The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

I really don't think you'd have much difficulty finding a lawyer if your case is really that close. You already have a legal aid team/public defender/private attorney representing you through the appeals process. If there was any chance of you being innocent that person/team would be doing everything they can to get your conviction overturned. Plus, DNA testing isn't really all that expensive. I had some testing done in a case for $100 bucks.

And yet, the very fact that the innocence project even exists and just keeps piling up the overturned convictions pretty well establishes that your intuition that these tests should be commonplace is completely wrong.

[CrimsonWeltall]

You already have a legal aid team/public defender/private attorney representing you through the appeals process. If there was any chance of you being innocent that person/team would be doing everything they can to get your conviction overturned. Plus, DNA testing isn't really all that expensive. I had some testing done in a case for $100 bucks.

 

Yeah, unless the court isn't interested in the DNA test:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/0...execution-date/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/2...n-on-death-row/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2009/06/1...644/scotus-dna/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/...row-inmate.html

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, unless the court isn't interested in the DNA test:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/0...execution-date/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/2...n-on-death-row/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2009/06/1...644/scotus-dna/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/...row-inmate.html

Yeah that was pretty ridiculous.

 

edit: que Scalia "actually innocent" quote

Edited May 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

And yet, the very fact that the innocence project even exists and just keeps piling up the overturned convictions pretty well establishes that your intuition that these tests should be commonplace is completely wrong.

 

I didn't say they were commonplace. I said they're readily available. And the cost isn't a prohibitive factor.

[Balta1701]

I didn't say they were commonplace. I said they're readily available. And the cost isn't a prohibitive factor.

Then here's the link to contribute to the innocence project.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, unless the court isn't interested in the DNA test:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/0...execution-date/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/2...n-on-death-row/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2009/06/1...644/scotus-dna/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/...row-inmate.html

 

Well, that's a different issue. Again, my point was if you're on death row and believe that you need DNA testing to exonerate yourself, the cost of the test isn't going to stop you. It's probably whether the court would allow it, whether there's a sample to be tested, etc.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then here's the link to contribute to the innocence project.

 

My response was to your specific statement about DNA testing and its cost, not the cost of getting a nationally recognized legal aid group to review your case.

[iamshack]

So what are the judges so afraid of? I didn't read those cases, but usually when they are defying simple logic it is because of something else they are trying to protect...let's assume that they allow defendants to pay for their own dna testing in an attempt to exonerate themselves...it logically follows then that those who cannot pay will demand the same right, paid for by the state...the government would be hard-pressed to deny that right, considering the current right to an attorney, etc. Now all the sudden every convicted felon is demanding dna testing and their attorneys are challenging the chain of custody and all that, etc., etc...this is the only logical explanation I can think of for their refusal.

[illinilaw08]

So what are the judges so afraid of? I didn't read those cases, but usually when they are defying simple logic it is because of something else they are trying to protect...let's assume that they allow defendants to pay for their own dna testing in an attempt to exonerate themselves...it logically follows then that those who cannot pay will demand the same right, paid for by the state...the government would be hard-pressed to deny that right, considering the current right to an attorney, etc. Now all the sudden every convicted felon is demanding dna testing and their attorneys are challenging the chain of custody and all that, etc., etc...this is the only logical explanation I can think of for their refusal.

 

Explanation from the Innocence Project...

 

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/US...roject_Says.php

[StrangeSox]

That's where Scalia's "'actually' innocent" line comes from. Who cares what the facts are or what new evidence is found? As long as the proper procedures were followed during the original trial, we should execute.

[Jenksismyhero]

FWIW, according to the ACLU all death penalty states have the right to DNA testing.

 

As of 2011, 48 states have DNA access laws. All of the 34 death penalty states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming) now give inmates, albeit to different extents, the right to DNA testing.

 

At the federal level, the Justice for All act, signed in 2004, is useful legislation in this struggle. The Justice For All Act includes the Innocence Protection Act, legislation that, among other things, grants any federal inmate the right to petition a federal court for DNA testing to support a claim of innocence. It also encourages states - through the power of the purse - to adopt adequate measures to preserve evidence and make postconviction DNA testing available in inmates seeking to prove their innocence.

[illinilaw08]

That's where Scalia's "'actually' innocent" line comes from. Who cares what the facts are or what new evidence is found? As long as the proper procedures were followed during the original trial, we should execute.

 

I get what SCOTUS was trying to say with that opinion. A verdict is a verdict. The State doesn't get to re-try someone a second time with newly discovered evidence after they lose the first time. So, as long as adequate procedures are in place during the trial and appeals process to give the defendant access to DNA testing, why is there a second bite at the apple?

 

The counter to that, of course, is that things are different when a life is at stake. And to narrowly read an exception in that applies to capital cases and newly discovered evidence seems to be a pretty important exception to create. In capital cases (and frankly cases of life imprisonment as well), IMO, it's more important to get the verdict correct than it is to protect the finality of a verdict.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know much about DNA testing in criminal cases, what are the types of odds it gives you? I know parentage testing can get you 99.9%. I'd imagine in a criminal setting, especially with DNA samples taken in the field and several years ago, the accuracy is put into question. But maybe that's a bad assumption.

[Balta1701]

I don't know much about DNA testing in criminal cases, what are the types of odds it gives you? I know parentage testing can get you 99.9%. I'd imagine in a criminal setting, especially with DNA samples taken in the field and several years ago, the accuracy is put into question. But maybe that's a bad assumption.

Definitely depends on how the evidence was handled...but then of course you might want to ask whether the state should be killing a person if there were any issues with handling or processing evidence properly.

 

If collected and stored properly, the genetic material should last for decades and give similar levels or accuracy to parentage tests.

[illinilaw08]

FWIW, according to the ACLU all death penalty states have the right to DNA testing.

 

High profile cases involve DNA exonerating a defendant. What is left out of that analysis is how frequently there isn't any testable DNA at a crime scene (or it just is not collected). In those cases, law enforcement necessarily is relying on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence to get a conviction. And plenty of people are sitting on death row for convictions resulting from the above (which as SS has illustrated over the years, is notoriously unreliable, especially in a capital case).

[StrangeSox]

Probably should just abolish the barbaric death penalty and remove all doubt about the state killing innocent people in the name of justice!

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm in agreement that speeding up the death penalty (in most cases) is a pretty dumb policy, but I see no reason why we should rid ourselves of the death penalty completely based on the fact that a small number of people have been exonerated. If that's the argument we should also get rid of long term prison sentences.

 

Our system is not perfect by any means, but it's the best in the world. And we should be diligent in making it as efficient and accurate as possible. I don't think we should throw up our hands and automatically assume that every verdict was a result of corruption or bad evidence.

[StrangeSox]

I'm in agreement that speeding up the death penalty (in most cases) is a pretty dumb policy, but I see no reason why we should rid ourselves of the death penalty completely based on the fact that a small number of people have been exonerated. If that's the argument we should also get rid of long term prison sentences.

 

Our system is not perfect by any means, but it's the best in the world. And we should be diligent in making it as efficient and accurate as possible. I don't think we should throw up our hands and automatically assume that every verdict was a result of corruption or bad evidence.

 

No, not by a long shot. Our criminal system is pretty unfair and unequal (see: conviction rates by class, color, especially death sentences) and we imprison far, far too many people in overcrowded prisons with crap conditions that breed our high recidivism rates.

 

The list of countries with capital punishment isn't exactly a list of "best countries in the world," by the way. Most of the world has abolished this barbaric form of 'justice' that doesn't actually serve any wider purpose (it's effects as a deterrent are non-existent).

 

 

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article...e_of_law_index/

at least we're not Italy, though!

Edited May 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

No, not by a long shot. Our criminal system is pretty unfair and unequal (see: conviction rates by class, color, especially death sentences) and we imprison far, far too many people in overcrowded prisons with crap conditions that breed our high recidivism rates.

 

The list of countries with capital punishment isn't exactly a list of "best countries in the world," by the way. Most of the world has abolished this barbaric form of 'justice' that doesn't actually serve any wider purpose (it's effects as a deterrent are non-existent).

 

I was referring to our justice system in that you're provided (generally) more rights and guarantees and fair trials. But I agree we imprison far too many people for BS crimes (drugs, specifically). And the race component I think is overblown. The justice system plays its role independent of that. Go to the courthouse at 26th and Cal and you have black officers arresting black men who are convicted by black juries.

 

As to the death penalty, the guy that murders an entire family in cold blood deserves to die. The guy that shot up the Colorado movie theater deserves to die. I don't care if it has a deterrent effect or not. That sub-human individual shouldn't be allowed to sit in a jail cell and watch TV for the rest of his life. If you want a different system, I'd be all about letting those monsters free on a deserted island to fend for themselves.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

No, not by a long shot. Our criminal system is pretty unfair and unequal (see: conviction rates by class, color, especially death sentences) and we imprison far, far too many people in overcrowded prisons with crap conditions that breed our high recidivism rates.

 

The list of countries with capital punishment isn't exactly a list of "best countries in the world," by the way. Most of the world has abolished this barbaric form of 'justice' that doesn't actually serve any wider purpose (it's effects as a deterrent are non-existent).

 

 

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article...e_of_law_index/

at least we're not Italy, though!

 

Ha. This makes me laugh:

 

Significantly, the United States ranks last within both its income and regional groups on providing access to civil justice, which the index measures primarily on the basis of whether citizens believe they can bring their cases to court and whether representation by lawyers and other legal professionals is available and affordable.

 

The entire system is set up to make it incredibly easy to file a legitimate case. Attorneys bank roll the entire process, on a gamble essentially that they'll win for you, and you don't have to pay for hardly anything. Not to mention we have to be at or near the top of the list for the number of cases filed. Since the data is based on a survey, i'm guessing that is typical American "I want what I want and I want it now and for free!" mentality.

[Balta1701]

The entire system is set up to make it incredibly easy to file a legitimate case. Attorneys bank roll the entire process, on a gamble essentially that they'll win for you, and you don't have to pay for hardly anything. Not to mention we have to be at or near the top of the list for the number of cases filed. Since the data is based on a survey, i'm guessing that is typical American "I want what I want and I want it now and for free!" mentality.

What you don't realize is how completely different this is from the public defender system that the poor wind up having to rely on.

[StrangeSox]

I was referring to our justice system in that you're provided (generally) more rights and guarantees and fair trials. But I agree we imprison far too many people for BS crimes (drugs, specifically). And the race component I think is overblown. The justice system plays its role independent of that. Go to the courthouse at 26th and Cal and you have black officers arresting black men who are convicted by black juries.

 

I don't care what you think is overblown. The disparity in conviction rates, especially for capital crimes, is abundantly clear. Poorer people accused of a crime, many of whom are black, are going to be relying on our woefully underfunded and overburdened public defenders.

 

As to the death penalty, the guy that murders an entire family in cold blood deserves to die. The guy that shot up the Colorado movie theater deserves to die. I don't care if it has a deterrent effect or not. That sub-human individual shouldn't be allowed to sit in a jail cell and watch TV for the rest of his life. If you want a different system, I'd be all about letting those monsters free on a deserted island to fend for themselves.

 

Take a look at the company you want to keep with the barbaric death penalty.

 

I see no reason why those people, as horrible as they may be, should be put to death by the state. It says that violent retribution is ok, that it's morally acceptable.

[StrangeSox]

What you don't realize is how completely different this is from the public defender system that the poor wind up having to rely on.

That part he pulled out was referring to our civil litigation system I think. No right to an attorney there.

[StrangeSox]

Ha. This makes me laugh:

 

 

 

The entire system is set up to make it incredibly easy to file a legitimate case. Attorneys bank roll the entire process, on a gamble essentially that they'll win for you, and you don't have to pay for hardly anything. Not to mention we have to be at or near the top of the list for the number of cases filed. Since the data is based on a survey, i'm guessing that is typical American "I want what I want and I want it now and for free!" mentality.

 

 

You do a lot of guessing and supposing that just happens to confirm your pre-conceived ideas and dismisses contradictory evidence.

[Jenksismyhero]

What you don't realize is how completely different this is from the public defender system that the poor wind up having to rely on.

 

I say bollocks to that. I know two public defenders very well and both are incredibly smart and take a lot of pride in what they do. I also worked with a couple others during my internship at a states attorney's office during my last year of college. Are they the best of the best? No. But they're entirely capable. It's not like they throw out unseasoned 1st year law students to try a triple homicide death penalty case.