On Thursday evening, death penalty opponents from across the state will be coming to Woodland to talk about the current state of California’s Death Penalty. It’s interesting, to say the least, that the DA, who has been quiet on this issue since the jury recommended death in the Topete case and Judge Richardson confirmed it, suddenly has an Op-Ed piece in the Woodland paper this morning with Guadalupe Diaz, the sister of slain Officer Tony Diaz.
The piece includes a passionate defense of the death penalty, an emotional appeal and a pointed attack on the ACLU, one of many organizations that have come together to support a ballot measure this November that would convert the death penalty to life without parole.
After describing the horrific shooting of Tony Diaz, a sheriff’s deputy, on June 15, 2008, by Marco Topete, a long-time violent criminal who was on parole, Mr. Reisig writes, “There are some murders that are so horrific that we, as a democratic society, have concluded that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment.”
He quickly adds, “The voters in California approved of the current death penalty law in 1978. Despite the will of the people, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies have waged a relentless attack on public safety for decades, with a goal of overturning the death penalty. Their approach has been shameful and costly, in dollars and pain for victims.”
Tomorrow night, the author of that 1978 Death Penalty Law, Don Heller will be in Woodland to speak out against the law that he helped get enacted 34 years ago.
What Marco Topete did that day on June 15, 2008, is unimaginably horrific. Deputy Diaz’ family has endured immense suffering, but that suffering cannot change the fact that the death penalty is broken, it is a huge drain on state resources that might have gone to stopping crimes like this from occurring in the first place, and Mr. Topete most likely will die of natural causes in state custody at the cost of over $90,000 year to the taxpayers of the state of California.
Don Heller is a former prosecutor who wrote the death penalty initiative for Senator Briggs in 1977, which appeared on the November 1978 ballot.
“When I wrote it, I was absolutely certain beyond any doubt that what I was writing was morally right, was constitutionally sound, and would bring justice to people that deserved to be executed for heinous homicides,” Mr. Heller said. “I’ve gone from certainty to change.”
He cited “empirical evidence that the death penalty was not working as intended” as his impetus for changing his views. “It doesn’t work and it costs a fortune,” he added.
Mr. Heller noted that, under the law, we have only executed 13 people at the cost of over $330 million per execution.
“We are causing huge expenditures of money for no reason,” he said. “The process takes years. I never thought it would take that long for an execution. I never thought it would take that much money.”
But Jeff Reisig blames the ACLU for this.
“We are writing as the Yolo County District Attorney and the sister of Tony, who was mercilessly assassinated by a vicious murderer. We want California to know who’s behind the effort to abolish the death penalty. And, we simply want the truth to be told,” he writes.
He continues: “The ACLU and its agents are responsible for endless delays in the criminal justice system, frivolous appeals and a mountain of misinformation. And now, they claim the death penalty is irrevocably broken and costly and should be repealed.”
“This November, Californians will vote and hopefully reject the false campaign being marketed by the ACLU and its allies,” Mr. Reisig writes.
Mr. Reisig then chronicles the worst of the worst, arguing, “Governor Jerry Brown himself has recently stated that he has not seen any evidence that there are any innocent inmates on California’s death row. These sadistic murderers are the ones that the ACLU wants you to save in November.”
But Don Heller believes there has already been one innocent person put to death in California.
“I believe that Tommy Thompson was innocent of the rape-murder that he was convicted of and sentenced to death,” Mr. Heller said in response to a question from the Vanguard. “Thompson’s case relied almost exclusively on the testimony of an informant, aptly named Mr. Fink.”
“Mr. Fink was a professional informant, he had actually put several people on death row by people confessing to him in jail and it just so happened that Mr. Fink always benefitted from this confession that was made to him,” Mr. Heller continued.
“I think that Tommy Thompson was innocent,” he said. “He was executed under the law I wrote and that has stayed with me since 1998 that I participated in the execution of an innocent man.”
Mr. Heller said, in a Los Angeles Times interview last spring, that the Tommy Thompson execution marked a turning point for him.
“It took the Tommy Thompson execution [in 1998] for me to become very vocal. It was an example of a clear abuse of the death penalty law,” he said.
At tomorrow’s dinner, Keynote Speaker Maurice Possley, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter with the Chicago Tribune, has uncovered not one, but two executions of people who did not commit the crimes they were accused of committing.
In 2004, it was Possley’s work with the Chicago Tribune, with co-writer Steve Mills, that first reported on the now-notorious case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 despite strong evidence at that time that no crime ever occurred.
The story of Mr. Willingham gained national attention, first with a New Yorker article and then with the Frontline episode, “Death by Fire.”
Reported Mr. Possley in 2004, “A Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental.”
More remarkably, prior to Mr. Willingham’s February 17 execution, “Texas judges and Gov. Rick Perry turned aside a report from a prominent fire scientist questioning the conviction.”
The DeLuna case, uncovered a few years later, is particularly concerning for those who believe that the problem with the death penalty is that it is not swift enough.
The Tribune learned of the case of Carlos DeLuna, a person who was executed in 1989 for a murder in Corpus Christi, after James Liebman, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York City, contacted the newspaper.
Professor Liebman co-authored studies that found high rates of court reversals due to serious error in capital cases. There he would come across the DeLuna case. He asked a private investigator to go to Corpus Christi and look into DeLuna’s claim during his trial that another man was the real killer.
Mr. Possley told the Atlantic this spring, “I remember that what really got me interested in the case was seeing the crime scene photos with all of the blood and then learning that there was no blood on DeLuna. It just didn’t seem possible that he committed such a crime and was caught so quickly and had no blood on his clothing. That fact was so startling to me.”
He adds, “I really haven’t changed my view of the case from back then. I thought it was a colossal, global failure of every corner of the criminal justice system. The media failed to question the case (not unusual in smaller markets where police and prosecutors are the best sources) as well.”
For Franky Carrillo, who spent 20 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, reading an account of DeLuna’s execution, “Shook me to my core. It could have been me.”
“I was wrongfully convicted when I was 16 years old and served 20 years in prison before proving my innocence. That mistake took two decades from me, but it took Carlos DeLuna’s life,” he wrote on the Huffington Post site.
He found strong parallels in their backgrounds and stories.
He writes, “We were both victims of mistaken identity. Carlos was identified by a single, uncorroborated witness who saw the suspect at night; my identification came by an error-filled photo line-up. In both of our cases, there was no forensic evidence to back up the witnesses.”
“Also disturbingly familiar was Carlos’ struggle to prove his innocence. Both of us spent every day of our lives after our convictions trying to prove that we were innocent and neither of us could do it alone,” he added. “Proving that I was not a killer took 20 years and a team of dedicated lawyers, professors, and nonprofit organizations. Without them, I would still be in prison today.”
Jeanne Woodford, a former Warden at San Quentin, oversaw the execution of four people during her tenure.
Ms. Woodford argues, “We [have] found too many innocent people on our death rows, to even think that it ought to be quicker and then, as with the discovery of DNA, there are things we just don’t know out there that might prove that other people are innocent, as we have found with the DNA. So, you know, we don’t have a perfect criminal justice system and we never will, and just from a practical checkpoint, we can’t afford to even have the possibility that we might execute an innocent person.”
Last year a study by U.S. Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell found that with enhanced security on death row, single-cell housing, legal representation, mandatory appeals, a separate penalty phase and death qualification of the jury – all of those costs adds $184 million to the budget each year.
Taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment in California since 1978 when the death penalty was reinstated. Over that time, they have executed 13 people. That means that there was about $308 million spent on each executed prisoner.
However, Mr. Reisig disputes that.
“Sadly, the proponents of this latest effort to repeal the death penalty have masked their intentions in a supposed concern for the state budget. Don’t be fooled,” he writes. “It is precisely because of the actions of the ACLU and other opponents to the death penalty that the delays and costs of capital punishment are what they are today.”
He adds, “Quite simply, they have created the issues that they now rely upon in their misleading campaign to reverse the will of the People. Moreover, their promises of savings are deceptive and wrong.”
And he notes, “Even without the death penalty, taxpayers must still pay for a lifetime of prison confinement and skyrocketing health care costs to make sure all convicted criminals stay healthy in prison. This will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually as the current 725 most evil murderers on death row, and the many more to come in the future, live out their lives in California institutions before dying of old age.”
He writes, “In fact, the only objective study on the issue of costs associated with the death penalty, conducted by the non-partisan Rand Corporation in 2008, does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims.”
Apparently he does not believe Judge Alarcon and Professor Mitchell’s study to be objective.
Judge Alarcon is not an opponent of the death penalty. He told the LA Times that he believes “the majority of California voters will want to retain some option for punishing the worst criminals with death.”
It was Judge Alarcon who, in 2007, issued “an urgent appeal for overhaul of capital punishment in the state, noting that the average lag between conviction and execution was more than 17 years, twice the national figure. Now it is more than 25 years, with no executions since 2006 and none likely in the near future because of legal challenges to the state’s lethal injection procedures.”
The LA Times reports, “Unless profound reforms are made by lawmakers who have failed to adopt previous recommendations for rescuing the system, Alarcon and Mitchell say, capital punishment will continue to exist mostly in theory while exacting an untenable cost.”
Moreover, it is difficult to claim the Legislative Analyst’s Office is not objective either.
In October they reached a similar conclusion to the Alarcon-Mitchell study.
The LAO argues, “Elimination of the death penalty would result in reduced criminal justice systems costs related to some murder trials, in various ways.”
First, they argue that the measure would shorten the time it takes to try some trials. One way that would happen is that jury selection would be shortened and there would no longer be a separate penalty phase. “These factors would reduce state costs for support of the trial courts,” the LAO finds.
“In addition, the elimination of the death penalty would reduce the costs incurred by counties for prosecutors and public defenders for some murder cases, such as preparation for murder trials and participation in the penalty phase of trials where a death sentence is sought,” they continue.
The process would also reduce county jail costs.
“Persons held for trial on murder charges, particularly cases that could result in a death sentence, ordinarily remain in custody in county jail until the completion of their trial and sentencing. As some murder cases were expedited or eliminated due to the prohibition on capital punishment, the transfer of persons convicted of murder from county jail to state prison would be accelerated, thus reducing the operating costs of county jails,” they write.
They also argue it would reduce expenditures by state, county and city law enforcement agencies on such cases.
The LAO finds, “Law enforcement personnel are often key witnesses in murder trials. A reduction in the number of such trials and a reduction in the length of those cases that do go to trial would in turn reduce their law enforcement staffing costs.”
However, none of this is pure savings. They also believe that there could be an offset, that plea bargain incentives could be eliminated in some murder cases.
They write, “Some murder cases are being resolved with an offender’s plea to a murder charge in trade for an agreement by the district attorney not to seek the death penalty. If the death penalty is prohibited and these cases go to trial instead of being resolved through plea agreements, additional state and local governmental costs for support of courts, prosecution, and defense counsel, as well as county jails, could result. The magnitude of these costs is unknown.”
Nevertheless, they conclude, “This measure is likely to result in a reduction in costs to the state for support of the trial courts, as well as a reduction in costs to counties for prosecution and representation of indigent defendants charged with murder, as well as the costs associated with housing these defendants in jail prior to their sentencing.”
Finally, Mr. Reisig argues that “for the more than 723 murder victims and their families, like Yolo County deputy sheriff Tony Diaz and his family, that have endured so much as their cases have weaved their way through the courts, the ACLU and its allies behind the initiative to repeal the death penalty now stand poised to steal justice from them in a final act of dishonor. That’s not justice, it’s criminal.”
However, many families of murder victims do not support the death penalty.
In fact, the death penalty process can be traumatizing for families, often requiring them to relive the pain and suffering of the death of their loved one for many years.
Jeanne Woodford told the Vanguard that, while we expect that the executions will make the family members of the victim feel better, in her experience that is not the case. She said, “My experience is that it just is injuring the family members following an execution, they are just in a hurry to leave the prison.”
“I have heard this expressed as to how painful it is because it takes so long and some family members have had to come to prison more than once because of the appeals and stays, and things like that,” she said. “The lifer’s no possibility of parole brings closure to the legal aspects of the case. I don’t know if there’s anything that can undo the harm of individuals, and certainly, carrying out an execution just does not, from my experience, bring any relief to the family.”
Life without parole would, in her mind, bring closure, at least to the legal aspect of the case. Then the family members would not have to worry, or continue to address or deal with the issue any further. Instead, under current law, they are brought forward again to relive these crimes over and over again.
“My heart certainly goes out to the victim’s family,” she said.
Mr. Reisig concludes: “Voters know better. Long ago, the citizens of this state overwhelmingly voted to support the death penalty in the most heinous of all murders. The justifications have not changed. While legal processes can and should be improved and frivolous delays and meritless appeals should be stopped, the need for victims and an orderly society to seek the ultimate punishment in certain horrific murder cases carries on as before.”
He adds: “As a public safety leader and a crime victim survivor, we are committed to doing everything in our power to make sure truth and justice prevail and that crime victims and their memory are never dishonored nor forgotten. We trust that the voters in November will not be fooled.”
You can hear the other side of the story from experts tomorrow evening at the Heidrick Ag Museum on 1962 Hays Lane in Woodland. The doors open at 5:30 and the program starts at 7 pm.
Call (530) 400-2511 for tickets or purchase them online at davisvanguard.org
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Anyone that attacks the ACLU is okay in my book.
This article is just one of the many examples of crooked DA’s hiding evidence so they can win. This goes on all the time and even once if too many.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/16/texas-judge-under-investigation-for-allegedly-hiding-evidence/
DA Reisig has done this more than once, has been called on it more than once and I am sure he continues to do it. Two senior Detectives that witnessed this despicable behavior, were both unlawfully fired, got their jobs back and were paid settlements from the county, after they turned DA Reisig into the Attorney General.
This goes on all the time with no accountability. Since DA’s have immunity and so do Judges, they know that even if they are caught, they will walk, so why stop.
Every time Reisig can get is face in the paper he wants to say something to appear tough on crime. He is a typical coward that hides behind his immunity, hides and conceals evidence, does not care if he convicts innocent people and is a person of low moral character. Anyone paying attention since he took office can see this.
The death penalty was approved by voters under the assumption that it would be treated fairly with honesty and following the constitution. It was NOT approved with the idea that DA’s using it would get immunity for misusing it, could legally hide and conceal exculpatory evidence just so they can win and get a few headlines.
Anyone who has ever seen a Death Penalty play out it is a life sentence for the Victim and family. Countless appeals, stays of execution, court appearances, subpoenas, cancellations, hearings, press coverage and other things that punish and harass the Victims for years to come. Of course, this is no concern for crooked and unethical District Attorneys, they get their win, they get the press, they bragging rights and future political bullets statements, so what is a little pain for the victims and a few innocent guys going to jail, a small trade off.
Lastly, the waste of money factor is has outrageous as the crooked DA’s.
If people really want the Death penalty, then there should strict laws that hold over zealous and downright crooked DA’s fully accountable. How can people justify immunity for the people who have absolute power to control the cops, the reports, the evidence and the entire case to put a man to death? You would think laws to hole these powerful position accountable would be paramount not make it easier and give protections.
Forgot link:
[url]
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/16/texas-judge-under-investigation-for-allegedly-hiding-evidence/ [/url]
“Anyone that attacks the ACLU is okay in my book. “
Clearly people like you who react to attacks on the ACLU without evaluation were the target of his missive. Fortunately, a lot of conservatives are questioning the death penalty for reasons by Don Heller and Ron Briggs as well as Mr. Rabbit here.
[quote]Mr. Reisig argues that “for the more than 723 murder victims and their families, like Yolo County deputy sheriff Tony Diaz and his family, that have endured so much as their cases have weaved their way through the courts, the ACLU and its allies behind the initiative to repeal the death penalty now stand poised to steal justice from them in a final act of dishonor. That’s not justice, it’s criminal.”[/quote]
Lol Reisig is such politician, hey Jeff what is criminal is a guy like you who took an oath to protect the constitution and follow the laws and then uses your position to waste tax payer money, break the law and manipulate the system for your own benefit.
As for the comment about anyone that fights the ACLU is OK, I admit that organization fights some goofy causes sometime and that hurts their credibility, but the intent to defend the constitution and liberty has merit. Not a fan of them, but to defend and give instant credibility to anyone that talks against them is unreasonable.
[quote] A wise person will not discount what is being said just because of who is saying it.[/quote]
Hell, even Reisig accidentally speaks the truth once and a while. 🙂
Reisig Rocks!
“Reisig Rocks!”
How do you respond to his misrepresentations of facts.
For instance he writes, ” the only objective study on the issue of costs associated with the death penalty, conducted by the non-partisan Rand Corporation in 2008, does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims.”
But he ignores the Alarcon-Mitchell report and the LAO report.
That seems pretty dishonest to me.
We can’t afford this. It is too expensive, the way it is run. It doesn’t have the intended results. The people who kill are not deterred and the families of victims are not healed. The money would be better spent elsewhere. A life time of hard labor would be better.
[i]”We can’t afford this. It is too expensive, the way it is run. It doesn’t have the intended results. The people who kill are not deterred and the families of victims are not healed. The money would be better spent elsewhere. A life time of hard labor would be better.”[/i]
Here is the problem with that line of thinking.
There are two arguments against the death penalty: cost, and morality. There are people on both sides of the political isle that argue against the death penalty for one or both of these reasons.
However, is is the political agenda of the far left to eliminate the death penalty in this country. But that isn’t all of the agenda. We can see and understand were we would be heading by looking across the pond at Europe.
For example, in Norway, “Anders Behring Breivik”, the guy that killed 70 young people on a shooting spree will get a maximum of 21 years in a swank prison. There are liberal Norwegians that are upset with this… they think that 21 years is barbaric.
The reason we need to fight to maintain the death penalty is to stall this thing called “liberal progress”. Meanwhile we should advocate for swifter justice to help reduce the costs. DNA technology greatly reduces the risk of false conviction. Let’s leverage technology to reduce the number of appeals and lower costs to execute those guilty of capital murder.
More than two issues – expense and moral – the third is DA misconduct which is normally the main cause of wrongful convictions – which leads to more cost . And don’t forget the price the victims pay.
Jeff: I can only speak for myself, i wouldn’t support having a 21 year maximum sentence. I think some people should be in prison for the rest of their lives. I don’t necessarily believe that all of those sent to prison for the rest of their lives should be.
I think it’s risky to compare the experience of the US to that of Norway. Norway has developed a different system based on a very different experience than we have had. I don’t think what works in Norway, or perhaps what doesn’t work, should be applied here necessarily.
[i]swifter justice means more wrongful executions.[/i]
Not necessarily. Swifter justice when the evidence is strong and conclusive. Like DNA evidence and multiple confirming witnesses. LWOP (also means “leave without pay”) just sets up the opportunity for eventual parole when the next phase of progressive criminal victim-ology kicks in. We can see in Europe how that works. Today the outrage is the death penalty. Tomorrow it will be LWOP. Next week it will be the max number of years sentenced.
I’m not going to assume that’s the case Jeff. As I said, I think there are a lot fewer people who object to life than the death penalty.
[i]”DA misconduct which is normally the main cause of wrongful convictions”[/i]
Well that certainly discounts the impact of judges, juries and defense attorneys.
I do agree though that DAs being a political animal is a problem. Their decisions on what and who to try are corrupted by their political agenda. Mike Nifong is a great example of how far off a DA can go chasing a political agenda.
I would prefer that DAs are precluded from running for any subsequent office – at least within the same jurisdiction.
Jeff: The DA is who decides what the judge, defense and jury gets? When DAs hide evidence, buys false testimony for letting other felons out of jail early, and tells cops not to mention certain things to conceal things that hurt the case – all of this is why a jury gets blamed or a judge makes poor rulings.
Fruits of the poison tree. When an illegal seed is planted by the DA the tree and all fruit is bad- so when Reisig hides things from jury, judge and defense they cannot be blamed for what they don’t know.
The entire system is based on honest information from DA – and they are the ones that get immunity for anything they do – most people don’t know about this major flaw in the process.
“Despite the will of the people, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies have waged a relentless attack on public safety for decades, with a goal of overturning the death penalty. Their approach has been shameful and costly, in dollars and pain for victims.”
Since the convicted are still going to be behind bars without the possibility of parol,public safety is not an issue here. The cost to house people on death row is also much higher than to house inmates amongst the rest of the prison populations, so what’s more costly? As DA I would think Reisig knows these fact very well and is just trying to play on emotions here. Facts seem to just get in the way for this man.
Just a little reminder of how out of step the US is with the rest of the western world on this issue. What other western countries still have the death penalty?
While there are times that I personally wish that the person who committed a particular crime were dead, having that wish is very different than sanctioning cold-blooded murder by the government/society. It is barbaric.
The expense issue is also quite serious.
Jeff
[quote]However, is is the political agenda of the far left to eliminate the death penalty in this country. [/quote]
So I am hearing you saying that you would discount any moral, financial, and logistical arguments that people might make simply because of your speculative fear about something that you perceive as the
“political agenda” of the left, even though you have stated that you know these other reasons exist.
Now that sounds pretty emotive and illogical to me !
Yes it does sound pretty emotive and illogical. Maybe your ideas are rubbing off on me! 😉
I don’t discount those ideas. I guess what I am saying is that I don’t trust the far left that these are their fundemental drivers. I think they are more proxies supporting a general agenda that reflects a view that many criminals are just victims of a bad childhood, or bad life and we should spend money to reform/help them instead of punishing them. It is that egalitarian impulse to help those considered underclass. You can test this theory by listening to what they say about punishment of white collar crimes committed by well-off people. Frankly, I think the far left would complain less if we started executing criminal bank executives than they do for continuing to execute people convicted of murder. I base that suggestion on the level of vitriol I read from the far left when they express themselves about these bank execs, compared to how they express themselves about a mass murder.
“Meanwhile we should advocate for swifter justice to help reduce the costs. “
The average exoneration takes about 17 to 20 years, swifter justice means more wrongful executions.
If your reason for fighting for the death penalty is to prevent a 21 year maximum sentence, why not just fight for LWOP? That’s all the current proposal does.
Jeff
Or maybe its that your words are rubbing off on me ; )
This is getting scary !
But I do think that it points out something that I continuously have to monitor in myself albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum from you. When someone I identify as from the far right makes a statement, I frequently have to take a deep breath, set aside my distaste for comments and ideas they may have been associated with previously, and see if what they are saying makes sense. I do think it is very important to not just dismiss and idea based on the speaker. We would lose out on far too many good ideas that way.
David,
Interesting you characterize Reiseg’s statements as an “attack”; by the same token you could characterize your article here a personal “attack’. I would term them strong criticism.
Use of the term “unwarranted’ in the article title presupposes your argument.
Where do you see a personal attack? Just in the title or in the body?
I would think the principals in the ACLU event to be held in Woodland would welcome the opportunity to address and refute criticisms of their position on the death penalty, such as those timely ones conveniently provided by Reisig.
There is no one from the ACLU at the event in Woodland. It’s a Vanguard event.
David Greenwald and Jeff Reisig, two bulls in a ring. How about the two of you in an ultimate fighting match mano a mano with the money going to something both you guys could agree on like helping foster kids. Jeff has the muscle David the mass. You would raise a ton of money.
As for your public debate on the death penalty its been applied in so few cases in California this is more an academic debate than a real one. How many death warrants do you think Jerry Brown will sign in his third and perhaps fourth terms as Governor? My guess is zero.
David,
Re: ‘There is no one from the ACLU at the event in Woodland. It’s a Vanguard event.’
Oh, I was confused, I apologize. It seems then that you are one of the principals that needed to address Reisig’s comments! I respect your right to present your viewpoint and acknowledge that it is appropriate that you do so in view of Reisig’s comments.
David,
I would agree that it is worthwhile to evaluate the pros and cons of the death penalty, and am glad you bring it up for discussion; it is a difficult and serious issue. I share many (not all) of the sentiments of death penalty opponents; and am glad that many other people share such sentiments, but such sentiments are outweighed, for myself, by other considerations in cases of extremely heinous crimes.
But again I respect the right of the Vanguard to hold this anti-death penalty event, and hope that it does help to provoke thought and discussion on this serious issue.
My family member was wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. After spending $130,000 in legal fees, he plea bargained so he would not have to be out of his kids’ lives for 7 years. 6 months in county jail. The DA was beyond disrespectful. I know there are probably low income people on death row who are innocent. It makes me sick to my stomach. There are a few attorneys like Tony Serra who will protect the innocent against the bullies. The death penalty, in my humble opinion, is pre-meditated murder.
To me the most interesting piece is that District Attorney Reisig decided to post this article now on the eve of the Vanguard event.
I think he should go to the event and hear the speakers. Some of these speakers were at one time strong believers in the death penalty, but have now changed their minds for a variety of reasons.
I think it is important for voters to become informed and hear all sides of the issue. So I am hoping that Jeff Reisig’s article will do just that….encourage people in the community to go to the Vanguard event and hear from people that have been closely associated with the death penalty.
Jeff
[quote]I guess what I am saying is that I don’t trust the far left that these are their fundemental drivers.[/quote]
Then how about placing some of your trust in those who oppose the death penalty who could hardly be considered “far left” such as Jeanne Woodford and Don Heller. These are folks who have had intimate, first hand experience with the death penalty, obviously believed firmly in it at one point in time, and now have, faced with reality and the actual outcomes of this policy, changed their views.
I can see how you might choose to discount my views on this issue, avowed left of center, that I am, you could make a case for me attempting to advance my nefarious agenda. Not so for many of those who now recognize that this is not sound public policy for many reasons.
[quote]There are two arguments against the death penalty: cost, and morality. [/quote]
There is a third argument, and in my mind the most compelling. The criminal justice system is imperfect, and there is too much danger of executing an innocent person.
How about changing the death penalty instead if eliminating it. Every homicide trial will no go to a jury. There is no incentive for the clearly guilty to plead to LWOP. Converting death sentences to LWOP will not save much in housing costs. Many on death row will still need to be segregated.
I agree that the death penalty is not perfect and believe it should be changed. Now that every homicide will be going to trial we will be seeing many more drawn out trials and murderers will be walking away.
medwoman:
[i]”Then how about placing some of your trust in those who oppose the death penalty who could hardly be considered “far left” such as Jeanne Woodford and Don Heller.”[/i]
I do place some trust in their opinions.
[i]”I can see how you might choose to discount my views on this issue, avowed left of center”[/i]
I don’t mean to discount your views. In fact I would not respond if I discounted your views. You have interesting views and you defend them well. I just don’t agree with them most of the time!
Mr. Obvious makes a good point about changing strategies of plea bargain vs jury trial; I think this is an important part of the death penalty discussion.
Re: ERM: ‘There is a third argument, and in my mind the most compelling. The criminal justice system is imperfect, and there is too much danger of executing an innocent person.’
I agree completely; this is the one point that I’ve been waffling on whether I really want to support the death penalty. Wonder if it would be possible to come up with a new evidentiary standard to be met in order for the death penalty to be considered? Not just judged as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; but, after the trial verdict, perhaps some kind of review panel to assess the evidence against some evidentiary standard to be drawn up that needs to be met in order to have the death penalty as an option.
To Kill A Mockingbird: by Harper Lee: Atticus says:
“The law says ‘reasonable doubt,’ but I think a defendant’s entitled to the shadow of a doubt. There’s always the possibility, no matter how improbable, that he’s innocent.”
—————————–
I have to agree with David Greenwald. I don’t believe in the death penalty, ever.