LA Cop Arrested for 1986 Murder

[Dr. Cheese]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2400854.story


This makes really wonder about people convicted or even executed with shaky eye witness or even circumstantial evidence.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2400854.story


This makes really wonder about people convicted or even executed with shaky eye witness or even circumstantial evidence.

This is the exact kind of stuff that reversed my opinion on the death penalty.

Mike

[hbarcat]

Genetic evidence is probably the greatest new tool in getting good convictions and in making absolutely sure that the accused are truly guilty.

It's also more than a little troubling how many times new genetic evidence has determined that those convicted of crimes and serving their sentences (including execution) have been exonerated. My home state of Illinois has had a moratorium on carrying out death sentences because of numerous cases where this happened (and usually the new investigation was carried out by private individuals on their own time and expense rather than law enforcement).

It's a good thing that no innocent person was accused in the OP story, but that was probably only a matter of luck. Cheese's point about faulty eyewitness accounts is right on. IMO, the system is better than it used to be but there is still a long way to go.

[Dr. Cheese]

Eye witness testimony is so tricky, and biases really affect how people remember an incident. About seven years ago, I was in a convenience store when a young guy snatched a donation jar for a sick child. I couldn't see the guys face, he was wearing a hoodie. I only saw his chin, which was had a few hairs on it, and was very fair complected. The guy was maybe 6' 2" and was slim, maybe 165 lbs, at most. When the clerk called the cops, I and a few others stayed as witnesses. When it was my turn, I described him to the cops, and said I couldn't see his face, but I thought he was white given what I did see. When I said that, I Latina lady got visibly mad, and adamantly said the perp was black. I admitted that I didn't see his face, and he could have been a very fair black person. At that, at least one white man, and maybe a white woman, looked at me, and said the perp was white.

The bottom line was the it all happened in an instant, and out of four witnesses, three agreed on the race of the perp, one strongly disagreed. Given those circumstances, I would have felt uncomfortable fingering anybody.

[Jared Lash]

Originally Posted by hbarcat

Genetic evidence is probably the greatest new tool in getting good convictions and in making absolutely sure that the accused are truly guilty.

Very true. Just out of college I took a job with the county crime lab (running PCR analysis) and last year I went through the hiring process with the DOJ to become a criminalist (I was two weeks from starting when I was offered my current job which I couldn't turn down) and both of those experiences further cemented my faith in DNA evidence. Also got me bounced from two jury pools when I said I had unwavering faith in DNA evidence.

I think the OJ trial really skewed the public's perception of DNA gathering and evidence, but the process is much more secure and failsafe than most realize. The only thing I would fear is an overloaded crime lab. At least on the county level there were times when we were so swamped I feared I'd make a mistake based on the pace I had to work at.

Originally Posted by hbarcat

It's a good thing that no innocent person was accused in the OP story, but that was probably only a matter of luck. Cheese's point about faulty eyewitness accounts is right on. IMO, the system is better than it used to be but there is still a long way to go.

Years ago, a now ex-girlfriend was taking a criminal justice class at night and out of interest I audited it. During one lecture a man walked in, shoved the professor to the floor and took off with his briefcase. The staged event was set up to show how wildly eyewitness testimony varied. Everyone wrote down their description of the attacker (height, weight, ethnicity, clothing, his actions etc) and turned it in.

I was shocked how much the accounts varied. I thought I remembered things so clearly and yet when the "attacker" came back in the room, I was wrong on several major details.

Back on the topic of this murder case, I'm struck by what an inefficient job the police did of investigating the case. How could they not follow up on a police officer being romantically involved with the victim's husband only months before?

[cheezewiz]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Eye witness testimony is so tricky, and biases really affect how people remember an incident. About seven years ago, I was in a convenience store when a young guy snatched a donation jar for a sick child. I couldn't see the guys face, he was wearing a hoodie. I only saw his chin, which was had a few hairs on it, and was very fair complected. The guy was maybe 6' 2" and was slim, maybe 165 lbs, at most. When the clerk called the cops, I and a few others stayed as witnesses. When it was my turn, I described him to the cops, and said I couldn't see his face, but I thought he was white given what I did see. When I said that, I Latina lady got visibly mad, and adamantly said the perp was black. I admitted that I didn't see his face, and he could have been a very fair black person. At that, at least one white man, and maybe a white woman, looked at me, and said the perp was white.

The bottom line was the it all happened in an instant, and out of four witnesses, three agreed on the race of the perp, one strongly disagreed. Given those circumstances, I would have felt uncomfortable fingering anybody.

Any good cop knows that eye witness id's are very unreliable.

[burk48237]

I've been against the death penalty for years because of the inconsistencies of our justice system. In-between the value and cost of a good lawyer, the make the rules as they go along attitude of some judges, and the sloppiness of some on law enforcement, plus the influence of the press on jury pools, I'm just not sure it's possible in many capital cases to get a "beyond all doubt" (not just a reasonable doubt) verdict. I also think the slowness of the system eliminates any correlation between the death penalty and deterrence. I do believe the death penalty is moral as a form of punishment. I'm just not sure our system is up to the task. I hope this post doesn't appear to political, as that is not my intention.

[Kael]

Yes eye witness testimony isn't perfect. Genetic evidence on the other hand is much harder to obtain. People watch too much CSI, that crap isn't the real world. You hear about more people being exonerated from genetic evidence as the guilty people trying to find a way out of jail are usually not stupid enough to push for it. The death penalty DOES deter crime. It won't deter "crimes of passion" of course, but then those crimes aren't eligible for the death penalty anyway. We need the death penalty but we also need to keep the appeal system from being "streamlined". That way we keep the deterence while providing for an extensive review process to avoid potential miscarriages of justice.

I was raised on hearing these issues debated regularly as my father worked homicide for OCPD for just shy of 20 years. Most police officers I've known get really pissed at A-holes cops who break the law as it makes their jobs harder and puts their lives in jeopardy as a result.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kael

Yes eye witness testimony isn't perfect. Genetic evidence on the other hand is much harder to obtain. People watch too much CSI, that crap isn't the real world. You hear about more people being exonerated from genetic evidence as the guilty people trying to find a way out of jail are usually not stupid enough to push for it. The death penalty DOES deter crime. It won't deter "crimes of passion" of course, but then those crimes aren't eligible for the death penalty anyway. We need the death penalty but we also need to keep the appeal system from being "streamlined". That way we keep the deterence while providing for an extensive review process to avoid potential miscarriages of justice.

I was raised on hearing these issues debated regularly as my father worked homicide for OCPD for just shy of 20 years. Most police officers I've known get really pissed at A-holes cops who break the law as it makes their jobs harder and puts their lives in jeopardy as a result.

I personally have never supported the death penalty, but what I am more concerned about is fairness and transparency. I know of more than a few situations where people have been railroaded, so I am in no hurry to streamline appeals. Legal appeals tend to look trivial unless it is your or the life, of someone you care for whose life is on the line. As long as our country maintains a death penalty, I believe this country has an obligation to put up with long appeal processes. As an African American, I think history showes pretty clearly that speedy "justice" isn't so just.

I think I will let it go at this point, because we are clearly getting into politics, and matter how strongly I feel about this point, I see no sense in losing TB privileges over it.

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by Kael

The death penalty DOES deter crime

No it does not.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

No it does not.

I've spoken with multiple police officers who have said otherwise based upon direct experience. That coupled with common sense leads me to a different conclusion than the one you suggest.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

No it does not.

I'm gonna have to agree here. I live a quick shot over the lake from our nation's murder capital and watching the evening news is a real nice reality check that the death penalty doesn't make a dent here. 80 people killed this year as of June 1st.

Mike

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by Kael

I've spoken with multiple police officers who have said otherwise based upon direct experience. That coupled with common sense leads me to a different conclusion than the one you suggest.

No disrespect to you but I could care less what the cops have told you.

There is a culture of criminals that make up a large % of offenders that could care less about the possibility of being on death row.


Ever heard the old saying?
"The catching comes before the hanging"

[popinfresh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Given those circumstances, I would have felt uncomfortable fingering anybody.

To sig, or not to sig..

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by popinfresh

To sig, or not to sig..

Go for it.

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

This makes really wonder about people ... executed with shaky eye witness or even circumstantial evidence.

Yeah, I hear that all the time...and not one, single case has ever been given as an example, even though plenty of people have been acquitted after serving prison time.

And why? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be convicted of a capital crime? Who wants to give someone the death sentence unless there is just no room for doubt.

Have a little faith in the sagacity of twelve honest men and women.

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

...the death penalty doesn't make a dent here. 80 people killed this year as of June 1st.

Mike

And I'll bet not a SINGLE ONE of those murders was committed by someone who had been previously executed.

Don't tell ME it don't work.

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by hbarcat

...genetic evidence has determined that those convicted of crimes ... (including execution) have been exonerated.

I challenge you to name a single execution sentence that has been proven to have been miscarried. You won't find one.

It takes a MINIMUM of ten years to get someone executed. Often much longer. These cases are gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Very few prison sentences are reviewed to anywhere near the degree that capital murder convictions are.

The chances of someone being wrongly executed are vanishingly small, and all the anti-death penalty folks can do is spread innuendo, because when it comes to an actual case, they got nothin'.

[Jared Lash]

Originally Posted by Illbay

And I'll bet not a SINGLE ONE of those murders was committed by someone who had been previously executed.

Don't tell ME it don't work.

So your take is that if we killed people before they committed a crime, then no crimes would be committed?

Yeah, that's a glib interpretation, but do you honestly think that someone who is willing to murder another human being would be dissuaded by the fact that the potential punishment would be a death sentence vs life in prison? I'm honestly asking.

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by TheBigO

So your take is that if we killed people before they committed a crime, then no crimes would be committed?

No, my take is that it's ridiculous to talk about the death penalty not being "a deterrent," when the people who are executed never kill again.