Nope. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 15/03/2010 06:18:53 AM
I believe I specifically said that's why we have appeals. Anyway, yes I read your Reed link, or re-read it, I familiar with the case, it is still being appealed, hence justice is still at work, the details of his specific case have never much interested me as I find abolitionists typically seem to think it's better to release murders than execute them, given an option, so I rarely trust their comments about conspiracies when the court seems to overrule them all the time and they seem to show up for every case. If it's overturned, justice obviously prevailed, if it isn't, and he's executed, I rather suspect justice will again have prevailed. Though obviously I don't want someone executed for a crime they didn't commit, you'll excuse me if I'm not crying tears over this particular scumbag who even if he didn't commit the crime, as I believe the evidence indicates, is hardly a model citizen. Of course, his other crimes and wrongdoings do not convict him of murder, but a jury did, and he's conviction has not been overturned so far. I have great faith in our legal system on criminal matters, and do not really like discussing ongoing cases.
I'm aware of no ongoing appeals. The closest thing I know of is the mention at the end of the Wikipedia link that he recently had a hearing on whether he should get a whole new trial, which is unlikely to produce anything. As a Federal Appellate Judge once stated as part of his ruling from the bench, "The only justice in the TX Dept. of Criminal Justice is in the name. " I'm not saying he should be released; he's been proven guilty of a number of other crimes. But saying justice was served when the prosecution concealed evidence from the defense (in defiance of well established rules of discovery) and ignored the testimony of two witnesses who sought them out (one of them a police officer with no connection to Reed, but very real connections to the victims police officer e
and no new trial is possible on that basis... I can't believe that. Saying a jury has ruled no reasonable doubt existed when they were deliberately deprived of several critical pieces of evidence just doesn't wash.Though in the case of appellate courts the burden of proof is very much on the convicted to show their trial was improper in some way (refer again to the link, where evidence was proven to be withheld from the defense but a judge ruled that didn't justify a new trial; the burden of proof was clearly on the defense to show cause for a new trial, and when cause was shown it was deemed inadequate. ) Understand, I'm not saying we should let everyone go because we know some are innocent, or that knowing some are innocent is the only reason for decent treatment, just that knowing we will inevitably have a variable number of innocent convicts underscores the importance of treating them humanely (but not like they won a multi-year resort vacation. )
Prisoners should be treated humanely, but not in an enviable state either, all emphasis on 'enviable' since we don't obviously want people saying 'gee, I wish I was in prison, how can I get in?' Execution is not inhumane.
A separate issue, but one worth addressing. If I didn't believe everyone redeemable I'd need to choose a religion where that's not a basic principle. That doesn't necessarily mean you release them, but it's a strong argument against execution. And I already conceded prisoners should be treated decently but not luxuriantly; it's not a reward.
I strongly agree with your view of the penal system, but I don't believe our view is even remotely common. I only value punishment where it aids reform, but the very name of the "PENAL system" implies penalties have value in themselves. Further, because capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous crimes we often see it defended on the grounds that victims families deserve to know their Loved ones murderer is dead or something similar. I have reservations about how constructive feeding the desire for vengeance is, and that's the only peace I see death offering but permanent incarceration denying.
Well, our view is common amongst lawyers and politicians ironically, since it's tends to be the default view except when someone is rabble-rousing for the public. Considering it's managed to hold this view for a long time now, and we are probably less 'lynchee' than we used to be, I would say most people, though emotion driven on these things, tend to be reasonable when they've cooled off, and our system seems to force that.
I would add, that while vengeance is a flawed motive for punishment, the reverse is also true, public rage and outcry or bloodlust does not mean we should let people go or improve their conditions. If some want to feel that 'they got what was coming to them', then that's fine, the rest of us with cool headers can continue to Thank God we haven't gotten what's coming to us and remind ourselves of that when we are tempted to see some horrible child-murderer tortured to death instead of humanely executed.
Lawyers and politicians tend to be more sensitive to how malicious treatment can come back to bite them in the rear. For example, down here we recently had a Governor who said during his Presidential campaign that the state, which routinely leads the nation in executions (several times over) never executed an innocent man while he was Governor. Shortly after his inauguration in President a Houston man was released from death row after DNA evidence proved someone else committed the murder of which he was convicted; I guess it's all about timing....
I'm not saying let them all go, only that they should be treated as human beings confined for crimes, sometimes reprehensible crimes, of which they were convicted. And regarding execution, if you know of a temporal appeals court that can reverse an execution I'd be interested to hear of it.