ForumGarden

Shouldn't we erase all doubt before executing someone?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Supreme Court Hears Georgia Inmate's Case Based on New DNA Evidence



Evansville Courier & Press

DUNCAN MANSFIELD Associated Press writer January 10, 2006



When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in the case of convicted killer Paul House, it will be the first time a death row inmate has brought DNA evidence before the high court to prove his innocence. The outcome could determine whether prisoners have a constitutional right to use DNA technology to seek new trials.



Since 1989, DNA technology has been used to exonerate 172 convicted felons in 31 states, including 14 people who had initially been sentenced to death. Those cases all happened in lower courts.



"This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever considered a case in which DNA evidence is a component of an actual innocence claim," said Nina Morrison, staff attorney for the Washington-based advocacy group the Innocence Project. "It is also the first death penalty case they have ever heard in which DNA evidence is at issue."



House, 44, has been on Tennessee's death row for 20 years, convicted of murdering Carolyn Muncey, a young mother who lived near him in rural Luttrell, about 25 miles north of Knoxville, in 1985. No one saw the crime happen, and House maintains he did not do it.



The high court will hear arguments on whether DNA evidence and other new claims in House's case are so compelling that he deserves a chance at a new trial.



The prosecution found semen on the victim, and experts suggested at the time that it came from House, but new DNA evidence showed it was from Muncey's husband.



Jennifer Smith, an associate deputy attorney general in Tennessee, said the new evidence in House's case "fails to establish his innocence."



But an appellate court was not so sure. A sharply divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 8-7 in 2004 that House did not deserve a retrial, but two judges wrote strongly worded dissenting opinions.



"I am convinced we are faced with a real-life murder mystery, an authentic 'who-done-it' where the wrong man may be executed," Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote.



House's defense team also has produced several witnesses who claim the victim's husband, Hubert Muncey, was known to have hit his wife and confessed to killing her. Muncey has maintained his innocence.

In any system designed and run by human beings there is going to be error.

Of course we consider it a terrible tragedy when someone has to pay for an error, but honestly, how many brutal, cold-blooded, heinous murderers preceeded this guy to death row? If you were to survey all the death row inmates, you would hear a litany of depravity and ruthless slaughter that would give you nightmares for weeks.

Why continue the existance, at a cost to the public, of a group of sociopathic rapsits and child-murderers? Merely to assauge our conscience and give us the ability to say "We aren't at their level?"

I don't need that, I know I'm not at their level.

I'm for the death penalty. When a rabid dog attacks a person, we put it to sleep. It's the humane thing to do to an animal that is permanently out-of-control and a danger to society.

The same thing applies to out-of-control and rabid men, in my opinion, since they have behaved like animals. I say put them down without so much of a blink of the eye.

If my conscience bothers me....I'll just look at the pictures of their innocent victims and imagine it was someone close to me that I loved.

Jives wrote: In any system designed and run by human beings there is going to be error.



Of course we consider it a terrible tragedy when someone has to pay for an error, but honestly, how many brutal, cold-blooded, heinous murderers preceeded this guy to death row? If you were to survey all the death row inmates, you would hear a litany of depravity and ruthless slaughter that would give you nightmares for weeks.



Why continue the existance, at a cost to the public, of a group of sociopathic rapsits and child-murderers? Merely to assauge our conscience and give us the ability to say "We aren't at their level?"



I don't need that, I know I'm not at their level.



I'm for the death penalty. When a rabid dog attacks a person, we put it to sleep. It's the humane thing to do to an animal that is permanently out-of-control and a danger to society.



The same thing applies to out-of-control and rabid men, in my opinion, since they have behaved like animals. I say put them down without so much of a blink of the eye.



If my conscience bothers me....I'll just look at the pictures of their innocent victims and imagine it was someone close to me that I loved.
I support the death penalty as well. I don't see a point to life without parole. This is a case in which DNA evidence may cast reasonable doubt on the verdict. I think the Supreme Court should consider it.

And I'm with you on this one, ACC. We should obviously use every available avenue to make sure we have the right person. DNA is especially damning evidence.

What bothers me about this case, though, is that the DNA is from her husband. That is ambiguous at best. Naturally her husband's DNA would be on her person. What does that prove other than she was intimate with her own husband?

If the husband is accused, and apparently has confessed tto the crime, why wasn't that evidence used in the trial?

You know what's missing from your story, ACC? The reasons that the police picked House for the crime in the first place, and the reasons that 12 good men and true decided he was guilty based on the evidence they originally saw.

I'm not really for second guessing juries, lots of times regular, ordinary people display a very insightful talent for getting to the truth.

Once assured? I'd be for firing squad at dawn.

I am all for the death penalty when there is no reasonable doubt. In this case, I believe there IS reasonable doubt. If DNA proved this man was guilty, I'd have no problem with executing him.

In this particular case, as I understand it, the sperm was assumed to be from the accused and was used to drive home the guilty verdict. DNA test showed that assumption to be wrong. It split the latest appellate court near 50-50. The story doesn't indicate what the previous appeals were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 43_pf.html

An interesting article on this case.

Far Rider wrote: I agree with Pegs statement.



I agree with Jives statement.



I agree with ACC's statement.



Hey! Thats cool!Maybe we should move this whole discussion to the other thread.