[Harry Rex Vonner]

Beetle01, you argue solely with emotion. I argue with facts. I don't want innocent people executed any more than do you. However, the truth is that such a result is rare indeed while the incidence of violent crime upon the truly innocent is a daily occurrence.

Name someone who was executed in Kentucky although he/she was clearly innocent of the crime for which he/she received the death penalty. I know of none. My guess is that you know of none.

Again, my sympathy is with the victims and their families and not with the criminals who prey upon the innocent.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here ya go Harry.

http://dpa.ky.gov/ci/dp.htm


So if we would have been going by your advice, there would be a lot of dead innocent people who were found guilty but years later found to be innocent. I cant bring back someone who was murdered, but what I can do is support legislation and policies that will help prevent the death of another innocent person. Not to mention being cost effective to our state.

Obviously people feel different about the issue, but to me Id much rather give people a chance to prove their innocence, than hurry up and put to death those who are truly guilty which would lead to the death of innocent men and women.

It is true that justice delayed is justice denied. Many of those who are sentenced to death are provided very bad lawyers at state expense. If taxpayers provided top tier lawyers in capital cases and expedited the appeals for those found guilty and sentenced to death, there would be fewer people charged with capital offenses and the chances of wrongful convictions would be much reduced. It is possible to have a fair, effective, and accurately applied death penalty.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I believe that some are showing a lack of understanding of our judicial system. the accused is never required to prove his innocence. Our system demands that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And, that reasonable doubt applies to all twelve jurors. A goodly number of juries have locked up at 11-1 for guilty. Since all 12 did not vote for guilt, the accused is not convicted. Of course, he/she may be retried although most end in plea bargains or dismissal (depending upon the circumstances). Where else can you lose 11-1 and, in reality, win?

To imply that the accused does not get a fair shake in our system is ridiculous. Many accused individuals are represented by the public defender. To say that they don't receive competent representation again demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the system. Since the public defender and his/her office don't depend upon paying clients to pay the bills of the office, all their efforts can be devoted to their crimonal clients. After all, that is all that they do. Funding, of course, comes from the taxpayers so they don't have the problem of billing clients who may or may not pay. They have, in these serious cases, more or less a blank check, And, in most jurisdictions, who is more experienced in representing the accused than is the public defender. After all, as I said earlier, that is all he/she does.

I would hope that those who find so much fault with our system would take time to learn about the system. The accused is rarely the one denied justice. That distinction rests with the victim and his/her family.

[Hoot Gibson]

I believe that some are showing a lack of understanding of our judicial system. the accused is never required to prove his innocence. Our system demands that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And, that reasonable doubt applies to all twelve jurors. A goodly number of juries have locked up at 11-1 for guilty. Since all 12 did not vote for guilt, the accused is not convicted. Of course, he/she may be retried although most end in plea bargains or dismissal (depending upon the circumstances). Where else can you lose 11-1 and, in reality, win?

To imply that the accused does not get a fair shake in our system is ridiculous. Many accused individuals are represented by the public defender. To say that they don't receive competent representation again demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the system. Since the public defender and his/her office don't depend upon paying clients to pay the bills of the office, all their efforts can be devoted to their crimonal clients. After all, that is all that they do. Funding, of course, comes from the taxpayers so they don't have the problem of billing clients who may or may not pay. They have, in these serious cases, more or less a blank check, And, in most jurisdictions, who is more experienced in representing the accused than is the public defender. After all, as I said earlier, that is all he/she does.

I would hope that those who find so much fault with our system would take time to learn about the system. The accused is rarely the one denied justice. That distinction rests with the victim and his/her family.

Have you ever sat on a jury for a murder trial where the accused was represented by an incompetent public defender? I have. The defendant's lawyer had a few notes scribbled on a legal pad for reference and called no witnesses except for the defendant. The guy was guilty and I would have not hesitated to have voted for the death penalty had it been an option.

As it was, I managed (along with one elderly female juror) to convince the jury to impose an 80-year prison term. Not that it mattered much - he was eligible for parole after 25 years regardless of our decision - but I thought that it was important for future parole boards to understand how strongly we felt. Nevertheless, the facts of the case did not justify the poor legal representation that the man received. Justice was served, but I would hate to be a poor, innocent defendant represented by the nitwit public defender.

If the government is going to impose capital punishment on criminals - and I strongly believe that it should be an option - then we owe it to ourselves that the defendant gets a speedy trial represented by a skilled lawyer at every step of the process. Capital cases should jump to the top of the docket in whichever courts they land. There is no excuse for a capital case, including all appeals, to take more than a year.

The current system serves as little or no deterrent for young would-be criminals. Those are the people who need to understand that a system exists where murderers are tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed as quickly as practicable. That is not the system that we have today.

BTW, I agree that victims are denied justice much more often than the accused but in capital cases, victims, their families, and perpetrators all deserve swift justice.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

You have some credibility, Hoot, because you have, unlike most, been in a courtroom and have been a member of a jury. From your description of the event, I would agree that the accused, whom you readily admit was guilty, had poor representation. The law provides for anyone in a criminal trial who feels he/she has received incompetent representation to file what amounts to a complaint against said attorney. the courts and the legal system take such complaints very seriously. If it appears to be true, the accused will likely receive a new trial with new representation. It happens quite often.

The delay in trials and appeals are not caused by the prosecution. It is a tactic used exclusively by the defense. If the prosecution were to needlessly delay, it would quickly run into the constitutional right of the defendant to a speedy trial. Delay tactics are almost always used as a tool by the defense. So, the reality is that the snail's pace of these capital cases is caused by the accused and his/her attorneys and never by the prosecution. After all, if the defense attorney can drag, spin, and delay long enough, his client will likely die after a long life on death row. Or, as with Manson, some oddball court may declare the death penalty unconstitutional twhich would result in a reprieve for all on death row. That is how the game of law really works.

Cut out some of the frivilous appeals and delays, all caused by the defendant, and you will see a more speedy trip from the crime to the trial to the carrying out of the sentence. Believe me when I say that the prosecution would welcome much more speed and less delay.

I am still waiting on someone to name anyone executed wrongfully in Kentucky. I suspect that none will be forthcoming.

As for the deterrent factor, I would say it depends upon the individual. However, one fact is certain. If one is executed for murder, he/she will not murder again.

[TheRealVille]

It is true that justice delayed is justice denied. Many of those who are sentenced to death are provided very bad lawyers at state expense. If taxpayers provided top tier lawyers in capital cases and expedited the appeals for those found guilty and sentenced to death, there would be fewer people charged with capital offenses and the chances of wrongful convictions would be much reduced. It is possible to have a fair, effective, and accurately applied death penalty.

:Thumbs: With your last two posts, I think we have found some common ground.

[Hoot Gibson]

:Thumbs: With your last two posts, I think we have found some common ground.

:Thumbs: I am strongly pro-capital punishment but its (mostly liberal) critics make some very valid points.

I think that that the death penalty should be applied more often but defendants who can afford good lawyers usually manage to avoid death sentences, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. When the evidence in murder cases is overwhelmingly against a defendant, then the defendant's wealth should play no part in the state's decision to pursue the death penalty.

In the trial that I mentioned above, the following facts were not disputed:

1. The murderer parked several hundred feet away from the victim's apartment, which clearly indicated premeditation.

2. The murderer's victim (his girlfriend) had given him her car to allow him to return home to Arkansas after breaking up with him.

3. The victim was entertaining a female visitor who witnessed the initial shooting.

4. The murderer kicked in the victim's door.

5. The murderer shot the victim in the head five times at close range. Amazingly, she survived the gunshot wounds, and managed to escape on foot.

6. The murderer reloaded his pistol and followed the victim's trail of blood, shot a neighbor who gave her refuge, found the victim hiding in a closet, and then finished her off with another shot to the head.

7. The murderer drove away with his pistol still loaded and was arrested by police a short time later. (Despite his later claim of intending to commit suicide, he surrendered the gun peacefully.)

The murderer claimed that he parked so far away from the crime scene because he had intended to commit suicide in front of the victim and did not want her to call the police. He said that when he found that his girlfriend's curtains were closed and she refused to let him into her apartment, he just snapped.

The murderer's defense was temporary insanity, although his attorney failed to call a single witness to support his claim.

IMO, it was very unfortunate that this guy was not eligible for the death penalty. The evidence was overwhelmingly against him and he obviously lied to the jury during his trial about his state of mind. His guilt was not in doubt and yet his attorney decided that it was a good idea to let him take the stand to testify as to his own insanity.

With facts such as these, a single murder should warrant the death penalty. The state should never pursue the death penalty in cases where the evidence is not similarly overwhelming.

[Shady Grady]

I am for the death penalty if the facts are there. If there are witnesses, etc., where there is no doubt. If a man breaks in someone's house and beats someone to death with a ball bat, then he should be dealt with the same way. Break out the Louisville Slugger. I feel the same way about child molestors. I'm not talking about some underage girl being caught with her boyfriend. I'm talking about some guy molesting a small child. I am not as hard line as I once was, because I know now with DNA tests, there have been some innocent people freed. But I guess one thing I have the least tolerance with is drunk drivers. One time behind the wheel drunk can kill innocent people. There should be no second chances. Get caught once, lose the license forever. The victims don't get a second chance. Neither should the driver.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

For those of you who either oppose the death penalty or are afraid that an innocent person may have been executed (to date that has never been proven to have happened in this country let alone in Kentucky), I would recommend John Grisham's latest novel, "The Confession". Grisham's books usually deal with legal issues and situations involving the legal system. I have read them all and they are enjoyable.

Grisham doesn't normally appear to have an agenda. However, it is clear that he has one in this book. All the pro-death penalty people are bad and devious individuals while all the antis are good, honest spirits. It deals with what Grisham describes as the first documented case in which an innocent person was executed (remember: this is fiction). I didn't find it to be one of his better efforts but I'm sure some will give it a hardy "amen".