Justice my ass

Read this story first

Preface:

I have not done any research on the case done by CNN, just their case.  I do have a little bit of experience with the Innocence Project.  When I was a freshman at WSU, a man named David Max Cooke came and spoke to our Criminal Justice 101 Class.  Cooke had been sentenced to death and spent 22 years in jail before being exonerated because he was, in fact, innocent.

 

~~

 

From what CNN has compiled about the above case about Dean Cage, it appears as if he is innocent.  Cage was sentenced to 40 years for the brutal rape of a young woman because of an eyewitness testimony.  There is/was no physical evidence linking Cage to the rape.

 

The victim was brutally raped and gave sketch artists a description of the assailant.  From this sketch, an anonymous tip pointed law enforcement officials to Dean Cage.  Cage had never been arrested and had no connection to the victim, other than the anonymous tip from the sketch.  Cage had a similar leather jacket as the assailant did, and the victim identified Cage as the rapist.

 

It is important to realize that the possible false identification by the victim isn't necessarily her fault.  The brain simply doesn't remember like we'd like to believe.  Here's a quote from one of my favorite movies of all time:

 

"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation..." --Memento

 

What's even scarier about this case is that Dean Cage has/had an alibi.  His fiancee testified that he was in bed with her on the morning of the rape.  

 

No physical evidence, an alibi, and just an eyewitness testimony, and he's locked away?

 

In a country that is innocent until proven guilty, this one case sure goes against the grain.  Cage shouldn't have even went to trial for the case, barring lack of evidence.  There needs to be some physical link between him and the rape.  STD analysis showed the victim to have two different STDs, and Cage tested negative for them.  Yes, STDs are not transmitted 100% of the time, but it should've at least caused skepticism in the case.  This is human lives you are talking about here, and locking some people up because of very little/flawed evidence is something that need a good, hard look for the future

Winners (kind of) don't exist.

I want to know exactly when "winning" became the ultimate goal.  There are few things that really need a defined "winner," and those things, in the grand scheme, are not things we should be very focused on (i.e. sports).  Likewise, there are no "losers."

Although this applies to so much, this will focus on rhetoric.

Debates almost always center on winning.  Though, I agree there are people that argue or debate more effectively, I think it is wrong to think of somebody as a winner.  There are two types of arguments, which we will call "traditional" and "consensual"

Traditional arguments are the arguments that focus around a winner.  Lawyers are a good example of traditional arguers.  They are there to proves someone is guilty or innocent.  Lawyers are trying to prove themselves as right, or "winners."  The courtroom may be the only significant winners/losers in the world.

Consensual arguments are almost the opposite.  The goal is to gain common ground and get the listener to think "that is interesting."  Consensual arguments don't focus on winning, instead a group of people will hopefully take each other's arguments to strengthen and come up with the best solution, collectively.  This calls for people to open-minded, one of the bigger problems with Western-thinking people.

Fighting and arguing are two completely different things, I would almost say they are opposites.

Consensual arguments are what we need in today's society.  Particularly, in politics.  Let's take health-care for instance.  The most overblown and talked about topic right now.  We've got the extremists, who believe that everyone should have health care no matter what (including how much money it takes, how much government involvement, etc.), then we have the people who believe it is not a right, just a privilege, and health care companies should charge what they want (no matter how many people can't afford it and how corrupt the system is).  Neither side of this problem or solution can be deemed a winner.  We need to come together and identify the problems, figure out what is plausible, and fix it as best as we can with the resources.

So, health care.  We've got 40 million (this is a rough estimate) people who are uninsured.  That needs fixing.  We've got corrupt health-care companies.  In my opinion, these people are right up there next to oil companies as "worst people in the world."  Health care companies are depriving people of a fundamental thing, life!  That definitely needs fixing.  Government control is necessary in health care.  Now, here comes the give-and-take principle.  Complete government control is not necessary.  There needs to be a middle ground here that makes health care affordable, without taking TOO MUCH (note: I'm not saying "no") money from taxes, and not making it more difficult to get health care if paying through a non-governmental company.

This wasn't supposed to focus directly on health care, more on the idea of consensual arguments being used more often.  So, I will leave you with this: 

Disagreement is good for finding the best solution; however, ignorant fighting will further the problem.  This fine line is what plagues political arguments, both between beings, and between media organizations.

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" was made famous by Patrick Henry; as he was quoted as saying this in March of 1775 before the American Revolution. It became the motto of the Revolutionary Army that would soon be it's own nation. Its funny how over 200 years later, the concept still isn't entirely true.

Fast forward now, to 1977. Kerry Max Cook was sentenced to death by a "jury of his peers," and would spend the next 22 years in a Texas prison before he was released for a crime he didn't commit. Truly, Mr. Cook had no liberty and that was replaced with death. In 1997 he was eventually released because DNA evidence proved he was, in fact, not the killer.

The Death Penalty is in place to deter crime, to deter murder. Then how come murder rates aren't decreasing? The system is NOT in place as a vehicle for revenge. Revenge is the last thing we should be doing. Some would argue that the death penalty is about justice. What is the justice is killing an innocent person? There is a flaw in the reasoning. Justice is giving somebody a fair trial and letting them rot in prison for their lives.

There is a fine line between justice and revenge.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe there are heinous enough crimes that would deserve death, in the "perfect world." But, then again, in a perfect world there wouldn't be murder.

Morally, what gives us the right to say someone is deserving of death? I think there is only one person that could do that, and He certainly wouldn't put anyone to death. We like to call ourselves Christians (a whole different debate), but are we doing the Christian thing? I hate to pull the religion card, but in this instance I think it is necessary.

The real underlying problem is the judicial system. We have a system that for the lack of a better term, sucks ass. We have a system that can put someone away for life after 3 strikes, but at the same time can let Donte Stallworth off with less than a month in jail for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian. The same system can put a person away for 90 days for possession of a marijuana. It takes one slip-up in the system and a man walks free, but it also takes one slip-up to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life for no reason. Lets say that police don't read somebody their Miranda rights and this child molester walks free for the rest of his life. Now flip the coin, tampered evidence makes its way into the courtroom and puts Kerry Max Cook away for the prime of his life (19-41 years old). The system is flawed. Until it is fixed, quit sentencing people to death.

Another story is surfacing about Troy Davis, a death row inmate, who is trying to prove he is innocent after 7 witnesses recanted their testimonies, and the primary witness is now suspected to be the real killer. Just another example of how the system has too many inconsistencies and loopholes to convict someone, without the shadow of a doubt, to death.

In wrapping, I think that alone, the judicial system, morality, wrongful convictions, and deterrence is enough to show the Death Penalty is just simply wrong. Now combine them and it becomes even more clear.

Further reading/sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/18scotus.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

http://www.chasingjustice.com/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganTestimony.pdf

Introduction

I was very hesitant on making this blog about something in particular.  I don't want this to be a blog about politics, or religion, or psychology, or love, or etc.  This blog is about me writing about EVERYTHING.  Therefore, all of the above will probably be intertwined into every blog post.  I just want to get all my thoughts and feelings somewhere for someone to read.  Some will be super serious, some will make you laugh, and some will make you wonder, and others will make you wonder what the hell I am talking to.

Thats it for today

Sample

I am just making sure that this thing works.  I am pretty sure that close to nobody will read this blog.  It is more for the entertainment of myself and giving myself the impression that I matter.  This sounds incredibly emo, and I will try not to ever say anything negative about myself ever again, ever.  I hope this makes it onto the blog just fine.  I am currently praying to the blogspot gods.