What happens when the police get "clever"

Wayne, You're right, I haven't been shot 5 times. But I have been a victim of crime, and I have friends who have been victimized. And still I do not/will never support the death penalty. From an ethical perspective, I believe the court system and law enforcement officers do their best, but both work on probabilities, not absolutes. How many death row inmates have been released due to DNA testing? How many have had their lives ruined or have died falsely accused?
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Even if you put aside the ethics, it is not even the best economic solution to punishment:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

However, I do agree with you that no one from CPD should be fired for pursuing this case. I can't even imagine how it must feel to know who the murderer is and not be able to bring them to justice. At minimum, they were overly creative and enthusiastic. But that doesn't justify violating anyone's civil liberties. We would all be better off if the CPD and Mr. Fox would admit to having made an error in judgment.

Terri,

I understand your deeply held views on the DP. Until you have been personally affected by the murder of a loved one, you cannot understand the emotions involved.

Singapore has the same population density as LA county but 6 % of the murder rate. They do not tolerate crime, drugs or chewing gum! I know the civil libertarians on this board don't like this concept but it saves lives by deterrence.

Also, the murderer is danger to other inmates and guards. After they have murdered once, another murder is
possible because they don't have anything to lose.

Ed Neely, I won't preach to you or anyone else here but won't be preached to either. What you believe Jesus would do, could be very different for another person too. Opinions change too. I won't confuse my religion (or someone else's) or what is in the interests of everyone's personal safety with the law either. I also respect the needs and desires of friends or family members who don't want the murderer of their loved one executed. Not having a death penalty only ensures justice for those that oppose capital punishment. Let's another thing straight; executions are a punishment for a violent crime against the state. Persons that can't distinguish between an execution or a punishment and premeditated murder aren't being objective or reasonable.

Terri, I misspelled your name in a prior post. Please accept my apologies.

Terri also brought up some exceptions and I accept that DNA evidence has freed some persons who might have been wrongfully convicted. Many of the cases that resulted in the release of an inmate also include some strong doubts about their actual innocence. In a very small number of cases (consider the thousands that are decided each year without error) where guilt is less than sure, acquittals and releases have been noted. It's also worth noting that no (zero) wrongful executions have been documented in the United States. DNA is being increasingly used to prove guilt beyond a doubt and many murderers who claim their innocence have delayed or waived DNA testing (under advisement of their lawyers). Juries are demanding evidence such as DNA before they recommend death too.

If economics were your motivation for opposing capital punishment I would remind you that there are studies that challenge the results of the sites that you referenced. Frankly I find it insulting that some persons would suggest that justice should be “for sale” or left to the lowest bidder. A morally acceptable alternative to attacking the courts or a punishment might be to encourage the use of crime prevention strategies, especially violent crimes that lead to murder.

On another note, persons who are curious about what offenders do when they are placed in our prisons should look at the following link.

http://crrp41.doc.state.nc.us/docs/pubdocs/0006072.PDF (p12).

As a victim advocate, if one of your loved ones was murdered and you told me that you wanted the murderer to receive a life sentence I would accept that. If the murderer of your loved one was sentenced to death and considered for clemency, I would ask the governor include your personal needs in his decision. I support a process where our courts decide each case individually and the families of victims can have their desires considered during sentencing by a jury and later on during clemency. Not all murders or murderers are the same and a single punishment (or life without parole) doesn't represent justice for all, regardless of ones personal feelings about capital punishment.

Unlike some folks out there, I don't confuse convictions with executions. Neither do I accept that an acquittal proves actual innocence (think about OJ Simpson). Innocence presumed is not proven. That's the mistake some folks make when they base their feelings on capital punishment only on what folks from the Innocence Project or sources like it say.

The Innocence Project &/or the DPIC are efforts supported by persons whose primary interest is for their clients. Death row inmates have been known to express their love for their attorneys prior to being executed in North Carolina in recent years too. You have to be careful about using sources that encourage lawyers to bond with their clients (to build trust?) or offer up alternative stories (when they may not know or care about what the real truth might be) that suggest innocence, even if they are weak. My point here is that defense attorneys are not always (truthful?) objective or “all knowing” about capital punishment. They are paid to vigorously represent their clients though.

Something else that should be gleaned from the case at hand is that, CPD and our local DA didn't hide the methods they used to get the confession. It's come out in pretrial. That says something for their integrity. They've not illegally withheld evidence. The questionable tactics CPD used provided the defense an opportunity to legally withhold a part the truth from a jury. Time will tell how damaging this is for the case and for North Carolinians.

Tonite we watched an excellent DVD: "Murder on a Sunday Morning" - the story of Jacksonville, Florida Police who were not even clever in breaking rules to convict. Many differences from this issue, but similar topic. CB police might even be "brilliant" compared to those in the movie.

Wayne,
I'm not preaching to anyone. I'm just asking the question. If one feels Jesus would support the state taking another life, that is one's right. I can't find anything to support that notion, however. And it may not matter to you, one way or the other, what Jesus would do. That's your right, too. I'm just

I don't confuse morals with the law, either. If I feel something is wrong, it is wrong, no matter what the law is. That is the way bad laws are changed.

Over time we have become more civilized. That may be hard to believe, even when measured by the way some people act behind the wheel of a car. But compared to life 1000 or 2000 years ago, we've come a long way. The state treats human life with more respect and dignity than it did during, for example, Pharaonic Egypt.

As we treat each other with more civility, the state also treats us with civility. They go hand in hand. I cannot imagine a society that expects no one to ever kill another, yet will kill the person who does so. It is not consistent with a more evolved existence, in my opinion. How do we want to be as a society, and are our policies and actions taking us in that direction?

All of this might sound too intellectual, I know. People are killing others, and we must stop it. Whatever works. And victims deserve justice, whatever they feel is justice. But the ends never justify the means. Never. The means must stand on their own. Killing people is wrong. We don't need the bible to tell us so, either.

Ed,

Romans 13 settled it for me.

Jesus never saved himself or the thieves on the cross.

The DP is an effective evangelistic tool...
almost 80% on death row come to Christ.

Jack--Are you seriously using the Bible to justify your political position on the death penalty? A lot of outrageous statements have been made on this blog, but *if* you are being serious, I hereby nominate you as the most outrageous of all contributors.

Thank-you

Fellas,

I could use this readily to pontificate about my stance- pro or con - about the death penalty, but can we get back to the matter at hand... Key, Dalzell, the DA and the CPD?

JJA

Ed,

I think we can both agree that there's no panacea for murder. The difference between what you believe and what I do is that I don't think that one sentence will work for all murderers. It's also important to distinguish between “killings” that may be unintentional versus ones that are premeditated. First-degree murder is not random event, it is planned, and it's intentional. For a murderer to be eligible for a death sentence their crimes must also include other aggravating factors. Murders are not accidental “killings”.

When the state executes proven murderers it's acting in self-defense. Many of murderers on death row represent the equivalent of a loaded gun (with the safety off). They've already proven by their past actions what they are capable of. Playing Russian roulette with proven murderers is a dangerous business. I doubt that you'd have the same opinions about capital punishment if you worked in a prison. Many of the inmates that are on death row or serve life sentences can't be dealt with reasonably. They don't care what your bible or what state statutes might say. Laws and/or religion don't stop many murderers from harming other inmates or corrections staff, and there's no additional or relevant sanction you can impose on an offender who is already serving a life sentence.

Just because you can't imagine a civilized society that can justify an occasional and deserved execution doesn't mean that it does not already exist. I think the United States is a wonderful country to live in and capital punishment is recognized by a large number of states. If you want to compare other existing nations or recent civilizations explain the difference between Pharaonic Egypt and China's record on human rights (Saddam Hussein's or Slobodan Milosovic's treatment of their own people). I think that those references would make reasonable persons question your statement about humans (in general) becoming “more civilized” over time.

If a jury can be convinced unanimously that a suspect (like Dalzel) is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and unanimously concludes that the appropriate sentence is death, we should be careful about circumventing their recommendation. Among other things, the needs or desires of the family of the victim need to be considered. If a murderer has shown that he is likely to harm others despite being placed in a prison, allowing him to live only provides him with additional opportunities. Fox will have to make present a strong case to convince a jury of guilt, and he will have his work cut out for him if he decides to pursue this case capitally.

Dave Morgan, Comparing this case to other unrelated cases (or to movies?), doesn't serve much purpose. When it is considered in our courts, it should be decided on the evidence, testimony, logic and facts (and laws) that apply directly.

John A, the thread on using capital punishment was brought up in a earlier post by Jack Granger where he said that he found it interesting that Fox or CPD would use the threat of possible execution to get a confession from the suspect in this case but Fox has never seriously pursued an execution. I agree with that point, and it is interesting. I don't think Fox has commented publicly about whether or not he supports capital punishment but as a DA he is required to apply the law to its fullest, even if he disagrees with it. Jurists are required to set their personal feelings aside when they recommend sentences or decide guilt. I doubt that some of the posters here could be seated on a jury because they can't imagine a real need for an execution (in any case). I don't think that Fox will pursue this case capitally anyway; I doubt that he would even if the present set of circumstances didn't apply.

I choose optimism about humanity's potential, not cynicism. I choose to consider the best human history has been able to produce, and aspire to be even better, not the worst, and assume that anything better than that is good enough. I choose to try to be the best example of what we can be, even though I know I'll fall far short of that. What I choose cannot include anyone killing anyone for any reason. That's all I'll say on this off-topic.

Ed,

Pardon me if I sounded cynical. My intention was to be realistic. I admire your optimism but don't think that it will have much effect on Dalzel or any other murder suspect. If you were suggesting that murderers who are most eligible for execution might also be reasonable, I'd have to disagree with that notion. Some might be (for as long as they thought they might be rewarded in some way) for short periods of time before they kill or cause harm to others again.

From the descriptions I've read in the papers it sounds like Dalzel could be a fairly cagey fellow. One couldn't blame him, after being accused of murder or being investigated in connection with one for being reluctant to offer details at first. CPD knew they were stretching the rules and are answering to it. It's not his first encounter with law enforcement. This is probably another reason they felt compelled to be "clever".

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0545001&SEN...

Dalzel “knew the drill”… he's been read Miranda before too.

So did Carrboro PD actually break the law? Was the judges decision based on the following state statute?

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/C...

I understand that Judge Barber wanted to deter future occurences of the kinds of tactics used...

I understood that he judged the evidence as having been obtained in violation of paragraph 1, in which case it doesn't have to meet the standards of para 2. (That's how I'd read "or", at least.)

It seems the Carrboro Aldermen don't want to take action on this. Looks like they are all digging themselves into a hole that they can't get out of. Just so you know, this inaction and your comments to this website will be a major issue in the upcoming elections. You (the Aldermen) have shamed the fine community of Carrboro as has Hutchinson and Carl Fox. Just for the record, I think Andrew Dalzell deserves to fry for this murder, but the illegal actions of the so called "justice system" has made it so he will eventually walk. I truely hope the family of Deborah Key's sues the hell of you all!

Wayne make a very, very interesting point ... what's the shelf life of a Miranda warning? Does is "wear off" from an arrest a week before, a month before ... a year before?

When your indictment is amended from attempted murder to murder because your victim dies amonth after the attack, do you get a new warning or does the law allow that the rights you've acknowledged in writing apply indefinitely?

Jean,

If Dalzel were a first time offender, I could be convinced that CPD was being overzealous when they used false information to get him to confess. Since we aren't talking about a newbies (CPD, Fox or Dalzel) to justice system procedures (including Miranda), I do think that some “gamesmanship” has taken place. The question here is if it was unfair or illegal. I suppose that there's some legal precedent somewhere that requires Miranda rights to be read in each and every case though (and restricted to the case at hand). Here's the first link that I found on the subject. In the spirit of encouraging future discussion, I won't quote Miranda or repeat the law; I'll just offer my opinions.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/miranda.htm

I don't think that CPD is required to be completely truthful to suspects when they interrogate them, after all they may have had serious questions about whether or not Dalzel should have been charged with any crime at all (until he confessed to murder). However, I don't agree that Fox did the right thing by giving CPD a “blank check” or letterhead. CPD's ethics/procedures are questionable to me when they draft and present fake documents to suspects. If Dalzel challenged the authenticity of the fake documents and CPD lied, I'd be even more leery of their tactics. CPD should enlighten us all about their procedures so that we aren't encouraged to speculate about them.

It's important to keep this case in perspective. CPD was pursuing a murder investigation; this is not a case where a suspect was jaywalking or a monetary settlement would reverse all wrongs. Persons suspected of murder need to be pursued aggressively because they might destroy evidence or victimize more innocent persons. CPD may have been acting under the premise that a victim was still alive, others might be harmed or that a body might be recovered. I don't expect that everyone here will approve of CPD's actions. I certainly don't (Judge Barber obviously didn't either), but I don't believe that the actions of CPD or Fox rise to the level that anyone should lose their job today.

It's worth noting that if the victim's body had in fact been recovered as a result of the questionable tactics, it might not be admissible in court today. Then again, Barber might have noted that goal (recovery) and considered it more strongly before excluding the confession. Judge Barber obviously had a tough call to make. I respect this decision.

CPD made a calculated risk and it backfired. Dalzel, the suspect, gets away with a confession. Maybe there's more incriminating evidence that might result in a conviction. I hope so. Otherwise it's as Will Shooter said, this is an issue that should be considered in local elections.

Not to diminish the loss of the family in this case in any way, but here are some statistics everyone should know about murderers in NC.

31 on probation
277 on parole

182 on death row
5019 serving sentences inside NC Prisons

Just picking up on this discussion---

Since most of the particulars have been aired above and in the press, I'll simply agree to disagree with Dan. Sorry to disappoint, but I believe that from all of the information presented, our department went to great pains to assure themselves that their plan of action in this case, while novel, was legal. Alas, in this case, Judge Barber disagreed.

This is why we have a system of multi-level judicial review: In any application of the law, its provisions are often subject to interpretation and the application of precedent(case law). An unfavorable ruling does not---and should not automatically be deemed prima facie evidence of bad faith or intentional misconduct. As has been pointed out above, the AG may or may not choose to appeal the decision. If he does, a different judge (or panel) may reach a different conclusion. In short, I think it's too early to be casting stones (and blame) for an outcome that is yet to be determined. It's in the hands of the courts--As it should be.

Cheers,
Alex

Well, that makes sense and is essentially true on all counts, although I think "novel" is charitable. Let's have a charette and celebrate!

Cheers,

Duncan

p.s. One little problem: your police department apparently doesn't agree with you. They've acted desperate to pin the blame on anyone but themselves for _something_. Now that they've lost in Barber's court, they're playing pin-the-blame-on-Carl, which I suppose means they acknowledge that some wrong was done. Does anyone doubt that, had they won on the issue, they'd be patting themselves on the back and shouting huzzah? If, as you point out as a possibility, an appeals panel upholds the confession, will they continue to blame Fox for.....what? Bad advice that suddenly turned good?

Hutchison's "we-did-a-great-job-but-it's-Fox's-fault" argument is not convincing. It's either one or the other: either you did a great job, or you made a mistake and violated the constitutional rights of a prisoner. This is becoming the real problem here -- your department's (public) position of shifting blame. People -- especially your police department -- dwell on the fact that they "consulted" the district attorney about their plan, but the testimony from the hearing leaves it an open question as to how much of the plan they shared with Carl Fox, and how closely they followed the aspects of the plan they shared with him. As you know, these questions are decided on the particularities of what happened, not what was planned.

I prefer your accounting of the current situation. We could only wish that they thought the way you do, and were approaching the issue in the same way.

p.p.s. Perhaps the most dismaying problem is that your detective, John Lau, testified under oath about certain things in that hearing, and now contradicts that testimony in public while slagging Carl Fox. I hope that's not the sort of thing Carrboro tolerates.

"There you go again. Hiding behind my desk? What is that supposed to mean? How am I failing to stand the “heat?” What dog are you proposing to hit?

“Mayor Shooter” is not a flippant remark, by the way. It is a common rhetorical device familiar to me from my experience in law school. My appologies if others are unfamiliar with it.

The question (without the rhetorical devise) is: How would you have handled the situation differently? "

Ok Mark, here we are. You asked me to name one thing in your record in regards to the bill of rights and I brought up this and you have repeatedly dodged the question. The above paragraphs are your own words, which brings up another question. If you have law school experience, then are you unaware that not one part of the Carrboro police's scheme in this case was even remotely constitutional? Did you miss school that day?

How are you failing to stand the heat of office? You are repeatedly trying to bait me into an arguement, instead of answering a direct question. You said "How would you have handled the the situation differently?" Are you now asking my advise? Are you stating that the issue is too difficult to handle yourself, and therefore would like to deflect it by using cute rhetorical devises?

You've tried to pass the blame over to Carl Fox. It's too bad he's not here to defend himself against your accusations. But the core fact is that your police chief, sent 5 officers on a cross state mission, with the clear intent of getting an unconstitutional confession from a murder suspect. Instead of firing Hutchinson for blatant abuse of office or incompetence, you decided to spend taxpayer money to retain an special attorney to advise the police in such future matters. Seems a redundant waste of resources if you already have a town attorney.

ummm....

The above post makes little sense...unless a previous post has been deleted?

I am con-FU-sed.

Melanie, Go to the welcome Lydia thread, Will had much more to say there regarding The Town of Carrboro and what he considers their blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights.

I have read and reread many sites posted about this and have come to a few conclusions ... 1 this Man is still in the yahoo chat rooms under the name Daddy Joker. He has recently married and now lives just a few short miles from me in NC. I myself almost meet the 2 of them for lunch. I have no idea who to alert that He is still in fact in the chat rooms attempting to meet women. I have taken securities to protect myself but i do not know what else to do. Any advice would be great. i just hope someone still checks this web site.

The timing of the arrest on non-Key charges almost exactly 7 years after her last known day on earth cannot be co-incidence. During the hearing on whether to admit the confession it was clear to me that some other matter to which the statute of limitations applies was also suppressed. When a football team is down 5 with 1 sec they throw a pass that is very unlikely to succeed, a Hail Mary. But if you have 2 chances , slim and none , you take the slim chance. I believe this is what the Carrboro PD was doing. As a close friend of Debbie's I am very supportive of their efforts. In Hollywood movies the suspect asks "What's the charge". Dalzell didn't. I think it should have worked. The CPD gambled on this. I think they could do no less for Debbie.