Posted on 02/14/2007 10:19:32 AM PST by jsmith1942
Vigilante justice has a much smaller margin of error. </sarcasm>
Hmmmm. I would think the logical response would be to dedicate his life to expanding the application and effectiveness of DNA testing...
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.
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?
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.
No Escape: Male Rape In U.S. Prisons
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Given the way the writer buried the lede, I bet there's a lot left out.
Kill again while serving a life sentence and never based on eyewitness testimony only.
Neither can a murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.