Kansas Supreme Court Overturns Carr Brothers' Death Sentences

[Lzen]

If you will recall, there was quite a long thread of discussion on CP when these scumbags were on trial. The story is truly disgusting. Wish I could find the original thread.

Updated: Fri 10:45 AM, Jul 25, 2014










TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- The Kansas Supreme Court has overturned the death sentences of two brothers convicted of capital murder in the shooting deaths of four people whose bodies were found in a snow-covered Wichita soccer field in 2000.


The state Supreme Court on Friday also struck down three of the four capital murder conviction each against Jonathan and Reginald Carr. But it upheld one capital murder conviction each.
Their cases will return to Sedgwick County District Court for further hearings and a new sentencing.


The court's majority overturned the death sentences because, it said, the presiding judge failed to have separate proceedings for each brother.
In overturning most of the capital convictions, the majority said the instructions to jurors were flawed.


Posted by Greg Palmer



http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/K...#disqus_thread

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

My counter to that is: Do you want a system that was so incompetent that a open and shut case like this has to be retried in sentencing deciding who lives and who dies?

My argument against the death penalty isn't cruel and unusual punishment it is the competence of the justice system.

So don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Fix the system. Have a very tight and rigid standard that defines when the death penalty can be applied and when it can't.

Your agument is like saying we can't fix a problem with the transmissions on some cars, so let's just do away with all cars.

[BullJunkandIron]

One thing I could never understand is why those 5 people never resisted. If 2 armed men burst into you home and 3 men and 2 women was there would you not at some time attempt to resist. During the time they were going through your stuff, during the sexual assaults, during the drives to the ATM's, on the way to the soccer field. Usually it's hard for two people to control 5 people. I wasn't there and I don't mean to be unsympathetic but does anybody have any knowledge they could shine on this?

[Old Dog]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

That is why there needs to be stronger stipulations with less appeals. If you admit guilt, if there are credible eye witnesses, if DNA can positively link you to the crime, or if there is video of you committing the crime, then you should be sentenced to death with no appeals allowed. The system should give you thirty days to get your affairs in order and then you're dead. Period.

Wish I could rep this one more than once

[BullJunkandIron]

"The system should give you thirty days to get your affairs in order and then you're dead. Period"

Why? They didn't give their victims that courtesy.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

That is why there needs to be stronger stipulations with less appeals. If you admit guilt, if there are credible eye witnesses, if DNA can positively link you to the crime, or if there is video of you committing the crime, then you should be sentenced to death with no appeals allowed. The system should give you thirty days to get your affairs in order and then you're dead. Period.

Eye witnesses are the worst evidence as peoples memory is faulty. DNA is good but needs to be done by an independent DNA analysis firm. State crime labs have been found to be biased if not totally corrupt. Video is good but that is a rarity.

Your thirty days system is also really bad. If the prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence, what happens when the state executes an innocent person? There is a reason for the Innocence Project. The prosecutor isn't liable thanks to immunity, the cops aren't liable thanks to immunity, the state is and that is money coming from the taxpayers.

The fact that you are okay with executing innocent people, studies have shown probably about 4% of people on death row are innocent, including people who were innocent that were executed like Cameron Todd Willingham, Joesph Roger O'Dell III in which the state had evidence destroyed that probably would of proved him innocent, and Johnny Garrett which DNA evidence proved was innocent.

So we can't trust the justice system to be competent much less uncorrupt, we know innocent people have been executed, the prosecutors and police are not held liable when they railroad people, and you want to make the process of execution quicker?

What reality are you living in that makes that moral?

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Armadillo Skin

"The system should give you thirty days to get your affairs in order and then you're dead. Period"

Why? They didn't give their victims that courtesy.

Because as much as I believe people convicted in this hypothetical scenario and sentenced to death are scum, that doesn't mean every member of their family is scum. I know it's not exactly fair because their victims aren't given a choice, but that is a situation outside of the judicial systems control. Allowing the family of a convicted murderer the opportunity to make sure any legal/financial affairs are in order is something that can be controlled.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Eye witnesses are the worst evidence as peoples memory is faulty. DNA is good but needs to be done by an independent DNA analysis firm. State crime labs have been found to be biased if not totally corrupt. Video is good but that is a rarity.

Your thirty days system is also really bad. If the prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence, what happens when the state executes an innocent person? There is a reason for the Innocence Project. The prosecutor isn't liable thanks to immunity, the cops aren't liable thanks to immunity, the state is and that is money coming from the taxpayers.

The fact that you are okay with executing innocent people, studies have shown probably about 4% of people on death row are innocent, including people who were innocent that were executed like Cameron Todd Willingham, Joesph Roger O'Dell III in which the state had evidence destroyed that probably would of proved him innocent, and Johnny Garrett which DNA evidence proved was innocent.

So we can't trust the justice system to be competent much less uncorrupt, we know innocent people have been executed, the prosecutors and police are not held liable when they railroad people, and you want to make the process of execution quicker?

What reality are you living in that makes that moral?

I said credible eyewitnesses. Not someone who saw something in a dark alley or from 500 yards away. An eye witness like in the Carr brothers case is what I was talking about. You know, where there is a 0% chance that they are identifying the wrong person.

I'm fine with DNA analysis being done by an independent firm and both the prosecution and defense are only allowed to use that firms findings. That sounds reasonable.

The fact remains that there are many cases where the person's guilt is not in question, but they are allowed to appeal for years over trivial things just to stay alive. In these cases, where guilt is not in question, there should be no appeals allowed and death should be quick.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

I said credible eyewitnesses. Not someone who saw something in a dark alley or from 500 yards away. An eye witness like in the Carr brothers case is what I was talking about. You know, where there is a 0% chance that they are identifying the wrong person.

I'm fine with DNA analysis being done by an independent firm and both the prosecution and defense are only allowed to use that firms findings. That sounds reasonable.

The fact remains that there are many cases where the person's guilt is not in question, but they are allowed to appeal for years over trivial things just to stay alive. In these cases, where guilt is not in question, there should be no appeals allowed and death should be quick.

Because we can always trust prosecutors to hand over exculpatory evidence and not try to railroad people.

Because we know prosecutors will never put an expert on the stand that isn't an expert but says what the prosecutors want.

Sorry, as long as prosecutors get almost total immunity they can not be trusted to do the right thing. We have to assume that prosecutors are trying to game the system and a death penalty conviction is a huge boon to the prosecutors credibility and future political considerations.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Because we can always trust prosecutors to hand over exculpatory evidence and not try to railroad people.

Because we know prosecutors will never put an expert on the stand that isn't an expert but says what the prosecutors want.

Sorry, as long as prosecutors get almost total immunity they can not be trusted to do the right thing. We have to assume that prosecutors are trying to game the system and a death penalty conviction is a huge boon to the prosecutors credibility and future political considerations.

The defense is allowed to do investigation also. In your first example, the defense has the right to question the three year old boy and why in the blue **** didn't the family push for this. In this example, my death penalty rules would not apply. There were no credible eye witnesses to prove this man's guilt, no video proving his guilt, he didn't admit he did it, and there wasn't any DNA evidence proving his guilt. In fact, in the end DNA evidence is what freed him.

The second link is irrelevant. I never mentioned any testimony by medical examiners as a reason for no appeals and quick execution. It seems to me you are arguing that the death penalty should never be used. If that's the case and you feel scumbags like the Carr brothers deserve to appeal their case for 15 years while they sit in jail, then we are never going to agree.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by L.A. Chieffan

Two separate quadruple homicides within a week? In a small Midwestern town? Not to mention one of the most notorious serial killers ever? Violent crime rate double the national average? No wonder you guys want your guns do bad. I'll be enjoying my hippie So Cal lifestyle.

You are a perfect example of a typical Californian's total obliviousness to reality.

[Marcellus]

It's not a popular stance but the fact is no system is perfect and I will take the risk of a very small number of people being executed wrongly vs this bullshit.

Not always but typically most people wrongly convicted of capital crime already have a lengthy criminal history. Not always I understand.

It's simply a matter of the greater good concept. There are always sacrifices to be made and that has been true since the dawn of time.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

It's not a popular stance but the fact is no system is perfect and I will take the risk of a very small number of people being executed wrongly vs this bullshit.

Not always but typically most people wrongly convicted of capital crime already have a lengthy criminal history. Not always I understand.

It's simply a matter of the greater good concept. There are always sacrifices to be made and that has been true since the dawn of time.

That is fine. I have only one thing to say to that. You think that "sacrifices" are acceptable? You and your family first.

If that is not acceptable to you then why do you think it is acceptable to do to other people?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

That is fine. I have only one thing to say to that. You think that "sacrifices" are acceptable? You and your family first.

If that is not acceptable to you then why do you think it is acceptable to do to other people?

Feel free to disagree. I and my extended family have sacrificed or chanced ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. I understand the concept.

Don't preach to me about this, I don't need it.


If you don't understand that you can risk the safety .0005% of the population to ensure quality life for the 99% then I can't help you.

Altruism is great in a world where no one wants you harmed.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Feel free to disagree. I and my extended family have sacrificed or chanced ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. I understand the concept.

Don't preach to me about this, I don't need it.


If you don't understand that you can risk the safety .0005% of the population to ensure quality life for the 99% then I can't help you.

Altruism is great in a world where no one wants you harmed.

You and your family signed up for the military, good for you. That is different from the state executing an innocent person. You may be fine with that if it is someone you don't know. Its easy to sacrifice unknown people to give you the illusion of security or to sate your lust for vengeance. You may justify and rationalize it to yourself that others who were not innocent were also executed. Those are just justifications and rationalizations.

You may stay in Omelas but I choose to walk away.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

You and your family signed up for the military, good for you. That is different from the state executing an innocent person. You may be fine with that if it is someone you don't know. Its easy to sacrifice unknown people to give you the illusion of security or to sate your lust for vengeance. You may justify and rationalize it to yourself that others who were not innocent were also executed. Those are just justifications and rationalizations.

You may stay in Omelas but I choose to walk away.

What about in the cases where there is a 100% chance the person is guilty. You OK with the death penalty being used without appeals?