Death Row Inmates

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1502759' date='Apr 18 2008, 04:15 PM']All death penalty cases are automatically appealed. If they don't want to appeal, it takes almost as long to fight that, see Gary Gilmore. What most people don't understand is that when it comes to appeals, they do not look at the evidence again. ...[/quote]
Thank you for the clarification. I do not think that the list of appeals should be endless, but, as I said, to exhaust all real and possible alternatives. If the alternatives are not possible or real in the fullest sense of the world, then I believe that the appeals should stop.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1502759' date='Apr 18 2008, 05:15 PM']All death penalty cases are automatically appealed. If they don't want to appeal, it takes almost as long to fight that, see Gary Gilmore. What most people don't understand is that when it comes to appeals, they do not look at the evidence again. They only look to see if there were any procedural errors, incompetent counsel. No new evidence is allowed if it could have been presented originally and wasn't. That's why appeals about DNA have worked so far because the technology wasn't available when many of these cases were originally heard.

Now if the DNA is done, and doesn't point to the defendant, but they are still convicted on the basis of eye witness testimony, there will be no basis to appeal on DNA grounds. Every study done on eye witness testimony has shown how unreliable it is, but juries still place most of their faith in that rather than science. Many juries when polled will tell you that they voted to convict simply because the person had been arrested, and if they had been innocent, the police wouldn't have arrested them. Being falsely accused of something you didn't do is one of my greatest fears in life because I have seen what can happen.[/quote]

Is there any reason why new evidence isn't allowed? It just doesn't seem right to me.

[CatherineM]

There is a major emphasis on the finality of judgment being better in the interests of justice. If the evidence was known or even could have been discovered, you have to present it during the trial, or you lose the right to. It is the same as objecting to something during the trial. If the judge makes a bad decision on something like admitting a confession or piece of evidence, if your lawyer doesn't object, then you lose the right to bring it up on appeal. Of course if that happens, then you can appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel. If the evidence wasn't discoverable by reasonable diligence, or say had been hidden by the police (like a witness statement that says the perp was 6'5" and the defendant if 5'6") or the prosecution, or the science has improved, then you can bring it up on appeal.

What you can never bring up is that the jury was just wrong. If the jury believes one side over the other, the appeals court will not review that. If there were no procedural or legal errors made, and the jury just didn't believe your defense, you have no appealable issues. That's why there are so many innocent people in jail, not necessarily on death row. If you are poor, and accused of any crime, you are toast. You get death, and you don't have to worry about paying for your appeal, or expert witnesses. If you are accused of rape or armed robbery, you pay for everything yourself. If you qualify for legal aid, you will get a brand new lawyer, with too many cases, and the judge has to approve the expenditure of any money for expert witnesses or psychiatric exams or outside forensics. Most of that won't be approved because the judge figures once it has been done, why should the county pay again for someone else to review it. The smaller, poorer, rural areas on not good places to get arrested. They don't even have legal aid, and you'll get assigned just any lawyer, sometimes a personal injury or real estate lawyer.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1502905' date='Apr 18 2008, 08:24 PM']There is a major emphasis on the finality of judgment being better in the interests of justice. If the evidence was known or even could have been discovered, you have to present it during the trial, or you lose the right to. It is the same as objecting to something during the trial. If the judge makes a bad decision on something like admitting a confession or piece of evidence, if your lawyer doesn't object, then you lose the right to bring it up on appeal. Of course if that happens, then you can appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel. If the evidence wasn't discoverable by reasonable diligence, or say had been hidden by the police (like a witness statement that says the perp was 6'5" and the defendant if 5'6") or the prosecution, or the science has improved, then you can bring it up on appeal.

What you can never bring up is that the jury was just wrong. If the jury believes one side over the other, the appeals court will not review that. If there were no procedural or legal errors made, and the jury just didn't believe your defense, you have no appealable issues. That's why there are so many innocent people in jail, not necessarily on death row. If you are poor, and accused of any crime, you are toast. You get death, and you don't have to worry about paying for your appeal, or expert witnesses. If you are accused of rape or armed robbery, you pay for everything yourself. If you qualify for legal aid, you will get a brand new lawyer, with too many cases, and the judge has to approve the expenditure of any money for expert witnesses or psychiatric exams or outside forensics. Most of that won't be approved because the judge figures once it has been done, why should the county pay again for someone else to review it. The smaller, poorer, rural areas on not good places to get arrested. They don't even have legal aid, and you'll get assigned just any lawyer, sometimes a personal injury or real estate lawyer.[/quote]

Wow, that just doesn't seem right to me at all. What do you think?

Also, thanks for answering my question.

[Deb]

I think there should be as many appeals as needed but, they should be done as quickly as possible. No one should have to wait in fear for twenty years to be killed or to be released if innocent.

[Apotheoun]

Unending appeals of a lawful judgment of a criminal case is nothing more than a form of injustice to the victim of the crime in question. Such injustice disturbs the social order by preventing the restoration of balance and tranquility within the nation State.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Apotheoun

[fides quarens intellectum]

i said yes, because at least that keeps them alive longer, allowing more time for God's grace to work before they are killed prematurely.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1503665' date='Apr 19 2008, 09:01 PM']Unending appeals of a lawful judgment of a criminal case is nothing more than a form of injustice to the victim of the crime in question. Such injustice disturbs the social order by preventing the restoration of balance and tranquility within the nation State.[/quote]
I am not sure that anyone is advocating unending appeals. How many appeals ought to be permitted before one is able to say that both the need for near-certainty and justice are fulfilled?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1503665' date='Apr 19 2008, 10:01 PM']Unending appeals of a lawful judgment of a criminal case is nothing more than a form of injustice to the victim of the crime in question. Such injustice disturbs the social order by preventing the restoration of balance and tranquility within the nation State.[/quote]

And how does killing them restore social order and the balance and tranquility of the state?

I vote Yes. The death penalty shouldn't exist anyway, so let them appeal until they die of natural causes.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1503680' date='Apr 19 2008, 10:33 PM']i said yes, because at least that keeps them alive longer, allowing more time for God's grace to work before they are killed prematurely.[/quote]Sorry but I think thats bull. We are supposed to let convicted murders live until they repent?? If the thought of eminent death doesn't soften someone's heart, what will? Whatever happened to the concept of "justice delayed is justice denied"?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1505420' date='Apr 21 2008, 11:15 AM']Sorry but I think thats bull. We are supposed to let convicted murders live until they repent?? If the thought of eminent death doesn't soften someone's heart, what will? Whatever happened to the concept of "justice delayed is justice denied"?[/quote]

Tell that to all the innocent victims of capital punishment.

When we do away with the death penalty, we recognize our humility before God that we never truly judge anyone's innocence or guilt, because ultimately that lies in the heart, and all people deserve the mercy of having life.

Edited April 21, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1505420' date='Apr 21 2008, 10:15 AM']Sorry but I think thats bull. We are supposed to let convicted murders live until they repent?? If the thought of eminent death doesn't soften someone's heart, what will? Whatever happened to the concept of "justice delayed is justice denied"?[/quote]
Just to keep things interesting...why would killing a convicted murderer bring justice to a situation?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1505423' date='Apr 21 2008, 11:17 AM']Tell that to all the innocent victims of capital punishment.

When we do away with the death penalty, we recognize our humility before God that we never truly judge anyone's innocence or guilt, because ultimately that lies in the heart, and all people deserve the mercy of having life.[/quote]
Nope.
We are called to judge actions remember?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1505597' date='Apr 21 2008, 01:51 PM']Just to keep things interesting...why would killing a convicted murderer bring justice to a situation?[/quote]
Why would it not? When you murder an innocent life, you forfeit your own. Natural law, which the church accepts and teaches. If you recall, Jesus didn't stop the Good Thief from being justly executed, He took him to heaven because he repented.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1505604' date='Apr 21 2008, 01:03 PM']Why would it not? When you murder an innocent life, you forfeit your own. Natural law, which the church accepts and teaches. If you recall, Jesus didn't stop the Good Thief from being justly executed, He took him to heaven because he repented.[/quote]Could you please cite a reference which explains why and how one forfeits one's life when one commits murder? Also, although Christ did not stop the Good Thief from being executed, He did not save Himself from being unjustly executed. Which is more of a fulfillment of the law of the New Covenant, killing a murderer or indefinite confinement? [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm"]Justice is giving to one what one rightly deserves[/url]. Do victims of murder deserve the death of another? Why is that just?