I want to start this blog off by saying that I am 100% againsts the death penalty! Any state sanctioned murder is irreprehensible in my book. But that isn't exactly what this blog is about.
A few minutes ago I read an article about a man on death row who was executed.
To summarize...Sedly Alley was convicted of raping and murdering Suzanne Collins, a 19-year-old Marine, outside Memphis in 1985 and sentenced to death. His defense attorney repeatedly asked for DNA testing of saliva found on Ms. Collins and on a pair of male underware found at the scene. The state declined to procede with the DNA testing claiming that these items were poorly preserved and thus would not provide any conclusive evidence. Mr. Alley was executed Wednesday shortly after 2am. His daughter is persuing a way to continue pressing for the DNA evidence to be tested.
First I want to say that in ANY death row case, all precautions must be made to protect the innocent from wrongful punishment. Even if scientists claim that the test would be inconclusive, what harm is done in completing these tests? If the test in fact turned out inconclusive than no evidence to prove innocence. But what if the test could exonerated Mr. Alley and we just murdered an innocent man? I find that the penalty given should automatically require that all possible ways of exoneration be assessed and attempted before execution.
Now to the even trickier part. There is no precedent for the defense of a convicted criminal to continue after said criminal's execution. So how do you think the state of Tennessee should go about this? Since the criminal has been executed, the case is no longer in the criminal law realm. Thus, for any type of forward motion the daughter must file a civil suit against Tennessee to begin fighting for the genetic testing to be done. Do you think that the testing should be conducted? I am sure every death penalty opposer is foaming at the mouth right now for they may actually get the proof that they have been trying so hard to obtain -- that the death penalty executes innocents and should be abolished. (I, however, disagree with the death penalty on principle, not for the sake of an innocent being wrongfully punished.) I have very strong feelings on the matter and am curious for alternative opinions. Let me know what you think.
There have already been 15 executions done on innocent people, but the people were only proven innocent after it was too late and they were already killed. DNA testing should always be done, since that's how we foudn the innocence of those 15 men. I'm also 100% against the death penalty just because I don't think the government should have the right to say who dies and who lives. It's been so racially motivated in the past...I don't know if it is still this way, but it's basically just no fair. Since Mr. Alley was executed, I don't really think it's necessary for testing to be done unless the daughter really wants it to. It's so expensive and even if it proves him to be innocent, nothing will change. He's already dead. That's kind of a bad way to look at it, but I think that if I was the daughter I would not want him to be proven innocent because then I would be so irate with the government. Sometimes it's better to be ignorant.
I am honored, never have I been in the presence of so much information that is inaccurate or just plain lies as the postings by Jacqulyn and peppermintfrost.
Jacqulyn, please read the 6th US Court of Appeal decision this month --- then comment.
peppermintfrost, please list the 15 who have been executed who were innocent.
Appeals courts issue decisions all the time. I'm sure there have been plenty more than one this month. Just trying to be as vague as possible by not providing a link OR a summary so that people will think you have something rational to say even when you don't?
The following is from the Death Penalty Information Center. 1101 Vermont Avenue NW. Suite 701. Washington, DC 20005. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org. This version was updated on October 1, 2005.
Since 1973: 123 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
All of the men on this site had probable or posible innocence: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed
The information about the 15 innocent people who were killed was in a newspaper article given to my class by my american government teacher.
Now, for the discrimination aspect of the death penalty(all from Death Penalty Infromation Center):
-In 96% of the states where there were reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both.
-98% of chief attorneys in death penalty cases are white.
-Those who kill whites are more likely to recieve the death penalty than those who kill blacks or Latinos.
What about my post is misinformation? I cited an article about a particular situation. Then stated my opinions based on said article? Explain how I am misinformed?
Also, please cite which appeals decision you are referring to?
And even if peppermintfrost is incorrect in her exact number, you nor I can be positive that innocent people have been executed. It is an inevitablitiy of our justice system that at times an innocent is punished (whatever the punishment). My main point was that with death penalty cases ALL possible ways of proving innocence should be exhausted before executing a human being. Why wouldn't the state provide that?
Interesting post. I certainly think the state shouldn't provide any barriers to further DNA investigation. Perhaps a private fund could be started to pay for it, or even the family could pay for it, depending on how expensive the process is.
The state does have a legtimate interest in what this DNA might reveal, though. Information on the validity of past examples of a criminal procedure it engages in, particularly one that is currently being questioned legally, will help the state to evaluate its own laws and produce more effective ones in the future. I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have been forced to pay for the investigation before they executed this man. So now that it screwed that up, perhaps it should retroactively provide this money, so that we can more effectively oversee its procedure.
But it's not likely to happen - the state hates it when citizens question what it does.
However it is paid for, I certainly think the testing should be conducted.
Incidentally, I, too, oppose the death penalty on more theoretical grounds, but part of that theory is the possibility of the execution of an innocent (whether it occurs in reality or not). Thus, although this evidence isn't necessary for my position, it would give me more rhetorical power while arguing.
First off I believe you are talking about Sedley Alley. If only saliva evidence could save this poor man. Unfortunately, it will only further the state's conviction due to the simple fact that he commited the crime. The arctilce you read left out what most of us intelligent people would consider important facts. Two eye witnesses spotted Sedley and his vehicle at the scene when a woman's voice screaming out for help was heard. Sedley himself confessed to killing her but gave the police a different story of being drunk driving and accidently hitting her with his vehicle. Sedley of course was not aware of forensics when he made that confession. It later was shown by forensics experts that Suzanne Marie Collins was fatally impelled in the head by most likely a screwdriver and that she was rapped with a tree branch. Sedley's next move was to fit himself in the insanity defense which at the time probably seemed like the next logical step for signing his own execution letter. Why did the coroner conclude that Suzanne died after the police arrested Sedley. You see in the military your rights are different from those of being a civilian. Military police were notified by the eye witnesses that they heard a woman scream and Sedley's vehicle leaving the area. Suzanne was still alive when the police were called out to Sedley's place to question him. Sedley of course lied during the questioning and not until the body was discovered later was he arrested. These stories aren't very progressive are they if they only tell a partial or in this case totally inaccurate tales. Try next time to read more then just one story by an author who has an agenda.
My opinions were universal, not specific to this case. I thought the article brought up points I wanted to express. It doesn't really matter if the man was innocent or guilty -- he's already dead. The question is...do you let his defense carry on in his absence?
That's fine if your opinions were universal but you stated that this could be the case that death penalty opposer need to prove that the death penalty executes innocents. This is not the case and inconclusive results can be spinned into reasonable doubt defense. Since he has been executed he has no chance of parole which in my opinion, doesn't matter, is an excellent thing.
All of that is irrelevent to the question of whether the DNA evidence should continue to be investigated now (and whether it should have been investigated in the first place). My answer to both questions is still yes. The state should never execute someone without exhausting every method of proof available. (Actually, I believe the state should never execute someone at all, but that wasn't the point of the post.)
Normally I do not participate in blogs. However, through my Google News alert, I came across this site and felt compelled. I am particularly surprised at the hostility of some, in particular the author of "I am honored, never have I ...". Dear Honored, it is actually you that is the one who does not know what he/she is talking about. First, in this country alone since 2002 there have been no less than 189 DNA exonerations. At least twelve of those persons were convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death. These persons would have gone on to be executed had it not been for the advent of DNA testing. These wrongfully convictions occurred for a variety of reasons; wrongful eye witness testimony/identification, false confessions, and misleading blood type matches -- just to name a few. Just off the top of my head, I can name those twelve men: -Kirk Bloodsworth -Ronald Jones -Ron Williamson -Earl Washington -Robert Miller -Verneal Jimerson -Dennis Williams -Rolando Cruz -Alejandro Hernandez -Frank Lee Smith -Charles Fain -Ray Krone To "First off, I believe you are..." : you should not be discussing something you appear to know little about. You would do well to read some of the stories of those actually exonerated before you start citing things like eye witnesses and confessions as being reliable indicators as to the guilt of an individual. Note that the exonerations I speak of do not involve convictions vacated or reversed due to technicalities, or recantations, or equivocal evidence, but rather as a result of incontrovertible scientific evidence of innocence. Those listed above represent twelve individuals who did not commit the crimes for which they were convicted and condemned to death, yet who came perilously close, far closer than Due Process can tolerate, to having their lives extinguished on the basis of an erroneous jury verdict and appellate confirmation. For your information, both wrongful eyewitness testimony/identification and false confessions have played a major part in many of the wrongful convictions in this country. Eyewitness identification has been shown to be unreliable and has been shown to be easily influenced by an investigating agencies actions. The same is true of false confessions. For starters, I would suggest you read the book "Actual Innocence" by Barry Scheck. You might be surprised to learn what a cloud you are living on. An even quicker read: Cardozo's Innocence Project website. Additionally, the exonerations of death row inmates, as well as others, around the country has recently lead to a move toward changes in our justice system. DNA testing has opened a window into wrongful convictions so that we may study the causes and propose remedies that may minimize the chances that more innocent people are convicted. In fact, DNA testing has been a major factor in changing the criminal justice system. It has provided SCIENTIFIC PROOF that our system convicts and sentences innocent people -- AND THAT WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS ARE NOT ISOLATED AND RARE EVENTS. Consequently, there are Bills pending in most states to address these issues. These Bills look for changes in custodial interrogations, eyewitness identification procedures, and more.
I've changed my view since getting more and more information. The insanity defense throws me off but let the family test the DNA. If you're from Tennessee and have time the time to write your representative then you should do so if you feel this is an error.
While I cringe at the thought of the innocent being executed, I still support the death penalty 100%. You play, you pay. Period. I don't think a group hug plus milk & cookies is going to change the thought process of a killer. Yeah, that'll reform 'em! Nor do I want to pay for them to watch tv, go to college and lift weights while in jail. The only thing criminals learn in prison, is to be better criminals. I have first hand experience with a liberal criminal justice system. My sister was murdered by her husband whom we later found out had murdered another woman years before and spent 4 years in jail. He was released due to overcrowding and good behavior - because he'd "learned his lesson, was extremely remorseful and totally reformed". He's in jail yet again and I'm sure he will be out in another 4 or 5 years because his psyche therapy will have done him so much good. I love it when people say it's better to let 100 murderers go free than to execute an innocent one. Yeah? Well what about the innocents these "reformed" psycho's murder because our society is so pacifistic? Either way, six of one and half a dozen of the other. I'd much rather risk letting an innocent be executed than let a murderer go free to kill more innocents before their caught - yet again. Though, I am happy that criminal science has advanced enough to assist in the exoneration of the wrongly accused.