[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 9/6/03
Time: 3:46:01 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.52.125
Pat, Miss Marple, Charlie,
I’ve been studying the death penalty closely since 1964, the year I read Justice Be Damned. In the two succeeding generations little has changed in the arguments for and against it. You have people on both ends of the argument that will not budge, no mater what, and a “mushy middle” that sways back and fourth. Going back to the early 1800s you can see the same pattern over two centuries. What does change is the mushy middle’s support that stops the state-sponsored killing and starts it up again from time to time. .
It’s a cyclical phenomenon. It changes directions at the state and federal level with big cases that get lots of public attention. For decades some states with capital punishment did not impose it and the U.S. Supreme Court once imposed a moratorium on it throughout the United States. The Justices did this because they could not find a way to get around the human element that invariably accounted for vast differences between applications of the death penalty from state to state where similar crimes were involved. They concluded that the system was broken
When the national climate for executions became favorable again and a Supreme Court was in place that was inclined toward seeing them carried out, the death machines started up again. That Court concluded that the system could be fixed and issued strict guidelines it thought would do the trick. The only executions that could be carried out where in states that met the Court’s requirements. Illinois and Oklahoma met them. For many years, Texas and Florida did not.
Charlie, the things that couldn’t be fixed in the system are fundamental to the things you correctly identified as needing to be fixed. In theory, it is possible. It is also theoretically possible to have a baseball game that lasts forever. In practice it won’t happen because too many subtle forces are at work to insure that it won’t. Some prosecutors will always strive to win by hook or crook to advance their careers or to avoid the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong to prosecute in the first place. Some lab people will always work for the prosecution instead of the truth. Some cops will always lie and plant evidence for their own reasons. Few of these people will ever be held accountable because you will rarely be able to get enough political support within the hundreds of DA offices, crime labs, police departments and police unions in the U.S. to do it.
Fuhrman’s turnaround on the issue is consistent with his other turnarounds in rebuilding his image and broadening his support (remember, he tried to enlist the aid of Dr. Lee for his Murder in Greenwich book and he got the aid of Dr. Baden). This new move puts him on the side of Newfield and Scheck.
The ways in which DNA can be used by corrupt cops, prosecutors and lab technicians to convict innocent people through broken chains of evidence are bound to come out and Fuhrman has to do something dramatic to distance himself from those practices. He NEVER does anything big for ONE reason. He knows that a change is coming and he wants to be spotlighted on the popular side when it happens. His latest book will do just that. --Jasper