Why do people stay on death row for years and years?

[Platapus]

Because sometimes it works out best that way.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/justice/arizona-death-sentence-overturned/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Arizona woman's murder conviction, death sentence overturned

[/quote] After 22 years on death row, Debra Milke is close to freedom.

A jury convicted the Arizona woman, now 49, of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, child abuse and kidnapping on October 12, 1990, less than a year after her 4-year-old son was found dead.


A judge sentenced her to death a few months later.


But those convictions and the related sentence were tossed out Thursday by a federal appeals court judge. In explaining his decision, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals chided the prosecution for remaining "unconstitutionally silent" on the "history of misconduct" of its key witness, a Phoenix police detective.


"The Constitution requires a fair trial," Kozinski wrote. "This never happened in Milke's case."


A day after seeing Santa Claus at a mall, young Christopher Milke asked his mother if he could go again. That was the plan, she said, when the boy got into the car with Milke's roommate, James Styers.
Styers picked up a friend, "but instead of heading to the mall, the two men drove the boy out of town to a secluded ravine, where Styers shot Christoper three times in the head," according to Kozinski's summary of the case. Styers was convicted of first-degree murder in the boy's killing and sentenced to death.
The detective, Armando Saldate, said the friend told him that Debra Milke was involved in a plot to kill her son. But neither the friend nor Styers testified to that assertion in court.
In fact, "no other witnesses or direct evidence (linked) Milke to the crime" other than Saldate's testimony. After pleading not guilty, Milke stood trial and tried to convince a jury that her account -- and not the detective's -- was the true one.


"The trial was, essentially, a swearing contest between Milke and ... Saldate," said Kozinski.


The detective testified he "didn't buy" Milke's reaction after he informed her that her son was dead. After that, Saldate said he placed Milke under arrest. In a subsequent interrogation, she confessed that her role in the murder conspiracy was a "bad judgment call," the detective said.
But Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had confessed to any role in a murder plot.


There was no recording of the interrogation, no one else was in the room or watching from a two-way mirror, and Saldate said he threw away his notes shortly after completing his report.


"The judge and jury believed Saldate," said Kozinski of the verdict and sentence. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying under oath and other misconduct."


Specifically, the judge noted that the detective had been suspended five days for taking "liberties" with a female motorist and lying about it to his supervisors; that judges had tossed out four confessions or indictments because Saldate had lied under oath; and that judges suppressed or vacated four confessions because Saldate had violated a person's constitutional rights.
"The state knew of the evidence in the personnel file and had an obligation to produce the documents," Kozinski said. "... There can be no doubt that the state failed in its constitutional obligation."
The judge ordered "the state" to turn over Saldate's personnel records to Milke's lawyers, after which "a police official" must state under oath that everything has been disclosed and nothing has been "omitted, lost or destroyed."
Once this is done, a district court must order Milke's release unless prosecutors tell the court within 30 days that they plan to retry her soon.
"In the balance hangs the life of Milke," Kozinski said, explaining the importance of his decision to overturn her convictions. [/quote]


What a travesty if this person would have been executed quickly to save money. Due process is one of our most important rights. More important than the others (yes even the 2nd). Without due process, all of our other rights are meaningless. I am glad in this case that due process helped prevent the wrong person being executed.


Now, of course, I want to know what will happen to the police officer and the prosecutor? We need to start holding them accountable for what they did. This woman lost 22 years of her life waiting for execution. I can't imagine how she survived that.

[soopaman2]

I am torn on the death penalty.

Some cases DNA have found men not guilty years later, which is great...

But at the same time some men, who are guilty and mocking about what they did sit on death row for years, abusing the system with stupid appeals.

For instance, we all heard of Megans law in America?

It is a sexual offender registry, named after Megan Kanka was killed and mollested by a man. He was given the death penalty, NJ then abolished the death penalty, so this scum lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Megan_Kanka

I looked him up on the NJDOC site, creepy looking freak.

My money pays to incarcerate this scum. It is clearly obvious to all of us he is useless to this society, so why do we have to keep them? It is cruel and unusual punishment to the citizenry to let them live.

We as a country are getting ready to starve grandma to pay pay the bills, but we support crap like this guy for life.

https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1044410&n=0

The face of the devil himself, one of many taxpayer drains when the DP was abolished here. One of many who escaped justice.

I am sure we can find a few from every state who needs a noose.

[Madox58]

Dang! Wanted to get in before the down hill slide started.
I see I'm late.
:haha:

[Stealhead]

Personally I think it is unfair handing out the death penalty because that person knows generally speaking that they are going to die at a certain date.

Myself and most of us we have no idea when we are going to expire.That really is unfair what if you are to live to 95 but you do not know this until you turn 95 so you lived a hard live and punished your body now you are a 95 year old man more or less in agony with creaky knees.Had you have known you would see your 95th birthday you'd have taken a truckload of Omega 3 fish oil and eaten a few less Whoppers or married a less annoying woman.

Or say that you are going to expire at 35 years of age if you knew this you could enjoy life to it fullest and party every day and not bother with long term plans.:yep:

I am being sarcastic.

In all seriousness I think a life trapped in a cell is worse than a set date to die.What is really worse 10 years or so on death row but then you die or life in prison to ponder what will happen to your soul when you do die.Or for an atheist a lifetime rotting away in a cell not being able to enjoy the life that you have that will end in nothingness when you die.

I do not see the death sentence as a deterrent either many people have been put to death yet still many people commit crimes that carry death as a possible punishment.

[Feuer Frei!]

Why are we talking about the death penalty and if it's right or wrong?
This particular case has nothing to do with that. Whether you think it's morally right or wrong to cause death by injection or to electrocute someone to death if they committed a crime.

This has to do with human error.
On 2 counts.

The Detective for seriously botching this investigation by not following the procedures to the letter.
The Judge for 'believing' a Person rather than following through with the correct procedures.

What about the jury?
Does the jury hold accountability? Does a jury get given details like the method of interrogation? In what environment a interrogation was conducted? If there were witnesses present at the interrogation? If notes were made at the interrogation and were they submitted for full scrutiny?

If so, then we need to hold the jury accountable as well.

This was 22 years ago.

Unfortunately this is not the first case of serious negligence on the law's behalf.
It won't be the last.

[fireftr18]

I am a self described silent opponent of the death penalty. What I mean, is that I don't try to make an argument against it. Statistically, it is not a deterrent to crime, yet I do feel there are people who need to be permanently removed from society. I agree sitting in prison for rest of your life is a larger punishment than execution. That being said, if it makes sense (it makes sense to me), if we are going to execute people, then we need to make absolute certain that they are guilty and execution fits the crime.

[Stealhead]

If a death sentence was handled the way it with some species of animals it would be for logical.

For example a Murder(flock) of crows when ever they stop to rest or eat in a location it is the duty of one crow to stand watch.If that crow fails to spot a threat to the others and sound the alert that crow is killed by the other crows for its failure.You may or may not have noticed that even if you try it is very hard to sneak up on a murder of crows now you know why.

I know myself if someone killed a loved one and that person was killed (no matter how) if in my mind I still felt anger or hatred I would feel no closure or comfort.

I know one thing for sure I would refuse to be a juror on a death penalty trial.I simply could not feel comfortable deciding a person fate like that indirectly.

In self defense or in a war I would kill someone or an enemy combatant if they where clearly willing to fight not that I would enjoy it.I would not even enjoy killing a person in self defense honestly even if they where clearly going to kill me.Hell I hunt some and I don't get a pleasure out of shooting killing an animal I only hunt something that I am going to eat(mostly boar) or share with others.But I make sure that when I pull the trigger it is a quick kill if I have any doubt I wont fire.If you only wound you cant be sure that you will find the animal again and it might suffer for days.

[BossMark]

If found guilty and the death penalty is given and DNA evidence is correct then it should be done straight away.

[Jimbuna]

I'm happy we abolished the death penalty here in the UK but would certainly advocate it for premeditated murder for example but only if DNA made the conviction 100% safe.

[Rilder]

Personally I think the entire system of dealing with criminals in the US is atrocious and needs work. Corrupt guards, prisoners being treated like animals, overall terrible conditions being based around containing the criminals instead of rehabilitating them. Its all horrid and half the time ends up turning normal people who screwed up into hardened criminals by the time they get out. Entire bloody thing needs a reformation.

As for executions, eh it shouldn't be blanket "If you do this you die" If someone has a chance to be rehabilitated they should be given that chance and death penalties only considered for those with absolutely no chance of ever being rehabilitated, people who have been worked with by psychologists for a large amount of time and no improvement.

[Nippelspanner]

I am torn on the death penalty.

Some cases DNA have found men not guilty years later, which is great...
Actually, that is horrible. It makes you wonder how high the estimated number of unknown cases must be. Who knows how many innocent people have been killed?


But at the same time some men, who are guilty and mocking about what they did sit on death row for years, abusing the system with stupid appeals.

For instance, we all heard of Megans law in America?

It is a sexual offender registry, named after Megan Kanka was killed and mollested by a man. He was given the death penalty, NJ then abolished the death penalty, so this scum lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Megan_Kanka

I looked him up on the NJDOC site, creepy looking freak.Not sure why his looks matter but those abuses of the system are their right to do. Same right you would have in that case. I bet you would not complain then?
On top comes a huge psycholical aspect for people on death row. Mostly, they don't accept the truth and believe in they are not gulty until the very last moment, even if they know the truth. I honestly must say - I can't blame them. It is an extreme situation one must deal with. I see why the brain simply locks down at some point, telling fairytales to itself.
(I do not say I feel sorry for them but I think I understand why that happens)

My money pays to incarcerate this scum. It is clearly obvious to all of us he is useless to this society, so why do we have to keep them? It is cruel and unusual punishment to the citizenry to let them live.You pay more for someone on death row, than for someone who got a life sentence without parole.

We as a country are getting ready to starve grandma to pay pay the bills, but we support crap like this guy for life.Two totally different matters. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Again, it is even cheaper this way.


https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1044410&n=0

The face of the devil himself, one of many taxpayer drains when the DP was abolished here. One of many who escaped justice.

I am sure we can find a few from every state who needs a noose.Link does not work for me. I assume it is about someone who should get CP but only got a life sentence?

If you ask prisoners who where sentenced for life in prison, without parole, they tell you this is worse than death row. If you want to punish someone, you won't do so by killing him. Let him think about what he has done for the rest of his life.

[Platapus]

Why are we talking about the death penalty and if it's right or wrong?


I appreciate your noble effort to keep this thread on topic.

A jury should be held accountable if they knowingly, willingly, and wittingly violate a law. Making a mistake, in good faith, should not be punished.

With some exceptions, juries are in "receive mode" only. They listen to what is presented by the prosecution and the defense. I believe that in all cases, the jury is instructed, by the judge, to only consider that which was presented by the prosecution and defense in making their decision.

This places a great responsibility on the prosecutor and defense to, combined, give the jury the most complete accounting, from the two different viewpoints.

I have never understood how many people can denigrate defense attorneys but not equally denigrate prosecutors. Both should be equally suspect and both need to be held accountable. If I were king, I would have both prosecution and defense attorneys under oath during the trial.

There should be a line, that when crossed, would require prosecution of a prosecutor or defense attorney who blatantly corrupts and perverts the justice system.

I do know that if I were on a jury, I would have a hard voting for conviction, for a serious crime, when the only evidence is a single personnel testimony. There has to be some evidence, no matter how circumstantial, to collaborate human testimony.

I have a hard time trusting a system where the prosecutor is rewarded by number of convictions.

Speaking from the position of an innocent person, I strongly believe in the schema "better to let 10 guilty people go free then to wrongly convict an innocent person".

[Bilge_Rat]

This is about the death penalty. A justice system is governed by humans, humans make mistakes, ergo you will always have some innocent persons who are found guilty and some guilty persons who are let go.

Even with all the safeguards built into the U.S. common law based justice system, you will always have a certain number of innocent persons who are sentenced to death, as this and other cases show.

You have to be willing to acept that IF you want the death penalty to be available as a sentence.

[Herr-Berbunch]

It might have been an unsafe verdict, but she still may be guilty.

[Platapus]

It might have been an unsafe verdict, but she still may be guilty.

She may be the Queen of England too.

But I would not let her in the castle without some evidence. :)

[Jimbuna]

She may be the Queen of England too.

But I would not let her in the castle without some evidence. :)

True is that :)

[geetrue]

"The judge and jury believed Saldate," said Kozinski of the verdict and sentence. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying under oath and other misconduct."


How can you even think it was the jury's fault when they didn't have all of the evidence.

It was the district attorney's fault for wanting to win a conviction and not giving a polygraph to the detective.

If the death penalty was removed from the courts decision making process there would be a lot more innocent deaths for sure.

Too many wacko's would wack someone if they thought they could read and watch TV and eat for the rest of their natural born lives. :yep:

[fireftr18]

Personally I think the entire system of dealing with criminals in the US is atrocious and needs work. Corrupt guards, prisoners being treated like animals, overall terrible conditions being based around containing the criminals instead of rehabilitating them. Its all horrid and half the time ends up turning normal people who screwed up into hardened criminals by the time they get out. Entire bloody thing needs a reformation.

I agree with you to a point. To attain true justice, then the convicted person would be fully rehabilitated, gets released, and goes on to become an honest, productive member of society. :sunny:

With that said, my wife worked in a local jail. Her job was a counselor to women that had a good chance of rehabilitation. There were some successes, but most of them didn't take it seriously and wound up back in jail. :/\\!!

[Platapus]

Too many wacko's would wack someone if they thought they could read and watch TV and eat for the rest of their natural born lives. :yep:

I know two people who have served time in jail. It is not the vacation you may think it is. :nope:

[Platapus]

One of the problems with our prison system is that it tasked with doing two very different things.

1. Provide punishment. This is an important part of society. If you choose to do something abhorrent to society (commit a crime), then society will provide an "unpleasantness" as a way of demonstrating the authority of society over the individual.

2. Rehabilitation. It is a benefit for society that abhorrent members become law abiding members. While punishment may communicate the consequences of abhorrent behavior, rehabilitation should communicate the advantages of conforming to the rules of society.

The objective is for the individual to feel that it is better to conform to societal rules than to engage in abhorrent behavior.

Is it reasonable to expect one institution (jail/prison) to provide both?

Is it possible for one institution to provide both simultaneously?

I am starting to doubt whether one institution can do both.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

What I don't understand is how you can give death penalty only based on testimonies? :doh:Without any hard evidence? :nope:

If its word against word then it goes down to speeching skills: honest may lose to good liar. :down:

[Platapus]

I agree. As I posted, I would have a hard time convicting someone if the only evidence was one human testimony.

[Armistead]

We had a case in the 80's when a black man named Darryl Hunt was convicted of murdering and raping a white woman. Evidence was not that great, but due to the local media, the cry was fry the dude...It was an all white male jury.

When the new DNA testing came out, it wasn't his DNA and later someone else was charged with the crime. He finally got out around 2005. The only thing that saved him from being put to death a few times was the mass cry of blacks that the trial was unfair.

There are possibly 1000's of innocent people in prision. I think DNA testing is backed up for years testing.

I think we need two types of the DP. One like we have, but if you have DNA and video, they should be put to death weeks after conviction.

[Stealhead]

One of the problems with our prison system is that it tasked with doing two very different things.

1. Provide punishment. This is an important part of society. If you choose to do something abhorrent to society (commit a crime), then society will provide an "unpleasantness" as a way of demonstrating the authority of society over the individual.

2. Rehabilitation. It is a benefit for society that abhorrent members become law abiding members. While punishment may communicate the consequences of abhorrent behavior, rehabilitation should communicate the advantages of conforming to the rules of society.

The objective is for the individual to feel that it is better to conform to societal rules than to engage in abhorrent behavior.

Is it reasonable to expect one institution (jail/prison) to provide both?

Is it possible for one institution to provide both simultaneously?

I am starting to doubt whether one institution can do both.

When considering that most people sent to prison will be released back into society it is logical to at least try some form of rehabilitation.

I know a few people that are ex cons and they managed to adapt to societies rules.One man that I worked with once got busted for having an illegal sawn off shotgun.He got caught it just so happens while he was driving a car on the way to kill a rival drug dealer.He was actually thankful that the cops stopped him.He did not of course mention that his was on the way to commit a murder but the firearm violation got him 10 years he served 8 and got out on good behavior and work release program.When his parole time was up he moved to Florida.


The problem in the US is institutionalization when it comes to releasable inmates.Nothing of course is going to work on everyone.Having the system focus fully on harsh punishment may actually produce a more dangerous person but you cant be too lax either.Of course every state has different systems and in some states it can vary from prison to prison.

[Skybird]

If the death penalty was removed from the courts decision making process there would be a lot more innocent deaths for sure.

Wrong.

That the deterring effect of death penalty is not supported by statistics, and also can be explained why it fails, is one of the biggest arguments against the death penalty.

It is a psychological truth that for most people the immediate present net effects counts more than the longterm future outlook. Since the deterrent necessarily is fixiated on the future consequences, it is in an ineffective position from all start on.

Also, many capital crimes sentenced by death penalty do not emerge from situations of intention and planning, but due to situational present context and emotional affect. In both cases, any deterrent to prevent such crimes living "a life of their own" necessarily must fail and get simply bypassed.