While I certainly believe that there a repose in this world that deserve to die, another set of innocent men were set free after 30 years on death row. These men were intellectually disabled and the police forced a false confession out of these men and the prosecutor failed to test critical evidence for fingerprints. The crux of it all, that these men were sentenced to death without any physical evidence linking them to the crime. It's situations like these that scream "The limitation of the Death Penalty" within this country. Our legal system is more concerned with obtaining convictions and collecting revenue rather than Justice. And if you are poor and a minority, you may as we'll forget it. We have more people in jail than any other country in the world and a system of Justice that is in serious need of reform
I oppose it now, not because of any sympathy for killers. Innocent people have been vindicated. It's too late for them if they're already executed. The judicial/criminal system will never be perfect because humans are imperfect.
BUT I believe the threshold of guilt should be beyond a "shadow of a doubt" not "reasonable doubt"
IMO, the death penalty cannot be undone if new evidence becomes available, so if there is the slightest doubt as to guilt I believe the convicted party should be allowed to rot in prison if he found guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt" and only executed if his/her guilt is not in question, and once guilt is firmly established I further believe the sentence should be carried out expeditiously, that way the family of the victim/s can get closure without having to wait for years for justice/vengeance, which ever you choose to call it.
“Justice” does not mean that the guilty are always convicted and the innocent set free. No legal system can guaranty that. Justice under our Constitution means that the accused is afforded due process. The deck in fact is heavily stacked against the prosecutor who must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury instructed that the accused is presumed innocent.
In this case, Henry McCollum received far more process than is due the normal defendant. He received two trials (can’t balme this one on an OJ jury) , had two sets of appointed counsel (can’t blame this one bad attys), and was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by two juries. He had his convictions reviewed on appeal. Finally, he had his case reviewed again by the NC Innocence Commission which concluded that he was innocent bc DNA on a cigarette found at the murder scene belonged to Artis, a guy who had committed a similar crime, and the fingerprints on a beer can found at the scene also belonged to Artis.
Your version of the facts – that McCollum was intellectually disabled and that his confession was coerced by the police – is a bit incomplete, since you failed to acknowledge he confessed again to the defense psychologist years later, prior to the second trial. No police involved in this one, DA. Plus McCollum knew the strange cause of death which had not been publicly revealed. And while he had a second grade reading level, he recanted his confession and held up pretty well on the stand during cross ex in the first trial.
So rather than deride our criminal justice system DA, take off your blinders and see what really happened here – the criminal justice system ultimately worked. If you twice confess to a crime, and do so once TO YOUR OWN DEFENSE TEAM, don’t blame the justice system if you spend time behind bars.
Is he really innocent as you claim? We don’t know. That cigarette butt and the beer can found at the scene – Artis lived nearby. Certainly he should have been a suspect, but his evidence does not mean he killed her. I frankly don’t see why they released McCollum based on this. A third trail would have been the proper remedy
...you didn't spend thirty years on death row.
A fake lawyer sees everything in black and white. You've never been in the trenches and seen the political machinations that go on. You've been posting this way for six years now. You had your ass handed to you in your very first month on the Legal Board by someone with real-world legal experience but you're still here babbling. At least you're resilient. You're a lawyer like JeffEng was a doctor.
I thought I would get an apologist type reply from you. The fact that this man was sentence at all, let alone twice, with no physical evidence simply points to huge failure in our system of Justice. And if you really think the deck is stacked against the prosecution, I have another bridge in Jersey to sell you. The truth is quite the opposite, with the advent of mandatory minimums, the fact that prosecutors regularly overcharge individuals, the fact that many states attempt to limit appeals, especially in death row cases, the fact that many states now impose time limits for the introduction of new evidence, the fact that prosecutors rarely ever get punished for not turning over exculpatory evidence, the fact that police regularly embellish on the stand, not to mention the biggest liability of all, Money. If you do not have the money to fight the government, there is a very high likelihood that you will lose. That fact you don't recognize this says you have a very unrealistic view of our criminal justice system.
In this case, Henry McCollum received far more process than is due the normal defendant. He received two trials (can’t balme this one on an OJ jury) , had two sets of appointed counsel (can’t blame this one bad attys), and was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by two juries. He had his convictions reviewed on appeal. Finally, he had his case reviewed again by the NC Innocence Commission which concluded that he was innocent bc DNA on a cigarette found at the murder scene belonged to Artis, a guy who had committed a similar crime, and the fingerprints on a beer can found at the scene also belonged to Artis.
Your version of the facts – that McCollum was intellectually disabled and that his confession was coerced by the police – is a bit incomplete, since you failed to acknowledge he confessed again to the defense psychologist years later, prior to the second trial. No police involved in this one, DA. Plus McCollum knew the strange cause of death which had not been publicly revealed. And while he had a second grade reading level, he recanted his confession and held up pretty well on the stand during cross ex in the first trial.
So rather than deride our criminal justice system DA, take off your blinders and see what really happened here – the criminal justice system ultimately worked. If you twice confess to a crime, and do so once TO YOUR OWN DEFENSE TEAM, don’t blame the justice system if you spend time behind bars.
Is he really innocent as you claim? We don’t know. That cigarette butt and the beer can found at the scene – Artis lived nearby. Certainly he should have been a suspect, but his evidence does not mean he killed her. I frankly don’t see why they released McCollum based on this. A third trail would have been the proper remedy.
and most important of all, the took the stand and the jury concluded he was lying when he denied guilt.
Further, you overlook that the other co-Defendant said McCollum did it in his confession. No physical evidence is common for outdoor murders. You place way too much emphasis on that.
As to your parade of horribles, none of that happened in this case, did it?
Maybe there was a Brady violation in the first trial, but not the second.
If both juries got if wrong, so be it. But he could have waived his right to a jury trial; he chose not to do that.
Face it DA, you picked a bad case to use as an exemplar of what you perceive to be failings of our criminal justice systement. There are plenty of times when the police, prosecutors, and judge all drop the ball- this was not one of them.
I’m not trying to beat up on you by disagreeing with your posts – I’m just urging you to go beyond the headlines and look at what really happened. That you cannot rebut my responses says a lot
I responded specifically to your claim that the prosecution has the deck stacked against them, a claim that no one could ever objectively state. I am glad you too the time to read some background on this case. But the bottom line is, this guy languished in jail for 30 years and the only reason he was set free was because of the Innocence Project, not because someone within our justice system recognized that a grievous error had been committed.
Further, you overlook that the other co-Defendant said McCollum did it in his confession. No physical evidence is common for outdoor murders. You place way too much emphasis on that.
As to your parade of horribles, none of that happened in this case, did it?
Maybe there was a Brady violation in the first trial, but not the second.
If both juries got if wrong, so be it. But he could have waived his right to a jury trial; he chose not to do that.
Face it DA, you picked a bad case to use as an exemplar of what you perceive to be failings of our criminal justice systement. There are plenty of times when the police, prosecutors, and judge all drop the ball- this was not one of them.
I’m not trying to beat up on you by disagreeing with your posts – I’m just urging you to go beyond the headlines and look at what really happened. That you cannot rebut my responses says a lot.
"This is a search for the truth." What a bunch of happy horseshit! They're not interested in the truth - they want convictions. They bend over and take whatever error-riddled case the cops give them because they're afraid if they don't prosecute, the police union won't endorse them for re-election.
State and federal prosecutors in fact prosecute only a small percentage of the total number of cases arising from arrests and agency referrals. When they take a case, they do so bc they believe they have evidence sufficient to convict, and the case is important enough to warrant the use of scant prosecutorial resources. Federal prosecutors are not elected anyway.
When you have a confession in a murder case, however, they are going to take that almost every time.
...attorney had sufficient evidence for conviction?
Yes, Federal prosecutors are not elected but their boss, the POTUS, is elected and the A.G.'s job performance reflects on the POTUS so the POTUS has to TCB if he wants to get re-elected. In Obama's case, he's a lame duck so he doesn't have to fire Holder.
You said: "When you have a confession in a murder case, however, they are going to take that almost every time." Prosecutors swallow confessions like a fydollaho swallows cum. They rarely look behind the curtain to see how the confession was obtained. When a D.A. is asked if the cops obtained a confession by illegal means, they say...
It is true that some innocent people may die with the death penatly and that is a terrible thought.
However, there are many social institutions that we value even though they kill innocents.
The paradigm from a philosphy class I took decades ago is you are a benevolent ruler with total power. Someone comes and says he has an invention that will enrich the lives of your people beyond your wildest dreams. Millions of people can do things they could only dream of that were limited to the lucky few at the top. It would save thousands of lives. There would be benefits you could not imagine.
But he wanted to take 50,000 of your people at random and crush them to death in public. Your choice.
The invention he had is the car. We put up with the death of thousands because of the benefit to others.
Yes, some innocent people will die with the death penalty, but without the death penalty innocents will be murdered. I have had at least four cases in my career where innocents outside of prison were killed by murderers who were released.
I have also have had at least that number where people in prison were killed by people in prison. (True, the ones in prison were "guilty" of something else, but they were "innocent" people vis a vis their murder in prison. They were doing things like walking the yard when they were stabbed to death.
There is always a cost. When Obama said we spent too much money on late life care, that means people will die. (SIT DOWN. This is something I agree with him on. I have long favored "death with dignity" when chosen by the person and a few people in my family went that way. I am concerned with it is a committtee in D.C. that decides what care is worth it, but I agree iwth the idea.
I am just saying this is a choice society makes about whether something is worth it, even though people may die.