NationStates Jolt Archive

FORT COLLINS, Colorado (CNN) -- Tim Masters is expected to get his first taste of freedom Tuesday after spending more than nine years behind bars for a murder he always insisted he didn't commit.


Tim Masters was 15 years old when Peggy Hettrick was brutally slain in 1987.

Masters, his family, his team of attorneys and others filed into a courtroom here to wait a special prosecutor's recommendation that Masters be freed and his 1999 murder conviction thrown out.

Masters, 36, had been under investigation for the slaying of Peggy Hettrick for more than half his life.

Despite the prospect of a new trial, a local district attorney says Masters may no longer be a suspect.

After a special prosecutor announced Friday that new DNA evidence in the case warranted a retrial, District Attorney Larry Abrahamson issued a statement Monday explaining it might be unnecessary to try Masters again.

"In light of newly discovered evidence revealed to me on Friday," Abrahamson wrote, "I will be moving as expeditiously as possible to make the determination of whether all charges against Timothy Masters will be dismissed."

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/masters.case/index.html).

This is the second case in about a month nationally where an inmate's conviction has been overturned by DNA evidence. These cases are used by many anti death penalty advocates, including myself, as examples of why we should eliminate the death penalty, due to the inherent risk of executing the wrong person, an irrevocable punishment.

Your thoughts?

I agree.

Tim Masters is just another victim in our botched justice system. It needs a complete, radical workover.

My thoughts are i should really eat something soon, i'm so hungry.
Back to topic another reason why the death penalty does not work, it's a good idea but it cannot work.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/masters.case/index.html).

This is the second case in about a month nationally where an inmate's conviction has been overturned by DNA evidence. These cases are used by many anti death penalty advocates, including myself, as examples of why we should eliminate the death penalty, due to the inherent risk of executing the wrong person, an irrevocable punishment.

Your thoughts?

"Lunch time!"

On a more serious note, Your paragraph above pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.

A study done on the first 205 people cleared by DNA testing since 1989 by the Innocence Project found that the wrongful convictions were the result of:

incorrect eyewitness identification in 79 percent of the cases,

forensic evidence in 55 percent,

informants or snitches in 18 percent,

and false confessions in 16 percent

by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and former associate of lawyers Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck (founders of the Innocence Project).

From my understanding there were major changes in the 30s and in the 50s regarding criminal procedures that made it easier for the prosecution to convict people, such as conviction on "like fibers" found (hair), instead of exact matches, etc. I am still learning about it. If this is so then it is clear that these changes were for the worse and not for the better, and need to be changed.

If the rules of evidence and procedure do not insure that the innocent are not convicted, even if that means that a few guilty people go free; then justice is a joke.

Your thoughts?
Same as always. The death penalty should go, the sooner the better.

Oh, DNA. Is there anything you can't do?

:fluffle:

Oh, DNA. Is there anything you can't do?

:fluffle:

DNA: The greatest superhero of our times.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/masters.case/index.html).

This is the second case in about a month nationally where an inmate's conviction has been overturned by DNA evidence. These cases are used by many anti death penalty advocates, including myself, as examples of why we should eliminate the death penalty, due to the inherent risk of executing the wrong person, an irrevocable punishment.

Your thoughts?


I do not think reversal of a few cases due to errors is a reason to do away with the death penalty. I do feel we have to exhaust all possibilities and that DNA testing should be required in all instances past and present.

While I support the death penalty I am not comfortable with the 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I think it should be 'beyond ANY doubt'. There is room for improvement of our system.

The OP sums up my thoughts nicely. Let's get rid of the death penalty and make the law be about justice, not revenge (because I firmly believe that revenge is what the death penalty is really about).

The OP sums up my thoughts nicely. Let's get rid of the death penalty and make the law be about justice, not revenge (because I firmly believe that revenge is what the death penalty is really about).

Quoted For Enormous Truth.

As I've stated before in another thread, the death penalty is just one enormous Catch-22 that we'd be better off without. On the one hand, there is the risk of executing innocent people: a grave error for which there is no recompense. On the other, the more restrictions and requirements we make before the death penalty can be used, the less and less likely we are to ever actually use it, making it essentially worthless anyway.

You see, the death penalty advocates don't care if innocents get killed. Because they are not that different from the people they advocate the death of.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/masters.case/index.html).

This is the second case in about a month nationally where an inmate's conviction has been overturned by DNA evidence. These cases are used by many anti death penalty advocates, including myself, as examples of why we should eliminate the death penalty, due to the inherent risk of executing the wrong person, an irrevocable punishment.

Your thoughts?
DNA is very reliable evidence. Let's declare a moratorium on all death sentences and screen everyone possible to see if they can be pardoned/released/whatever based on modern analysis.

But...

Based on the same modern analysis that is allowing the justice system to release the wrongly convicted, we should be able to proceed confidently with executions that are backed up with sufficient evidence.

Why, no more than anti-death-penalty advocates care when innocents get put into prison. No matter what horrors they experience - whether they ever leave alive - you shrug and dismiss it.

We all know the justice system is not perfect, and we all know that innocents get prosecuted and even convicted. But you spout in righteous indignation about unfeeling, uncaring death penalty advocates (we also kill kittens) based on the hairline distinction that life in prison is "reversible." Right now there is an innocent man getting raped in the ass in prison, and you think because it's not fatal (necessarily) it's no big deal and that there's a huge moral distinction between you and death penalty advocates. Make you sleep better at night? Good. But it doesn't carry weight with me.

And the point you keep right on missing whenever this argument comes up is that not only is it reversable, it is compensatable.

How do you compensate a dead man for killing him?

You see, the death penalty advocates don't care if innocents get killed.

Why, no more than anti-death-penalty advocates care when innocents get put into prison. No matter what horrors they experience - whether they ever leave alive - you shrug and dismiss it.

We all know the justice system is not perfect, and we all know that innocents get prosecuted and even convicted. But you spout in righteous indignation about unfeeling, uncaring death penalty advocates (we also kill kittens) based on the hairline distinction that life in prison is "reversible." Right now there is an innocent man getting raped in the ass in prison, and you think because it's not fatal (necessarily) it's no big deal and that there's a huge moral distinction between you and death penalty advocates. Make you sleep better at night? Good. But it doesn't carry weight with me.

Because they are not that different from the people they advocate the death of.

Yeah yeah, and anti-war demonstrators hate Bush, and thus are not different from terrorists. Also, people who disagree with me on economics are not that different from child molesters. Etc etc dismissive generalized insulting.

Based on the same modern analysis that is allowing the justice system to release the wrongly convicted, we should be able to proceed confidently with executions that are backed up with sufficient evidence.

Which does create a problem, do we create two systems of justice? Not every murderer leaves DNA behind. Do we only allow death penalty in cases where we have a DNA lock?

How can we know, for certain, that the DNA of the defendant wasn't left on the victim in other circumstances? Let's say my girlfriend winds up dead, and an eyewitness fingers me. Now let's say none of the assailants DNA is found on her. That may (depending on other evidence perhaps) be enough to convict me, but without DNA, we're not really using "modern analysis", and in fact, are in the same situation that caused many innocents to be convicted in the first place.

Now however, let's say my girlfriend's body did have some dna sample on her, and it's mine. Problem is, if you examine my girlfriend there's a fair chance you'll find one or more of my hairs somewhere on her person. If she turns up dead, my DNA has a fair chance of being on her person, even if I wasn't involved.

Now there'd DNA, but it's explainable DNA. And we can continue to make combinations and permutations, and if you're going to require a situation of "total certainty" for death penalty cases, well I'm willing ot believe you might as well not have any anyway, because almost universally there can be SOME doubt.

The OP sums up my thoughts nicely. Let's get rid of the death penalty and make the law be about justice, not revenge (because I firmly believe that revenge is what the death penalty is really about).
I agree that it is a great thing not to have the death penalty, but it seems as though the separation between justice and revenge is a largely arbitrary one, whether the death penalty is involved or not. "We can't let them get away with it" is the basic notion that most people have when it comes to punishing offenders; one that is exercised whether you're sending them to the chair or to the slammer.

DNA is very reliable evidence. Let's declare a moratorium on all death sentences and screen everyone possible to see if they can be pardoned/released/whatever based on modern analysis.

But...

Based on the same modern analysis that is allowing the justice system to release the wrongly convicted, we should be able to proceed confidently with executions that are backed up with sufficient evidence.
Since the justice system is flawed and mistakes have and will be made... No, we shouldn't.

*Repeats mantra*

Right now there is an innocent man getting raped in the ass in prison, and you think because it's not fatal (necessarily) it's no big deal and that there's a huge moral distinction between you and death penalty advocates.
Sexual assaults in prison happens less than portrayed on the TV. And it can be stopped / reduced with better prisons and more funding.

After all, compare the rates with, say, Scandinavia.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/masters.case/index.html).

This is the second case in about a month nationally where an inmate's conviction has been overturned by DNA evidence. These cases are used by many anti death penalty advocates, including myself, as examples of why we should eliminate the death penalty, due to the inherent risk of executing the wrong person, an irrevocable punishment.

Your thoughts?


Stupid argument really. Yeah they may be freed by DNA but then what? The damage will be done, their name will be stained forever.

You see, the death penalty advocates don't care if innocents get killed. Because they are not that different from the people they advocate the death of.



/thread

Which does create a problem, do we create two systems of justice? Not every murderer leaves DNA behind. Do we only allow death penalty in cases where we have a DNA lock?

...

Now there'd DNA, but it's explainable DNA. And we can continue to make combinations and permutations, and if you're going to require a situation of "total certainty" for death penalty cases, well I'm willing ot believe you might as well not have any anyway, because almost universally there can be SOME doubt.
The other side of the coin is that there are some truly hideous things done to innocent people. The predators in these cases should never be free, but we can't always rely on the justice system to make sure they spend their lives in prison. I think that's the frustration/concern of most death penalty advocates.

We could eliminate the death penalty, but we can't replace it with a sentencing system that turns a life sentence into 15 years with good behavior.

Sexual assaults in prison happens less than portrayed on the TV. And it can be stopped / reduced with better prisons and more funding.

After all, compare the rates with, say, Scandinavia.

Well OK, and execution of innocents (or guilty, for that matter) happens less than portrayed on TV. And it can be stopped/reduced with better courts and more funding. See, we're both relatively content with injustices as a result of an imperfect justice system.

Well OK, and execution of innocents (or guilty, for that matter) happens less than portrayed on TV. And it can be stopped/reduced with better courts and more funding. See, we're both relatively content with injustices as a result of an imperfect justice system.

You keep saying that and it keeps not being true. Just like last time.

You keep saying that and it keeps not being true. Just like last time.

I keep saying it, and people such as yourself keep insisting I am wrong regardless of any reason. Just like last time. People who disagree are painted as demons ("no better than murderers" in this case). Just like last time. People who agree with you will give you high-fives if you manage to say something particularly witty. Just like last time. Seems like there's not much else to say, yet I oddly don't feel compelled to silence myself at this moment.

I keep saying it, and people such as yourself keep insisting I am wrong regardless of any reason. Just like last time. People who disagree are painted as demons ("no better than murderers" in this case). Just like last time. People who agree with you will give you high-fives if you manage to say something particularly witty. Just like last time. Seems like there's not much else to say, yet I oddly don't feel compelled to silence myself at this moment.

You are wrong because pretty much everyone who is opposed to the death penalty is not ok with the injustice of an innocent being executed.

You can try all you like to equate accepting that an imperfect system will imprison innocents(though we should endeavour to prevent this and duly compensate those innocents) with accepting that a different imperfect system will execute innocents(oh well, them's the breaks) but you won't succeed.

You are wrong because pretty much everyone who is opposed to the death penalty is not ok with the injustice of an innocent being executed.

No, just the injustice of an innocent being drugged, raped and beaten in prison for life.

You can try all you like to equate accepting that an imperfect system will imprison innocents(though we should endeavour to prevent this and duly compensate those innocents) with accepting that a different imperfect system will execute innocents(oh well, them's the breaks) but you won't succeed.

I am not equating the systems, I am equating the fact that in this "accepting of imperfect system" you are also accepting injustices. Often fatal injustices, but almost always traumatizing and permanent (i.e, non-reversible without a time machine). I am not condemning you for that, I am saying that that is not very different from my accepting other often fatal injustices as a result of that same imperfect system. And it'd be nice to not be condemned for that with the same tired histrionics about how I just like to beat off to the thought of death because I'm an evil stupid bastard. I don't like dead innocent people any more than you like raped innocent people.

No, just the injustice of an innocent being drugged, raped and beaten in prison for life.
Which while awful isn't really as final as executing someone. Someone who was imprisoned wrongly can be freed and given therapy. What can you do with someone wrongly executed?



I am not equating the systems, I am equating the fact that in this "accepting of imperfect system" you are also accepting injustices. Often fatal injustices, but almost always traumatizing and permanent (i.e, non-reversible without a time machine). I am not condemning you for that, I am saying that that is not very different from my accepting other often fatal injustices as a result of that same imperfect system.
And I'm saying that it is. There is a difference between failing to prevent the(possibly fatal) mistreatment of someone who was wrongfully convicted and intentionally killing them. One is inevitable, due to human imperfection, but we can make it unlikely and the other is totally preventable, by abolishing the death penalty.
And it'd be nice to not be condemned for that with the same tired histrionics about how I just like to beat off to the thought of death because I'm an evil stupid bastard. I don't like dead innocent people any more than you like raped innocent people.
Think of it as an unavoidable consequence of an imperfect series of tubes ;)

Well OK, and execution of innocents (or guilty, for that matter) happens less than portrayed on TV. And it can be stopped/reduced with better courts and more funding. See, we're both relatively content with injustices as a result of an imperfect justice system.

Except you accept both. You will accept the sexual assults you talked about, and in addition, you will accept that innocents may be executed. I will not accept that latter, and by removing the death penalty I remove that risk and do not lose anything noteworthy in the process. The criminals will still be punished, just not executed.

You see, I would strive to minimize the fallout of an incorrect verdict while still maintaining the efficiency of the justice system.

Oh, DNA. Is there anything you can't do?

:fluffle:

Oh, Humans. Is they're anything we can't muck up?

:fluffle:

A study done on the first 205 people cleared by DNA testing since 1989 by the Innocence Project found that the wrongful convictions were the result of:

incorrect eyewitness identification in 79 percent of the cases,

forensic evidence in 55 percent,

informants or snitches in 18 percent,

and false confessions in 16 percent

by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and former associate of lawyers Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck (founders of the Innocence Project).


"Innocence, Harmless Error and Federal Wrongful Conviction Law," 2005 Wisc. L. Rev. 35.?

Is that the study?

Tim Masters is just another victim in our botched justice system. It needs a complete, radical workover.

So does just about everything else in this country.