Catholic wrongly convicted devotes life to ending death penalty

The Catholic Review ^ | Feb. 15, 2007 | By George P. Matysek Jr.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

While we're at it, let's just abolish the entire criminal justice system because, after all, sometimes people are wrongly convicted.

Vigilante justice has a much smaller margin of error. </sarcasm>

[Hegemony Cricket]

Hmmmm. I would think the logical response would be to dedicate his life to expanding the application and effectiveness of DNA testing...

[exit82]

This makes no sense. Some people deserve killing--by the state, in the execution of justice. Life in prison is not punishment, it is a reward, and it is a burden in cost to the taxpayer.

Make sure the person is guilty beyond a doubt,yes--but execute justice. To do otherwise is to break faith with the citizens who are told not to take the law into their own hands.

The state has an obligation to protect its citizens from murderers, and to mete out justice.

[ASOC]

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

I'm still support capital punishment, BTW.

Odd that the 'real' killer only got life, rather than the death penalty as this fellow did, first time around. What changed, I wonder?

[Cicero]

I won't fault him. He certainly has earned the right to do what he thinks best. But I would also say he should be working to extend DNA testing.

He might also work toward reforming the corrupt government in the State of Maryland.

[Incorrigible]

Related Thread:

No Escape: Male Rape In U.S. Prisons

 

[Alberta's Child]

On moral grounds, I have no problem with having the state carrying out an execution. However, I've come to the realization that a nation as morally and politically fouled-up as ours -- a nation that can produce an OJ jury, a Clinton presidency, and Roe v. Wade -- has no business even putting people in jail, let alone executing them.

Of course, I'll gladly allow for the imprisonment of convicted criminals on basic utilitarian grounds -- but that's only because a criminal conviction and prison sentence can be reversed to a certain extent. An execution cannot be "undone" in any sense of the word.

[AnAmericanMother]

You've got to get WAY into this story before you find out the truth of the legal situation.

His death sentence was almost IMMEDIATELY overturned - 2 years after conviction (that's light speed in capital trial terms). He was retried and was still convicted, but did not get the DP.

So actually he was reprieved from a mistaken conviction - but NOT from a death sentence.

Usually when something like this happens, something is fishy with the original trial. I notice that the DP was overturned for prosecutorial misconduct. That tells you that something's up right there. If a guy's guilty enough to get the chair or the gurney, there's no doubt of his guilt and no need for prosecutorial misconduct. Clearly the appeals court smelled something fishy.

We had a case like this in Georgia where a corrupt sheriff and some town bigwigs were shielding the real murderer, and they set up some poor innocent black guy to take the fall, forging police records and planting a shotgun, etc. The Georgia Supreme Court smelled a rat but couldn't quite put their finger on it -- they reversed the fall guy's conviction I think THREE times and kept sending it back, until eventually somebody talked and the whole case blew wide open.

[kidd]

While I don't believe that the death penalty should be abolished, I do believe that it should be tightly limited to those who:
1. Have committed a heinous crime, AND
2. Have DEMONSTRATED that they are un-incarcerable.

[CottShop]

Shall all of America suffer for the ills of a VERY few corrupt cases? Shall no one ever get the justice they deserve by seeing a criminal put ot death justly?

I agree that in death penalty cases there HAS to be conclusive proof before the sentence is handed down- however, it should not be doen away with because only a select few cases have either been corrupted, or later overturned due to new evidence. We need to be much more careful when handing otu death penalties, however, justice STILL needs be given to the victims.

The following link is a signature link and does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com

[Stoigo]

Outstanding story! Thanks for sharing.
Interesting to get a view from a man who was wrongfully put into that situation, and still comes out with a positive attitude. The last paragraphs are the best.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

"...Mr. Bloodsworth ... has become an outspoken advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, most recently speaking in Annapolis in support of a bill that would replace the death penalty with prison sentences of life without parole..."

I would think that there would be some criminals deserving of the death penalty, however I haven't been in this man's position. It's pretty obvious that after seeing how the system works up close and personal, he has the opinion that our system of justice shouldn't be giving out the Death Panalty.

[SF Republican]

Vigilante justice has a much smaller margin of error I was reading Team of Rivals re Lincolns cabinet. Bates friend was killed in a dual around 1845. Bates was a judge and even though he deplored duals he felt that after they were pretty much abolished (if that is the word) that was when a great deal of liable in papers and courts began. He felt although they were somewhat barbaric it really did keep people in line and that was worth a few deaths a year.

[Amalie]

a nation that can produce an OJ jury, a Clinton presidency, and Roe v. Wade -- has no business even putting people in jail, let alone executing them.

Ive got to agree wwith the execution part - justice is lacking in many jurisdictions - look at the Duke scandal, Libby, etc. While I am also a believer in just sentencing and punishment including the death penalty, the American judiciary system is unfortunately flawed today. Not the worst on planet by any means, but certainly not just as we would like to think that it is...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Two young boys identified him as the person they saw near the crime scene and an anonymous caller said he had been seen with the girl earlier in the day.

A jury convicted him of murder based on this? Twice??

I wonder if there isn't something being left out of this story. I'm having a hard time believing this is true.

[AnAmericanMother]

You're preaching to the choir.

I agree that the death penalty remains necessary; I think it should be reserved for the cases where guilt is absolutely ironclad and conclusive and the murderer is clearly of depraved mind and a risk to all around him.

If you don't retain the death penalty, you remove the incentive for the criminal to refrain from (1) eliminating witnesses and (2) killing fellow prisoners and guards.

[AnAmericanMother]

Given the way the writer buried the lede, I bet there's a lot left out.

[Freee-dame]

While I don't believe that the death penalty should be abolished, I do believe that it should be tightly limited to those who:

Kill again while serving a life sentence and never based on eyewitness testimony only.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An execution cannot be "undone" in any sense of the word.

Neither can a murder.