Customer Reviews

In Spite Of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is a wonderful book documenting some of the most significant failures of Justice in the 20th century. The stories presented within are both enthralling and heartbreaking. I highly recommend this book.

Another reviewer accused this book's authors of "intellectual dishonesty" for including crimes that did not result in a death sentence. However, this reviewer erroneously stated that only crimes that eventually result in the death penalty are capital crimes. This is not true. A capital crime is an crime that carries with it the _potential_ for recieving a death sentence - not just the crimes that actually do recieve such a sentence.

The authors also stated in the introduction that they would be including crimes which, at the time they were committed, constituted a capital offense, but no longer are considered death penalty-eligible (like rape).

The only "intellectual dishonesty" present is that of certain reviewers who make false statements and tarnish the reputations of well-respected researchers.

In our system of justice the worst case scenario is to be convicted of capitol crime and sentenced to death. Even worse than that is that fact you are innocent of the crime. This book exposes some serious miscarriages of the system.

The authors, in great detail explain how over 400 Americans were wrongly incarcerated for crimes of which they did not commit. The book is a true insight into the world of our legal system.

With great attention to the facts, you have a first hand look at people on death row. I was impressed and captured by how well the book tells the stories. I was able to finish the reading in just over 6 hours.

If your fascinated by law, have a hobby with law or just want to spend some time with a real good book, here's your chance. An excellent read from start to finish. You won't be able to put it down.

Just some definitional clarification in response to comments made about the "intellectual dishonesty" of the authors:

CAPITAL OFFENSE - a crime for which the death penalty may be imposed. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1999.

Black's is the legal system's most trusted authority on legal terminology, and while it is perhaps unfair and potentially misleading for the authors to have exploited a reader's possible misunderstanding of the nature of capital sentencing and prosecutorial dealmaking, the authors are correct in their usage of the term.

The authors write a gripping tale, beginning with Willie Bennet. Oops, stop never mind, he has absolutely nothing to do with wrongful convictions, turns out he never went to trial. So ignore those pages.

Where were we, oh yes the wrongfully convicted, like Dobbert of Florida whose son originally said his father kicked his sister and helped convict him of first degree murder later recanted as his father's execution approached. This led one justice to think maybe he was only guilty of second degree murder. Yes One justice and a sons recanted testimony as the execution approached proved his innocence. Of course that case can be questioned, maybe the son thought the death of his father would not right the wrong and should thus be spared. Any number of motives could be attributed. But we are left with the basic facts, the father was abusive, he did murder his daughter, no researcher has EVER disputed those two facts. This is the type of innocence Radelet has written about at times.

We also have James Adams who the authors point out was convicted, and executed for the murder of Edgar Brown. Part of the evidence for his conviction was he had money on him during his arrest with blood on it, this blood matching that of the victim, being Type O-positive, but that same type is matched by about 45% of the population. What the authors don't mention is the accused explanation for the blood, he had cut his hand and it was his blood. There is a very good reason the authors don't include that exculpatory explanation, its a lie. Adams blood wasn't O-positive.

Other than that Adams was a model citizen. His previous convictions only included theft of a pig, and a charge of assault and battery. Those were both overturned though not because he was innocent in a factual way, but because he did not have counsel.

Oh wait, there was also a charge of rape. Now this happened a long time ago mind you, before DNA was even available. In fact the only testimony was that of the victim. In 1962, a very different era, this woman came forward and agreed to testify, something that did not occur very often then or now. Turns out the woman really didn't like her rapist. In fact using parlance of the era she called him many bad names included the n-word. The authors are thoughtful enough to include this fact. So a woman in the 60's called her rapist the n-word. MY GOD, LET HIM GO FREE.

Alas, no. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to 99 years in jail. Sounds like life to me. Wait, no he didn't get locked up for 99 years? He was let free later? Ahh light of his innocence must have come out. Wait, the author doesn't imply that, no he says since enough blacks weren't on the jury he should have been let free in order to protect justice, a point I may be willing to concede, but it is moot as I'll show. Even if he shouldn't be let go isn't Adams a great case for showing life imprisonment will protect society from even the most unrepentant, and perhaps ruthless of killers since that will remove them from society, just like Adams who was serving 99 years for a rape conviction. Oh wait, he broke out of the jail he was sitting in after conviction for the rape.

Of the 400+ cases they talk about only around 200 had convictions for capital crimes, wouldn't that mean that in the original 400 around 200 got it right immediately at the first trial? They don't focus to much on that, accusation is sufficient to be included by their logic.

Of those 200 or so only about 140 found sufficient grounds to sentence to death. Again isn't this proof the death penalty is not just routinely handed down without giving sufficient thought to the severity of the crime?

Of those 140 only 23 actually had a death sentence carried out. And in those 23 we have cases where some of the best evidence they offer is by not fully disclosing what happened, or by thoughtful phrasing. In many cases creative conjecture, such as the authors offer occasionally, reaches different conclusions.

I'll admit and agree with the authors it is possible that error will occur and innocent people may be put to death. But if out of the 7,000+ executions in the US over the twentieth century the best the authors can come up with are 23 that rely upon ignoring lies made by the convicted, conjecture, and assumption that every single jury, trial judge, and appellate court made a mistake the authors have a bit farther to go.

I would have ranked this book higher if it wasn't intellectually dishonest. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, but I don't appreciate deceptive reasoning in defense of my beliefs.

The book's subtitle, its authors, many reviewers, as well as countless people who rely upon the authors' research to attack the death penalty, all state that the 400+ supposedly innocent people were all convicted of capital crimes. That implies that they were all sentenced to death, as that is what a "capital crime" is. That claim, which the authors themselves fully admit in their Introduction, is flat out false. As the authors themselves acknowledge, MOST of the 400+ cases referred to were cases where the defendant was not in fact sentenced to death. That, ipso facto, means that they were not found guilty of capital crimes. Many were found guilty of non-capital homicides, such as manslaughter and 2nd degree homicide, and were sentenced to terms significantly less than even life (sometimes as little as a few years). The authors also admit to include convictions for non-capital rapes, on the grounds that they COULD have been tried as such, but in fact weren't. They also admit to including convictions in jurisdictions were there wasn't any death penalty available at all!

Their justification for all this? Their argument is that it is legitimate for them to treat all these cases as "capital" because (they claim) most people believe that all criminal homicides are capital cases, even though that in fact is false. In other words, they are claiming that they are justified in relying on a false premise in their argument against the death penalty (these guys are anti-DP activists, and thus are not unbiased researchers) on the grounds that most people don't know it's false, even though they do. Such conscious exploitation of public ignorance on a legal issue is bald-faced intellectual dishonesty.

Otherwise, the book includes compelling stories of injustice in the criminal justice system. Their case would have been more compelling if, in their zeal to attack the death penalty, they were more honest about the matter.

I agree with the first reviewer. A blatant case of intellectual dishonesty. Michael Radelet is one of the worst researchers on capital punishment. I don't know how the guy got his tenure. Don't buy it!!