I do not know if this man was sentenced with death or not. Regardless, this is an example of why capital punishment should not be practiced. This is just the latest example of a person being set free because of DNA evidence. There will be more.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Charges dropped against Ohio man jailed for 20 years
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
I do not know if this man was sentenced with death or not. Regardless, this is an example of why capital punishment should not be practiced. This is just the latest example of a person being set free because of DNA evidence. There will be more.
Archie the Preacher
Member
This man was freed because DNA evidence cleared him of the crime, right? Good.
What about the next man who is convicted of capital murder using DNA to prove he was the murderer? Should he be exempt from the death penalty as well?
What about the next man who is convicted of capital murder using DNA to prove he was the murderer? Should he be exempt from the death penalty as well?
Inspector Javert
Active Member
There is neither video nor DNA nor fingerprint evidence which implicates John Wilkes Booth in the slaying of Abraham Lincoln. There are no taped or written confessions and there are no witnesses to testify against him.
So, by the logic used, he should be exonerrated right?????
Wrong! Guess what? No Prosecutor could establish Booth's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a court of Law at this point either!!
The wrong-headed assumptions used are to assume that simply because one form of evidence (not used in his INITTIAL conviction B.T.W.) does not exist, that that implies he is innocent. It does not. It's not appreciably different than a really good fingerprint. You can prove guilt with it, but not innocence.
I could murder someone right now, and there would be neither DNA nor fingerprint evidence of it.....
But that doesn't make me innocent.
The misuse and misunderstanding of DNA evidence, and what it proves is going to drum up numerous accounts of these individuals winning appeals and re-trials. 20 years after their convictions, after numerous witnesses have died, when State Attorneys realize they can't prove YET AGAIN that someone like Dewey is a duly tried and convicted murderer.
There is a chance that he is innocent (there always is).
There is also a chance that there are as yet un-discovered purple unicorns living on some non-descript island-chain in the South Pacific.
There is also an extremely likely chance that a murderer just beat the system. Prosecutors aren't perpetually pursuing re-convictions and appeals 20 years after a fact whereas a defender will feverishly jockey on your behalf for as many years as you will keep him on retainer. $$$$$$$$$ See the overturn of the Death penalty for the manifestly guilty Mumia Abu Jamal for an object lesson. (In similarly eerie fashion, some key witnesses are now dead in that case as well).
This is the anti-death-penalty lobby convincing people who don't know any better to do away with punishing criminals. It is also just as fair to conclude that since putative (and duly tried and convicted murderers) can escape life sentences after key prosecutorial witnesses have died.....That a death penalty should have been employed (and in a MORE TIMELY FASHION) so that a guilty man doesn't walk free.
Is there an alibi for this man? NO
Was DNA evidence submitted by the Prosecution in his initial conviction? NO
Is there a new suspect who has confessed to the crime? NO
Is there any NEW and contrary evidence to his guilt...any evidence of actual innocence? NO
Any video evidence of someone else? NO
Any evidence of Prosecutorial misconduct? NO (although the defense, as usual, tried and failed in that pursuit once too)
Just a lack of a certain type of evidence not always present at many crime scenes.
Here's how this racket works:
1.) He is awarded a retrial....
2.)Prosecutors know that time degrades (especially 20 years) their chances of proving guilt BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
3.)So, they drop the charges because....THEIR WITNESSES ARE DEAD!
Here's a key:
If he had won a re-trial 5 or 10 years later....he'd have probably been convicted again.
A prosecutor couldn't win a re-trial of a man caught with his finger-prints on a bloody knife who had initially confessed to a murder which was witnessed by 25 people, if you tried him 40-years and 25 dead witnesses later, either.
C.T.B. understand this: You are celebrating the distinct possibility that a murderer just walked free.
But, then again, you are merely falling for the deceit of the anti-death-penalty lobby which simply despises punishing crime altogether.
What this story proves.........is that deranged judges shouldn't authorize defense attorneys 20-year ex post facto Mulligans. Not that we shoudn't use the Death Penalty.
So, by the logic used, he should be exonerrated right?????
Wrong! Guess what? No Prosecutor could establish Booth's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a court of Law at this point either!!
The wrong-headed assumptions used are to assume that simply because one form of evidence (not used in his INITTIAL conviction B.T.W.) does not exist, that that implies he is innocent. It does not. It's not appreciably different than a really good fingerprint. You can prove guilt with it, but not innocence.
I could murder someone right now, and there would be neither DNA nor fingerprint evidence of it.....
But that doesn't make me innocent.
The misuse and misunderstanding of DNA evidence, and what it proves is going to drum up numerous accounts of these individuals winning appeals and re-trials. 20 years after their convictions, after numerous witnesses have died, when State Attorneys realize they can't prove YET AGAIN that someone like Dewey is a duly tried and convicted murderer.
There is a chance that he is innocent (there always is).
There is also a chance that there are as yet un-discovered purple unicorns living on some non-descript island-chain in the South Pacific.
There is also an extremely likely chance that a murderer just beat the system. Prosecutors aren't perpetually pursuing re-convictions and appeals 20 years after a fact whereas a defender will feverishly jockey on your behalf for as many years as you will keep him on retainer. $$$$$$$$$ See the overturn of the Death penalty for the manifestly guilty Mumia Abu Jamal for an object lesson. (In similarly eerie fashion, some key witnesses are now dead in that case as well).
This is the anti-death-penalty lobby convincing people who don't know any better to do away with punishing criminals. It is also just as fair to conclude that since putative (and duly tried and convicted murderers) can escape life sentences after key prosecutorial witnesses have died.....That a death penalty should have been employed (and in a MORE TIMELY FASHION) so that a guilty man doesn't walk free.
Is there an alibi for this man? NO
Was DNA evidence submitted by the Prosecution in his initial conviction? NO
Is there a new suspect who has confessed to the crime? NO
Is there any NEW and contrary evidence to his guilt...any evidence of actual innocence? NO
Any video evidence of someone else? NO
Any evidence of Prosecutorial misconduct? NO (although the defense, as usual, tried and failed in that pursuit once too)
Just a lack of a certain type of evidence not always present at many crime scenes.
Here's how this racket works:
1.) He is awarded a retrial....
2.)Prosecutors know that time degrades (especially 20 years) their chances of proving guilt BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
3.)So, they drop the charges because....THEIR WITNESSES ARE DEAD!
Here's a key:
If he had won a re-trial 5 or 10 years later....he'd have probably been convicted again.
A prosecutor couldn't win a re-trial of a man caught with his finger-prints on a bloody knife who had initially confessed to a murder which was witnessed by 25 people, if you tried him 40-years and 25 dead witnesses later, either.
C.T.B. understand this: You are celebrating the distinct possibility that a murderer just walked free.
But, then again, you are merely falling for the deceit of the anti-death-penalty lobby which simply despises punishing crime altogether.
What this story proves.........is that deranged judges shouldn't authorize defense attorneys 20-year ex post facto Mulligans. Not that we shoudn't use the Death Penalty.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
IJ is absolutely correct. Dr. Sam Shepperd was found not guilty of murdering his wife at his 1966 retrial after having been convicted in the same jurisdiction in 1954. Witnesses in the 1966 proceeding had trouble remembering details they confidently testified to in the 1954 trial. Evidence was lost or misplaced and couldn't be reintroduced in 1966, though it had been presented as convincing evidence in 1954.
Despite fingerprints, the lack of the proper blood type at the crime scene linking another man the defense introduced as a suspect, grossly contradictory statements made by Sheppard during numerous police interviews, the twelve years of work done by the doctor's defense team -- led by renowned celebrity defense attorney F. Lee Baily -- paid off, just as they knew it would. Muddying the waters of testimony and evidence by counting on discrepancies twelve years later, they got their client off. But the fact is, the first jury more than likely got it exactly right. Sam Sheppard was guilty.
Despite fingerprints, the lack of the proper blood type at the crime scene linking another man the defense introduced as a suspect, grossly contradictory statements made by Sheppard during numerous police interviews, the twelve years of work done by the doctor's defense team -- led by renowned celebrity defense attorney F. Lee Baily -- paid off, just as they knew it would. Muddying the waters of testimony and evidence by counting on discrepancies twelve years later, they got their client off. But the fact is, the first jury more than likely got it exactly right. Sam Sheppard was guilty.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Evidence didn't. So there was no DNA evidence from the crime scene. One, that would be expected after 20 years. DNA evidence wasn't as common 20 years ago as it is today. Preservation of the evidence was not an exact science then. So to test for DNA evidence now and find none is not unusual, and the judges should have taken into account how the evidence was stored. The man was released based on the expectations the judicial system now has based on "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" instead of actual science.
The original premise of the thread is what should be discussed. Should we do away with the death penalty because cases from 20 or more years ago might have convicted the wrong person? OR - due to that very same technology that reveals our past mistakes, do we recognize the fact that we have a greater chance of accurately identifying the perpetrator?
Good for him! The system works.
As of yet , there has not been one proven wrongful execution. Contact us when you have something to make a case with.
Sadly your statement on wrongful execution is not true. Also once a person is executed their conviction is almost never investigated again.
The use of DNA works both ways, eliminating doubt of some people being guilty and of some being innocent.
Willis would have been executed:
And yet, you post only one example of forensic evidence showing the definitive guilt of one, and two of it being incorrect. You're introducing a false premise.
How many people in that state are currently on death row awaiting execution? How many of those have been definitively identified using the very same techniques you describe?
The article you quote from is, without doubt, slanted towards abolishing the death penalty. Are there any cases in which YOU would approve the death penalty?
Keep trying. Just suspicions and circumstantial cases. Still none proven.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
We should release murderers from prison or death row without being certain they are actually not guilty, and this man was released on a judge's whim, not actual, physical evidence clearing him. He'll be back.
No, you are innocent until proven guilty. It is a cornerstone of our justice system. If DNA evidence casts doubt on the case, the prosecution has the responsibility to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" with other means. If they cannot, the prosecution has failed and the accused should be set free.