300th Time's The Charm — SCOTUS Stays Execution
	found on CNN written by Eppy, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 14 Mar 5:23am
		"The US Supreme Court has stayed the execution of Delma Banks a mere 10 minutes before he was set to be put to death. Banks' case had become the focus of national attention after three former federal judges filed an extremely unusual amicus brief supporting a new trial, along with a flurry of lobbying from the usual suspects exposed flaws in the case. In many ways, Banks is a prime example of the flaws of the current system: a black man convicted of killing a white man by an all-white jury on the testimony of one paid informant and one witness who later recanted his testimony (both facts being withheld from the defense), Banks rejected a plea bargain that would have let him have life in prison because he refused to confess. Shades of a 1986 case, the county in which Banks was convicted had put out a handbook for prosecutors advising them to keep ethnic and racial minorities off the jury, and, as an NAACP official said, 'in the five years leading up to the trial Bowie County prosecutors accepted 82 percent of the white jurors and struck 90 percent who were black.' Additionally, the defense lawyer refused to call witnesses suggested by Banks' mother during the sentencing phase," Eppy writes. It should be noted, though, that Banks was quoted by a witness as saying he killed his victim "for the hell of it." However, defense investegators say a transcript of another witness shows the prosecutors coaching him, which they say proves the testimony as false and rehearsed.

	"Still, the stay only delays the execution, and the court's ruling has nothing to to with Banks' guilt or innocence; indeed, if they refuse to hear the case, the stay will be terminated, and Banks' execution could be rescheduled as soon as 30 days from now. Should this case sound as a warning siren for the national death penalty system (which, it should be noted, John Ashcroft want to normalize by making more prosecutors seek executions rather than life sentences), just Texas', or is it simply an isolated case? Can the system be fixed?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 26 commentsbest: 6 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Just be patient...   by Cwis       at Fri 14 Mar 5:53am score of 1.5 compelling     A life sentence without the possibility of parole or LSWTPOP is I prefer to call it, is actually CHEAPER with the current justice system to carry out to term than a death sentence, and just as permanent, and with the same end result (eventually). It also allows you to correct the 'mistakes' the system currently seems to be prone to...... You do what with your what whats?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Just be patient...   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 14 Mar 7:43am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 1     I rather prefer the "Life Without Possibility of Parole" rather than the death sentence myself. But, let's take a reality check here. The reason that the death penalty tends to be so costly is that everyone facing it is going to fight it (with a few exceptions). The other objection is that it is so final and there is always the possibility that the person being put to death might actually be innocent. Would converting over the system to a life without parole really reduce the number of appeals in the system? And would the fact that we are not putting anybody to death lessen the public's interest in seeing to it that those who are required to pay the harshest penalty the law allows actually guilty? I'm thinking that your average person who is sentenced to life without parole is going to be just as prone to filing appeal after appeal on his case as if he or she were facing the death penalty. After all, who wants to spend the rest of their lives in prison? The taxpayer is still going to be expected to front the cost of counsel for these appeals. The time and effort of the court and law enforcement is still going to have to be devoted to fighting these appeals. You might say, "okay, if someone gets a life without parole sentence, they should be limited as to the number of appeals." That would probably be an approach that would be favored by most of us not facing life without parole in a prison. And, I'm wondering if this lessening of resolve to guard against the innocent man paying a price he shouldn't have to pay might not be a very real cost associated with taking the finality of the death penalty away. At any rate, it's food for thought. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Re: Just be patient...   by cy guy       at Fri 14 Mar 8:35am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 5     I'm thinking that your average person who is sentenced to life without parole is going to be just as prone to filing appeal after appeal on his case as if he or she were facing the death penalty. After all, who wants to spend the rest of their lives in prison? The taxpayer is still going to be expected to front the cost of counsel for these appeals. Actually, I think the state pays very little for appeals (certainly in TX, where they pay practically nothing for public defenders - resulting in PDs who care so little about their cases fall asleep at the trial). It is charitable organizations that pay for most of the last minute appeals, or take them on pro-bono. But the state must pay to fight the appeal. Since the charitable organization are much less likely to foot the bill to take a LSW/OPOP case all the way to the Supreme Court (or even take it on at all unless there is egregious prosecutorial misconduct, or extremely compelling evidence of innocence) the cost for LSW/OPOP is less than the full cost of administering the Death Penalty after exhausting all appeals. BTW thanks John(Plastic) for clearing up the "just for the hell of it" issue. After reading one story saying he made that statement on the stand at his own trial, and another that said he has consistently maintained his innocence, finding the ABCNews link was helpful to clarify that is was one of the two prosecution witnesses who quoted this "hearsay" confession on the stand. (yes, I know hearsay is allowable under such circumstances). When we read in other articles that the one of the two witnesses was compensated for his testimony, and the other was carefully coached/rehearsed by the prosecution, then we know how much weight to give that testimony. Whether this guy is innocent or not is not for me to decide - his being found with the victim's stolen car is compelling circumstantial evidence, but I think the weaknesses of the prosecutions case originally presented are significant enough that he deserves a new trial with a fairly selected jury of his peers. "Everybody's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic."-Andy Warhol   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Just be patient...   by Blue Dot       at Fri 14 Mar 1:53pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 5     Those who oppose the death penalty don't bring up the issue of cost and docket clogging because they see it as the central theme of the issue. I imagine they throw it in to appeal to people they consider to be heartless, cold, and interested only in numbers and administration. The real issue is that, without serious smelling salts, there's no way to remedy the mistakes in this system, and revive the disproportional amounts of brown skin on death row.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Just be patient...   by Screename2000       at Sat 15 Mar 12:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Further, there are many venues for last-minute appeals of a death sentence which would not apply to a life sentence, thus making it less costly.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Just be patient...   by ignoblus       at Sat 15 Mar 1:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     It's an important point to me because death penalty advocates often feel moral outrage at having to pay to support someone who they abhor (especially those who think jail is somehow luxurious). It's just a rebuttal point. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Just be patient...   by lovehate       at Sun 16 Mar 9:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     The real issue is that, without serious smelling salts, there's no way to remedy the mistakes in this system, and revive the disproportional amounts of brown skin on death row. Are you referring to the judicial system, or the more general "American" system? I don't think that it is at all obvious that the racial make-up of death row is due solely to racism in the courts, rather than a corresponding disproportion in the racial make up of criminals. With respect to this issue, our entire society is broken and is, in my opinion, far more responsible than the judicial system for both the existence of the death penalty and the skin color of most of the inmates. Seniority is a state of mind   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Just be patient...   by decurtis       at Fri 14 Mar 11:36pm score of 2.5 succinct   in reply to comment 1     Life without parole does not address the issue of paid informants or keeping minorities off the jury. It just makes us feel better by not killing someone.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Just be patient...   by jackal       at Sat 15 Mar 2:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     LSWTPOP is I prefer to call it, is actually CHEAPER But it doesn't get the same television ratings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Concerns   by Disgruntled Engineer       at Fri 14 Mar 6:18am score of 1.5 interesting     What really concerns me in cases such as this is that the prosecution always seems to be pretty inflexible. The ideal of course is that its supposed to me the search for truth and the prosecuters office should be part of that. They should want to put the right person in jail not just some person. But when you have racially selected or preferentially selected juries, withheld evidence, etc its quickly appears that the prosecutors are more concerned about win-lose ratios vs actual justice. While I think this is abhorrent in any case surely its damn near criminal in a death penalty case. Whats worse is the desire to look tough on crime is fueling this sort of situation. Its the old philosophical argument against utilitarianism. The desire to hang anyone to alleviate the fears of the public with regard to crime ends up overshaddowing the right of the individual to a fair trial where the truth is sought and justice is done. With John Ashcroft in the drivers seat and a Govenor from Texas running the show, who showed no interest in wheather the rule of law was followed in death penalty cases in his state, I fear we may have not even seen the worst of it yet   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Concerns   by M. Mosher       at Fri 14 Mar 7:33am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 2     They should want to put the right person in jail not just some person. This aspect of our system has always bothered me. Prosecutors and police chiefs are in the position of having to publicly and quite visibly improve their resumes through the results they get. A body count of convictions is all that's ultimately recorded on their resumes, not the percentage of correct convictions. In an ideal world, we would have prosecutors who view their jobs as a calling instead of a stepping stone to a higher paying job somewhere else. Similarly, we would have teachers and doctors who think the same way, but this line of thinking will eventually come knocking at my door so I can't really follow it to its logical conclusion. Instead, maybe we should revamp the system used to evaluate prosecutors and law enforcement officials to include some disincentives to this kind of job performance. I mean, you would think criminality alone would be a good disincentive, but I guess they are tip-toeing the line between legal and illegal behavior, staying technically on the legal side. Hopefully, Delma Banks will at least get a new and proper trial.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Concerns   by 74westy       at Fri 14 Mar 9:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     A body count of convictions is all that's ultimately recorded on their resumes, not the percentage of correct convictions. The AI who came up with the lawyer lottery seems to be suggesting that any cure for this would be worse than the disease but couldn't the people looking at the resumes inquire as to the number of those convictions that are latter overturned on appeal. If they are more concerned with the truth than with a body count then a conviction that is later overturned should cost more "points" than the conviction originally scored. Since appeals cost money, bean-counters and maybe even tax payers could be persuaded to support this formula. The bad news is that all of the above assumes that those hiring the prosecutors are more concerned with truth than they are with perception. I have no insight into how that could be assured. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Concerns   by itf       at Fri 14 Mar 11:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     This aspect of our system has always bothered me. Prosecutors and police chiefs are in the position of having to publicly and quite visibly improve their resumes through the results they get. A body count of convictions is all that's ultimately recorded on their resumes, not the percentage of correct convictions. Prosecutors aren't supposed to be in the position of deciding who ought to be convicted. That's a jury's job. Just as your defense attorney is required to do his best to defend you whether or not he thinks you're innocent, the prosecutor is required to do his best to convict you whether or not he thinks you're guilty. It's called the adversarial justice system. Obviously this doesn't include breaking the rules to achieve a conviction. And of course the district attorney has some discretion in choosing which cases to prosecute. But once in the courtroom, it's the prosecutor's job to do his best to convict you regardless of his personal assessment of your guilt or innocence. "Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Concerns   by M. Mosher       at Fri 14 Mar 11:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     When I said a body count is all that's recorded I was speaking figuratively, not literally. Every jurisdiction has its own rules and guidelines for hiring and promoting and firing prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Some cities are able to pay a lot for these positions, others only scrape the barrel. I'm sure when interviewing prospective hires, a city can rely on the candidate's resume, personal references, and perhaps if they want to do research, the city can find out public information about convictions as well as bungled or overturned cases. But do they? I doubt it. By the time a lot of these cases see the light of day, the original people involved are two jobs further along their careers. Maybe I'm just being too cynical. Most prosectutors are probably thoughtful and professional but the stereotype is summed up by the Steven Wright joke: 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Concerns   by stankow       at Fri 14 Mar 1:19pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 10     Just as your defense attorney is required to do his best to defend you whether or not he thinks you're innocent, the prosecutor is required to do his best to convict you whether or not he thinks you're guilty. It's called the adversarial justice system. I believe that you're very wrong. My father (who was a prosecutor for about three years between private practice and teaching) made it very clear to me that his job was to make sure that justice was done, not to convict no matter what. If a prosecutor is in possession of evidence that could lead to acquittal, it's absolutely his job to give it to the defense. The system is intentionally stacked toward the defendant -- the judge should be neutral, the prosecutor should be neutral, the jury should be neutral, but the defense attorney is a partisan advocate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Concerns   by ignoblus       at Sat 15 Mar 1:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Prosecutors aren't supposed to be in the position of deciding who ought to be convicted. They are absolutely supposed to decide whom to charge and what charges to bring. As stankow noted, they are supposed to be impartial once the trial starts, but that impartiality is even more important before the trial starts. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Concerns   by throwawayhack       at Fri 14 Mar 10:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     ... racially selected or preferentially selected juries ... While I would agree that randomly (or otherwise) removing people from the jury pool is a bad thing, the US's normal rule that you need a unanimous jury to convict means that you have to be very careful not to allow people who have decided beforehand not to convict to hang the jury and force a re-trial. This costs lots of money too (and jams the court system up for everything else). Of course Jury Nullification is a topic all by itself ...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Death Penalty   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 14 Mar 7:24am score of 1 compelling     nr. 1 reason to abolish death penalty: It is irreversible!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  The real reason for the stay   by My name is Mudd       at Fri 14 Mar 9:07am score of 2.5 interesting     We're just giving you slacker states a chance to catch up. On a serious note, Texas law does not allow for a life sentence without possibility of parole. A cynic would suggest that this is deliberately done so that people can argue that there is no alternative to the death penalty Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  A cynic, huh?   by marduk_kur       at Sat 15 Mar 7:52am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     Texas law does not allow for a life sentence without possibility of parole. A cynic would suggest that this is deliberately done so that people can argue that there is no alternative to the death penalty. And what would be the alternative explanation? Life without parole is too tough on the criminals? Those bleeding-heart Texas politicians, always using the soft touch with lawbreakers. I don't think it takes a cynical bent to see that the lack of a life without parole sentence is a deliberate attempt to subvert alternatives to the death penalty. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Institutional Racism   by NH4       at Sat 15 Mar 10:08am score of 2 compelling     Although most Americans have abandoned racism in their day-to-day interactions with other people, the American legal system continues to struggle with institutional racism, a bent for imprisoning and executing blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans at a much higher rate than whites. Just as clearly as race remains a major factor in arrest and punishment in the War on Some Drugs, race also remains a major factor in the likelihood of being sentenced to death and being executed. It should be remembered that it was this very factor that once led the Supreme Court to abolish capital punishment. And times haven't changed that much: the Supremes may have brought back capital punishment in response to public demand, but it is still a punishment almost exclusively inflicted on minorities and the poor. Jim Crow isn't dead, he's just morphed to fit into modern American society better. No longer do we have laws that enforce segregation or permit discrimination in housing or hiring; instead, we have practices, winked at by the law, that make "driving while black" an offense, or prescribe long prison terms for the crack cocaine preferred by the poor while the powder preferred by the rich is punished (if at all) with much greater leniency, or put poor people to death for (what can amount to) the crime of not being able to afford a good lawyer. We've come a long way since the 1950s and 1960s in race relations in America, but the American judicial system is one of the last holdouts of racial injustice.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Re: Institutional Racism   by MiceHead       at Sat 15 Mar 4:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Although most Americans have abandoned racism in their day-to-day interactions with other people... Sir! Turn off the computer and meet the average American. You are far too optimistic. =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Institutional Racism   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 15 Mar 6:41pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 22     Damn. Once again, I want to specifically respond to several different comments, thus taking the chance of hitting the "too many comments" filter. So, let's go at it like this. General statement - This story is another example, as I have said many times before, of why I am in favor of the death penalty, but not the way we do it in America. Recidivism (the act of doing the same crime over and over) is a huge problem. Strangely enough, once your death penalty is carried out, you won't be committing the same crime ever again. However, America has developed the single worst method of sentencing someone to death that the world has ever seen, due entirely to having previously had the single worst method of sentencing someone to death that the world has ever seen. Second point - In post #4, M. Mosher stated In an ideal world, we would have prosecutors who view their jobs as a calling instead of a stepping stone to a higher paying job somewhere else. Similarly, we would have teachers and doctors who think the same way... Well, actually, most teachers do view their job as a calling. Unfortunately, due to the fact that American society wants to die out much like the dodo, it refuses to pay its teachers what they are worth. My cousin was an elementary-school teacher, until he discovered that he was paid better as a waiter. That is the definition of a misguided society. Final Point - (and, in fact, I have worked my way back to the initial point to which I am responding) (he says, not dangling his participle), people have not abandoned racism in their daily lives. I feel so proud to be in the Air Force this week. I am especially proud to be in this squadron... Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Institutional Racism   by NH4       at Mon 17 Mar 6:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     If I say that 1% of Americans take a particular position, MiceHead, that doesn't sound like too many until you consider that 2,840,000 people are too many to simply ignore. Similarly, if I say that "most Americans have abandoned racism," that phrase might still be true if, say, 1/3 of Americans were still practicing racists in their daily lives. On the other hand, if 1/3 of Americans were practicing racists, a member of a group that was on the hate list would experience unpleasant interactions on account of his/her race multiple times a day. I would suggest that fewer than 10% of Americans practice racism in their daily lives. That leaves far too many racists, to be sure, but it also represents dramatic progress over the past half century. There was no similar progress in the half-century prior to the 1950s.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Daily Racism   by moxen       at Sat 15 Mar 8:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I'm a bit disconcerted by the fact that I live about 50 miles from Kirkland and did not hear about this [cross burning]. Of course, I cancelled my subscription to the local paper when their consistently idiotic (conservative?) bias started making me pull my hair out (like when they printed an editorial calling Islam wicked and Muhammad a terrorist-- but then turned down my rebuttal to it). At any rate, I don't think that you can take isolated incidents like this and claim that this is the daily racism practised in peoples' lives. It's hardly a regular occurrence, though possibly noteworth in a place where only 3.09% of the population is black. Perhaps more convincing is the fact that blacks are still payed less, people are still more likely to cross the street to avoid them, and ridiculous assumptions are still made on racial lines ("she's black too-- I'm sure you'll hit it off.") And let's not forget, of course, the legal system. If stealing a couple things from a store results in months or years of prison time, stealing millions ought to involve an iron maiden. But, alas, we just don't punish whites like anyone else. Things like cross-burning are frankly disgusting and shameful for any society as physically integrated as the US. I don't think it's the real problem when it comes to race issues. But, yes, to say that we're not racist anymore in this "modern age" is naive-- don't forget that the south was still segregated fifty years ago. Not nearly long enough for society as a whole to forget.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Daily Racism   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 15 Mar 10:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     It happened on a Friday night. It was in the paper on Monday morning, and the local radio news had it by 7:30 a.m. The AP wire got it at the same time, by 10:30 you could find it on the websites for about 25 papers across the midwest. About 2:30, CNN got it. They know about us in Iraq. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]