Please help save an innocent man from execution

Looks like the hearing won't be today:

Quote:

Cory Maye has been granted a 60-day continuance on his hearing for a new trial.

The continuance was requested by his Covington and Burling legal team so they could send a team of researchers and investigators to Mississippi in preparation of a new brief for the hearings.

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_cory_maye.php

(That's Balko again, dated yesterday.)

0 Replies

Thanx Sozobe,

Well, perhaps in this next sixty days more information will come to surface that can help Cory.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
It's no big mystery, Joe. I am aware of no such similar case.

Then I will simply say to you what I said to Momma Angel: you should have been paying attention.

Cases of Innocence - 1973 to present

... and these are only the proven mistakes. There may well be wrongful convictions that haven't been proven wrongful yet. And if American courts are anything like German ones, they are very reluctant to revisit convictions once they've been made. That opens the possibility that such wrongful convictions are even more numerous than your reference indicates.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Consider the seemingly obvious correlation between Murder-rates and Execution Rates.

It's as obvious as if you correlated death rates with hospitalization. Death rates are orders of magnitude higher inside hospitals than outside of them. Would you accept this as an argument for abolishing hospitals? The statistics behind the argument are as compelling as those behind your argument for the death penalty.

As someone who crunches experimental data for a living, I have taken a look at the various statistical arguments presented in the scholarly literature. When I looked at serious publications -- the ones that control for alternative explanations of murder rates, and that compute time correlations to determine the direction of causation -- the range of results was extremely broad. It reached from 20 deterred murders per execution to 20 murders incited per execution. The outcomes tend to depend strongly on the peculiarities of the statistical model used. There really are no good arguments from deterrence on either side of this debate.

0 Replies

I'm not trying to cause any problems here everyone, but can we start a different thread on the pros and cons of the death penalty? I would really like to see this thread that Fedral started stay about the issue at hand.

Don't mean to offend anyone, because I can sure get off topic myself at times! Laughing

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

Who's Balko? According to http://www.cato.org/people/balko.html he's a Policy Analyst for the Cato Institute. Basically, he traffics in libertarianism.

You say that as if we were some kind of cult. I'll get back to you about this the day after the revolution. Razz

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I'm not trying to cause any problems here everyone, but can we start a different thread on the pros and cons of the death penalty? I would really like to see this thread that Fedral started stay about the issue at hand.

Don't mean to offend anyone, because I can sure get off topic myself at times!

I don't see why, as this trial exposes problems that are fairly common in capital punishment cases. I see no good reason why we should discuss this case while ignoring the general problems it embodies. The only reason I see is that this implication feels soothing for those who support capital punishment in general. And that's a bad reason for ignoring the general implications.

0 Replies

Yep.

See, part of why I speak up even when things drift away from the main subject in a way I disagree with (the gay marriage case/ discussion of gay marriage thread) is so I can speak up in this kind of situation, too.

Discussion of the death penalty flows as naturally from this topic as discussion of gay marriage did from the other.

There are, obviously, flaws in the system. What are the implications?

0 Replies

Sorry MA; I'm going to go with the flow

JB, your point about "Collateral damage" is well taken, but I respectfully disagree. I can't deny the macro in light of an important micro. The fact that more people have died at the hands of convicted murderers than anyone here or Joe's comprehensive list suggests; paints a very clear picture for me. Can those victims not be considered collateral damage of that same failed system as well? On an individual basis; the victim of erroneous judgment by a jury of his peers and repeated erroneous denials of appeals and clemency is no more worthy of pity and consideration than the 16 yr old girl who gets savagely raped, beaten and strangled at the hands of a repeat offender. While there may or may not have been any innocents executed at the hands of the State; there is no dispute that even the least conservative estimate of how many is still dwarfed by the number of innocents executed at the hands of the repeat offender.

I wholeheartedly understand your desire for no "collateral damage" but IMO there is indisputable evidence that historically there has been more created by the lack of application of the DP. I too, understand the risk of potentially sitting in Cory's shoes but have no difficulty recognizing the greater danger of being executed by a repeat offender. Denying a cold-seeming rational conclusion (collateral damage) because of the enormous implications inherent in taking a human life (while noble) simply doesn't make sense if to do so you have to ignore the cold-seeming rationale that a greater number of innocent human lives will be sacrificed by this sense of fair play. A couple of years ago the Russians caught 6 kinds of hell for massive collateral damage while rescuing doomed hostages from a movie theatre. Too many folks, IMO, failed to recognize the greater "good" resulting from their action. Fewer innocents dead = better.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
So, in summary there were 122 mistakes made (all corrected, on that list) along with about a 1,000 completed executions in 23 years.

Or, in other words, about a 12% error rate. That's acceptable?

Yes. 100% corrected errors according to that list. The short list of 6 possible wrongful executions pales in comparison to the number of repeat offender's victims. That's acceptable?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
On the shorter list of "Executed But Possibly Innocent" are 6 names, no certainty and an honorary mention of a woman who may have been guilty of murder in a lesser degree, 60 years ago. Not one of these cases was difficult to distinguish from the case at hand. Not one showed a man with no prior convictions; convicted for defending his own home. I understand this is a convenient place to set up your soapbox, Joe, but Cory's case stands out even more for having read the materials you graciously supplied.

I made no claim that Maye's case was typical because he was defending his home. I claimed that it was typical because he was a poor black man with inadequate legal representation, prosecuted and tried by a largely white judicial apparatus, and convicted on false testimony. Re-read that list and see if maybe now you can find a few cases that sound like that situation.

Be that as it may; neither any of the people on that list nor will Cory IMO make it to the short list. I made the claim Cory's case was easily distinguished from the group based on his lack of record and defense of his home. His case remains easily distinguished from the group with that very compelling reasoning in mind.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Over a quarter of a million people (low guess to save the trouble of tallying) were murdered in this country over those same 23 years. The short list of "Possibly innocent" condemned, pales in comparison to the many prison employees and inmates alike that have been struck down by the life-without-parole inmates.

Well, I suppose it all depends on how tolerant you are of convicting and executing innocent people.

Conversely; I suppose it depends on how tolerant you are of the undeniably greater risk of additional victims dying at the hands of repeat offenders. These victims are no less innocent nor less deserving of your concern.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Also consider the likes of Dawud Mu'Min...

Yes, O'Bill, there are indeed bad people out there.

In greater numbers thanks to a system that sets murderers free to kill again. This is where your position completely ignores the reality of the dilemma. Repeat offenders kill more innocent people than anyone's even hypothized the DP solution does.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Upon reading the available information; I feel safe in assuming Cory Maye will soon find himself a position on the 100 plus wrongfully condemned that were eventually set free list. As great of a pity as it is that he and his family have had to suffer through this; it does absolutely nothing to change my opinion on the Death Penalty at large. Arguably, literally thousands (not hundreds) of folks and their families have been spared that anguish by the continued use of the death penalty.

I sincerely doubt that. If capital punishment worked as a deterrent, then there would be no need for capital punishment.

That logic is 180% from your position on drug prohibition. Reduction doesn't require absolute success to be beneficial now, does it?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Consider the seemingly obvious correlation between Murder-rates and Execution Rates.

Despite constant reminders, it is clear that people here just don't get it. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

Your point is as obvious as it is well taken; but absent an alternative explanation to consider; statistics can be very useful in measuring results. I'm not suggesting there's a slide rule; only that the effect appears to be pretty compelling. If you wish to contest it; why not provide at least an alternative explanation?

joefromchicago wrote:

Sometimes I feel as if all my work has been in vain.

Not so. You've taught me much and I appreciate it very much as well.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The frequently demonized state of Texas, who is a leader in State executions also boasts some of the greatest per capita reduction in murders per capita. If (when?) an innocent man like Cory is executed by the State, it will be a crying shame.

Your display of concern is underwhelming.

As is yours. Why is Cory's life anymore valuable then the next would-be victim of a condemned repeat offender?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
But no more of a shame than the thousands of innocent people murdered by murderers in this country every year. Of course we should all join forces to save the innocent.

Well, we could save them all by abolishing the death penalty.

Those familiar with the circumstances of Jeffrey Dahmer's demise would be forced to disagree. :wink: Thankfully so. Absent your rationale is the realization that your solution creates a greater risk to human life than it prevents. Doesn't less innocent killings = better?

Thomas, like Joe, you seem to be dismissing the statistical flow comparison as irrelevant without providing an alternative explanation for the easily recognized phenomena. I'm not suggesting that chart proves anything. However, absent some other explanation, what it suggests is fairly obvious, no? In a no-fact scenario are you not inclined to hypothesize based on the available data? Cool if you're not; but I'm inclined to develop my opinions incrementally based on the information at hand rather than an all or nothing approach. Yes, I do understand the increased potential for error inherent in not pretending a slate is clean until indisputable facts are available but I would be less than honest if I claimed to do otherwise. Until such time as a compelling argument to the contrary is presented, I see no reason to abandon my reasonable interpretation of the available facts.

Apart from my present belief that there is a deterrent value in the application of the Death Penalty; my argument remains well supported by the undeniable fact that dead murderers don't kill again. Do you deny the more easily fortified conclusion that repeat offenders pose a greater threat to innocents than the potential for erroneous State condemnation? If not; than our debate is one of idealism Vs. reality.

For the record; I too would like a fool-proof method of protecting innocents from undeserved demise. Since no such method exists, nor likely ever will, I'll continue to support the method that reduces the incidents of innocent life-loss. Less innocent dead = better.

0 Replies

You seem to be saying that the only way to prevent repeat offenses by murderers is by issuing the death penalty. This implies that 1) the purpose of the death penalty is to reduce repeat offenses and 2) we issue these sentences only in the case of offenders who seem likely to murder again and 3) there is no alternative punishment that would have the desired outcome.

If so, I disagree with all three of those. If not, could you clarify?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

You seem to be saying that the only way to prevent repeat offenses by murderers is by issuing the death penalty. This implies that 1) the purpose of the death penalty is to reduce repeat offenses

It is the only foolproof way, yes. Life-without-parole inmates have killed more innocents after sentencing than anyone here has suggested the state may have. That's not opinion; it's FACT.

FreeDuck wrote:

2) we issue these sentences only in the case of offenders who seem likely to murder again

I neither made this contention nor this suggestion, so I don't know where you got this one.

FreeDuck wrote:

3) there is no alternative punishment that would have the desired outcome.

There is nothing as absolute as an absolute measure. Kenneth McDuff was condemned and later had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment (thanks to a moratorium on capital punishment). Didn't work. He murdered at least one more and probably a dozen people after having been condemned for 3 brutal murders. This could not have happened had he been executed. He alone probably killed more innocent people than I've even heard suggested the DP system may have since the moratorium was lifted. The only reason we can be sure he won't kill again; is the fact that the State of Texas executed him in 1998... around 10 years and a like-number of victims too late. Sad

FreeDuck wrote:

If so, I disagree with all three of those.

Feel free to disagree till your heart's content. Many of my favorite people show a tendency to set aside reality in pursuit of their ideals when discussing subjects of this magnitude. I can understand that, but, the reality remains; convicted murderers have killed a lot more innocent people post-conviction than the State has even been accused of... AND there can be no doubt that executed men can't repeat their offenses. If you can set aside your idealistic desires and examine the true statistics, unlike the "deterrent hypothesis", this is a simple matter of cold hard facts.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Life-without-parole inmates have killed more innocents after sentencing than anyone here has suggested the state may have. That's not opinion; it's FACT.

When that really is true, then there's something completely going wrong with your prison system.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thomas, like Joe, you seem to be dismissing the statistical flow comparison as irrelevant without providing an alternative explanation for the easily recognized phenomena. I'm not suggesting that chart proves anything. However, absent some other explanation, what it suggests is fairly obvious, no? In a no-fact scenario are you not inclined to hypothesize based on the available data?

The problem isn't that we have no facts. Remember the hospital example I gave you? We really do know that the death rate is much, much higher inside hospitals than outside them. The problem is that the straightforward interpretation -- hospitals kill, let's abolish them -- is nonsense. Similarly, we have plenty of facts about capital punishment and murder rates, but the problem is that reasonable interpretations of those facts frequently come out both ways.

For example, one reasonable interpretation of the data you posted is that there are independent causes of both crime and capital punishment that changed over time. Another is that the causation works in the opposite direction: A rising murder rate increases the demand for capital punishment (just as increasing morbidity increases the demand for hospitals -- which is the sensible answer to my statistical "case" against hospitals.) Behind inferrences like this lurks a general problem, one that judge Alito correctly pointed out in a civil rights case he got slandered for. It is that folk statistics tend to work badly in analyzing social phenomena. Pitfalls abound in statistics, and it takes skill, experience, and hard work to avoid them.

In particular, I would never trust a study on deterrence through capital punishment unless it meets at least two tests of soundness: 1) it applies a multiple regression test to control for other influences on the murder rate; 2) it looks at cross-correlations over time to distinguish cause from effect. If such studies are unavailable or -- as I discovered -- the trustworthy studies come out both ways, we should admit that we don't know whether capital punishment deters murder or incites it. As our friend Frank Apisa observes time and time again, to say "I don't know" is a sign of strength, not of weakness.

Occom Bill wrote:

Do you deny the more easily fortified conclusion that repeat offenders pose a greater threat to innocents than the potential for erroneous State condemnation? If not; than our debate is one of idealism Vs. reality.

No, I don't deny it, but I find this point irrelevant even if it's true. There is no benefit in being murdered by a first-time offender rather than a repeat offender. Therefore all I care about is the murder rate, not the murder rate from any particular class of murderers. And, again, credible studies come out both ways on whether capital punishment incites or deters murder.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes. 100% corrected errors according to that list. The short list of 6 possible wrongful executions pales in comparison to the number of repeat offender's victims. That's acceptable?

I frankly don't understand death penalty proponents who cite the number of death row inmates who were ultimately exonerated as evidence of capital punishment's success. It's a bit like a chef proudly stating that all of the customers who get food poisoning at his restaurant eventually recover.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Be that as it may; neither any of the people on that list nor will Cory IMO make it to the short list.

I see no reason for optimism. Apart from a few facts, you know nothing of the case or of the forces that are at work right now trying to kill Cory Maye.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I made the claim Cory's case was easily distinguished from the group based on his lack of record and defense of his home. His case remains easily distinguished from the group with that very compelling reasoning in mind.

Well, we can only hope that Maye becomes another one of capital punishment's "success stories."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Conversely; I suppose it depends on how tolerant you are of the undeniably greater risk of additional victims dying at the hands of repeat offenders. These victims are no less innocent nor less deserving of your concern.

I won't repeat the excellent points raised by FreeDuck, or address your failure to rebut them in your latest post. I will note, however, that there is a difference between the killing of innocent inmates by the state and the killing of innocent victims by repeat murderers: the involvement of the state. Whereas murderers are not the guardians of the law and are not held to the highest standards of justice, the state is. The killing of an innocent death row inmate by the state, therefore, is not comparable to the killing of an innocent victim by an ordinary murderer.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In greater numbers thanks to a system that sets murderers free to kill again. This is where your position completely ignores the reality of the dilemma. Repeat offenders kill more innocent people than anyone's even hypothized the DP solution does.

Exactly how many murders have been committed by inmates who have received sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That logic is 180% from your position on drug prohibition. Reduction doesn't require absolute success to be beneficial now, does it?

No, certainly not. As I have mentioned elsewhere, however, there should be something uniquely deterrent about the death penalty, otherwise its use is not justifiable.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your point is as obvious as it is well taken; but absent an alternative explanation to consider; statistics can be very useful in measuring results. I'm not suggesting there's a slide rule; only that the effect appears to be pretty compelling. If you wish to contest it; why not provide at least an alternative explanation?

Well, your lack of imagination is not the same thing as the absence of an alternative explanation. I would need to know more about the statistics behind the graph to offer any kind of informed guess (the graph you posted was without any context whatsoever -- I have no reason even to trust its reliability). I would note, however, that only the second half of that graph suggests an inverse correlation between murder rates and executions. The first half, in contrast, shows a direct (downward) correlation. For you to argue that the graph supports a causative relationship between the lack of executions and murders, you would have to explain why the first half of the graph supports the complete opposite conclusion.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Not so. You've taught me much and I appreciate it very much as well.

There may be hope for you yet.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

As is yours. Why is Cory's life anymore valuable then the next would-be victim of a condemned repeat offender?

When a murderer kills an innocent person, he commits a wrong against the victim. When the state kills an innocent person, it commits a wrong against justice.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Those familiar with the circumstances of Jeffrey Dahmer's demise would be forced to disagree. :wink: Thankfully so. Absent your rationale is the realization that your solution creates a greater risk to human life than it prevents. Doesn't less innocent killings = better?

My solution is to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole on those that we now send to death row.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If you can set aside your idealistic desires and examine the true statistics, unlike the "deterrent hypothesis", this is a simple matter of cold hard facts.

Set aside idealistic desires and examine true statistics?

Cool.

In that case

Quote:

Murder Rates in Canada

The removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate for 2003 was the lowest since 1967 at 1.73 murders for every 100,000 population.

The total number of murders in Canada in 2003 was 548, 34 fewer than in 2002.

Murder rates in Canada are generally about a third of those in the United States.

Clearly, it's time to abolish the death penalty in the U.S., as it's obvious from "true statistics" that the murder rate in the U.S. will decline once the death penalty is abolished.

<squint>

I love statistics.

then again, as Homer Simpson says

Quote:

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

0 Replies

You know, I think you guys/gals are right. This is just a natural progression of the discussion. So, just forget I said anything.

I'm just feeling a bit disappointed for Cory today since his hearing was continued. If we were looking forward to hearing some news about it I can just imagine how another two months of waiting might feel to him Crying or Very sad

and I projected that onto this thread and I do apologize for that.

I now have duct tape across my mouth! Laughing

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
Do you deny the more easily fortified conclusion that repeat offenders pose a greater threat to innocents than the potential for erroneous State condemnation? If not; than our debate is one of idealism Vs. reality.

No, I don't deny it, but I find this point irrelevant even if it's true. There is no benefit in being murdered by a first-time offender rather than a repeat offender. Therefore all I care about is the murder rate, not the murder rate from any particular class of murderers. And, again, credible studies come out both ways on whether capital punishment incites or deters murder.

I think you're sidestepping the point here, Thomas. "first-time offender" Vs. "repeat offender" is a false dilemma. "Repeat offender" Vs. "erroneous State condemnation" in as far as potential threat to innocent life is the relevant comparison to my point. I believe you've conceded it but muddied the water a little in your response.

I accept the possibility that other factors skewed the Death-rate execution rate comparison in favor of my predisposition. I don't see any merit in your hospital comparison because it flies in the face of common sense. I'll concede my comparison is less scientific than say the causation of gasoline on the floor when determining the cause of a fire... but surely more relevant than concluding Brett Favre threw a touch down because I was wearing my lucky cheese. Your hospital example bore more resemblance to the latter.

On the third hand: comparing the number of suspected innocent men suffering state executions to the much greater number suffering the same fate at the hands of life-without-parole repeaters is not a foggy, loosely correlated comparison. What mitigating factors could possibly obfuscate that conclusion? Walter's correct that our prison system leaves much to be desired, but that does nothing to change the historical factual record. Rather than a potentially biased or inexplicably skewed interpretation of statistics complete with assumptions as to cause and effect like in the deterrent model; the statistics used to support the "repeat offender's" Vs. "accidental state condemnation" are irrefutably relevant and vividly clear: Dead murderers + the state DP mistakes combined have killed less innocents than those who've been spared the DP.

Less innocents killed = the greater good or the lesser evil, whichever you prefer.

0 Replies

Momma Angel, if we assume that Cory Mayes is on death row due to procedural error, (which is my current, conditional, assumption), the continuance could be very good news. It is something his defense team requested and was granted, and it means they will have more time to put together a strong case.

0 Replies

Sozobe,

I know you are right and I am sure that is exactly what they are doing. It's just one of those days I guess. Lots of sad things hitting me at one time.

I'm still trying to get an address for Cory.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes. 100% corrected errors according to that list. The short list of 6 possible wrongful executions pales in comparison to the number of repeat offender's victims. That's acceptable?

I frankly don't understand death penalty proponents who cite the number of death row inmates who were ultimately exonerated as evidence of capital punishment's success. It's a bit like a chef proudly stating that all of the customers who get food poisoning at his restaurant eventually recover.

I did no such thing. The hundred plus men on that list were wrongfully convicted of crimes and there's no reason to believe the verdicts would have been any different if the DP didn't exist. Their exonerations neither prove nor disprove success or a lack thereof.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That logic is 180% from your position on drug prohibition. Reduction doesn't require absolute success to be beneficial now, does it?

No, certainly not. As I have mentioned elsewhere, however, there should be something uniquely deterrent about the death penalty, otherwise its use is not justifiable.

Good of you to abandon that outrageous claim; but I'll not be sucked in to your 'to support the death penalty you also have to support heinous methodology' nonsense. Sorry.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
As is yours. Why is Cory's life anymore valuable then the next would-be victim of a condemned repeat offender?

When a murderer kills an innocent person, he commits a wrong against the victim. When the state kills an innocent person, it commits a wrong against justice.

This I will accept as the crux of our disagreement. I respect your desire to hold the state to a higher standard. My dissention comes from a belief that protection of innocents from murderers supersedes the importance of striving for perfect justice. I share your ideal, but not the level of importance you place on it. I reject the supposition that a repeat offender's next victim is any less compelling than the State's. Seems like an appropriate time to agree to disagree.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Those familiar with the circumstances of Jeffrey Dahmer's demise would be forced to disagree. :wink: Thankfully so. Absent your rationale is the realization that your solution creates a greater risk to human life than it prevents. Doesn't less innocent killings = better?

My solution is to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole on those that we now send to death row.

Been there, tried that, and it hasn't worked. Google Kenneth McDuff for perhaps the best (of many) examples of why.

Beth, if you re-examine the quote you lifted and my other responses to Thomas, you'll see I was referring to the straight Dead Vs. Dead there; not arguing that my chart constituted proof of deterrent. I believe I could mount a stronger argument to that effect, too, but lack the time or inclination to do so because as Thomas pointed out; it is too subjective and open to interpretation. Erroneously condemned Vs. Repeat offender's murders is a clearer more easily defended facet of my position and frankly is enough to stand by itself for me.

0 Replies

Please help save an innocent man from execution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know