<DIV>Roger and Bruce,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think Roger illustrates the point of why we cannot entirely abolish the DP. We have to be able to keep control of people that have already killed. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With no possible death penalty, it is difficult to control the behavior of someone that wants to kill.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also believe we cannot mandate the death penalty either because after someone kills they also have no incentive to stop, you can only kill somebody once.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan </DIV> <DIV><BR><B><I>lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">My main problem with abolishing the death penalty for psychopathic killers is that they sometime are paroled or escape to kill again. They also sometimes kill while in prison. If they are executed they will
never kill again. I agree with all four of Donovan's statements.<BR><BR>Roger<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:46:50 -0700<BR>To: Bruce and Jean Livingston jeanlivingston@turbonet.com, lfalen lfalen@turbonet.com, vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] DNA exoneration reaches 200; questions remain for justice system<BR><BR>> Bruce and Roger,<BR>> <BR>> The Death Penalty I think is a grave societal ill, but we cannot eliminate it from US society at this point. It would be a worthy long term goal. However, our system of implementing the death penalty does, however, need a massive overhauling. The current system:<BR>> <BR>> 1) Often kills the wrong guy<BR>> 2) Is not uniform<BR>> 3) Does not provide adequate defense lawyers for impoverished defendants<BR>> 4) Takes too long to implement<BR>> <BR>> Best,<BR>> <BR>> Donovan<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> See, there are too many<BR>> <BR>> Bruce and Jean Livingston <JEANLIVINGSTON@TURBONET.COM>wrote:<BR>> Roger, that is a civilized approach, and I welcome your willingness to think <BR>> about a difficult topic. Of course, I will keep working on you and others <BR>> to see if I can persuade you to my side of the fence!<BR>> <BR>> Your idea would be an improvement though -- that is, if we continued to <BR>> instruct a jury to convict based on not having a "reasonable doubt" about <BR>> guilt, but then raised the burden of proof at the penalty phase and <BR>> instructed the jury not to give death unless it had "not a shadow of a <BR>> doubt."<BR>> <BR>> Bruce<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "lfalen" <BR>> To: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" ; <BR>> <BR>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:35 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] DNA exoneration reaches 200;questions remain for <BR>>
justice system<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Bruce<BR>> > I am not vary comfortable with the idea of collateral damage. I do not <BR>> > have a problem with the death penalty for Duncan and Shackleford. The two <BR>> > guys that killed my nephew at the Hot Spring next to Crouch should have <BR>> > had the death penalty, they did not. They will probably get out in 10 <BR>> > years or so. O. J. is a little different. While I think he is guilty as <BR>> > hell, there is a smidgen of doubt. For that reason I would have had <BR>> > difficultly in convicting him, let along applying the death penalty. I <BR>> > think that the rule of "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" should apply. <BR>> > Since it doen't seem to work that way I am on the fence on the death <BR>> > penalty.<BR>> > Roger<BR>> > -----Original message-----<BR>> > From: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" jeanlivingston@turbonet.com<BR>> >
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:07:21 -0700<BR>> > To: "lfalen" lfalen@turbonet.com, vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] DNA exoneration reaches 200;questions remain for <BR>> > justice system<BR>> ><BR>> >> Roger, there is no question that your arguments have some appeal, in the <BR>> >> sense that if we are to have the death penalty, there are some crimes <BR>> >> that are so heinous that they practically "cry out for it."<BR>> >><BR>> >> My problem with your "tinkering with the procedures" approach, in an <BR>> >> effort to "fine tune" the system so that our administration of justice is <BR>> >> fairer, is that efforts to eliminate systemic error that allows for the <BR>> >> conviction of the innocent will only reduce the error rate, but not <BR>> >> eliminate it. It seems to me that the costs of administering the death <BR>> >> penalty exceed
the "benefit" of it, and that you also must accept as a <BR>> >> "cost of doing business" the inevitable execution of a few innocents.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I changed my views about the death penalty, which I once favored, after I <BR>> >> was appointed to represent Roy Roberts, a man that I came to believe was <BR>> >> innocent. Sadly, I was unable to spare his life or win his release. <BR>> >> Here is his clemency petition:<BR>> >> http://ccadp.org/clemencyroy.htm<BR>> >> Here is an article about Roy on the Northwestern University School of <BR>> >> Law's Center on Wrongful Convictions:<BR>> >> http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/Executions/Roberts_Missouri.htm<BR>> >><BR>> >> Having gone through the wringer of failing to save an innocent man's <BR>> >> life, I no longer accept an approach to the death penalty that amounts to <BR>> >>
"collateral damage in the form of the execution of a few innocents is <BR>> >> acceptable." In my opinion, having the death penalty is not worth that.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Bruce<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> From: "lfalen" <BR>> >> To: "Ted Moffett" ; "Bruce and Jean Livingston" <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Cc: <BR>> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:30 PM<BR>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] DNA exoneration reaches 200;questions remain <BR>> >> for justice system<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> >I am not sure that the death penalty should be totally abolished. Some <BR>> >> >people like Duncan surely deserve it. Maybe it should be restricted to <BR>> >> >just a few things. In any case due to number of people that are <BR>> >> >convicted who are innocent, there needs to
be better safe guards put in <BR>> >> >place. In regard to the Attorney General's office, It does look like <BR>> >> >they blew it on the Idaho Falls Cace. Although it does'nt rise to the <BR>> >> >same level of seriousness, they have also been hit and miss on enforcing <BR>> >> >the Open Meeting Law. In some cases they have done what they should. in <BR>> >> >others they have not. I will get into this more at a later date.<BR>> >> > Roger<BR>> >> > -----Original message-----<BR>> >> > From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss@gmail.com<BR>> >> > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:11:16 -0700<BR>> >> > To: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" jeanlivingston@turbonet.com<BR>> >> > Subject: [Vision2020] DNA exoneration reaches 200;questions remain for <BR>> >> > justice system<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >> Bruce et. al.<BR>> >>
>><BR>> >> >> http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--dnaexonerations-20423apr23,0,1071686.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >> I guess this is some kind of milestone...But not all these cases are <BR>> >> >> death<BR>> >> >> penalty cases. But the question is obvious: if this many are <BR>> >> >> exonerated by<BR>> >> >> DNA, how many on death row or imprisoned for other crimes are innocent <BR>> >> >> who<BR>> >> >> do not have DNA available to prove or disprove their innocence?<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >> Likely a much larger number!<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >> The price we must pay for a justice system, or a justice system in <BR>> >> >> need of<BR>> >> >> radical improvement?<BR>> >> >><BR>> >>
>> I won't even start...<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >> Ted Moffett<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >> On 4/23/07, Bruce and Jean Livingston <BR>> >> >> wrote:<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > We confronted two high profile cases in the last couple of weeks, <BR>> >> >> > first,<BR>> >> >> > a declaration of innocence in the Duke Lacrosse case in NC, and <BR>> >> >> > second, the<BR>> >> >> > apparent innocence of Rauland Grube in a murder case from <BR>> >> >> > southeastern<BR>> >> >> > Idaho, on which I posted several days ago.<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > Now appears this series of editorials from of all places, Texas. <BR>> >> >> > The<BR>> >> >> > Dallas Morning News editorial
staff reversed its 100 year stance in <BR>> >> >> > favor of<BR>> >> >> > the death penalty. In so doing, it made many of the best arguments <BR>> >> >> > for<BR>> >> >> > reconsidering our willingness to retain the death penalty. The <BR>> >> >> > editorial<BR>> >> >> > pieces are thoughtful and worthy of all citizens' review, especially <BR>> >> >> > in<BR>> >> >> > states like Idaho that continue to have the death penalty.<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > I thought you might be interested in these recent Dallas Morning <BR>> >> >> > News<BR>> >> >> > editorials. The Morning News is historically one of the most <BR>> >> >> > conservative<BR>> >> >> > major-city newspapers in the country, although it moderated somewhat <BR>>
>> >> > when<BR>> >> >> > the "liberal" competition folded.<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-toy_01edi.ART.State.Edition1.43b925d.html<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-deathmonday2_16edi.ART.State.Edition1.42d305b.html<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-deathmonday1_16edi.ART.State.Edition1.42d1ffd.html<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >>
>> > The explanation about the Dallas Morning News' editorial slant is <BR>> >> >> > from my<BR>> >> >> > sister-in-law, who resides there, reads the paper regularly, and <BR>> >> >> > forwarded<BR>> >> >> > me the above links.<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > Bruce Livingston<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >> >> > =======================================================<BR>> >> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> >> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> >> >> > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> >> >> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >> >> > =======================================================<BR>> >> >> ><BR>> >>
>><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> ><BR>> >><BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ---------------------------------<BR>> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?<BR>> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.<BR>> <BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?<br> Check out
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-">new cars at Yahoo! Autos.</a>