Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man? Who Cares!

Radley Balko | September 14, 2007

A judge has blocked prosecutors from destroying a hair found at scene of the murder for which Claude Jones was convicted and executed in 2000. The state will now conduct DNA testing to determine if it matches Jones. It's not just any hair. It's the hair that prosecutors matched to the Jones at trial by way of a hair fiber analyst.

Hair fiber analysis is, to say the least, an imperfect science. It has led to wrongful convictions before, and professional prosecution hair fiber witnesses have a history of exaggerating the certitude of their findings.

I haven't read enough about this particular case to have an opinion on it. I note it mostly because of the following passage, which I find absolutely inexplicable:

The groups, represented by attorneys at Mayer Brown LLP, filed the court motions Friday after the San Jacinto District Attorney refused to agree to DNA testing – and also refused to agree not to destroy the evidence while courts consider whether DNA testing can be conducted.

Emphasis mine. Now, I can think of some reasons why a prosecutor would want to destroy a piece of physical evidence that could prove that the state executed an innocent man. But none of them are compatible with...um...being a human being.

Perhaps, for example, the prosecutor was one of the prosecutors who worked on the case, and doesn't want the stain on his career that might come with a wrongful execution. Perhaps he wants to avoid the inevitable stain on Texas' already execution-happy reputation that would come with proof that the state executed an innocent man. Perhaps he knows that proof of a wrongful execution will make it much more difficult for him to win death penalty cases in the future.

But here's the thing: While I can perhaps see a prosecutor harboring such sentiment deep down inside, I can't possibly conceive of anyone actually making these sorts of arguments publicly. Or with a straight face.

Because, you see, if Texas did execute an innocent man, all of those things should happen. Because...well...because Texas...would have executed an innocent man.

And if Texas did execute an innocent man, that Texans might find out about it—and subsequently raise understandable questions about the morality and efficacy of the death penalty—isn't something to be avoided, it's something that damned-well ought to happen. Because—at risk of repeating myself--Texas would have executed an innocent man.

What possible not-devoid-of-all-morality argument could a prosecutor possibly make for being permitted to destroy evidence that might prove an innocent man was executed?

I really can't think of one.

Comments

|9.14.07 @ 9:08AM|#

Maybe he's like a Manchurian D.A., and really can't help it, because someone suggested he play solitaire.

Or, if not that, then he's just a complete and utter waste of skin, and needs to be strung up post haste.

jimmydageek|9.14.07 @ 9:14AM|#

Maybe, it's really his (the prosecutor's) hair that was found at the scene. Good reason to destroy it :)

Fluffy|9.14.07 @ 9:16AM|#

Come on, I've seen Texas prosecutors argue - on camera - that "finality of the judicial process" is a value that should be weighed against the "merely technical" injustice of punishing the innocent.

Our Supreme Court agrees.

Since the judicial process on this matter has run its course, [the argument would go] there is nothing to be gained from continuing to litigate or investigate this matter, and doing so can only undermine public confidence in the judicial process and consume scarce court system resources.

|9.14.07 @ 9:18AM|#

Radley,
Is this the first death penalty case out of Texas you've taken note of? Innocence is not relevant to Texas justice. The DA's behavior in this case should not be surprising. Indeed, I'd be astonished if any Texas DA showed any symptoms of humanity when it comes to putting people to death.

|9.14.07 @ 9:18AM|#

Looking things over again is only important when something big is to be determined. That's why the prosecution and execution of people will never deserve the scrutiny of such pivotal matters as the goings on in the NFL.

Or something like that.

|9.14.07 @ 9:30AM|#

Down in Texas the prosecutors have a saying, "Better a hundred innocent men be executed, than one guilty man go free. Or just get life in prison."

Radley Balko|9.14.07 @ 9:38AM|#

"Since the judicial process on this matter has run its course, [the argument would go] there is nothing to be gained from continuing to litigate or investigate this matter, and doing so can only undermine public confidence in the judicial process and consume scarce court system resources."

But if Texas is shown to have executed an innocent man, shouldn't public confidence in the judicial process be undermined?

Ron Hardin|9.14.07 @ 9:40AM|#

Because it doesn't matter.

Everybody knows that occasionally you execute an innocent man. It's taking one for the team.

Everybody runs the risk, and find it acceptable at a low enough level.

|9.14.07 @ 9:46AM|#

"Everybody runs the risk, and find it acceptable at a low enough level."

That's the thing, Hardin. When the public realizes that our process is executing innocent people at a level that is not an "acceptable...low enough level" then policies regarding evidence have to change.

You make it sound like people want to occasionally execute innocent people, just to keep 'em honest.

edna|9.14.07 @ 9:48AM|#

But if Texas is shown to have executed an innocent man, shouldn't public confidence in the judicial process be undermined?

of course, but you're dealing with human beings (i use the term loosely, since they're lawyers) who are incentivized to do everything possible to retain public confidence. adam smith applies just as much in these circumstances: people/lawyers will always tend to act in their self-interest. why do you expect these lawyers to act any differently?

the problem is sytematic and it goes well beyond this case and well beyond texas- our legal system is a worse leviathan than our government.

|9.14.07 @ 9:48AM|#

But if Texas is shown to have executed an innocent man, shouldn't public confidence in the judicial process be undermined?

Umm you really aren't getting it. It's like asking "If fighting the WOD profits criminals and drives up violent crime, shouldn't we reexamine our strategy?" No, because we are sending a message. We have to keep fighting until we win. Just like Iraq.

Murders must be seen to be made to pay with their lives. It doesn't matter if the guy we kill didn't actually do it.

|9.14.07 @ 9:50AM|#

There is some good news out of Texas IRT DNA analysis of prior convictions. The new Dallas County District Attorney has allowed the Innocence Project to review the physical evidence from hundreds of prior convictions.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 9:55AM|#

I am not unsanguine about the idea of having executed the innocent in the past, but I recognize that knowledge is imperfect, and sometimes clear and convincing evidence points to the wrong person. However, I think that the GOAL should always be zero-innocents-executed. At the very least, this should be a problem for law-and-order types because for every innocent man convicted, a criminal walks free.

If DNA testing were to show that Claude Jones was not the murderer, they can re-open the case, go after the next suspects, and maybe get a conviction. They'd never be able to get a death-penalty conviction with another man already executed for the crime, but they could at least put him in jail for a long time.

And there's always the wacky possiblity that he really did do it, and that the hair fiber analysis was actually, y'know, correct. That would reinforce confidence in the judicial system.

But what really would undermine that confidence is if they act like they are so afraid of DNA testing that they destroy evidence to prevent it.

JBinMO|9.14.07 @ 10:02AM|#

"But if Texas is shown to have executed an innocent man, shouldn't public confidence in the judicial process be undermined?"

Doesn't the prospect of not looking into it do more to undermine public confidence than anything else. What does it say if they can't even allow scrutiney.

Fluffy|9.14.07 @ 10:04AM|#

"But if Texas is shown to have executed an innocent man, shouldn't public confidence in the judicial process be undermined?"

Hey, I agree. It's a red herring of an argument anyway, because the REAL motivation behind "judicial finality" arguments is that prosecutors don't want to have to spend time and resources dealing with appellant cases.

If evidence of innocence allowed cases to be reopened, regardless of whether or not the prisoner had exhausted all other appeals, it would mean more work for prosecutors, who would have to defend all those innocence-based appeals. You'd think they'd like the job security, but it doesn't really work that way. They assume the public won't provide the resources needed by prosecutors and DA's, and that they will lose the war of attrition to massive filings by prisoners claiming innocence.

Prosecutors consider all convictions that have run the course of their appeals to be firmly in the "win" column, and they get pissed when people say they should have to move them out of that column.

|9.14.07 @ 10:05AM|#

C'mon guys - nobody can see the DA's side of this? He's got a conviction rate to defend.

Gray Ghost|9.14.07 @ 10:10AM|#

I agree Radley, that the San Jacinto DA's office is being an asshat by trying to block DNA testing of the hair. That said, it appears that there was a lot more evidence than the hair testimony that convicted Mr. Jones. This site, though on its face biased towards the prosecution, provides some more information concerning the conviction of Mr. Jones. Even if DNA proves that the hair wasn't Jones's, that doesn't mean that he couldn't have killed the liquor store clerk.

A far better (and by better, I mean scandalous and disgusting) Texas case for evil expert testimony that resulted in execution is Cameron Willingham. (Google for more info; I'm strapped for time today.)

I agree with the observations of Warren and edna, concerning the incentives for the DA's behavior.

Finally, Karen's quote is a good way to sum all this up, "Has it never occurred to this prosecutor that if they convict the wrong guy, which is what it looks like in this case, they automatically let the ACTUAL KILLERS go?"

x,y|9.14.07 @ 10:11AM|#

Not to thread jack, but think about this. If we should err on the side of caution for death penalty cases (some innocent people might be wrongfully executed), why shouldn't we err on the side of caution in the abortion debate? As as a matter of scientific inquiry, it's not clear that an embyro is a human being. I tend to think it is. Others disagree, though, including many who post here. But why not err on the side of caution until science speaks clearly and conclusively?

|9.14.07 @ 10:12AM|#

edna,

You are correct that self-interest is often an overriding factor in peoples' decisions. So is, however, the feeling that the State must be protected at any cost, even at the cost of one's own or the public morality. The Germans call it Staatsräson - the interest of the State trumps everything. Actions of this type are collectivist thinking and most often occur in totalitarian systems. It reveals an insecurity that the system can survive, is even made stronger, by working to eliminate its faults.
The DA knows from his own experience how bad the Texas justice system is and quite correctly fears the devastating impact of disclosure.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 10:21AM|#

I tend to wonder if Texas DAs (and DAs elsewhere) consider getting an innocent guy executed to be the pinnacle of triumph. It would just show that they are sooo good that they can get convictions regardless of guilt or innocence.

New World Dan|9.14.07 @ 10:24AM|#

Dr. K,

It's not about his conviction rate (well, kindof), but the fact that from the prosecutor's standpoint, nothing good can come from reexamining a settled case. Further DNA analysis on this piece of evidence, at best, leaves the prosecutor where he started, and at worst, opens his office to a huge liabilities, undermines his credibility, costs him his job, etc. It's the kind of thing that can only lead to bad things. As such, I expect him to want it left alone, and he'll make whatever argument he needs to for it to stay that way.

|9.14.07 @ 10:24AM|#

Not to thread jack, but think about this. If we should err on the side of caution for death penalty cases (some innocent people might be wrongfully executed), why shouldn't we err on the side of caution in the abortion debate? As as a matter of scientific inquiry, it's not clear that an embyro is a human being. I tend to think it is. Others disagree, though, including many who post here. But why not err on the side of caution until science speaks clearly and conclusively?

x,y

The day the state captures you and forces an abortion on you is the day your analogy becomes apt.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 10:29AM|#

The day the state captures you and forces an abortion on you is the day your analogy becomes apt.

Or the day that not-executing an alleged murderer requires some woman, against her will, to use her body to keep said murderer alive.

Russ 2000|9.14.07 @ 10:37AM|#

If we should err on the side of caution ...

We should never err on the side of caution. We should err on the side of liberty.

|9.14.07 @ 11:00AM|#

Not when innocents are involved. I'm absolutely amazed how many people treat the abortion issue as so open-and-shut. I don't have to deal with it, because I'm a man, and I'm young yet, so I don't really have much of an opinion either way on the whole thing. However, I have quite an opinion on the debate surrounding it. It seems like a lot of people shut off inquiry into a very difficult question to answer (ie the identification of a beginning to personhood). There are indeed limits to liberty, even libertarians acknowledge this most of the time, and violence towards another is one of those limits. It seems to me that to apply that principle, we need a clear, reasoned definition to when a something becomes a someone.

"Requiring some woman, against her will, to not murder someone" is the other side of this, and it's a side that needs to be examined. I'm not saying that you can't have abortions, or that I wouldn't do it if my girlfriend got pregnant, etc., but that doesn't necessarily make it morally correct.

I hope I was respectful enough in this post, I tried very hard to make it as non-offensive as possible. If I did offend someone, I really do apologize. As I said, I'm still fairly young, and I'm still sorting my head out.

|9.14.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Sorry to be so off topic, too. I watched an episode of Oz one time where they executed a mentally handicapped person, and it broke my heart. From that point on, I was all "eff the death penalty" because that shit is permanent.

|9.14.07 @ 11:05AM|#

If Warren was ever wrongfully convicted and wrongfully sentenced to die, I doubt he'll be cheering that he's "taking one for the team".

"""it's not clear that an embyro is a human being."""

True, but there is no arguement that the guy executed was one.

"""We should err on the side of liberty."""

For a country that claims liberty is at its heart, one would think you need not point that out.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 11:09AM|#

Thanks for the thoughtful post Sam.

As you note, I think we need to be clear about what we're talking about. Then we can talk about its rights.

The first question should be: Is this a human being? After that, you have to balance the interests and rights of the people involved.

Regarding the death penalty, people opppose it for various reasons. One of those is that we should err on the side of caution so as to not put innocent people to death.

Regarding abortion, I think we should similarly err on the side of caution, i.e., assume the fetus/embryo is a human being until science concludes otherwise.

I have no idea what val is talking about re: the state capturing someone and forcing abortions. That doesn't even address what I was talking about.

Jennier's post makes more sense, though we've agreed to disagree about whose rights are superior.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 11:10AM|#

"Requiring some woman, against her will, to not murder someone" is the other side of this

No, it's "requiring a woman against her will to keep another alive." Big difference. I am not allowed to starve someone to death, say by locking them in my basement and refusing to feed them, but that is VERY different from saying I should be required to feed anyone who asks me to do so.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 11:12AM|#

"""it's not clear that an embyro is a human being."""

True, but there is no arguement that the guy executed was one.

This strikes to the heart at what I'm getting at. A lot of pro-choice/pro-abortion people are willing to claim that we're not even dealing with a human being. What I'm saying is that we should assume it is. Then we can debate the merits of whose rights are superior. Libertarians might not agree on whose rights are superior, but it's folly to make the wrong assumption.

|9.14.07 @ 11:14AM|#

Why don't we abort this abortion discussion? As far as I'm concerned, Russ2000 cooked the issue as far as it needs to be cooked today.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Regarding abortion, I think we should similarly err on the side of caution, i.e., assume the fetus/embryo is a human being until science concludes otherwise.

And I say err on the side of caution by assuming the woman deserves bodily autonomy until science concludes otherwise.

Adam W.|9.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#

""Better a hundred innocent men be executed, than one guilty man go free. Or just get life in prison."

I HATE that kind of thinking; if a hundred innocent men are executed, then ipso facto 100 guilty men go free.

|9.14.07 @ 11:20AM|#

""""Has it never occurred to this prosecutor that if they convict the wrong guy, which is what it looks like in this case, they automatically let the ACTUAL KILLERS go?"""

Procecutors are often more concerned with winning the case, they are not interested in truth.

Back in the day I use to hear the idea that it's better to let a guilty man free than to convict an innocent man. Now, it's the other way around. Of course, if one were to say it's better to convict an innocent prosecutor than let a guilty one go free, they would call you an evil person. It's an attitude that applies to other people.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 11:22AM|#

It's all about scapegoating. So long as you get back at somebody it doesn't matter if you got the right one. May as well have a lottery to decide who to execute in hopes of warding off evil.

|9.14.07 @ 11:27AM|#

What's up with the South?

jimmydageek|9.14.07 @ 11:31AM|#

Confused Northeasterner | September 14, 2007, 11:27am | #

What's up with the South?

...it's gotta be the heat...

jimmydageek|9.14.07 @ 11:36AM|#

...it's gotta be the heat...

However, that theory seems to be refuted here:


Adele Corners: Will you tell me more about California?

Early Grayce: Yeah, I guess so. Let's see. One thing, people think faster out there on the account of all that warm weather. Cold weather makes people stupid. That's a fact.

Adele Corners: I guess that explains why there's so many stupid people around here.

...which would explain stupid northerners :)

The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 11:38AM|#

I guess I'm curious as to why the DA even has any say so over whether evidence is destroyed. Isn't there a moral or legal requirement that goes to record keeping in legal cases?

Jesus Chrysler, I just had a gun shop guy tell me last week about a 63 year old guy who the FBI turned down on a pistol purchase because he was convicted of misdemeanor sex with an underage girl when he was 20 years old. Guess they didn't get around to destroying THOSE records.

|9.14.07 @ 11:51AM|#

Probably because he fears undermining the 'SYSTEM'. (Cue ominous music)

The 'System' has spoken. This man IS guilty. He had his day in court to convince the 'System' of his innocence.

To question the 'System' is to question the judgement of the god of the State.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 11:56AM|#

As far as Texas rep for hard ass goes, that's hit and miss. I say this frequently because it so pisses me off. Texas paroled a guy 10 years into a life sentence for murdering his kid because he was a "model prisoner". He came to my town and killed about 60 women. Far as I'm concerned those boneheads at Texas DPS should be sitting in San Quentin right along side William Suff. [turns and spits]

|9.14.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Texas politicians are constantly whining about illegal immigration. Meanwhile, I'm thinking, I don't want Texans crossing into the real U.S.

|9.14.07 @ 12:09PM|#

x, y--no, we CANNOT leave the abortion question "until whether science decides it's a human being or not" because that question is undefinable and falls under religious belief. Under the axioms of one set of religious belief (the Catholic Church), a soul comes into existance with the joining of the sperm and the egg. According to another, equally serious and sincere set of beliefs (Medieval Japan), "ensoulment" did not occur until thirty days after the child was born. According to my own serious and deserving-of-just-as-much-respect-beliefs, the embryo should not be considered even possibly deserving of the name of "human life" until it is capable of cerebal activity.

This is why we cannot "err on the side of caution", because doing so is actively pushing the belief system of a particular religion over that of others.

When you make similar comments about forcing everyone to be a vegetarian because we should "err on the side of caution" about animal ensoulment, then I'll start taking you seriously. Otherwise, it's just a creepy way of shoving a particular set of religious beliefs down everyone's throats.

NP|9.14.07 @ 12:11PM|#

Good point, Radley. But for Christ's sake, try to edit before you post--this level of prolixity would be too much even for a chitchat.

|9.14.07 @ 12:13PM|#

Jones may have been innocent of this particular murder, but it's not like we're talking about an innocent victim here. He was convicted of two previous murders and nine other violent crimes.

In addition, even if the hair is shown to not be his, there is still a preponderance of evidence that he committed this crime -- there were a number of eyewitnesses who identified him, for example. And I'm having a tough time figuring out why an innocent man would apologize to the victim's family while awaiting lehtal injection.

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but I can't say that I'm shedding a single salty tear for this guy.

|9.14.07 @ 12:16PM|#

x,y

really no idea what Im talking about?

Death penalty: The thread and article are dealing with compulsory State action against an idividual, the burden of proof etc... is on the state. To sum up; the state and the person are primary actors.

Abortion: An idividual acting to maintain body integrity. State has nothing to do with it what so ever. You feel that maybe possibly, there is another actor involved (ie fetus), but we should wait and see what sciece says. And then maybe if science proves that a fetus is indeed entitled some rights (no idea how science can do that), then you have to reconcile those with the rights of the woman. And if you feel that the rights of the fetus as determined by science override a woman's right to privacy, safety and body integrity then you can get the state involved.
To sum up: Woman is the primary actor. A fetus is hypothetical secondary actor (to be determined by science) And the state is a second order hypothetical actor.

So ya your analogy regaring abortion and the valid/invalid exercise of state powers in juducial proceeding have nothing to do with one another.

jimmydageek|9.14.07 @ 12:19PM|#

TWC, I think 60 women killed by WS is a bit of an exaggeration. Point it taken, however.

|9.14.07 @ 12:22PM|#

P.S. Sorry everyone for the long winded and not so eloquent posts. What I was trying to say is: "Stick to the f'n topic"

The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Jimmyda, Yeah, I guess I did get carried away. But, he was convicted of 12. The cops suspected 20-30. And every hooker in Lake Elsinore disappeared. I'm sure some left town but you would be surprised at the apparent death wish mentality of cheesy hookers. Come on Babe, there is a hooker killing mass murderer in town and everybody knows it. Why are you soliciting on the corner?

Guy left one of the bodies not far from my house.

|9.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Now, I can think of some reasons why a prosecutor would want to destroy a piece of physical evidence that could prove that the state executed an innocent man. But none of them are compatible with...um...being a human being.

I'd say they were entirely compatible with being a human being. Human beings act like that all the time.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 12:33PM|#

assume the fetus/embryo is a human being until science concludes otherwise.

I really don't want to get too far into this, and grumpy realist has kind of hit on these issues, but I'd like to weigh in a bit more on this. I think you're asking a bit much of science here. Science can tell you certain things, like that an embryo has all the chromosomes of a human being, or that it has reached some specific stage of physical development. But the question "When does a developing embryo or fetus become a human being?" is not one that can be strictly answered by science. It's a question of definition, rather than of scientific fact.

It's easiest to think about this in a less emotional context. When does an acorn become an oak tree? It's genetically identical to an oak, but is it really an oak tree? Can science answer this question? It can tell you that the species the acorn belongs to is, say, quercus alba, but does that answer the question of 'is it a tree?' I'd have to say that it doesn't.

The question of whether a fetus should be considered a human being is simply out of the scope of science. It's one of values, not of fact. Most of the relevant facts are well known. The interpretation of those facts, and their implication on morality, are not scientific questions, but moral, religious, or philosophical questions.

On the question of guilt or innocence, however, science CAN weigh in, at least to some extent. DNA testing of the hair fibers can tell if they came from Claude Jones or from someone else. If they came from Jones, then that would mean that he was certainly at whatever place the hairs were found. If they belonged to someone else, then that would indicate that someone else had been there, and that if Jones had been there, he didn't leave any hairs that police could find. That still doesn't really answer the question of guilt or innocence, but it can at least illuminate our discussion.

It's possible that finding that the hair belonged to another individual wouldn't really sufficiently undermine the case to prove one way or the other. But it'd be nice to at least find out if the 'hair fiber analysis' guy is of any use whatsoever.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 12:34PM|#

He was convicted of two previous murders...

I am assuming this is true and I have to ask why someone who has been convicted of murder is not in jail.

After all, I thought Texas was tough as nails. I guess you have to kill three people before Texas decides to put you on ice. Even the weenies in Californicate have more cajones than that.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 12:44PM|#

And I say err on the side of caution by assuming the woman deserves bodily autonomy until science concludes otherwise.

Non sequitur.

And to grumpy realist, it is not necessarily a religious question. It's a moral/scientific question. Just because the Catholic Church treats it one way doesn't make it religious question. And I say this as a very non-religious person.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 12:51PM|#

I think it's clear the question I'm talking about is not necessarily religious. Anyone who says it is just arguing with a boogeyman.

The question to me intersects at science, morality, and philosophy. Science can color the way we think about moral and philosophical questions.

For example, the DNA argument is not wholly scientific either. It can let us know certain things (like whether a hair is from a certain person), but it cannot tell us whether the death penalty is morally permissible.

Law & Order|9.14.07 @ 12:52PM|#

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 12:59PM|#

BTW, it never ceases to amaze that the minute I or someone else trots out a pro-life argument, at least one and often many commenters either assume I'm Catholic or start making red herring arguments about purgatory, heaven, hell, and religion generally.

Let me be clear. I'm not religious. At all.

I happen to agree with some religious folks on the abortion issue, but for wholly-different reasons. You'd think people here would understand that.

|9.14.07 @ 1:02PM|#

No, it's "requiring a woman against her will to keep another alive." Big difference. I am not allowed to starve someone to death, say by locking them in my basement and refusing to feed them, but that is VERY different from saying I should be required to feed anyone who asks me to do so.

What I'm trying to say is that it's all dependent on your point of view: it's maintaining the autonomy of a woman's body if the fetus isn't a "person", or it's maintaining the life of a child. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of what a person is, when something becomes murderable, this debate will not progress beyond opinion. I suppose, though, that any definition of "person" that someone will give you nowadays is going to be colored by their views on abortion one way or another, so it's kind of difficult. Honestly, I have no answers, only questions, and I think that's true for most of us, despite pretending otherwise a lot of the time.

Mark Bahner|9.14.07 @ 1:09PM|#

...after the San Jacinto District Attorney refused to agree to DNA testing - and also refused to agree not to destroy the evidence...

...From the Mike Nifong Law School, perhaps?

|9.14.07 @ 1:13PM|#

This death penalty vs. abortion argument is so fraught with incomparable variables that I'm surprised anybody bit on that farce.

|9.14.07 @ 1:21PM|#

People who claim to be pro-life, and are pro-death penality are not pro-life at all. Just anti-abortion.

Robert|9.14.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Maybe they just like killing people, and the death penalty is the only way people let them get away with it.

|9.14.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Maybe they just like killing people, and the death penalty is the only way people let them get away with it.

Or a career in law enforcement :-}

|9.14.07 @ 1:41PM|#

Texas would have executed an innocent man. (Repeated about 10 times.)

I just can't figure out what you're driving at, Balko. Maybe if you bolded stuff and put it in italics and added a few cuss words?

Tom|9.14.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Jones may have been innocent of this particular murder, but it's not like we're talking about an innocent victim here. He was convicted of two previous murders and nine other violent crimes.

If he didn't commit this crime, someone else got away with it. You should be concerned about that, at least.

In addition, even if the hair is shown to not be his, there is still a preponderance of evidence that he committed this crime

That isn't the standard for a conviction, even for Bad People.

And I'm having a tough time figuring out why an innocent man would apologize to the victim's family while awaiting lehtal injection.

What would he have to lose?

Tom|9.14.07 @ 2:11PM|#

a clear, agreed-upon definition of what a person is

It's generally agreed that a body stops being a person when the brain stops working.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 2:20PM|#

For example, the DNA argument is not wholly scientific either. It can let us know certain things (like whether a hair is from a certain person), but it cannot tell us whether the death penalty is morally permissible.

The question of moral permissibility is unanswerable by science, but the question of guilt or innocence, at least theoretically, is scientific. The DNA evidence can certainly rule out certain theories, such as "This hair proves that the defendant was at the scene of the crime." DNA can show that that theory is false, and depending on the other evidence, might show one person to be innocent.

The same is not true of the 'beginning of life' argument. This question is inherently a value question, and depends upon the definition of life. Science can describe a blastocyst until its blue in the metaphorical face, but that won't convince some people that it's not a person, or convince others that it is. Science can't make value judgements.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 2:24PM|#

a clear, agreed-upon definition of what a person is

It's generally agreed that a body stops being a person when the brain stops working.

And by this definition a fertilized egg is dead, as there is no brain function.

8|

|9.14.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Someone bored congressmen (with a law degree please) needs to introduce a bill requiring multiple types of specific evidence before any more death penalties are handed down by ANY states:

1. dna evidence
2. eyewitnesses, camera
3. at least one type of forensics
4. history of violent or antisocial behavior

I hope someone will put together a bill or that the suppreme court will act on this national FAILURE. Our courts will become an international embarassment when we begin to uncover how many innocent people we have slain in the name of justice.

Sincerely, we need top to bottom judicial overhaul. Jurys need to be allowed to hear all types of evidence, including prior trial history- regardless of conviction.

Jurys know how to evalutate evidence. Educated indviduals know what hearsay is. Let us decide what we will consider for ourselves.

|9.14.07 @ 2:53PM|#

I think the Catholic Church would have something to say about that "death is when the brain stops working."

Values ARE a religious question in this case, because if you're telling me that you believe a blastocyte is a "human being" based on the apparance existence of a "soul" (said soul being something that has never been proven to exist and must be taken on faith), with the "soul" having "entered the flesh" at some time determined by religious fiat--well, how am I NOT supposed to take that as a "religious argument"? I don't believe in souls, so someone's earnestly arguing for the "protection of the unborn" based on the supposed existence of a soul sounds just like a load of codswallop. And when you argue that I *must* accept the bases on which you are arguing (i.e., the existence of souls)--well, that sounds a bloody lot to me like trying to shove your religious ideas down my throat.

(There's also the other side of the equation that could be argued--which is that ok, so what if the zygote is a "human life"? That doesn't mean that it has an inherent right to act as parasite on the woman's body with her doing nothing about it. Suck the little bugger out with a syringe and stick it in your own body if you're so determined to take care of it.)

Anonymo the Anonymous|9.14.07 @ 3:19PM|#

...after the San Jacinto District Attorney refused to agree to DNA testing - and also refused to agree not to destroy the evidence...

And you know if you did that, any prosecutor would consider that prima facie evidence of your guilt.

Anonymo the Anonymous|9.14.07 @ 3:21PM|#

To those turning this into another abortion debate thread:

1) Everything you want to say has already been said better, by many, many people.
2) Nothing you say will change anyone's mind.
3) It's fucking Friday.

|9.14.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Come on Babe, there is a hooker killing mass murderer in town and everybody knows it. Why are you soliciting on the corner?

Yeah, you should be working at that bordello with a secutity gaurd down the street. Oh, it's illegal to operate a bordello in this and 48 other states? Oops.

Those women's deaths should be on a lot of peoples consciences.

I know, off topic. Mea culpa.

|9.14.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Con-sarnit! Don' you librul sec-uou-lar-ists know nuttin'? Even ifin we did string up an "innocent man," when JEEEEEZ-us returns on Judgement Day he'll bring him back to life so he can live up in Gawd's Kingdom with the rest of us... unless he was a queer-mo-sexual or an atheist, or an evil-utionist, or a Mexican, or a nigger...

|9.14.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Someone bored congressmen (with a law degree please) needs to introduce a bill requiring multiple types of specific evidence before any more death penalties are handed down by ANY states...

I have an even better idea. No Death Penalty in any states... PERIOD!

|9.14.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Haha, anonymo's got it in one (well, three anyway)

Just so everyone's clear, I was completely off-topic. I don't really see any useful comparisons between the death penalty and abortion.

|9.14.07 @ 4:21PM|#

I have an even better idea. No Death Penalty in any states... PERIOD!

I used to support the death penalty on moral grounds. I am now against the death penalty on both moral and practical grounds. Not wishy washy, just able to change my mind as I become more aware.

|9.14.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Even if DNA proves that the hair wasn't Jones's, that doesn't mean that he couldn't have killed the liquor store clerk.

Since a "hair match" was part of the evidence used to convict him, I think a DNA test proves his innocence. Besides which, a legal standard like that would make conviction automatic. If positive, convict. If negative, he still could have done it, convict him.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 4:53PM|#

The question of guilt or innonence is not even theoretically scientific. Science can color your view of guilt or innocence, but it's not a purely scientific question.

If someone plucked a hair from you and laid at the scene of a murder (even though you might have been many miles away and had nothing to do with the murder), "DNA evidence" might suggest you were there. This is precisely why DNA evidence and science may color our judgments about guilt or innocence, but are themselves not sufficient.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 4:54PM|#

I don't really see any useful comparisons between the death penalty and abortion.

You must not think much, then.

x,y|9.14.07 @ 5:01PM|#

That was too snippy. Let me explain:

Death penalty

The state says you must die. A state actor carries out the sentence. The state says you must die based on a value judgment (guilty or innocent as determined by a jury of peers) colored in part by science (DNA evidence).

Abortion

The state does not forbid the killing of a person/embryo/etc. Thus, the state is complicit in the action being taken. The state comes to this decision based on a value judgment (human life does not begin at conception) colored by science (the facts we know about conception, implantation, etc.).

|9.14.07 @ 5:24PM|#

I always like it better when the state can't tell you what to do.

|9.14.07 @ 5:31PM|#

"""Sincerely, we need top to bottom judicial overhaul. Jurys need to be allowed to hear all types of evidence, including prior trial history- regardless of conviction."""

Why, what does this have to do with guilt? Just because somebody did something in the past means nothing as to whether they are guilty as charged. People might find defendants guilty not because the evidence says so, but because they buy into a pattern.

ktc2|9.14.07 @ 5:42PM|#

Our "justice" system is far too flawed to allow it the death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous that nothing else seems adequate but we simply lack the capacity to determine guilt or innocence reliably.

Paul|9.14.07 @ 5:51PM|#

I'm a death penalty supporter. But why would anyone who takes justice seriously refuse to do a DNA test? I don't care how politically ambitious you are, we're talking about peoples lives here. It is precisely DNA evidence and such things that makes the death penalty palatable (couldn't think of a better word, I know). Without it, all you have is eye witness testimony, and legalistic technojargon where expert forensic investigators say things like the "hairs compare"-- which a jury hears as "the hairs match".

Good god. That "hairs compare" debacle has happened before. Get some frickin' DNA testing in there.

Paul|9.14.07 @ 5:56PM|#

Some crimes are so heinous that nothing else seems adequate but we simply lack the capacity to determine guilt or innocence reliably.

That's not true at all. It's true in some cases, and in other cases it's not. Death penalties should be handed down on a case-by-case basis. I think we could use some reform in this regard, but there are many cases where guilt is reliably determined. To suggest that 100% of the prison population might be innocent is naive to say the least.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 5:58PM|#

If someone plucked a hair from you and laid at the scene of a murder (even though you might have been many miles away and had nothing to do with the murder), "DNA evidence" might suggest you were there. This is precisely why DNA evidence and science may color our judgments about guilt or innocence, but are themselves not sufficient.

Scientific method cannot remove all doubt forever and ever about whether an individual commited some act, due to imperfect information. However, if there were some sort of sub-atomic analyzer that could reconstruct the history of a hair follicle and determine the history of what had happened to the hair, science might just be able to answer the question. It's just a matter of gathering sufficient information.

And this is where abortion is different. A perfect science machine cannot tell you whether an acorn is a tree. Tell me, exactly, how science can tell you whether an acorn should be considered an oak tree? How would you prove someone wrong when they say "An acorn is only a tree if it germinates."

If a team of scientists observed your parents around the clock from a year before your conception to the day you died, there isn't any set of measurements or observations that they could put together to say the exact moment that you ceased to not be a person and became a person. It is possible that a team of scientists could follow a two people for a year making constant measurements until one of those people kills the other and then to continue to analyze the person who did the killing until his trial and incarceration and say "Science has proved that he is guilty of murder."

That's why people who say "let's err on the side of caution until science proves that life doesn't begin at conception" are wrong. Not that it isn't a good idea to be cautious. That's a perfectly fine idea, although some might suggest that we err on the side of not violating the mother's rights. The problem is that there's no way to scientifically differentiate between the "blastocyst not yet person" and "blastocyst person" arguments.

At least not until somebody can measure a soul, or builds a telescope that can see to heaven.

Asharak|9.14.07 @ 7:03PM|#

How come death penalty opponents don't bring up things like this more often instead of rallying around Stanley "Tookie" Williams?

|9.14.07 @ 7:30PM|#

Why I'm against the death penalty.

Too many corrupt cops.
Too many corrupt DAs.
Too many incompetant public defenders.
Too many stupid jurors.

Reality sucks, but we still have to deal with it.

|9.14.07 @ 7:33PM|#

Just one more reason never to set foot in Texass or any other Klan state.

|9.14.07 @ 7:49PM|#

How come death penalty opponents don't bring up things like this more often instead of rallying around Stanley "Tookie" Williams?

Ummmm... we do. Who says we can't do both?

And NO before you jump to some strawman arguement, Tookie was hardly my idea of a model citizen, and I'm pretty sure that most death penalty opponents would feel the same way. If anything, he should have spent the rest of his life in prison for his crimes. Yes, I'd say the same thing if he had killed someone I knew and loved. What would executing Tookie do for me besides satiate some primitive bloodlust that's morally no better than the what the murder or rapist did initially?

Sorry, but it's time for this barbarism to end.

Asharak|9.14.07 @ 8:06PM|#

Ummmm... we do. Who says we can't do both?

And NO before you jump to some strawman arguement, Tookie was hardly my idea of a model citizen, and I'm pretty sure that most death penalty opponents would feel the same way. If anything, he should have spent the rest of his life in prison for his crimes. Yes, I'd say the same thing if he had killed someone I knew and loved. What would executing Tookie do for me besides satiate some primitive bloodlust that's morally no better than the what the murder or rapist did initially?

Sorry, but it's time for this barbarism to end.

I'm against capital punishment myself. But seeing people holding vigils for Williams and thinking he was redeemed just because he wrote childrens' books was sickening. I feel the same way about the "Free Mumia" nitwits.

Asharak|9.14.07 @ 8:07PM|#

childrens'=children's

x,y|9.14.07 @ 8:11PM|#

I don't follow, lunchstealer. You can imagine the perfect machine for determining precisely where a hair folicle came from (including where it's been and what it's done), but you can't imagine a perfect machine telling us that life starts at some definitive point?

If life has an end, it must have a beginning. This is simple logic. And I think we'll all agree on when that is some day.

|9.14.07 @ 8:22PM|#

What would executing Tookie do for me besides satiate some primitive bloodlust that's morally no better than the what the murder or rapist did initially?

Akira, it's necessarily "primitive bloodlust" or revenge that capital punishment supportters are after. It's simply justice. I follow the argument intellectually and it's difficult, maybe impossible, to rebut.

Still, from a practical standpoint, given that man is imperfect, everything man designs is imperfect, there will inevitably be innocent men convicted of crimes they did not commit. Since the omniscient J sub D cannot oversee every capital case, I come out against the death penalty knowing that very, very many people who deserve to be executed, won't be. Throwing in the cost factor is one more, admittedly minor, reason to oppose capital punishment.

My previous post on this thread, though laced with cynicism, is the result of observed events. I have considerably less confidence in the criminal justice system now than I did as a idealistic young man.

Basically what I'm saying is, I disagree with your reasoning, but agree with your conclusion.

|9.14.07 @ 8:26PM|#

make that "not necessarily".

Proofreading your own stuff is difficult because you know what you wanted to say and tend to read it that way. I guess that's why professional editors/proofreaders exist.

the innominate one|9.14.07 @ 8:26PM|#

living zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are alive.

zygotes, embryos, and fetuses produced by human parents are humans.

acorns are immature oaks.

that's what science can tell you.

here's what science can't tell you: when the zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are deserving of legal rights or when their rights outweigh the mother's rights. that's in the realm of ethics.

miche|9.15.07 @ 12:40AM|#

I'm a wee bit ripped right now so I hope this comes out right.

I find myself wrong on more occasions than I'd like. Sometimes, I am presented with evidence that contradicts my viewpoint and am forced, by reality, to change my position on that point.

We can never be certain that an innocent is protected from a conviction, but we can be certain that an innocent is not put to death. It really costs so little to be certain. If a person commits an unjustified violent crime, he should be removed from society. That's it.

The death of a violent offender does nothing to make the victim or his family whole. If you seek to punish the perpetrator of a violent crime, what punishment is death? He is released at the moment of death. Murder is only appropriate in an actionable defense of life.

It's bad enough that we sometimes wrongfully deprive man of liberty, but to wrongfully deprive him of life is inexcusable. I'm not comfortable playing a god-like role in life and I have better sense than the state.

|9.15.07 @ 8:42AM|#

I will NOT debate abortion in a death penalty thread. Whom ever brought it up should have their flesh torn to bits by rabid hyenas.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.07 @ 10:08AM|#

You'd think people here would understand that.

you'd think so, eh?

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.07 @ 10:16AM|#

I always like it better when the state can't tell you what to do. well, of course, that's the main premise of libertarianism. But we allow the state to butt in if there is a demonstrable harm against another person. That's the rub of the abortion debate, here or elsewhere. The reason the pro-lifers want the state to tell you what to do about abortion is because they see it as a harm to another human being. But you knew that I suppose.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.07 @ 10:31AM|#

First of all, everyone knows that life in prison doesn't really mean that at all. My favorite mass murderer was paroled by those hard asses down in Texas after ten years into a seventy year sentence for brutally torturing his baby to death. The Manson babes are always asking to get out. Sure, they probably won't get out but there is always a chance that they will. In the case that spawned this thread the guy already killed two people before he got to this one. WTF is he doing out of jail? How is it that a man who has killed twice can conjure up a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card?

One way that you can help convince the death penalty crowd to get off that bus is to change the system so that life in prison for murder means life in prison.

Here's the thing. If you hand down a death sentence it might take 25 years to implement it but in the meantime there is no way that person is getting back out on the street for good behavior.

I'm not advocating the death penalty here I'm pointing out one major reason why a lot of people support it.

Gotta agree that candlelight vigils for Took don't help the case neither.

So long, Took!

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.07 @ 10:34AM|#

.... and I have better sense than the state.

That's a fact and you're from TEXAS to boot. :-)

|9.15.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Whom ever brought it up should have their flesh torn to bits by rabid hyenas.

Shouldn't that be weasels?

|9.15.07 @ 5:48PM|#

J sub D:

I disagree. For too many people "justice" IS vengeance; and a very draconian, medieval view of vengeance at that. The advocates of the death penalty usually expect the state to do on their behalf what would otherwise be illegal for them to do: Kill those who they perceive as having wronged them.

Jake Witmer|9.17.07 @ 4:38AM|#

I strongly urge those who really want to make a difference regarding this type of thing to go to their local courthouses dressed in suits and ties, and hand out FIJA fliers to incoming jurors. The jury has been destroyed by the unconstitutional police state that stands now where America once stood. As such it is no longer the 4th branch of government, but merely represents the selection of the stupid and weak-minded for the use of State accomplices (during voire dire).

Nothing besides the true jury ( http://www.fija.org ), mass media access and electoral politics ( ie: Root for President), or open force ( ie: John Bad Elk v. US ) will move our current system towards justice. The easiest and most certain of these things to implement is the jury activism (and historically, it also has the most resonance with the public, since it applies to them, and politely educates them --ie: it is useful to them!). Moreover, without juries and the corresponding disincentive towards injustice that they represent, no change in favor of freedom will ever last.

Please visit The Fully Informed Jury Association and purchase some of the high quality new literature that they have designed. In particular, there is an excellent piece defending gun rights, and the right of the jury to nullify immoral gun laws.

In addition to letting you keep your guns, it might allow some poor innocent kid to avoid being murdered by the government. Moreover, it means if you ever sit in front of a jury, as a defendant you might not have a bunch of bobble-headed, conformist, judge-loving, cop-kissers deciding your fate.

Wouldn't that be nice?

-Jake