U.S. Supreme Court denies execution appeal for Fla. man

[Capt. Obvious]

Source: Associated Press

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the last-minute appeals of a Florida man scheduled for execution for the rape and murder of a 9-year-old Jimmy Ryce 18 years ago.

The court issued brief orders Wednesday night rejecting the appeals, which focused on a challenge to Florida's method of lethal injection. The exact time was uncertain for the execution later Wednesday at Florida State Prison in Starke. It had been delayed from the original 6 p.m. time because of the appeals.

Juan Carlos Chavez captured Jimmy after he got off of a school bus in Miami in 1995.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/12/florida-appeal-execution/5437699/

[cleduc]

1. He's been executed

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/12/3929900/florida-supreme-court-rejects.html

When I read what he did to that boy, I struggle to muster much sympathy for him.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc94586.pdf

[7962]

2. See a trend in these latest execution stories? The horrific nature of the crime. What the DP is for

These types of criminals dont deserve a life behind bars. And no doubt he is the guilty one.
Edit: Read the story at the above link and again I have to ask; WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG?? 16 years?
And the final appeal, the tired old saw about the mixture of drugs used. What happened? He went to sleep.

[IkeRepublican]

5. Prisons, lawyers and many others want their cut

Not profitable to give these murdering pricks proper justice. That's why it takes so long.

Of course, the wingnuts will never say that despite their constant wailing for swift justice. They like believing it's a bunch of hippies who cause it to take so long. Plus, they've always got wood for authority figures.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Yup. Let's have all executions 30 days after a conviction.

Enough time to put together a single sloppy appeal.

And if the person executed later turns out to have been exonerated, the State will gladly send that person's family an "Opps!" card.


Or, here's an even better idea: Get rid of the fucking thing altogether. It serves no purpose, other than to embarrass us as a country to the rest of the free world.

[gopiscrap]

11. Thank you!

[7962]

14. Maybe give them a year

And it would make a bigger difference if there was quicker justice. If its not a deterrence, then why do so many plead guilty to avoid it? Very simple to avoid executing innocents. Take away the "reasonable doubt" option and only use it in cases where the is NO DOUBT as to the guilt. The Atlanta courthouse shooter is a prime example. The guy in this story is another. There are plenty of these cases out there.
If we're going to do away with laws just because other countries dont have them, thats ridiculous. Most of those other countries also dont have crimes nearly as heinous as we see here. They also dont have a lot of the rights that we have here. Should we get rid of those too? Other countries often make fun of our freedom of speech and regulate theirs to different degrees.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Yeah, a year! That's the ticket! Because no one has ever found any exculpatory/mitigating evidence..

....outside of a timeframe of a year.

Also, legally speaking, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means beyond a doubt. And would there be a matrix to determine what is your "no doubt" standard versus a mere "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I mean, what--would 3 corroborating witnesses be considered okay, but only 2 wouldn't?

Also, you may want to recheck your definition of deterrence. Because what you described wasn't deterrence. A deterrence is something that actually stops you from doing something. Someone who is arrested for murder and pleads out to avoid death wasn't deterred from committing that murder.

The fact of the matter is, there's no proven justification for the death penalty. Each one of the purported reasons has failed to hold up over empirical studies.

So really what you are left with is extreme punishment for the sake of punishment. And that's sadism, my friend. Not something we necessarily want to emulate as Americans, wouldn't you agree?

[7962]

20. No, I wouldnt take witnesses for sure! TOOOO many times thats been wrong

But you know what I'm talking about. There are plenty of murders where there is no doubt. Look at the one I cited and try to find a way that guy is not guilty. And many do plead out, so obviously the threat of execution meant something to them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. But the line between a death penalty case and not a death penalty case is so subjective.

What makes one first degree murder case death penalty eligible and another one not? I'm sure it doesn't mean that one victim's life was more valuable than the other.

For example, the Michael Dunn case going in here in Florida right now seems pretty open and shut. Yet it's not a death penalty case. Why are we drawing subjective lines as to who gets the ultimate punishment and who doesn't?

And again, you're missing the theory of deterrence. The argument put forward is that in jurisdictions where there is the death penalty, the mere fact that there is a death penalty would deter a would-be murderer from otherwise committing his act. No research study has ever supported this argument. The entire argument doesn't make any sense, since you could then claim that any punishment (such as life imprisonment or even an extended prison term) could act as a deterrent. And I'm sure most murderers would look forward to going to prison, either. But they'll still commit the murder if sufficiently enraged or otherwise motivated to do so. Because it becomes something of a one-track mind, with consequences shoved to the back.

What you are talking about is plea bargaining, which has nothing to do with deterrence. In that situation, the murder has already occurred. Hence, there's nothing to be deterred. Understand?

[7962]

22. In most states, to get the DP a crime must meet certain aggravating circumstances.

The Dunn case doesnt meet those requirements. In the old days, there was no such requirement. Those circumstances usually include rape, torture, kidnapping, age of victim, premeditation, etc.
Yes, the guilty plea is usually part of a plea bargain. But the accused could also go to trial and be found not guilty or guilty of a lesser crime. I only know of one case personally that I can attest to. My former brother in law is a criminal atty. He had a case several years ago in Fla and he was trying to get the DA to go along with a LWP plea to avoid the DP because his client told him he didnt want to die.
But I do agree with you on the evidence of deterrence not really being there. But we've never had murderers executed with any regularity or speed to really be able to determine if it does deter. I support the DP, But I want the law changed to stop the chance of an innocent getting the needle. I also contribute to the Innocence Project because of the work that they do.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. If you don't want innocent people executed, you shouldn't support limiting the right of appeal.

I'm sorry that it's a Catch 22, but that's what it is.

Either realize that the death penalty in America today is going to be a long, lengthy and expensive process, or just chuck it out the window. I suggest the latter.

[7962]

24. I respect your stand. I just think with a definitive guilty party, how many appeals?

How many points can there be? Why are appeals based on inadequate representation being filed 10, 15, 20 yrs later? they merely line them up to prolong the process. You KNOW there are cases where there is no chance of an innocent being convicted. Change the law to do away with any chance of a screwup.
I also think we should empty the prisons of non violent drug offenders to make room to KEEP the killers convicted and not given the DP. A case near where I live had a killer given 18 yrs, and a drug dealer was given life. Happened about 25 yrs ago. And the killer is already walking the streets again. What kind of sense does that make? But I'm getting off on another topic, I know.

[Jake Stern]

17. If we went by the standard of a year

virtually none of those who have been exonerated from death row would be alive. Point to me one case where someone has stated "I was going to kill someone BUUUUUT I didn't want to be executed".

As for your claims that countries without the death penalty don't have crimes nearly as heinous as we do: look up Marc Dutroux, pedophile rapist and murderer from Belgium. Or Anders Brevik, the Norwegian mass murderer. Or Armin Miewes, who killed and ate a (willing) victim. Or Paul Bernardo, Canadian serial rapist and killer.

None of them were sentenced to die. Doesn't mean that Belgium, Norway, Germany and Canada are coddling killers.

Why not look to them for an example of how they deal with murderers without more killing?

Now to your rant on rights. Since the vast majority of countries that have abolished capital punishment are in Europe, I will assume you're mostly referring to Europeans..

You are correct that in some cases what we consider a "right" most Europeans consider a privilege, such as RKBA. OTOH:

- They are shocked at how we splash juvenile suspects names and pictures across the media and call it a "right".

- They don't understand how a court can rule that a major news outlet has the "right" to lie.

- It's inconceivable to Europeans how we consider it a "right" for people to literally stand in front of the White House with confederate flags, signs depicting Obama as Hitler and Obama effigies dangling from nooses.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Well said.

And welcome to DU.

[7962]

19. Yes, they cant believe we allow people to say things most of us disagree with.

Thats my point. Just like keeping religion out of schools. Those on the right who always want the bible in schools dont seem to understand that if they get their way, then any OTHER religion could also be allowed in school. Then they'd be in an uproar.
And in most cases juveniles arent named in the news. Not sure about how they determine that, because sometimes they are. Based on where I live anyway, juveniles are normally not named.
And of course there are crazed criminals in other countries. But not at the level we have here.
I understand the argument of executing an innocent. And in cases where people have been released there has usually been police or prosecutor mis conduct. THOSE people should also be put in jail. But restricting the DP to cases where there is NO DOUBT removes the chance of executing an innocent. This isnt the 40s anymore. We have so many murders where there is no doubt. I mentioned one of them. When you're on film, caught with the bodies in your freezer, caught in the act, etc. Another example, OJ Simpson. I'm pretty sure he's guilty, but I would not give him the DP. No "smoking gun", so to speak.

[840high]

3. No pity for him from me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. I won't weep for Juan Carlos Chavez himself. But I will weep for my state and my country.....

....for continuing this madness.

Every time we execute someone--no matter how horrific the crime may be (and this particular one was quite horrific)--we lose a little bit more of our soul as a nation. We lose our humanity.

End this useless, truly evil institution. Now.

That we allow it to exist under the color of law and under the word "justice"...it sickens me.

[gopiscrap]

12. Thank you,

I totally agree.

[Jake Stern]

6. To think over 100 countries have abolished the death penalty

These heathens are too busy coddling killers to care about the victims. They should be more civilized like the good ol' USA.

[micraphone]

7. I heard a comment today...

from someone whose name and details I did not catch here in New Zealand. The gist was "..... State execution is THE MOST pre-meditated murder there is."

The message is - murder is bad... but not if someone else does it.

These people kill their victims (in large part) because they can identify the perp. BECAUSE of the DP.

[micraphone]

8. BTW welcome aboard the board, Jake!

nt

[Jake Stern]

9. Thank you!

[gopiscrap]

13. welcome to DU

[Jake Stern]

16. Thank you!