Another Death Penalty debate

[SlowDownThere]

This one in Virginia, and it's not at all like the Tookie case.

Here, a murder/rape was commited in 1981. The convict put to death in 1991, pleading his innocence all the way. What makes this case unusual is that there in DNA evidence now available that will either prove or disprove his guilt.

The Governor of the state hopes to have the conditions for the test agreed upon before he leaves office in 12 days. I hope so too. I will try to find a link to an article about it.

If the test proves an innocent man was executed, it will have a profound impact on the debate in this country. Anyone in VA know about this case, maybe post a link?

[1sgkelly]

Two questions:

1. Why was he tried; what did the Grand Jury see that made them go forward with the indictment.

2. What does his rap sheet look like.

[SlowDownThere]

I got a couple of the facts wrong in my first post, but not by much.
If this man can be proven to be innocent, I think it will have a profound impact on the debate.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/03/death_penalty_foes_await_decision_in_va/

P.S. I have no idea about his criminal history

[willowdared]

The shame is that debate is usually about the death penalty in and of itself, and not how it is implemented.

I support the death penalty, but I think the bar on evidence should be high, and the crime heinous in nature.

In this case, it looks like there were preliminary tests on semen and blood that put him with a small percentage of those likely.

I hope they do the test, because no one should be afraid of the truth - there is the chance that it may prove he did it too!

[Mitchell_in_CT]

With DNA testing, the death penalty will be more humane now.

With DNA evidence available now, we can clear up questions on new cases.

The 8th ammendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Compared to what many people who get sentanced to death do, its neither cruel or unusual to stick a clean needle in their arm and give them a massive dose of feel-good drugs before you stop their heart.

Feeding them to wild boar, pouring burning lead over them, suspending them from a rope with hands tied behind their back and dunking them into a tub of water to slowly drown...ok, those would be 8th ammendment violations...

The death penalty was never declared unconstitutional, it was declared unconstitutional AS APPLIED.

It is cruel to sentance someone to death if they had an overworked, inexperienced legal aid attorney that was in over his head in the trial, or a drunk who slept through parts of the trial.

Those violate the basics of fairness, but if someone can get adaquate representation, and I don't mean a million dollar attorney, but competent and sober in court, and DNA can pin it on them, the death penalty isn't cruel.

[SlowDownThere]

The lack of media attention to this issue confounds me.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this case seems far more significant than any recent execution case, and we aren't hearing much about it.

[willowdared]

Ontario DNA test proves U.S. murderer's guilt

Spectator wire services
TORONTO (Jan 13, 2006)
DNA tests conducted by a Canadian lab have confirmed an American executed in 1992 was guilty of raping and killing his sister-in-law more than two decades ago.

Right up until he was executed by electric chair in Virginia, Roger Coleman insisted he did not kill 19-year-old Wanda McCoy, his wife's sister. She was found stabbed and nearly beheaded in 1982 in her home.

Coleman's lawyers argued he did not have time to commit the crime, but even a cover appearance on Time magazine and appeals by Pope John Paul couldn't get him off death row.

"The confirmation that Roger Coleman's DNA was present reaffirms the verdict and the sanction," Virginia Gov. Mark Warner said yesterday. "Again, my prayers are with the family of Wanda McCoy at this time."

Doubts about the validity of the original DNA testing saw the case go to Virginia's Supreme Court in 2002. But it wasn't until last month that Warner ordered new DNA tests.

The tests were conducted at Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences at Warner's request and the urging of Canadian lawyer James Lockyer of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. The lab was chosen because of its expertise and independence from the highly charged case.

Lockyer said he was somewhat saddened by the news but glad the truth came out.

"The DNA has proved the truth of the case, but it's still very unfortunate that a man was executed," Lockyer said.

Coleman's case had been closely watched because no executed convict in the U.S. has been exonerated by scientific testing. Death penalty opponents argue the risk of a mistake by the criminal justice system is too great to allow capital punishment

[SlowDownThere]

Thanks for the update willow. I was wondering about this.

[willowdared]

Welcome! They had it as a scroll on the news last night, looked up the story today.

I feel really sad for the victim's family, they spent so much time having the focus on the killer, not on the horrible death of his wife's sister.

[nobody33]

I support the death penalty, but I think the bar on evidence should be high, and the crime heinous in nature.



I also support the death penalty, but I don't think the evidence should be any more that that of a life in prison sentence. It should all be high. It always annoys me when the anti death penalty crowd argues for people to get life in prison when they also advocate their innocence... Why should an innocent person spend life in prison?

[willowdared]

I also support the death penalty, but I don't think the evidence should be any more that that of a life in prison sentence. It should all be high. It always annoys me when the anti death penalty crowd argues for people to get life in prison when they also advocate their innocence... Why should an innocent person spend life in prison?

By high bar, I mean really good physical evidence - not just witness/circumstantial.

[Rue]

I support the Death Penalty. However I do think the Punishment should fit the Crime.
Personally I think the crime rate would go down quite a bit if things were handled the way they were handled a few hundred years ago. When you messed up, things were handled then and there. Then again sometimes you were just shot and killed the rest of the world was a bit better off. One less criminal.

[NCHawk56]

Two questions:

1. Why was he tried; what did the Grand Jury see that made them go forward with the indictment.

2. What does his rap sheet look like.

98-99% of indictments brought before grand juries are brought forward, partly because Prosecutors are the only one that get an opportunity to present evidence.

2. Someones rap sheet is not a predictor of murder.

In my opinion the death penalty equates to revenge, and because of disparties in the way it is administered, I can't support it at this time.

I can see death penalty oneday used in some form of incapacitation model against a defendant who because of random acts of violence, serial killers, murder for hire, would pose a risk to society, but not against an offender who committed a single crime of passion.

Stay Safe!!!

NCHawk56

[Kieth M.]

Have you ever wondered about those who oppose the death penalty, asking if they've spent as much time reviewing the case with the family of the victim, as they have had TV face time, wringing their hands, and meeting with the convicted killer? My favorite was last year, when a local Talk Radio guy asked Jesse Jackson if he had met the families of, or if he even could name any of the murder victims, killed by Stanley 'Tookie' Williams. Alas, Jackson had not, and could not.

I used to vacillate on the death penalty. That was, until 20+ years ago, when I arrested James Nelson Blair. Blair sits on CA's Death Row for the murder of one of two women, to whom he gave cyanide-laced gin to. The gin was given by Blair to one of the women's five year-old son, to deliver as a wrapped gift. Death by cyanide poisoning was a slow, painful, excruciating ordeal, which was drawn out over several months. The surviving woman faced frequent violent seizures as a result of the poisoning.*

That's why in CA, poison...along with trainwrecking, use of explosives and machine guns to kill, are automatic death penalty cases. Convicted capital murderers are not victims, they are usually volunteers. They have, in most cases, worked very hard to earn the most severe of sentence.

I will never hesitate to support the death penalty. For me it's about valuing the lives of the victims, and of society, over the willingly forfeited life of the murderer. IF James Nelson Blair is executed before I retire from the PD, I will gladly go and watch him die.

* And oh yeah, before you ask...the women's names were Faye, Rhoda, and Rhoda's husband was Goretha and her son was Jesse...I haven't forgotten them, and the pain they went though. Somewhere, a 26 year-old man walks the streets and hopefully doesn't (but probably does) know he delivered the gift-wrapped gin that killed his mom.

[1042 Trooper]

The one alternatived to death, which I wholeheartedly support, would be complete and irreversable banishment.

Give the convicted a choice - immediate execution or, a lifetime of complete banishement on some remote island with all of the other murderers. Mine the circumfrence of the island, give'm a book of matches and a butter knife and drop them off forever.

Of course, it's too easy but it would work.

[Centurion44]

The British tried that. The island is now called Australia.

[Ex Army MP]

The death penalty was never declared unconstitutional, it was declared unconstitutional AS APPLIED.


I like Justice Scalia's answer when folks like to say that the death penalty is Unconstitutional. He basically says that the framers had the death penalty in mind when they wrote the Constitution, specifically in these two sentences:

5A

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"

14A

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

These phrases seem to indicate that, so long as there is a grand jury indictment and so long as due process is satisfied, the death penalty is Constitutional. Some may counter that the Constitution is a living document and that what was not cruel and unusual back then can be considered as such in 2006. I don't buy that.

Also, I don't get the cruel and unusual part anyway. Shouldn't it be " cruel or unusual"? Cruel would be sentencing someone to death by the guillotine. Cruel and Unusual would be sentencing someone to death by the guillotine while making him dress as a french maid with combat boots while singing the Argentinian National Anthem.

[cityblusuit]

I like Justice Scalia's answer when folks like to say that the death penalty is Unconstitutional. He basically says that the framers had the death penalty in mind when they wrote the Constitution, specifically in these two sentences:

5A

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"

14A

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

These phrases seem to indicate that, so long as there is a grand jury indictment and so long as due process is satisfied, the death penalty is Constitutional. Some may counter that the Constitution is a living document and that what was not cruel and unusual back then can be considered as such in 2006. I don't buy that.

Also, I don't get the cruel and unusual part anyway. Shouldn't it be " cruel or unusual"? Cruel would be sentencing someone to death by the guillotine. Cruel and Unusual would be sentencing someone to death by the guillotine while making him dress as a french maid with combat boots while singing the Argentinian National Anthem.


Thats what I was gonna say

[equinox137]

98-99% of indictments brought before grand juries are brought forward, partly because Prosecutors are the only one that get an opportunity to present evidence.


The ham sandwich theory...The ironic thing is that grand juries were originally designed to protect the accused from malicious or unwarranted prosecution.

[equinox137]

That's why in CA, poison...along with trainwrecking, use of explosives and machine guns to kill, are automatic death penalty cases.

Trainwrecking (I'm assuming you mean deliberate derailment) is also a federal capital offense, in addition to most states.

[equinox137]

I like Justice Scalia's answer when folks like to say that the death penalty is Unconstitutional. He basically says that the framers had the death penalty in mind when they wrote the Constitution, specifically in these two sentences:

5A

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"

14A

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

These phrases seem to indicate that, so long as there is a grand jury indictment and so long as due process is satisfied, the death penalty is Constitutional. Some may counter that the Constitution is a living document and that what was not cruel and unusual back then can be considered as such in 2006. I don't buy that.

Also, I don't get the cruel and unusual part anyway. Shouldn't it be " cruel or unusual"? Cruel would be sentencing someone to death by the guillotine. Cruel and Unusual would be sentencing someone to death by the guillotine while making him dress as a french maid with combat boots while singing the Argentinian National Anthem.

I didn't figure you to be pro-death penalty, Army. :) In any case, you're 100% correct.

[LPI]

I didn't figure you to be pro-death penalty, Army. :) In any case, you're 100% correct.

See, the Democrats and the Republicans can come across the aisle and agree on something. Not sure where that leaves me though, because I am against it.

[Ex Army MP]

I didn't figure you to be pro-death penalty, Army. :) In any case, you're 100% correct.

I didn't say that I was. I said that I didn't think it was Unconstitutional. All kidding aside, however, I do believe in it.

[Ex Army MP]

See, the Democrats and the Republicans can come across the aisle and agree on something. Not sure where that leaves me though, because I am against it.

I believe in it although I recognize the inherent flaws in it. I could argue it either way but a couple of arguments on both sides bother me.

For example, someone on the anti-side will say that if they do life they'll never harm anyone again. Aside for the fact that a death row inmate could kill a guard, it also seems that life never means life. Back in the 60's Thomas Trantino killed a cop in NJ, ambush style. His death sentence was overturned and he received life. A few years back some bleeding hearts said that he was an old man and a model prisoner so he should be set free. He was. Then this fine loving 70 year old man beat the crap out of his new girlfriend.

Now, on the pro -side, I hear people say " what if the victim was your kid or mother or sister?". Well, I'd want to kill the guy myself. That's why we pick an impartial jury. I could easily ask " what if the killer was your son?". How many people would want to see their kid fried?

[Cockney Corner.]

The British tried that. The island is now called Australia.

We used America as a penal colony too. That was before the Revolutionary War naturally.

Australia, incidentally, was only used as a place of punishment for very low level offences. Hundreds of offences brought the death penalty in the eighteenth century, so if you had done anything more serious than steal a handkerchief, you could expect a long drop rather than a long sea cruise. Them's were the days eh ..?

[banastretarlton]

I support the Death Penalty. However I do think the Punishment should fit the Crime.
Personally I think the crime rate would go down quite a bit if things were handled the way they were handled a few hundred years ago. When you messed up, things were handled then and there. Then again sometimes you were just shot and killed the rest of the world was a bit better off. One less criminal.

Oh, really. You think we should be hanging shop-lifters in the town square and burning woman with face moles and black cats?

Rue, if you're that desperate to live in a mediaeval society, you're in luck, buddy. Get online and book yourself a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia.

[equinox137]

This is one of the times I have to agree with Banastre. Some of the punishments even in Colonial America were pretty brutal.

For example, a woman convicted of being a scold (a gossip or a loudmouth) or of having an illegitimate child or of prostituion was sentenced to a ducking stool where they restrained her into a chair and dunked her in a waterway, which usually had God-knows-what in it. (For some reason, Pelosi comes to mind as I'm writing this). Sometimes the convicted died of shock.

Then of course, there was the thumbscrews, the pillory, whippings, brandings (anyone want to know why you have to raise your right hand in court?) ...etc

And as Banastre pointed out....simple thieves were publicly hung in the town common...

[Ex Army MP]

This is one of the times I have to agree with Banastre. Some of the punishments even in Colonial America were pretty brutal.

For example, a woman convicted of being a scold (a gossip or a loudmouth) or of having an illegitimate child or of prostituion was sentenced to a ducking stool where they restrained her into a chair and dunked her in a waterway, which usually had God-knows-what in it. (For some reason, Pelosi comes to mind as I'm writing this). Sometimes the convicted died of shock.

Then of course, there was the thumbscrews, the pillory, whippings, brandings (anyone want to know why you have to raise your right hand in court?) ...etc

And as Banastre pointed out....simple thieves were publicly hung in the town common...

I guess this is what truly seperates us from many Islamic cultures. I think that they'll eventually catch up. Maybe in 1000 years, if we are still here. Nothing like stoning a woman to death in 2006 for adultery or killing your sister because she was raped. Anyway, I know this is a topic for a different thread but whenever some dolt likes to say how peaceful these people are and how they are " just like us", I think about these things.

[equinox137]

I guess this is what truly seperates us from many Islamic cultures. I think that they'll eventually catch up. Maybe in 1000 years, if we are still here. Nothing like stoning a woman to death in 2006 for adultery or killing your sister because she was raped. Anyway, I know this is a topic for a different thread but whenever some dolt likes to say how peaceful these people are and how they are " just like us", I think about these things.

Trouble is Army that they want to force that on the world. How do we fight that? Through cops and lawyers and courts? Or with soldiers and M-4s and F-22s? Personally, I vote for the latter and I couldn't give a damn about their rights.

[MDS]

Oh, really. You think we should be hanging shop-lifters in the town square and burning woman with face moles and black cats?


That's obviously pretty extreme, but Rue's got a point; some level of tougher punishment should exist. TVs and Nintendos for inmates is stupid. I'm all for hard labor and chain gangs.