Another Question for Opponents of Capital Punishment
[Guest post by DRJ]
A recent Austin American-Statesman report on the sentencing hearing of Milton Dwayne Gobert reminded me of Jack Dunphy’s recent post “A Question for Opponents of Capital Punishment.” As noted in this February post, Gobert was on trial for capital murder in an Austin, Texas, courtroom:
“Gobert is accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend’s friend, 30-year-old Mel Cotton, to death while attempting to rob and kidnap her.
Cotton’s son, who was 5 years old at the time, witnessed his mother’s murder. He was also stabbed during the attack. The boy survived, and now at 11 years old, is expected to testify sometime later this week.”
During his trial, Gobert complained about uncomfortable leg restraints immediately after testimony about his victims’ horrific injuries — she was stabbed 107 times and her son was left for dead with a chest wound. The American-Statesman article suggests why Gobert was in restraints:
“[T]he victim’s sister took the witness stand and called Cotton, a Velocity Credit Union teller and single mother, “an angel.”
“That (expletive) wasn’t no angel, that was a (expletive),” Gobert, 37, screamed from the defense table, cutting off Ethel McPherson midsentence.
Gobert, who claimed that the killing was in self-defense, stood and turned to Cotton’s family, seated in the front row on the opposite side of the courtroom, and continued to scream profanities. He yelled again when state District Judge Bob Perkins told him to be quiet. Then on Perkins’ orders, sheriff’s deputies escorted Gobert from the courtroom while he yelled even more profanity.
The outburst was foreshadowed earlier in the day when Gobert — testifying against his lawyers’ advice — told jurors, “When I explode, I explode.” During his testimony, Gobert said his mother did not treat him well and that he did not love her.”
During the sentencing phase, the prosecution presented testimony that Gobert had an escape plan that included killing a corrections officer. He wanted to emulate Brian Nichols, a criminal defendant who stole an officer’s gun and killed several people in an Atlanta courthouse in 2005. Gobert also had a history of violent outbursts.
However, in an argument similar to views expressed by commenters in the discussion at Jack Dunphy’s post, Gobert and his attorney urged jurors not to limit Gobert’s chance for redemption by imposing a death sentence:
“Gobert also told jurors that if they sentenced him to life in prison instead of death, he would share his experiences with “youngsters coming through, kind of like giving back.”
“I have a redemptive will,” Gobert said. “I can be changed.”
***
During closing arguments, defense lawyer Kent Anschutz called Gobert “a prosecutor’s dream case” and said it would be “ridiculous to come in here and try to justify or defend the nature of Mel Cotton’s death.”But Anschutz, like his co-counsel Martinez did later, urged the jury to decide that life in prison would be punishment enough.
“When it comes to a life being taken, let it be on God’s time,” Martinez said.”
The Austin jury sentenced Gobert to death, which means they decided Gobert posed a danger to others. In effect, the jury decided Gobert should be killed to protect others — a principle related to self-defense that allows deadly force to protect the lives of third parties.
Some people object to all state-sanctioned killing, including acts by the military, but I suspect most people object to the death penalty because they don’t view capital punishment as a reasonable or acceptable method to protect third parties. However, they might fully support the use of deadly force to protect a hostage threatened with imminent death.
I understand these views and I admire people who are willing to give others a second or third chance, but where do you draw the line? Does the threat to others have to be immediate, e.g., someone is holding a gun to a hostage’s head, or is it enough that there is evidence someone like Gobert would kill the moment he gets the chance? And if you find the last example persuasive, why wasn’t it equally persuasive regarding the Compton gang member who killed a fellow inmate in prison as set forth in Jack Dunphy’s post?
Finally, is there a limit to the time society must give an individual for redemption, or is that even society’s job?
— DRJ
Actually, most principled opponents that I know object because of the risk of erroneously killing the innocent.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 3/12/2010 @ 10:23 pmGood point. I should have said “some” or “more” people instead of “most people.”
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/12/2010 @ 10:25 pmI don’t mind people being opposed to capital punishment, just as long as they don’t delude themselves into believing their stance is born of compassion and humaneness. IOW, if anti-death-penalty proponents at least are honest enough to admit they’re, in actuality, heartless, ruthless and diabolical human beings — shedding tears over vicious murderers and, in turn, making it easier for such felons to kill others in the future — I’ll give them their dues.
Mark (411533) — 3/12/2010 @ 10:44 pmHe still has a chance at redemption. He can always change so much that the governor commutes his sentence, for example. Although, in Texas, he’d better be quick about it.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:02 pm#2
I think answering the miscarriage issue is where the serious debate is. The reality is the state kills people for multiple reasons, and self-protective punishment is hard to distinguish as you note from life-preserving killings.
The serious problem is that the spate of DNA exonerations have cast a lot of doubt on the accuracy of the death penalty process. At some point there needs to be a rewriting of the capital punishment laws that either requires certain core kinds of evidence and/or bars application of the sentences where the evidence is solely of the kinds that we know are inherently inaccurate, such as eyewitness identification by strangers under stress or confessions “over-heard” by compensated informants.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:02 pmI always liked Ambrose Bierce’s rejoinder to those who objected to his enthusiasm for capital punishment—that he would be delighted to oppose capital punishment as soon as the criminals ceased to use it themselves. IOW, when the bad guys quit killing people, he’d no longer want to see them killed.
As for this scumbag—get rid of him. Every day he’s alive is an affront to his victims.
Technomad (e2c0f2) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:09 pmOn the other hand, I have seen people who’ve gone through utterly profound change. If you live long enough you will run across examples that will amaze you.
But the way to bet is the other way. I don’t spend a lot of time in courtrooms like some folks here do, but I suspect that judges and juries are more impressed by people who’ve demonstrated a changed attitude BEFORE they get to the trial, than those that behave like this guy did.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:11 pm“On the other hand, I have seen people who’ve gone through utterly profound change.”
Kevin – I’ve seen similar examples and completely trust the people.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:21 pmKevin Murphy,
It’s true that people can change. The day after Gobert was sentenced to death, this Austin DUI defendant plead guilty to causing a crash that killed 4, and his plea and words suggest remorse:
It took quite a bit of time and several bad consequences for him to realize he needed to change:
I’m not suggesting this is or should be a capital offense. The point of this is people can change, and also that other people can die in the meantime.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:43 pm“In effect, the jury decided Gobert should be killed to protect others — a principle related to self-defense that allows deadly force to protect the lives of third parties.”
Wrong. What is this some whacked out Phil Dick book where we punish people before they commit a crime? No. The death penalty is a PENALTY not a preemptive measure.
CT Lostaglia (b64b49) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:45 pmPunishment is justified by a guilty verdict for a death penalty offense. The type of punishment — life in prison or death — is based on the underlying crime and the danger or propensity to reoffend.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/12/2010 @ 11:50 pmHow high does the body count have to be before the death penalty is the correct punishment? Why put a correctional officer(s)in harms way for the next 30-40 years?
Gary Ridgeway must be smiling today instead of dirt surfing! How is that “justice?”
People's Front of Judea (44bf37) — 3/13/2010 @ 1:17 amSorry, I have to take the mad dog view. eliminate this animal before he bites again.
Where I do differ is in the objection to his courtroom behavior.
A horses A** won’t change. deal with it. that’s no reason to convict him of murder. The 107 stab wounds are more than enough to do the job.
Too much emphasis on the glaze and not enough on the roast.
MaaddMaaxx (b91eb0) — 3/13/2010 @ 1:35 amOur esteemed guest hostess wrote:
If deadly force is acceptable for self-defense, which I believe it to be, capital punishment still falls outside of self-defense because the prisoner is, if he can be executed against his will, helpless by definition. At the point where you have him in perpetual custody, he is no longer a threat to society unless the state fouls up. The notion that the state must resort to a more extreme form of punishment for self-defense because the state might make a mistake in keeping him in custody is saying that we must execute one man for another man’s error.
There are situations where the use of deadly force is warranted by imminent danger to others, and there are situations in which the use of deadly force is warranted to prevent someone from being a lethal menace in the future. But once you have someone in captivity, in a situation in which his capacity to be a lethal menace has been removed, you lose the justification of self- and societal defense.
The Catholic Dana (474dfc) — 3/13/2010 @ 4:41 amDana
I disagree totally with your premise, you are in essence – and correct me if I’m wrong – saying there is no cause and effect – that the fact someone has killed more than once has no effect on their future actions. Also the helpless by definition didnt live up to any standard – as long as this convict is breathing he’s not helpless.
EricPWJohnson (56d498) — 3/13/2010 @ 4:55 amFact is some people just beg to be executed. They go through life like a bowling ball. But capital punishment is still wrong. Not because of the perp not deserving it but because a dishonest prosecutor might as some have done in the past convict an innocent man for political gain. Tell me it hasn’t happened.
glenn (757adc) — 3/13/2010 @ 5:17 amIn effect, the jury decided Gobert should be killed to protect others — a principle related to self-defense that allows deadly force to protect the lives of third parties.
That does not tell the whole story.
First the jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder. Then, it found beyond a reasonable doubt that there were one or more aggravating circumstances — I suspect, here, that the murder was exceptionally brutal and heinous and possibly home invasion. In a third stage, it had to decide, again beyond a reasonable doubt, whether despite the foregoing, it would be wrong to apply the death penalty because despite the crime and its nature there was something about this defendant that made it worth keeping him alive. I don’t think the defense had much to work with there.
nk (db4a41) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:39 amEric – Have Breitbart or O’Keefe been indicted yet?
Glenn – with that standard, why not scrap life in prison as well, as a dishonest prosecutor could pursue that for political gain as well.
JD (7642d2) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:39 amOops, bad phrasing. In the third stage the burden is still on the state and the jury had to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty should be applied because there were not enough mitigating factors to keep the defendant alive.
nk (db4a41) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:42 amJD
I forgot we all need comment approval from JD before anyone states an opinion, you see JD has appointed himself the arbitator of all that goes on in the judicial world – facts like they wouldnt have gone to a maginstrate (twice or was it three times now JD) if a crime wasnt, in the opinion of one of the top criminal prosecution teams in the USA, prosecutable – they dont have the manpower nor the budget to go down roads that lead nowhere
JD – I apologize again for my tardiness in seeking your approval – whats your email again so I can seek pre-approval process from you?
We all want to tidy up the comment section on a political blog
EricPWJohnson (a19076) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:58 amMr Johnson wrote:
That the defendant killed before indicates that he can kill again, certainly enough. But by having him incarcerated, under the complete physical control of the state, means that he is helpless to kill again, unless the state loses control of him. Such can happen, but that the state may err in its handling of a prisoner does not mean that the prisoner constitutes such an immediate danger that executing him is an act of self- or societal defense.
The Catholic Dana (474dfc) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:07 amIn this particular case, I think the way Utah executed Gary Gilmore is appropriate, and if any DP opponents have the courage of their convictions, please stand in front of the prisoner.
PCD (7bf19f) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:21 amI think this case qualifies as more than “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the murder he is accused of, as Cyrus pointed out.
The fellow, against his lawyer’s advice, testified that “when I explode, I explode”, which I translate as: “I can’t help it when I get angry, which I do a lot, and you can’t hold me responsible for it”. This conflicts with his claim to have a “redemptive will”. I believe the extemporaneous comments.
In addition he has planned to make an escape even though killing others may be necessary.
I imagine he will have at least a year to reconsider his ways, and even demonstrate that he deserves a commuted sentence.
The criminal is not completely “helpless by definition”. As noted, prisoners can take action and injure, even kill others. It is the rare person who is shackled hands and feet with chains being held “4 corners” style by guards out of his reach and at least one more following with a Tazer set on high. Think a rabid mastiff or Hannibal Lechter.
My son the police officer had to put a prisoner up against the wall in the station when he saw him go for the pistol of another office walking by. A prisoner in stocks may be helpless, but we don’t do that anymore.
I think the main determinant of the danger a prisoner represents is the level of desperateness and ferocity they possess. Anyone who tells me “when I explode, I explode”, I believe them, and I’ve known a few (but their fuses have been much longer and went off when they were threatened). That is what makes a terrorist dangerous. Anyone willing to die as they commit their crime is much harder to stop than the average person who wants to get away and live.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:23 amTo the extent, if any, to which an opportunity for redemption matters in the calculus: Motivation and continuing encouragement for redemption is best provided by a clear deadline, which is to say, a reasonably proximate execution date. About three years is the realistic minimum between conviction and needle (unless the convicted defendant waives his appeals and accepts immediate imposition of sentence). If that’s not ample, it could only be because of extreme irredeemability on the convicted defendant’s part.
In my view, redemption is a benefit if it occurs, but not a main goal of capital punishment and unnecessary for its justification. Ditto for deterrence. I’m a straightforward retributivist. Certain crimes, by their nature, so seriously rip the fabric of our social compact, the proverbial “peace and dignity of the people,” that no lesser punishment can be justified. That’s enough for me.
Beldar (a0d43a) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:30 am21
I respect your opinion – the moving goalpost of complete physical control – is something that is widely debated – as long as he’s awake – he’s not under anyone’s control
EricPWJohnson (a19076) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:49 amI agree with Beldar.
And the jury certainly considered more than the potential dangerousness of the defendant. It may have been the prosecution’s main argument, but I do not see how the state would also not have argued the brutality of the crime, the trivial motive, and the attack on the five-year old. Meantime, the defense would have thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, in mitigation.
nk (db4a41) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:50 amDana
I apologise I forgot that we BOTH need to get JD’s permission to post anything
We’re not allowed to express opinions without his approval
I apologize if anything I sad may disagree with anyone anywhere – I didnt get JD’s approval 🙂
🙂
EricPWJohnson (a19076) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:51 amI don’t oppose the death penalty because I want to redeem the people that have been sentenced to die. I oppose it because we *know* it kills people for crimes they didn’t commit. We can debate how many innocent people are executed for crimes they didn’t commit but it’s hard to argue that it has happened and will happen again.
So, i oppose a law enforcement policy that has been shown to have little to no impact on reducing crime, costs more money than the alternative (life in prison) and will kill innocent people.
I won’t argue that the two people shown in the previous examples are scum, and I won’t shed a tear for either. But my question for the death penalty proponents is “How many innocent people do you feel it’s acceptable for the state to execute? What’s the number of people a year you’re willing to kill in error before you agree that a costly, and mostly inefficient punishment should be scrapped?”
With life in prison there is some opportunity to correct a mistaken conviction.
Time123 (b7cad2) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:56 amsorry, should be “hard to argue that it has not happened or that it won’t happen again”
Time123 (b7cad2) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:58 amTime123
Not sure if you read all of the posts from the beginning. It was duly noted that execution of the wrong person is a/the leading reason to oppose the death penalty, and many of us who feel the death penalty should be in play also think there needs to be a higher level of certainty to impose the death penalty than “a reasonable doubt” required for conviction of the crime.
I believe we have had entire threads on what that would look like that have brought up problems as well as strong points of tha approach (but I don’t remember if a “bottom line consensus” was reached).
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 8:37 amWell said, PCD. I have family members who knew the young motel manager who was among Gilmore’s victims and they say that one couldn’t meet a more gentle, friendly man than Bennie Bushnell.
Mad dogs like Gilmore deserve to be put down and out of their misery… for what they’ve been convicted of and before they can wreak havoc on others.
GeneralMalaise (d63092) — 3/13/2010 @ 8:53 amI find it ironic that people who are against capital punishment are usually the same people who support abortion. So, they want the scum to live, but, don’t have any problem executing the innocent. I am not sure I understand that logic.
Capital punishment does reduce recidivism.
Jim (582155) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:06 amTime123 asked and argued (#28 — 3/13/2010 @ 7:56 am):
These are not hard questions. It’s not “acceptable” for the state to execute anyone who’s innocent. That’s why we have due process, the presumption of innocence, the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof, etc., for all criminal defendants accused of serious crimes, and it’s why we are particularly serious about those things in capital cases, even though it does indeed cost society more to do that. That’s why we don’t just take people out back o’ the jail and hang them to begin with. But yes, our endeavors to only execute the guilty and truly deserving are nevertheless performed by humans, and yes, they are in all things subject to the potential of error, despite our best precautions. So? If we’ve indeed taken our best precautions, then we’ve done all that can be done to avoid error. That we’ll never be perfectly successful is no reason to subvert the operation of justice in all cases in which capital punishment is deserved.
As for opportunity to correct mistakes being preserved with life in prison: It’s not unreasonable to insist on closure; indeed, refusing closure denies justice to victims. Direct and collateral appeals are effectively guaranteed in all capital cases, and several years, at a minimum, will be available for post-conviction correction of mistakes. So why aren’t two or three years enough for that? And wouldn’t you agree that interval represents a reasonable balancing of the interests of society in preventing errors, on the one hand, and the interest of society in not unduly delaying deserved punishment, on the other? Or do you insist that the only acceptable answer to “How long is enough?” is “As long as the defendant otherwise can draw another breath?”
Beldar (a0d43a) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:16 amMd, I didn’t read all the comments, but the more certainty we add the more cost we add. Its already expensive, so what do I get for the cost?
time123 (d9176e) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:19 amtime123
I asked because I know I don’t take/have the time to read everything also, and wanted to point out that others shared your concern.
I believe Beldar thinks to focus on what we currently do well and keep doing it as best we can. Cyrus Sinai (#3) believes we should amend the process to narrow what can be used for a death penalty, perhaps not requiring any additional cost at all, maybe making things cheaper in giving some life and avoiding the cost of review of the case.
I don’t know if anyone has looked at the cases where innocence has later been proven to look for common factors in how the wrong verdict was obtained. Maybe there would be a few things that could be changed to greatly improve the situation.
I’m sure there are a fraction of death penalty cases where no one sane would doubt the evidence and the brutality of the crimes justify it.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:32 am@Time123,
As I’ve said before.
That’s 2,100 less murders a year! Even if a person is put in prison for life, they can be involved in the murder. There have been instances of gang members running their gang from prison. I believe that in most states the death penalty isn’t just given without special circumstances. It’s not given just because a person murdered another human being. There have to be special circumstances like more than one person, torture, killing a police officer, particular brutality…
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:54 amDid anything in my prior comment suggest that Eric, Dana, or anyone else needs my permission or approval to post a comment? I intended to ask a question to one, and comment towards another. Sorry for the off-topic, but Eric appears to be off his meds again.
JD (3e341e) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:57 amDRJ @9 – There is a difference between expressing remorse and changing. Your example illustrates that well. Kevin and I were talking about demonstrating actual change.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:02 amI can only imagine that the Jury, during the sentencing phase, had but one question for the judge: “If we decide on the death penalty, do we get to kill him ourselves?”
The man’s obvious scum – even sociopaths have the decency to lie and act like they are sorry. Yelling profanity at the victim’s family just assures proves to me that this is one guy that definitely needs killing.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:04 amJD @18 – I believe you asked the wrong question. It should have been:
Eric – Have Breitbart or that little racist turd O’Keefe been indicted yet?
FTFY
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:05 amDaley
sarcasm is lost on you guys – hilarious
so serious –
actually no one cares about James or Andrew now except the Feds
– thats why the screaming is getting louder
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:41 amJD,
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:43 amFor what it’s worth I have found you a reasonable and rational commenter who’s opinions are worthy of respect.
JD
Oh you’ve made it quite clear that you are the arbitrator of all things on this blog
its a common annoying trait someone always appoints themselves the arbitrator
And i agree – I and everyone should get your permission to post our opinions
ita the JD way 🙂
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:53 amoff my meds – hilarious!
🙂
I do apologize I do need prior comment approval 🙂
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:56 am…and we are the ones who are sarcasm challenged?
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:03 amMachinist
please keep on commentating – JD needs the attention 🙂
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:05 ammd – the 1st two hundred times it was sarcasm – JD has this association need to win an argument that has been already lost
🙂
but keep on JD needs the attention the poor guy =
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:08 amI apologize, folks. I should have ignored it.
JD (842c05) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:24 amEricPWJohnson ,
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:34 amSince you have addressed me I will say it saddens me to see you embarrass yourself this way. Would I be impertinent to ask you to reconsider? If so I apologize and will leave it.
No no JD you’ve been bringing it up for weeks – why dont you take the time and beclown yourself further – after all you started it why dont you end it here
come on dont be shy – tell us what you think 🙂
hey I was voicing an opinion and you felt the need for commenting and not addressing this so why dont you now? – (hey everyone knows – I understand your nervousness its completely normal 🙂 )
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:45 amI agree with the Catholic Dana’s comment #14 – it reconciles opposition to the death penalty with support for/belief in the right of self-defense and the concept of just war.
Beyond that, I stand by what I said in the other thread. I don’t think the example in this thread is significantly different from the example in the other.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:46 amEricPW – You have made it quite clear numerous times that you have nothing against that little racist turd, James O’Keefe.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:48 amMachinist – no you addressed me – are you being a JD enabler as well – JD needs our help – we have to get him over the edge of assuming that people may have other opinions and thats okay – that other opinions cant really do much harm 🙂
again for those who seem to misread this this is sarcasm….
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:48 am1.Jody
I’d be the last person you’d want to say is defensive – Okeefe may go to jail for up to 10 years for what he did in New Orleans and hey – I’m more than okay with that
He’s a little racist turd who used child sex slavery as a topic to gain personal wealth and notoriety – not my favorite person – I have nothing against him but his conduct – he has to atone for that as we all do
Doesnt change what he uncovered – even someone has morally bankrupt and jaded as him must have been gobsmacked at the response he got from ACORN.
Doctored, edited or not – those tapes are some of the most disturbing footage ever in American Political History
Crimes were committed, horrible crimes, and they are being covered up for political reasons – this went beyond the political realm when the first little girl was offered up for a short lifetime of hell on earth that most of us cannot comprehend
Willingly by ACORN.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 2/24/2010 @ 9:33 pm
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:51 amEricPWJohnson,
For what it’s worth, JD went out of his way to defend my ability to have a different opinion than the majority in the other death penalty thread. All he’s done here is ask you a question regarding what I assume to be some unsettled debate between the two of you.
And they haven’t been indicted yet, by the way. In case you weren’t sure.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:55 amStashiu3, I know you’re out there…
I make a motion that we call for a vote, who wants JD banned vs EricPWJohnson?
This was a very thoughtful thread until EPWJ showed up.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:55 amdaley
lets get JD over this need to be the arbitrator and you as well – sometimes on political blogs people post opinions – 🙂
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 11:58 amIts okay – I’m sure Maselli went to the magistrate to get extra time to make sure that O’Keefe was fully exonerating for bothering her lifelong classmate and childhood friend 🙂
Levitcus
Oh I’m sure JD can explain himself 🙂
MD in Philly – I apologise – I didnt realize that I now officially need JD’s approval to post on this blog – thanks for confirming 🙂
MD in Philly maybe you could ask JD why he keeps off topicing me when I comment? 🙂
Personally I find it amusing 🙂
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:02 pmI think in looking at the possibility of an innocent man being executed we should never dismiss it lightly. The State bears a heavy burden of responsibility to prove quilt when depriving a citizen of life. On the other hand when saying it is better to free many guilty parties rather than execute one innocent man one must consider the future victims of those guilty parties in the equation. I would not mind seeing a higher standard of proof required before imposing the death penalty but I do think it is a needed option, if only to protect the people we charge with guarding these criminals while they are imprisoned. Imagine a guard dealing with a lifer who spends all his day pumping himself up and learning new ways to maim and kill who has nothing to lose.
I think it a mistake to eliminate the death penalty because we are not perfect. Innocent people are shot by mistake but should we outlaw self defense because of it? Innocent people are killed in war but should we abandon or military? Police shoot people by mistake but should we disband police? I think we have to look at the other side, while making strong efforts to improve our standards of determining quilt and avoiding mistakes.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:04 pmYikes. Too many smiley faces. Not to silence/oppress you or anything.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:04 pmGoing to bed – good night everyone!
Sorry for the hijack – I will get proper posting material approval in the future 🙂
EricPWJohnson (a4b9fa) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:05 pm#53 “Machinist – no you addressed me “…
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 3/13/2010 @ 11:48 am
This is wrong. I specifically addressed my comment to JD. I said nothing to you.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:07 pmI don’t ban or recommend banning as a personal policy. I’ve been given the green light to use my own judgment, but haven’t done so even once.
EPWJ had a “source” that led him to practically guarantee O’Keefe (and probably Breitbart as well) would be indicted. When people disagreed, he said some exceptionally hateful things about O’Keefe that seem based entirely on what turned out to be lies. JD’s reminder to either own those previous comments or admit he was wrong, instead led EPWJ to attack JD.
EPWJ, you’re coming off as an asshole here. How exactly does JD keep you from saying (or ignoring) whatever you like? The same goes for everyone else. They’re free to say what they like (within the blog policy of course) or ignore you as they wish. I think you should either own your comments or just ignore being called on it. Attacking JD this way is childish and transparent. Either argue your position or not. It’s your credibility, spend it how you will.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:28 pmThanks, Stashiu3. We can count on you when sanity needs to be restored.
As you can imagine, I never thought the vote would have been in doubt. Whatever the origin of the dispute was (and thank you for explaining it), I think it was clear who was the irritant.
Back to the point I made at #35 before the thread was hijacked into the ditch…
I would look at each case where someone sentenced to the death penalty was later proven innocent, and see if there are any strong associations in the circumstances of the crime, the evidence, how the case was handled by those involved, or anything else that could be used to decrease false convictions in the future.
For example, if it was found that most of those wrongly convicted were defended by someone with less than 3 years experience (often a public defender or someone working pro bono), something might need to be done to increase the expertise of the defense where capital punishment was a possibility.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 12:49 pmIf the prosecutor sees a vestige of humanity in the defendant, he will not seek the death penalty. Because the jury will see the same thing and they will vote against it. It’s not an invariable rule but it is more likely than not.
People on death row are pretty horrible people aside from the crime that sent them there.
nk (db4a41) — 3/13/2010 @ 1:08 pmAnd it is the public defenders and the lawyers who work pro bono who get the best results in death penalty cases. Experience and dedication and not billable hours.
nk (db4a41) — 3/13/2010 @ 1:16 pmTanny O’Haley wrote:
If that’s true, we should expect to see the lowest murder rates in Texas, Virginia and Florida, where capital punishment is actually carried out with the greatest frequency, right? Yet in 2008, Florida had the 12th highest murder rate, Texas was number 20, and Virginia was 23rd.
The worst state with no death penalty was Michigan, at number 21, and of the fifteen states with the lowest murder rates, nine do not have capital punishment. For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3; only one non-DP state (Michigan at 5.4) had a higher murder rate than the average for states with capital punishment, and New York and New Jersey, the second and third worst non-DP states, had murder rates of 4.3, almost a full point lower than the average for states with capital punishment.
Speculating how many murders didn’t occur is just that: speculation. Murders which did occur can be counted and analyzed, and right now there is really no indication that having — and employing — capital punishment results in a lower murder rate.
The statistics-minded Dana (474dfc) — 3/13/2010 @ 1:52 pmComment by The Catholic Dana — 3/13/2010 @ 4:41 am
Following up on your thoughts, if the State has “this person” in custody, and he recommits, or they let him go and he recommits, should the relevant State Officers be held for punishment as severe as “this person” would receive?
Someone has to be held accountable for “this person’s” crimes that he would not be commiting absent some screw-up by the system.
A lot of us, and I place myself in this grouping, are sick and tired of the “system” being blamed for the failures of individuals; for, if the system is to blame, nobody is to blame.
Man has “free will” and is, and should be, held accountable for his actions on this Earth. What happens after we depart this Earth is something else, but as the old saying goes:
Render onto Caesar…and Render onto God…
Caesar wants his proverbial pound-of-flesh…
Separation of Church and State, you know.
Now, I’ll go back and catch up, but I thought it important to make this point.
AD - RtR/OS! (32a2d3) — 3/13/2010 @ 2:05 pmSigh. That’s an old theory in criminology, Dana. If you want to decrease crime, increase the probability that 1) it will be prevented, 2) the criminal will be caught, or 3) the crime will be punished harshly. 1 and 2 are difficult and expensive. 3 just requires a legislative act. Whether it works or not …?
nk (db4a41) — 3/13/2010 @ 2:07 pm“…a dishonest prosecutor might as some have done in the past convict an innocent man for political gain…”
If that can be proven in a Court-of-Law, that prosecutor should should receive the same penalty that was adjudicated against the innocent person, nothing more – nothing less!
AD - RtR/OS! (32a2d3) — 3/13/2010 @ 2:09 pmThe serious problem is that the spate of DNA exonerations have cast a lot of doubt on the accuracy of the death penalty process.
I don’t think that argument makes a lot of sense. The truth is, the spate of DNA exonerations (frequently in rape cases where the death penalty does not apply) casts doubt on the criminal justice system, period. And, I suppose, especially on the way rape cases are handled.
Implicit in the call to replace the death penalty with prison is the belief that the courts and juries cannot be trusted to get the right answer. if that’s true, how can we trust them with the power to imprison or fine people?
I’d like to make the death penalty mandatory in many cases. Perhaps the understanding that someones life hangs on their decision will encourage people in “the system” to take their jobs a little more seriously. As it stands, there’s an attitude of “Well, lets just send him to jail to be on the safe side. If he can later prove that he was innocent, fine.” It’s people in the jury who are dropping the ball here.
In theory you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, people are frequently convicted on very flimsy evidence. That is the problem here. Fix it and you don’t have to worry about the death penalty one way or another. Don’t fix it and it undermines all forms of punishment.
Subotai (db831c) — 3/13/2010 @ 2:16 pmIt was asked earlier if O’Keefe had been indicted yet, and the answer was NO!
Doesn’t the USA have to bring an indictment within 30-days of arraignment?
O’Keefe was arrested on 1/26, hasn’t he been charged and arraigned?
What happened to the 30-day window?
As to the DP, and the application of the Innocent Project (sic) to this debate:
Might we not be better off requiring DNA proof of the crime in DP cases, and discounting eye-witness testimony since, in many cases, it is very unreliable?
And, if the DNA people lie, or manufacture evidence, causing an innocent person to be executed, execute them.
It seems, as with so much of government, there is nobody but us prolls who have skin in-the-game, and that is why we get such crappy service from OUR government.
AD - RtR/OS! (32a2d3) — 3/13/2010 @ 2:27 pmthey wouldnt have gone to a maginstrate (twice or was it three times now JD) if a crime wasnt, in the opinion of one of the top criminal prosecution teams in the USA, prosecutable – they dont have the manpower nor the budget to go down roads that lead nowhere
Yeah? How is Tom DeLay doing in jail?
Prosecutors go down roads that lead nowhere (except to politically desirable results) with disturbing frequency.
Subotai (db831c) — 3/13/2010 @ 2:27 pmStashiu
Sorry just woke up and saw your totally unfounded comment
1st – I’m not the only conservative in the blogesphere that doesnt eactly think that James O’Keefe conducted himself properly – using child sex slavery as a hook has alot of people squirming and wincing at the total innapropriateness of the whole thing, in fact its morally bankrupt on any level –
In fact on townhall someone today basically said the same thing
2nd – read – really read – his writings at rutgers – with a virtual playground of graft and corruption literally at his feet – O’keefe uncomfortably focused his efforts on blacks, black educators, black student groups et al – He also did some great great work there, but then again – it was shooting fish in a barrel.
Then he’s seen at a conference, a conference where hia associate is arrested for assault, then he’s fired for making highly incendiary comments to abortion clinics about killing black bables – even though the overwhelming number of abortions are white and hispanic? Pointing this out isnt hateful – just some people dont want to hear it
Then you make the claim I’m saying hateful things – sure no I could care less if O’Keefe goes to jail – I am that way about all criminals – Also making his stunt into some form of political protest – he clearly broke the law and disrupted the intelligence gathering services of the United States of America – when the US Marshalls have to bolt out of their office to handle someone – other procedures are done with other agencies – I also defended him and researched and posted here reasons that Maselli-Mann should have to step down, when you are serving on a board that runs a multi-million dollar with Landrieus sister and you went to school and graduated with Landrieu and her Landrieu’s father and Masellis father were close friends and associates going back decades and less than a year ago Landrieu’s father was a pall bearer at her dads funeral – I dont know – Letten seemed to step down for lessor reasons.
But, dont associate that with hateful speech – O’Keefe is doing all this for money, he’s not out there for truth and justice – he’s all into self promotion for pay.
Calling me an asshole isnt going to change any of this. JD keeps on keeping on in hopes that this will change all of these facts
Coming off as an asshole on a blog – yeah thats never ever happened here before… 🙂
EricPWJohnson (bac90d) — 3/13/2010 @ 5:56 pmI’m not the only conservative in the blogesphere that …
Eric, I can’t think of anyone here who believes you are a conservative.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:03 pmand not least because you post utter bull like this: ” … he clearly broke the law and disrupted the intelligence gathering services of the United States of America …”
Age it a bit and I’ll buy that for my rose bushes.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:04 pmEricPW – Can you provide any links to little racist turds writings at Rutgers, please?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:06 pmAD
A Federal Magistrate granted another extension – I sent the link to Patterico – The reporter from the times picayune speculates wildly that this was granted so that felony charges can be dropped etc
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/mary_landrieu_phone_tampering.html
EricPWJohnson (bac90d) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:07 pmdaley, allready did even posted excerpts
EricPWJohnson (bac90d) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:10 pmI guess that ham sandwich is not holding still enough, eh Eric?
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:11 pmWhatever. It is what it is. Don’t agree with my perspective? Fine, you made your case. People can decide for themselves who has a more accurate representation of what happened.
The fact is, you were reminded about your prediction after being so adamant indictments were coming. Something about 10:1 odds? Rather than admit you were wrong, you attack the messenger in a childish way by claiming that he set himself up as the “arbitator of all that goes on in the judicial world”, when he did no such thing. Now, you double-down with a statement of fact that “he clearly broke the law and disrupted the intelligence gathering services of the United States of America” that you can’t back up because it’s a complete fabrication.
So, my comment is totally unfounded? Again, and probably every response to you from this point on… whatever. Carry on.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:16 pmLook
I’m not going to respond anymore this was a thread on a different subject
EricPWJohnson (bac90d) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:20 pmROFL, right, Eric.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:24 pmJD — looks like someone sucked all the smiley faces out of the internet, could you lend me a few?
You really got in his head — he went nuts:
All by EricPWJohnson, from 7:51 am to 12:05 pm and because you asked a single question; he spent half a day on this, versus your two (quite frankly, innocuous) comments.
On the bright side: at least your guy cared enough to give you smiley faces. All I ever get are a few caustic insults and no smileys. No luv, I guess.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:31 pmIt is refreshing to note that there is a conservative in the blogosphere concerned about the intelligence gathering services of the United States of America.
AD - RtR/OS! (8e34ef) — 3/13/2010 @ 6:59 pmIt is unfortunate that you, Eric, aren’t he.
“daley, allready did even posted excerpts”
EricPW – Sorry, I thought you had something persuasive this time since you said you were studying up on him, especially since you have the facts wrong on the Planned Parenthood calls and his friend’s arrest, but carry on.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:02 pmAll those alphabet agencies must be really pissed off at O’Keefe. Without EricPW we would never have known.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:05 pmThis is just nonsense.
No one is under the total physical control of the state that Catholic Dana imagines to be true. It just isn’t possible.
If it were possible, then prison wouldn’t be a violent place.
But prison is a violent place. I suppose the best illustration of the delusional nature of Catholic Dana’s rant is the fact that this discussion was started with the tale of a Compton gang member killing while in prison.
That should lead the rational among us to avoid talking about how a person who is incarcerated is “helpless” to kill again.
HELLO!
If that were the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If the death penalty prohibitionists are going to start off by spouting completely delusional lunacy, then they are merely demonstrating they don’t have a valid point of view. They are light years from developing a point of view that should be in any sense respected.
Let’s at least start off from a perspective in some way related to reality. None of what the Catholic Dana said has anything at all to do with reality.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:28 pmFor people like Gobert, forgiveness is up to God. The state of Texas should expedite the meeting.
Spartan79 (1544c4) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:38 pm66. And it is the public defenders and the lawyers who work pro bono who get the best results in death penalty cases. Experience and dedication and not billable hours.
Comment by nk
Let me clarify what I intended, as I wanted my emphasis to be on the “less than 3 years of experience” part. I assume many public defenders are very good and at what they do and are committed to it, and many doing pro bono are good at what they do and are lending their talents in a way they feel is worthy.
There are many good doctors working in settings that are not the best of conditions, with below market pay, who do it for “all the right reasons”, then there are those who work in poor conditions because they couldn’t get “anything better”.
I’m assuming lawyers are the same way, and that while some public defenders are experienced and committed, there are also some who may not be able to get a more “prestigious” position, or are just starting their careers.
So, while I did a poor job describing what I intended I think you understand the point. Anyway, if there are factors that increase the likelihood of convicting the innocent, find them and correct them.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/13/2010 @ 7:57 pmI am an opponent of capital punishment, albeit a reluctant opponent. I am an opponent because I think it is wrong to take the life of another human being unless your life or the life of another is under a direct threat of loss of life. Defense of your life or others’ lives around you by which you are responsible or are in a position to protect or defend. A person in custody, therefore, by definition does not qualify — no matter how heinous his crimes.
Do known guilty murderers deserve the death penalty? Sure. Is it right or moral for the government to hand this punishment out — government — we the people — handing this punishment out? I don’t think so.
I realize I’d probably want the death penalty for someone who’d murdered someone close to me, but I also know in my heart of hearts it would be wrong for me to pull that switch, or to give a command for another to pull that switch in my stead.
Curiously? I have no problem with a life sentence of hard labor, or even a lifetime of pain and suffering for the worst of these animals. Death ends their suffering — why not make them suffer while they live and have the best of both worlds of avenging their crimes for the benefit of their victims’ families? They’ll die eventually anyway. Make them suffer greatly while here on this earth, and let a higher power deal with them in the hereafter.
School Marm (a68c64) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:04 pm“… why not make them suffer while they live…”
The Eighth-Amendment?
AD - RtR/OS! (8e34ef) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:42 pm…and, execution is society’s form of self-defense against evil.
AD - RtR/OS! (8e34ef) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:43 pmI have no problem with a life sentence of hard labor, or even a lifetime of pain and suffering for the worst of these animals. Death ends their suffering
We don’t give people “a life sentence of hard labor”, let alone “a lifetime of pain and suffering”. So what you have a problem or no problem with is not very relevant.
Make them suffer greatly while here on this earth
I’d be a lot more impressed with your toughmindedmess if you were not so afraid of the death penalty.
let a higher power deal with them in the hereafter
To repeat a point which many people still fail to get, it is not the role of the criminal justice system to worry about “higher powers” or the “hereafter” one way or another.
Subotai (a6eef6) — 3/14/2010 @ 4:37 pmI could care less if O’Keefe goes to jail – I am that way about all criminals – Also making his stunt into some form of political protest – he clearly broke the law and disrupted the intelligence gathering services of the United States of America
This particular moron is example the problem with the jury system. Hands up everyone who would want Eric on their jury if they were being prosecuted.
Subotai (a6eef6) — 3/14/2010 @ 4:43 pmI’m not the only conservative in the blogesphere that doesnt eactly think that James O’Keefe conducted himself properly –
You’re as much a “conservative” as imdw. In fact you’re more annoying, as you keep insisting on pretending to be something you’re not.
Subotai (a6eef6) — 3/14/2010 @ 4:46 pmSubotai – Just don’t start talking about beaners, that really gets EricPW hot. I denounce myself!
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:16 pm