The comments thread in the Dallas Morning News Texas Death Penalty Blog has a lively discussion on the Hennis debacle with comments by, inter alia, Dudley Sharp, Richard Dieter, and yours truly.
<< Jan Crawford's Take | Main | Abolished, and None Too Soon >>
Hennis Follow Up
Categories:
9 Comments
Leave a comment
Search
Recent Entries
- Crime and Consequences Has Moved
- Abolish the Police?
- News Scan
- Cal. Law on Mandatory Reporting of Kiddie Porn May (or May Not) Be Unconstitutional
- USCA9 Upholds Sentence of Serial Murderer/Rapist Dean Carter
- News Scan
- Robocalls
- Venue at 30,000 Feet
- News Scan
- Supreme Court Takes Excessive Force/Seizure Case
Monthly Archives
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (25)
- November 2019 (35)
- October 2019 (27)
- September 2019 (26)
- August 2019 (22)
- July 2019 (29)
- June 2019 (26)
- May 2019 (36)
- April 2019 (33)
- March 2019 (31)
- February 2019 (21)
- January 2019 (28)
- December 2018 (19)
- November 2018 (17)
- October 2018 (44)
- September 2018 (45)
- August 2018 (34)
- July 2018 (33)
- June 2018 (52)
- May 2018 (34)
- April 2018 (45)
- March 2018 (39)
- February 2018 (56)
- January 2018 (50)
- December 2017 (50)
- November 2017 (43)
- October 2017 (60)
- September 2017 (53)
- August 2017 (46)
- July 2017 (41)
- June 2017 (86)
- May 2017 (87)
- April 2017 (68)
- March 2017 (57)
- February 2017 (66)
- January 2017 (52)
- December 2016 (57)
- November 2016 (79)
- October 2016 (66)
- September 2016 (60)
- August 2016 (72)
- July 2016 (120)
- June 2016 (93)
- May 2016 (80)
- April 2016 (68)
- March 2016 (78)
- February 2016 (80)
- January 2016 (82)
- December 2015 (72)
- November 2015 (63)
- October 2015 (100)
- September 2015 (81)
- August 2015 (76)
- July 2015 (78)
- June 2015 (88)
- May 2015 (110)
- April 2015 (95)
- March 2015 (92)
- February 2015 (65)
- January 2015 (78)
- December 2014 (126)
- November 2014 (72)
- October 2014 (95)
- September 2014 (85)
- August 2014 (92)
- July 2014 (81)
- June 2014 (73)
- May 2014 (104)
- April 2014 (96)
- March 2014 (62)
- February 2014 (70)
- January 2014 (66)
- December 2013 (57)
- November 2013 (68)
- October 2013 (67)
- September 2013 (57)
- August 2013 (90)
- July 2013 (54)
- June 2013 (65)
- May 2013 (103)
- April 2013 (135)
- March 2013 (84)
- February 2013 (79)
- January 2013 (81)
- December 2012 (96)
- November 2012 (65)
- October 2012 (110)
- September 2012 (74)
- August 2012 (95)
- July 2012 (70)
- June 2012 (80)
- May 2012 (86)
- April 2012 (84)
- March 2012 (78)
- February 2012 (58)
- January 2012 (63)
- December 2011 (42)
- November 2011 (73)
- October 2011 (108)
- September 2011 (98)
- August 2011 (95)
- July 2011 (84)
- June 2011 (90)
- May 2011 (125)
- April 2011 (90)
- March 2011 (123)
- February 2011 (96)
- January 2011 (102)
- December 2010 (106)
- November 2010 (88)
- October 2010 (102)
- September 2010 (107)
- August 2010 (83)
- July 2010 (78)
- June 2010 (96)
- May 2010 (102)
- April 2010 (108)
- March 2010 (105)
- February 2010 (100)
- January 2010 (113)
- December 2009 (58)
- November 2009 (72)
- October 2009 (89)
- September 2009 (85)
- August 2009 (62)
- July 2009 (61)
- June 2009 (72)
- May 2009 (65)
- April 2009 (60)
- March 2009 (90)
- February 2009 (56)
- January 2009 (57)
- December 2008 (71)
- November 2008 (62)
- October 2008 (74)
- September 2008 (52)
- August 2008 (33)
- July 2008 (56)
- June 2008 (71)
- May 2008 (54)
- April 2008 (83)
- March 2008 (51)
- February 2008 (40)
- January 2008 (40)
- December 2007 (34)
- November 2007 (41)
- October 2007 (45)
- September 2007 (47)
- August 2007 (42)
- July 2007 (49)
- June 2007 (61)
- May 2007 (55)
- April 2007 (55)
- March 2007 (55)
- February 2007 (57)
- January 2007 (51)
- December 2006 (30)
- November 2006 (46)
- October 2006 (52)
- September 2006 (30)
- August 2006 (44)
- July 2006 (34)
- June 2006 (26)
- May 2006 (14)
- April 2006 (1)
About C & C Blog
About CJLF
Issues
- Academia (96)
- Appeal (3)
- Blog (37)
- Cases (130)
- Civil Suits (75)
- Clemency (49)
- Collateral Consequences (9)
- Congress (3)
- Constitution (103)
- Counsel (173)
- Criminal Procedure (194)
- Death Penalty (1918)
- Drugs (223)
- Equal Protection (11)
- Evidence (246)
- Federal Courts (133)
- Federalism (45)
- Firearms (49)
- First Amendment (105)
- Forfeiture (7)
- General (989)
- Habeas Corpus (469)
- Humor (129)
- Immigration (92)
- International (171)
- Journalism (33)
- Judicial Selection (165)
- Judiciary (14)
- Jury Trial (30)
- Juveniles (119)
- Mental State (290)
- Military (3)
- National Security (20)
- News Scan (2434)
- Notorious Cases (493)
- Off Topic (51)
- Policing (216)
- Policy (7)
- Politics (688)
- Polls (80)
- Prisons (299)
- Probation and Parole (72)
- Public Order (73)
- Rehabilitation (34)
- Schools (6)
- Search and Seizure (211)
- Self-defense (14)
- Sentencing (837)
- Sex offenses (60)
- Social Factors (177)
- State Courts (77)
- Studies (360)
- Stupid Crooks (7)
- Terrorism (301)
- U.S. Supreme Court (1692)
- USDoJ (102)
- Use of Force (45)
- Victims' Rights (57)
Links
Blogs
SCOTUSblog
Bench Memos (NRO)
The Volokh Conspiracy
Sentencing Law & Policy
Homicide Survivors
FedSoc Blog
The Cert Pool
Bench Memos (NRO)
The Volokh Conspiracy
Sentencing Law & Policy
Homicide Survivors
FedSoc Blog
The Cert Pool
I'd say the Hennis case was a debacle for Dieter. Most importantly, it was a victory for justice. Let's hope that Capt. Eastburn gets some comfort out of this. Murder is an awful crime--I suspect that in their heart of hearts, people like Dieter think the death penalty a greater transgression.
I have joined Kent, Dudley and many others in answering Mr. Dieter on the Dallas Morning News Death Penalty Blog. My response is:
The moral engine of the innocence-based argument for abolishing the death penalty is that we risk executing a person who DIDN'T DO IT. The question our citizens are interested in is factual guilt, not legalism: Do we have the right guy or not?
The notion that one needs to be God to know whether we have the right guy is preposterous. One need not be God, for example, to know that McVeigh did it. One need only pay minimal attention to the evidence. Mr. Dieter certainly knows this.
Of course there is a chance that we COULD execute an innocent person, since we are human beings. There is also a chance that someone we could legally have executed but didn't will take another innocent life, or several of them. Indeed, that latter prospect in not merely a possibility; it has happened. The two best known examples are Kenneth McDuff and Clarence Ray Allen. At least a half dozen innocent people died because McDuff and Allen remained alive. Did those people not also have rights?
Let's cut through the fancy dance. To say that a person has been "exonerated" of murder will be taken, and is intended to be taken (whatever the fine print disclaimer may be), as a statement that the person didn't do it. As Mr. Dieter meanderingly acknowledges through the fog of carefully chosen words, no such thing is true.
It has been 34 years and more than 1100 executions since the Supreme Court restored the death penalty, and NOT ONE SINGLE TIME has anyone proved in court, or come close to proving, that an innocent person has been executed. That being the case, it is a confession of weakness rather than a declaration of strength to continue to make these slippery, de facto claims of innocence.
Another death-row return visitor was California murderer Robert Lee Massie, who ended up waiving his appeals and was executed in 2001.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/robertMassie.html
Bill-thx for mentioning Allen. I recently did a presentation on the case and it still sends chills down an audience. It remains a paradigm case.
I think that we do better when we acknowledge the possibility that a guy who "didn't do it" could get executed. The likelihood seems extremely remote given (a) the relentlessness of defense counsel and the abolitionist lobby and (b) the fact that death penalty prosecutions tend to be very thorough. The bottom line is that we have a system that can have human error. And the possibility of a mistake is there. Of course, the possibility of mistake does not keep us from imposing stiff sentences for any number of crimes. And very little attention is generally given to the vast majority of incarcerated people--"death is different" in that a factually innocent death sentenced person is far more likely to have the problem redressed.
The remoteness of the possibility that a guy who didn't do it has been executed in modern times is shown by the incredibly weak claims thrown out by the abolitionist lobby. Willingham? His own lawyer thinks he's guilty.
And as for Macduff--there is blood on the hands of our retiring Justice Stevens.
ward -- Thanks for your comment. I noticed in your response in the newspaper that a federal district judge had said that not all the people on the DPIC list are actually innocent. Do you have the citation for that?
federalist -- Acknowledging the risk of erroneous execution is the job of any honest man. But there are two key points that should follow on immediately.
First, since the prison system is even more fallible than the courts, it is simply false that eliminating executions will eliminate the government's role in taking innocent life. Indeed, as McDuff, Allen and common sense show, imposition of life imprisonment for some of these clever and relentless killers is the path to MORE deaths of innocents than the death penalty even conceivably could be.
No system of punishment is perfect, so it's a question of trade-off's. Will we preserve more innocent life by retaining the DP or by aboloshing it in all cases regaredless? The answer to that is easy. Prison security has even more holes than the judicial system. There are certain to by in-prison murders by the dozen (there are already); erroneous release; fatuous or politically-motivated clemency (Mike Huckabee, call your office)(George Ryan too); and escape.
After pointing out the inevitablilty of trade-off's, it's useful -- indeed it's devastating -- to note the actual track record.
The fact that there is no judicial finding (or finding by any neutral body) that we have executed an innocent person in the modern era is dynamite, and we should not hesitate to use it. The admitted POSSIBILITY of executing an innocent man simply must, in the real world, be measured against the historical truth about how often that has happened. The answer, so far as actual proof goes, is zero.
When I do law school debates, I challenge the abolitionists to quit relying on the Sister Prejean websites that cite one other as "proof," and do what any other advocate of a legal claim has to do, namely, prove it in court.
This is exactly what they have not done. The reason they haven't is not, as they falsely claim, a lack of resources. (I'm always amused to hear that George Soros has "a lack of resources"). It's the lack of a case, period.
I agree Bill. And I reiterate, that Willingham is held up as a possible innocent only highlights the weakness of their argument.
Bill-I was referring to the original federal district court opn in US v. Quinones:
Despite its sympathies, the federal district court in Quinones agreed that the DPIC List was overly inclusive. Quinones I, 205 F.Supp. at 265. After examining at least 101 descriptions of the cases on the DPIC List at that time, the court applied an undefined “conservative criterion” to conclude that only 31 of the defendants named on the DPIC List were “factually innocent.” The court also speculated that eight other defendants had substantial arguments of innocence. Id. at 265 & fn. 11
ward --
Thanks very much.