Kevin Cooper Death Penalty Case - Why the death penalty shouldn't exist

[lockedout]

There is no other thread that mentions "Kevin cooper" only 7 threads came up, this one and 6 others not about this.

His name wasn't in the title, it was "Man" instead of Kevin...

[Noradin]

Are you people like not thinking?

Do you think drugs and needles cost 300m?

In this case they really should. At least.

[Silverlock]

Sure, if you don't mind the state shooting innocent people.

Is life in prison preferable?

Why does the counter argument always come down to death or go free?

[Independent voter]

The accused's defense is always going to try to poke holes in the prosecution's case. And a lot of this counter evidence is flimsy or made up, the defense often grasps at straws. Combine that with the legal system being extra careful when executions are involve and these trials can take a long time.

I'd be for one trial and then one automatic appeal. After that if the criminal is still considered guilty, kill him as quickly and humanely as possible.

[Spectral]

I don't find this to be a compelling argument against the death penalty. I'm willing to accept a non-zero error rate. I think we can reduce the error rate to a very low number by having more explicit rules about what sorts of cases are eligible for death.

[bladeXcrasher]

I think the conviction stuck because of re-tests done in 2001:

The tests suggested that there is "strong evidence" that it was Kevin Cooper's DNA that was extracted from the following items of evidence:

A bloodstain found inside the Ryens' home.
The saliva on a hand rolled cigarette butt found inside the Ryen station wagon
The saliva on a manufactured cigarette butt found inside the Ryen station wagon
A bloodstain located on a tee shirt that was found beside a road some distance from the Ryen home. There is strong evidence that one of the victims, Doug Ryen, was the donor of another bloodstain found on the same tee shirt. Cooper is also consistent with being the donor of two additional blood smears and a possible donor of blood spatter on the same tee shirt. The testing of the bloodstain on the hatchet, which was one of the murder weapons, revealed that the victims Jessica Ryen, Doug Ryen, and Chris Hughes were all possible contributors to this sample. Those three victims can account for all the results detected in that mixture. Peggy Ryen and Josh Ryen cannot be excluded as possible minor contributors to this mixture as well

Even though, plenty of reasons for a mistrial, he should get life at most IMO.

[Themius]

I don't find this to be a compelling argument against the death penalty. I'm willing to accept a non-zero error rate. I think we can reduce the error rate to a very low number by having more explicit rules about what sorts of cases are eligible for death.

I don't think any "error rate" is acceptable... unless you plan on taking away all the appeals there is no logical reason to kill them and not just imprison them for life.

[Revi]

Is life in prison preferable?

Why does the counter argument always come down to death or go free?

Punishing an innocent person is the worst thing the justice system can possible do, but if they're in prison they can be released if proven innocent. If executed, there's no going back.

[lockedout]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...y-case-n507866












It's a completely fucked up case, and hopefully they don't kill him with all these fuck ups

The subject is San Quentin Death Row inmate Kevin Cooper, who was convicted of the brutal murder of Chino Hills (San Bernardino County) chiropractors Doug and Peggy Ryen, their 10-year-old daughter, Jessica, and an 11-year-old overnight guest, Christopher Hughes in 1983. Cooper had escaped from a nearby prison and holed up in a vacant rental house that overlooked the Ryen home when he decided to head for Mexico. Before driving away in the family station wagon, he butchered the Ryens and Christopher and left for dead son Josh, then 8, with his throat slit.

The evidence against Cooper always was overwhelming. “It is utterly unreasonable to suppose that, by coincidence, some hypothetical real killer chose this night and this locale to kill; that he entered (the neighbor’s) house just after defendant left to retrieve the murder weapons, leaving the hatchet sheath in the bedroom defendant used; that he returned to the (neighbor’s) house to shower; that he drove the Ryen station wagon in the same direction defendant used on his way to Mexico; and that he happened to wear prison issue tennis shoes like those of the defendant, happened to have the defendant’s blood type, happened to have hair like the defendant’s, happened to roll cigarettes with the same distinctive prison-issued tobacco, and so forth,” reasoned a 1991 California Supreme Court ruling. That’s why a jury convicted him.

There was a time when a reasonable person might question Cooper’s culpability, if only because of the crudeness of 1983 forensics. Former Pomona (Los Angeles County) cop-turned private-investigator Paul Ingels thought Cooper might be innocent; it was hard for Ingels to fathom how one man could wield a hatchet, ice pick and one or more knives to such brutal effect. Ingels went to work for Cooper’s defense team as lawyers argued that DNA testing, unavailable during the 1985 trial, would exonerate Cooper.

When the tests finally were done, DNA nailed Cooper to the crime scene, where he claimed never to have been. In 2004, Ingels told me, “It proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Kevin Cooper was involved in the murders.”

When Cooper’s lawyers devised this elaborate story about officials framing Cooper by manipulating DNA, forensics expert Dr. Edward T. Blake objected because he relies on those tests to exonerate innocent convicts. When I asked Blake if Cooper is guilty, Blake answered, “Yeah, he’s guilty, as determined by the trial and the failure of a very extensive post-conviction investigation to prove otherwise.” Blake also had worked for Cooper’s defense team.

I’ve covered a lot of crime stories. I’ve never had two people who worked for the defense tell me an inmate is guilty. The other thing that really sticks out in this story is the viciousness of the murders and the scars that will never heal for the Hughes family and Josh Ryen.
Despite Cooper’s copious criminal record, he always has managed to find advocates who will protest his innocence. No fact can deter them. They have this romantic conceit that their pious opposition to the death penalty gives them a window into clues unseen by prosecutors, judges and jurors. They excuse the brutality of sociopaths — while viewing death-penalty supporters as bloodthirsty louts. And they have this burning need to believe death row is bursting with innocent men.

Is this the same guy?

[Elba]

The death penalty should not exist. It serves no point besides revenge and does not work as a deterrent. And even if you think people deserve it, the system is not perfect, so if there is even a miniscule chance that someone innocent might get killed it is not justifiable to keep around. Life in prison is also cheaper for the tax payer. And I don't think the people would rather die argument works, else people wouldn't appeal.

[Rennadrel]

Sure, if you don't mind the state shooting innocent people.

If the investigation is thorough, there should not be any doubt. You can't just commit someone to death if there is doubt, which means that the criminal investigation failed to find enough proof. If there isn't enough to commit someone to death, they should stay in prison for life or until such time as the doubt has been removed.

[Spectral]

I don't think any "error rate" is acceptable...

Since I don't believe in magic, my assumption is that judicial systems will, unfortunately, occasionally make errors.

....unless you plan on taking away all the appeals there is no logical reason to kill them and not just imprison them for life.

Yes, I would be in favor of reducing the ability of lawyers to drag cases out into endless profit. There's also the matter of justice. Obviously other people have a different sense of justice than I do, but to me, leaving a man like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive is deeply unjust.

[Themius]

I think the conviction stuck because of re-tests done in 2001:



Even though, plenty of reasons for a mistrial, he should get life at most IMO.

In 2004, when tests were done to determine whether the prosecution had tampered with the tan t-shirt by planting Mr. Cooper’s blood on it before the 2001 tests were done, testing results by the prosecution’s own expert pointed to tampering, showing heightened levels of a blood preservative used by law enforcement, including in vial VV-2. When he learned what his test results showed, the prosecution’s expert “withdrew” his results, claiming they were invalid because of contamination in his own laboratory

There are too many issues here, and too many illegal moves to really trust them at this point. Life? He shouldn't get anything he's already been locked away for all this time despite the issues with the case.

- - - Updated - - -

Since I don't believe in magic, my assumption is that judicial systems will, unfortunately, occasionally make errors.

Yes, I would be in favor of reducing the ability of lawyers to drag cases out into endless profit. There's also the matter of justice. Obviously other people have a different sense of justice than I do, but to me, leaving a man like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive is deeply unjust.

How is that "unjust" what makes killing him "just"?

[breadisfunny]

i not only support the death penalty i support extrajudicial killings. case in point having the army execute cartel members.

[Elba]

Since I don't believe in magic, my assumption is that judicial systems will, unfortunately, occasionally make errors.

So why take that risk? What do you gain by execution?

[Themius]

If the investigation is thorough, there should not be any doubt. You can't just commit someone to death if there is doubt, which means that the criminal investigation failed to find enough proof. If there isn't enough to commit someone to death, they should stay in prison for life or until such time as the doubt has been removed.

They've done it plenty of times... plenty of times there has been doubt but not "doubt enough" in some minds and so people were still killed.

The issue is that lawyers will twist anything to win their case.

- - - Updated - - -

So why take that risk? What do you gain by execution?

Some medieval pleasure apparently.

[oxymoronic]

i would tell cooper karma is a mother. if you didn't break out then you wouldnt be #1 suspect, sucks for you, but oh well, off with ya.

[Silverlock]

Punishing an innocent person is the worst thing the justice system can possible do, but if they're in prison they can be released if proven innocent. If executed, there's no going back.

How rare is it that someone is proven innocent? Especially after dna testing. I won't claim it doesn't happen but building a system around extreme outliners isn't productive to me at least.

[Spectral]

How is that "unjust" what makes killing him "just"?

My impression is that most people have a sense of "just" that they would have difficulty articulating. It viscerally bothers me that a person that destroyed lives through callous action is allowed to live.

[Ghostpanther]

Sure, if you don't mind the state shooting innocent people.

It is still legal to execute by firing squad in some States. So is hanging. It is not the execution itself which is expensive, it is all the litigation which has to be carried out before the execution. And the great majority of those executed are guilty. 4% is a very small percentage who may not be. So the chances are 96% the ones being shot are guilty. No system is going to be 100%. The chances are small that someone may spend the rest of their lives in a prison who are innocent. But ether way, there is a small chance someone's life who is innocent is going to be destroyed.