The Innocence Project

[NJlonghorn]

I support the death penalty. Saying this doesn't make me popular in the Northeast, but I'm sure most here will agree with me.

That said, I cannot understand why certain states (lead by Texas) are so resistant to efforts to make sure innocent people aren't put to death. The Innocent Project and other similar organizations keep turning up more and more examples of people who are slated to be executed -- or already have been -- despite evidence that shows they are probably innocent. Or, in some cases, that they are indisputably innocent.

SCOTUS decided this morning to take such a case. The evidence of Rodney Reed's innocence is strong, and there is readily available DNA evidence that has not been tested. Paxton opposes testing the evidence, dismissing the request as a delay tactic. Texas State and Federal courts, up to an including the Fifth Circuit, have ruled in favor of finality over justice.

I understand the importance of judicial finality, which can justify putting an end to yet another in a long line of efforts to grasp at flimsy straws. But finality cannot justify taking the life of a person whose guilt is subject to serious doubt. No matter how long it has taken to find the evidence, and no matter how dilatory the defendant has been, a significant chance that innocence can be proven should always justify further review. Period, paragraph.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Cannot disagree at all. Some people earn the death penalty and it should be applied to them with much greater haste than it usually is. These are people whose capital crimes are not in doubt.

For those whose crimes are in doubt in any way, the death penalty should not be applied until such time as the doubt has been completely removed.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Honestly, it's stupid for the state to fight this kind of thing. Ensuring by every reasonably possible means that the defendant is guilty reinforces the case for the death penalty, because it shows that they state is a good faith actor trying to only execute those who are truly guilty. Trying to slop through the process and ignoring chances to prove the defendant's innocence builds the case for getting rid of the death penalty. If Reed is guilty, then why not do modern DNA testing?

 

[OUBubba]

Honestly, it's stupid for the state to fight this kind of thing. Ensuring by every reasonably possible means that the defendant is guilty reinforces the case for the death penalty, because it shows that they state is a good faith actor trying to only execute those who are truly guilty. Trying to slop through the process and ignoring chances to prove the defendant's innocence builds the case for getting rid of the death penalty. If Reed is guilty, then why not do modern DNA testing?

Very well put.

 

[iatrogenic]

Very well put.

Now Bubba, apply that same logic to "Russian Collusion" and get back with me at your earliest convenience.

 

[iatrogenic]

and no matter how dilatory the defendant has been,

Uh...no. It shouldn't take 20 years to execute a murderer.

How do you feel about letting the obviously guilty walk without bond to murder, assault and rob again despite having multiple prior convictions? You vote for people that do that, don't you?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

There is a vast, almost infinite gulf between bonding/improper release issues (which are real and require reform) and the death penalty being misapplied (which is also real and requires reform). I think it is very disingenuous of you to try to tie the two together.

 

[guy4321]

It's hard to argue against ensuring a convict is actually guilty. The complaint is why it takes 20 years.

 

[iatrogenic]

There is a vast, almost infinite gulf between bonding/improper release issues (which are real and require reform) and the death penalty being misapplied (which is also real and requires reform). I think it is very disingenuous of you to try to tie the two together.

The two are tied together closely by the fact that Libs argue vehemently against the death penalty and against proper penalties/incarceration for criminals. That is genuine.

 

[OUBubba]

There is a vast, almost infinite gulf between bonding/improper release issues (which are real and require reform) and the death penalty being misapplied (which is also real and requires reform). I think it is very disingenuous of you to try to tie the two together.

How can anyone link not exhausting all methods of exculpatory evidence prior to an execution BY THE STATE to bail issues? That's some marjorie taylor greene deep thinking there.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Uh...no. It shouldn't take 20 years to execute a murderer.

I have no problem with a system that acts quickly to eliminate all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and then implements the death penalty. But we cannot let quickness override the "eliminate all reasonable doubt" part of the equation.

Your use of the phrase "a murderer" belies the problem. In all probability, Rodney Reed is not a murderer. He has been ramrodded by a system that was deeply racist at the time he was convicted. He deserves to have his case reviewed thoroughly.

 

[iatrogenic]

I have no problem with a system that acts quickly to eliminate all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and then implements the death penalty. But we cannot let quickness override the "eliminate all reasonable doubt" part of the equation.

Your use of the phrase "a murderer" belies the problem. In all probability, Rodney Reed is not a murderer. He has been ramrodded by a system that was deeply racist at the time he was convicted. He deserves to have his case reviewed thoroughly.

Now give me all of the anecdotal stories from the family members of murder victims that had to wait 22 years for some semblance of justice.

 

[iatrogenic]

How can anyone link not exhausting all methods of exculpatory evidence prior to an execution BY THE STATE to bail issues? That's some marjorie taylor greene deep thinking there.

See the post above your post, Gomer. Speaking of deep thinking, shouldn't you be having wet dreams of non-existent, peeing Russian hookers and Trump-Russia bank ties that never existed?

 

[NJlonghorn]

How do you feel about letting the obviously guilty walk without bond to murder, assault and rob again despite having multiple prior convictions? You vote for people that do that, don't you?

Using bail/bond to determine whether to release someone never made sense. The idea of bail reform is to release suspects based on how dangerous they are, as opposed to how wealthy they are. Dangerous defendants stay locked up, regardless of their ability to post bail. And non-dangerous defendants are released pending trial, regardless of their inability to post bail. When appropriate, released defendants are monitored similar to how probation works (ankle bracelets, house arrest, regular checkups, etc.)

This reform was implemented in NJ almost a decade ago. The main proponent, btw, was Chris Christie. There have been problems with how the reforms were implemented, mostly involving individual judges making bad decisions. But those problems have been few and far between. By and large, the reforms have been wildly successful.

NY adopted pretty much the same system just over a year ago. And as with in NJ, there have been some bad releases. The recent release of a clearly dangerous murderer with long rap sheet is one such example. But this is because a single judge made a bad decision that has been widely criticized, by liberals and conservatives alike. It is not a reason to abandon bail reform.

 

[OUBubba]

Using bail/bond to determine whether to release someone never made sense. The idea of bail reform is to release suspects based on how dangerous they are, as opposed to how wealthy they are. Dangerous defendants stay locked up, regardless of their ability to post bail. And non-dangerous defendants are released pending trial, regardless of their inability to post bail. When appropriate, released defendants are monitored similar to how probation works (ankle bracelets, house arrest, regular checkups, etc.)

This reform was implemented in NJ almost a decade ago. The main proponent, btw, was Chris Christie. There have been problems with how the reforms were implemented, mostly involving individual judges making bad decisions. But those problems have been few and far between. By and large, the reforms have been wildly successful.

NY adopted pretty much the same system just over a year ago. And as with in NJ, there have been some bad releases. The recent release of a clearly dangerous murderer with long rap sheet is one such example. But this is because a single judge made a bad decision that has been widely criticized, by liberals and conservatives alike. It is not a reason to abandon bail reform.

I was not a huge Christie fan politically but he did some good things. Some podcast that I used to listen to frequently (I may still, I don't remember which one it was) referenced that he was friends with Christie's little brother and that Chris drove them around a lot and was around as an older adult when they were coming up in the world. He was a lib and he spoke well of him and validated what I thought of him. He made some boneheaded moves (like the bridge thing) but we all do that sometimes. Governor's boneheaded moves are more visible.

 

[OUBubba]

See the post above your post, Gomer. Speaking of deep thinking, shouldn't you be having wet dreams of non-existent, peeing Russian hookers and Trump-Russia bank ties that never existed?

Ok. I get it now. I clicked "show ignored content". It validated why I ignore you. You are not a serious person and are impolite. Take care. And, to quote the great mb, [edited. I need to be better than that].

 

[NJlonghorn]

Now give me all of the anecdotal stories from the family members of murder victims that had to wait 22 years for some semblance of justice.

If there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant in those other cases was the actual murderer, then by all means the execution should go forward. But that is not true in Rodney Reed's case. Making the victim's family feel good cannot justify taking the life of a defendant who in all likelihood is innocent.

And by the way, it should not escape mention that part of the problem in the Reed case is that the victim's family was involved in the coverup. The defendant's semen was found inside the victim, so he was charged with rape and murder. Multiple family members knew that their daughter/sister had been in a consensual sexual relationship with the defendant, but they covered that fact up. The truth appears to be that the woman was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, who couldn't accept the fact that he had lost his lover to another man.

By the way, does anyone care to guess why the family wanted to conceal their daughter's consensual sexual relationship?

 

[Dionysus]

to quote the great mb, FOAD. That's apparently allowed now so I'm here for it.

No, aggressive messages and personal attacks are not allowed and I continue to ask everyone to please keep it civil. You know that, but you won’t report it when you see it, so I don’t understand why you keep trying to suggest that it’s ok when you know it is not.

 

[OUBubba]

No, aggressive messages and personal attacks are not allowed and I continue to ask everyone to please keep it civil. You know that, but you won’t report it when you see it, so I don’t understand why you keep trying to suggest that it’s ok when you know it is not.

First, I edited that out about 5 minutes after I posted it because, you're not wrong.

Second, evidence suggests that it is OK here. A poster here did it with no consequences and with the temerity to try to argue that FOAD was not as aggressive as the actual words. While , another was not as rude and aggressive and was banned. So, you know, facts on the ground...

 

[mb227]

It's hard to argue against ensuring a convict is actually guilty. The complaint is why it takes 20 years.

Sadly, it is because we keep seeing frivolous appeals. The latest were the claims that a religious adviser should be able to have physical contact with the soon-to-be-departed as they are chemically removed from the unit count roster...

Common sense should have suggested that it is a security concern to have unnecessary personnel in the room used for the execution.

Now we are going to see challenges from those not involved in the process to States that have reinstated the firing squad as a choice. States have had to return to such mechanisms precisely because the left refuses to allow States to use the three-drug lethal injection combination and persuaded nations to quit selling any of those three drugs to agencies for use in an execution.

Are there some legitimate claims that can be advanced after the initial round of appeals? Sure. But new evidence does not simply materialize after five or six years. Yet when such an appeal is filed, the process is effectively halted while the court reviews the claim.

Further problems come up when a case is bounced back for a re-sentencing. Now you have witnesses who were not always around or you see the claims get raised in the hearing that have zero basis in fact. Examples abound. Ironically, given the tides turning in the community due to the hug-a-thug practices, a defendant who might have only gotten life five years ago is perhaps more likely to again return to death row...

 

[mb227]

If there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant in those other cases was the actual murderer, then by all means the execution should go forward. But that is not true in Rodney Reed's case. Making the victim's family feel good cannot justify taking the life of a defendant who in all likelihood is innocent.

And by the way, it should not escape mention that part of the problem in the Reed case is that the victim's family was involved in the coverup. The defendant's semen was found inside the victim, so he was charged with rape and murder. Multiple family members knew that their daughter/sister had been in a consensual sexual relationship with the defendant, but they covered that fact up. The truth appears to be that the woman was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, who couldn't accept the fact that he had lost his lover to another man.

By the way, does anyone care to guess why the family wanted to conceal their daughter's consensual sexual relationship?

Reed is one of the very few cases that I have questions about, but no amount of claiming cover-up changes the reality that there WERE inconsistencies in his own original statements. Had he been forthright in the beginning, I will not tell you that he may not have had a tune-up coming his direction, but it would have removed the questions in the minds of many about WHEN he chose to be honest and WHAT statements were believable.

Given his own later conviction and incarceration, I have no qualms with the premise that Jimmy Fennell may well have been the person who killed Stacey Stites. But as a convicted felon, Fennell's DNA is in the CODIS database. If there was going to be a match to any of the evidence, it SHOULD have happened by now.

That said, it is ironic that the very law (AEDPA) designed to speed up the process of executing the convicted is now being cited as the basis for the current delays. The Court should simply issue an Order at this point that indicates that ALL evidence should be sent to the DPS Crime Laboratory or other accredited forensic entity for the purpose of DNA testing, without commentary on whose DNA is expected to be found. Supply samples of Fennel's, Reed's, and Stites' DNA and see what comes back. At that juncture, the DNA avenues are closed. Period.

 

[guy4321]

Sadly, it is because we keep seeing frivolous appeals. The latest were the claims that a religious adviser should be able to have physical contact with the soon-to-be-departed as they are chemically removed from the unit count roster...

Common sense should have suggested that it is a security concern to have unnecessary personnel in the room used for the execution.

Now we are going to see challenges from those not involved in the process to States that have reinstated the firing squad as a choice. States have had to return to such mechanisms precisely because the left refuses to allow States to use the three-drug lethal injection combination and persuaded nations to quit selling any of those three drugs to agencies for use in an execution.

Are there some legitimate claims that can be advanced after the initial round of appeals? Sure. But new evidence does not simply materialize after five or six years. Yet when such an appeal is filed, the process is effectively halted while the court reviews the claim.

Further problems come up when a case is bounced back for a re-sentencing. Now you have witnesses who were not always around or you see the claims get raised in the hearing that have zero basis in fact. Examples abound. Ironically, given the tides turning in the community due to the hug-a-thug practices, a defendant who might have only gotten life five years ago is perhaps more likely to again return to death row...

Did the dislike because of the info not because of you. Do folks with life incarceration have the same level of frivolous appeals?

 

[Garmel]

Second, evidence suggests that it is OK here. A poster here did it with no consequences and with the temerity to try to argue that FOAD was not as aggressive as the actual words. While , another was not as rude and aggressive and was banned. So, you know, facts on the ground...

Yeah, he just called people liars, stupid, unintelligent and dumb even when we showed him he was wrong and he did it often.

 

[mb227]

Did the dislike because of the info not because of you. Do folks with life incarceration have the same level of frivolous appeals?

In theory, yes.

And there are some who have filed more than 20 writs just in State courts. Most are denied without a hearing because of the successive writ Rule and that no new issue has been presented.

There are ALSO some frequent filers who have been sanctioned by the Court, which ALSO places the incarcerated lifer at risk of disciplinary sanctions at the unit level. And yes, even many life sentences ARE parole-eligible, meaning that disciplinary sanctions CAN impact the release decisions made by the Board*

(*this reply speaks specifically to Texas cases, which is the area in which I am actively involved in matters related to parole and corrections)

 

[Mr. Deez]

I usually agree with iatrogenic, but I do not see how executing the guy who very likely didn't kill the victim provides a semblance of justice to the victim's family. What this case looks like is a family that's grieving that their daughter was killed, is embarrassed that their daughter was banging a black dude, and blames that black dude for her death (because presumably the ex wouldn't have killed her if she hadn't dumped him to get with the black dude.).

 

[Dionysus]

A poster here did it with no consequences and with the temerity to try to argue that FOAD was not as aggressive as the actual words.

I won't bang on about this too much more, but there were no consequences because the admin was not aware of it. This is why I ask members to report these things so that I can address them, and I understand you may not want to do that. Which leads us to this next point...

evidence suggests that it is OK here

I trust that I do not have to point out (again) that my lack of awareness of a rules violation is not evidence that it is OK. I am open to reasonable suggestions on how to do my job better but you should know that there is exactly one person here to keep the lights on and do a few admin things and he ain’t about to start reading every post on the site.

I have not see the “FOAD” reference before — it was not reported to me — so I searched it up just now and found it.

We are adults and don’t need to play word games and you don’t need me to point out that typing FOAD at someone is no different than just saying **** off and die and the intent is the same, so can we just not?

I will take this opportunity to remind ALL of you ******** how much I love you. Now **** off and respect the rules.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Yeah! FOARR, *******!!!

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Sorry, Dion, I lost my head. You got me all fired up for a minute there.

 

[OUBubba]

I won't bang on about this too much more, but there were no consequences because the admin was not aware of it. This is why I ask members to report these things so that I can address them, and I understand you may not want to do that. Which leads us to this next point...


I trust that I do not have to point out (again) that my lack of awareness of a rules violation is not evidence that it is OK. I am open to reasonable suggestions on how to do my job better but you should know that there is exactly one person here to keep the lights on and do a few admin things and he ain’t about to start reading every post on the site.

I have not see the “FOAD” reference before — it was not reported to me — so I searched it up just now and found it.

We are adults and don’t need to play word games and you don’t need me to point out that typing FOAD at someone is no different than just saying f**khead off and die and the intent is the same, so can we just not?

I will take this opportunity to remind ALL of you ******** how much I love you. Now f**khead off and respect the rules.

And yet our beloved foad still posts here.

 

[Horn6721]

Yes Bubba we see you still posting.