Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on September 29, 2006, 09:18:58 AM
-
Hi Guys,
Spotted the following squib this morning as I was going through the news. Personally, I believe that Mr. Stockelman should have been sentenced to death after he was found guilty of raping and killing a ten year old girl, but I'm just an outmoded biblical fuddy-duddy. Stockelman, who plead guilty, was identified as the killer by a DNA evidence.
Anyway, apparently his fellow prisoners also thought there should be more of a stigma attached to his particular crime....
Convicted child molester has victim's name tattooed on forehead
(AP)
Anthony Stockelman is serving a life sentence in Indiana for molesting and killing a ten-year-old girl named Katie Collman.
And now, prison officials there want to know how he got a tattoo across his forehead that reads "Katie's Revenge."
They won't say what -- if anything -- Stockelman told them. A prison spokesman also says they don't know how a picture of the crude tattoo was taken and wound up on the Internet.
Katie's father heard about it from friends, and figures other prisoners are responsible.
(http://images.wndu.com/news/pics/pic_48804.jpg)
Before
(http://wizbangblog.com/images/2006/09/Katies_Revenge.jpg)
After
-
I hope thats for real.
Should make stigma a legal punishment again, for human bacteria like this guy.
Extra dessert for the inmates responsible. WTG.
-
Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying that he got this tatoo against his will as punishment from other inmates? I never thought of that yesterday when I read the article. I just thought he was an even more) sick ***tard and did it himself.
Very interesting.
-
He's lucky that's all they did to him. The general inmates usually kill those types of prisoners.
ack-ack
-
The letters look very straight with no wobbles in them. I'd be a bit leery of thinking that it was done against his will. Then again I'd rather a different tattoo be used. Small circles of diminishing diameter centered on his forhead.
-
^ any personal anecdotes to go with that statement ackack?
-
Apparently the Tatoo was done during an assault by other inmates, and the photo circulating on the web was an evidence photo leaked by guards who were apparently less than sympathetic. Two of them have been fired over the incident.
I've spoken with guys who've done time in maximum security prisons, and can confirm that if other prisoners want to do something to you badly enough, almost anything can be done. That is one of the major catalysts for joining a prison gang, or other group inside - mutual protection.
Here are the Details from a local Indiana TV station - WISH TV:
...
A photo of what is identified as Stockelman's forehead and eyes appeared online on a blog that focuses on news reports about crimes against children and women. The tattoo covers nearly his entire forehead, has "KATIE'S" in large letters and "REVENGE" below in smaller letters.
The blogger says she received the photograph in an e-mail last Saturday. She says the e-mail also claimed a distant relative of Katie's who also is at Wabash Valley had given Stockelman the tattoo. She said it was not clear how many others were involved in the assault.
Prison officials would not confirm the account of how Stockelman was tattooed but said an inmate has been identified as a suspect.
Prison spokesman Rich Larsen says two guards also have been fired for making "unauthorized copies of an evidence photo."
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5475162&nav=0Ra7
-
A society that doesn't have the resolve to execute a man who raped and murdered a 10 year old girl doesn't have what it takes to survive imo.
-
Well, screw that SOB anyway.
-
Originally posted by lukster
A society that doesn't have the resolve to execute a man who raped and murdered a 10 year old girl doesn't have what it takes to survive imo.
wow.
I think you may be right.
-
Death penalty? Hanged by Mistake... No thx
February 2005
Charles "Chuckie" Hickman, 20, of Crothersville, was arrested late Wednesday night after confessing to police that he was involved in the death of Katlyn "Katie" Collman, 10, police said.
"Some of the information (some people) provided us was not correct information," Indiana State Police Sgt. Jerry Goodin said. "Maybe they didn't give us the correct information because they were lying to us or maybe just something in their memory wasn't right. But it's important to know that we will be pursuing charges of false informing of folks who gave us false information. I can't emphasize how important this fact is."
"Cops say Hickman allegedly kidnapped a 10-year-old girl, Katlyn Collman, raped and killed her. Cops had originally arrested another man in connection with the murder, but DNA samples cleared him and he was released. Now they say Hickman is the right guy, and they have a DNA match to prove it."
-
Hi 2Bighorn,
Police work is obviously difficult, it's seldom the case that the actual killer immediately comes forward and in high profile cases, you can expect a few genuine nutcases to turn in false confessions.
The argument that the possibility that one could make a potentially deadly mistake means one shouldn't act at all would effectively put an end to every indirect fire mission, and use of medicines that could produce a potentially fatal reaction. Not to mention putting a swift end to sports like Skydiving or careers like Steve Irwins.
In any event as a society, we need to be willing to do that which is just, even when there is the potential for something to go wrong. When a man rapes and kills a young girl, he has earned the death penalty and it is not justice to refuse to carry it out. These days we get sentimental about the "rights" of the perpetrator and essentially dismiss the rights of the victim to receive justice. In essence we broke our societal covenant with that young girl. And no, jail is not worse than death, even with a tatoo on your head, especially given where Mr. Stockelman is likely headed after he shuffles off this mortal coil.
In any event, Hickman's confession was eventually dismissed as obviously false and the DNA link to Stockelman was confirmed. Even Stockelman's brother and wife believe he did it. At this point no one believes Chuckie.
To quote members of Stockelman's family -
Stockelman’s youngest brother, Marvin Stockelman, 31, said he was glad his brother stood up and admitted what he did.
“I believe he’s sorry,” Marvin Stockelman said.
...
Stockelman's wife and sister-in-law also were at the court for Friday's developments, WLKY NewsChannel 32's Andy Alcock reported.
"It's really unfortunate to be married to someone for eight years and have no idea who he was," Tabitha Stockelman said. "He was a sick kid-toucher."
Added sister-in-law Becky Drucker: "I don't think he's the type of person who would do that. But he is the type of person who would stand up and take responsibility for something like this, so that's what he did."
Regarding, Chuckie's story -
Charles “Chuckie” Hickman’s confession that he killed Collman and that others were involved threw police off the track for nine weeks, Siedl said, but Hickman’s story changed often and could never be collaborated. Hickman was arrested after confessing to Collman’s murder on Feb. 2, 2005, but he was released after Stockelman was charged with her murder on May 20, 2005.
Siedl also said Stockelman told investigators he was in Crothersville on the day Collman disappeared, moving items from his mother’s home at 405 Kovener St. He also told investigators Collman walked by the house, the two talked, she came inside and they went into the bedroom, where she was molested.
Paulita McGuire, a DNA analyst with the Indiana State Police, testified that DNA samples taken from a cigarette butt found at Cypress Lake and from Collman’s body matched Stockelman, and that no one else on the planet could have the same DNA.
Collman’s mother, Angie Neace, also took the stand, something her husband said was very hard for her to do.
She testified that her daughter was eager to go on an errand to the Dollar Store for her on the day Collman disappeared, and that was the last time she saw her daughter alive. That was at 3:10 p.m. on Jan. 25.
Neace said she began worrying about why her daughter had not come home at about 4 p.m. and started looking for her.
Nieger said Hunt told police she saw Collman with the man in the truck between 4:20 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. the day she disappeared.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The argument that the possibility that one could make a potentially deadly mistake means one shouldn't act at all would effectively put an end to every indirect fire mission, and use of medicines that could produce a potentially fatal reaction. Not to mention putting a swift end to sports like Skydiving or careers like Steve Irwins.
Hmmm, voluntary risk, sorry but that argument just doesn't fit.
Justice is not about taking risks and reaping rewards, but the upholding of what is just, impartial and fair, the act of determining rights or guilt based on facts.
Originally posted by Seagoon
In any event as a society, we need to be willing to do that which is just, even when there is the potential for something to go wrong. When a man rapes and kills a young girl, he has earned the death penalty and it is not justice to refuse to carry it out.
I did not argue the deserved punishment for a child rapist and murderer.
What I do argue about is ability of our legal system to determine guilt without a doubt and as long as our legal (can't force myself to call it justice) system is broken, I can't support death penalty.
Justice can not be served with collateral damage.
As for the case of Stockelman, fact remains, he escaped death penalty because of guilty plea deal. If it was so clearly cut case, supported by ironclad evidence (DNA), why did the prosecutor feel the need for such a deal?
Similary, just year and a half ago, everybody was convinced Hickman was the guilty one.
If not for few lucky turns in investigation, he could easily be the one to hang instead.
-
Two of them have been fired over the incident.
Why? Because they released photos that the public SHOULD see?
You see my friends..our Government and our laws/policies are just as bad as this rapist/killer..in fact I'd go as far to say that the US Goverment and most state governments are the biggest rapists/killers on the planet.
-
You're out of your mind Astac... Apparently the photos were evidence, and releasing them could make it impossible to prosecute whoever assaulted the guy in prison. Because (you do know this, right?) it's still illegal to assault someone even if they're already in prison...
But maybe you're right, we should throw out our entire legal system because fair trials are only for certain people, right? I mean, if a crime is committed but the victim isn't part of the right group, then why prosecute at all? And if the evidence is mishandled and taints the trial process, well then we can just safely assume the accused is guilty since he's "not like us", right?
Or maybe we can protect the integrity of our legal system (what portion of it is left) by prosecuting the retards who posted evidence from an ongoing investigation onto the internet just to be cool...
I have lots of cool photos that I shouldn't post on the internet due to various contracts and non-disclosure agreements I've signed... Would the government be to blame for firing and prosecuting me if I started posting them just so I could play big man on the intarweb or because maybe I have access to photos that you think you *should* see?
-
I'm not out of my mind..I'm sick of what this country has become..The legal system is probrably one of the worst parts. Frankly I don't care what happens to criminals while they are in prison. If they don't want that kind of trouble..then don't do something that will land you in prison.
America has ceased to function as it was designed. Even one of our most famous founding fathers believed that when the system got as bad as it is today(actually passed the threshold of insanity as early as the 50's)..The people should rise up against it and start over again. Problem is, the people are happy with their ignorance of how bad it actually is, as long as it has no direct effect on their lives. Little by little, the tyrants in D.C. have imploemented laws to circumvent our bill of rights. They've wiped their arses with the constitution and laugh at our ignorance of it.
But you go on..keep believing everything is how it should be. Won't be long and you won't be able to tell the difference between the USA and Germany of the Third riech era.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
In any event as a society, we need to be willing to do that which is just, even when there is the potential for something to go wrong. When a man rapes and kills a young girl, he has earned the death penalty and it is not justice to refuse to carry it out. These days we get sentimental about the "rights" of the perpetrator and essentially dismiss the rights of the victim to receive justice. In essence we broke our societal covenant with that young girl. And no, jail is not worse than death, even with a tatoo on your head, especially given where Mr. Stockelman is likely headed after he shuffles off this mortal coil.
Can't Jesus save him?
-
(http://www.hasilvestre.org.br/advir/imagens/GoldSat1/images/Jesus%20cross%20salvation.jpg)
-
"Whoever harms one of these little ones...it were better for him that he should bound to a millstone and that he should be cast into the depths of the sea." (Jesus Christ...paraphrased)
Doesn't quite fit into the modern interpretation of Christ as a hippiesque, ready to forgive anything and anyone, caricature...does it?
-
You get religion Hoopy? If you're trying to make some other statement it's going right over my head. Inside jokes are only funny to those on the inside.
-
Hello Hoopy,
Originally posted by AKH
Can't Jesus save him?
Yes Hoopy, Jesus saves sinners, that's the Good News of the gospel. He even saves hard hearted rat-finks like me when we were still His enemies. That's why I said "likely" given that its a narrow gate and most prefer to remain in the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14). When Christ Himself was preaching the gospel, most people assumed they were righteous and had no need of this "salvation" he was freely offering. So they prefered to mock the gospel rather than embrace it. People who think they are well see no need for a physician. As Christ put it, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." People haven't changed much in 2000 years.
-
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]
-
Proverbs 18:5
It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.
-
Thou shalt not kill.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Thou shalt not kill.
Says who? A more accurate translation of Exodus 20:13 is "Thou shalt not murder".
-
Originally posted by lukster
Says who? A more accurate translation of Exodus 20:13 is "Thou shalt not murder".
Truth.
-
In fact, some distinguished Jewish philosophers believed that "thou shalt not kill" is a perfectly accurate rendering of the sixth commandment. Maimonides, for example, wrote that all cases of killing human beings involve violations of the command, even if the violation happens to be overridden by other mitigating factors. It has been suggested that this tradition underlies the virtual elimination of capital punishment in Rabbinic law.
Viewed from this perspective, we may appreciate that the translation "thou shalt not kill" was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.
As usual, careful study teaches us that what initially appeared ridiculously obvious is really much more complex than it seemed at first glance. We should be very cautious before passing hasty judgement on apparent bloopers.
-
Blooper? Hardly. The correct interpretation has been debated for a long time. Since the Israelites were commanded to war and to kill by God on several occasions including capital punishment for specific crimes I think the word murder is probably a more accurate translation.
-
Originally posted by storch
^ any personal anecdotes to go with that statement ackack?
My brother in law is a deputy sheriff in San Diego and works as a watch officer in the jail down there. They normally place those that have been convicted of child rape and molestation in solitary to keep them from the general population otherwise they would be killed. In the prison hiearchy, rapists and child molesters are down at the bottom of the pecking order.
ack-ack
-
I believe this man is more qualified than any of us to offer his opinion on the topic.
Maimonides (March 30, 1138–December 13, 1204) was a Jewish rabbi, physician, and philosopher in Spain and Egypt during the Middle Ages. He was one of the various medieval Jewish philosophers who also influenced the non-Jewish world. Although his copious works on Jewish law and ethics were initially met with opposition during his lifetime, he was posthumously acknowledged to be one of the foremost rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history. Today, his works and his views are considered a cornerstone of Orthodox Jewish thought and study.
-
Hoopy,
what exactly is the point this reductio ad absurdium whereby scripture is revised, decontexutalized and made to war against itself? Personally, I don't understand the point of it except perhaps as another example of the aeons old "Hath God Said?" approach.
Regardless of what it says or means, you don't accept its authority or the origin, sufficiency, or design it claims for itself (John 20:31, 2 Tim 3:15-17, etc.) unless of course one counts the atomistic use of individual passages that can be made to say what you already believe.
I much prefer the guys who come to scripture and rather than doing a Jeffersonian cut and paste job on the Word, simply take it to mean what it says and criticize it on that basis. For instance, Stephen J. Gould, a renowned atheist who never accepted one iota of the bible's teaching at least criticized for what it said and for instance criticized Christ for his exclusivism in Matt. 7:13-15.
I say that as someone who originally came to scripture as a skeptic with a worldview 180 degrees removed from that of both the New and Old Testament. Today rather than hammering the bible into a shape I'd prefer, I let it do the hammering and shaping on me.
And no, lexically speaking Lo Ratsach (lo is the negative, it means no or not) does not mean "killing" in the broadest sense, the word Rasah is never for instance used for the killing of an enemy or the slaying of an animal.
I doubt a full discussion of the semantic range of the word Rasah in Hebrew would be of much use, but perhaps a more layman oriented examination of "murder" in the old testament, from the Dictionary of Theology might -
Murder. The Old Testament. Although the Israelites did not have a term that precisely fits our present-day idea of murder, they differentiated among killing, manslaughter, and murder in their legal terminology.
The Term for Murder in the Sixth Commandment. The sixth commandment (“you shall not murder”; Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17) has been misunderstood because of an ambiguity in terminology. The Hebrew word that was used in this case for “kill” (or murder) was the somewhat rare term rāṣah (derivatives can be found with the meaning of shatter [Ps. 42:11] or slaughter [Ezek. 21:27]). Although its exact meaning has defied explanation, in other contexts it could refer to killing that was inherently evil (Judg. 20:4; Job 24:14; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:21; Hos. 6:9). It was also listed in abuses of the covenant community (Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2) and in lists of curses (Deut. 27:24–25). Jezebel committed murder (rāṣah) against the prophets (1 Kings 18:13), as did Ahab against Naboth (1 Kings 21:19) and Simeon and Levi against the Shechemites (Gen. 34:26). However, the same term could also have applied to unintentional manslaughter (Deut. 4:41; 19:3–6; Josh. 20:3), blood vengeance (Num. 35:27, 30), the legal execution of a criminal (Num. 35:30), attempted assassination (2 Kings 6:32), and on one occasion it was used for the figurative killing of humans by animals (Prov. 22:13).
Discernment in Homicide Cases. The death penalty was posed for one who killed with premeditation, but not for accidental manslaughter (Exod. 21:12–13; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 27:24). In fact, premeditated murder did not require a trial (Exod. 21:14; Num. 35:19; Deut. 19:11–13). Thus, the Old Testament saw a fundamental difference between the two types of homicide (Deut. 19:1–13; Josh. 20:1–7), providing two levels of meaning for rāṣ. One who killed out of enmity was not allowed sanctuary in the city of refuge. The victim’s clan could demand that the killer be delivered up to the blood avenger (2 Sam. 14:7–11), who presented the evidence against the individual. Guilt was determined either by the intention of the killer or by the type of object used in the apparent manslaughter (Num. 35:16–21; some iron, stone, or wooden objects were considered likely to cause death). However, there had to be at least two witnesses to convict a murderer (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 1 Sam. 21:4). The blood avenger, who was responsible for the execution, was not allowed to pity the murderer or else the land would be defiled (Num. 35:34; David put himself in the hands of God because of this—2 Sam. 12:13). No ransom was allowed since this would have signified consent with the crime, undermining the value of human life and breaking the covenant with God. There was also no substitutionary punishment (Deut. 24:16; although Saul’s sons were demanded as ransom after his own death because he had murdered the Gibeonites—2 Sam. 21:1–9).
The Meaning of Rāṣah. Rāṣah probably had a specialized meaning, possibly in connection with the killing (whether premeditated or accidental) of anyone in the covenant community, especially that which brought illegal violence. The sixth commandment therefore protected the individual Israelite within the community from any danger. Only God had the right to terminate life; murder was an abrogation of his power that ignored humanity’s created nature and value in the sight of God. God had to be propitiated since the covenant relationship had been broken (Num. 35:33). Murder deprived God of his property (the blood of the victim; Lev. 17:11, 14), which apparently passed to the control of the murderer (2 Sam. 4:11). Thus, the murderer’s life was ransomed. Underlying this was the dictum in Genesis 9:6 concerning the sanctity of life. The murderer had to receive a penalty consistent with this law (lex talionis) to purge the evil from their midst (Gen. 4:10–11; Deut. 21:8) and to deter others (Deut. 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). Rāṣah did not cover the subject of killing in war or capital punishment, which were done only at the command of God; thus, they were not in the same category as murder.
Other Terms for Murder. The most common Hebrew word for killing (hārag) could also be used for murder. Pharaoh viewed Moses’ killing of an Egyptian as a crime (Exod. 2:14–15). Joab’s spilling of the blood of Abner was condemned (2 Sam. 3:30; 1 Kings 2:5). David was responsible for the death of Uriah, although he did not physically kill him (2 Sam. 12:9). Judicial murder was also condemned (Exod. 23:7; Pss. 10:8; 94:6). Hārag was the term used for Cain’s crime against Abel (Gen. 4:8), and for the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 4:11–12). Striking a parent (possibly with the intent to murder; Exod. 21:15), inducing death by miscarriage (Exod. 21:22–23), and sacrificing children to a foreign god (Lev. 20:2–3) were apparently considered murder and were capital crimes. If a man beat a slave to death, he was probably punished (or better avenged) by being put to death by the covenant community (Exod. 21:20). There was no legislation outlawing suicide, as it must have been very rare. Those who committed suicide in Scripture had been placed in a situation of certain death (Judg. 9:54; 16:30; 1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 17:23; 1 Kings 16:18).
...
If there is any interested I can also, give you the entry for murder in the New Testament and/or some other theological examinations of the concept of Murder and Killing in the Old and New Testaments. I'm currently awash in stuff dealing with the civil law in the Bible as I'm working on a bibliography for my ThD. The subject is the doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church, or why the church's proper domain is not the political arena, and vice versa.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
My brother in law is a deputy sheriff in San Diego and works as a watch officer in the jail down there. They normally place those that have been convicted of child rape and molestation in solitary to keep them from the general population otherwise they would be killed. In the prison hiearchy, rapists and child molesters are down at the bottom of the pecking order.
ack-ack
I've heard that but could it be that it is a case of a celebrity type of inmate as much as the type of crime commited? as an example the scott peterson guy is doing fairly well, I thought for sure he would be whacked the first day in. the same thing applies to charles manson. I mean they have to interact with the general population at some point don't they?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Why? Because they released photos that the public SHOULD see?
You see my friends..our Government and our laws/policies are just as bad as this rapist/killer..in fact I'd go as far to say that the US Goverment and most state governments are the biggest rapists/killers on the planet.
Only problem is it's against the code of ethics, and policy, for guards release that stuff... unless they allege a criminal "cover up", then they have whistle blower status.
They screwed up by not sending it to a reporter, they'll go to jail before revealing their sources.... bloggers?, not so gung ho apparently.
I'm sure it would have been released eventually.
In prison they tattoo the wacko bananas, in congress they protect them.. I used to think convicts and congressmen were of the same ilk, but the inmates have the moral advantage here.
-
Some scholars claim that the Hebrew verb rasah has a more restrictive meaning than the English verb ‘to kill’; that it refers only to the deliberate or intentional taking of human life. Those who take this view, like the translators of the New Revised Standard Version, render the commandment, ‘You shall not murder.’ Likewise the author of the article on the Ten Commandments in a recent multivolume Bible dictionary says, ‘The commandment forbids the illegal and wilful killing of the innocent, but does not ban capital punishment nor forbid the killing of Israel’s enemies during war.’ (Raymond F. Collins, ‘Ten Commandments’, in David N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York & London, Doubleday, 1992], Vol VI, p. 386).
The appeal of this translation is that it allows for capital punishment and the taking of life in self-defence, as when a country is attacked in war. But there is a basic difficulty with it. The verb also occurs in the Old Testament in contexts where unintentional killing is clearly being referred to (Deuteronomy 4:41-42, Joshua 20:3). Both Moses and Joshua provided for the establishment of cities of refuge, where a person who had killed someone by accident could flee for protection from reprisal until a proper court case could be held to settle the issue fairly. In the light of these passages a leading Old Testament scholar, Brevard Childs, observes that ‘the basic distinction between murder and killing, namely the factor of intentionality, cannot be sustained for the verb rasah.’ (Exodus [London, SCM Press, 1974], p. 420). The sixth commandment refers to all forms of killing, and means, quite simply, ‘You shall not kill’. It challenges us to preserve the basic sanctity of human life.
-
hoopie... I believe that it is very merciful to execute a child molester and release him from the hell that is his life...
I think that life in prison is cruel but... this type of man must be kept away from the rest of society. I believe that a man can execute him and be considered merciful..
as for people being executed unfairly.. well... I would welcome an example of one modern case of someone being executed for a crime he did not commit. I do not believe that it is the case and.... I would much rather be executed for a crime I did not commit than be imprisoned for the rest of my life for the same thing.
I have never been able to figure out how some people... those so afraid of death... can even function.
lazs
-
I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me. -Marquis de Lafayette
As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.
Since 1973, 123 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004, two in 2005 and one so far in 2006. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.
-
There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:
Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted 1985 Executed 1993
A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle casts serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man.
Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle.
In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."
Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times.
Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that."
(Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005). See Innocence.
Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction 1981 Executed 1995
A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005). Read the NAACP report on Larry Griffin's case.
Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction 1986 Executed 1997
New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O'Dell's claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O'Dell asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence but was refused. He was executed on July 23rd.
David Spence Texas Conviction 1984 Executed 1997
Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony.
Leo Jones Florida Convicted 1981 Executed 1998
Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case.
Gary Graham Texas Convicted 1981 Executed 2000
On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.
Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted 1992 Executed 2004
After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.
Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."
Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.
Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004).
-
Do you endeavor to keep the other 9 commandments as well Hoopy?
-
hoopy... not one of those examples says the man executed was proven innocent.
surely you can find one proven case of an innocent executed in all of the executions in recent times?
lazs
-
And how is somebody proven to be innocent?
-
Originally posted by AKH
And how is somebody proven to be innocent?
If they weigh more than a duck? ;)
-
hoopy... they can be proven not guilty. It is done all the time. people who have been imprisoned for years have been released with absolute proof of innocence.
I assume that the info you got was off some anti death penalty site and that the examples cited are the best they can come up with.
None of them have proven that anyone was executed unfairly even tho they had thousands of examples to choose from and most have been investigated with a fine tooth comb.
no matter what... the evidence is that all the people executed were more than deserving of such a death.
lazs