Execution of an Innocent Man

[Just_A_Guy]

As a lawyer I hear an awful lot of BS about people protesting their "innocence", and it unfortunately tends to jade my judgment. I've seen judges who are the same way, for the same reasons.

I'm not sure this can be avoided through the standard appellate process. But it can--and should--be avoided in the process whereby a governor decides whether or not to grant clemency. IMHO, there shouldn't be a standing "advisory panel": a new panel, composed of ordinary citizens, should be convened for every death-row case.

[talisyn]

Just a Guy, with your legal experience just how important are experts? Have you seen cases where experts for the prosecution and defense look at the same evidence and tell the jury completely different things?

[Guest]

Life imprisonment. Ted Bundy. Works for me.

But no - no cable TV, steaks for dinner or whatever it is that costs a lot of tax-payer money to incarcerate these people.

[Jamie123]

...it is better (safer) for society to execute on error an innocent man than it is to accidentally (on error) let a guilty murder go free.

This is the thin end of a very long wedge. Taken to its logical conclusion, the principle could be stated:

The standard of "proof" required to execute a person should be lowered so as to allow the execution of all murder suspects. The few innocent people executed would be more than compensated by the reduced numbers of people murdered, arising from the fact that more actual murderers had been executed. The net result would be a safer society.

There's something very "Jeremy Bentham" about this argument. ("The greatest happiness for the greatest number".) But it ignores the fact that when the police prosecute the wrong person, the right person goes free and may well murder again. This actually happened in the Rachel Nickell case I mentioned earlier: While the police were pursuing Colin Stagg, the real murderer Robert Napper killed at least twice more. Making things easier for the police, i.e. by lowering the "proof" bar, would increase the likelihood of this kind of this kind of tragedy.

Of course, it's possible that the overall net result would still lead towards a safer society, but this would need to be justified statistically (and I've no idea how you would begin to get the data to do this.) Even if this were the case (and this is just my personal opinion) I dislike the idea of a democratic free society selling its soul and becoming a police state, in return for "safety". I could quote Benjamin Franklin, but if past experience is anything to go by it would only make the Americans on this board angry.

An afterthought: I don't think anyone is suggesting that Willingham should have been "set free" as you put it. If he had been sentenced to life imprisonment he would (even if guilty) have been no danger to society, and could have been released when the true facts came to light. Since he's now dead, there's not much anyone can do for him.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jamie123
Spelling the guy's name right

[talisyn]

But Jamie, should he have admitted guilt to a crime he didn't do? Is honor worth so little?

[Just_A_Guy]

Just a Guy, with your legal experience just how important are experts?

Very much so, both for procedural and practical reasons. Procedurally, the court will only let people testify about what they are credentialed to testify about. In the Willingham case, for instance, anyone who had seen the damage could testify about crazed glass or charred wood under the threshold--but only a duly credentialed "expert" would be allowed to express his opinion to the jury that all of this suggested arson. And from a practical standpoint, the better your credentials, the more likely the jury will be to believe you. So, for example, the fact that the one arson guy had found arson in pretty much every one of the 1200-odd cases he investigated (whereas the Texas Fire Marshall found arson only about 50% of the time) should definitely have come out at trial--if defense counsel had been vigorously making their case, which they apparently weren't.

Have you seen cases where experts for the prosecution and defense look at the same evidence and tell the jury completely different things?

Personally, I don't do much criminal work. But as a general matter: that's pretty routine. Generally speaking, if a case has made it to a full-fledged trial it's because it's "close"--the fact pattern could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Where the case is open-and-shut, most attorneys will advise their clients to plead guilty for a lighter sentence (as Willingham's attorneys tried to convince him to do).

I'm not particularly impressed by Willingham's attorneys' performance, but you've got to bear in mind that (AFAIK) they were not criminal defense attorneys by calling--they were either jack-of-all trades lawyers, or specialized in other fields of law. It takes a special kind of attorney to be willing to believe a client's professions of innocence in a gruesome case after twenty years of practice when three or four eyewitnesses and the forensic file all point towards guilt. Frankly, these two had no business defending a capital murder case. But when the court appoints you, you can't just say "no".

Edited September 3, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Gwen]

But Jamie, should he have admitted guilt to a crime he didn't do?

ok so i'm not jamie lol but wanted to comment on this question.... the irony (if you want to call it that) is if he had plead guilty to a crime he didn't do he would have never gotten free. he would not have been writting to the one person (who was writting to death row inmates and no one else) who was willing to ask questions. all the reasearch that was done to eventually clear his name would have never come to light. i think what he did was admerable. he may have done some bad things but at that point he spoke the truth, he held to the truth and in the end he knew his only hope was that one day his name would be cleared even if he wasn't here to see it, the ppl he loved and cared about would know he never did that. if he had tried to save his own skin at all cost (even saying he did something he didn't do) then he would still have died in prison and no one would have ever known the truth.

how many times in the scriptures were ppl told to say there was no god or be killed. they stood by their convictions they refused to speak falshoods even to save their lives. is this so different? i think it sounds like he learned and grew a lot in the time he was unjustly incarcerated and that he has more than paid for his past mistakes. i think a merciful god allowed him to hug his babies upon return home.

[NeuroTypical]

Ultimately, we're told that mercy cannot rob justice. I think we understand that the reverse is also true - justice cannot rob mercy.

But that's ultimately. Here on earth, surrounded by all the fallen, sinning, error-prone, agenda-driven, baggage-carrying humans, justice and mercy rob each other all the time. Not only that, but it turns out that we're pretty bad at even understanding what the terms mean in the first place, so we end up applying our notions of them, and sometimes are pretty far off the mark.

This is our mortal state. You don't correct our mortal state by getting rid of the death penalty. I'm for corporal punishment, administered by just people following just laws. Fix the people or laws, don't dump corporal punishment.

Or, in other words, no matter whether you have corporal punishment or not, you'll have bad guys murdering people. Death is a just punishment for some murderers. Don't abandon justice just because we're not perfect at it.

LM

Edited September 3, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Jamie123]

I'm for corporal punishment, administered by just people following just laws. Fix the people or laws, don't dump corporal punishment.

I think you mean capital punishment. Corporal punishment means physical chastisement, such as getting the cane at school.

We've not had capital punishment in the UK since the 1960's. (The last executions on British soil took place 2 months before I was born.) Given that justice is imperfect, I think life imprisonment for murderers offers an ideal compromise: Society is protected from them while they're imprisoned, and if they later turn out to be innocent you can let them go.

If a condemned man protests his innocence it could mean one of two things: Firstly he might really be innocent, in which case killing him would be a miscarriage of justice. Secondly he might be guilty and unrepentant (which is always the official assumption), in which case to killing him would deny him any chance of later repentance and of saving his soul. (You might say he doesn't deserve that, bit that's just playing God.)

I'm often reminded of something Gandalf said to Frodo in Lord of the Rings:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.

[NeuroTypical]

Good post Jamie. Thanks for the correction on capital vs. corporal. That is indeed a great quote from LOTR. Tolkein rocks. I notice a few things:

* Gollum had not murdered anyone, just tried to. He wanted something, but he would have been happy to just find it or have it given him - he wasn't bent on murder.

* Shortly after making that statement, Gandalf began dealing out copious amounts of death all over the place - and he was very good at it.

---

On a tangent, I've heard a story that J.R.R. Tolkein was insturmental in C.S. Lewis' conversion to Christianity.

LM

[Maxel]

Hadn't Smeagol killed his cousin (to obtain the One Ring) before he became Gollum? Regardless of that, I don't think dissecting the actions and words of fictional characters (no matter how awesome they are) will get us very far in the discussion of capital punishment.

To continue the tangent: you're right LM, Tolkien did have a crucial role in helping Lewis convert to Christianity (in his autobiography Surpised by Joy, Lewis points to one moment when he and Tolkien were walking and talking. Tolkien told Lewis about his (Tolkien's) religious convictions, and Lewis felt 'moved'.).

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, though, the Catholic Tolkien was quite disappointed that Lewis chose Anglicanism. I seem to recall Tolkien complaining that Anglicanism was a "sorry impersonation of the Mother Church", or something to that effect.

Can't win 'em all, I guess. :)

[Maxel]

Ouch... I just remember the happy story of the conversion; I forgot there was a denominational difference between the two.

Anyway... I could drag this tangent so far into Lewis and Tolkien... Better go

[Traveler]

This is the thin end of a very long wedge. Taken to its logical conclusion, the principle could be stated:

The standard of "proof" required to execute a person should be lowered so as to allow the execution of all murder suspects. The few innocent people executed would be more than compensated by the reduced numbers of people murdered, arising from the fact that more actual murderers had been executed. The net result would be a safer society.

There's something very "Jeremy Bentham" about this argument. ("The greatest happiness for the greatest number".) But it ignores the fact that when the police prosecute the wrong person, the right person goes free and may well murder again. This actually happened in the Rachel Nickell case I mentioned earlier: While the police were pursuing Colin Stagg, the real murderer Robert Napper killed at least twice more. Making things easier for the police, i.e. by lowering the "proof" bar, would increase the likelihood of this kind of this kind of tragedy.

Of course, it's possible that the overall net result would still lead towards a safer society, but this would need to be justified statistically (and I've no idea how you would begin to get the data to do this.) Even if this were the case (and this is just my personal opinion) I dislike the idea of a democratic free society selling its soul and becoming a police state, in return for "safety". I could quote Benjamin Franklin, but if past experience is anything to go by it would only make the Americans on this board angry.

An afterthought: I don't think anyone is suggesting that Willingham should have been "set free" as you put it. If he had been sentenced to life imprisonment he would (even if guilty) have been no danger to society, and could have been released when the true facts came to light. Since he's now dead, there's not much anyone can do for him.

I was not talking about lowering any standard. You incorrectly pointed out sentencing an innocent person must mean that a guilt person goes free – This is a bad assumption of justice. It is possible that an “innocent” person did cause the death of another and that in wrongly punishing the innocent does not demand that a guilty offender is loose.

Please understand my statement as I gave it. That is that society is better off in punishing one innocent person as to letting one guilty person free in society. I did not suggest lowering a standard – rather I am pointing out the importance of getting just right in all cases – especially the guilty. We all understand the importance of not convicting an innocent person. What many are not willing to consider is the damage that is done in letting the guilty loose and unrepentant to our families and communities – and it is not just the damage that they do but what we teach to others that may be considering unjust actions. This thought has many ramifications. For one it proves the danger and stupidity of those that believe it is better to let 100 murders go free than to convict one innocent person.

The argument that life in prison is better than death is also hard to argue. One can argue that in prison a murder can convert thousands to their way of thinking. And thus someone in a prison for a very minor crime is influenced and converted to the processes of murder. In fact a person exposed to the prison system is much more likely to murder or become more violent than someone that is not.

It does appear to me that those that favor life in prison do not realize that a person is not really removed from society – only placed in a partially controlled subset of society. BTW there are historical societies that did not have murder problems that had no police, courts or any kind of jails. One example of such a society are the Arawaks or “Lucayans” that lived in a very peaceful society until the Europeans discovered them and ended their existence in a genocide because the Arawaks were so peaceful they could not defend themselves from the European Christian mentality which were not ever punished or concerned about their crime of mass murder.

The Traveler

Edited September 4, 2009 by Traveler

[Moksha]

As I understand it, though, the Catholic Tolkien was quite disappointed that Lewis chose Anglicanism. I seem to recall Tolkien complaining that Anglicanism was a "sorry impersonation of the Mother Church", or something to that effect.

:)

Guess that is why it is called Catholic-lite. Tolkien perhaps favored the full body flavor.

[bytebear]

I think I prefer murder/suicide. It makes the legal process so much easier.

[boyando]

I have said this before but just again for the record. It is not good, or right, or just to make any errors in our (or any) judical system. But I also believe that it is better (safer) for society to execute on error an innocient man than it is to accidently (on error) let a guilty murder go free.

The Traveler

To not do so, would and has been a failing of our society.

[Jamie123]

I was not talking about lowering any standard. You incorrectly pointed out sentencing an innocent person must mean that a guilt person goes free – This is a bad assumption of justice. It is possible that an “innocent” person did cause the death of another and that in wrongly punishing the innocent does not demand that a guilty offender is loose.

Please understand my statement as I gave it. That is that society is better off in punishing one innocent person as to letting one guilty person free in society. I did not suggest lowering a standard – rather I am pointing out the importance of getting just right in all cases – especially the guilty. We all understand the importance of not convicting an innocent person. What many are not willing to consider is the damage that is done in letting the guilty loose and unrepentant to our families and communities – and it is not just the damage that they do but what we teach to others that may be considering unjust actions. This thought has many ramifications. For one it proves the danger and stupidity of those that believe it is better to let 100 murders go free than to convict one innocent person.

The argument that life in prison is better than death is also hard to argue. One can argue that in prison a murder can convert thousands to their way of thinking. And thus someone in a prison for a very minor crime is influenced and converted to the processes of murder. In fact a person exposed to the prison system is much more likely to murder or become more violent than someone that is not.

It does appear to me that those that favor life in prison do not realize that a person is not really removed from society – only placed in a partially controlled subset of society. BTW there are historical societies that did not have murder problems that had no police, courts or any kind of jails. One example of such a society are the Arawaks or “Lucayans” that lived in a very peaceful society until the Europeans discovered them and ended their existence in a genocide because the Arawaks were so peaceful they could not defend themselves from the European Christian mentality which were not ever punished or concerned about their crime of mass murder.

The Traveler

Thanks for the comments Traveler. I agree this is not really a black and white issue - there are arguments either way. I would suggest that you're making a lot of assumptions about particular types of crime, and the way in which prisons are run - but of course I have my own biases too. My gut feeling is that it is wrong for the state to take a person's life in cold blood - but that is colored by my having been brought up in a society where that does not happen. Perhaps if I'd grown up in the American South I'd feel differently.

[Jamie123]

As I understand it, though, the Catholic Tolkien was quite disappointed that Lewis chose Anglicanism. I seem to recall Tolkien complaining that Anglicanism was a "sorry impersonation of the Mother Church", or something to that effect.

You're quite right. I's ironic that Lewis' conversion to Christianity did some damage to his friendship with Tolkien. They had some very different ideas about religion: While Tolkien believed very strongly in the authority of the visible Church (meaning of course the Roman Catholic Church), Lewis stressed what he called "Mere Christianity" - the core of belief that all Christians hold regardless of their denomination. Having been brought up in the Church of Ireland (which is a branch of the Anglican Communion), I don't suppose he saw any need to change. Another thing was that as a Christian, Lewis was far more vociferous than Tolkien, who was by contrast very quiet about his faith. You can imagine how irritated he must have got when after years of arguing with the atheist Lewis, the latter became a famous Christian apologist, writing books, giving lectures and radio broadcasts, even writing allegorical stories for children. (Tolkien always hated allegory.)

(Sorry that this post is totally off-topic!)

[Traveler]

Thanks for the comments Traveler. I agree this is not really a black and white issue - there are arguments either way. I would suggest that you're making a lot of assumptions about particular types of crime, and the way in which prisons are run - but of course I have my own biases too. My gut feeling is that it is wrong for the state to take a person's life in cold blood - but that is colored by my having been brought up in a society where that does not happen. Perhaps if I'd grown up in the American South I'd feel differently.

Thanks for your comments. I have had some interesting experiences in life. A good friend of mine was an international broker that uses to live in South America. He is what we would call rich by our standards. His next door neighbor was kidnapped by armed men and in the taking of the neighbor’s family over 100 rounds were fired into his home. He moved to the USA. What is interesting is that he said the Coca Cola Company has never had problems with kidnappers taking executives. What happened (according to my friend) is that Coca Cola hired mercenaries to protect their executives. The mercenaries first did their homework and then met with the known kidnappers. They explained that if a Coca Cola executive was kidnapped that no ransom would be paid but – they then opened a book and showed pictures of family and friends of the kidnappers. They explained that they would kill everyone in their book until they got to them and if the executives were harmed they would kill them too.

There are deterrents to crime – but for deterrents to be effective we must be willing to make the punishment greater than the perceived benefit by the criminal (not the non-criminal elements of society) to commit the crime. If we are not willing to do that – then we must learn to live with the crime and the criminal being in charge.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Update on the review of Willingham's execution.

Not good.

[talisyn]

I've read a few statements from Gov. Perry, and it seems to me this is a man who wouldn't even consider the idea of a death row inmate might not be guilty. He knows he's in the right, and that's that. Doesn't give me much hope that he even looked at the new evidence.