HRCODEPINK
Verified Insider
I agree, Nova, but that was one of the considerations that Judge Burnett based his ruling on at the time. However, I'm of the opinion that, since there's no statute of limitations on charging someone with murder, then there should be no statute of limitations on the presentation of evidence to overturn a convicted murderer's conviction, especially when the sentence is death. I'm very familiar with the term "getting off on a technicality" but, in this case, they're not asking that the WM3 be freed on the jury misconduct issue alone but only that a new trial should have been granted on the issue many years ago. IMO, this is just another of many examples of the mishandling of this case.
Now, before all you nons start yelling about finality, this situation doesn't happen all the time. Like I Must Break You was saying, there are plenty of cases where the guilt is obvious to any astute person. However, in a case like the WM3, when there are still so many lingering questions as to the guilt of the convicted in many people's minds, finality should be suspended until all questions are answered. Remember, in this case, you can't release Damien after he's executed. I would think that any sane and rational person would want to be as sure as possible (the law says beyond a reasonable doubt, and I simply don't believe that standard has been met here) of guilt before executing someone. Execution can't be "corrected" later if additional information is obtained that further proves innocence.
BBM
I have a question about all of this finality business. Why is finality so important in the first place? Not just in this case, so I guess this is kind O/T in a "backwards kinda way" but seriously, what difference does finality make when there is a possibility that a mistake has been made? There have been at least 138 people released from death row, having been exonerated of horrific crimes. Is finality really more important than making sure that you are not about to execute an innocent person (which is done in the names of the people of the state, and hence, makes the people of the state murderers of innocent people if someone were to be executed who was, in fact, innocent) and maybe more important to the finality crowd, when making sure that you don't still have a murderer walking the streets? In Earl Washington's case, it is my understanding that the person whose DNA matched the DNA at the crime scene was in the system because while we were punishing Earl Washington for a crime he didn't commit, the true murderer remained on the outside and killed someone else. Was that person's death less important than the finality of Rebecca William's case?
In my state, we are so concerned with finality that we give only 21 days to present evidence, evidence of jury misconduct, etc. And if any of that evidence was available at the time of the trial and the accused is just too poor to have a proper investigation done on things that the state hasn't tested, it cannot be brought up ever again after this 21 days. Even if it is DNA. There are some lucky people, whose evidence was not available at the time, because DNA wasn't a big things back then who will or have been released, but as science advances, we here in the Commonwealth of VA have to trust and pray that the investigators don't make any mistakes, because for the sake of finality, we simply do not care...or in the words of former Attorney General Mary Sue Terry, "evidence of innocence is irrelevant."
Is it really all just about an eye for an eye, regardless of whose eye that is?