Arizona can execute Danny Lee Jones, 6-3 Supreme Court rules (www.courthousenews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240531114420/https://www.courthousenews.com/arizona-can-execute-danny-lee-jones-supreme-court-rules/

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

I think dead penalty overall is a bad idea. Should probably just rot in jail for the rest of his life

Jones killed Robert Weaver and his 7-year-old daughter, Tisha, in 1992. The men were drinking and using methamphetamine until Jones hit Weaver over the head with a baseball bat. Jones continued his assault, attacking Weaver’s grandmother and then his daughter.

Jones was arrested for the murders of Weaver and his daughter and the attempted murder of Weaver’s grandmother — who later succumbed to her injuries.

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I mean, he killed 3 people with a baseball bat...

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 73 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I mean,

The public defender assigned to represent Jones learned that he was oxygen-deprived at birth and had a lithium deficiency — a condition linked to serious psychiatric disorders. Jones’s medical records showed that he was medicated for mood disorders, had attempted suicide and was admitted to a mental hospital.

Despite having access to this information, Jones’s attorney did not further investigate his mental health until after he was convicted.

Jones's lawyer presented three witnesses during sentencing, including a doctor to testify about his mental health issues. Dr. Jack Potts was only able to conduct a short examination of Jones, however, so his report was less than one page of analysis. Dr. Potts advocated for more testing, but the request was denied.

Like, setting aside the death penalty in general for a second, this is just a flagrant disregard of legal precedent when it comes to legal competency and ineffective assistance of counsel.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Everything here to make any difference, a person would have to have compassion. You won't find that in Republican judges.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

“When a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

The George W. Bush appointee said the Arizona Supreme Court has never vacated a death sentence for someone who committed multiple murders or any of the other aggravating circumstances in Jones’ case.

If true, it sounds like those mitigating factors wouldn't have changed a thing

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago

I mean, innocent people get put to death so maybe we shouldn't even kill the ones we're sure we did what with being unable to unkill people?

I mean, maybe the state shouldn't have the power of life and death over its citizens.

I mean, it would seem to me that we should strive to be better than the people we convict.

I mean, shouldn't the U.S. be like every other Western country and not do this shit?

[-] Gimpydude@lemmynsfw.com 16 points 3 months ago

The American justice system is about punishment, not rehabilitation. If it were, we wouldn't have the death penalty.

[+] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world -25 points 3 months ago

I'm going to take the L on this one but nah, I'm pro death penalty. I think there are absolutely times when it is a net good.

[-] cdf12345@lemm.ee 31 points 3 months ago

Still doesn’t outweigh accidentally executing an innocent prisoner who is later found innocent but too late.

[-] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

Consider this: it costs more to keep an inmate on death row and execute them than it does to imprison them for life.

If what you like about the death penalty is the punishment aspect, it's a greater punishment to hold someone in jail for life.

AND if we discover - as does happen a lot - that person is actually innocent, they can be released and still have some sort of life outside of prison. That's not a great fate, but I would argue it's much better than depriving them of their life only to find out later they were innocent.

The death penalty just doesn't make much sense.

[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Isn't the reason it costs more to keep someone on death row largely due to the appeals they get?

I'd much rather we spend more making sure we aren't destroying the lives of innocent people than save money by not giving them as many chances to get an unjust sentence overturned. Which isn't necessarily a pro-death penalty position, as it could also be a call to reform the appeals process for everyone else.

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So the argument is, it costs so much to maintain the filter that tries to keep innocent people from being executed, so let's make it cheaper by removing some of that filter.

It costs more to execute somebody than keep them in prison forever in order to make as sure as we can that a person is guilty before executing them, by allowing more appeals.

Suggesting the solution to that is fewer appeals is directly saying that it is better to kill more innocent people at a lower cost than it is to not kill anyone.

Also, that it's worth killing innocent people as long as bad people die. Not to prevent them from committing further harm, but just to kill them.

I'm struggling to see the benefit in that cost/benefit analysis. It's not about protecting people (because it actively kills innocent people), it's about killing people just to kill bad people.

Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying. But I would also say that while it would be great to improve the system for the initial trial, removing appeals would have the opposite effect and wouldn't help the initial trial at all. However, if the initial trials are better, everything would still be cheaper regardless of the appeals because there'd be less people falsely imprisoned on death row.

[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

To be clear, I was just pointing out that the savings aren't coming from eliminating the death penalty, they are coming from reducing the number of appeals, and therefore increasing the likelihood that an innocent person will spend the rest of their life in prison, which is a bad thing. I'm not advocating for or against the death penalty, but I do think that a life sentence should come with just as many safeguards as a death sentence. The fact that you could release someone who was wrongfully convicted only matters if you actually allow those mistakes to be corrected.

We could use improvements at every part of the process. The appeals process however can be particularly awful, and is full of arbitrary restrictions and limitations that have little effect other than making it harder to correct mistakes and injustices. Some of them were put in place for no reason other than because politicians wanted to look tough on crime, and apparently overturning convictions looks bad for the justice system's track record. But really I was only bringing it up because it's relevant to the cost argument.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 months ago

It costs more because those opposed made it so endless appeals were allowed. It's basically the same thing environmental impact studies can do to development projects.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 17 points 3 months ago

Is it worth it, knowing that we have 100% executed an innocent man for murdering his three small children in an accidental house fire? Can you imagine the mental agony of not just losing your precious beloved children, but to be convicted and then executed knowing everyone believes you are the worst kind of monster?

Is occasionally killing someone who actually deserves it worth that trade off to you? Because it's not to me, and I think anyone who says yes is an absolute fucking monster.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

How do you insure that it is only those "net good" times and not any other times?

And why is executing citizens a net good but we keep terrorists alive at Gitmo?

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh? You can demonstrably prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that society is better without a single, specific convict?

I bet I could do it much easier, verbose, and convincing about lawyers. Should we kill all them next?

[-] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago

I won't deny that there are some people whose deaths are a net positive. I just don't trust the government to pick them out.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

That seems to be what Alito couldn’t get past, despite the technical problems and legal questions about counsel.

He’s still entitled to a proper defense. Alito ignored the lower courts wrestling with issues and skipped over the 500+ pages of evidence and discussion of them and did his own ruling. That’s not how justice should work, and the 3 justices called him out on it.

this post was submitted on 31 May 2024

67 points (100.0% liked)

News

22831 readers

4156 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world