hayes is a remorseful type, but he's a rarity. Most of the losers on death row care very little for the people rotting in pieces, in the ground, at their hands- they care about themselves and thankfully for them, despite the fact that you suggest otherwise, there are others that care for them as well.

Justice for 77 people gunned down as a madman played real life video game is not affording their murderer a country club experience and a university degree on the taxpayers' dime. This doesn't make us 'enlightened' and 'sophisticated'... this makes us soft. We don't ask to deal with these events- we are forced to deal with them. Given such... the punishment should fit the crime.

Everywhere I look in society we have lowered the bar and consequences and look at how our society has degenerated. For example, in schools, kids now cannot receive late marks because it is not a true indication of their level of achievement. In other words, measure the learning outcomes and not the process. Heaven forbid a kid gets a zero for not turning an assignment in on time. While some kids legitimately need more time to complete assignments, many others, who do not need it, take the time anyways and submit pieces of crap well after the deadline. The nice sounding concept, in effect, has resulted in many kids taking the path of least resistance knowing full well the consequences for doing so are... nothing.

On the larger scale, look at our governments and how they conduct themselves with impunity.

Standard operating procedure for mankind: do what the fuck you want because really... who's going to do anything about it and what are they going to do if they bother?

We will never solve murder. There are serial murderers conducting their business right now. As we speak, someone is at the hands of some sick lunatic and as they are in their final moments... they can take some comfort in knowing that, with any luck, their captor will get caught and they will be forced to eat three squares a day, play outdated PS3s and sub-rate video games, earn a pension, get an allowance, and access internet and fan mail.

Tell them that's justice. You might feel better that we've taken the high road... but I can pretty much assure you the victims wouldn't be feeling the same way.

Thirty: I don't question the honesty of the outrage that you feel, and certainly not the outrage and grief that the victims' families must feel. But - and I've made this point over and over and over again - it is not ethically or logically valid to base a penal system on the outrage that we feel. That is not 'enlightened' and 'sophisticated'. And it is most definitely not just.

Nor does it make a society "soft" to not stoop to the easy reaction of killing its own citizens - it makes its claim to enacting true justice far stronger. It makes that society more civilised and more ethical, more advanced and more effective at handling crime. The evidence for that fact is all around you in the majority of other countries that have abolished the death penalty and still maintained functioning societies with lower levels of violence than yours.

Also, though you may think the nature of Brevik's incarceration is unfair - and maybe it is - and you may be outraged at his arrogance (as am I) - but it is a false conclusion from deeply specious reasoning to say that it is therefore justifiable to kill him. That just doesn't follow, and once again illustrates the inescapable fallacy in thinking it is justice to act on our outrage instead of on our reason.

You're right that we'll never "solve murder". But adding to the stack of bodies is going to get you further from that, not closer.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Large amounts of research? What research? Have you been following? There is no credible research either for or against the DP serving as a deterrent. Surveys that ask what your hunch is do not count. This has been established by a community much smarter than you or I. The 'deterrent' argument is moot, but if one side insists on serving up ideas that support it... then the other can do so just as easily. And this has just been done.

Obviously you've missed the point. There are many studies that have been done, even if they have proven inconclusive. That the meta-study concludes that those studies do not show conclusively whether there is a deterrent effect does not mean that research was not done. It certainly doesn't meant that the extent of the research of all of those studies amounted to nothing more than "what is your hunch?" That is a ridiculous and unrealistic oversimplification. The lack of conclusive outcomes does not make research completely invalid, it only makes it inconclusive.

So I'll say it again: speculation without any support whatsoever on what "may very well have an influence" (to use your words) is nowhere remotely as strong as extrapolating from inconclusive research. Neither are definitive, granted, but to claim that your speculation is "at least as strong" is nonsensical.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

No argument is strong enough to convince me that people like Breivik or Joshua Komisarjevky do not deserve a death sentence for their depravity.

Tell them that's justice. You might feel better that we've taken the high road... but I can pretty much assure you the victims wouldn't be feeling the same way.

Thirty: I don't question the honesty of the outrage that you feel, and certainly not the outrage and grief that the victims' families must feel. But - and I've made this point over and over and over again - it is not ethically or logically valid to base a penal system on the outrage that we feel. That is not 'enlightened' and 'sophisticated'. And it is most definitely not just.

Nor does it make a society "soft" to not stoop to the easy reaction of killing its own citizens - it makes its claim to enacting true justice far stronger. It makes that society more civilised and more ethical, more advanced and more effective at handling crime. The evidence for that fact is all around you in the majority of other countries that have abolished the death penalty and still maintained functioning societies with lower levels of violence than yours.

Also, though you may think the nature of Brevik's incarceration is unfair - and maybe it is - and you may be outraged at his arrogance (as am I) - but it is a false conclusion from deeply specious reasoning to say that it is therefore justifiable to kill him. That just doesn't follow, and once again illustrates the inescapable mistake in thinking it is justice to act on our outrage instead of on our reason.

You're right that we'll never "solve murder". But adding to the stack of bodies is going to get you further from that, not closer.

When you say most definitely not just... I disagree. I feel it is.

And I've repeatedly pointed, justice by definition must be dispassionate, objective, equitable and impartial. (Hence the blindfold and the scales) If subjectivity - feelings, passion, moral outrage, disgust - are part of the deciding factors in a penal system, then it is not - by definition - justice.

This is not opinion. This is linguistic and legal fact, whether or not you disagree.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When you say The evidence for that fact is all around you in the majority of other countries that have abolished the death penalty and still maintained functioning societies with lower levels of violence than yours... you obviously mean except for China.

China is not a country that has abolished the death penalty. It's not one of the countries I'm talking about.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When you say Nor does it make a society "soft" to not stoop to the easy reaction of killing its own citizens... I say it's not an easy reaction. it's a very hard one.

well, I think it's always going to be easier - and weaker - to react with anger than it is to have the strength to rise above your anger and act with reason.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When you say adding to the stack of bodies is going to get you further from that, not closer... I feel such an attitude doesn't truly address the problem thrust upon us.

Nor do I think that a system that kills killers is addressing the problem, but rather contributing to it. What sense, reason, coherence or logic is there in a system built on the notion that "When you kill me, it is the most abhorrently immoral thing you can do. But when we kill you it is noble and moral and just"?!

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bottom line for me: leave other people alone. If you leave other people's kids alone... you don't have to worry about getting executed. If you simply cannot refrain from murdering children... then sorry, you shouldn't be expecting anything from anyone- you are lower than filth.

Bottom line for me is, even if I consider someone who killed someone else to be lower than filth, even if I in my horror and grief think they are a monster and deserve to die, that still doesn't give me any right to kill them, no more than they had any right to kill.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Other bottom line: I respect your and other's opinions that are contrary to mine. We are not the bad folk. For the time being, I'm stuck with my beliefs, whether right or wrong. I haven't heard or read anything that makes me think a few of the individuals we have used as examples are worth saving because of what they have done.

I don't think you're a bad person either, and you wouldn't think or say the things you say unless you felt passionately about them. However, my other bottom line is this: whether you are a murdering individual or a state or national government, if it is not 100% necessary for you to kill a person, you have zero right to kill that person - regardless of their actions. In fifty pages of this thread, in example after example of horrendous crimes, I still have not seen a single post that presents a situation where no alternative but execution was available - not one person has presented a single true scenario where killing a prisoner was 100% necessary. More than that, cosidering that the great majority of countries on the planet have successfully abolished the death penalty without noticeable consequence, it can only reasonably be concluded that the death penalty is not by any means 100% necessary. It is therefore unnecessary. My bottom line is that that makes it logically and morally impossible to kill someone and call it justice.

And a last word; as long as the kind of situation which I posted earlier can happen - a situation that for nothing robbed Glenn Ford of thirty years of his life (and could very easily have robbed him of his whole life for nothing) - then the capital system is dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. It is a warped and shameful abuse, affront and mockery of the very notion of justice.

Glenn Ford's case (and other similar cases) speak exclusively to the investigative and judicial processes that find innocent people guilty of crimes they did not commit than they do of the 'punishment' (whether death or life in prison) after having been found guilty.

I'm not saying it is something we should not consider as a safeguard for the inherent flaws in the aforementioned processes- I'm saying it bears no weight when considering the appropriateness or morality of the penalty itself.

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Glenn Ford's case (and other similar cases) speak exclusively to the investigative and judicial processes that find innocent people guilty of crimes they did not commit than they do of the 'punishment' (whether death or life in prison) after having been found guilty.

I'm not saying it is something we should not consider as a safeguard for the inherent flaws in the aforementioned processes- I'm saying it bears no weight when considering the appropriateness or morality of the penalty itself.

Oh come off it, Thirty! Do you really think the investigative and judicial processes are isolated from the ethical considerations of a judicial system that seeking to execute those investigated and tried by those processes?! They are inextricably intertwined and they actively contribute to the wider questions of the morality of the penalty. To use Glenn Ford's case as an example, it is the investigative and judicial processes that sought the death penalty for him, that actively sought an all-white jury, that propagates a capricious system in which a black man is far more likely to be killed for the same crime as a white man, that disregarded falsified testimony, that provided him with hopelessly unqualified legal support, that continued to seek his execution despite severe questions over.his guilt. The staggering injustice of all of these investigative and judicial processes contribute enormously to the wider reasons for the moral and legal legitimacy of state-sanctioned killing. To suggest they are "exclusive", that they are somehow not connected, to say they "bear no weight" to the overall ethical question of the penalty itself is as hopelessly naive as it is flatly false.

What are you saying here?

Are you saying that only the judicial system interested in executing a man operates unethically to achieve their end result? Are you implying judicial systems interested in incarcerating a man for the remainder of his life have not operated with similar unethical methodology to achieve their end?

The investigative and judicial processes that sought the death penalty for him (Ford) were unethical tactics employed to establish him as 'guilty'. States have differing viewpoints on what justice should look like for some murderers, but they have similar examples of blatantly corrupt tactics to see some cases brought to closure- whether that means life in prison or execution. Both sentences are intertwined to the processes that lead a man to them somewhat- it's not strictly the death penalty that is in question given the imperfect systems allowed to occur prior to issuing such a sentence.

As such, the innocent man in jail or the innocent man on death row are victims of these processes I speak to much more than they are the punishments that await them after the fact.