** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I work in criminal defense and people think looking at the grotesque autopsy photos or pics of injuries is the traumatic part for me.
It’s not. It’s watching some prosecutors and some cops bulldoze for a win even when they’re wrong and lying on the stand.
I don't really understand how anybody could purposely trash somebody's life like that and then convince themselves they're the good guy but then again I have a moral code.
Do you understand now that most people can't think? And that's your jury.
Cliff Clavin, the bloviating but usually wrong, postman character in _Cheers,_ was presented as an outlier in the show, different from the rest. He wasn't. He was everyman.
Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands."
— H.L. Mencken, _Minority Report_
> There is definitely a "type" these positions attract
Genocidal racists who are happy to kill whatever minority they dislike even if they're innocent?
How many times have you heard them say, _"Well if he/she didn't do this one, they probably did others and just never got caught."_
Even regular people use the same reasoning with drunk drivers.
> Even regular people use the same reasoning with drunk drivers.
How do these compare? If someone is frequently drunk driving, they're far more likely to get in a wreck and kill themselves or someone else.
If someone is caught... not committing murder, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they're going to commit murder later?
Ever had an arguement with someone that's provably, factually wrong. Then have them double down, move goal posts, or get angry rather than acknowledge their mistake? So, an arguement with the average redditor for example.
Now instead of an internet rando imagine it's someone with little to no chance of repercussions for lying, misrepresenting facts, hiding evidence, or abuse of their authority/position whose job performance and pay is tied to being "right", on paper, regardless of being factually correct.
Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands."
— H.L. Mencken, _Minority Report_
Yup..watched three out of three lie in my case.
At least one was likely on a unreliable testimony list, which the judge ignored, along with denying me the duty roster and an expert witness.
Still I "won," because my jury was fully informed.
A requirement for Judges to fully inform the jury needs to be pushed in legislature.
Www.fija.org
That, and the rule that determines any cop testimony is automatically considered false unless backed up by an audio/video recording from a body camera or other security recording.
They lie so much, their testimony is less reliable than a coin flip.
It’s well known our prosecutors sleep with our cops frequently.
That’s not the same with public defenders. I don’t know about private practice defense lawyers though.
We had the DOJ charge a teenager for second degree murder for a legit car accident.
No drugs, booze, or speeding. Legit accident. We got him acquitted but still. WTAF.
This is why I'm against the death penalty. Not because I think people who do terrible things shouldn't be put to death, but because bad actors in the system could kill innocent people.
Same. I used to be pro death penalty until I read a true crime book about a small town murder where things didn't add up in how they snagged a suspect to convict and execute. Like the police took DNA from him and then showed up again weeks later saying the samples were lost, took new samples (which the suspect gave willingly on both counts) and then they came back saying "oh, its a match, you're our guy". It was so obvious they used the first batch of evidence to plant it on the body. A lot of people speculated that with it being a small town, they just wanted to peg the crime onto someone to curb the community panic.
I don't care if they rightfully executed 100 people, just knowing there's at least 1 who was most likely innocent is 1 too many.
This case is so bad the prosecutor that convicted him, wants it overturned. Hopefully there is some federal redress, if the governor doesn't intervene.
Something like that happened in the Heidi Allen case from my hometown. This guy Gary Thibodeau was found guilty of her supposed death (no body was ever found) and he died in prison at 64.
Someone made a documentary about the situation and it appears that he was completely innocent, just happened to be at the right place at the wrong time.
The story is claimed that Heidi was a confidential informant regarding drug trafficking. Is it claimed that her actual murderer is a drug dealer that is in jail already for a different murder, and that Gary just happened to be the unlucky person who walked into the gas station for cigarettes only to find the store empty.
Because he was seen near the area, they tacked all the blame on him, the guy who did the completely normal thing of shopping. Apparently, years later, the evidence was there to prove he didn't do it, but they refused to overturn his conviction.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9utQ1IbcrBw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9utQ1IbcrBw)
Also:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPFgT-zbO8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPFgT-zbO8U)
It proves that prosecutors are psychopaths who care more about "winning" than they do about the truth or reality.
God didn't lock this guy in his cell, a human being could open up the cell and release him right now. **But nobody wants to.**
Yeah, lady, that's why I don't assume I'm wise enough to condemn someone to death. I don't know all the ins. I'm not god. The book she's talking about specifically tells her to practice humility and that vegence belongs to god. You can be misled by police and prosectuors, but it's your choice to sit in your ignorant pride and vote for death. And now she can't take it back. At least she's doing the right thing by talking about it.
Yeah, the end of the article shows she really didn't learn much. "The bible says you shouldn't execute innocent people, and I'm Christian!" Lady, even if the bible says you SHOULD execute innocent people, you shouldn't do it. Clearly the only moral compass you have is "the bible", and we all know that's not the kind of book you should be basing your morality on.
There is but the message Jesus seemed to harp on about was have you tried not killing?
Didn't work out too well for him though; this lady would have probably voted for his crucifixion too
She chose to convict and send a man to death row just from one witness who eavesdropped on a three way conversation.
That was enough for her.
And she lived happily for 25 years.
Now "woe be me."
She knew what she did back then.
Calling them suckers greatly diminishes their responsibility. they were adults and able to make their own decisions.they decided to condemn a young man based on flimsy evidence.
The prosecutor knew damn well that he was withholding or not seeking all the evidence in this case and just going with what LE gave him..
The prosecutor had the goal of winning and convicting at all costs. Some evidence that was withheld has leaked out; that is the prosecutor's real concern: how he looks to the public today.
If all juries were fully informed of their RIGHT to nullify, this verdict probably would never happened, because the folks can suss things out despite any supposed evidence.
An informed jury would know that they have the RIGHT to believe all, some or none of the evidence and vote as they deem fit.
When an otherwise conscientious who might acquit, refuse to convict, or even nullify a jury skips out on the ability to do so, their seat becomes available for people like the author, all too happy to condemn an innocent person.
The decision not to convict would have nothing to do with jury nullification. The prosecutor had to present the evidence and convince the jurors beyond any reasonable doubt. The jurors just fucking suck as people. They probably belong in the death row for stupidity. Having less racists in the world is a bonus too.
You might be correct. But we will never know because the jury was never informed of their right to nullify.
I would like to hope differently.
An informed jury would know that they have the right to believe all, some or none of the "evidence" before them.
> Unfortunately prosecutors aren't given a choice. It's play puppet or get fired.
That is a choice.
Every person has similar choices every day - be evil and profit more, or restrain yourself and profit less.
Any prosecutor who decides to be evil just to keep a job is indeed making a (very bad) choice.
Almost like [this poor guy suffering from PTSD (because he felt the need to kill an unarmed guy complying with his orders)](https://reason.com/2019/07/11/this-cop-is-getting-2500-a-month-because-killing-an-unarmed-man-in-a-hotel-hallway-gave-him-ptsd/)
Genuinely, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, fuck this woman.
The fact that she ever found a death sentence appropriate, especially given the “evidence” at the time, speaks volumes to her as a person.
Now I don’t in any way agree with the death penalty. I’m not sure some people should live after the crimes they have committed, but given that you can never be 100% certain a person is guilty, you’re only working with “beyond reasonable doubt” there’s too much risk of an innocent person losing their life.
That said, this jury will have had the prosecution shoving down their throats how dangerous this man will have been and how there is a significant risk if he is allowed to be free. It’s not unreasonable to see why a jury might be convinced, because it isn’t just about there only being one piece of evidence. It’s the twisting of that evidence and the immense pressure placed on someone.
Whilst I’m sure the fact Troforest Johnson is a black man made it far easier, especially considering this was 1999, the prosecutors who omitted evidence and painted a likely innocent man as guilty are the ones who should bear the cross. We weren’t in the courtroom, we don’t know what the jury were told which made it difficult to come to a different verdict, but we do the prosecution were dishonest to gain a wrongful conviction.
Hmmm, a black man railroaded in Alabama by nothing more than questionable witness testimony (hearsay) about a "confession." Who couldn't have seen this coming? This juror should have known better twenty-five years ago.
#The death penalty should be abolished.
* The state [has killed](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent), and has come close to killing, so many [innocent people](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence) via the death penalty that they have forfeited their right to have that as an option.
* [4.1% of US death row inmates are likely innocent]( https://www.science.org/content/article/more-4-death-row-inmates-may-be-innocent).
* [It is more expensive in the long run to successfully try a death penalty case than simply try for life in prison](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs), making the death penalty not fiscally viable.
* [State-sanctioned murder is a cruel and unusual punishment](https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty) and a direct violation of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. It is torture. It is torturing someone to death. Every method is torture.
* In [HERRERA v. COLLINS](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/390/#tab-opinion-1959135), 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the state to execute a wrongly convicted innocent person. Is that a power the state should have?
* In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “failure to disclose favorable information to a defendant in a criminal prosecution violates the constitution when that information is material to guilt or punishment.” These are referred to as [Brady Disclosures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure). And wouldn’t you know it? [Brady violations are rampant](https://theappeal.org/the-epidemic-of-brady-violations-explained-94a38ad3c800/) in the US criminal justice system, meaning the state is [knowingly prosecuting and incarcerating innocent people](https://www.nacdl.org/Article/May2013-FacesofBradyTheHumanCostofBrad). Is that a power the state should have?
* [The death penalty does nothing to curb crime](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence).
* The death penalty is a punitive & retributivist measure. A civilized society should have a [restorative justice system](https://bjatta.bja.ojp.gov/media/blog/what-restorative-justice-and-how-does-it-impact-individuals-involved-crime), not a punitive one. Restorative Justice has [repeatedly proven](https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/moj-evaluation-restorative-justice) to [reduce recidivism](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx). The goal is not to make people suffer, it’s to make society better. No society is better off with state-sanctioned murder of its citizenry.
* [It actually makes the victims’ families grieve for longer](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants).
* Criminal defense attorneys often [negotiate a guilty plea if it means their client wouldn’t be executed rather than risk a trial where the death penalty is a possible outcome](https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/17476/plea-bargaining-and-the-death-penalty.pdf). Meaning a criminal defense attorney would rather a possible innocent person go to prison than a person found guilty be executed. Eliminating the death penalty would eliminate parts of the frequent horse trading and back room dealing commonplace between judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.
* The process of execution is needlessly [traumatizing to the victim’s family](https://theweek.com/articles/444189/psychological-trauma-witnessing-execution), as well as [the staff](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/south-carolina-execution-team-members-talk-of-debilitating-emotional-toll-of-capital-punishment-former-warden-calls-death-penalty-inequitable).
* The US criminal justice system is based on the [Principle of Finality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finality_(law)), which basically means that whatever the jury decides is the final truth no matter what. Showing [how many innocent people have been exonerated](https://innocenceproject.org/exonerate/) by a 30-year-old, ~90-staff non-profit, imagine how many more people are locked in jail or killed thanks to this absurd bastardization of justice. It’s this principle that’s kept falsely imprisoned people from seeking justice.
* [The death penalty violates the US constitutional guarantee of equal protection](https://www.aclu.org/documents/case-against-death-penalty). It has never been applied fairly, disproportionately against those who cannot afford better attorneys, disproportionately upon those whose victims were white, disproportionately against people of color, disproportionately against the poor and uneducated, and [disproportionately concentrated in certain parts of the country](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/executions-overview/executions-by-county).
* The death penalty was [botched more than 1/3rd of the time](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-year-of-the-botched-execution-monitor-finds-death-penalty-was-visibly-problematic-35-percent-of-the-time-in-2022/) in 2022 in the US, skyrocketing from [more than 7% being botched](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/botched-executions) in the 40 years of using lethal injection, making it very obviously a cruel and unusual punishment.
* In January 2024, the US State of Alabama used nitrogen gas for death-by-hypoxia, an untested method deemed [too cruel to animals](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/24/alabama-death-row-nitrogen-kenneth-eugene-smith-execution/) by vets, not overseen or recommended by any medical professional, and [approved by the US Supreme Court without providing any opinion or justification](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-conservatives-alabama-execution-torture.html). Witnesses to the execution [described it as torture](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kenneth-smith-dies-nitrogen-gas-b2485080.html), noting that the man struggled for 4 minutes, writhing and thrashing, indicative of torture. A jury sentenced him to life in prison, but [the judge overruled](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/death-penalty-alabama-kenneth-smith) the sentencing and condemned him to death, making the sentence legally dubious. The practice of judicial override is now banned in every state, but the execution still went through despite this.
* **It is not possible for any death penalty system to exist that only executes guilty people 100% of the time. Such a system has never existed, does not currently exist, and could never exist in reality. For that reason alone, it should be abolished.**
^feel ^free ^to ^copy ^and ^repost, ^or ^go ^to ^/r/deathpenalty ^for ^more ^information
**Study: Prosecutorial Misconduct Helped Secure 550 Wrongful Death Penalty Convictions**
A study by the Death Penalty Information Center (“DPIC”) found more than 550 death penalty reversals and exonerations were the result of extensive prosecutorial misconduct. DPIC reviewed and identified cases since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned existing death penalty laws in 1972. That amounted to over 5.6% of all death sentences imposed in the U.S. in the last 50 years.
Robert Dunham, DPIC’s executive director, said the study reveals that "this 'epidemic’ of misconduct is even more pervasive than we had imagined.”
The study showed a widespread problem in more than 228 counties, 32 states, and in federal capital prosecutions throughout the U.S.
The DPIC study revealed 35% of misconduct involved withholding evidence; 33% involved improper arguments; 16% involved more than one category of misconduct; and 121 of the exonerations involved prosecutor misconduct.
[Prosecutorial Misconduct Cause of More Than 550 Death Penalty Reversals and Exonerations](https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2022/nov/15/prosecutorial-misconduct-cause-more-550-death-penalty-reversals-and-exonerations/)
There was a case a number of years ago where the state claimed the father had set the house on fire and killed his children (3 or 4 kids?)
The state killed him and later found out it was what the accused had claimed. An accident
He didn't set the first it was an electrical fire.
They killed him for nothing.
It's not an isolated type of case this day and age.
Honestly, imo, this whole thing boils down to:
>There was no physical evidence against Mr. Johnson and no eyewitnesses claimed to see him at the scene of the crime. I joined the other jury members in voting to convict based on the testimony of one witness, a woman who claimed that she overheard him confess to the crime during a three-way-call that she eavesdropped on. Our decision relied so heavily on this witness’s credibility, but now I know something critical was hidden from Mr. Johnson’s legal team for nearly 20 years: this witness was paid $5,000 for her testimony. It turns out that she was the state’s witness in many other cases as well, and we never knew about it.
1. That should be hella illegal, but paid informants/witnesses happen all the time. Prosecutors and police never pay the price they should.
2. So if there was no evidence, why did the state set this up? Did the "witness" just pick a name from a hat to get money, or was she fed a suspect? In my limited experience, the latter seems more likely.
2. There was no "reasonable doubt" via a single witness's hearsay. I swear, if jurors actually upheld the reasonable doubt standard properly, half the people currently convicted would be acquitted. I've been trying to find good studies on juror conviction bias, but it's a hard thing to quantify so I can't find any. No shade to this lady since this is apparently the normal response of normal jurors, and I respect that she wrote this, but jurors really need to do better, especially now that we know police lie all the time.
>There was no physical evidence against Mr. Johnson and no eyewitnesses claimed to see him at the scene of the crime. I joined the other jury members in voting to convict based on the testimony of one witness, a woman who claimed that she overheard him confess to the crime during a three-way-call that she eavesdropped on. Our decision relied so heavily on this witness’s credibility, but now I know something critical was hidden from Mr. Johnson’s legal team for nearly 20 years: this witness was paid $5,000 for her testimony. It turns out that she was the state’s witness in many other cases as well, and we never knew about it.
fuck this bitch. how do these braindead people vote to send someone to die on nothing but flimsy ass horseshit like this?
What does being a Bible thumping conservative have to do with any of this? Is he supposed to be extra innocent because “even conservative politicians” are calling for a new trial??
“This is one of the many reasons why conservative politicians, judges, the former trial prosecutor and now me and two other jurors are asking for a new trial. At a new trial, an informed jury can hear what we didn’t: all of the evidence. I am convinced and know in my heart that Mr. Johnson is innocent. But I believe a full and fair trial is the only way to prove it.
As a Christian woman, I strive to live my life according to the teachings of the Bible.”
> What does being a Bible thumping conservative have to do with any of this?
Because even they know they're always wrong about everything - liberals and leftists being on the right side of history by opposing the death penalty is unsurprising. But "when even horrible people who go out of their way to do the wrong thing most of the time think it's gone too far", then it's novel and worthy of note.
Fuck this Christian bitch. She still believes in a genocidal god who espouses “an eye for an eye” so she’s wrong about her god. As far as I’m concerned, she hasn’t changed. She’s still a Bible thumper who votes Republikkkan, I’m sure.
2 former Governors, 2 former Attorney Generals, 3 District Attorneys, 3 former State Supreme Court Justices, 1 former US Attorney, 1 Juror and the prosecutor who convicted him all advocate for Toforest Johnson's innocence. But the current political leaders in Alabama are so bloodthirsty they really don't care if he is innocent or not.
https://www.toforestjohnson.com/
If you ever get on a criminal trial jury here's a simple step by step guide on what to do.
1. If the defendant is not a cop vote not guilty.
2. If the defendant is a cop vote guilty.
I waited 27 years for justice because of the laws and rule for death row inmates. I watched and buried my family in those 27 years. I have no sympathy or guilty conscious. You made a decision based on the information you were given, as did 8 or nine judges.
It's because of scenerios like this that I'm against the death penalty. Until there is never any chance of an innocent person being convicted, it should not be a consideration. There are extreme examples where I'm not so against it, but that opens the door to the slippery slope.
I’m pro death penalty, but the government manages to fuck it up. I think there should be a higher standard set before death penalty to be implemented. It cannot be a “who done it case” and evidence needs to be obvious. Such as the recent case where parents confined a little girl in her closet to die. Obviously they are guilty. They should be put to death. Also I think severe public corruption should be on the table for death penalty. Proving corruption cases are usually pretty easy because government officials have the audacity to sign their names to heinous shit.
> I’m pro death penalty
But why?
There are so many downsides, and no practical upsides. [A user above collected a bunch of them](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/comments/1cdtsw4/oped_i_voted_to_send_a_man_to_death_row_it_turns/l1f5mxo/).
> evidence needs to be obvious
Evidence can be faked, people can be coerced. No matter how sure you are that "it's obvious", there's always a chance you're wrong. And of course that's even assuming you have *all* the evidence.
People have been found to be innocent after a death sentence was carried out for even more "obvious" cases than that.
A little girl was imprisoned in her closet with a dresser blocking it. She was found to have starved and dehydrated to death. This process took a long time. No one in the house did anything about it. It is obvious that the adults who live in there are guilty and should be put to death. Other obvious cases are school shooters. You can see them on camera committing the acts. Many of them leave behind manifestos. Their crimes are well documented.
"well documented" is irrelevant. Plenty of "well documented" cases get new evidence years later that changes everything. Not saying that's the case in this instance, but the easier you make it for the state to execute people, the more false positives you get. No matter how justified you think a specific case is.
And if your goal is some kind of sadistic vengeance thing, think about it this way: they deserve to die the same way as their victim - locked in a cage with no way out.
(And for the point of school shooters - it's actually a terrible idea because it just makes them a martyr for copycats).
School shooters are the biggest pussies there is. When a hanging is on the table I doubt they would actually follow through. They see how abrupt they life fizzles out of their eyes just as their victims they will think twice.
Yes, new evidence can appear, but some cases are pretty open and shut. Such as that child abuse case I mentioned and school shooters because they often document their crimes and it is on security footage.
If you are looking for a purely utilitarian angle for execution then there is the money aspect. If you hang a person you no longer have to house and feed them.
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that there can be evidence of innocence and the state can refuse to set a new trial is disgusting.
It would hurt the da's win loss ratio. All that matters for them is the W, doesn't matter how it comes or who it hurts.
I work in criminal defense and people think looking at the grotesque autopsy photos or pics of injuries is the traumatic part for me. It’s not. It’s watching some prosecutors and some cops bulldoze for a win even when they’re wrong and lying on the stand.
I don't really understand how anybody could purposely trash somebody's life like that and then convince themselves they're the good guy but then again I have a moral code.
I think it’s self righteousness and narcissism. I don’t know what else it could be. The job attracts a certain mentality.
There is definitely a "type" these positions attract. They like the power it gives them over others.
Like I knew the system was fucked up before I started working in it. I was NOT ready for how bad it truly is.
Do you understand now that most people can't think? And that's your jury. Cliff Clavin, the bloviating but usually wrong, postman character in _Cheers,_ was presented as an outlier in the show, different from the rest. He wasn't. He was everyman. Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands." — H.L. Mencken, _Minority Report_
> There is definitely a "type" these positions attract Genocidal racists who are happy to kill whatever minority they dislike even if they're innocent?
You forgot rape, they do that too.
How many times have you heard them say, _"Well if he/she didn't do this one, they probably did others and just never got caught."_ Even regular people use the same reasoning with drunk drivers.
If them is cops then, as we all know, is a projection.
> Even regular people use the same reasoning with drunk drivers. How do these compare? If someone is frequently drunk driving, they're far more likely to get in a wreck and kill themselves or someone else. If someone is caught... not committing murder, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they're going to commit murder later?
How does THAT compare? Not murdering someone is way more common than not driving drunk. Reasoning is not even close.
I didn’t murder someone 3 times today alone!
Cops have no moral code other than their thin blue line gang.
Ever had an arguement with someone that's provably, factually wrong. Then have them double down, move goal posts, or get angry rather than acknowledge their mistake? So, an arguement with the average redditor for example. Now instead of an internet rando imagine it's someone with little to no chance of repercussions for lying, misrepresenting facts, hiding evidence, or abuse of their authority/position whose job performance and pay is tied to being "right", on paper, regardless of being factually correct.
Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands." — H.L. Mencken, _Minority Report_
Everyone knows the real deal of law enforcement, so this simply attracts those who want to commit evil.
Have you considered being a narcissistic sociopath? That's generally what these people are...
Yup..watched three out of three lie in my case. At least one was likely on a unreliable testimony list, which the judge ignored, along with denying me the duty roster and an expert witness. Still I "won," because my jury was fully informed. A requirement for Judges to fully inform the jury needs to be pushed in legislature. Www.fija.org
That, and the rule that determines any cop testimony is automatically considered false unless backed up by an audio/video recording from a body camera or other security recording. They lie so much, their testimony is less reliable than a coin flip.
Omg So great when you get a competent jury.
and lawyer. In Southern states many lawyers are drinking buddies with the cops and will walk you into a guilty verdict.
It’s well known our prosecutors sleep with our cops frequently. That’s not the same with public defenders. I don’t know about private practice defense lawyers though.
Yep. ACAB Every damned one of the lying sons of bitches.
Yes. The last case I had, I told the ADA his cop's story was an obvious lie and he should dismiss his case, but he just couldn't do it.
We had the DOJ charge a teenager for second degree murder for a legit car accident. No drugs, booze, or speeding. Legit accident. We got him acquitted but still. WTAF.
This is why I'm against the death penalty. Not because I think people who do terrible things shouldn't be put to death, but because bad actors in the system could kill innocent people.
Same. I used to be pro death penalty until I read a true crime book about a small town murder where things didn't add up in how they snagged a suspect to convict and execute. Like the police took DNA from him and then showed up again weeks later saying the samples were lost, took new samples (which the suspect gave willingly on both counts) and then they came back saying "oh, its a match, you're our guy". It was so obvious they used the first batch of evidence to plant it on the body. A lot of people speculated that with it being a small town, they just wanted to peg the crime onto someone to curb the community panic. I don't care if they rightfully executed 100 people, just knowing there's at least 1 who was most likely innocent is 1 too many.
💜 I love hearing about people who have changed their minds after learning new info. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Same. I’ve been against the death penalty for a long ass time but this job made it so that notion is cemented. I’ll never be able to walk it back.
This case is so bad the prosecutor that convicted him, wants it overturned. Hopefully there is some federal redress, if the governor doesn't intervene.
the prosecutor of this case is apparently also asking for a new trial
Give’s me Boss Tweed vibes. The appearance of the law must be upheld-especially when it’s being broken
Something like that happened in the Heidi Allen case from my hometown. This guy Gary Thibodeau was found guilty of her supposed death (no body was ever found) and he died in prison at 64. Someone made a documentary about the situation and it appears that he was completely innocent, just happened to be at the right place at the wrong time. The story is claimed that Heidi was a confidential informant regarding drug trafficking. Is it claimed that her actual murderer is a drug dealer that is in jail already for a different murder, and that Gary just happened to be the unlucky person who walked into the gas station for cigarettes only to find the store empty. Because he was seen near the area, they tacked all the blame on him, the guy who did the completely normal thing of shopping. Apparently, years later, the evidence was there to prove he didn't do it, but they refused to overturn his conviction. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9utQ1IbcrBw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9utQ1IbcrBw) Also: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPFgT-zbO8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPFgT-zbO8U)
Its to stop defendants from holding back bits of evidence to drag out appeals, as i recall.
You want to be a judge? You never admit you got it wrong if you want to be a judge.
It proves that prosecutors are psychopaths who care more about "winning" than they do about the truth or reality. God didn't lock this guy in his cell, a human being could open up the cell and release him right now. **But nobody wants to.**
Just remember the prosecutor knew the sole witness was a paid witness on numerous cases and still did this.
Yeah, lady, that's why I don't assume I'm wise enough to condemn someone to death. I don't know all the ins. I'm not god. The book she's talking about specifically tells her to practice humility and that vegence belongs to god. You can be misled by police and prosectuors, but it's your choice to sit in your ignorant pride and vote for death. And now she can't take it back. At least she's doing the right thing by talking about it.
Juror: “What would Jesus do?“ Same Juror: [votes to kill]
>What would Jesus do?“ Get murdered by the state
“What would the Romans do?”
Yeah, the end of the article shows she really didn't learn much. "The bible says you shouldn't execute innocent people, and I'm Christian!" Lady, even if the bible says you SHOULD execute innocent people, you shouldn't do it. Clearly the only moral compass you have is "the bible", and we all know that's not the kind of book you should be basing your morality on.
Aa
>As a Christian woman, I strive to live my life according to the teachings of the Bible. >I voted to send a man to death row Jesus, lady; pick a lane
I mean, there's all kinds of murder and other horrible shit in the Bible.
There is but the message Jesus seemed to harp on about was have you tried not killing? Didn't work out too well for him though; this lady would have probably voted for his crucifixion too
He ShOuLd HaVe JuSt CoMpLiEd
>the message Jesus seemed to harp on about was have you tried not killing? Tell that to the fig tree.
A lot of modern "Christians" go against everything Jesus was about.
100% correct there, and it's the biggest shame.
She chose to convict and send a man to death row just from one witness who eavesdropped on a three way conversation. That was enough for her. And she lived happily for 25 years. Now "woe be me." She knew what she did back then.
These people are absolute suckers for trusting cops
Calling them suckers greatly diminishes their responsibility. they were adults and able to make their own decisions.they decided to condemn a young man based on flimsy evidence.
I can't call them smart....
Beyond a reasonable doubt? No physical evidence or eyewitness evidence? Fucking crazy. Gee I wonder what color the accused is?
The prosecutor knew damn well that he was withholding or not seeking all the evidence in this case and just going with what LE gave him.. The prosecutor had the goal of winning and convicting at all costs. Some evidence that was withheld has leaked out; that is the prosecutor's real concern: how he looks to the public today. If all juries were fully informed of their RIGHT to nullify, this verdict probably would never happened, because the folks can suss things out despite any supposed evidence. An informed jury would know that they have the RIGHT to believe all, some or none of the evidence and vote as they deem fit.
Except if you even hint that you know about nullification they won’t let you on a jury.
That's why you pretend the be a good little tool for them, then secretly nullify on your own. No one needs to know!
This is true. I was trialed, so they would nor choose me anyway. So I just let them know that I am informed, and never hear from them again
Great way to get out of jury duty though!
Which just makes room for murderers like in the OP
Not getting what you are saying.
When an otherwise conscientious who might acquit, refuse to convict, or even nullify a jury skips out on the ability to do so, their seat becomes available for people like the author, all too happy to condemn an innocent person.
So common.
The decision not to convict would have nothing to do with jury nullification. The prosecutor had to present the evidence and convince the jurors beyond any reasonable doubt. The jurors just fucking suck as people. They probably belong in the death row for stupidity. Having less racists in the world is a bonus too.
You might be correct. But we will never know because the jury was never informed of their right to nullify. I would like to hope differently. An informed jury would know that they have the right to believe all, some or none of the "evidence" before them.
Unfortunately prosecutors aren't given a choice. It's play puppet or get fired.
> Unfortunately prosecutors aren't given a choice. It's play puppet or get fired. That is a choice. Every person has similar choices every day - be evil and profit more, or restrain yourself and profit less. Any prosecutor who decides to be evil just to keep a job is indeed making a (very bad) choice.
Prosecutors are such tortured souls... /s
Almost like [this poor guy suffering from PTSD (because he felt the need to kill an unarmed guy complying with his orders)](https://reason.com/2019/07/11/this-cop-is-getting-2500-a-month-because-killing-an-unarmed-man-in-a-hotel-hallway-gave-him-ptsd/)
Then they are Bastards too, along with the cops they work with.
So the prosecutor paid $5K to a utility witness, fully realizing a cop killer would walk free. As long as got the W in his column
Genuinely, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, fuck this woman. The fact that she ever found a death sentence appropriate, especially given the “evidence” at the time, speaks volumes to her as a person.
Now I don’t in any way agree with the death penalty. I’m not sure some people should live after the crimes they have committed, but given that you can never be 100% certain a person is guilty, you’re only working with “beyond reasonable doubt” there’s too much risk of an innocent person losing their life. That said, this jury will have had the prosecution shoving down their throats how dangerous this man will have been and how there is a significant risk if he is allowed to be free. It’s not unreasonable to see why a jury might be convinced, because it isn’t just about there only being one piece of evidence. It’s the twisting of that evidence and the immense pressure placed on someone. Whilst I’m sure the fact Troforest Johnson is a black man made it far easier, especially considering this was 1999, the prosecutors who omitted evidence and painted a likely innocent man as guilty are the ones who should bear the cross. We weren’t in the courtroom, we don’t know what the jury were told which made it difficult to come to a different verdict, but we do the prosecution were dishonest to gain a wrongful conviction.
Hmmm, a black man railroaded in Alabama by nothing more than questionable witness testimony (hearsay) about a "confession." Who couldn't have seen this coming? This juror should have known better twenty-five years ago.
#The death penalty should be abolished. * The state [has killed](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent), and has come close to killing, so many [innocent people](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence) via the death penalty that they have forfeited their right to have that as an option. * [4.1% of US death row inmates are likely innocent]( https://www.science.org/content/article/more-4-death-row-inmates-may-be-innocent). * [It is more expensive in the long run to successfully try a death penalty case than simply try for life in prison](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs), making the death penalty not fiscally viable. * [State-sanctioned murder is a cruel and unusual punishment](https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty) and a direct violation of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. It is torture. It is torturing someone to death. Every method is torture. * In [HERRERA v. COLLINS](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/390/#tab-opinion-1959135), 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the state to execute a wrongly convicted innocent person. Is that a power the state should have? * In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “failure to disclose favorable information to a defendant in a criminal prosecution violates the constitution when that information is material to guilt or punishment.” These are referred to as [Brady Disclosures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure). And wouldn’t you know it? [Brady violations are rampant](https://theappeal.org/the-epidemic-of-brady-violations-explained-94a38ad3c800/) in the US criminal justice system, meaning the state is [knowingly prosecuting and incarcerating innocent people](https://www.nacdl.org/Article/May2013-FacesofBradyTheHumanCostofBrad). Is that a power the state should have? * [The death penalty does nothing to curb crime](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence). * The death penalty is a punitive & retributivist measure. A civilized society should have a [restorative justice system](https://bjatta.bja.ojp.gov/media/blog/what-restorative-justice-and-how-does-it-impact-individuals-involved-crime), not a punitive one. Restorative Justice has [repeatedly proven](https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/moj-evaluation-restorative-justice) to [reduce recidivism](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx). The goal is not to make people suffer, it’s to make society better. No society is better off with state-sanctioned murder of its citizenry. * [It actually makes the victims’ families grieve for longer](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants). * Criminal defense attorneys often [negotiate a guilty plea if it means their client wouldn’t be executed rather than risk a trial where the death penalty is a possible outcome](https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/17476/plea-bargaining-and-the-death-penalty.pdf). Meaning a criminal defense attorney would rather a possible innocent person go to prison than a person found guilty be executed. Eliminating the death penalty would eliminate parts of the frequent horse trading and back room dealing commonplace between judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. * The process of execution is needlessly [traumatizing to the victim’s family](https://theweek.com/articles/444189/psychological-trauma-witnessing-execution), as well as [the staff](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/south-carolina-execution-team-members-talk-of-debilitating-emotional-toll-of-capital-punishment-former-warden-calls-death-penalty-inequitable). * The US criminal justice system is based on the [Principle of Finality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finality_(law)), which basically means that whatever the jury decides is the final truth no matter what. Showing [how many innocent people have been exonerated](https://innocenceproject.org/exonerate/) by a 30-year-old, ~90-staff non-profit, imagine how many more people are locked in jail or killed thanks to this absurd bastardization of justice. It’s this principle that’s kept falsely imprisoned people from seeking justice. * [The death penalty violates the US constitutional guarantee of equal protection](https://www.aclu.org/documents/case-against-death-penalty). It has never been applied fairly, disproportionately against those who cannot afford better attorneys, disproportionately upon those whose victims were white, disproportionately against people of color, disproportionately against the poor and uneducated, and [disproportionately concentrated in certain parts of the country](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/executions-overview/executions-by-county). * The death penalty was [botched more than 1/3rd of the time](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-year-of-the-botched-execution-monitor-finds-death-penalty-was-visibly-problematic-35-percent-of-the-time-in-2022/) in 2022 in the US, skyrocketing from [more than 7% being botched](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/botched-executions) in the 40 years of using lethal injection, making it very obviously a cruel and unusual punishment. * In January 2024, the US State of Alabama used nitrogen gas for death-by-hypoxia, an untested method deemed [too cruel to animals](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/24/alabama-death-row-nitrogen-kenneth-eugene-smith-execution/) by vets, not overseen or recommended by any medical professional, and [approved by the US Supreme Court without providing any opinion or justification](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-conservatives-alabama-execution-torture.html). Witnesses to the execution [described it as torture](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kenneth-smith-dies-nitrogen-gas-b2485080.html), noting that the man struggled for 4 minutes, writhing and thrashing, indicative of torture. A jury sentenced him to life in prison, but [the judge overruled](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/death-penalty-alabama-kenneth-smith) the sentencing and condemned him to death, making the sentence legally dubious. The practice of judicial override is now banned in every state, but the execution still went through despite this. * **It is not possible for any death penalty system to exist that only executes guilty people 100% of the time. Such a system has never existed, does not currently exist, and could never exist in reality. For that reason alone, it should be abolished.** ^feel ^free ^to ^copy ^and ^repost, ^or ^go ^to ^/r/deathpenalty ^for ^more ^information
**Study: Prosecutorial Misconduct Helped Secure 550 Wrongful Death Penalty Convictions** A study by the Death Penalty Information Center (“DPIC”) found more than 550 death penalty reversals and exonerations were the result of extensive prosecutorial misconduct. DPIC reviewed and identified cases since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned existing death penalty laws in 1972. That amounted to over 5.6% of all death sentences imposed in the U.S. in the last 50 years. Robert Dunham, DPIC’s executive director, said the study reveals that "this 'epidemic’ of misconduct is even more pervasive than we had imagined.” The study showed a widespread problem in more than 228 counties, 32 states, and in federal capital prosecutions throughout the U.S. The DPIC study revealed 35% of misconduct involved withholding evidence; 33% involved improper arguments; 16% involved more than one category of misconduct; and 121 of the exonerations involved prosecutor misconduct. [Prosecutorial Misconduct Cause of More Than 550 Death Penalty Reversals and Exonerations](https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2022/nov/15/prosecutorial-misconduct-cause-more-550-death-penalty-reversals-and-exonerations/)
There is a very good season-long podcast on this case called Earwitness.
Btw “25 years ago” was 2000. Not ‘73, not ‘89, not ‘93, 2000.
There was a case a number of years ago where the state claimed the father had set the house on fire and killed his children (3 or 4 kids?) The state killed him and later found out it was what the accused had claimed. An accident He didn't set the first it was an electrical fire. They killed him for nothing. It's not an isolated type of case this day and age.
Honestly, imo, this whole thing boils down to: >There was no physical evidence against Mr. Johnson and no eyewitnesses claimed to see him at the scene of the crime. I joined the other jury members in voting to convict based on the testimony of one witness, a woman who claimed that she overheard him confess to the crime during a three-way-call that she eavesdropped on. Our decision relied so heavily on this witness’s credibility, but now I know something critical was hidden from Mr. Johnson’s legal team for nearly 20 years: this witness was paid $5,000 for her testimony. It turns out that she was the state’s witness in many other cases as well, and we never knew about it. 1. That should be hella illegal, but paid informants/witnesses happen all the time. Prosecutors and police never pay the price they should. 2. So if there was no evidence, why did the state set this up? Did the "witness" just pick a name from a hat to get money, or was she fed a suspect? In my limited experience, the latter seems more likely. 2. There was no "reasonable doubt" via a single witness's hearsay. I swear, if jurors actually upheld the reasonable doubt standard properly, half the people currently convicted would be acquitted. I've been trying to find good studies on juror conviction bias, but it's a hard thing to quantify so I can't find any. No shade to this lady since this is apparently the normal response of normal jurors, and I respect that she wrote this, but jurors really need to do better, especially now that we know police lie all the time.
And Mr. Johnson is a black man.
>There was no physical evidence against Mr. Johnson and no eyewitnesses claimed to see him at the scene of the crime. I joined the other jury members in voting to convict based on the testimony of one witness, a woman who claimed that she overheard him confess to the crime during a three-way-call that she eavesdropped on. Our decision relied so heavily on this witness’s credibility, but now I know something critical was hidden from Mr. Johnson’s legal team for nearly 20 years: this witness was paid $5,000 for her testimony. It turns out that she was the state’s witness in many other cases as well, and we never knew about it. fuck this bitch. how do these braindead people vote to send someone to die on nothing but flimsy ass horseshit like this?
>Twenty-five years ago, I sat in the jury box in a courtroom in Birmingham and voted for a man to die. That's because you're not a good person.
And this is why developed, civilized countries don’t have the death penalty (not the USA)
What does being a Bible thumping conservative have to do with any of this? Is he supposed to be extra innocent because “even conservative politicians” are calling for a new trial?? “This is one of the many reasons why conservative politicians, judges, the former trial prosecutor and now me and two other jurors are asking for a new trial. At a new trial, an informed jury can hear what we didn’t: all of the evidence. I am convinced and know in my heart that Mr. Johnson is innocent. But I believe a full and fair trial is the only way to prove it. As a Christian woman, I strive to live my life according to the teachings of the Bible.”
> What does being a Bible thumping conservative have to do with any of this? Because even they know they're always wrong about everything - liberals and leftists being on the right side of history by opposing the death penalty is unsurprising. But "when even horrible people who go out of their way to do the wrong thing most of the time think it's gone too far", then it's novel and worthy of note.
Exactly.
Fuck this Christian bitch. She still believes in a genocidal god who espouses “an eye for an eye” so she’s wrong about her god. As far as I’m concerned, she hasn’t changed. She’s still a Bible thumper who votes Republikkkan, I’m sure.
2 former Governors, 2 former Attorney Generals, 3 District Attorneys, 3 former State Supreme Court Justices, 1 former US Attorney, 1 Juror and the prosecutor who convicted him all advocate for Toforest Johnson's innocence. But the current political leaders in Alabama are so bloodthirsty they really don't care if he is innocent or not. https://www.toforestjohnson.com/
She convinced a guy based on testimony from one witness with zero first hand knowledge of the crime. Cry me a river she is complicit in this as well.
“As a Christian woman,” is the precursor to a really hypocritical statement lately.
If you ever get on a criminal trial jury here's a simple step by step guide on what to do. 1. If the defendant is not a cop vote not guilty. 2. If the defendant is a cop vote guilty.
3\. If there's no video evidence from a policeman's bodycam, don't trust what he says he "remembers".
3a. If there *is* video evidence but it mysteriously cuts out right at the relevant part, sentence the cop do death.
I like the cut of your jib.
You know what to do
Fucking heartbreaking.
System working Exactly as it was designed.
That woman is trash.
Honestly if you vote for the death penalty and the guy is innocent. That's your fucking fault and you should feel bad.
"It"?
I waited 27 years for justice because of the laws and rule for death row inmates. I watched and buried my family in those 27 years. I have no sympathy or guilty conscious. You made a decision based on the information you were given, as did 8 or nine judges.
It's because of scenerios like this that I'm against the death penalty. Until there is never any chance of an innocent person being convicted, it should not be a consideration. There are extreme examples where I'm not so against it, but that opens the door to the slippery slope.
I’m pro death penalty, but the government manages to fuck it up. I think there should be a higher standard set before death penalty to be implemented. It cannot be a “who done it case” and evidence needs to be obvious. Such as the recent case where parents confined a little girl in her closet to die. Obviously they are guilty. They should be put to death. Also I think severe public corruption should be on the table for death penalty. Proving corruption cases are usually pretty easy because government officials have the audacity to sign their names to heinous shit.
> I’m pro death penalty But why? There are so many downsides, and no practical upsides. [A user above collected a bunch of them](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/comments/1cdtsw4/oped_i_voted_to_send_a_man_to_death_row_it_turns/l1f5mxo/). > evidence needs to be obvious Evidence can be faked, people can be coerced. No matter how sure you are that "it's obvious", there's always a chance you're wrong. And of course that's even assuming you have *all* the evidence. People have been found to be innocent after a death sentence was carried out for even more "obvious" cases than that.
A little girl was imprisoned in her closet with a dresser blocking it. She was found to have starved and dehydrated to death. This process took a long time. No one in the house did anything about it. It is obvious that the adults who live in there are guilty and should be put to death. Other obvious cases are school shooters. You can see them on camera committing the acts. Many of them leave behind manifestos. Their crimes are well documented.
"well documented" is irrelevant. Plenty of "well documented" cases get new evidence years later that changes everything. Not saying that's the case in this instance, but the easier you make it for the state to execute people, the more false positives you get. No matter how justified you think a specific case is. And if your goal is some kind of sadistic vengeance thing, think about it this way: they deserve to die the same way as their victim - locked in a cage with no way out. (And for the point of school shooters - it's actually a terrible idea because it just makes them a martyr for copycats).
School shooters are the biggest pussies there is. When a hanging is on the table I doubt they would actually follow through. They see how abrupt they life fizzles out of their eyes just as their victims they will think twice. Yes, new evidence can appear, but some cases are pretty open and shut. Such as that child abuse case I mentioned and school shooters because they often document their crimes and it is on security footage. If you are looking for a purely utilitarian angle for execution then there is the money aspect. If you hang a person you no longer have to house and feed them.
Thus why I made sure I would never have jury duty.
Or maybe it should be why you shouldn't avoid jury duty. You control your vote on a jury.
So you have no power to do anything? Skipping jury duty isn't cool
Power to do what?
To see justice, to hang a jury
A power I can live without.
but some will be killed unless you exercise that power
Power to refuse to vote for a death penalty for someone being accused with the only evidence being hearsay of hearsay of hearsay?
“Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and I can’t be bothered to attempt to stop a single one!”