Another example of why I remain against the death penalty
5,488 Views |
71 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Aggrad08
Hope his family get millions
The jury also convicted Chauvin of three contradictory charges.
You are right.
Death penalty is one of those policies that I really consider myself to be down the middle on. I'll never argue for or against it because I really do find both sides to be logical.
What was his criminal history?Pro Sandy said:
I'm not against the death penalty because I don't think some people deserve it, but because I don't think our justice system is pure enough to not wrongfully convict innocent people.
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:[...]Quote:
Four years after an Arkansas man was put to death for the brutal murder of his neighbor, new evidence that was previously withheld in the case reveals another man may have been responsible for the crime.
Up until the day he was executed by lethal injection in 2017, Ledell Lee had always maintained his innocence in the 1993 bludgeoning death of 26-year-old Debra Reese in a suburb of Little Rock.
Genetic material found on the murder weapon, which was never tested until 27 years after the crime when the Jacksonville City Council voted in January 2020 to release it, now appears to prove that Lee may have been telling the truth.[...]Quote:
At the time, the city of Jacksonville agreed to allow new forensic testing on a bloody wooden Billy club and a bloody T-shirt that were recovered from the victim's bedroom. The items were sent to a nationally accredited lab for testing, along with five fingerprints taken from the crime scene, none of which matched Lee's DNA or fingerprint profile.
The new DNA profile of the unknown suspect has since been entered into an FBI national criminal database, but so far there has been no match to come back to anyone who has been previously convicted or arrested for a violent crime.https://www.ajc.com/news/dna-test-reveals-innocent-man-may-have-been-executed-for-1993-arkansas-murder/OIGSAFH4MVHR7MXKG2VYGXMP2I/Quote:
At a news conference earlier this week, Gov. Asa Hutchinson called the new DNA evidence in the case "inconclusive" and defended signing off on Lee's execution, saying "It's my duty to carry out the law... the fact is that the jury found him guilty based upon the information they had."
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge also issued a statement this week that she was not convinced of Lee's innocence.
"The courts consistently rejected Ledell Lee's frivolous claims because the evidence demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he murdered Debra Reese by beating her to death inside her home with a tire thumper," she said. "I am prayerful that Debra's family has had closure following his lawful execution in 2017."
Serial rapist.The_Fox said:
What was his criminal history?
The system is not perfect, but I firmly believe that capital punishment is necessary in order for society as a whole to function.
If someone has been judged to no longer be fit to contribute to society in a positive way that they must beneficial sentenced to life in prison then it is better they are permanently removed from society in the form of putting them to death.
This is why we have an appeals process and why the standard of conviction is reasonable doubt.
If someone has been judged to no longer be fit to contribute to society in a positive way that they must beneficial sentenced to life in prison then it is better they are permanently removed from society in the form of putting them to death.
This is why we have an appeals process and why the standard of conviction is reasonable doubt.
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I'm ok with it.Illuminaggie said:Serial rapist.The_Fox said:
What was his criminal history?
Such as licensing doctors?Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
No
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
It's better than lynch mobs.
Sure, but there's not much of a pro-lynch mob sentiment these daysAgs4DaWin said:Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
It's better than lynch mobs.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Always have had mixed feelings on this. It's naive to think it has never been incorrectly applied to an innocent person. As far as being a deterrent, I'm not sure criminals are doing a cost-benefit analysis in their minds while murdering someone. However there are people out there sentenced to death who you know are 100% guilty, and I feel absolutely no sympathy for them.
I think the death penalty should be decided by the family of the victims, and in the case of multiple homicides, majority wins.
Why? You said they screw everything up. I guess you only meant some things and I should trust them in verifying your competency?Infection_Ag11 said:
No
Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
It never is otherwise murders would stop.jayelbee said:
Aside from that, I'm not convinced it's a deterrent.
I think Derek Chauvin might disagree with you.Infection_Ag11 said:Sure, but there's not much of a pro-lynch mob sentiment these daysAgs4DaWin said:Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
It's better than lynch mobs.
I have no issue with the death penalty and think it is effective both as a deterrent and more importantly, it is the only sure way to make sure a murderer can never commit another crime. That said I do think the standard for the death penalty should be well beyond the reasonable doubt standard, it should be no doubt as to the deed itself being committed by that person.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Check out "The Innocence Files" on Netflix. Eye opening. A lot of people have sat in prison thanks to bad forensics and terrible prosecutorial misconduct.
The Cameron Willingham case in Texas is what changed my mind on the death penalty. A lot of reasonable doubt there were it not for an arson "expert" testifying based on wives tales and not science. Prosecutors went so far as to argue that his motive was devil worship, citing the heavy metal poster on the wall. Absurd case with bad evidence.
The Cameron Willingham case in Texas is what changed my mind on the death penalty. A lot of reasonable doubt there were it not for an arson "expert" testifying based on wives tales and not science. Prosecutors went so far as to argue that his motive was devil worship, citing the heavy metal poster on the wall. Absurd case with bad evidence.
Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
Who is "the government"? People. Just people like you and me. Nothing gives them special power except our "consent". What is our consent? Who the hell knows! The government is people acting like they represent a greater body of people who want you dead. The question is, how many people want you dead? How many people will protest your death? That is why BLM is succeeding and why the " government" is fearful of "white supremacists". Because if everyday citizens refute their right to act, we take away their power.
First of all, PLEASE don't jump to irrational conclusions here. I'm not saying what is reported is irrelevent or not important, but I'm not sure it 100 percent proves someone convicted of a crime is innocent. I've left hand towels at the gym before, for example. Once, I accidentally scratched myself on something and the towel got a little blood on it. While I didn't leave THAT towel there, I've left others. Suppose something like this happened and someone came by and picked up my towel, either by mistake or they just wanted one and figured mine was abandoned, threw it in the back of their car and forgot about it. Days or weeks later, in a fit of rage (or maybe a planned murder), they used it somehow. Maybe they figured it wasn't their's and wouldn't miss it; maybe it was just the first thing they found.
Is this possible? Of course. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE; all I'm saying is look at the rest of the evidence. PLEASE. We're in the mess we're in over the last year because too many people take one piece of information and jump to irrational conclusions.
Second, consider the original appeal:
This could mean many things, of course. It could mean that the way the evidence was offered and presented was legally justified and not worthy of bringing up on appeal. That doesn't mean that it was true, but its hard for me to imagine a case of false evidence being presented where there isn't at least SOME argued error relating to the evidence. Maybe this is an outlier.
There was also this:
In fairness, one of the first grounds of appeal is that the testing destroyed the blood evidence collected. However, the court resolved this issue:
There's this comment about him running (apparently quickly) from the victim's location:
And a possible motive:
By the way, this guy wasn't a choir boy:
That doesn't mean the state gets to railroad and execute him, but he WAS tried by a jury, not the state itself. Yeah, I know juries make mistakes and have biases, but there isn't a credible argument that THIS jury was so biased. The only error argued on appeal regarding the jury was pretty weak.
So, what does this all mean? I have no idea, but I've seen a lot of these capital murder exoneration type articles and sites written EXCLUSIVELY from the defendant's point of view and not contain a full discussion of the evidence (or the OTHER evidence) presented. DNA evidence may be useful, if you have someone with property in their possession that belonged to a victim shortly after the crime, and is seen running away from the crime, all while having a particular motive -- and all of this is corroborated by good evidence properly admitted, I think you can easily have a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Just saying, "they should have heard about the other person's DNA..." doesn't make the rest of that go away UNLESS the other person's DNA (if there) creates a justification for the rest of the evidence. I'd like to hear someone argue that point in this case if it exists.
This was not a case involving rape. Had it been, then yeah, all bets would be off and much of what I said here wouldn't necessarily apply.
The bottom line is that there would need to be a showing that the DNA evidence recently found, for whatever reason, trumps all the above evidence. Is that possible? Maybe. We'll wait and see. But don't assume that because someone else's DNA was found at a crime scene that the guy charged didn't commit the crime. There would need to be more facts presented than just that.
By the way, the case is at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1621920/lee-v-state/
Is this possible? Of course. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE; all I'm saying is look at the rest of the evidence. PLEASE. We're in the mess we're in over the last year because too many people take one piece of information and jump to irrational conclusions.
Second, consider the original appeal:
Quote:
Lee does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, so we need not recite the facts in great detail. The State's theory at trial was that Lee committed the murder for pecuniary gain, and that he had searched the victim's neighborhood until he found the perfect target for his crime.
This could mean many things, of course. It could mean that the way the evidence was offered and presented was legally justified and not worthy of bringing up on appeal. That doesn't mean that it was true, but its hard for me to imagine a case of false evidence being presented where there isn't at least SOME argued error relating to the evidence. Maybe this is an outlier.
Quote:
Debra's body was discovered in her bedroom at approximately 1:38 p.m. that same date. Three one hundred dollar bills that Debra's father, Stephen Williams, had given to her were missing from her wallet. This money had been part of a larger stack of crisp new bills Williams received in sequential order from the Arkansas Federal Credit Union. At Lee's trial, the State offered evidence that, at 1:53 p.m. on the day of the murder, Lee paid a debt at the Rent-A-Center with a one-hundred dollar bill. Of the three one-hundred dollar bills that the Rent-A-Center received on February 9, one of the bills bore a serial number that was two bills away from one of the bills that the victim's father had turned over to police.
There was also this:
Quote:
When Lee was arrested and taken into custody on the day of the murder, among the items police seized from him was a pair of Converse tennis shoes he was wearing. Kermitt Channell, a serologist with the State Crime Lab, examined the shoes and observed what he believed to be a small spot of blood on the sole of the left shoe, and another spot on the tongue of the right shoe. Channell performed what he termed a "Takayama test" on the shoes, which confirmed the presence of blood
In fairness, one of the first grounds of appeal is that the testing destroyed the blood evidence collected. However, the court resolved this issue:
Quote:
Because Lee has made no showing that the blood evidence on the shoes possessed any exculpatory value before it was destroyed, or that the State in bad faith failed to preserve the sample, Lee's due process claim was properly rejected by the trial court.
There's this comment about him running (apparently quickly) from the victim's location:
Quote:
During the State's case-in-chief, Glenda Pruitt testified that she saw Lee shortly after the murder when he passed in front of her house, which was located near the victim's residence. According to Pruitt, she asked Lee, "Where's the fire?" to which he responded, "Well, you are always asking me for weed." Without objection, Pruitt testified that Lee responded that he did not use marijuana, but used cocaine.
During cross-examination, Lee's counsel questioned Pruitt regarding her beliefs and practices as a Rastafarian, particularly with regard to the use of marijuana. He attacked her recollection of her conversation with Lee and whether that recollection was impaired by her use of marijuana. During redirect examination, over Lee's objection, the trial court permitted the State to present the entire conversation between Pruitt and Lee. According to Pruitt, she asked Lee whether he had cocaine "running all through [his] veins," to which he responded, "Yes. It is running all through me." Pruitt then stated, "Don't you know it (cocaine) is poison?" to which Lee responded, "I'm going to get some now."
And a possible motive:
Quote:
The State was able to produce evidence tying only one of the three missing one hundred dollar bills to Lee. Thus, the State's evidence that Lee was on his way to obtain drugs shortly after the time of the murder was relevant to explain a possible motive for the killingthat he planned to use part of the money he took from the victim to purchase drugs
By the way, this guy wasn't a choir boy:
Quote:
During the penalty phase, the State offered evidence that Lee had previously committed three other felonies, elements of which included the use or threat of violence to another person or the creation of a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another person. See Ark.Code Ann. 5-4-604(3) (Repl.1993). The State offered the testimony of three witnesses, all of whom testified that Lee had raped them.
That doesn't mean the state gets to railroad and execute him, but he WAS tried by a jury, not the state itself. Yeah, I know juries make mistakes and have biases, but there isn't a credible argument that THIS jury was so biased. The only error argued on appeal regarding the jury was pretty weak.
So, what does this all mean? I have no idea, but I've seen a lot of these capital murder exoneration type articles and sites written EXCLUSIVELY from the defendant's point of view and not contain a full discussion of the evidence (or the OTHER evidence) presented. DNA evidence may be useful, if you have someone with property in their possession that belonged to a victim shortly after the crime, and is seen running away from the crime, all while having a particular motive -- and all of this is corroborated by good evidence properly admitted, I think you can easily have a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Just saying, "they should have heard about the other person's DNA..." doesn't make the rest of that go away UNLESS the other person's DNA (if there) creates a justification for the rest of the evidence. I'd like to hear someone argue that point in this case if it exists.
This was not a case involving rape. Had it been, then yeah, all bets would be off and much of what I said here wouldn't necessarily apply.
The bottom line is that there would need to be a showing that the DNA evidence recently found, for whatever reason, trumps all the above evidence. Is that possible? Maybe. We'll wait and see. But don't assume that because someone else's DNA was found at a crime scene that the guy charged didn't commit the crime. There would need to be more facts presented than just that.
By the way, the case is at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1621920/lee-v-state/
Illuminaggie said:Serial rapist.The_Fox said:
What was his criminal history?
So. even if he was innocent. It's a wash. I am fine with it in this case.
The country was founded on extreme due process, accountability by government, and elimination of convicted criminals for the good of society.
Now we ignore due process totally, encourage government corruption and immunity, and dont punish real criminals.
Pathetic.
Now we ignore due process totally, encourage government corruption and immunity, and dont punish real criminals.
Pathetic.
There's mixed results as to whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent, but at the very least it provides for vengeance for society before the Lord takes his due, which is key because this is one of those rare instances when just the latter apparently won't cut it (when paired with life in prison).
If the criminal justice system gets it wrong occasionally that's a price we are willing to pay to make sure we get to kill the criminal ourselves rather than leave it to old age and divine judgment.
If the criminal justice system gets it wrong occasionally that's a price we are willing to pay to make sure we get to kill the criminal ourselves rather than leave it to old age and divine judgment.
I used to be solidly pro death penalty as I had an Aggie friend murdered before we graduated. His killer was executed about ten years later. That made me feel very good about the death penalty when I read about his execution in my morning paper.
Then, I became friends with a guy that owned a car service that my company used very frequently ...so I saw him a couple of times a week and we became decent friends. One day he told me he had been on death row here in Texas and that he got himself off of death row without an attorney. Of course, I called bs on him. He then told me where I could read about the whole thing in an old issue of Texas Monthly which I of course did.
Today some twenty years later, I think our system needs to be reformed so that the jury can choose one of three verdicts in capital cases: (1) not guilty, (2) guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) guilty and there is no way in hell he is innocent. Capital cases given a verdict of 2 get life in prison with no parole....those given a verdict of 3 get hanged.
Then, I became friends with a guy that owned a car service that my company used very frequently ...so I saw him a couple of times a week and we became decent friends. One day he told me he had been on death row here in Texas and that he got himself off of death row without an attorney. Of course, I called bs on him. He then told me where I could read about the whole thing in an old issue of Texas Monthly which I of course did.
Today some twenty years later, I think our system needs to be reformed so that the jury can choose one of three verdicts in capital cases: (1) not guilty, (2) guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) guilty and there is no way in hell he is innocent. Capital cases given a verdict of 2 get life in prison with no parole....those given a verdict of 3 get hanged.
Some people just need killing.
I am against the death penalty for innocent people and people that are not guilty.
Cases where it's a slam dunk however...
Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes deserve a slow painful death. Govt execution by lethal injection, electrocution or firing squad is a fair compromise. Unless my family is the victims, then the govt would be saving them from a literal life of hell.
I am against the death penalty for innocent people and people that are not guilty.
Cases where it's a slam dunk however...
Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes deserve a slow painful death. Govt execution by lethal injection, electrocution or firing squad is a fair compromise. Unless my family is the victims, then the govt would be saving them from a literal life of hell.
Infection_Ag11 said:Sure, but there's not much of a pro-lynch mob sentiment these daysAgs4DaWin said:Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
It's better than lynch mobs.
Chauvin jury says hi
No one or government has the right to take a life, from the pre-born to the aged citizen. I understand one must do what is necessary to protect themselves, their family and their country, but we must always keep in mind that everyone has a right to life
With that said ..
If someone harmed my family, I would personally drive to Huntsville and I would bring a dirty needle. That is why that society must decided the fate of a perpetrator
With that said ..
If someone harmed my family, I would personally drive to Huntsville and I would bring a dirty needle. That is why that society must decided the fate of a perpetrator
aggie93 said:I think Derek Chauvin might disagree with you.Infection_Ag11 said:Sure, but there's not much of a pro-lynch mob sentiment these daysAgs4DaWin said:Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
It's better than lynch mobs.
I have no issue with the death penalty and think it is effective both as a deterrent and more importantly, it is the only sure way to make sure a murderer can never commit another crime. That said I do think the standard for the death penalty should be well beyond the reasonable doubt standard, it should be no doubt as to the deed itself being committed by that person.
In the modern digital age, I can envision where the standard of proof raises to the level of visual proof of a murder or some comparable digital metric meeting the no doubt standard.
Better technology = higher standard.
In other words the only people getting death penalty are those seen murdering in plain sight or via video camera (think intersection cameras or home security cameras).
I guess you've been in a coma since April of 2020 and just woke up yesterday.Infection_Ag11 said:
Sure, but there's not much of a pro-lynch mob sentiment these days
Look up George Floyd, peaceful protest.
Then look up Maxine Waters, Derek Chauvin trial.
RGLAG85 said:Such as licensing doctors?Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
FWIW, medical mistakes are one of the leading causes of death in the USA. Could be worse.
Unfortunately, better technology leads to better and better fake videos.
this.Infection_Ag11 said:
The longer I live, the more I become convinced we should not so willingly grant the state the authority to kill it's citizens. The government is very bad at the vast majority of things it tries its hand at.
We shouldn't let them control our healthcare or our education either.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
37:35
15h ago
4.7k
The Loochador Podcast: Maroon & White Game storylines abound
by Billy Liucci
6:33
15h ago
2.3k
In-Home Visit: Carty provides more Metroplex muscle for Maroon Goons
by TexAgs Recruiting
7:40
15h ago
19k
2025 OL Connor Carty calls committing to A&M a 'dream come true'
by Jason Howell
0:00
20h ago
4.9k
Leonard H. Stringfield
FTAB Halftime show for the t.u. game this year
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
15