Death penalty lacks moral ground

BSU DAILY NEWS ^ | 4.2.03 | Ben McShane

[Enemy Of The State]

Death penalty lacks moral ground

by Ben 'Mouse' McShane

April 02, 2003

Last week, I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense. Now, let's look at the moral aspect.

The most common argument favoring the death penalty is serving justice.

Killing the man may keep him from murdering someone else in the future, but the death penalty is unnecessary to protect citizens from dangerous criminals. Executing the murderer is not necessary for justice to be served.

If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again. He will not be able to vote. He will not be free. His right to live freely will be revoked.

He will never harm another. The sanctity of human life will be preserved.

Why then do we still execute our murderers? To serve on abstract concept called "justice"? Many supporters will tell you the death penalty is for the families of the victims.

Nowhere in our Constitution or our laws does it state that the job of the government is to exact revenge for private citizens.

To kill a man because he is a murderer, in order to satisfy the victim's family's wishes, is revenge. It is to make the victim's family feel better -- a gruesome, barbaric consolation prize for their tragedy. This is little more than expensive, state-sponsored revenge.

Even if the death penalty were not amoral, and even if the idea was supported in our Constitution, the system we use to determine who lives and who dies is biased and corrupt.

Fact: For interracial murders since 1976 that resulted in a death sentence, 178 of the cases involved a white victim and a black defendant. Twelve cases involved a black victim and a white defendant.

Fact: 80 percent of all capital cases involve white victims, although only 50 percent of all murder victims are white.

The U.S. General Accounting Office summed it up in 1990 when it reported, "In 82 percent of the studies [reviewed]... those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

The experts are acknowledging the facts: Our death sentencing system is racist.

Other prejudices exist within our "justice" system. Damien Echols, one of the famed "West Memphis Three," is currently on death row for his alleged part in a brutal triple-homicide of three young boys.

The shocking thing is, not one piece of physical evidence links Echols to the crime scene. Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley wore black clothes and listened to Metallica.

The only evidence linking Echols to the crime is a coerced confession from Jessie Misskelley, who was interrogated for 12 hours without representation before he confessed. Only the last 45 minutes of the interrogation were documented.

Experts testified that Misskelley was coerced into lying about the murder. Photographic documentation shows a baseball bat in the corner of the room. Misskelley has an IQ of 72, is mildly retarded and did not understand what was happening around him during the interrogation.

If you wish to be shocked even more, you can read "Devil's Knot" by Mara Leveritt and learn the West Memphis Police Department's shady investigation methods.

Unless true justice stumbles it way through, Damien Echols will die for three murders despite the lack of hard evidence. A dangerously imperfect system of bias and corruption has chosen his fate.

You can't un-kill a person.

If our nation abolished the death penalty, the consequences of the system's imperfections would not be a matter of life-and-death. Brutal murderers could still be punished and kept off the streets. True justice would be served.

 

Visit http://www.classicalgeektheatre.com

[Larry Lucido]

If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.

An assertion with absolutely no support.

[grobdriver]

If our nation abolished the death penalty, the consequences of the system's imperfections would not be a matter of life-and-death. Brutal murderers could still be punished and kept off the streets. True justice would be served.

I wonder if Ben's opinion would change if his wife were to be caught alone at home some night, raped repeatedly, beaten and her throat cut open - then have the perp caught by diligent police work, the evidence sufficient to convict him.

[ClearCase_guy]

Last week, I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense. Now, let's look at the moral aspect. The most common argument favoring the death penalty is serving justice. Killing the man may keep him from murdering someone else in the future,

Hmmmmmm. So, the death penalty is not a deterrent, but it does keep the man from murdering someone else. This word "deterrent" -- what does it mean?

[trebb]

The guy talks of morality, but fails to use any true moral arguments. Plus, it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years.

[Jeff Head]

Last week, I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense

He showed nothing. A person who is executed is absolutely and permanently deterred, more so than any other means.

It is clear that this individual attends BS-U for a reason.

[Glock19C]

From what research I've done into this issue, it is the deterrent nature of the death penalty that is the best argument for it. I've read interviews with criminals that did not commit a particular crime (executing a witness for instance) because they knew that would bring the death penalty into play.

Personally I don't much care one way or the other.

[Diva]

An assertion with absolutely no support.

How would he kill?

[Beck_isright]

Last time I checked, those criminals which were executed have committed no further crimes. Sounds like the problem was solved to me.

[GilesB]

Show society that "Life imprisonment" means just that - then you have some moral foundation to talk to us about alternatives to the death penalty.

As long as "Life" means 15 to 20 years, society is not being protected from the predators through life sentences and society will demand something meaningful - like death.

[OpusatFR]

"The most common argument favoring the death penalty is serving justice.

Killing the man may keep him from murdering someone else in the future, but the death penalty is unnecessary to protect citizens from dangerous criminals. Executing the murderer is not necessary for justice to be served."

This person has a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of Justice. Justice is not the means to keep someone from murdering again. The death penalty should be the final resort for those to whom we say, "You are not fit to live in society even though imprisoned or isolated. You have violated every tenet of humanity. Justice is served by removing you from our midst."

The Ted Bundys and John Wayne Gaceys of this life were executed not as examples to other killers but to remove them from our society. The depraved indifference and murderous rage of these men was beyond the pale. To have allowed Bundy to continue his legal studies and writing, or Gacey to continue his painting and sales was an affront to the concept of Justice itself. Their lives were forefitted when they consciously made the decisions to murder.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

1. If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.
Wrong. Who is responsible for prisoners murdered while in prison?

2. He will never harm another.
Yeah, fights never happen in prison. No one ever cuts beaten or cut.

3. The sanctity of human life will be preserved.
Ever heard of prison rape? How does that sanctify human life?

Hoser.

[alisasny]

This guy is an idiot for the simple reason that he wastes all this time on 3000 or so of the worst America has to offer, those on death row, over anything else.

The American death penalty is the most humane DP in the world.

In addition it is not used enough.

[NCLaw441]

This guy's arguments, if valid, prove too much. There have been many murders in prison by "lifers." Thus, life in prison is no deterrent, either. Life sentences do not "un-kill" the victim, either. What benefit is there is locking someone up for the rest of his life? Rehabilitation? For what? He will never get out of prison and back into the "mainstream." Life sentences are nothing but revenge for wrongful acts. Prison is nothing more than government-sanctioned abduction and kidnapping. These are the arguments we will hear if the death penalty is ever ended. Mark these words.

[theDentist]

If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.

Tell that to the guards, and to other prisoners. Solitary confinement might work, but after a certain amount of time, Prison officials will put the killer in the general population. You only get Solitary/Protection if you're considered to be likely to die in GP (rapists, child molesters, traitors, etc). How many killers are in for multiple murders? How many of their 2nd (or 3rd +) murders are committed behind the walls? Further, there are too many judges and parole boards out there who will release killers because they feel they've learned their lesson. And why not? The killers don't live in their neighborhoods. Besides, they don't want people to they they have no "feelings".

Nowhere in our Constitution or our laws does it state that the job of the government is to exact revenge for private citizens.

What is prison? What are fines? These are forms of "revenge". But this isn't revenge. It's punishment. When you commit the ultimate crime, you face the ultimate penalty. And in this case, the confinement is not the penalty. That's the way station to his real punishment.

Our death sentencing system is racist.

Most of those on death row now are white.

If you wish to be shocked even more, you can read "Devil's Knot" by Mara Leveritt

So all this is just an advertisement to sell a book which already has an agenda. A few anecdotes and examples of questionable cases (that's why we have appeal courts) does not mean all cases are questionable, and therefore none should be punished for their crimes.

You can't un-kill a person.

Tell that to the murderers. Besides, once we do put a murderer to death, he never kills again.

[AbsoluteJustice]

IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A DETERRANT BEN!!!! IT IS A PUNISHMENT!!! GET THAT THRU YOUR CONCEPTUAL LIBERAL HEAD!!!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

cuts beaten or cut=gets beaten or cut.

Ooopsy.

[NCLaw441]

Oh yeah, and life-sentences are racially imposed, and not fiscally sound either. In fact, shorter sentences are nothing but less of the same kind of racist, vengeful, fiscally wasteful, non-rehabilitative, government-sanctioned kidnapping. The obvious solution: free all prisoners. And while you are at it, forget about fines as well, since that is nothing more than government-sanctioned robbery.

[thatsnotnice]

Nowhere in our Constitution or our laws does it state that the job of the government is to exact revenge for private citizens.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The term “capital crime” denotes, to me, a crime or offense punishable by death.

[TheDon]

I've heard of prisoners killing other prisoners, and even guards. The only safe murderer is a dead murderer.

[thepitts]

Anyone who trusts the government,state or federal, enough to allow them to put citzens to death should re-read their history books.

[Sloth]

Excellent points.

[TheDon]

That's why we have a jury system. We provide the facts, you decide.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?

Virginia and West Virginia were named for Queen Elizabeth I. Dubbed "the virgin Queen" by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584.

So in fact, there is only 1 virgin. And she wasn't all that hot.

[TheDon]

"I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense."

I guessed I missed that speech.

[Sloth]

...80 percent of all capital cases involve white victims, although only 50 percent of all murder victims are white. The U.S. General Accounting Office summed it up in 1990 when it reported, "In 82 percent of the studies [reviewed]... those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

This is not an argument against the death penalty -- it simply shows that we need to start executing greater numbers of people who kill non-whites.

[wita]

Thanks, you save me, I was about to spell it out.

[thepitts]

That's why we have a jury system. We provide the facts, you decide.

Right, juries always get all of the facts.

[Consort]

If the death penalty is immoral....then it is an immoral imperative. Funerals, for the victims and for the murderers, are for the living; not for the dead.

[TheDon]

Oh yeah, I forgot, and endless appeals.

[sausageseller]

Write to Mouse at bbmcshane@bsu.edu

SS. Send your comments. IE. Freep him!

[Extremist]

Fact: For interracial murders since 1976 that resulted in a death sentence, 178 of the cases involved a white victim and a black defendant. Twelve cases involved a black victim and a white defendant.

That is a stupid statement. Those who commit the crime are the ones who must be punished. Do they want an affirmative action death penalty that would force authorities to grab a random white guy off the streets to executute after each execution of a black man? I can't think of one single case of a white person from my community killing a black person. On the otherhand, there have been many cases of blacks killing whites. The motive is always the same: drug money. A couple of months ago a young cab driver was shot in the back of the head and robbed of ten dollars. The three monsters then took his cab for a joy-ride. They now face possible execution.

Would this pin-head please explain to the now orphaned child of the cab driver that to rid the world of the men who killed his daddy would be wrong?

[merak]

The criteria for capital punishment cannot be "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the norm in our system. The criteria for capital punishment has to be guilt beyond any doubt, whatsoever. In particular, there are still too many white people in this country who could not tell two blacks apart if one is male and the other female, or one alive and the other dead, and that's just one of many problems involved in this sort of thing. One or two eyewitnesses cannot plausibly be the basis for hanging somebody.

That criteria would still let you hang Charles Manson and other flagrant cases, the keeping around of whom serves no useful purpose.

[paulsy]

Let me start by saying I am opposed to the death penalty for a variety of reasons.

However, regarding "morality" of the death penalty, there are plenty of moral reasons FOR it. The author of the above piece does not argue strongly against it from a moral standpoint. There is sufficient moral authority in the Bible to justify the death penalty. One scripture, Romans 13:3-4, says:

"The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God's servant, an avenger to execute God's anger on anyone who does what is wrong."

In deciding how I feel about the death penalty, I try to understand when God feels it is okay to kill. I'll digress for a moment and draw comparisons to the current war situation. The Bible is full of support for killing wars if they are fought for good reasons. Structural authority for what's at hand in Iraq might be found in Acts 17:26-26, in Luke 12:48 and in a number of other places. Specifically, wars can be waged for among these reasons:

• To defend the innocent and free (Psalm 82:3-4)
• To liberate the oppressed (Psalm 82:3-4)
• To stop the spread of evil (Proverbs 25:5)
• To replace injustice with justice (Proverbs 21:15; Proverbs 28:4)

And of course Eccl. 3:8, "There is a time for war and a time for peace.". There are many others.

So with state killing, from a "moral" standpoint I am opposed to it because I don't think it is necessary to accomplish any of those things listed above, and for other moral reasons. Once a murderer is caught, it is I believe more justice to make them live out their entire natural lives in prison. Death is too easy for them, and justice served by a state agency seems too far removed from me, a surviving victim, to be of any real value.

I am not pontificating. I have lost family members to murder. My uncle was killed by a hitch-hiker in Fairfield, CA, and my cousin was murdered by someone bent on revenge for his turning them in for burglury at his home. Still I am opposed. Of course if I catch someone "in the act" I will not hesitate to unbody them with a certain brutality, I might after all be able to stop the crime; I would do the same in a righteous war for the reasons given in the scriptures above.

"Plus, it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years."

The argument against this is, that the long appeals process is very expensive and housing them on death row is (at least it was at one point) more expensive than simply locking them up. I suppose we could cut short the appeals process and focus on DNA and modern forensic techniques. Doing this might draw the ire of civil libertarians, but who cares as long as we get to the truth. I don't really buy into the "it's expensive" argument against the death penalty.

"As long as "Life" means 15 to 20 years, society is not being protected from the predators..."

Life should mean until they die (naturally). Regrettably, in states where "natural life without parole" is not an option (as here in Texas) the death penalty should be an alternative. However I myself would lobby the legislature for the natural life without parole option.

Anyhow, just my .04 worth.

[ClearCase_guy]

Kinda ignorant aren't you? There is always some doubt. Just not reasonable doubt. There are people who doubt that this is a material world -- it could be a dream from some elephant-headed god. Who knows anything for sure, dude?

You don't even seem to be aware that Charles Manson is not in prison for murder. He didn't do the stabbing in the Tate and LaBianca murders. I don't even think he was on the scene. He's not a murderer -- he is merely dangerous. Yet, you seem to want to hang him. Yer priorities is all messed up, bub.

[Red6]

"If our nation abolished the death penalty, the consequences of the system's imperfections would not be a matter of life-and-death. Brutal murderers could still be punished and kept off the streets. True justice would be served."

What a bunch of garbage!

Liberals all have one thing in common, their hypocrites. They think things like legalized prostitution; drugs and being against capital punishment are OK. In fact there are SOOOOO many arguments for their position in all of these cases. As long as it's not their daughter that's the whore, their son pumping the drugs, and their wife that was murdered. You see, it's all-different once you’re personally affected.

1. Death will incapacitate a criminal, permanently.
2. Take the cost of all the appeal cases etcetera in a capital case and add all that up and compare that to the price of incarceration, capital punishment is more expensive than locking someone up for 80 years. Another BS fact, since you will also go through an appeal process with someone who will NOT be put to death and will be locked up for 100 years. Our justice system is expensive, and when comparing apples with apples this beautiful statistic turns to garbage.
3. It will deter crime. Many examples of that. Yet the liberal will say, “It’s for the wrong reason, they don’t respect the law, they fear it”. Who cares?
4. Rehabilitate? Some are past that point. They cannot be salvaged. Rehabilitate Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Osama……..?
5. It creates closure for the affected individuals. Call it revenge; OK try to belittle this argument by association. It will not change the fact that the affected people often watch the execution and feel closure from that.

You know what we need to do? We need to adopt better and more humane laws like Germany. There, a terrorist who was involved directly with the 9-11 attacks received a whopping 15 years. Interesting to see how much of that he spends behind bars, since many RAF members and known abettors to murders etcetera were free before 10. Hey, their rehabilitated, right? Besides, why keep a rehabilitated person behind bars, think of the cost? Furthermore, keeping them in jail won’t deter future terrorism. What’s up with that midevil punishment thing anyway? Revenge is something for un-intellectual people. You know, why don’t we just get rid of the police while we’re at it?

Our nation won’t be a better place; it’ll be just like Germany, where the victims are made to be the criminals and the criminals into victims. It won’t make the US a safer place, won’t save money and won’t give closure to the victims. I may not be that smart, possibly psychologically off center (since I don’t share a left view), but if someone kills my wife, I want to watch them fry.

[paulsy]

I should add one more thing. A number of innocent people have in fact been executed over the years. Eliminate this concern through modern science, eliminate the fiscal arguments against the death penalty, and you're focused on the moral issues. We are almost to this point, and I may be wrong about the moral arguments, I don't know; if I am wrong about it someone here please explain how (sincerely) because, given what has happened in my family, this is an important issue to me.

[ClearCase_guy]

I should add one more thing. A number of innocent people have in fact been executed over the years.

Name 'em.

[iconoclast]

it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years.

Not to mention heart-transplants.

[ctdonath2]

The sanctity of human life will be preserved.

The sanctity of human life is not preserved by forcing society to provide someone food, clothing and shelter for the rest of his life while his victim has nothing, not even life.

[Junior]

If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.

But, if you execute him, he will never escape, never be pardoned, and never be freed if the whims of lawmakers should change.

[William Terrell]

If someone were to ask Mr. McShane if he thought using deadly force to protect his own life and that of his family were moral, I suspect he would have to say yes.

If that is moral then it follows that society using deadly force to protect its citizens from those who prove themselves willign to kill them is moral. Matter of a fact, it is the state's duty under the ancient police powers doctrine.

Aside from the fact that keeping a sociopathic murderer in prison for 30+ years is fantastically expensive, that murderer presents a deadly danger to other inmates in the prison, many of whom are in for picayune property crimes and "drug offenses", and some of whom are, in fact, innocent.

I wonder if his thinking was as fuzzy on "deterrent" and "fiscal sense", too. He thinks with his heart. The heart doesn't have any grey matter.

My opinion.

[paulsy]

ClearCase,

I can email you the information offline if you would like, but it is voluminous and I won't post it here.

At least a couple dozen people have been executed over the years who by today's forensic standards would not have been guilty.

There have been many others let go from prison after being on death row when their convictions were overturned. This group is interesting, some were actually guilty and should not have been let free (their convictions were overturned due to changes in the laws, and when retried the evidence was too old to convict) - However, some were in fact innocent, though I don't have time to research which ones they were.

This latter group shows a justice system working and hopefully with new science we'll sort out some of these people.

This argument against the death penalty may soon be for naught, given modern science. What may evolve is a standard where an accused can't get the death penalty based on eyewitness testimony alone (sans actual pictures) unless there is corroborating DNA evidence. Again this will force a moral debate.

[ctdonath2]

I know someone who has been involved in a large number of capital cases. While he would like nothing better than to see murderers get swiftly terminated (and, as such, is a widely respected self-defense instructor), he staunchly opposes the death penalty for one reason: he has seen how the corrupt system is far more interested in "winning" cases than in justice, willing to very inappropriately sentence someone to death.

[ClearCase_guy]

At least a couple dozen people have been executed over the years who by today's forensic standards would not have been guilty.

Names and dates, please. How voluminous are names and dates?

[usapatriot28]

The most common argument favoring the death penalty is serving justice.

Killing the man may keep him from murdering someone else in the future, but the death penalty is unnecessary to protect citizens from dangerous criminals. Executing the murderer is not necessary for justice to be served.

If an innocent person is murdered they (obviously) don't get to live any more. But the person who committed the heinous act does get to live. Sorry, I don't see how that is justice.

[usapatriot28]

A number of innocent people have in fact been executed over the years.

This is not true. There are many people that would love to find a case where an innocent was executed (to discredit capital punishment) but have been unable to. That's not to say that there haven't been, but if there are the evidence isn't known.

[Houmatt]

So I wade through all of the cliche`s, half-truths and whole lies about the death penalty.....

Fact: 80 percent of all capital cases involve white victims, although only 50 percent of all murder victims are white.

The U.S. General Accounting Office summed it up in 1990 when it reported, "In 82 percent of the studies [reviewed]... those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

The experts are acknowledging the facts: Our death sentencing system is racist.

FACT: This guy has no idea what he is talking about. Truth is, despite the proven fact blacks cover only 30% of the US population but commit 50% of the murders (Thiink I am kidding? Turn on a television and watch the local news.), there are more white people on death row than black.

.....we get to the real reason this guy is wasting precious time and ink on this subject: The West Memphis Three.

Damien Echols has been on death row for a decade now. Despite this so-called "evidence" that "proves" he and the other boys convicted of this crime are innocent (presented in two documentary films and at least two books) their convictions have yet to be overturned. Why? Do you think it may be because the judges are seeing what the jury saw, which was enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?

Let me put it to you plain: The West Memphis Three are in jail because they killed and sexually mutilated three young boys. And anyone who tells you different is either ignorant or a liar.

[paulsy]

ClearCase_guy wrote: "Names and dates, please. How voluminous are names and dates?"

Quite voluminous, if their stories are also told.

Here are some. I don't like postings this long but you've asked twice so herego. These are enough to give me pause on my support of the death penalty. Not all of these stories would hold water, but some doubtless would.

I won't provide the list of those exhonorated, these are only those executed (around 110 people). As I said before, the lists of those exhonorated are innacurate for our purposes, because a number of those who were let go got off on technicalities and not the merits - though a number have been exhonorated on merits after retrial but I don't have time to dig into each one to present.

As I said before, I am a surviving victim of murder in my own family. My cousine, James Michale Alvord, was murdered in his home in Seattle in 1984, by thugs bent on revenge. My uncle, Frank Scott, was murdered in Fairfield, CA in 1971, by a hitchhiker. Still I oppose the death penalty. I may change this at some point, but a lot has to happen in our justice system first, and the question of its morality will always linger in my mind. </my commentary>

- beginning of info dump pulled from various resources:
List of an executed few with serious doubts about guilt

There is no way to tell how many people who have been executed may 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 of those with strong claims include:

Roger Keith Coleman, Virginia. Conviction 1982 Executed 1992. Coleman was convicted of raping and murdering his sister-in-law in 1981, but both his trial and appeal were plagued by errors made by his attorneys. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of his petition because his state appeal had been filed one day late. Considerable evidence was developed after the trial to refute the state's evidence, and that evidence might well have produced a different result at a re-trial. Governor Wilder considered a commutation for Coleman, but allowed him to be executed when Coleman failed a lie detector test on the day of his execution.

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.

James Adams, Florida. Adams was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and executed in 1984. A witness identified Adams as driving the car away from the victim's home shortly after the crime. This witness, however, was driving a large truck in the direction opposite to that of Adams' car, and it was later discovered that this witness was angry with Adams for allegedly dating his wife. A second witness the day after the crime stated that the fleeing person was positively not Adams. A hair sample found clutched in the victim's hand, which in all likelihood had come from the assailant, did not match Adams’ hair.

William Henry Anderson, Florida. Anderson was convicted of the rape of a white woman, sentenced to death, and executed in 1945 without an appeal having been made. The victim had not resisted, screamed, or used an available pistol to resist Anderson's advances. Anderson and the victim had been consensually intimate for several months before rape charges were filed.

Everett Applegate, New York. Applegate was convicted, with Francis Q. Creighton, of the murder of Applegate's wife; both were sentenced to death in 1936. Creighton had been tried and acquitted on two separate occasions for similar murders a dozen years before she met Applegate. In this case, she killed the victim (by arsenic poisoning) at Applegate's instigation. "Virtually no evidence against Applegate existed beyond Mrs. Creighton's unsupported word." Governor Herbert Lehman, who had doubts about Applegat's guilt, requested the prosecutor's support for clemency for Applegate; it was not forthcoming, and clemency was denied.

Thomas Bambrick, New York. Bambrick was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. Evidence was later discovered that convinced Warden Thomas Mott Osbourne and the prison chaplain that another man had committed the crime. Osbourne commented "It is almost as certain that Bambrick is innocent as that the sun will rise tomorrow."

Charles and Frank ("Dago") Cirofici, New York. Becker and Cirofici were convicted of murder; Cirofici was executed in 1914 and Becker in 1915. The victim, Rosenthal, was a gambling house owner. He was convicted largely on the testimony of gamblers and ex-convicts in the glare of extensive newspaper publicity about police corruption. Former Sing Sing warden, Thomas Mott Osbourne, who knew the closet friends of the gunmen, stated that these friends all agreed Cirofici had nothing to do with the murder and was not even present when it occurred. Warden Osbourne also believed that Becker was not guilty.

Roosevelt Collins, Alabama. Collins was convicted of rape, sentenced to death, and executed in 1937. Collins testified that the victim the "victim" had consented, which caused a near-riot in the courtroom. The all-white jury deliberated for only four minutes. Subsequent interviews with several jurors revealed that although they believed the act was consensual, they also thought Collins deserved to death simply for "messin’ around" with a white woman. Even the judge, off the record, admitted his belief that Collins was telling the truth. "An innocent man went to his death."

Sie Dawson, Florida. Dawson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The conviction by an all-white male jury was based on a confession obtained from Dawson after he had spent more then a week in custody without the assistance of counsel and on an accusation by the victim's husband. Dawson had an I.Q. of 64. At trial, Dawson repudiated his confession, claiming it was given only because "the white officers told him to say he killed Mrs. Clayton or they'd give him to "the mob’ outside." There were no eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence was slight and inconclusive.

Vance Garner, Alabama. With Jack Hunter and Will Johnson, Garner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. No appeals were undertaken. Garner had maintained his complete innocence, while Hunter admitted his own guilt and absolved both Garner and Johnson. Johnson's sentence was later commuted to life, but Garner was executed in 1905.

Stephen Grezchowiak and Max Rybarczyk, New York. Grezchowiak and Rybarczyk were both convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death. Co-defendant Alexander Bogdanoff insisted that neither Grezchowiak nor Rybarczyk had been involved in the crime, and that each had been mistakenly identified by the eyewitnesses. He refused, however, to reveal the names of his true accomplices. In their final words, they maintained their innocence, and Bogdanoff again declared that the two were innocent.

Bruno Richard Hauptmann, New Jersey. Hauptmann was convicted of felony-murder-burglary, sentenced to death, and executed in 1936. He was infamous as the ransom-kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. Although Governor Hoffman believed that Hauptmann was framed, he chose not to halt the execution. There is no doubt that the conviction rested in part on corrupt prosecutorial practices, suppression of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, prejured testimony, and Hauptmann's prior record.

Joe Hill, Utah. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two storekeepers. The prosecution was based on sketchy circumstantial evidence and was in part the result of collusion between the prosecution and the trial judge in an atmosphere of anti-union hostility. Despite several appeals from President Woodrow Wilson to the Utah authorities for a reprieve, Hill was denied a new trial. Hill appears to have been an innocent victim of "politics, finance and organized religion, a powerful trinity"; his conviction and death are "one of the worst travesties of justice in American labor history."

Harold Lamble, New Jersey. Lamble was convicted and sentenced to death. After the execution, Governor Edward Edwards refused requests to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case, despite what the New York Times called a "rather widespread fear that perhaps" Lamble was innocent. Lamble's attorney was disbarred for mishandling the defense.

Maurice Mays, Tennessee. Mays was convicted of murder in the killing of a white woman and sentenced to death. Mays’ conviction rested on the testimony of a police officer who had disliked him for years and on the testimony of an eyewitness who never got a clear look at the killer. On appeal, the conviction was reversed because the judge, rather than the jury, had fixed the penalty at death. Mays was retried, reconvicted, and resentenced to death. In 1922, Mays was executed, still maintaining his innocence. In 1926, the real killer confessed in a written statement that revealed she was a white woman who had dressed up as a black man to kill the woman with whom her husband was having an affair.

Willie McGee, Mississippi. McGee was convicted of the rape of a white woman and sentenced to death by an all-white jury that deliberated for only two and a half minutes. the chief evidence against him was a coerced confession that he gave after being held incommunicado for thirty-two days after his arrest; the victim's husband and her two children, asleep in the next room, never heard any commotion from the alleged attack. The victim had been consorting with McGee for four years and was angry at his efforts to terminate their relationship. Nonetheless, local blacks were too intimidated to give this evidence in court, and local whites felt the woman's consent was impossible or irrelevant. McGee was executed in 1951.

Nicola Sacco, and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Massachusetts. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder in the course of armed robbery, sentenced to death, and executed in 1927. Their case is probably the most controversial death penalty case in this century. They were arrested and tired in an atmosphere dominated by "the Red Scare" of the early 1920s. In 1925, another man also under the death sentence in Massachusetts confessed to the crime. Extensive investigation of the confession convinced many that he was, indeed, telling the truth. In 1926, the trial judge denied motions for a retrial based on the confession. In 1977, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the executions, Governor Dukakis signed a carefully worded proclamation intended to remove "any stigma and disgrace" from their names.

Albert Sanders, Alabama. Sanders was convicted with Fisher Brooks of murder and sentenced to death. Though he had nothing to gain by helping Sanders, Brooks testified at Sander's trial that Sanders was innocent. Another fellow prisoner testified that he had heard Sanders confess, however, and both Brooks and Sanders were executed in 1918. In a statement from the scaffold, Brooks again insisted on Sanders’ innocence.

Charles Sberna, New York. Sberna was convicted of first-degree murder of a police officer. His codefendant, Salvatore Gati, testified at the trial that Sberna was innocent. Gati also said the head of the New York Homicide Bureau had told him that he knew Sberna was innocent, and would clear his name if Gati would reveal the name of his real accomplices. Gati refused to do this. Sberna and Gati were both wrongfully executed in 1938. The prison chaplain said of Sberna, "This is the first time I’ve ever been positive that an innocent man was going to the chair."

Mead Shumway, Nebraska. Shumway was convicted of the first-degree murder of his employer's wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death. One juror, the only one to hold out against the death penalty, told his friends he "had not slept well any night since the trial." He later left a note in which he expressed "great worry at the trial," and he then killed himself. In 1910, the victim's husband confessed on his deathbed that he had murdered his wife.

Charles Louis Tucker, Massachusetts. Tucker was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1905. More than 100,000 Massachusetts residents signed petitions on behalf of clemency. Among those convinced of his innocence was the county medical examiner and a clergyman who said a witness had told him she perjured herself at the original trial. Tucker was nonetheless executed in 1906.

George Chew Wing, New York. Wing was convicted of first-degree murder (after a 30-minute trial) and sentenced to death. While he was in prison awaiting execution, Wing convinced several observers that he had been falsely identified by eyewitnesses and that perjured testimony had been used against him. Warden Lewis Lawes also questioned his guilt, but Wing was nonetheless executed in 1937.

[Houmatt]

It seems to me paulsy should know better than to make flagrantly false statements like that.

Read this very carefully, as it contains an undeniable truth:

There is no evidence a factually innocent person has been executed for the crime of murder in the United States since 1900.

I have challenged abolitionists repeatedly to show the above statement is false. In return, I have only gotten speculation and flames.