Jessica Lunsford's killer eligible for the DP!!
 

Yes I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty, but not for this bastard. The learned Judge just issued his ruling that Couey is not "retarded" (his words, not mine) and is therefore eligible to be removed from the gene pool.

I for one now hope that the Judge will follow the jury's recommendation (10-2) and put him on the row.

I know this thread will probably only last ten posts or so, but I had to get it off my chest.

Remind me who Jessica Lunsford is, please.

Beautiful nine year old girl, kidnapped, raped, kept in a closet and then buried alive by her across the street neighbor in Fla. two years ago.

I too have mixed feelings about the death penalty except when you read what happened to Jessica I don't want my taxes feeding this slimball. I don't have children and can't imagine what her mother and father must be going through. I think the guillotine would be appropriate for him.

I have no such problems, drag the POS out back and shoot him for all I care. My heart don't bleed for such criminals...

I have no such qualms about the DP. To me it is very simple. As members of society we all enter into a social "contract" with one another. When a member of the group breaks the contract, by doing something like what this waste of skin did, he forfeits the right to live in our society.

Separation from society, by mean of the DP, is the price he pays for his actions.

:grim::behead::grim:

Capital punishment, the solution to recidivism.

Ah, something the Taliban and you agree upon. :grim:

It's going to cost you more to kill him though.

The Taliban's reasons for the death penalty are what they are...but, 16something years ago, a repeat offender (tried and convicted for murder in the '60s, parolled in the '70s) abducted and murdered a close friend of my wife. It would have never happened had Kenneth McDuff remained in jail or, paid for his crime the first time in the system.

The TDC parole board and judges involved with his release to the outside world should have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death also.

dang it! I was wondering how long and how much it costs to do that with appeals and such. Any lawyersout there Benz LGB or JD know?

Well put.

The felony-murder rule should have been invoked against them.

As long as we have a system of laws, that includes sufficient checks and balances to make sure that the innocent is protected, then I have no problem wiht the DP.

To compare the DP, as practiced here, to what the Taliban and Al-Queda do is intellectually dishonest.

I am willing to gamble my life on the American judicial system. I am not so eager to take the same chance in front of a Taliban-camel court. (That's a play on the term kangaroo-courts and is not meant as an ethnic slur).

Incidentally, while the number of wrongly convicted peresons may have been unacceptably high in the past, that is bound to change in the very near future. The widespread use of new investigatory techniques, such as DNA testing will almost guarantee that no innocent man (or woman) is ever wrongfully convicted, especially in a capital case.

BTW, it is far cheaper to execute a convicted criminal than to keep him locked up in prison for the rest of his life. The problem lies in the series of endless appeals that stretch out the process longer than it has to be.

R.Leo, I am sorry about what happened to your wife's friend. That is a horrible ending to a life...and a nightmare for the surviving relatives and close friends.

The simple truth is that our heralded judical system has been shown to be flawed, whether it be a capital case or even a misdemeanor. There's no "do-over" after the execution when evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or advances in forensic sciences clears a convicted person.

Thats why they should do it like the do in China. The court rules he is guilty and sentences him. 1 minute later the guard grabs him, asks him if he wants a smoke or a blindfold, leads him out to the court yard, and bam. Charge the next of kin for the cost of the bullit and funeral. If there is no next of kin dispose of the body in the cheapest way possible.

A bullit only costs $.50, this lethal injection crap is BS.

But like MTI suggested what happens if they are exonerated with new evidence?.....if you were falsely accused (in actuality) I would want some more opportunities to clear up the mess. :eek:

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

C'mon now. I just did the math yesterday, and even with todays substantially higher prices, my ammo worked out to ~22 cents per round. And that's regular over the counter retail, not even shopped about online for the best price. I'm thinking large government contract and so forth, they could get the cost down quite a bit. Heck, for point blank execution work, you could go with any number of less expensive rounds (my example was for .40 S&W). Heck, I'll donate several rounds (and the time if needed) if I can recover the bullet and do some real world ballistics testing...

It's still a lethal injection.

MV

Reread that part if YOU were a mistaken identity and incarcerated. That doesn't apply to this case. Just taking the stance if one of us were in the hot seat and told we were going to be extra crispy. :eek:

Any system created by humans and implemented by humans is going to be, by its very nature, "flawed." So you are not adding much of any value to the debate by stating the obvious. DUH!

As a prosecutor, and as one who has closely followed/studied other legal systems I can tell you that if I was wrongfully accused of a crime I would much rather be tried here than in Russia, Saudi Arabia or even France for that matter. Heck, even if I was rightfully accused of a crime I like my chances here!

Let's take a look at all the checks and balances that we have (in the jurisdiction where I practice law and in California in general). Let's take a murder case as an example.

A murder is committed and the suspect is initially unknown. The police agency sends in its best detectives to investigate the crime. The detectives are aided by the agency's crime lab. After a long investigation, which usually includes forensic evidence as well as countless witness interviews, the police settle on a suspect.

At that point they bring the case over to the DA's office. Once the case gets to the DA's office, it is assigned to an experienced Deputy DA (DDA) who does a de novo review of ALL of the evidence collected by the police agency. That DDA, with the assistance of other DDAs as well as in-house investigators makes a filing decision.

At that point a preliminary hearing is held. At the prelim the evidence obtained by the police, and developed by the DDA is further tested by the judge and the defense attorney. If the evidence is solid, the suspect is held to answer (HTA) and an Information (the charging document) is filed.

At that point, in a capital case, the elected DA together with a team of seasoned prosecutors makes a decision on whether to seek the DP. Input is invited from the defense attorney.

Regardless of whether a deicison is made to seek the DP or to seek a lesser sentence, the case goes to trial.

The evidence is now tested again, by the judge, jury and by the defense attorney. If the defendant is acquitted, then the case is over for the prosecution. We have no right of appeal--we only get one bite at the apple.

If the defendant is convicted, he automatically has the right to a long string of appeals.

So, by the time that the defendant is convicted the evidence has gone through several layers of filters to test its admissibility and strength. And that does not even take into consideration the long appellate process.

There are so many people involved in the process that the possibility (or even the probability) of all of them getting together and planning to commit "prosecutorial misconduct" in order to intentionally convict an innocent man is so remote as to be nearly neglible.

Even after a defendants is trieda and, presumably convicted, there is still a long stirng of appeals, to further test and challenge the validity of the conviction.

Have some innocent people been convicted? Yes, especially in cases where race played a role. Does it still happen now? In some instances it is possible. Will the widespread use of DNA testing prevent the wrongful conviction of defendants? Most definitely.

A recent study conducted by Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia (the article will be published in the January edition of the Columbia Law Review) concluded that there have been many flawed convictions. In his study he also concluded that now that DNA testing is common in the "front end" of prosecutions the probability of innocent men being wrongfully convicted will drop down to zero.

In a rape case that I handled, all of the witness identification led to one suspect. In the old days he would have probably been prosecuted and perhaps even convicted. DNA testing,however, conclusively proved that he was not the rapist so he was not prosecuted. DNA, however, eventually led the police to the right man. I prosecuted him for burglary, kidnapping, car jacking, rape and a host of other related crimes. He is now serving a long prison sentence. He has also appealled his conviction which I am happy to say has been upheld by the appellate courts. (I cannot imagine a worse feeling, for a prosecutor, than to send an innocent man to prison).

I guess that was a roundabout way of saying that our system does indeed work.

Of course, liberals and people who are ignorant of how the process really works like to spread the myth that wrongful convictions happen all the time. It serves their political agenda. the truth, however, is a far from the myth that they hold on to.

I suppose that everyone has an agenda, and that's fine. But the next time a violent predator/criminal is released because of the decision made by some pointy headed jurist, think about what happened to the friend of R.Leo's wife.

I think the judicial system worked pretty well both times: he was found guilty and sentenced to die for his crime(s). It was a hosed-up corrections system, prison overcrowding and weak politicians that repealed the death penalty and ultimately released McDuff on our society.

Very decent analysis of how the process works!

One thing I would add is the jury selection in cases like this is very scrupulous....the jury selection is very long and drawn out, and the potential jurors often fill out long questionaires designed to elicit their ability to be fair, and they are gone over very thoroughly by the Judge and counsel. Pointed or biased responses then require lengthy further voir dire.

Great care is taken in jury selection, though each side tends to want to select jurors more favorable to their side. The attorneys act as a check and balance to this.

Sometimes even jury consultants may play a part.

For the most part it works pretty well.

Counsellor, you have just made the point for not allowing the judicial system to "play god."

I'm not sure that a majority of the non-white, non-Christian population of this country necessarily would agree with you.

And yet it happened in the past. Recently in Massachusetts, convictions were overturned and a civil judgment awarded when it was brought to light that the FBI had intentionally framed the wrong suspects.

DNA technology won't come to the rescue of death row inmates that were the victims of prosecutorial misconduct, political manueverings or simple "lying and cheating" by the government. Trusting "the system" is not only foolhardy, it goes against the basic prinicples that this country was founded upon.

What happened to that person is no less tragic than the state taking the life of innocent person.

Folks who believe in some form of redemption/rehabilitation should volunteer a bedroom for the parolees.

:grim: :grim: :grim:

Is housing for parolees the biggest concern? Well, just as soon as someone figures out what the appropriate and acceptable percentage of innocents killed by a flawed capital punishment system is, we can talk about housing.

JD was right in his first post. Another useless thread.

Why? Because MTI didn't agree with you?


I would like to point out that being against the death penalty does not mean one is for paroling everyone. A criminal can go to jail for the rest of his/her life.


As someone who is not white or Christian, and has traveled a fair bit, I'm siding with Benz-LGB on this one. I wouldn't trust any legal system as much as our own. France second, but only if it's made clear I'm not a Muslim, because if they think I am, I'm toast.


Mistress, I'm trying to track down a link detailing all of the extra costs associated with death penalty cases, but can't remember where I read it.

If you believe that, then don't fly in airplanes. They are designed by humans, piloted by humans and traqffic controlled by humans.

You may be willing to allow yourself to become paralyzed by some of the inherent flaws in any human-designed system. I prefer to work to continue to improve the system while keeping the DP in place.


I am "non-white" as you so colorfully referred to the non-Anglo-Saxon crowd. I still would not be willing to be tried in a Russian court, or a Saudi-Arabian court. And I lived in Cuba and had family members prosecutred and convicted in kastro's donkey-courts. I would prefer to be tried in any courtroom south of the Mason-Dixie than in one of kastro's kourts.

Thus the system worked as designed. The truth eventually came out.


Professor Garrett and members of the Innocence Project at the Cardozo Law School wold disagree with you.

I suppose that IF the police investigating the case and IF the prosecutor prosecuting the case and IF the defense attorney defending the cirminal and IF the judge hearing the case and IF the jury hearing hte evidence and IF the appellate justices hearing the appeals IF all those people want to really, really screw an innocent person, well I guess they can.

I notice that you live out in Hawaii. I bet you believe that FDR conspired to have the Japense bomb Pearl Harbor so he could have an excuse to declare war against the Axis. don't you?


More innocent people are assaulted, raped and killed by criminals than innocent people executed by the system.

Let me ask you tis, are you completely opposed to the DP?

Let's assume, arguendo, that a system was designed that would guarantee with 100% certainty, that a convicted criminal was indeed guilty of the crime that he is charged with.

Just play along for the sake of this exercise. If such a system was designed, would you then still be opposed to the DP?

I have no problem with people who are opposed to the DP on moral, religious or ethical principles. I respect a person's right to his own beliefs.

If that is your position on the DP, then say so and that's fine. But don't try to tell me that our system is flawed (or that other systems are better than ours). I work in the system, been doing so for over two decades and I know how well it works, for all of our citizens.

Nope, people disagree with me all the time and I disagree with them all the time as well.

As Zeus (not the Greek one) mentioned to me, these threads are for the most part useless. They are useless because for the most part people take sides along ideological lines. There is no discourse, no debate no reasoning. It becomes a game of GOTCHA! just like currnet politics.

That's why the thread is useless. Like the synthetic vs. dyno oil threads.

If the threshold is 100% certainty then that changes the standard of punishment from, "beyond reasonable doubt" to "beyond any doubt" which includes both reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. Now that's silly, isn't it?

So what is your standard?

B

Fair question, and the answer is yes. We have other methods of punishment that do not put innocents at risk of paying the ultimate price for a system's inherent mistakes.

If we're designing castles in the air, why don't we also create a judicial and trial system that is color blind, impassionate and as blind as lady justice is with her scales.

My objection position against the death penalty is fairly simple. It has nothing to do with which nation's judicial system is "fairer" or "efficient." The foundation of my belief is that it would be better to prosecute and incarcerate the most heinous killer or miscreant, than to support a system of punishment that has the potential kill innocents and call it justice.

Conyo Chico- This is a good thread, after reading your post on how the process works, I want to quit my job shooting hooters and come work for you!

It's amazing how many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes in a system which is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free as opposed to wrongfully convicting the innocent. I can't imagine the per centages of wrongful convictions where the system is far less liberal.

John Grisham's recent book An Innocent Man was pretty scary. This fellow (there were actually several mentioned) was failed by the whole system, not just ONE police dept., prosecutor,court, etc.

Hooter shooter. Heh.

I hope that the general popuation in prison will take care of it sooner than the government.

My qualms arise from working on two cases where the wrong guy was on the row. It happens and unlike the law of averages being ok in most cases, it isn't when we are talking about a human life.

No it won't.

I don't necessarily think it is useless. I just meant it would probably degenerate iinto a bunch of cliche one-liners from anti and pro death penalty bandwagoneers (which it has). Several people reading this thread may have daughters and haven't been following the Lunsford case as we (I) have. If one of those people changes their minds on the dp for child killers or keeps a closer watch on his child as a result of being informed of Jessica and Couey's fate--the thread will have not been useless:)

Nothing wrong with any of this and thanks for not quoting bumper stickers in support of your respected position on this very serious issue.

If he is sentenced to death as the jury has recommended he will never be in gen pop he will go to a solitary cell on the row. Too bad because I agree with you.

That's what this says:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

Personally, I'm for the death penalty. I don't think people should be executed because it's cheaper, but because of what they did.

I'm splittin' hairs, but dpic info is that it costs more to try dp cases than it does to try cases where death is not an option and LWOP is the max sentence. This is probably true. But what you said is that it would be cheaper not to kill him and that is incorrect at this point. The trial is over and he gets his appeals (which have two more bites at the apple than non-dp appeals, so yes they cost more) but chances are they will fry him within eight years and he is only about 50 so he could potentially spend 35 more in prison if he gets life without parole. Cheaper to fry him at this juncture;)

I kind of knew what you meant and where you probably were getting your info from, so take no offense at my response--I just wanted to illucidate the difference.

Bumpppppp.

Mija, you can work for me anytime you want. Come on down to California. If you see some of the crime pics that I've seen, you'd know how much help these guys need! :D

I have many hours logged down in the morgue...:grim:

It is useless because those who are opposed to the DP are, for the most part, "true believers" who will not change their minds no matter what.

Notice MTI's repsonse to my question:

"Assuming, arguendo, that we could design a system that is 100% fail-safe in that it guarantees that people convicted of a capital offense are rightfully convicted, would you still oppose the DP?"

He wouldn't give a straight answer to the question (not that I expected him to). Instead, he went off on some tangent about how our system is not color-blind. I have probably tried more jury trials than most of the lawyers here. (Not bragging, it is just a function of my chosen professional track).

Except for the bizarre instances, like in the OJ trial, where the jury refused to convict OJ (in spite of all the DNA and blood evidecne) because the nearly all-black jury had an ax to grind against the white man; I think that most jurors ar fair enough, and intelligent enough, to guarantee a good result. And then, on top of that, there is the entire appellate process. So even if the jury screws up and even if the prosecutor screws up and even if the trial judge screws up and even if the defnese attorney screws up, there is a whole new layer of scrutiny.

In fact, let me go one step further (as long as I am riding this pony). If there is any racism in modern-day American trials it is black against white and not the other way around. I firmly believe that present-day white jurors tend to be fairier towards black defendants than black jurors are towards white defendants. White carry all that heavy burden of "white guilt" over the perceived sins of their forefathers. So white jurors bend over backwards to be fair and impartial. Black jurors don't give white defendants the same consideration, In fact, many black jurors tend to give a free pass to black defendants. The OJ trial is only one instance.

Just look at the news. While society has roundly condemned the actions of QB Michael Vick, blacks in Atlanta, together with the Atlanta NAACP, have made it a point of bending over backwards to express support for him. They all get on TV and hide behind the "presumption of innocence" argument and spout things like "he (Vick) is innocent until proven guilty." (Incidentally, that statement is incorrect. A defendant is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." He is IS NOT innocent until proven guilty. It is plain stupid to say that a person IS innocent until proven guilty. At trial you are either guilty or innocent of the crime that you are accused of. The trial starts with the presuumption of innocence and not with the "status" of innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to bring out sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--thanks Botnst for poinitng this out. That is a big difference that most people fail to grasp. )

Where were those same NAACP leaders, and other members of the black community, when the Duke lacrosse players were being pilloried by the press in general, and by the black community in specific. But I digress.

I guess that is a roundabout way of saying that the thread is useless because the opponents of the DP have their agenda which has nothing to do with fairness and truth. That's the way it is and that is the way it shall remain.

Perhaps I have been spoiled by California's legal system. But as far as I am concerned, and as far as I have seen, the system here is as color blind as you can get--except when black jurors sit in judgment of people like OJ.

Dee8go, you have mentioned Grisham's book in other occasions. I am going to have to read it. Then I can opine on the merits of his research and the validity of his conclusions. Until then, I remain highly skeptical of anything that comes out of his pen.

OK, I am off the pony now.

Tank, that website is anti-death penalty. I am familiar with its content.

You must take what they say with a grain of salt.

You should also take a look at the pro-DP sites sponsored by the relatives of murder and rape victims.

BTW, not to change the topic, but how is the weather in Columbus in late August? I am going to be flying there on my way to touring the Air Force National Museum in Dayton.

I agree with all of this, but I just can't assume that most people won't change their minds. I have changed mine on some pretty serious issues, a couple of which I won't go into on this forum for fear of getting shunned:eek:

btw, SLCC is honoring Vick this week at their annual dinner. Hillary and Obama are speaking at the event as well.

we would never shunn you.

JD, you are a lawyer and more importantly, you try to keep an open mind. So do I. Heck, I've found myself agreeing with that old hippie Carl on some important issues. :eek: (And I mean "old hippie" in the nicest possible way).

But not everyone is like that. Chris (Zeus) and I have "talked" abou tthis.

Oh well...