I'm jumping in a bit late here, but there's nothing I can do about that now I guess.
I seem to come down on the death penalty a bit on the Holmes side of things. I have had many discussions with people on both sides of the issue and for my part; I have consistently stated that while I am in favor of the death penalty, it is most certainly not applied fairly. Neither ones race nor ones socio-economic situation should play a role in the type of punishment one might receive for a violent crime.
By the same token, I have no problem putting to death someone that was convicted of murder. But let me clarify when I think death is appropriate. Personally, I do not think that expert testimony should suffice one way or the other. Each side (Prosecutor and Defense) will always have their own expert witness who will try to convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt or innocence. The death penalty should only be applied in those most rare of circumstances where guilt is all but an absolute certainty.
Here’s a list of criteria I think should be met before the death penalty can be considered.
1) Multiple witnesses NOT connected to the crime in any way.
2) Overwhelming physical evidence (blood, hair, semen, etc) subjected to DNA testing.
3) At least one other nonhuman “witness” to the crime (video tape and/or audio tape).
4) A confession.
Numbers 3 and 4 can be substituted, one for the other.
For example, while the names and exact dates escape me, I’m sure most of us remember a few months back, the situation in Georgia (I believe) where a defendant being brought into the court room, grab a gun, killed the judge and I think another lawyer, fled, killed someone else while stealing their car, took someone hostage in their home, and then later surrendered to authorities. That, to me, is a classic example of guilt beyond doubt. Multiple witnesses, video tape, and a confession. So hells yes, hang the fucker.
By this own argument then, the death penalty would not have even been an option in the Stanley Williams case. To me, if realistic doubt exists, then the death penalty should be taken off the table.
And I also do not think juries should decide if a defendant is put to death or not. Look, a lot of our judicial system is more about theatrics than determining the guilt or innocence of someone. It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about winning. Juries can be swayed by circumstances unrelated to the actual evidence put forth. I have a close friend that served on a jury during a rape trial. They convicted the defendant. I talked to my friend (after the case had been decided) about what it was like and he confessed to me that one reason he personally voted to convict was how he “thought” the defendant handled himself on the stand. My friend said that he didn’t trust him and could “see it in his eyes”. I was a bit upset and told him so. I told him that I thought that that was a bullshit reason to send someone to jail for a number of years. “Cuz you didn’t like how he acted on the stand?” I asked, “That’s cappola.” I can only imagine what sort of shit goes on during a capital murder case.
™ Version 4.2
