Pending USSC Case: Wiggins v. Corcoran

It is too bad that justice is sometimes a "get what you pay for" enterprise. I know it happens that people are given ineffective counsel, I know that some people spend much of their life in prison despite their innocence, I'm glad to see groups such as The Innocence Project working to free people who have been wrongly convicted, but I do think that overall our justice system works.

Since the Supreme Court decided to look at this case specifically I'm sure there must be more to it than the article states. The article says that the jury wasn't told that the defendant was "retarded" - but he had a job, drove a car, had a girlfriend - just how "retarded" is he?

And while I think I'm a compassionate person, I don't really think that childhood abuse is an excuse for criminal behavior. My sorta-foster daughter (my "heart daughter" as Noddy dubbed her) has told me stories about her early childhood that as really as bad as anything I have ever heard. There is no doubt that she has floundered at times but she is learning how to swim and I have never heard her blame her present on her past.

I'd be willing to bet that most people sentenced for murder are not career criminals so I don't think that even the fact that he had never been convicted of a crime would have been persuasive.

Maybe I'm misreading the article but it sounds like failing to divulge this person's past is why his counsel is being called ineffective. If I had been on the jury, with all my preconceptions and beliefs, would my opinion have been swayed by information about this person's past? Without knowing more about the crime itself, it isn't possible for me to say.

I agree with you Boomer that if you look into the childhood history of most killers you will find cause whether it be brith defect or abuse. While some individuals can overcome their disabilities or childhood abuse some cannot. There are degrees of abuse towards children as well. I may be wrong but I have thought that an accused individual had to have the capability of knowing the affect of their crime and be capable of understanding right from wrong. Some people are not able to do this by virtue of mental limitations or because of abusive trauma as children.

On the issue of the death penalty I am opposed to it for two reasons, it is so costly and I personally think life in prison without parole is far more punishment than an injection and just slipping into never, never land.

And I always think of Geronimo Pratt, Johnny Cochran's first case as a defense lawyer after leaving the LA DAs Office. Pratt was sentenced to life imprisonment and at that time he could have been paroled after so many years of good behavior in prison. The one caveat was that he had to acknowledge his crime and explain how he had been rehabilitated. For 35 years he refused to do that. Finally in 1998 it was discovered that crucial evidence was withheld by the prosecutors and that Pratt had not even been in LA the day the murder occurred, which was his story all along. He was released and now lives with his mother in San Rafael close to San Quentin where she had moved while he was in prison.

Finally, I am a member of the American Society of Friends (Quakers) don't ya know so of course I am opposed to the death penalty, but I hate it that our entire prison system is based on the Quaker idea of doing penance for a crime. In the early history of Pennsylvania criminals were put in cells with nothing but the bible and required to do penance, thus the name penitentiary.

My views on ineffective council issues are varied. I belive that there may be council that is effective but, that many are overworked and/or uninterested in their caseload, the personal issues of their clients, ineffective at background information, not just on their own clients but, on information surrounding the cases themselves. There are also those criminals who are always looking for a way out, a try at appeal, and whatever they can claim to find that loophole for themselves. Due to this, each case must be looked into and that takes more time, which adds to the case load in the judicial systems already bottled up.
Wiggins in particular I would want further information on. Although the article mentions abuse which many can look at from different perspectives, it also states his diminished mental capacity. Was there sufficient evidence in his case, or what? Has his mental capacity been reviewed for his ability to make decisions regarding his council as effectiveness?
Too many questions to make any further of a statement on the case, in my opinion.