Death Penalty: Does it really work?

[Ripper 0]

There have been numerous cases where people have gotten off death row when they were sentenced to death when it was later proven they didn't do it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And that's why I don't generally approve of the death penalty.

 

Sentence some guy for 20 years: "Oops, our bad -- here's come cash."

 

Execute an innocent: "Gather around the Oujia Board and say we're sorry."

 

The only exception to this would be if a person is on videotape killing/raping someone. If that's the case, then fry the fucker...

[notJames 0]

How much would it cost to just ship these lifers someplace where they can't harm anybody, like, say, the South Pole? I would think a penal colony in Antarctica is the way to go. Just put them on a boat with a parka and a bottle of water and be done with it. It's not really killing the criminals, but you know for sure that they a) wouldn't be around to commit more crimes, and b) they probably wouldn't survive a day there. Hell, they might even kill each other off and save Mother Nature from getting her hands dirty.

 

Of course, you run the risk of a "Con Air"-type situation where the criminals take control of the vessel, but I'm sure that can be controlled by either beefing up security or limiting how many criminals go at one time.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And on a semi-related note...

 

Murder case gets kicked to the "curb"

 

A man who spent five and a half months behind bars, and could have been given the death penalty, is now free -- thanks to the sitcom "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

 

6/2/2004 8:50 AM

By: Capital News 9 web staff

 

There are hardly any happy endings on the hit show "Curb Your Enthusiasm," but the comedy delivered one in real life -- to a man wrongly accused of murder.

 

Last year, Juan Catalan was arrested and charged with the murder of a 16-year-old girl. Cops alleged he killed the girl because she testified against his brother in another case, and said they had a witness who place him at the scene of the crime.

 

Catalan repeatedly told police he was innocent and said he was at a Dodgers baseball game with his daughter when the crime was committed.

 

With "Curb Your Enthusiasm" creator Larry David's consent, Catalan's lawyer viewed tapes of footage that the HBO show shot at the game. It proved Catalan was there and the charges were dismissed.

 

Catalan is now suing the city of Los Angeles, alleging false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation of character. So far, prosecutors and police have not commented on the situation.

[EricMM 0]

I'm against it, I feel that it's not worth the costs or the time.

 

Life in prison, hard labor. Repay your debt to society until you die.

 

Work on getting Life in Prison to mean LIFE in prison.

 

Rapists should never go free, killers should never go free.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

That's not enough though. I think some people really deserve to die, and satisfying bloodthirsty revenge urges when they're totally justified is not a bad thing at all.

[Firestarter 0]

There have been numerous cases where people have gotten off death row when they were sentenced to death when it was later proven they didn't do it

The necessary and sufficient answer to this is:

 

Bullshit.

 

 

 

I suppose they were black, so they must have been innocent.

[Ripper 0]

Goddamn marney, bring the ignorance why don't you.

 

They were proven innocent by DNA evidence that wasn't available when they were convicted. A quick search of "death row convictions overturned" will show you many cases. 63 as of Feb. 2000.

 

Oh, and they proably took the cases and changed the black mans DNA to match so they could kill someone because dats whut dem crakas do~!

 

That should give you something for your next post so you won't have to pull it out of the air like last time.

 

edit: Sorry, 85 as of Feb. 2000

[Mystery Eskimo 0]

The death penalty will kill innocent people, or are people naive enough to think that any country's legal system reaches a correct verdict 100% of the time?

[C Dubya 04 0]

On April 8, 2002, Ray Krone was released from prison in Arizona after DNA evidence proved that he was not responsible for the 1991 murder of a Phoenix bartender. Krone became the 100th person exonerated and released from death row since 1973. Convicted twice for a brutal murder, Krone spent ten years in prison, two of them on death row. The DNA evidence that ultimately proved his innocence also implicated the real murderer.

 

Unfortunately, Ray Krone’s story is not unique. As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.

 

A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. “An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,” he said in his conclusion. “One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.”

 

The vast majority of those exonerated were found innocent because someone came forward to confess committing the crime; key witness testimony was found to be illegitimate; or new evidence was found to support innocence

 

In many other cases, it was good fortune rather than the criminal justice system that established innocence. In several cases, college or law school students investigated cases and unearthed essential evidence. For example, students in an investigative journalism class at Webster University uncovered evidence of misconduct by prosecutors, who talked a witness into giving false testimony and withheld crucial trial evidence, and helped get a new trial for Louisiana death row inmate Richard Clay. If it had not been for the work of these students, an innocent person may have been put to death.

 

Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA. Many people falsely believe that DNA testing is a panacea that guarantees innocent people will not be put to death. However, it is important to note that DNA testing is not always able to determine the killer. In many cases, there is no physical evidence to test. DNA testing can be a critical tool for proving innocence, but it is still only available in a fraction of cases. For instance, five of the seventeen people released from death row were released because DNA evidence revealed their innocence.

 

The potential risk of executing an innocent person is horrific and the ultimate indicator that America’s criminal justice system is broken. Even the most ardent proponent of capital punishment has no tolerance for the execution of innocent people. The exoneration of 113 death row inmates undoubtedly demonstrates that the capital punishment system is in desperate need of reform.

 

 

 

http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPena...fm?ID=9316&c=65

 

Edited to include source.

[Ripper 0]

you are going to get hell for using the aclu as a source. I can see it now.

[Firestarter 0]

A quick search of "death row convictions overturned" will show you many cases. 63 as of Feb. 2000

Ah yes, Google, the first refuge of the ignorant.

 

Convictions are never overturned by "DNA evidence." Such "evidence" cannot prove anyone is "innocent." Overwhelmingly death row convicts have been freed because of the lack of DNA evidence, which is usually irrelevant at best in a murder case. The number of people who have actually been exonerated, as opposed to merely being released because clear and compelling DNA evidence placing them at the scene of the crime was unavailable, is vanishingly small.

 

As a matter of fact the availability of DNA analysis has been responsible for almost as many miscarriages of justice as convictions. Samples deteriorate. In some twelve to twenty year-old cases now coming up for their final appeals the samples were never even taken. Yet circumstantial evidence, motive, opportunity, method, and sometimes even eyewitnesses and confessions in open court are discounted, and why? Because "DNA evidence" supposedly "proves" the murderer is "innocent." I think that's fucking disgusting, and I've seen this shit happen in real life. I've seen people I know are guilty as sin walk away from crimes I knew they'd committed after my colleagues had brought them to justice because DN-fucking-A evidence was unavailable, unreliable, or discredited. You can always throw up some bullshit smokescreen and dress it up in scientific jargon and there's always a margin of error in every analysis. So don't give me your bleeding-heart liberal fantasy about dozens of "innocents" on death row, understood?

 

Incidentally, by a miscarriage of justice I meant letting a murderer walk free. I suppose you'd have a different definition.

[Ripper 0]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

 

It has been proven that confessions are gotten through illicit means sometimes, which have been used to be the sole proof in some cases and now you are saying screw the DNA evidence that says they didn't do it just because you KNOW they did it.

 

If you are going to try and pretend that the Justice system is 100% accurate go right ahead. But when a number of cases are built SOLELY on the DNA evidence at a scene when there is no motive, no witness's, don't come bitching to me when the same evidence is used to try and prove innocence.

[Firestarter 0]

now you are saying screw the DNA evidence that says they didn't do it

One more time: DNA evidence or the lack thereof CAN NOT SAY anyone was NOT responsible for a crime.

 

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of innocence.

 

If you are going to try and pretend that the Justice system is 100% accurate go right ahead

And this is called a straw man.

 

a number of cases are built SOLELY on the DNA evidence at a scene when there is no motive, no witness's

Any "case" so ridiculous would be thrown out of court by a sober judge.

[C Dubya 04 0]

you are going to get hell for using the aclu as a source. I can see it now.

Well, if Townhall is used as a source, then I think it's fair.

 

 

As a side, I don't see how anyone can ever argue that everyone convicted in our legal system was actually guilty. That's as absurd as arguing that everyone found innocent was actually innocent. (looking your way OJ)

[Firestarter 0]

As a side, I don't see how anyone can ever argue that everyone convicted in our legal system was actually guilty

Of course, no one has said any such thing. See post above re: straw man

 

That's as absurd as arguing that everyone found innocent was actually innocent.  (looking your way OJ)

And the Central Park rapists.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Death Penalty: I'm a big proponent. If you kill someone, or do nasty things to children, you don't deserve to live. You deserve to die, and die soon. No drawn out appeals, no extended (and expensive) drawn out bullshit. Kill the man (or woman) and kill them soon. Yes, there's a chance that someone that's not guilty will get the plunge, but it's still a small enough chance that it's a risk that I'm willing to take.

 

Of course, I'm also a big proponent of using those that are service life-sentences as human guinea pigs instead of animal testing. You kill a cop, or another heinous crime, you suffer until you die.

[Guest Brian]

If they kill a cop, they should get an award.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I miss hunger4unger...

[Firestarter 0]

If they kill a cop, they should get an award.

Jeez, what bit you on the ass today?

[nl5xsk1 0]

Hopefully karma is going to bite him in the ass ... maybe a nice speeding ticket, or something that involves a weekend stay in the local grey-bar motel.

 

I happen to have a lot of friends/ family members that are cops. Someone kills one of them, they'd better hope that they go to trial and get some lightweight sentence.

 

nl5: believes in vigilante justice.

[Guest MikeSC]

If they kill a cop, they should get an award.

Jeez, what bit you on the ass today?

God willing, a cop.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

If they kill a cop, they should get an award.

Jeez, what bit you on the ass today?

God willing, a cop.

-=Mike

You saw that porn too?

 

Nothing gets me going like a girl getting bit on the ass by another girl in a cop uniform.

 

...

 

 

what?

[Guest MikeSC]

If they kill a cop, they should get an award.

Jeez, what bit you on the ass today?

God willing, a cop.

-=Mike

You saw that porn too?

 

Nothing gets me going like a girl getting bit on the ass by another girl in a cop uniform.

 

...

 

 

what?

Nothing beats "lesbians in authority" porn.

 

Anybody disagree?

 

Anybody?

 

Thought not.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

DNA evidence or the lack thereof CAN NOT SAY anyone was NOT responsible for a crime.

 

What if the crime in question was a rape, and they used DNA evidence to prove that someone ELSE raped the girl, and not the guy who was originally arrested?

 

Yeah, slight chance and all that, but it's possible, isn't it?

 

Anyway, I'm against it, mainly because I think that being dead is better then being locked in jail for 40 years. And I know some criminals have agreed, as there have been cases (if I'm not mistaken) of convicted murderers fighting for their "right" to be executed.

 

I think having to live in jail for many, many years is a suitable punishment, as they're going to die anyway - they just have to suffer through prison first, and don't get the easy out of a nice, quick, painless death.

[Guest MikeSC]

DNA evidence or the lack thereof CAN NOT SAY anyone was NOT responsible for a crime.

 

What if the crime in question was a rape, and they used DNA evidence to prove that someone ELSE raped the girl, and not the guy who was originally arrested?

 

Yeah, slight chance and all that, but it's possible, isn't it?

 

Anyway, I'm against it, mainly because I think that being dead is better then being locked in jail for 40 years. And I know some criminals have agreed, as there have been cases (if I'm not mistaken) of convicted murderers fighting for their "right" to be executed.

 

I think having to live in jail for many, many years is a suitable punishment, as they're going to die anyway - they just have to suffer through prison first, and don't get the easy out of a nice, quick, painless death.

As Marney pointed out --- nobody KEPT good DNA samples just a few years ago because nobody knew to do so. These samples are, quite possibly, contaminated and have been so for years.

 

Just because a sample comes back as not being somebody's --- it doesn't mean that it actually ISN'T that person's. How many samples that don't show the criminal to be the perpetrator come back as samples that are too inconclusive to point to ANYBODY.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

So fry'em just in case?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Ripper 0]

I am sorry, but I just haven't seen the case where they say "We know you have 10 witnesses, a confession, the guy on video tape, the victem writing out his social security number in blood before they died and the blood evidence, but since the DNA doesn't match, SET HIM FREE!!!"

 

Alot of the cases being overturned were built around the blood evidence and semen evidence, and the same blood and semen evidence proved to set the person free.

[Firestarter 0]

I just haven't seen the case where they say "We know you have 10 witnesses, a confession, the guy on video tape, the victem writing out his social security number in blood before they died and the blood evidence, but since the DNA doesn't match, SET HIM FREE!!!"

Central Park jogger.

 

Next.

 

Alot of the cases being overturned were built around the blood evidence and semen evidence, and the same blood and semen evidence proved to set the person free

Neither DNA analysis nor lack thereof can prove anyone's innocence under any circumstances.

 

Do you understand this yet? If not, I can keep repeating it. Doesn't take much effort to copy and paste the sentence. No problem.