Man Executed in 1992 to Have DNA Test

[ms_ann_thrope]

From AP:

RICHMOND, Va. - Gov. Mark R. Warner on Thursday ordered DNA evidence retested to determine whether a man convicted of rape and murder was innocent when he was executed in 1992.

If the testing shows Roger Keith Coleman did not rape and kill his sister-in-law in 1981, it will be the first time in the United States a person has been exonerated by scientific testing after his execution, according to death penalty opponents.

link to article

If he is exonerated, this'll be another heckuva compelling argument for putting a moratorium (at the least) on capital punishment. But... he'll still be dead. I can't imagine the added grief both families might feel if it is proven that he was innocent...

Wonder how long it will take for the results to come back?

[Ari]

If he is found innocent I wonder how the conservative pro-deathers (like the couple we have on the forum) will try to spin it? Afterall according to them no one has ever been put to death that wasn't guilty.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Ari

If he is found innocent I wonder how the conservative pro-deathers (like the couple we have on the forum) will try to spin it? Afterall according to them no one has ever been put to death that wasn't guilty.

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Obviously, if he was on death row, he was guilty of something and probably not contributing much to society. So it's not like any real harm was done by executing him!

/limbaugh

[Widget]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Wonder how long it will take for the results to come back?

Ten bucks says they come back quicker than he does.

[MonCapitan2002]

If he is indeed exonerated, then you have another reason for placing a moratorium on the death penalty. While I am not against the death penalty on principle, I am against it in practice. There is always the possibility that the man (or woman) being executed is iinocent. What really bothers me more than that is if this man is exonerated, that would mean that the real killer is still loose somewhere.

[Stephen Maturin]

Roger Coleman, eh? I wrote my law review article on that guy's Supreme Court case. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Obviously, if he was on death row, he was guilty of something and probably not contributing much to society. So it's not like any real harm was done by executing him!

/limbaugh

Or:

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Guilty or not, it was God's will that Coleman be executed. We know that with certainty because he was in fact executed. How dare you question the will of the Almighty.

Or:

Jane, you magnificently ignorant slut.

The federal and state governments have executed thousands since the founding of our great Republic. So far as we know, Coleman is the only innocent person ever put to death. Tough luck for him, but we're still batting pretty damn close to 1.000. Do you really want to scrap an institution with such an astonishingly high success rate based solely on this single glitch?

[ms_ann_thrope]

Roger Coleman, eh? I wrote my law review article on that guy's Supreme Court case.

Ooh! Cite, cite!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Ooh! Cite, cite!

Comment, Finality Over Fairness: The Ever-Expanding Preclusive Effect of State Procedural Default in Federal Habeas Corpus Cases, 23 U. Tol. L. Rev. 663 (1992).

The article has long since been mooted by amendments to the federal habeas statute. And yes, the article is every bit as insufferably boring as the title indicates.

[California Tanker]

I'll bet you this:

If it comes back he was innocent, expect it to be on the front pages. If it turns out he was guilty, the announcement will be buried on page five, somewhere near the police blotter reports.

NTM

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

While I am not against the death penalty on principle, I am against it in practice. There is always the possibility that the man (or woman) being executed is guilty.

Not to mention the possibility that the person might be innocent.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I'll bet you this:

If it comes back he was innocent, expect it to be on the front pages. If it turns out he was guilty, the announcement will be buried on page five, somewhere near the police blotter reports.

NTM

True.

I recall catching part of a discussion on NPR about this case. The general consensus of the commentators was that there's a great deal of reluctance to re-open cases after someone has been executed. After all, it'd be embarrassing to discover proof of someone's innocence after they were executed. So I think Warner's to be commended for his willingness to allow the tests.


Right after O. J. Simpson was acquited, I remember reading a newspaper article written by a defense attourney that I've never been able to forget. He was commenting on the sense of outrage many people felt over the widespread belief that Simpson got away with murder. According to the attourney, for every murderer who gets away with it, 50 innocent people are convicted because of incompetent defense attourneys, prejudiced judges or juries, or simply because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and "fit the profile."

If he was right, even within an order of magnitude, that's a frightening thing indeed!

Cheers,

Michael

[mountain_hare]

ms_ann:

he is exonerated, this'll be another heckuva compelling argument for putting a moratorium (at the least) on capital punishment.

What about prisoners who have served 10+ years in jail? If they are exonerated, is that 'another heckuva compelling argument for putting a moratorium (at the least) on jail sentences'?

Better an innocent man is executed, than thousand rapists go free.

[Ari]

Hare: Shouldn't you be in the thread you started ignoring the competent responses provided?


It makes perfect sense that if found still guilty it will be buried on page 5. He has already had a page 1 guilty verdict and execution. So it isn't exactly special anymore that he was guilty.
If found innocent then the fact that our system sent him to jail and death for a crime he didn't commit is first page news.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

ms_ann:

What about prisoners who have served 10+ years in jail? If they are exonerated, is that 'another heckuva compelling argument for putting a moratorium (at the least) on jail sentences'?

Incarceration as a form of punishment isn't a concept so morally controversial as execution, nor is it as irreversible. So no, I don't think a moratorium on jail sentences is called for... but for sure, how about a critical review of the rules of evidence, the jury system (professional jurors, anyone?), and higher standards for advocate competency?

Better a thousand rapists are executed, than one innocent man go free.

Um... what?

[mountain_hare]

ms_ann:

MH:Better a thousand rapists are executed, than one innocent man go free.

ms_ann:Um... what?

Whoops. I'm going to have to edit that! I obviously muddled it.

"Better an innocent man is executed than a thousand rapists go free."

Incarceration as a form of punishment isn't a concept so morally controversial as execution,

In your case, perhaps.

nor is it as irreversible.

Ahh. So we have a machine which can give back the number of years that a person languished in prison for?

So no, I don't think a moratorium on jail sentences is called for..

Why not? Innocent people suffer when you throw them in jail. Obviously the jail system isn't worth it, since innocent people have their freedom's stripped away, which is a gross human rights violation.

. but for sure, how about a critical review of the rules of evidence, the jury system (professional jurors, anyone?), and higher standards for advocate competency?

I agree with you there. Perhaps instead of bitching about the unlucky few who are executed due to faults in the justice system, we should attack the root of the problem. But no, that would be too practical...

Ari:

Hare: Shouldn't you be in the thread you started ignoring the competent responses provided?

I fail to see where I ignored any 'competent' responses. But such claims that the opponent has 'ignored' supposedly 'competent' responses is a typical rhetorical ploy used by individuals who lack an actual argument.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Not to mention the possibility that the person might be innocent.

It has been fixed.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

In your case, perhaps.

Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with any prominent movement that advocates the complete abolition of jail sentences. Perhaps you could point me to a source where I can read more about this?

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

Ahh. So we have a machine which can give back the number of years that a person languished in prison for?

Nope. Nor do we have a machine that can restore life to the executed. I'm going to wager though that 4 out of 5 wrongly-convicted people would prefer being wrongfully incarcerated, even for many years, over being wrongfully put to death. Maybe I can do a survey if I land a gig next semester with the Northern California Innocence Project.

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

Why not? Innocent people suffer when you throw them in jail. Obviously the jail system isn't worth it, since innocent people have their freedom's stripped away, which is a gross human rights violation.

DANGER: Keep open flames away from the strawman!

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

I agree with you there. Perhaps instead of bitching about the unlucky few who are executed due to faults in the justice system, we should attack the root of the problem. But no, that would be too practical...

We SHOULD attack the root of the problem, and many people are trying, from different angles. Unfortunately, legislators control almost all of the pieces in this game, and elected officials who are willing to risk being painted as "soft on crime" or "not caring about victims" or "a liberal Pee See appeaser pussy" as a consequence of demanding changes in the system are pretty rare. And why would they speak up, if their 'base' isn't demanding it?

I'm just saying that until/unless we can fix the problems, then perhaps we should put at least a temporary hold on inflicting the ultimate penalty. Not that we should just halt all forms of punishment (i.e., incarceration) while we hash things out. That's the pendulum a bit too far in the other direction, IMO.

[D. Scarlatti]

Curiously, Lexis doesn't archive the U. Toledo Law Review until Vol. 24.

The Man is keeping you down.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I'll bet you this:

If it comes back he was innocent, expect it to be on the front pages. If it turns out he was guilty, the announcement will be buried on page five, somewhere near the police blotter reports.

NTM

Sure. That's actually pretty reasonable, since the guy was already found guilty. "Nothing changes" is not much of a news story.

[California Tanker]

False imprisonment for 10 years is in no way non-irreversible, unless you happen to have a time machine. The difference is it's also not terminal, the person in question can hopefully live something of a life for the rest of the time. Suitably compensated by the government, of course.

I agree it's not exactly an equivalent situation to capital punishment, but it's not irreversible either, and causes almost as much furore when discovered. Better late than never, I guess.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

False imprisonment for 10 years is in no way non-irreversible, unless you happen to have a time machine.

At first I was unsure of what you didn't not never non-mean, there...

The difference is it's also not terminal, the person in question can hopefully live something of a life for the rest of the time. Suitably compensated by the government, of course.

I agree it's not exactly an equivalent situation to capital punishment, but it's not irreversible either, and causes almost as much furore when discovered. Better late than never, I guess.

Well, certainly the two aren't identical. But to say that they are "not exactly equivalent" is surely an underdescription. Nobody holds that false imprisonment can be made to have never occurred, obviously. The question isn't whether it can be un-happened, but whether a remedy can be effected. The possibility of a remedy in one case, and its impossibility in the other, seems a rather significant one. And seems to be all anyone's been appealing to.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Or:

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Guilty or not, it was God's will that Coleman be executed. We know that with certainty because he was in fact executed. How dare you question the will of the Almighty.

I know you had a second "Or" ... but really; I've never heard such an argument before. But hey, it's fun to make fun of the theists.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with any prominent movement that advocates the complete abolition of jail sentences. Perhaps you could point me to a source where I can read more about this?

See His/Her other thread about Life in prison the sources are provided.
They are choice quotes from another thread on the forum that He/she pretends is the voice of all liberals.


Edit,
Tom: I have. Thanks to Christian Forums you can hear all sorts of Christian love like that. Including beliefs that all non christians should be throw in furnaces and that people who get AIDS from rape deserve it.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Nobody holds that false imprisonment can be made to have never occurred, obviously. The question isn't whether it can be un-happened, but whether a remedy can be effected. The possibility of a remedy in one case, and its impossibility in the other, seems a rather significant one. And seems to be all anyone's been appealing to.

Thank you, yes, "irreversible" was a poor choice of words on my part. "Possibility of remedy" more accurately captures my sentiment.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I know you had a second "Or" ... but really; I've never heard such an argument before. But hey, it's fun to make fun of the theists.

That argument is straight outta the Pat Robertson School of Rhetoric! He's his own comedy goldmine. Except that he isn't funny...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

The Man is keeping you down.

Fuckin' A. I detest me some Whitey.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I know you had a second "Or" ... but really; I've never heard such an argument before.

You've likely heard arguments of that general type quite regularly. Not having heard that particular argument before stems from the fact that no one has been conclusively exonerated after execution. If it turns out that Coleman was innocent, such arguments will fall like rain.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

But hey, it's fun to make fun of the theists.

Yes, but only the extraordinarily crazy, stupid and/or odious theists. When Pat Robertson says stuff like God gave Ariel Sharon a stroke or Hugo Chavez needs to be murdered, he's begging to be mocked.