November 21, 2005
How many other Ruben Cantu's exist?
In my many years of being involved on message boards or blogs there are several topics that create a huge difference of opinion. The Death Penalty is one of those; every time it has been discussed at least one pro-Death Penalty person will state that the absence of proof of anyone who was innocent being executed somehow justifies the continuation of the Death Penalty. Ruben Cantu was executed for murder in Texas in 1993. It appears there is a strong likelihood he was innocent.
One of the most valid reasons for not using the Death Penalty comes from the Judge that originally sentenced Cantu, as reported in this Houston Chronicle article about Ruben Cantu:
Roy Barrera Jr, said the case underscores weaknesses in the system, especially in the 'riskiest cases,' which rely heavily on eyewitness identification. "People do lie under oath, and people do get convicted on the basis of lies," Barrera said. "This case, like thousands of other cases in the system across the country, cry for a thorough examination of the process."
It would be easy to blame just the legal system alone if Ruben Cantu was truly innocent. Most of the responsibilty is with those who lied, and Cantu himself for following the belief that one does not betray a "brother". Cantu could have saved himself, yet he waited for someone else to come forward. The three men who could have prevented his death, David Garza who was involved with the shooting and the other teen that was involved in the shooting said nothing. Garza has now come forward years too late. The other man who was also a teenager at the time still denies he was involved, yet claims to be in fear of his life from threats made by Cantu's older brothers. A victim that survived the shooting, Juan Moreno, is also stating that Ruben Cantu did not shoot him, and that he was pressured by the police to identify Cantu as the shooter. Moreno said nothing, even as the time approached for Cantu to be put to death. It's also obvious that there are also some questions as to the quality of legal representation Cantu received in addition to problems with the legal system. All of these people and factors contributed to creating a situation where it is possible for an innocent man to be executed.
I'd like to say that Ruben Cantu would be the only person executed who proclaimed he was innocent. In just Texas alone where this took place, 335 people have been executed by the State since 1982. Each one is given the chance to make a last statement. Some like Charles William Bass, take responsibility "I deserve this. Tell everyone I said goodbye." Others like David Herman, take responsibility and hope their execution brings closure to the families of the victims, "It was horrible and inexcusable for me to take the life of your loved one and to hurt so many mentally and physically. I am here because I took a life and killing is wrong by an individual and by the state, and I am sorry we are here but if my death gives you peace and closure then this is all worthwhile."
There are those like G.W. Green, who basically just want to get it over with, "Let's do it, man. Lock and load. Ain't life a (expletive deleted)?" Some make statements against the Death Penalty as Henry Porter did, "You call this justice. I call this and your society a bunch of cold-blooded murderers. I don't say this with any bitterness or anger. I just say this with truthfulness. I hope God forgives me for all my sins. I hope that God will be as merciful to society as he has been to me. I'm ready, Warden." Others chose to make no last statement at all. A few made what we would call "death bed confessions" where they admited responsibility for crimes others had been charged or sentenced for.
Then there are the very troubling last statements, 43 of the 335 stated they were innocent. Leonel Torres Herrera said, "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. Make no mistake about this; I owe society nothing. Continue the struggle for human rights, helping those who are innocent, especially Mr. Graham. I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight. May God bless you all. I am ready." Carl Johnson, " I want the world to know that I'm innocent and that I've found peace. Let's ride."
Ruben Cantu chose to make no last statement, it is very possible that there were quite a few others who did not make statements who also proclaimed their innocence. Of course it is possible that some of these men who claimed their innocence right to the very end were not being honest. That for whatever reason, they chose to continue to lie up to the very end rather than take responsibility for why they were convicted and on Death Row. It is possible though that some of these men were innocent. Our legal system is imperfect because we as humans are not perfect. As even the Judge stated, people do lie. If someone is wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life in prison and it is found later they were innocent they will in probability have a difficult time re-establishing their life in the outside world but they would at least get that opportunity. Those that are executed, if it is at a later date believed they might have been innocent? Not much can be done, the family gains the knowledge that their loved one was not really a murderer, the victim's family then has that additional trauma.
It's worth pointing out that these cases were just in Texas alone, that over 7,000 people have been executed during the past Century. Pure logic tells you that some of these were probably innocent. Even with today's technologically advanced scientific crime lab skills mistakes are made. Evidence tainted or lost, due to human error, so while it is less possible today it is still a factor. This is why I do not support the Death Penalty. Not because of the cost factor; not because it is cruel or inhumane; not because of God; because there is that chance this person could be innocent. Enough innocents are killed, we as a nation do not need to add to this as a possibility.
Lisa,
The last I read, don’t remember the magazine, they were talking about 20-30% were not guilty of the crime charged. Instead, they were found guilty of being black and poor, getting lousy representation.
Personally, I think they’re being killed for political capital (why else would Bush be such a killer?)and because of prior records, convicted on the “hey, maybe not this one, so lets get him for the ones we missed” mentality.
Dave, that is true with some but then there are those like Cantu who did not have any prior convictions. I’m not sure about the being black part though I know proportionally there are more blacks that have been executed as far as percentages the list in Texas has alot of hispanics as well as whites who have not only been executed but proclaimed their innocence.
Poor legal representation is a huge issue and part of the cost factor involved in the appeal portion of Death Penalty cases.
For me it’s a matter of wanting to know if a mistake is made it can at least be partially undone. You may not be happy about spending 20 or 30 years in prison to finally be set free when you were proven innocent but if they’ve executed you? Unless there really is Heaven and you can look down and say “See I told you so” there’s not much that can be done to correct it at that point.
I also find it ironic that a murderer who agrees to plead guilty will usually avoid the death penalty yet those who deny guilt end up with it knowing that there is a slight chance the reason why they are saying they didn’t do it might be because they really didn’t do it.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 21, 2005 02:33 PMI’m glad to see that so many bloggers are taking note of the Houston Chronicle series. This could well be the strongest piece of journalism published in modern history in terms of suggesting that an innocent person has been executed.
Posted by: David Elliot at November 21, 2005 03:10 PMLisa:
I tend to agree with you. I don’t have moral issues with the death penalty as a means of punishment, but I do have concerns about how it is applied.
Its interesting to me that John Kerry actually supported the death penalty in a way, when he said that he was AGAINST the death penalty except for instances of terrorism. What that means is that if the crime rises to a high enough level, ie terrorism, then he is for it. From your standpoint, I’d assume you are still against it because of the possibility of innocence.
It’s hard to offer up a reason for some people to remain alive when you look at the heinous things they are convicted of. And in some cases, there is virtually no doubt of their guilt. But there are always, and will always be, those cases where there is a hint of doubt. Such was the case of Ruben Cantu, though much of reasons for the doubt surfaced years after his conviction.
Let’s not canonize Cantu though. He wasn’t a model citizen, and he had opportunities to set the record straight. He had previously been accused of shooting a police officer, though no charges were brought. This is not to say that he deserved to die, but neither should we consider him a victim due to circumstances totally outside his control.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 03:17 PMjbod: “He had previously been accused of shooting a police officer, though no charges were brought”
And Bush has been ‘accused’ of being a coke head, alcoholic, and drunk driver, with lots of evidence in support. Yet, you argue vehemently with “innocent until proven guilty” What’s the point of your comment?
As for “opportunities to set the record straight.” Doesn’t saying “I didn’t do it” count?
Lisa,
My appologies for the oversimplification (and bad spelling). The root was the economics and minority status of the defendant. Prior records, etc… is my personal take, ammalgamation, and extension.
Dave, no problem on either..
Joe I’m not suggesting Cantu was perfect. Initially when I wrote about this on my own blog I was dealing directly with the story relating to him. However when I started searching and discovered the rest of the information from Texas I felt it was worth expanding on here.
I did clearly state that Cantu himself could have turned in those who were responsible as well as placing responsibility with those who lied.
Given he has been dead since 1993 there is not much that can be done except perhaps realize that the whole issue of the Death Penalty should be looked at.
David, I agree the Houston Chronicle has done an excellent job on this issue and it is one that I feel is important. It’s very likely there are other Ruben Cantu’s on Death Row right at this moment. While I’m sure alot of them were not model citizens, all of us deserve justice.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 21, 2005 03:41 PMDave:
As for “opportunities to set the record straight.” Doesn’t saying “I didn’t do it” count?
According to the Houston Chronicle story, Cantu knew the truth, but chose not to tell it. The story claims that “Garza said Cantu also knew the truth about who had done the killing because Garza confided in him two weeks after the murder. Still,Cantu was unwilling to betray friends even to save his own life,Garza said.
This is what I meant by Cantu having opportunities to set the record straight. He chose simply to say he was innocent, but he did not disclose any evidence of this. He had evidence, but chose to keep it to himself. At the least, that makes him an accessory after the fact.
I brought up the point about Cantu’s past simply to add context. Often in these type of cases, the person is made to appear to be a model citizen, when in actuality, they are anything but. Sometimes their actual other crimes are overlooked simply because they may not have been guilty of the crime they were convicted of.
But Dave, you are correct. Its superfluous to the story. If Cantu was innocent of the murder, he should not have been put to death, regardless of other crimes he committed.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 03:48 PMjoebagodonuts:
Your comment about Cantu shooting a Police Officer is deceptive and misleading. The Police Officer was offduty and drunk at the bar with Cantu. The Cop drew his service revolver first and fired but missed. Cantu was simply defending himself. This was the reason no charges were ever filed against Cantu.
Posted by: Aldous at November 21, 2005 03:56 PMI really don’t know why this is significant. Texas likes to execute people. It is inevitable that some will be innocent. Its like Guantanamo. Torture of the innocent is ok if you get the bad guys mixed into the crowd.
Posted by: Aldous at November 21, 2005 03:59 PMAldous:
I have found nothing that indicated that the off duty officer shot at Cantu first, or even drew his weapon. If the following Houston Chronicle articleis accurate, it would appear that you are guilty of what you accuse me of—providing deceptive and misleading information. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to show where you got YOUR information suggesting the officer shot at Cantu.
“An off-duty police officer who was a stranger to Cantu was playing at another table with a cousin. Officer Joe De La Luz wore two guns under his civilian clothes, according to records.
Cantu also was armed. Both had been drinking, based on court testimony and interviews.
De La Luz later claimed under oath that Cantu shot him four times in a completely unprovoked attack. “I remember a person standing in front of me firing an unknown caliber weapon at me,” De La Luz said.
Cantu claimed they argued over the pool game and he fired only after De La Luz showed him a gun in his waistband and threatened him. Cantu never denied to his friends and his family that he shot De La Luz, though he told them he learned only afterward that De La Luz was a policeman.
Yet Cantu never was convicted of shooting the officer, despite a bar full of witnesses and his own admissions. “There was an overreaction, and some of the evidence may have been tainted. It could not be prosecuted,” said former homicide Sgt. Bill Ewell, who oversaw the investigation. Defense attorneys claimed that police illegally searched Cantu’s home the night of the shooting.”
Everyone in prison is inocent. Don’t believe me, just ask them.
If someone is found guilty of murder, rape, or child molestation put them in the death chamber. And do it quickly.
THEY DESERVE IT!
The issue here is that no matter the reason and full well accepting that Cantu as well as the three others could have prevented this…that it happens. Innocent people are executed.
If you just take the Cantu situation it’s easy to try to explain it away with his past, his own responsibility, etc. But…if you look at the numbers it is logical to conclude there are innocent people who have been executed and innocent people on death row right now.
Ron, I realize not all of those in Texas who claimed to be innocent were, I read every single statement from all of the 335 who made statements. I provided a few of them as an example but I think it is fair to say some of those who were executed probably were innocent as well as realizing some were guilty. A very large number of those who made statements did accept their guilt and responsibility in why they were being executed.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 21, 2005 04:52 PMGreat article, Lisa.
I don’t believe in the death penalty. IMO, a moral and civilized society should never pre-meditatively and systematically orchestrate the death of people. That being said, I do believe we should strictly enforce life sentences for prisoners wherever deserved. Too many criminals are allowed to get parole who don’t deserve to ever live among civilized people again after committing their crimes.
Thanks Adrienne, looks like another topic we agree on.
I also share your feelings on the sentencing issue. Life in prison should be just that.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 21, 2005 08:19 PMAdrienne
Too many criminals are allowed to get parole who don’t deserve to ever live among civilized people again after committing their crimes.
If they don’t belong on the streets again, then why should OUR tax money be wasted warehousing them. Kill them and get it over with.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 09:30 PMThe single best argument against the DP is the potentially innocent person being killed. The best way to avoid that is to make the truth the focus of the investigation and court trial. We need to be using every possible truth verification tech from drugs to polygraphs to voice stress meters etc. If these by themselves are not yet as reliable as we would like, then it’s time to develope the tech.
Posted by: Phillip Gwinn at November 21, 2005 09:37 PMRON BROWN,
They um don’t use the Gas Chamber anymore they use lethal injection and I really have to question it’s effect as a deterrant of crime. And I know this is off topic but criminals aren’t afraid of this I don’t think as much as old-sparky. Granted I am for fair trials and DNA evidence whenever possible as well as other forensics. But with Lethal Injection I don’t think hardened inmates are frightened of this.
Now Kerry said what he said as a political answer he’s primarily catholic in his outlook, I believe, and said it to sound strong on the Terror issue. But it really was a political answer, let’s face it.
I am for returning to old sparky nation-wide the lethal injection is to soften the blow should they get the wrong guy. I want something so fiercesome they defend these cases tooth and nail. And something that makes people reconsider committing murderous crimes altogether.
But then again if Ron Brown (who I though died although a great commerce secretary-strangely eulogized ‘before’ he died)if Ron Brown believes it’s a gas chamber they still use, do people really know that we nationally made the switch to what is deemed a more humane means of execution???
And if so can you see why it softens the blow should juries get it wrong and execute the wrong guy? or execute with insufficient evidence?
Posted by: Novenge at November 21, 2005 09:44 PMNovenge
I know the gas chamber isn’t used anymore. And when it was not every state used it.
However my statement was “put them in the death chamber”. Most states have a room that they carry out executions in. This would be the death chamber.
The death penalty WAS NEVER meant to be a derterrant to crime. Just as prison sentences aren’t meant to be either. BOTH ARE MEANT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER.
When Georgia finally reenstated the death penalty after the unSupreme Court in their stupidity kicked the old one out, the Attorney General who strongly supported the death penalty was asked by a bleeding heart reporter. “Do you REALLY think that this is going to deter crime?”
The Attorney General just said “Well we don’t ever have to worry about that son of a bitch doing it again now do we?”
Personally I think if someone is convicted of murder, they should be executed in the same way that they murdered their victim in front of the court house in the county where the commited the crime. In the case of rape old sparky or hanging both in public would work. In the case of child molestation, let the parents have at the asshole.
BTW, wrong Ron Brown, I’m not dead yet. Much to the dismay of some folks.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 10:26 PMPhillip Gwinn
The single best argument against the DP is the potentially innocent person being killed.Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 10:36 PMJeffery Dalmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Wayne Williams, These are ALL very powerfull arguments FOR the death penalty.
Can you honestly say that ANY of these assholes deserve to live out their natural lives?
Yet how many of them got the death penalty?
If you “punish” the wrong person by killing someone who is innocent then the reality is the real killer is still out there. If you want to make the Death Penalty really valid the only way to do that would be to make sure the person is really guilty. You would also not allow murderers to plead guilty to avoid the Death Penalty when others do receive it for the same crime.
The whole cost factor is a very different issue as it can cost more for a death penalty case than it does to sentence someone to life in prison. Shortening the appeal process could lead to even greater chances of executing the innocent.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 21, 2005 10:50 PMRon -
The point is not: should Manson be freed. The question is - are we as a society okay with killing innocent people? Any time you involve a human - mistakes will be made, and this means that innocent people will be convicted, and with the death penality - they WILL be killed. We can talk about technology all day long, but it HAS and WILL happen.
Speaking for myself, I know I’d rather apologize to a person I wrongly convicted than apologize to their family because I killed them.
So if you can tell me that you’re okay executing innocent people, than fine. But otherwise you’re just not living reality.
Republicans only care about life if its a fetus. Potentially innocent men don’t really matter.
Posted by: Aldous at November 22, 2005 02:11 AMRepublicans only care about life if its a fetus. Potentially innocent men don’t really matter.
Wow… sounds like a quote I here a lot from the “other side”…
Republicans Democrats only care about life if its a fetus criminal. Potentially innocent men babies don’t really matter.
It would be nice to see a party be consistent on this whole “culture of life” thing. Really, which would you rather live in:
(a) a society where the death penalty and abortions were both widely used; or
(b) a society where the death penalty and abortions were both banned.
Is consistency really too much to ask?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 22, 2005 08:01 AMhow about:
(c) a society where the death penalty and abortions were used sparingly.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 22, 2005 08:38 AMIt would be nice to see a party be consistent on this whole “culture of life” thing.
Great point Rob… My thoughts exactly.
My personal choice would be more like
C)A society where the death penalty and abortions are both legal, but are used intelligently as decided by each state.
I do also share Ron’s thoughts in that it is very difficult for me to justify paying for an inmate to live out their life behind bars. What is the point? If they were made to do some sort of work and be useful in some way that would help… But as it is now where they just lay around, watch tv, lift weights, and get 3 squares a day? It’s certainly not a great existance but far better than they should get. All that manpower just sitting there makes no sense to me. Make them work! At least to help pay for their own expenses instead of just having us tax payers pay for it all.
Posted by: BradM at November 22, 2005 08:52 AMThe death penalty pros and cons have been heatedly debated in this forum for a very long time. I myself am reassessing my position on the issue.
It seems to come down to the pros being a) an eye for an eye and b) the death penalty is/will be a deterrent to those crimes for which it is used as punishment. (Note: it has been shown that the death penalty is NOT actually a deterrent)
And the cons being a) the potential “killing” of an innocent person or b) the “uncivilized” nature of the act.
Also, the DNA testing that is available today that was not available yesterday causes some to wonder if we have already executed a number of “innocents”.
The only alternative to the death penalty that has any related meaning is the “death” experienced by a life sentance (this has not shown to be a deterrent but rather a bargaining chip for legal issues).
We continually compare the crime to the punishment in our arguments (a life for a life if you will) and we produce reference polls showing that X % of this group and that group are for or against the death penalty. In the extreme we introduce a fetus/death penalty/abortion analagy.
While I am sure there is one but, I have not been able to find it, a poll of the families of murdered loved ones to see how they feel.
I guess it comes down to personal preference/character. As a family member of a murdered loved one, do you want to be :
1. The person who “pulls the switch”
2. Just watches while the switch is pulled
3. The one who lives the rest of their lives with the knowledge that the convicted criminal is in prison, possibly getting a college degree, writing a book, working out everyday, giving interviews to Barbara Walters, etc.
joebagodonuts,
This is what I meant by Cantu having opportunities to set the record straight. He chose simply to say he was innocent, but he did not disclose any evidence of this. He had evidence, but chose to keep it to himself.
And? Since when one should provides *itself* innocency evidence!?! You know the mantra: “innocent until proved guilty”. Justice should provide the guilt evidence, not the reverse. In fact, it’s not even *supposed* to work the reverse way, it *MUST* work that way.
Otherwise you get this shameful “sorry, we suspect you being guilty and since you failed to show any counter-evidence, you’re found guilty!”.
I brought up the point about Cantu’s past simply to add context. Often in these type of cases, the person is made to appear to be a model citizen, when in actuality, they are anything but. Sometimes their actual other crimes are overlooked simply because they may not have been guilty of the crime they were convicted of.
You seems to confuse previous behavior of someone with an evidence of his suspected one on a crime case. Do you see how dangerous it could be? Adding context is good, sure, but you still need more than past behavior to get a reasonnable sense of innocency or guilty of someone. Plus, AFAIK the jury is not asked to decide on *previous* crime(s) but only the current one, right?
Previous behaviour is NOT a proof.
In my opinion, with death penalties you need far far more than just *reasonnable* sense. Every jury members should have *no* doubt. None. That mean a case backed by guilty evidence.
Oh, yes I’m against death penalty. Since I’m french, I live in a country where we haven’t death penalty since 1981. Guess what: crime rate don’t climb that much since…
Lisa,
Nice post. I fully agree with your points.
Your frenchly,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 22, 2005 09:59 AMAdrienneToo many criminals are allowed to get parole who don’t deserve to ever live among civilized people again after committing their crimes.If they don’t belong on the streets again, then why should OUR tax money be wasted warehousing them. Kill them and get it over with.
Because if some innocents get death penalty, probably some innocents get life sentence too. Don’t you see some pattern emerging here?
Hint: some *are* innocent.
And your tax money should be wasted warehousing them because you’re youself calling you civilized people. It’s not wildwife but a Society.
Plus the wasted money is counter-balancing the money made by gun industry and cuts made on social education, right?
Your frenchly,
Steve,
I guess it comes down to personal preference/character. As a family member of a murdered loved one, do you want to be :1. The person who “pulls the switch”
2. Just watches while the switch is pulled
3. The one who lives the rest of their lives with the knowledge that the convicted criminal is in prison, possibly getting a college degree, writing a book, working out everyday, giving interviews to Barbara Walters, etc.
How conveniently you always forgot this one:
4. The one who lives the rest of their lives with the feeling that the *convicted* criminal that was killed by death penatly may have been innocent *and* the real criminal may be *still* free.
That the whole point about death penalty. Do you agree that we should as a civilized society accept that *some* innocents get killed by justice error?
I’m not. For me, a free criminal is not worse than a killed innocent. I’m for favoring innocency over guilty. What about you?
Your frenchly,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 22, 2005 10:41 AMIt would be shortsighted to look at the death penalty issue as one that is immune from error. Of course innocent people are executed just as guilty people go free.
To get to death row or, to a life in prison sentence, evidence, motive, opportunity, etc. has been presented, in some cases an admission of guilt is also involved, you have been tried by a jury of your peers - under the watchful eye of a judge. There may have been appeals that have failed, and so on. Oh, there is also a last minute pardon opportunity.
Some states have the death penalty and some do not. I don’t know what it would take to change that but until they do, serving on a jury in a murder case cannot be pleasant (for those who oppose the death penalty) There is of course a guilt or innocence trial and then a sentencing date. Having killed someone does not necessarilly equate to the death penalty being imposed.
It is amazing how humane we are when we carry out the death penalty by lethal injection. We actually swab the injection site with alchohol to prevent infection.
Posted by: steve smith at November 22, 2005 12:31 PMOf course innocent people are executed just as guilty people go free.
I would argue that the two aren’t equal morally though. In the later - the crime is the same. If someone has been murdered - they’re dead either way. We may lack a sense of justice if no one is convicted - but the crime remains the same. In the former instance - two crimes have been committed: the original - and the second act of state sanctioned murder. As unpleasant as it may be - I think any rational society attempts to mitigate the harm done to its citizens. And remember – no is talking about releasing people convicted – just not killing them.
Posted by: justin at November 22, 2005 12:54 PMLisa Renee
Wayne Williams is the only one that I know for sure didn’t get the death penalty. I’m not sure about Dalmer. He was killed by another inmate.
Manson and Bundy got the death penalty. Mason got out of it when the unSupreme Court in it’s GREAT WISDOM threw it out in the 70’s. Bundy kept his date with the chair.
A McDonalds marque in Flordia the day Bundy was excuted had this. “Fench Fries and Bundy Fries.”
Philippe:
The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” fits in the case of Ruben Cantu. What you don’t seem to recognize is that he was prosecuted and found guilty by a jury of his peers. They saw the evidence and decided that there was proof of guilt.
Now, he may or may not have been guilty, based on this further evidence that has come out. But he had the opportunity to share information that might have changed the verdict. Once found guilty, it then became his choice whether to prove himself not guilty. He chose not to.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 22, 2005 01:47 PMAldous:
I’ve seen nothing from you showing where you found information that the off duty officer shot at Cantu. You made the comment, I asked for your source, and you suddenly got quiet. What gives?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 22, 2005 01:52 PMsteve smith
The death penalty IS NOT meant to be a deterrant to crime. It IS meant to be a punishment for the crimes that carry it.
I’ve found that most people that oppose the death penalty never had a friend or lived one murdered.
When Georgia was reenacting the death penalty, there was a reporter with The Atlanta Urnal and Constipation (excuse me Journal and Constitution) that was dead set against the death penalty. He wrote scathing artilces against it and anyone supporting it.
About a year or so after GA reenacted it this reporters brother was murdered. Guess waht this reproter wanted to happen to the murderer?
About a year or so after GA reenacted it this reporters brother was murdered. Guess waht this reproter wanted to happen to the murderer?
And this is exactly why we dont allow vigilante justice in this country.
Posted by: justin at November 22, 2005 02:10 PMAs long as we continue to fight wars, the debate over the death penalty seems kinda stupid and insignificant. We kill innocent people every day - look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
That being said, I think our current system is problematic. The standard of proof for the death penalty should Not be the same as for other punishments. In order to pass a death sentance - the standard should at least be physical evidence tying the suspect to the murders, if no such evidence exists we should limit the punishment to life in prision without parole. Our courts are political arenas and humans make mistakes - we should recognize that truth and set up standards that mitigate these influences. I’d rather have no death penalty than our current system.
Antoher problem with the death penalty is that the standard of the crime seems low. The death penalty should be reserved only for the worst of crimes where multiple lives have been taken. The OK City bomber is a good example of when the death penalty could be used - that act was on the level of something that a war could be started over.
As a Libertarian, I believe that the death penalty is very dangerous. Our country was founded upon individual rights and the government taking one’s life away (which it cannot give back) should be limited as much as possible.
Posted by: JT at November 22, 2005 03:23 PMI’ve found that most people that oppose the death penalty never had a friend or lived one murdered.
So, which would you rather have making the laws regarding murder sentences:
1) suspected murderers and their families?
2) the families of murder victims?
3) an impartial populace?
I’ll vote for #3. It’s better not to leave these decisions in the hands of those who are too close to the situation emotionally. Cool heads, reason, and justice need to prevail, not blood-thirsty vengeance.
In the case of most crimes (not just murder), the victim’s (or their family’s) requested sentence is usually greater than what would be considered fair by the rest of us. For example, I’d like to find the guy who stole my car stereo last winter and beat the holy hell out of him, but that’s probably not the type of justice that’s best for society.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 22, 2005 03:28 PMJustin,
You make good points. I would submit however that the second crime you refer to in your example “In the former instance - two crimes have been committed: the original - and the second act of state sanctioned murder.”
is not a crime. I personally do not believe that the state, in performance of its duty to mete out the laws it has created is not committing a crime, which is by definition “breaking the law”.
By some peoples reckoning, putting someone to death as punishment for a crime may be a challenge to a church doctrine and often argue their christian/religious beliefs as affronts to LAW.
Posted by: steve smith at November 22, 2005 03:34 PMSteve -
I suppose my view is that by putting to death a hypothetical innocent person - the state HAS committed a crime in that it’s illegal to execute innocent people.
Posted by: justin at November 22, 2005 04:08 PMJustin,
I certainly respect your views on this issue. It IMO is another of those “there is no way to change someones’s mind once they develop a belief regarding “
The death penalty
Same Sex marriage
Abortion
Stem Cell Research
Origin of man
And so on
You could be right steve -
that never stopped me from trying though.
Posted by: justin at November 22, 2005 05:33 PMLisa: Great post.
I’m against the death penalty because it is barbarous. Almost all industrial democracies have done away with the death penalty. How come we’re still doing it? Because we believe in a “culture of life”?
I can’t understand why conservatives, who are so concerned about a fetus that is not yet living and a vegetable-state individual that is not yet dead, are in favor of killing convicts even though they are not positive these convicts are guilty of murder?
Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 22, 2005 05:59 PMRob
I’ll go with 3 myself.
I’ve never had a family member murdered, but a friend of mine was. They gave the offender life without parole and he killed a prison gaurd.
I’m not saying that every murderer will kill again but if this guy was given death, he wouldn’t have been in the position to kill the gaurd.
Are there times when you can justifiably kill someone? YES! If someone is threating the life of another person you CAN use deadly force if necessary and be justified in it.
But if you kill someone while committing a crime that’s murder. If you kill someone because your mad at them, that’s murder.
If you murder someone you forfit your right to live.
BTW, I was for the death penalty BEFORE my friend was killed.
Ron Brown,
i do not agree that a person who commits murder forfeit’s their right to live.
i do however agree that some (EXTREMELY rare) should be put to death.. not for punishment or deterrment but ONLY for the safety of others.
i speak from experience of having four close famliy members murdered. i asked for LIFE in prison w/o parole, not death.
jo
The person or persons that murdered your family members violated their right to live. How can you say that the murderer has more of a right to live than the person he murdered?
I have to disagree with that line of thought. Murderers give no thought to the right of their victims to live. Society should not be concerned with their right to live.
Like I said, if someone murders someone they forfit their right to live. This is because of their violating the right of another person to live.
Ron Brown,
i have made a lot of mistakes in my life that i am ashamed of and i think that i have learned from my mistakes. More importantly, i am thankful for a society that gives me and others the opportunity to learn. i would not want to break the legs of every toddler that stumbled before learning to walk.
If my sister’s murderer had been killed, he would never have had a chance to perhaps realize the gravity of what he did, to repent or learn from it and contribute to society in anyway at all. In prison he at least has the opportunity to learn and perhaps influence others for the better.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 09:10 PMIf my sister’s murderer had been killed, he would never have had a chance to perhaps realize the gravity of what he did, to repent or learn from it and contribute to society in anyway at all. In prison he at least has the opportunity to learn and perhaps influence others for the better.
Also Society as a whole could learn something useful from murderers.
Like murders patterns for better pre-emptive on recidivists.
Like gun control/ban may contributes to decrease murders rate…
One can hope afterall…
Lisa’s suggestion of:
“(c) a society where the death penalty and abortions were used sparingly.”
seems the most reasonable to me.
IMO, for the death penalty should be used when and only when the evidence is so irrefutable as to eliminate doubt. We have the science and technology to do this, unfortunately many areas lack sufficiently updated forensics labs to keeps up with the evidence.
This would eliminate the innocent people being killed by the state, except in the case of “I was framed!” Now, in such cases, I do believe that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the defendant, since the state has (presumably) already proven their case.
Posted by: Stephanie at November 22, 2005 10:39 PMI believe the family of the victim should have a say, there have been situations where the family has wanted the death penalty and that was not the sentence as well as families who wanted the person to get life in prison and the death penalty was given.
Granted not even all families can determine what they need for closure. It would however be horrible to campaign for someone to be executed, go thru all of the appeals and then discover after the person was executed that they were not the one who killed your loved one. So there is a human aspect for the victims as well.
The cost factor is an interesting one since it appears it is cheaper to imprison killers to life in prison as opposed to the costs of a death penalty case (mainly due to legal fees). Should there be a more productive way of having those in prison make a contribution back to society even if they will never get out? I believe so.
I personally believe all life is sacred and taking a life any life whether it be abortion, capital punishment or disconnecting life support should be rare occurrences. Since I lean more libertarian, I also feel government should have very little say in most of these decisions.
I realize this is an emotional topic but I do want to thank everyone who has contributed on this thread. As always it is a pleasure to be able to discuss difficult topics here there have been some very good points made on both sides of this issue here.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 22, 2005 11:23 PMPhilippe Houdoin
Also Society as a whole could learn something useful from murderers.
The only thing society needs to learn from a murderer is why they have so little regard for life. And I don’t think mamy of them will tell.
Like murders patterns for better pre-emptive on recidivists.
The only murderers that have patterns are serial killers. And their patterns are figured out before they’re caught.
Also if the murderer is executed he won’t be returning to prison.
Like gun control/ban may contributes to decrease murders rate…
Gun laws donot decrease the crime rates. If anything they increase them as the criminal knows that their intended victims are un armed. Most murders from what I’ve read aren’t committed with a gun anyway.
Back around 1980 the town of Downers Grove, IL pasted a law prohibiting it’s residents from owning guns. The town of Kennesaw GA thought that the law was stupid and as a justure to prove their point passed a law that all it’s residents must own a gun. They had it to expire one year after it was enacted.
A nuteral party (I don’t remember who) kept track of both towns during the year.
Downers Grove experinced a 75% increase in crime.
Kennesaw experinced a 45% decrease in crime.
The cost factor is an interesting one since it appears it is cheaper to imprison killers to life in prison as opposed to the costs of a death penalty case (mainly due to legal fees).
This is why appeals should be limited to one time thruogh the system and it’s over.
The lawyers are the main reason the appeals process takes so long. The longer they can string it out the more money they get. And most of it is from the taxpayers.
I just found out about this case today and here are my thoughts. I’m told there has never been a proven case in the US of an innocent person being executed since the death penalty was reinstated. Despite thousands of wild eyed liberal lawyers trying to prove that someone was ever wrongly excuted they have never been able prove a singe case. This Cantu was a scum bag and society is better off without him. 12 people found him guilty. Why did Garza and Moreno change their story 20 years after the crime? Who is this mysterious “other” person? Come on people…You anti death penalty people want to hang your hat on this case? Please give me a break.
Posted by: Tony Sikes at November 23, 2005 09:15 AMCantu was 17 years old Tony, and even if he was a “scum bag” which is debateable even the Cantu’s of the world should have the same right to equal justice under the law.
Realistically given the lack of technology during the existance of capital punishment it’s pretty obvious the chances of someone innocent being executed exist.
I can’t tell you why Garza and Moreno waited so long, it is obvious the news article did not identify the third man because he was never charged. Basically he got away with murder, if the story is true.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 23, 2005 11:30 AMSo, Tony, do you honestly believe that NOBODY in this country has EVER been falsely convicted and sentenced to death? That our justice system is that perfect?
Consider it this way… Look back in recent history to a U.S. President that you thought was a horrible choice for the job (maybe Clinton or Bush, depending on which way you “swing”). Now, consider that the jurors on death penalty cases are picked out of the same pool of people who put that person in office. Do you REALLY feel that confident in their ability to make infallible decisions?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 23, 2005 12:32 PMIn my first post I mentioned three crimes that should have the death penalty.
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Sense the deabate has focused on murder, is it safe for me to say that yaall support death for rapist and child molesters?
Sense the deabate has focused on murder, is it safe for me to say that yaall support death for rapist and child molesters?
No, I do not. Especially since, in many states, a 19-year-old male having consentual sex with a 17-year-old female would be considered child molestation.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 23, 2005 12:58 PMRob, If you read my post you’ll see I didn’t say never. Just since the death penalty was reinstated. The anti death penalty folks have spent millions to dig up a case but have never been able to do it. Why not you ask? It’s most likely because it hasn’t happened. Have there been some close calls? Yes. But remember these folks on the death row get 15,20,25 years or more of appeals before they get their penalty. Everything in each case is looked at over and over again and again. Yes sometimes innocent people are put on death row but they have always been eventually released.
As far as Rons question about what crimes should be captiol cases…It’s up to each state to decide. Then the judges and juries dole out the punishments accordingly. And of course no 19 year old has ever gotten the death penalty for having sex with a seventeen year old. That’s a silly thing to even bring up in this debate.
>Rape
>Child Molestation
The punishment for a crime can’t exceed the crime. In the case Rape and Child Molestation, the death penalty doesn’t make sesne. Death row inmates are seperated from the general population and live one of the safest lives in prison. If I or someone I knew was raped or molested, I would want the criminal in with the general population (of prison) not on death row. Life in the general population would be far worse, and the criminal would likely get to experience the crime they committed from the victims side.
Posted by: JT at November 23, 2005 02:22 PMRob, If you read my post you’ll see I didn’t say never. Just since the death penalty was reinstated. The anti death penalty folks have spent millions to dig up a case but have never been able to do it. Why not you ask? It’s most likely because it hasn’t happened. Have there been some close calls? Yes. But remember these folks on the death row get 15,20,25 years or more of appeals before they get their penalty. Everything in each case is looked at over and over again and again. Yes sometimes innocent people are put on death row but they have always been eventually released.
But, as has been pointed out a number of times, those decades of appeals cost more than a life sentence does. And although it PROBABLY catches most/all of the false convictions, it still has the potential for mishap. That pretty much leaves us with three choices:
1) waste taxpayer dollars on a system that could potentially kill innocent people;
2) remove the appeals, thereby making the system more likely to kill innocent people; or
3) save money AND lives by removing the death penalty completely.
These decade of appeals bring up another point to consider — people change. If someone commits murder at 19, and sits in prison going through appeals for the next 25 years, who’s to say that they haven’t changed during those decades behind bars? They’ve spent more of their lives in prison than they have outside. Is it even worth it to execute them anymore? At that point, what are we gaining?
As far as Rons question about what crimes should be captiol cases…It’s up to each state to decide. Then the judges and juries dole out the punishments accordingly. And of course no 19 year old has ever gotten the death penalty for having sex with a seventeen year old. That’s a silly thing to even bring up in this debate.
It’s not a silly thing to bring up, Tony. If someone wants to discuss using the death penalty for child molestation cases, then the teen sex case shows that they need to be more specific. How extreme would a child molestation case have to be before the death penalty was considered? We can’t really have a dialog on the subject until it’s clarified what we’re talking about.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 23, 2005 02:25 PM“I guess it comes down to personal preference/character. As a family member of a murdered loved one, do you want to be:”
I would be #1 Steve.
- 1. The person who “pulls the switch”
But I guarantee that the murderer, rapist or child molester will be dead long before our ass-backwards govt got to him.
You murder, rape or take away a childs innocennce, you die.
This “its not the murderers, rapist or molestors fault” and “the murderer, rapist or molestor is a victim also” way of thought is why our society is in the crapper.
So yes, I would pull the switch or trigger and not regret it for one minute.
Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2005 02:59 PMJT:
If I or someone I knew was raped or molested, I would want the criminal in with the general population (of prison) not on death row. Life in the general population would be far worse, and the criminal would likely get to experience the crime they committed from the victims side.
You seem to be saying that death would be much more humane than life in prison, since the criminal would suffer more in prison and ‘experience the crime they committed’. That’s an interesting logic there.
Additionally, the penalty for treason is death. Is that exceeding the crime, in your opinion?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2005 03:16 PMAdditionally, the penalty for treason is death. Is that exceeding the crime, in your opinion?
In my opinion, yes. Moreover, I believe that it has too much potential for abuse in such cases. Of course, I’m sure others will disagree.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 23, 2005 03:35 PMRob, get real please. No jury has ever or would ever give a death sentence for 19 and 17 year old having sex. However, the death penalty for true child molestion, and you know what I mean by that, would be fine with me but again it’s up to the states to decide what warrants a death penalty.
The cost of appeals vs locking someone up for life is interesting only in that when you really look at it, the lawyers are getting rich by dragging these cases out. So money is likely the motivation for most of these appeals lawyers.
As far as the idea that people change over the course of a decades long appeals process goes.. we all change over time. We all regret things we did in the past but we all paid the price for bad decisions we made in the past. The diference is that these people on death row crossed the line. Once that line is crossed it doesn’t matter how much we change afterwards we must pay the price that society says we must pay.
joebagodonuts
You seem to be saying that death would be much more humane than life in prison, since the criminal would suffer more in prison and ‘experience the crime they committed’. That’s an interesting logic there.
In reality the death penalty for a child molester would be more hunane than death.
Even the worst of criminals hate child molesters. The molester would have to become somebody’s punk to keep from being raped themselves. Even then they wouldn’t be completely safe.
BTW, a child molester’s life expectancy in the GA prison system is 60 days. That is about how long it takes them to get put in the general population.
Rob,
By law in most states anyone 17 or younger is a child. However, I wouldn’t call a 19 year-old having sex with a 17 year-old child molestation.
If that 19 year-old was have sex with a 12 year-old that would be child molestation. IMO if the child is under 14 it’s child molestation.
kctim,
I would be #1 myself.
If the SOB is lucky enough for the cops to get him before I do.
I ran across another article about a person in Texas who may have been innocent and executed. His name was Cameron Willingham and he was executed in Texas in 2004. The article was in The Chicago Tribune.
I think whether you are for or against the death penalty, there is a developing consensus that the way it is administered in Texas puts innocent people at risk of execution.
Here is a link to send an email to the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry of Texas urging them to enact a moratorium on executions, before any more innocent people are executed.
Posted by: Sarah Samuels at November 23, 2005 06:27 PMThanks Sarah, I didn’t do an individual search on each inmate but I did list him as one of the ones who stated his innocence in his last statement.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 24, 2005 02:37 AMI am an elementary school teacher….What bothers me the most about the Ruben Cantu’s out there is that those are the kids that fell through the cracks….Ruben Cantu was a special education student…He only had a 9th grade education…Every time we have an economic crisis in this country, funds are taken away from education…Thus, many students in inner city schools do not get the opportunity to get a good education….There very few (or none at all) remedial programs for those students that have learning disabilities or special needs….If you add poverty to this….Then there is a real problem…The parents of these students do not have the funds to send their children to special schools or to pay for tutors…I find it very disturbing that those are the kids that grow into adults that get executed….
Posted by: Mariette Ramirez at November 24, 2005 04:31 AMRon:
I was pointing out the false logic of the premise. Some people say:
A) The death penalty is inhumane
B) Put criminals in jail with no parole
C) It will be worse for them to endure a life of prison rather than a quicker death.
The only conclusion from this logic is that life in prison is more inhumane than the death penalty. Therefore, if the death penalty is wrong because its inhumane, and life without parole is MORE inhumane, then why would someone propose life without parole as being a better alternative?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2005 07:30 AMjoebagodonuts,
The only conclusion from this logic is that life in prison is more inhumane than the death penalty. Therefore, if the death penalty is wrong because its inhumane, and life without parole is MORE inhumane, then why would someone propose life without parole as being a better alternative?
Because an innocent when eventually he’ll be freed of charges has better *luck* to be still alive if he was wrongly sentenced life - with or without parole, doesn’t matter here - than if he was sentenced death penalty.
We’re not arguing about making criminal life more comfortable here, but about making Justice (human driven so prone to) errors partially reversable.
Something death penalty hardly allow: “later is too late” factor, you know.
If you can’t see this logic, I fear it’s hopeless.
Philippe:
I understand THAT logic, but that is not what was presented in the earlier post. What was presented there was that a criminal faces a harder and less humane life in prison, as opposed to a quicker death.
The logic presented says essentially that death is too good for certain criminals. It therefore defeats the idea that the death penalty is too inhumane, since it calls for something even less humane.
I haven’t a lot of energy on the death penalty issue—-I have no moral opposition to it, but I do oppose it on the grounds that it is imperfectly applied.
I agree with YOUR logic that a prisoner can be let out of prison if later proven not guilty, but death can never be undone. Unfortunately, that is not the logic that was presented in the earlier post.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 25, 2005 05:36 AMJoebagodonuts, it seems in my yesterday lazyness I didn’t saw the origin of this logic and wrongly attribute it to you. Sorry.
In fact it seems we shared same opinions on death penalty issue.
Which isn’t the case with you, Ron.
Yeah right, life in prison is soooo tough. Let’s see… watch tv, lift weights, play ball, sleep, eat, abuse the weaker inmates for sex and whatever. Yeah that’s really much harsher than death. You guys are pathetic.
Posted by: Tony at November 26, 2005 03:40 PMTony,
Rob, get real please. No jury has ever or would ever give a death sentence for 19 and 17 year old having sex. However, the death penalty for true child molestion, and you know what I mean by that, would be fine with me but again it’s up to the states to decide what warrants a death penalty.
The problem is that I don’t know what you mean. The only definitions I have available are the legal definition and your statement of “you know what I mean”. I assume that you would include sex with 5-year-olds in your definition. What about a kid who’s 15? 12? 10? Does it make a difference if the 12-year-old looks 17?
If you’re talking about throwing around the DEATH PENALTY, then you sure as h*** better define your terms ahead of time! You seem to think the definition is obvious, yet you have so far been unable to put it into words. Where would YOU draw the line, Tony?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 26, 2005 07:57 PMThe Ruben Cantu case shows, there is a significant risk that innocence cases in Texas are not being discovered, and that innocent persons both reside on death row and could be wrongly executed in a system of capital punishment that often escapes governmental scrutiny and meaningful judicial review. If Texas has executed an innocent person,
Governor Perry should call the Texas Legislature into Special Session to enact a moratorium on executions and to make changes to the system to ensure that no innocent person can be executed in Texas.
Again Rob, it’s up to the states to pass laws and then a jury of 12 and a judge to dole out the punishments. A jury would look at the specifics of each case then decide. For me personally I think if I was on a jury that was hearing a child molestion case I could easily decide what is real child molestation and what isn’t. It’s just common sense. The issues you bring up are why there are not automatic death sentences. In fact no states have mandatory death sentences for any crime.
Posted by: Tony at November 27, 2005 09:41 AMHere are some facts for you goofy anti death penalty folks to chew on….
Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project and featured speaker at the National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty (11/13-15/98), stated that he had no proof of an innocent executed (in the US since 1976) (34).
Not even the nation’s leading, biased source for anti death penalty information, the DPIC, says there is proof of an innocent executed. They list 5 “doubt” cases (35): Gary Graham, Joseph O’Dell, Roger Keith Coleman, Leo Jones and David Spence. A review shows how deceptive the DPIC case descriptions are (36) and how lacking any proof of innocence is.
The Texas case of Lionel Herrera, like others, nationally, has been labeled, by many death penalty opponents, as an innocent executed. I believe that Herrera, once upon a time, was also included in a previous incarnation of the DPIC list. A comment from Supreme Court Justice O’Connor. “[T]he proper disposition of this case is neither difficult nor troubling … The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner [Herrera] deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner’s new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court’s decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390, 421(1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring)
Of all the world’s social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900. Can you name another?
Morning All:
IMHO
I find it quite puzzling and troubling that the same people who claim to be “Right to Life” are overwhelmingly for “Capitol Punishment”. Does anyone else feel this way? To attempt suicide is a crime, but to actually commit it is not, does any else here find that disturbing. To put to death even 1 innocent person is a travisty of justice, not just poor bad luck on the part of the individual who was put to death. Better to let even the most heinous criminal live, than to put an innocent person to death. I can find no justifcation for that, for no amount of money can make up for a “Mistake” like that.
And No I am not an Abortion rights advocate, I am However of the belief that I have no business telling anyone what they can/can not do with their own bodies.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
As Always,
Wayne
Again, Tony, you’re dodging the issue. You claim that defining “real” child molestation is “just common sense”, but then you fail to define it! Could it be that we don’t all share the same senses in common?
As for whether there’s proof of innocent people being executed, do we really need it? What can YOU prove? Can YOU prove that using the death penalty (a) deters crime, (b) saves lives, (c) saves money, or (d) improves society? Or, put more simply, has the death penalty actually proven useful?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 28, 2005 10:20 AMRon Brown
In my first post I mentioned three crimes that should have the death penalty.
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Sense the deabate has focused on murder, is it safe for me to say that yaall support death for rapist and child molesters?
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 23, 2005 12:46 PM
So, should those adults who brought the FALSE CHARGES against the day care center in the late 80’s early 90’s be subjected to the same said “Death Penalty”? Because if your proposal to condemn so called child molesters to the death penalty and knowing how you feel about LIARS (from your various posts), I would assume that if the lying scoundrels who filed those false charges should be subject to the same sentence that the victims of said lying were. Do you not agree, Ron Brown?
Respectfully,
Wayne
