Death Penalty: Does it really work?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

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

 

Now, I understand the point about DNA samples not being kept properly, and thus not very reliable in some cases...but since you said under any circumstances...

 

If a girl accused someone of raping her, then they did DNA analysis and found no traces of his semen/DNA on her or any of her clothes (or on anything in her home) but did find semen from some other guy who was a known rapist on both her clothes (presumably the ones she was wearing at the time) and herself...wouldn't that prove the original guy's innocence, and that she was merely mistaken?

[Firestarter 0]

No.

[Guest MikeSC]

So fry'em just in case?

If you have enough evidence to get a death conviction --- no easy task, mind you --- then you have moe than enough reason to do it.

If a girl accused someone of raping her, then they did DNA analysis and found no traces of his semen/DNA on her or any of her clothes (or on anything in her home) but did find semen from some other guy who was a known rapist on both her clothes (presumably the ones she was wearing at the time) and herself...wouldn't that prove the original guy's innocence, and that she was merely mistaken?

That is seldom the case. All the defense is shooting for is that the DNA DOESN'T implicate their client as a show of innocence.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Sometimes "enough" evidence simply isn't enough. You can never be 100% sure that someone comitted a certain crime. Sure DNA testing can point to someone being highly likely to being the perpatrator but as it stands I cant agree with the death penalty.

[Ripper 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.

Unless I am confused, there were no witnesses, only the confessions and well...thats about it.

 

The only DNA was from a guy who admitted that he did it by himself, and the confession stories didn't even match from the boys that did give them.

 

Now if there is something else I am missing, enlighten me.

 

and if I need to start repeating REASONABLE DOUBT to you, then I will.

 

You telling me that in a case that hinges on blood evidence(and alot of them) and the blood evidence is proven to not implicate the defendant, you are telling me that isn't MORE than reasonable doubt?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

That is seldom the case. All the defense is shooting for is that the DNA DOESN'T implicate their client as a show of innocence.

 

That's the thing though...all I'm really trying to say is, can't DNA evidence prove one man's innocence by proving another man's guilt?

 

Again, the circumstances that would cause it would be unlikely, but I don't think it'd be impossible.

[Guest MikeSC]

That is seldom the case. All the defense is shooting for is that the DNA DOESN'T implicate their client as a show of innocence.

 

That's the thing though...all I'm really trying to say is, can't DNA evidence prove one man's innocence by proving another man's guilt?

 

Again, the circumstances that would cause it would be unlikely, but I don't think it'd be impossible.

Seeing as how most convicts on death row have been there for a while --- no, I don't have great faith in police keeping pristine samples for year after year.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I mean Canada for example only had 11 murders over the last year, they do not have the death penalty. In Canada the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975, thus disproving it is a deterent.

 

...

 

Source Plz?

 

We had at least 3 murders in Abbotsford last year. That's one city. With a population less then 200,000.

 

And I may be wrong but I don't think we had the death penalty in Canada in 1975 so that really doesn't disprove it as a deterent.

 

It's not a detrent but that's not the point.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hmm, perhaps that stat is just murders by use of guns?...

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I really really doubt that. I can pretty much garuntee there's more gun deaths than that in BC alone.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But Mikey Moore said in his documentary that the U.S. is the only country that kills people with guns...

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I know KKK. But together we can overcome the hurt and pain of Mikey's lies.

[Guest thebigjig]

But Mikey Moore said in his documentary that the U.S. is the only country that kills people with guns...

Yes... thats exactly what he said

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

It's certainly his implication that the United States was the most murder happy country in the world.

[EricMM 0]

I fail to see what true life in prison does any less than execution in preventing further crime.

[teke184 0]

I fail to see what true life in prison does any less than execution in preventing further crime.

Guys on Death Row are less likely than those in the general prison population to kill other prisoners, guards, etc. because they're confined to solitary cells 23 hours of the day.

 

Outside of that, the death penalty is more of a lubricant for the legal system. A guy facing a certain death penalty conviction is far more likely to plea-bargain himself into life in prison. That not only saves the court the time and expense of a trial but also cuts down on possible appeals, as the prisoner is not sentenced to death and the only grounds for appeal they really have is that their attorney was either incompetent or did not bargain in good faith (got them life when he could have gotten them significantly less time).

[teke184 0]

It's certainly his implication that the United States was the most murder happy country in the world.

He overlooks all the people killing each other in places like Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc. because those are wars, revolutions, etc. and therefore not "crime". I don't see him doing exposes about how you can buy a gatling gun with no ID for cash in the streets of Colombia...

[Guest MikeSC]

It's simple: Some guys DESERVE to die.

 

Charles Manson should be dead (and if anybody can explain why he ISN'T --- he originally RECEIVED a death sentence, commuted to life when the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty --- why wasn't it REINSTATED when the death penalty was REINSTATED?). Ted Bundy deserved death. John Wayne Gacy deserved death.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

It's simple: Some guys DESERVE to die.

 

Charles Manson should be dead (and if anybody can explain why he ISN'T --- he originally RECEIVED a death sentence, commuted to life when the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty --- why wasn't it REINSTATED when the death penalty was REINSTATED?). Ted Bundy deserved death. John Wayne Gacy deserved death.

-=Mike

Double Jeopardy is the reason he has life instead of death.

 

His sentence was commuted to life in prison when the death penalty was abolished, so they can't change it back to death even though he deserves to die a horrible, slow, painful, agonizing death.

[Guest BDC]

But Mikey Moore said in his documentary that the U.S. is the only country that kills people with guns...

*points at sig*

 

The death penalty not acting as a deterrent seems to boil down to one undeniable fact to me: it either never gets done or it's streched out so long, what's there to be afraid of?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

It's not a deterent but there's a bunch of people I'd like to see get put to death.

 

Cliff "Beast From The East" Olsson (sp?) being No.1

 

I think he commited at least 18 murders. and I know he claims to have commited dozens more.

 

Paul Bernardo should get it too as well as the Pickton Brothers. They've found over 40 bodies there I think so far.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

*points at sig*

*points at the board setting option showing that my sig viewing abilities are turned off*

 

Seriously though, I've seen a few recent Miller shows, and boy he does NOT like ol' Mikey...

[Guest BDC]

Now, y'see, I didn't know that, about the sigs off. I'd stick it as my avatar bit, but it's just a taaaaaaaaad too long.

[2GOLD 0]

I'm for the death penalty in certain situations. Kill more than one person? Enjoy the needle.

 

You kill more than one or rape more than one, you should die. No questions asked. You should be hung or fried or get a needle nap or hell even shot. If you kill and you didn't have a damn good reason, if you did enough to get life then you should get life. Your life is over, you forfeit the right to parole and you spend it in that jail cell. I don't care how old you are, I don't care if you are a 15 yr old you should give up your life for taking the life of the person you took.

 

Life should be what it says, "Life". In fact, they should never be allowed outside for anything. No tv, just food and sleep. That should be it. Prison should be your coffin; you should never see the light of day again. No rec time, no watching basic tv, you give up your right to those when you killed that person.

 

You make "life in prison" mean something then I'll be against the death penatly. Until you do, then the death penatly needs to be active.

[Guest JacK]

Ha, I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in jail. Hell, I'm sure if we had the death penalty here I would've done something atrociously evil by now.

 

I dunno, the death penalties better for the victim's I think. Not the dead victim's, but their relatives, the finallity of it would be something good to know. Now, if you got to decide how they were killed, that'd be even better. There'd be something ironically vengeful about having a rapist ass-raped to death, if such a thing were possibe.