Court bans death penalty for child rape

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 25, 2008, 7:29 pm

Court bans death penalty for child rape By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

The Supreme Court declared Wednesday that executions are too severe a punishment for raping children, despite the "years of long anguish" for victims, in a ruling that restricts the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state.

The court's 5-4 decision struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12. It spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime — two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.

The ruling also invalidates laws on the books in five other states that allowed executions for child rape that does not result in the death of the victim.

However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.

Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.

The victim in the case decided Wednesday was an 8-year-old girl raped by her stepfather at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans.

Angry Louisianans who backed the law said the court was out of touch.

"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican. "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."

The decision resonated in the presidential campaign, too, where Democrat Barack Obama objected to it. Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.

The decision allows death sentences to continue to be imposed for crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism, which Kennedy labeled as crimes against the state.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and five states besides Louisiana have allowed it for child rapists — Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.

The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.

In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

But Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

Kennedy acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."

Still, he concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

He also cited arguments made by social workers and others that children and their families might not cooperate with authorities if a death sentence could result against the rapist. In many cases, including the one before the court, the victim and rapist are related.

The author of the Louisiana law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, said even opponents of the death penalty told him they would kill anyone who raped their children. "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people — but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?" Schneider demanded, directing his comments to the justices in Wednesday's majority.

The last executions for crimes other than murder took place in 1964, according to a database maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center.

Ronald Wolfe, 34, died in Missouri's gas chamber on May 8, 1964, for rape. James Coburn was electrocuted in Alabama on Sept. 4 of that year for robbery.

The case before the court involved Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana.

Kennedy was convicted in 2003. The girl initially told police she was sorting Girl Scout cookies in the garage when two boys assaulted her.

Police arrested Kennedy a couple of weeks after the March 1998 rape, but more than 20 months passed before the girl identified him as her attacker.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence, saying that "short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving" of the death penalty. State Chief Justice Pascal Calogero noted in dissent that the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason.

The girl's mother was reached by The Associated Press following the court's decision Wednesday. "We don't talk about that," she said and hung up.

A second Louisiana defendant, Richard Davis, was given the death penalty in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish.

Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today." Both men will get new sentences.

The case is Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

___

Wow. It just keeps getting worse. Keep voting those liberals into office guys.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 25, 2008, 8:11 pm

In what alternate universe are you living in where the Supreme Court is a liberal institution?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 25, 2008, 8:19 pm

The one where it votes like this.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » June 25, 2008, 8:26 pm

Quiz for Midnyte: how many of the justices were appointed by Democratic presidents and how many were appointed by Republican presidents?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 25, 2008, 8:29 pm

2 judges appointed by democrats and 7 by republicans. Stupid good for nothing Conservatives.

Tristinn · Post by **Tristinn** » June 25, 2008, 8:44 pm

Mid, your troll outfit is starting to get mighty tattered.

You are certainly off your game on this one.. you're starting to sound more like syrup.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 25, 2008, 9:59 pm

Well then I apologize for adding the part about voting in liberals. I find this verdict disgusting and lashed out at the wrong folks. I just don't get it.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 25, 2008, 10:06 pm

I am also disheartened by the verdict of that trial, and hope maybe we can come to a different verdict in the future.

The major problem I have with our judges (regardless of what party they belong to or were appointed by) is the way that they are "interpreting" the constitution (that is their job, afterall, right?) In many cases they are not interpreting the constitution at all, but making a biased decision more based off their personal belief system than anything else.

I find it kind of strange that more people don't have an issue with this.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 25, 2008, 10:11 pm

They do have a problem with it. That is why there is such a fuss with every nomination.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » June 25, 2008, 10:21 pm

I'm against the death penalty in all cases, so this really isn't a big deal to me. Although, if you follow the "eye for an eye" policy, then rape =/= death no matter what. <shrug> Not to belittle rape in any of its horrible implications, but the cruel and unusual exception made by our legal system for death penalty in the case of murder doesn't apply in cases of rape.

Animale

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 25, 2008, 10:43 pm

They can't even agree how to interpret the constitution, let alone what that interpretation is, and laughably this is a document written in english only a little over 200 years ago.

"Teh Peepol" can't decide if it's a living document, or something that should be set in stone, despite their finest legal minds not being sure what it even says most of the time. They DO know that they should be proud of it, like everything else generated in America, because they've been told as much since grade school, and they tell their kids too.

But, regardless, because not all 9 SCJs agree, that leaves some delicious wiggle room for certain retards to say they know exactly how high the founding fathers would hang a child rapist, as if their opinion of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" even matters given that concept wasn't introduced until the 8th amendment and more importantly because they're both flexible terms that change based on wider society.

Personally, yes, I think all rapists should be summarily executed just as soon as it's proven beyond any doubt. Preferably by impalement in the town square. But I don't think this interpretation of "cruel and unusual" is incorrect.

Perhaps you need to go back and ask for a better constitution? The WWF could draft one for you.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » June 25, 2008, 10:49 pm

Contrawise, I think life imprisonment is fair. Fair in that it seems far more a punishment. Especially if you put them in with the general population, where what they do to rapists is kinda funny in a very ironic sort of way.

A lifetime of that? Much more a punihsment than a quick death. Hell, even a few years of it would destroy a persons sanity.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 25, 2008, 11:57 pm

Acies wrote:Contrawise, I think life imprisonment is fair. Fair in that it seems far more a punishment. Especially if you put them in with the general population, where what they do to rapists is kinda funny in a very ironic sort of way.

A lifetime of that? Much more a punihsment than a quick death. Hell, even a few years of it would destroy a persons sanity.

Perhaps you enjoy paying for all these people with 'life' in prison, and the overcrowding that's happening in prisons.

I don't.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 26, 2008, 12:02 am

Agreed Siji. Plus, life is a gift. Whether it be in prison or not, a man who rapes a child, deserves to die.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » June 26, 2008, 2:25 am

Siji wrote:
Acies wrote:Contrawise, I think life imprisonment is fair. Fair in that it seems far more a punishment. Especially if you put them in with the general population, where what they do to rapists is kinda funny in a very ironic sort of way.

A lifetime of that? Much more a punihsment than a quick death. Hell, even a few years of it would destroy a persons sanity.
Perhaps you enjoy paying for all these people with 'life' in prison, and the overcrowding that's happening in prisons.

I don't.

Just a note on that... execution is MUCH more expensive than life imprisonment.

Taken from http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)

"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)

Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )

So, it being "cheaper" is just not true. Now, you may think of other reasons for state sponsored murder, but saying it's cheaper to do executions has been proven to be false statement.

Animale

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 26, 2008, 2:34 am

Animale beat me to it.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » June 26, 2008, 3:35 am

I'm betting that when they refer to execution being the cheaper option, they're assuming that you can just get rid of all that pesky appellate business that runs up the cost of murdering our criminals (you know, "streamline the system" and all that). Maybe they'd prefer to simply handle all of our execution-worthy criminals like Judge Fenton in Hang 'em High, but I certainly don't. I'm against the death penalty, too, so I view any occasion that a death penalty is struck down as a victory. Mind you, I totally understand the visceral desire to put down criminals that commit vile crimes, especially against innocent children, but we in civilized society have many gut instincts that we curtail. The government that represents us ought not be in the business of murdering our murderers (or rapists or drug dealers or any other "problem people").

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » June 26, 2008, 3:56 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Whether it be in prison or not, a man who rapes a child, deserves to die.

What about a woman who rapes a child?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 26, 2008, 9:11 am

Bojangels wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Whether it be in prison or not, a man who rapes a child, deserves to die.
What about a woman who rapes a child?

I say man, because 99% of all cases are men.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 26, 2008, 10:18 am

I'd like to be all high and mighty and agree with the supreme court on this one, but... monsters need put down. Sure have high standards for proof, but put those fuckers in the ground.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 26, 2008, 10:46 am

My initial reaction is to agree with the death penalty here. However, you need to consider that if the punishment is the same as murder then there would be a motivation for pedaphiles to kill their victims. From a purely logical perspective it would be stupid for them not to kill the child.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 26, 2008, 10:53 am

On the other hand, if we had an express lane to the chair for people like this and actually began frying people by the hundreds instead of 2 a year, maybe it might actually deter a few. That asshole that tortured and raped the woman for 19 hours is going to go to prison for "life". What is the point in that? Are you rehabilitating him? No way are you making these people usefull members of society.....so fucking remove them permanently.

If it is costing more to execute some asshole that is a monster, then it is because our judicial system is a fucking joke and needs to be fixed. Quite frankly, I believe any bleeding heart liberal nancy fag that is against the death penalty should be required to take these upstanding guys in once their prison sentence is over to continue their rehabilitation....you know since they believe in their good heart and all.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 26, 2008, 11:00 am

Yeah, it's funny how quick people jump on the "death penalty isn't cheaper" defense.

Once they are found guilty and sentenced to death - they are allowed no appeals, and they are executed swiftly, by the cheapest means available.

Problem solved.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 26, 2008, 11:10 am

Funkmasterr wrote:Yeah, it's funny how quick people jump on the "death penalty isn't cheaper" defense.

Once they are found guilty and sentenced to death - they are allowed no appeals, and they are executed swiftly, by the cheapest means available.

Problem solved.

Yeah. I'd really like to see the financial breakdown of how zapping someone costs 3 million dollars.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 26, 2008, 11:16 am

Forthe wrote:My initial reaction is to agree with the death penalty here. However, you need to consider that if the punishment is the same as murder then there would be a motivation for pedophiles to kill their victims. From a purely logical perspective it would be stupid for them not to kill the child.

This is the first argument I've heard that makes any sense. You certainly don't want to make killing the victim MORE attractive than it already is to these sick fucks.

From a personal perspective, I have a rough time dealing with possibilities. If some asshole sexually molested my little girl, I'd have a hard time dealing with a system that wouldn't kill them, because otherwise I'd feel the need to do it myself and my daughter (if still alive) wouldn't want her dad to spend his life in prison.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yeah. I'd really like to see the financial breakdown of how zapping someone costs 3 million dollars.

The execution, I'd imagine, doesn't; all the overhead of dealing with special death row status and dealing with endless appeals etc, I'd wager, does.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » June 26, 2008, 11:27 am

Roughly 3/4ths of the cost is related to the trial proceedings (see the California numbers in my original quote). The number varies from state to state of course.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 26, 2008, 11:29 am

Animale wrote:Roughly 3/4ths of the cost is related to the trial proceedings (see the California numbers in my original quote). The number varies from state to state of course.

No appeals for non death sentence folks? I'm not sure I buy that.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 26, 2008, 11:38 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Yeah, it's funny how quick people jump on the "death penalty isn't cheaper" defense.

Once they are found guilty and sentenced to death - they are allowed no appeals, and they are executed swiftly, by the cheapest means available.

Problem solved.
Yeah. I'd really like to see the financial breakdown of how zapping someone costs 3 million dollars.

Rising energy costs. If you used CFL's, the electric chair might be more cost effective.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 26, 2008, 1:32 pm

This idiot just ended his own career.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html

A Massachusetts politician and defense attorney has touched off a firestorm with his shocking public vow to torment and "rip apart" child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.

Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."

Fagan did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

His remarks drew the ire of local activists as well as colleagues.

“I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary,” Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones told FOXNews.com on Wednesday.

“I appreciate that he’s a defense attorney, and felt he had a point to make, but I think it was unnecessary,” said Jones, who supported an original version of the bill. “It was excessive.”

The father of the Florida girl for whom Jessica's Law is named also blasted Fagan after hearing the comments.

Mark Lunsford, whose 9-year-old daughter was abducted and buried alive in a trash bag by a sex offender in 2005, told the Boston Herald on Tuesday that Fagan should take the rights of victimized children seriously.

“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Lunsford told the paper. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”

The bill that he opposed eventually passed the House and set mandatory minimum sentences of between 10 and 15 years for a set of different offenses against children ranging from assault to sexual crimes. A version is still pending in the state Senate.

From a legal perspective, law professor Phyllis Goldfarb said Fagan was probably expressing a basic courtroom truth – that it is a defense attorney’s job to test the prosecution’s case, especially when mandatory penalties are on the line.

“It is fundamentally true … if the proof is coming almost exclusively through a child witness you may have to find a way to test it. That’s the attorney-client obligation there,” Goldfarb told FOXNews.com.

Goldfarb, who used to direct the Criminal Justice Clinic at Boston College Law School, said Fagan used some over-the-top language, but that he probably didn't relish the idea of cross-examining a child. She said it's just his job.

“You do have to challenge a witness,” she said. “Some people find ways of doing that that are loyal to their role as defense attorneys -- testing the proof (in ways) that aren’t abusive to a witness, but it's very hard.

“And I think being put in that hard position is what he seems to be railing against here, using language that’s probably a little bit hyperbolic.”

Lunsford will be in Massachusetts on Wednesday to push the state Senate to include mandatory prison time in the state's final version of Jessica's Law, according to the Herald.

Reader Information: State Rep. James Fagan is a Democrat representing the Third Bristol District, which includes the city of Taunton. Fagan, a 1973 graduate of Suffolk Law School, has been representing the district since 1993, and serves as chair of the House ethics committee. He can be reached by e-mailing or calling:

State House: 617-722-2040

District office: 508-824-7000

E-mail: Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 26, 2008, 4:39 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Yeah, it's funny how quick people jump on the "death penalty isn't cheaper" defense.

Once they are found guilty and sentenced to death - they are allowed no appeals, and they are executed swiftly, by the cheapest means available.

Problem solved.

I'd like to know if you would feel the same way if you had a kid that was sentenced to death but was innocent.

Personally, I would like to see chain gangs come back. Put them to work with shackles around their ankles.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 26, 2008, 4:44 pm

Lynks wrote:I'd like to know if you would feel the same way if you had a kid that was sentenced to death but was innocent.

Personally, I would like to see chain gangs come back. Put them to work with shackles around their ankles.

and bombs in their collars!

I agree that the appeal process would need to remain in some form. Quick execution does not guarantee the right person was put to death.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 26, 2008, 4:48 pm

Lynks wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Yeah, it's funny how quick people jump on the "death penalty isn't cheaper" defense.

Once they are found guilty and sentenced to death - they are allowed no appeals, and they are executed swiftly, by the cheapest means available.

Problem solved.
I'd like to know if you would feel the same way if you had a kid that was sentenced to death but was innocent.

Personally, I would like to see chain gangs come back. Put them to work with shackles around their ankles.

I think people largely overestimate the number of innocent people that end up on death row nowadays with the technology we have. You would have to put standards in place just like anything else, but I'm fine with it being that way.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 26, 2008, 5:13 pm

In the last 35 years, approximately 1108 people have been executed in the United States, and 129 people that were on death row have been exonerated. The average amount of time someone spends on death row before being exonerated is 9 years. So that's roughly 1 person in every 9 that shouldn't be executed, that would be without appeals or a lengthy stay on death row. Those numbers are good enough for you?

Data taken from this site.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » June 26, 2008, 5:57 pm

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 26, 2008, 6:05 pm

Spock would say the death penalty is illogical.

WWSD

Gnaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 26, 2008, 6:08 pm

Sylvus wrote:In the last 35 years, approximately 1108 people have been executed in the United States, and 129 people that were on death row have been exonerated. The average amount of time someone spends on death row before being exonerated is 9 years. So that's roughly 1 person in every 9 that shouldn't be executed, that would be without appeals or a lengthy stay on death row. Those numbers are good enough for you?

Data taken from this site.

The past 35 years is not what I'm talking about. DNA testing has lowered that number significantly in the past couple of years. Is it really still 1 in 9 TODAY? I'm guessing not.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 26, 2008, 6:58 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Sylvus wrote:In the last 35 years, approximately 1108 people have been executed in the United States, and 129 people that were on death row have been exonerated. The average amount of time someone spends on death row before being exonerated is 9 years. So that's roughly 1 person in every 9 that shouldn't be executed, that would be without appeals or a lengthy stay on death row. Those numbers are good enough for you?

Data taken from this site.
The past 35 years is not what I'm talking about. DNA testing has lowered that number significantly in the past couple of years. Is it really still 1 in 9 TODAY? I'm guessing not.

The thing is you ARE guessing and that doesn't mean you're right.

I'm torn on this. What Forthe said about the difference in penalty for different offenses (rape vs murder) makes a lot of sense but at the same time if we imprison rapists for life, are we not again putting the two crimes on the same level because there a) are jurisdictions that don't have capital punishment, and b) even where there is the death penalty it isn't given for all convictions? Futhermore child molestors have the highest re-offense rate of all violent criminals (read someplace, can't recall where but it was in a discussion on this very issue, it was 96%), so by allowing them any release (i.e. sentences other than life with no parole) we are risking creating further victims. To be honest I could give a fuck about the criminal, whether he lives or dies, but my main concern is how to minimize the number of kids in danger from these monsters.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 26, 2008, 7:01 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Sylvus wrote:In the last 35 years, approximately 1108 people have been executed in the United States, and 129 people that were on death row have been exonerated. The average amount of time someone spends on death row before being exonerated is 9 years. So that's roughly 1 person in every 9 that shouldn't be executed, that would be without appeals or a lengthy stay on death row. Those numbers are good enough for you?

Data taken from this site.
The past 35 years is not what I'm talking about. DNA testing has lowered that number significantly in the past couple of years. Is it really still 1 in 9 TODAY? I'm guessing not.

The scientific tools used on shows like CSI are not common in today's trials. DNA testing is probably not as widespread as you might think. Also, most of the people on death row were not placed there within the last few years.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 26, 2008, 8:06 pm

Sylvus wrote:In the last 35 years, approximately 1108 people have been executed in the United States, and 129 people that were on death row have been exonerated. The average amount of time someone spends on death row before being exonerated is 9 years. So that's roughly 1 person in every 9 that shouldn't be executed, that would be without appeals or a lengthy stay on death row. Those numbers are good enough for you?

Data taken from this site.

Only 2 of those were exonerations from trials that put them there within the last DECADE.

I will quote this from the site.

123. John Ballard Florida Conviction: 2003, Acquitted: 2006
The Florida Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of death row inmate John Robert Ballard and ordered his acquittal in the 1999 murders of two of his acquaintances. The Court concluded that the evidence against Ballard was so weak that the trial judge should have dismissed the case immediately. The primary evidence presented against Ballard was a hair and a fingerprint, both of which he could have left during his many visits to the victims' apartment. Bloody fingerprints and 100 other hair samples were found associated with the crime scene, none of them belonging to Ballard, who has always maintained his innocence. One of the victims was a known drug dealer. The state Attorney General's office said that it would not seek a rehearing in the case. At Ballard's trial, only 9 of the 12 jurors recommended a death sentence. The judge decided to sentence Ballard to death, commenting: "You have not only forfeited your right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited your right to live at all." It is expected that Ballard will be released soon, after serving 3 years on death row.

The judge from this apparently should be disbarred.

On Monday, August 9, 2004, Jefferson Parish prosecutors dropped all charges against 24-year-old Ryan Matthews, making him the nation's 115th exonoree, and the 14th death row inmate freed with the help of DNA testing. Shortly after his 17th birthday, Matthews was arrested for the murder of a local convenience store owner. Three individuals interviewed by police were unable to definitively identify Matthews, and witnesses described the murderer as short - no taller than 5'8". Matthews is at least 6 feet tall. Matthews' court appointed trial attorney was unprepared, and unable to handle the DNA evidence. On the third day of the trial, the judge ordered closing arguments, and sent the jury to deliberate. When they could not agree on a verdict after several hours, the judge ordered the jury to resume deliberations until a verdict was reached. Less than an hour later, the jury returned a guilty verdict and Matthews was sentenced to death two days later. In March 2003, Matthews' attorneys had the physical evidence (including a ski mask) re-tested. The DNA results excluded Matthews, and this time they pointed directly to another individual - one serving time for a murder that happened a few months after the convenience store murder and only blocks away. In April of 2004, based on the new DNA testing and findings that the prosecution suppressed evidence, a new trial was ordered for Matthews. Released into his mother's care after she posted bond, Matthews was officially exonerated on August 9, 2004 when prosecutors dropped all of the charges against him.

Exonnerated by DNA testing...showing that DNA testing is working as it should.

So 2 in the last decade out of how many?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 26, 2008, 8:13 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Sylvus wrote:In the last 35 years, approximately 1108 people have been executed in the United States, and 129 people that were on death row have been exonerated. The average amount of time someone spends on death row before being exonerated is 9 years. So that's roughly 1 person in every 9 that shouldn't be executed, that would be without appeals or a lengthy stay on death row. Those numbers are good enough for you?

Data taken from this site.
The past 35 years is not what I'm talking about. DNA testing has lowered that number significantly in the past couple of years. Is it really still 1 in 9 TODAY? I'm guessing not.
The scientific tools used on shows like CSI are not common in today's trials. DNA testing is probably not as widespread as you might think. Also, most of the people on death row were not placed there within the last few years.

DNA testing most certainly is as widespread as I think. Many or most of the people on death row that were sentenced at a time where DNA testing was not available have had the evidence that could still be tested reexamined (you know, during one of the 4000 appeals each of them get), and many people were released from prison as a result.

If a Kilmoll is anywhere near right on what he said above about 2 people in a decade - that is a completely acceptable margin of error for me.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 26, 2008, 9:14 pm

Even if you were one of those 2?

Didn't think so.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 26, 2008, 11:00 pm

This subject came up after dinner with my mom, and when she started the story, I KNEW where it was going. My second oldest niece, 8 years old, took my youngest niece to one of her friend's apartments...

The friend's uncle was the only one home and he invited her in to wait for the kids to get back home. He kissed my niece (with tongue) and tried to grope her under her skirt. As soon as she had a chance, she grabbed my youngest niece and ran out of the apartment. My niece asked my sister "Is it REALLY right to always tell the truth?" in a way that she knew something bad was about to come out. The police were called, and it turns out the scum was wanted on multiple warrants from the Houston area for doing worse to other kids. My niece was lucky, but the guy was luckier. My sister's boyfriend probably would not have left him recognizable for the police to serve the warrant if he had not promised her that he would not go to the door before the cops got there.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 26, 2008, 11:24 pm

Nick wrote:Even if you were one of those 2?

Didn't think so.

Yes. Sacrifice for the greater good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 27, 2008, 12:06 am

Even if 1 of the 2 was your kid? If yes, you're a monster and I hope your kids never find out you would be alright with that.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 27, 2008, 12:38 am

Lynks wrote:Even if 1 of the 2 was your kid? If yes, you're a monster and I hope your kids never find out you would be alright with that.

Sorry Lynks. But, I am not willing to let all of them off, all over the country, just because it might affect me and my family. That is very selfish thinking. I wasn't raised to just think of how things might affect me. I'm sorry if you were.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 27, 2008, 1:12 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynks wrote:Even if 1 of the 2 was your kid? If yes, you're a monster and I hope your kids never find out you would be alright with that.
Sorry Lynks. But, I am not willing to let all of them off, all over the country, just because it might affect me and my family. That is very selfish thinking. I wasn't raised to just think of how things might affect me. I'm sorry if you were.

Quote of the week from Mr Magoo.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 27, 2008, 9:40 am

Midnyte is a socialist.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 27, 2008, 10:07 am

Nick wrote:Even if you were one of those 2?

Didn't think so.

Of course I wouldn't be ok with it, but that's the way that it goes. A couple of people are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and if my choices are that or letting every asshole on death row get 50 appeals trials, 3 meals a day, etc, etc all off of our dollar, I'm gonna stick with my original choice.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » June 27, 2008, 11:54 am

Funkmasterr wrote:Of course I wouldn't be ok with it, but that's the way that it goes. A couple of people are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and if my choices are that or letting every asshole on death row get 50 appeals trials, 3 meals a day, etc, etc all off of our dollar, I'm gonna stick with my original choice.

No innocent people being caught up in the system, regardless of how small the number, should be acceptable to a civilized person. The fact that you think it's OK to murder a few innocent people just so long as you get to murder a lot of criminals (rather than simply imprisoning) them says much about you and your cohorts. The fact that you'd happily do away with the appeals process and summarily execute them says even more.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » June 27, 2008, 12:09 pm

Ever heard of war? collateral damage, perhaps?

What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of your vagina.