How come some are for...

[Justice 0]

Cancer, it was two articles, not very long, and only one was from socialistworker.com. If it's garbage, wouldn't it be very easy to simply prove what it says is wrong?

Well, not really. I mean, it would take tons of insight into the actual case to completely refute the facts here. It's pretty obvious that this case was not very big, and trying to dismiss outrageous claims like this. In all seriousness, why didn't these people ever inform of the Federal Government of this sort of injustice? For no action by ANY form of watchdog group or judicial branch official for something as heinous as that article describes is almost impossible; There would be a HUGE investigation into something like that, especially since the Death Penalty has always been a hot topic.

 

So, to summarize: It's always easier to say meaningless, factless things and post them on the internet than actually do a ton of research and definitively debunk them.

 

And yes, there are watchdog groups, but to suggest there so good at what they do that an innocent man has never been put to death sounds like having a lot of faith in something you don't participate in. All available evidence tells me there's still a big chance an innocent man or woman has been put to death before. Between the amount of people found to be not guilty and the steps taken in DNA evidence I just can't believe we've got a perfect record in terms of killing people.

 

Remember, the current rules are from 1976. Anything beyond that would not be fair game. Not only this, but there have been numerous injunctions to stop people from going to death because of the advent of DNA testing. Many of the prisoners on Death Row have had their cases re-reviewed under DNA testing, and hell, since we have DNA testing today, is there any argument that we could say that someone who is innocent could get executed?

[Guest Ghettoman]

From this point foward, no. Hopefully.

 

And I guess if were only counting from 76 to now my point's harder to make.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Dammit people, here's another and very cold way of looking at it.

What's our returns to society for MAKING VERY VERY 100% SURE no one on Death Row was innocent vs. being VERY VERY 99% sure no one is *and I think that's accurate today*

 

Should we spend a million? That could barely cover the checking?

10 million? Maybe a city or two with a jail that has a chair.

100 million? Now maybe we can research a decently sized state completely

1 billion? That might cover everyone in every state. Until the next time we need to check.

 

1 billion...would YOU want to pay something like that to make sure.

I wouldn't. Waste of my tax dollars.

100 million (for the whole system) same deal

10 million and below...no way this can be feasibly done.

 

Fuck people, we don't want to send innocents to die. But seriously, its great to say we've got to make sure the system works perfectly...but you're going to take away spending on other federal programs if you want to do that.

 

Remember the dollar costs people.

[Guest Cerebus]

Yikes got home early and now this thread has exploded...

 

Well I dug up a few textbooks from college I still have lying around. Here's what I got:

 

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, at least 87 people have been freed from death rows since 1973. If anyone has dirt on them feel free to post it.

 

Several sources in one of my text books point out that emperical evidence does not exist for proving a deterrant effect on crime.

 

The authors of my old psych & law text book disagree with Marney, it says:

 

How many of those executed were innnocent we cannot say with percision; all we can say with confidence is that some executed defendants surely were.

 

There is also reference to a Columbia University Law School study that disovered that serious mistakes had been made in two-thirds of death penalty cases. I've also read of a few cases (Gary Graham in Texas and Roger Coleman in Virginia) where it seems somewhat doubtful that they comitted the crime, or at the very least, should have been given a retrial.

 

P.S. If you want the specific sources PM me...I don't feel like typing them all out if I don't have to.

[Firestarter 0]

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, at least 87 people have been freed from death rows since 1973. If anyone has dirt on them feel free to post it.

The vast majority of those people were freed, as I said before, on the basis of legal technicalities - their release from death row says nothing at all about their guilt or innocence.

 

Several sources in one of my text books point out that emperical evidence does not exist for proving a deterrant effect on crime.

Since the moral argument for the death penalty is punishment, not deterrence, that's irrelevant.

 

The authors of my old psych & law text book disagree with Marney, it says:

 

How many of those executed were innnocent we cannot say with percision; all we can say with confidence is that some executed defendants surely were.

Gobbledygook. If you can't say how many were innocent, you can't say any were. What's your basis for judgement? A presumption that we must have made a mistake, somewhere, somewhen? Not good enough. Do the research and point to specific cases - there have been fewer than 1000 executions under the current statutes. Not even the most bullheaded opponents of the death penalty can point to a single man and say "He didn't do it, and we killed him." Why not?

[Downhome 0]

If/when they actually do prove that someone was put to death that was innocent, what do you suppose will happen? Will the masses demand that something change, or will they accept it as a mistake and believe that the odds are still against it for the most part?

[Firestarter 0]

I'm sure there would be an immediate public outcry, some sort of lawsuit (naturally), a possible temporary moratorium on executions, and probably a wholesale overhaul of the entire system, as that would prove conclusively that something went wrong somewhere. More checks would be instituted and more reviews and avenues for appeal opened.

I also don't think this is likely to happen as we prove guilt pretty damn conclusively right now before sending ANYONE to death row.

[Guest Cerebus]

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, at least 87 people have been freed from death rows since 1973. If anyone has dirt on them feel free to post it.

The vast majority of those people were freed, as I said before, on the basis of legal technicalities - their release from death row says nothing at all about their guilt or innocence.

 

Well the rest of that part says thus (emphasis mine):

 

Some of these condemned convicts were cleared when new evidence came to light or when witnesses changed their stories. However, the major source of exoneration has been the use of more sophisticated DNA testing. DNA evidence has been credited with proving the innocence of scores of death row inmates in the United States and Canada in the years since capital punishment has reinstated. (Shapiro, 1998)

 

The authors of my old psych & law text book disagree with Marney, it says:

 

How many of those executed were innnocent we cannot say with percision; all we can say with confidence is that some executed defendants surely were.

Gobbledygook. If you can't say how many were innocent, you can't say any were. What's your basis for judgement? A presumption that we must have made a mistake, somewhere, somewhen? Not good enough. Do the research and point to specific cases - there have been fewer than 1000 executions under the current statutes. Not even the most bullheaded opponents of the death penalty can point to a single man and say "He didn't do it, and we killed him." Why not?

 

As usual I agree with you, but one can make an educated guess as to so. A Columbia University Law study showed that 2/3 of every capital conviction in the US from 73 to 95 had serious mistakes including incompetent attorneys (37%), faulty jury instructions (20%), and misconduct on the part of prosecutors (19%). 7% of those weere found not guilty of hte capital crime with which they had originally been charged (82% had their sentences reduced to less than death at their retrials). With that many mistakes its not a giant leap to assume that there was a mistake with at least SOME of the other executions during that time period especially with some of the odd decisions of the Texas Board of Pardons. For what its worth, I'm pro-death penalty.

[Firestarter 0]

Well the rest of that part says thus (emphasis mine):

 

Some of these condemned convicts were cleared when new evidence came to light or when witnesses changed their stories. However, the major source of exoneration has been the use of more sophisticated DNA testing. DNA evidence has been credited with proving the innocence of scores of death row inmates in the United States and Canada in the years since capital punishment has reinstated. (Shapiro, 1998)

DNA testing is fine for proving guilt. It cannot prove innocence, especially years after the crimes, which is when most of these "exonerations" took place - of course innocence is assumed, but when you suddenly have investigations that were conducted over a decade ago being asked to provide evidence that there was no way of assessing back then, we err on the side of the criminals. Often unwisely so - witness the so-called "exoneration" of the Central Park rapists (after their uncoerced confessions, which were suddenly recanted) by "DNA evidence," or more properly lack of DNA evidence. This is absurdly stupid and in no way means that we have been putting innocent people on death row for years. Samples deteriorate, evidence is overlooked, forensic methods change. Say in fifty years we can determine if a particular person has been in a particular place within a certain amount of time by measuring some kind of subatomic change in the environment. Do we throw out all prior convictions and demand that investigators reassess the evidence in light of our new capabilities? Do we set hundreds of murderers free because we now have a new method, more accurate (or at least more flexible) than DNA testing? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Well, that's pretty much what we did when we started using DNA tests. As a result, murderers and rapists walked free when they should have been executed.

 

That's not justice. That's evil.

 

A Columbia University Law study showed that 2/3 of every capital conviction in the US from 73 to 95 had serious mistakes including incompetent attorneys (37%), faulty jury instructions (20%), and misconduct on the part of prosecutors (19%). 7% of those weere found not guilty of hte capital crime with which they had originally been charged (82% had their sentences reduced to less than death at their retrials).

There is a HUGE difference between proving procedural error and the innocence of an executed criminal. Huge. Not even in the same ballpark, as Tom would say. Not even close.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I think that DNA evidence can prove innocense in cases. If there was blood or other traceable evidence found at the crime scene and it was later DNA tested and does not match the convicted, that would prove their innocense.

 

I'd say that I would be surprised if no person had ever been wrongly sentenced to the death penalty. I don't have time to look through cases, so I won't argue to strongly, that's just my opinion.

 

I'm for the death penalty though. I just think it should be used in only extreme cases.

[Firestarter 0]

I think that DNA evidence can prove innocense in cases.  If there was blood or other traceable evidence found at the crime scene and it was later DNA tested and does not match the convicted, that would prove their innocense.

Nope. It would only establish that the criminal might have had a confederate and that that DNA evidence against the criminal in question was not found at the scene. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and guilt can be (and often still is) established through circumstantial evidence alone.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Well, in a rape case, DNA could definitely be used to establish innocense. If the semen was not a DNA match of the convicted, they had the wrong guy.

 

Also, if there was a murder where there was a witness who saw that only one person committed the crime, that person was cut and subsequently got away. Later a convicted person was DNA tested and did not match the blood at the scene. The DNA evidence in this case would establish innocense.

 

I'm just using these to defend my argument about DNA.

[Firestarter 0]

Well, in a rape case, DNA could definitely be used to establish innocense.  If the semen was not a DNA match of the convicted, they had the wrong guy.

Flat-out wrong. In the case of a gang rape DNA evidence would be all but useless. Victims can be drugged, stunned, knocked out, or blindfolded. Rapists can use condoms. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence.

 

Also, if there was a murder where there was a witness who saw that only one person committed the crime, that person was cut and subsequently got away.   Later a convicted person was DNA tested and did not match the blood at the scene.  The DNA evidence in this case would establish innocense.

Wrong again. The eyewitness evidence is what would establish innocence; that only one aggressor was involved would be the key fact. The DNA evidence would be secondary to the analysis.

 

I'm just using these to defend my argument about DNA.

Your argument is incorrect.

[C Dubya 04 0]

"Flat-out wrong. In the case of a gang rape DNA evidence would be all but useless. Victims can be drugged, stunned, knocked out, or blindfolded. Rapists can use condoms. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence."

 

 

I didn't say gang rape. One person. Semen found. DNA doesn't match. DNA proves innocense.

 

"Wrong again. The eyewitness evidence is what would establish innocence; that only one aggressor was involved would be the key fact. The DNA evidence would be secondary to the analysis."

 

In my example, the person was convicted because of an error by the eyewitness. The DNA was then used to establish innocense.

 

I know these are extreme examples, but DNA is being used to establish innocense in both.

[Zorin Industries 0]

not to mention the number of people who would have been liable for the death sentence, who were sent down from forced confessions and manipulated evidence ( i.e: Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four)

Ignorant bullshit. In the United States, at least, any death sentence is far more extensively reviewed than any LWOP and has wholly separate sentencing appeals procedures. You actually have better chances of getting a substantially reduced sentence if you're eligible for the death penalty.

 

As for Europe, spare me, okay? If you cretins ever decide to listen to your citizens (roughly two-thirds to three-fourths of whom want to reinstate the death penalty) - y'know, like you're supposed to, in democracies? - you can preach to us. As long as you continue to deny them the right to govern themselves and establish their own systems of justice, I don't really give a shit what you have to say.

And i've just given you 10 good reasons while i'm glad politicans have decided not to listen to what SOME citizens said ( i'd like to see if you have some stats to back that up, I can see it in the U.K, but i'm not so sure about the rest of Europe)

[Mole 0]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

[MrRant 0]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

I think when they strap you to the chair, that your mind would change.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

That's highly debatable though, and more a matter of personal choice then anything else.

 

There have been convicts who FOUGHT for their right to be executed. Do you honestly think that they were being "punished" for their crimes by being put to death, then?

 

I know myself, I'd rather be dead then in prison for 40 years.

[Firestarter 0]

"Flat-out wrong. In the case of a gang rape DNA evidence would be all but useless. Victims can be drugged, stunned, knocked out, or blindfolded. Rapists can use condoms. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence."

 

 

I didn't say gang rape.  One person.  Semen found.  DNA doesn't match.  DNA proves innocense.

In that limited case, yes, possibly; assuming also that the victim is in full possession of her senses and absolutely certain there was one and only one assailant, and also that the evidence samples are taken within a short period of time so that the semen is fresh. Just don't generalise it to cover all cases of rape, because it can't.

 

"Wrong again. The eyewitness evidence is what would establish innocence; that only one aggressor was involved would be the key fact. The DNA evidence would be secondary to the analysis."

 

In my example, the person was convicted because of an error by the eyewitness.  The DNA was then used to establish innocense.

The eyewitness testimony is still key to determining that the aggressor acted alone and that the accused was not a confederate of whoever left the blood on the scene. Without such testimony, the DNA evidence could not establish innocence.

 

I know these are extreme examples, but DNA is being used to establish innocense in both.

Only one now, and that marginally.

[Firestarter 0]

And i've just given you 10 good reasons while i'm glad politicans have decided not to listen to what SOME citizens said

"Some?" In several countries, it's a clear majority.

 

( i'd like to see if you have some stats to back that up, I can see it in the U.K, but i'm not so sure about the rest of Europe)

Here you go.

 

Just for added irony, the link I chose is on the website of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United States.

[Tawren 0]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

Not nowadays. They get libraries, health care, cable, all that crap.

[Downhome 0]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

Not nowadays. They get libraries, health care, cable, all that crap.

If we could put an end to all of that, give them nothing of entertainment at all and make them work hard labor for the rest of their life on the prison in some way or another, then I'd be more comfortable with just putting people in prison.

 

As it is, some people would rather be in prison than out on their on.

[2GOLD 0]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

Not nowadays. They get libraries, health care, cable, all that crap.

If we could put an end to all of that, give them nothing of entertainment at all and make them work hard labor for the rest of their life on the prison in some way or another, then I'd be more comfortable with just putting people in prison.

 

That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Even though, you know...some people on the outside live like that now.

 

I love you could have axed someone up for giggles and still be able to get your GED.

[Mole 0]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

Not nowadays. They get libraries, health care, cable, all that crap.

If we could put an end to all of that, give them nothing of entertainment at all and make them work hard labor for the rest of their life on the prison in some way or another, then I'd be more comfortable with just putting people in prison.

 

That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Even though, you know...some people on the outside live like that now.

 

I love you could have axed someone up for giggles and still be able to get your GED.

So throwing them in a chair that electrocutes you to death isn't cruel?

 

Yes I know most states have lethal injection, which doesn't hurt at all.

 

I say, just throw them in a room, with a tiny window, and let them rot in there forever. I think that is a lot worse than being put to death.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

So throwing them in a chair that electrocutes you to death isn't cruel?

 

Neither is strapping someone to a chair, then filling the room with toxic gasses which slowly (well, I've heard about 10 minutes, which is slow enough) asphyxiate you, apparantly.

 

Though if there's one thing I've learned, it's that the guidelines "cruel and unusual" are almost too vauge to bother arguing about. And somehow, I think they planned that...

[Guest MikeSC]

So throwing them in a chair that electrocutes you to death isn't cruel?

 

Neither is strapping someone to a chair, then filling the room with toxic gasses which slowly (well, I've heard about 10 minutes, which is slow enough) asphyxiate you, apparantly.

 

Though if there's one thing I've learned, it's that the guidelines "cruel and unusual" are almost too vauge to bother arguing about. And somehow, I think they planned that...

Actually, gas and electrocution are seldom used.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

I think being stuck in a prison cell their whole life is a lot worse than being put to death.

Not nowadays. They get libraries, health care, cable, all that crap.

If we could put an end to all of that, give them nothing of entertainment at all and make them work hard labor for the rest of their life on the prison in some way or another, then I'd be more comfortable with just putting people in prison.

 

That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Even though, you know...some people on the outside live like that now.

 

I love you could have axed someone up for giggles and still be able to get your GED.

That's because you're being "rehabilitated", not punished.

 

And cahin gangs were axed why? Cruel and unusual? Pfffft, nothing cruel about it.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Actually, gas and electrocution are seldom used.

-=Mike

 

I know...only fourteen states use the chair, and only six use gas, last I checked. And even there, I'll wager they're not very frequent; that doesn't mean that they're NOT used, though.

[Vern Gagne 0]

When was the last time someone was put to death by something other than lethal injection?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

When was the last time someone was put to death by something other than lethal injection?

I believe in Ohio recently someone specifically requested death by firing squad when he found out that option was available.