No argument from me ... And if he wasn't already in hell I'd say tie Bob Macy to the same pole right before you light it up ...
No argument from me ... And if he wasn't already in hell I'd say tie Bob Macy to the same pole right before you light it up ...
Not like she's the only forensics lab problem we've had, look what's still being worked out in Massachusetts the LAPD lab problems and others, and the report regarding forensics by the National Academy of Sciences a few years ago.
Look up Steven Hayne and Michael West in Missouri, too.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/19/reasons-reporting-on-steven-ha
http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/19/reasons-reporting-on-steven-ha
The link in the article below doesn't work but google "corruption of a noble cause".
Texas Civil Rights Review
[I teach ethics and enjoy analyzing these sorts of cases with my students. One response I initially get is the "bad apple" response: There are some bad people in every profession. But I tell the students that it is not adequate ethical thinking to simply point out the bad apples and say everything will be better after we get the bad ones out of the barrel. Look, rather, at the whole criminal justice culture. If we can change the culture, we will get rid of most of the bad apples -- not the other way around.
Jocye Gilchrist was a problem -- surely. But how does someone like her function smoothly (receiving commendations) for twenty years? Doesn't that imply a wider problem than just one bad apple in the police crime lab? Was not something wrong with the prosecutors who were so anxious to get their "magic" Gilchrist on the stand to testify, case after case, year after year? (There were plenty of signs her work was too good to be true.) And here is another clue that there is a wider culture problem: True, she was fired, but she was never prosecuted for a crime. Perhaps "overzealousness" like hers was institutionally tolerated, even though it meant someone like McCarthy would spend years on death row.
A book I am re-reading, Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause, tries to look at the barrel and not each apple separately. The author thinks most police and criminal justice misconduct is not rooted in money scams, but in a strange cultural problem: a strong certitude that police work is a "noble cause." It is such a noble cause that one can bend the rules, lie, use any means, to serve it. Look at Joyce Gilchrist in the police lab. No one bribed her to fudge evidence. She would never take a bribe from a criminal. But she apparently could lie to put "bad guys" in jail and help the "good guys." Our side is noble; why fuss about tactics?
This noble cause tradition is handed down to new recruits from older officers and other leaders in the criminal justice world decade after decade, building a sort of culture that second-guesses ethics in order to achieve grand purposes. The values of the whole system start changing, even if the written rules do not.
The book I'm reading makes an excellent point on institutional acceptance of misconduct. It references a study by the Chicago Tribune, "Break rules, be promoted." (The title reflects the Joyce Gilchrist story well: she was promoted to be head of the lab.) The Tribune examined 381 cases of prosecutor misconduct in homicide cases since 1964.
These were serious cases of misconduct that ended with convictions being overturned. For instance, one prosecutor won convictions against two Afro-Americans and did not tell the defense about one witness who said the perpetrators were white. Another prosecutor knew evidence was planted. But in these 381 cases, not one of the prosecutors was convicted of a crime. And many went on to be district attorneys or judges...]
http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1035
I didn't read all the discussion...so here's my brief take.
I voted hanging because it's probably the worst and cheapest of the options. I think the punishment should fit the crime. If you shoot someone in the head, you probably don't deserve to be hooked behind a truck and pulled down a dirt road. If you brutally murder someone, and/or rape them, I'm all for a very painful death that takes a while as long as we're not relying on executioners to carry out the brutal stuff. Hell, I'd be fine with starvation by being locked in a cell with an open window down wind from a BBQ place. Nobody has to kill the guy, it costs the tax payers very little and he dies a pretty terrible death. That's just dreaming though...hanging is more realistic.
I'm also all for a short, but robust appeal process. Staying on death row for 20 years is poor management of the system, but rolling from the court room to the stockades is also a bad way to do business.
I voted hanging because it's probably the worst and cheapest of the options. I think the punishment should fit the crime. If you shoot someone in the head, you probably don't deserve to be hooked behind a truck and pulled down a dirt road. If you brutally murder someone, and/or rape them, I'm all for a very painful death that takes a while as long as we're not relying on executioners to carry out the brutal stuff. Hell, I'd be fine with starvation by being locked in a cell with an open window down wind from a BBQ place. Nobody has to kill the guy, it costs the tax payers very little and he dies a pretty terrible death. That's just dreaming though...hanging is more realistic.
I'm also all for a short, but robust appeal process. Staying on death row for 20 years is poor management of the system, but rolling from the court room to the stockades is also a bad way to do business.
I believe the death penalty IS NOT punishment...to punish someone is to expect a change in behaviour due to the punishment...you cant expect anyone to change their behaviour when they're dead. - the death penalty is to remove a person from society before they can do it again...a person that cannot "learn their lesson" - a pedophile for instance...or a crime that demonstrates a complete lack of regard or remorse for another person - serial killers and most murders, forcible rape, an individual with a large number of violent felonies, etc. - the method should be as painless as possible to achieve the desired result....otherwise it becomes vengence instead of a simple removal...my 2c
Public hangings might be a good deterrent.
As much as I believe that those who cause unspeakable suffering should suffer unspeakably before they draw their last breath, I cannot disagree with a single thing you have said. You are a better man at heart than I, sir.
10 years of real solitary confinement. No books, no talking, no direct contact with another human. Blindfolded and shackled if medical care needed and only guards to relay attorney info for any possible legal procedings. Then excucution via hanging.
Believe in "eye for an eye"! Rope is cheap and we can still harvest their organs for transplant! Win, win for all!
BTW, 10-20 years on death row too long! Prep em', and send em' on their way to h--l.
BTW, 10-20 years on death row too long! Prep em', and send em' on their way to h--l.
Similar threads
