Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Justice for woman procrastinated

Kimberly McCarthy
As if 14 years was not enough time to figure out whether her jury was racist, convicted murderer Kimberly Lagayle McCarthy did not face justice Tuesday evening as scheduled. Judge Larry Mitchell, a Democratic judge from Dallas County, rescheduled McCarthy's execution so her attorneys could appeal based upon the desperate claim that McCarthy's jury was terribly, terribly racist. Dallas County's district attorney, Craig Watkins, praised the decision as "appropriate." Watkins noted that if everything was in order, the execution would proceed.

My question is why could such a minor issue be resolved immediately following the trial? Does it seriously take 14 years? No, it doesn't. It is the delay of justice. Those responsible for the death of President Lincoln were execute within a year of the incident. Now, executions take 10 to 15 years and beyond to be carried out. What bothers me is even though the jury that convicted McCarthy was composed of 11 whites and 1 black, Judge Mitchell and others have assumed that the white folks on that jury were racist. That is a presumption based upon the color of their skin, and we have a word for that in the United States: racism. It is ironic and disgusting at the same time.

This is why I believe the Texas' legislature should immediately consider legislation that would mandate convicting courts to set an execution date on the same day of conviction to provide motivation for the defense to expediently file and resolve all appeals, require the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider capital cases first, abolish the automatic appeal, and only allow up to two post-conviction writs of habeas corpus. In reality, if you are truly innocent of the offense of which you were convicted, which I believe is the only reason anyone should be exonerated, then it will not take more than two attempts to receive exoneration. Most of the time, appeals are merely used as an avenue to delay justice. 

Kimberly McCarthy and numerous other should have already faced the ultimate penalty for their actions. Why haven't they? 
By

21 comments:

  1. But why should we give anyone the death penalty at all??? That would be the best way to give them a chance to prove their innocence, as there would be no deadline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Not having the death penalty would be the best way, that is.

      Delete

    2. I wrote an article fully explaining why we should have the death penalty. I recommend you read it here:

      http://www.teensituationroom.org/2012/11/considering-capital-punishment.html

      If you don't want to read the whole thing here is a summary:
      1. The death penalty is practically effective as a deterrent.
      2. The death penalty is morally required as a just consequence for murder and other offenses.

      Delete

    3. But we shouldn't judge people, so why do you say you can if it's the death penalty?

      Delete

    4. That statement makes no sense. Are you saying there should be no criminal justice?

      Delete

    5. No, absolutely not. I'm just saying we shouldn't make any judgments that have absolute consequences.

      Delete

    6. You wouldn't consider prison an absolute consequence? Tell that to someone who spent 40 years in prison for an offense. He absolutely is not getting that 40 years of his life back. You can't reverse that.

      Delete

  2. Death penalty is definately tricky. I think it's necessary, though. And it's backed up by the Bible. Jesus had to die because we sinned--someone has to pay the penalty for every wrong commited. And since we live in a just (that's even becoming debatable) country, it's death for death. We've gotta have some bad punishment for bad things! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I agree with you, Anna. The Bible is very supportive of capital punishment. I always say, things are not true because they're in the Bible, things are in the Bible because they are true. The death penalty is clearly a just consequences: life for life. It serves as an effective deterrent, as well.

      Delete

    2. Of course, we have to be careful about truth when we read in the Psalms and David is saying, "Oh Lord, kill my enemies!" :)

      Delete

    3. You're right. We have to use good judgement when separating history from law. There are some laws (e.g., the law against eating pork) that have long expired. Others (e.g., capital punishment) still stand because they were confirmed by the New Testament and for other reasons.

      Delete

    4. And just the fact that the Bible is showing us (in the Psalms, and other books like that) what humanity is like. When we go through a rough time (someone I know died today, for instance) we can know that we're not the only ones who wanted to strangle that person, or thought that God had forsaken us. God's showing us that humanity is humanity from the beginning of the world to now--and it hasn't changed (except for a bunch of genetic mutations:)).

      Delete

    5. Right, and that is why we need government. Paul said he would not have known sin except through the law. That is the function of government, not the re-distributor of wealth. In fact, that is what defines me as a conservative: the belief that we do not have the right to behave immorally.

      Delete

    6. Totally! I just wish that stuff like what's mentioned above didn't happen, and that people would just DO WHAT'S RIGHT!!! Some people think that the constitution is a 'breathing document' or whatever they call it. In other words, they think that the constitution changes over time. Yikes! These people are in charge of the government too!

      Delete

    7. The notion that our Constitution is "living and breathing" is misguided and unfortunately, ignorant of truth. That's the problem I have with libertarians' and liberals' beliefs. They believe the Constitution can be interpreted to include just about any behavior as a right (e.g., gay marriage, abortion, burning the flag, etc.)

      Delete

  3. By the way, my dad (the pastor of our church) is preaching a series on the Holy Spirit. Recently, he's been talking specifically about the difference between illumination and inspiration. Do any of y'all know the difference?
    *Hint* It deals with truth, relative truth, and writing the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Hmmm ... I don't believe I've ever considered that. I suppose illumination is when God makes something clear; and inspiration is when an idea is derived from God's law.

      Delete

    2. So very close...!

      Inspiration: God-breathed truth (the Bible). It's inerrent and a bunch of other things meaning totally reliable.

      Illumination: When God reveals something to us through His word regarding our life now. This is not inerrent because we tend to misinterperet (spelling?) the Bible. It's not inerrant on our side, but it is on God's side.

      Pretty cool, huh?

      Delete

  4. I'm logging off now! Thanks for the great conversation!

    ReplyDelete

  5. Wow! Great discussion. I really enjoyed reading it! :)
    Referring to the commenter at the beginning, I have a question. How can one prove one's innocence if they are clearly not innocent? If they're clearly not innocent and are a convicted murderer, then biblically, they should be held to justice and put to death.
    Also, I would like to point out how inconsistent our society is. Let's look at the case of Kimberly McCarthy. She is a convicted murderer, but because some people said that her jury was racist, her execution was delayed. Justice has not been met. The whole idea that Kimberly McCarthy's execution was delayed because some people thought that her jury was racist, is absurd. Despite that, she has murdered someone, and, therefore, must have justice. Is not justice most important at this point? Take away the death penalty, and justice shall never be met.
    Now lets look at something else; the life of the unborn child is in a desperate situation of injustice.
    Here you have a convicted felon (Kimberly McCarthy) who has murdered someone, and then on the other hand you have a child, not yet born, who has done nothing wrong. This child's life is taken away because of another person's carelessness or selfishness. Now, is that not the greatest injustice? Why are we so concerned about ridding of the death penalty for convicted murderers, when nothing is done to stop mothers from murdering their own children? Please, correct me of my flaws in my argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. That is a terrific argument regarding liberals' hypocritical positions. They advocate death for the innocent but life for the most guilty.
      Also, I hadn't thought about McCarthy's execution in those terms - why her attorneys' opinion superior to justice? In a state, Texas, where most of our public policy is remarkably conservative, why do we allow endless appeals for frivolous reasons such as race. If McCarthy was truly innocent, her appeal would be able evidence and facts, not speculation. The first appeal is always about evidence. When the convict loses, they always appeal based on race, their childhood, their income, etc. It just shows how absurd our current appeals system really is. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to post-conviction writs of Habeas Corpus; therefore, I believe only 1 - 2 should be permitted under the law, "racial injustice" notwithstanding.

      Delete

Please keep your remarks respectful. If you're having a debate via comments I encourage you to subscribe to post comments below so you can keep up with the discussion!

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)