posted June 25, 2000 10:47 AM            

The State lacking evidence to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", chose instead to bypass the defendant's due process safegaurds (which would have most certainly set a guilty man free, if all the State had charged him with was capital murder), because the State--and everyone else--were certain Graham committed the murder and was in any event a horrible criminal. In the end, violating Mr. Graham's due process rights allowed the prosectors to present a case to the jury that left the jury with no other choice but to convict and condemn.

Whether we should allow our government to forego these "technicalites", which if observed would have aquitted a murderer, is not an option we as free citizens can afford.

Our Consitution is based on one overarching principal, that is, the fundametal belief that government tends to amass power for its own sake, and that power will be used to repress and supress those that tend to diminish governemental power. Hence the most powerful article of the Constitution provides that the government cannot deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

What is "due process". Well simply put its all the procedural technicalities that you are "due" if you are hauled before a tribunal and threatend with a deprivation of your life (execution), liberty (jail), or property (your $$'s, home etc.). The more that is at stake the greater the process that must be afforded. Process means everything, from Miranda, a competent attorney, the right to cross examine an accuser, to a myriad of appeals to higher courts.

It is essential to due process, and a fair trial, to have a competent attorney who can present exculpatory witnesses. In Mr. Graham's case, witnesses to rebut the prosecution's eye witness. It is the prosecution's job to discredit the defendant's witness, and it is the jury's duty to descide who to believe. Its a whole other question whether the State simply offering the testimony of one eye witness, when the defendant pleads not guilty, is sufficient due process for the State to deprive one of life. Traditionally, yes, but arguably no.

Here's the bottom line of my argument, yeah Graham problably murdered someone. But as free people can we afford to let our government, when it really doesn't have a strong evidentary case, to go ahead, fudge all the rules of road, so that the defendant will get what we all think that he really deserves.

I say no, remember, the South over and over during the 50's and 60's avoided due process technicalities to insure segregation.

Finally, you say, so what were they supposed to do let Graham walk, well maybe (we let OJ walk but big deal, the system worked, given the malfeasance of the L.A. police I'm not sure I could have voted to convict), but in this case the State did have sufficient evidence of attempted murder, robbery, and rape to insure a fair trial and a conviction on numerous charges, that would insure Graham would stay in prision for most if not all of what would have been his life.

posted June 25, 2000 07:08 PM            

Graham was a criminal who deserved long term incarceration, to be sure. However anyone who bothered to read about the case would know that he was deprived of several opportunities to present several witnesses in his own defense.

And that is unjust; a violation of due process.

The death penalty is an interesting phenomenon. Study after study has shown it is no deterrent to crime, and yet many people are naive enough to think it is just that.

It took 19 years to execute Graham - this is ludicrous. More than half of his life was spent on death row.

The death penalty is worthwhile only in cases where guilt has been proven with absolute certainty: either DNA evidence or videotape type proof.

Adopting this standard would eliminate the 19 year appeals process (the average is abotu 10 years, way too long).

It is this appeals process which makes the death penatly more expensive than a lifetime incarceration.

My thoughts,

Matt

posted June 25, 2000 07:43 PM            

I agree people sit on death row to long. So we kill some innocent people by frying them in court, but thats life. I would rather kill 10 innocent people than let a guilty one go free.

posted June 25, 2000 11:57 PM         

In order for a statehood, country or province with a functioning government to have a judicial system effective in deterring crime it must have the following criteria:

1) If a crime is committed, the perpetrators will be brought to trial quickly.

2) If the perpetrators are found guilty, any due punishment will be carried out immediately.

3) If a crime is committed, the punishment received will be severe.

Putting all of this together means that criminals will be brought to justice swiftly, surely and severly.
Just my thoughts.