RoR: Forum

I can see why people would oppose the death penalty due to flaws in the justice system.

Post 1

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:21pm

What the hell do you say to that?

Oops?

(I get very angry with this crap. That's why the death penalty is bad.)

Michael

Post 2

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 10:21pm

Ayn Rand was right on this issue: In the context of our current primacy-of-consciousness "justice" system, imposing the death penalty runs an absolutely unacceptable risk of killing an innocent person.

Unfortunately, the so-called "Objectivist Center" published at one time a piece which advocated that the death penalty be imposed anyway. Say "oops!"

Post 3

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:45am

There simply are not enough facts in the CNN article to base an opinion regarding Cantu's innocence nor the death penalty.

CNN is a biased source; i.e., anti-death penalty. Are we to believe a jury convicted a man and sentenced him to death solely on the uncorroborated ID from a single witness? What was all the evidence in the case?

Garza isn't particularly reliable, as it appears he was one of the robber and waited 20 years to come forward.

Moreno presumably testified under oath at trial and was cross-examined. In order to obtain a conviction, a unanimous 12 person jury had to believe him. Twenty years later Moreno makes a statement to a newspaper reporter who wants a story. For the story Moreno wasn't under oath, nor was he cross-examined. Nor did the story explain why did Moreno wait twenty years?

The article implies that first Moreno was first showed a photo line-up of six men that included Cantu, and later a single photo of Cantu and finally a photo of Cantu and four others. If this is what really happened, then it would be a tainted line up that would unquestionable violate the constitutions of Texas and the US Constitution. Even the worst defense attorney could not miss an issue like that if the only evidence was the photo lineup.

I seriously doubt that even a Texas jury would convict on the slim evidence that a single eye witness, who made a night time observation and who was shot, was able to recognize Cantu only one time out of three opportunities. (Which is why I would like to know all the evidence against Cantu, not just some CNN reporter's opinion of what we need to know.]

Of course, if the CNN story is truthful and has disclosed all the relevant facts and evidence, then the trial itself was an atrocity and the death penalty improperly imposed.

Post 4

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:52am

I can see why people would oppose the death penalty due to flaws in the justice system.

I oppose it unless there's overwhelming physical evidence and/or confession. Scott Peterson, for example, should not be put to death unless/until he either comes clean (assuming he's guilty) or real evidence is found linking him inextricably to the murder of his wife and unborn son.

SmS

Post 5

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:40am

Steve,

I simply posted this as a reminder to what can and does happen in our justice system. There have been so many cases which have later been overturned in circumstances epistemologically analagous to those in which the death penalty is imposed. Our current justice system does not have the maturity or temperment to be entrusted with such a grave responsibility.

Edit-
I see that this story was put out by the AP wire services, not CNN. CNN simply chose to run the story.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 11/21, 6:49am)

Post 6

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:19am

Adam,

I know many terrific people on both sides of this issue and I used to be (circa 7 years ago or so) pro-death penalty. For me, this was an issue that highlights the need to keep searching for truth and be willing to keep considering the available evidence.

Jim

Post 7

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:26am

Let us be clear that Rand did not oppose the penalty of death per sae, her concern was about the process.

That said, James asks how could such a thing happen? If death penalty is the macrocosm, then group approbation is the microcosm. The appearance of impropriety is good enough for most people. If the 'right' people take a stand against something, it does not take overwhelming evidence to convince others of guilt, in some cases it takes no evidence at all. Perception becomes reality. Authority is delegated to those who appear to be the experts.

Post 8

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:08am

The herd and sheep mentality...

Post 9

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:31am

RD,

(1) Trusting the police and the prosecutors as "experts who are on our side" is, indeed, a part of the problem. But there are additional factors:

(2) A tendency on the part of believers to pray for divine guidance when making life-or-death decisions on a jury, which has the predictable (given the laws of psychology) effect of reifying their desires and hopes in their decision, not the facts of reality.

(3) The belief that a just God will not permit the conviction of an innocent man, and "vox populi vox dei," so the fact that a man was convicted by a jury itself appears (see above, in this very thread) to be "evidence" of his "guilt."

(4) The judge, who rules on admissibility of evidence and determines procedure, is almost always himself a "former" prosecutor with mental habits formed in that job.

(5) The investigators work for the prosecution, and are rewarded for skewing the evidence to favor the prosecution's case.

There is here a great deal to be fixed, before the risk of executing an innocent man is reduced to an objectively justifiable level.

Post 10

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:11am

RD,

Rand did oppose the death penalty.

I was present at a Q&A (Ford Hall Forum) where she stated that she was opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that the justice system can make mistakes and that death is irreversible, so any mistake committed has no way of being corrected.

This is probably in the new Q&A book somewhere.

Michael

Post 11

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:41pm

I read Objectivism's position on the death penalty long ago: that it is moral but that the system may not operate well enough for it. Today, after several decades of representing criminal defendants and having tried hundreds of criminal trials, including several first degree murder trials, I have NO doubt but that the system isn't good enough. Just too many grandstanding prosecutors, lying cops, two-bit politico judges, incompetent lawyers, and emotional, prejudiced jurors. I believe that any Objectivist who had seen what I've seen in the system would agree.

I have a daughter who is a young trial lawyer. Recently she sat through a murder trial as an observer. She said that the state had very little evidence but that the jury not only convicted the defendant but also voted unanimously to recommend the death penalty--a recommendation the judge followed. By coincidence, my daughter is acquainted with the judge's wife (herself an attorney), and she knows from talking to her that the judge had grave doubts about the evidence against the defendant. But he sentenced him to death anyway, and this isn't the first time I know of that this judge has given a death sentence when he had serious doubts.

I could go on and on about this sort of thing. I've been seeing it for nearly 40 years. Almost any experienced criminal defense lawyer could tell you stories that would make your hair stand up. The criminal justice system up close and personal is not at all pretty. And it isn't a liberal/conservative thing among criminal defense lawyers, either, as most would concur regardless of their politics.

Post 12

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:27pm

Hi Burke,

Thank you for that up close view. Maybe someday sanity will prevail on this issue. I really don't think "oops!" is much of a moral justification for anything.

(btw - I hold a great deal of contempt for brutal murderers and a great deal of empathy for the families of victims. I believe that the murderers should be punished. I just don't see how turning the state into a potential - and actual - murderer of the innocent will do them any good. It just creates more victims.)

Michael

Post 13

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:30pm

Reads to me like Garza murdered Cantu, not the State of Texas.

Post 14

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:31pm

Michael,

You are running in god mode again.

Rand did oppose the death penalty.

"Because it's your body that's barring my way."
"But I can't decide! I'm not supposed to decide!"
"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I'll shoot."
"Wait! Wait! I haven't said yes or no!" he cried, cringing tighter against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best protection.
"One-" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in terror
-"Two-" she could see that the gun held less terror for him than the alternative she offered-"Three."
Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.
Her gun was equipped with a silencer; there was no sound to attract anyone's attention, only the thud of a body falling at her feet.

QED

I said in the post you are responding to to:

Let us be clear that Rand did not oppose the penalty of death per sae, her concern was about the process.

You say :

she was opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that the justice system can make mistakes and that death is irreversible, so any mistake committed has no way of being corrected.

Please explain the difference. The only difference I see is that I used 5 words and you 25 depending upon how it is counted.

I was present at a Q&A (Ford Hall Forum) where she stated that

This is the second time (that I know of) that you've pointed to your attendance at those lectures as if it makes you part of Rand's inner circle.You attended those lectures with thousands of other people, myself included.

PS-You must have fleas. You got two bonks for nothing but flatulence.

Post 15

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:24pm

Mistakes will be made in prosecuting any type of crime. The ones to blame for the mistakes, in most cases, are the aggressors not the agents of defense.

I have yet to see an argument that shows that the death penalty is intrinsically bad. The only issue here is the amount and kind of evidence it should take to allow the death penalty to be administered.

(Edited by Jordan Zimmerman on 11/21, 4:36pm)

Post 16

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:33pm

James,

Re Post 5: I'm glad you posted the article; I thought it was a good post. I was not attempting to criticize you.

And as I said, if the story does provide an accurate accounting of the facts, then the trial itself was an atrocity.

Post 17

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:43pm

Steve,

Thanks and you had some good points to make about CNN. I can't believe Lou Dobbs once pretended to be a business reporter.

Jim

Post 18

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:50pm

Roberd D,

Your quote from Rand had nothing to do with the death penalty. It was about a choice of values - that guy's life or Galt's - and that guy was in the way. Technically speaking, it was outright murder, not a death penalty imposed by a judge after a jury trial and executed by a formal penal system.

But then you know all that, don't you? Just flapping your mouth for the exercise.

Also, you are letting the real size of you soul show. I mentioned my attendance at the Ford Hall Forum lecture simply because that is where Rand said what she did. I have not been able to buy the Q&A book yet. If I had the book, I would not need to mention a personal memory and could mention something others could check. So it is a REFERENCE, dummy. Not bragging.

Then again, it would sound like bragging to one who values such things.

Still, my comment was the gist of Rand's words. Like 'em or lump 'em. It's a shame she was never intimate with you. You could have enlightened her on her errors before she passed on.

I wasn't able to accompany your profound insight about fleas. I have no idea what you are talking about, except maybe as a half-assed attempt to be funny somehow...

Michael

Post 19

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:52pm