posted
Our Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, is Pro-Capital Punishment with a capital P. The Death Sentence, he has said, should be sought more often.
Why?
Because it 1)removes known dangerous crimminals from any possibility of commiting those crimes again. 2) acts as a deterent for anyone else considering those crimes. 3) is much more cost effective than life sentences. 4) Is justice.
I was listening to that new Country Song, "Beer for my Horses" when the idea came up, "Justice is the one thing you should always find."
I disagree. Love, Compassion, and several other things are more important than finding Justice. However, another line in that song goes,
"There's too much corruption, and crime in the street. We need a few more good men to put them in the ground."
Capital punishment for Corruption? That is an idea that has merit.
Captial punishment for crimes that effect incredible amounts of capital. You rig the books for over, say, $20,000,000 and you are executed. You come up with some ponzi scheme for your investors that cheats them out of a billion dollars, you get the gas chamber.
World Com found guilty--their execs don't end up in a "country club" jail to walk free a few months later to pillage again. They end up dead.
Your CEO convinces you to put all your retirement funds into company stock, makes a killing on overvalued stock and his "Golden Parachute" CEO package, then heads for Brazil, leaving you with the deadly choice between buying food, drugs to stay alive, or a roof over your head on your measly Social Security check. Off with his head.
Enron discovered playing "fix the energy Prices" in California, causing thousands of businesses to go under, hundreds of thousands to go unemployed. Enron CEO/CFO/and Co take the long walf off a short pier.
Microsoft discovered purosefully building secret backdoors into IE which later causes Hatrack to go down for a week, and $7.9 billion in costs world wide, Bill Gates goes down for good.
Haliburton cought overcharging the pentagon by 6.7 Billion dollars on oil repairs? Charge them, convict them, watch them march the green mile.
President Bush claims he wants to put teeth in the FTC, I say lets put in some SHARK teeth.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am opposed to call capital punishment, even for such criminals as above. But I would be cool with life-long tattoos on their forheads, something like an "A" or something Scarlet Letter-y. And a debit card with $500 spending limit, permanently! Fit the crimes.
posted
While it's a tempting idea, I'd much rather they just get rid of the idea of minimum security prisons. Let the Michael Millikins and Arthur Andersons spend time as Dentz McKenzie and Knuckles Wojohowitz's roommates. Perhaps then what would happen to them would be what they did to sooo many people.
And how about a fairness in sentencing act for white collar crime? Any theft of more than say, $500,000 is an automatic 50 years with no parole?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it 1)removes known dangerous crimminals from any possibility of commiting those crimes again. 2) acts as a deterent for anyone else considering those crimes. 3) is much more cost effective than life sentences. 4) Is justice.
I have yet to see any convincing evidence that capital punishment really acts as a deterrent for crime. In fact, some people believe that capital punishment has a direct correlation with violent crime. And, at least in our present system, capital punishment is not more cost effective than life sentences. The total cost to the state to go through the entire appeals process for a capital sentence is higher than the cost to incarcerate someone for the rest of his life.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why ever bother with any other punishment? Let's just kill anyone who violates the law. After all, that will certainly deter people more strongly than current laws, and will be much cheaper, and removes known criminals from breaking laws again, and even "is justice." Run a red light? You're dead. Steal from a coffee shop? Dead. Download illegal mp3s? Gone. Why are we wasting our time with these lesser punishments?
posted
Well the reason why is because of corporate culture.
Companies are supposed to suck up as much of the market share as possible, but are supposed to pretend as if they're not a monopoly, thus shirking any sort of civil responsibility.
The basic claim that can be made in any of these case, is that the products that companies provide, are a service, they are not a right. Thus, the worse a company can technically do is violation of contract. Everything else is simply people using a product at their hazard.
This is what market capitalism is. This is why people should understand that they need to be -very- careful what their beaurocrats are purchasing. The problem now has become, if a product is adopted as a standard, how can you -force- a company who's interests are fiscal, into doing the "right" thing, or, consequently taking responsibility when they have failed to do the "right" thing.
You can't, and why? Because they were never charged with having to do the right thing in the first place.
This is why i think deregulate, regardless of what economic logic it might hold, is far too dangerous to leave what have become the necessities of modern life in the hands of corporations.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, surprising as it sounds, Mark Fuhrman has written a book about the death penalty in Oklahoma.
Some quick exerpts.
quote: The attitude among most Oklahomans — not just law enforcement professionals but also waitresses, cabdrivers, and businesspeople — was basically "hang'em high." It was reassuring to hear even some defense attorneys defend the death penalty. In Oklahoma it's politically correct to support the death penalty. If you have any doubts about it, then you must be a liberal or something even worse.
quote:When I first began this project, I didn't think there was anything fundamentally wrong with the death penalty. Instead, I had the conviction that any problems with capital punishment were rare and isolated instances where mistakes, usually unintentional, had been made. I certainly didn't want to see the death penalty abolished, which I believed was the ultimate motivation for many of its critics. They didn't want the system to work, because they wanted to change it.
I knew the system wasn't perfect, but I believed that it worked. Criminals were convicted because they were guilty. And if they weren't guilty of the crime for which they had been convicted, well, they had done something else for which they should have been punished. When it came to the death penalty, I assumed that there was an even lower percentage of wrongful convictions, since capital cases were certainly held to a higher standard than other felonies, from investigation to arrest to trial to punishment.
quote: Publisher's Weekly Former LAPD detective Fuhrman (Murder in Brentwood and Murder in Spokane) may not be an elegant stylist, but his latest book is a serious and alarming investigation of legal misconduct on a massive scale. In 2001, Oklahoma executed 21 death row inmates-more than any other state in the country-and 13 had been convicted by the same Oklahoma County district attorney, Bob Macy. Fuhrman sets the stage: A barrel-chested cowboy whose good-ol'-boy brand of frontier politics and hard-line stance on the death penalty earned him a handful of enemies but many more powerful friends, Macy aggressively pushed for the death penalty in cases that other prosecutors would likely never have brought to trial. And his political influence and tearfully delivered closing arguments led to victory more often than not. Supporting Macy in his self-righteous campaign against crime was Joyce Gilchrist, director of the Oklahoma City Police Department crime lab. Often scolded for indiscretions but never strongly questioned, Gilchrist, Fuhrman explains, flagrantly mismanaged the crime lab for nearly two decades and routinely gave false and misleading testimony under oath (testimony that led to several death penalty convictions). When the cumulative effects of Gilchrist's incompetence and a federal investigation finally threatened to erupt into a national scandal, potentially damaging evidence against her was found to be either conveniently missing or prematurely destroyed. Fuhrman stops short of calling Oklahoma's problems a conspiracy, but he does show that they are endemic not only to Oklahoma but also to our entire criminal justice system. While his discussions of the ethical complexities of executions are unsophisticated, Fuhrman's book makes for an engrossing read. (Sept.) Forecast: Readers will remember Fuhrman as the detective who found the controversial "bloody glove" in the O.J. Simpson case. His previous books have sold extremely well, and this one should as well. Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Needless to say, even he is questioning the death penalty. Now, the way I see it, if Mark Fuhrman thinks there's a problem, there must a friggin' huge problem. Then again, we all know that this is one of my pet peeves, but. . .
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we make Corporate crimminals, especially those involving powerful people, are liable for Capital Punishment, there will be two interesting possible outcomes.
1) Less corporate crime. 2) Those people in power, and their lawyers, will see to it that capital punishment is reformed to death.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I wouldn't shed a tear if the people behind the Enron and WorldCom scandals never see daylight again, but really if you don't see the difference between the people who do get the death penalty and corporate executives then there is something wrong with you. People like Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Herman Goering, and others are the truly evil ones, they're the reason why we continue to have the death penalty.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only support capital punishment to murder...however I could be convinced to extend it to rape. Anyone who takes advantage of a person like that is abomidable. That is the epitomy of dehumanization.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not object to rape being a life sentence but I think the actual removal of a life is more dehumanizing than anything else you can do to a person. To the liberals who would say that's exactly the reason why we should ban capital punishment I say those executed deserve to be dehumanized to the greatest extent possible, they deserve it and are not worthy of our pity.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am opposed to capital punishment for the reason that no one can really know, for sure, that a certain act was or was not perpetrated by the accused. Capital punishment is a little too final in that case.
But I really, really, hate those guys cited above. For that reason I'd like "Life and a Day". I also enjoy that poetic justice tatoo thingie above!
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Go learn something about endocrinology, and then tell me how well you overcome your own hormones.
If you're going to place contempt on other people, why don't you at least do some research on self control. First things first, its absurd to blame hormones for this behavior, what we have is a failure to refrain from behaving inappropriately, not necessarily someone who possesses abnormal sexual desires. Second, it's quite possible that some, or even a lot of rapists suffer from some developmental or biological cause to their particular drives. While not saying that rapists aren't culpable for their actions, this isn't necessarily an issue of how strong a person's will is.
You might as well laugh at alcoholics for not having self-control.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
as a follow up, i should say, that that doesn't mean that all rapists have mental issues, and thus unable to control themselves. But the issue here is that, simply dismissing them as less than human doesn't help. Finding the causes of their behavior is an important step in addressing crimes like rape. Being a malicious person out to cause harm to others is one thing. But claiming that rapists are animals because they can't control themselves, and then saying that they deserve the death penalty for it, is absurd. If they have no control, then how can you have level derision at them? It's not their fault if they are unable to control themselves, is it?
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I find it extremely peculiar that you paint all those who are not of your draconian eye-for-an-eye perspective as "liberal".
The death penalty is not a method for reciprocation (although it may be viewed as this by some), it's used as a social deterrent, and when that fails, it removes dangerous individuals from society. However, both of those, in fact even dehumanization could be included, can be accomplished without resorting to killing people, which some societies have an aversion to. So frankly, the death penalty seems like an awfully capricious and dangerous tool to be weilding around so lightly. Particularly in the light of rather regular failure of our country's justice system.
posted
The idea that the death penalty is implemented as a deterent is an all too common misconception. Deterence may very well be a benefit but it is definitely not the reason why it exists. It exists soley as a punishment, and that is a fact. It is also not weilded lightly. Almost all capital cases actually get life and when death it is chosen it because a jury decides that first, enough aggravating factors other than the murder itself have been committed, and second that the criminal deserves the punishment. To not hold this postion is liberal as opposed to conservative although I don't claim that holding either view necessarily makes one a "liberal" or "conservative".
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To the liberals who would say that's exactly the reason why we should ban capital punishment I say those executed deserve to be dehumanized to the greatest extent possible, they deserve it and are not worthy of our pity.
Why do they deserve this? Why would anyone deserve that for any reason?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I used to be pro-capital punishment, but after giving it some very serious thought I've decided I agree with OSC. Our justice system just plain isn't good enough for this when life without parole is just the same thing in terms of keeping them out of society. I have no moral problems with th death penalty but our system of justice isn't good enough for it yet.
posted
Hobbes, dude, that almost exactly mirrors my views on the death penalty. Great minds, etc.
When I was younger, I was for the death penalty in case of murder and other heinous crimes. In recent years I've concluded that it is impossible to administer the death penalty fairly in this country and so I am against it. That is to say, I'm think some crimes merit death, but without impartial application the death penalty becomes unjust.
As was shown in Kayla's excerpt above, the use of the death penalty varies widely from state to state and even county to county. Does a murder in one jurisdiction merit death while a murder a mile over an county line not? It just becomes too arbitrary.
Add into the equation racial and monetary imbalances and it becomes a travesty of justice, IMHO. People get the justice they can afford, and while I can live with that with most sentences (though with gritted teeth), I find it intolerable when the state deals out death. When's the last time a rich man was executed in this country?
With all the above, justice is not served. The death penalty becomes a capricious crap-shoot, and I see little justice nor fairness in that.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its one thing if you want to limit capital punishment because our system isn't good enough but there's no reason not to execute people like Timothy McVeigh or how about the person who kidnapped, sexually battered, murdered, then dismembered a ten year old boy by the name of Jimmy Rice if any of you Floridians remember. The latter person is the average person who gets put on death row. I can't understand the position that such people should be allowed to live.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets look a little to reality before we start applying justice.
Capital punishment is a perfect consequence - that is, it cannot be undone.
What about all the people who have been executed who were innocent? What about the people who confessed that were really insane or had agendas for claiming responsibility and were executed?
This is the primary reason I can see for never allowing Capital punishment to exist, even if there is only one error, is it worth it to execute that innocent person?
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, so how do you determine who gets the death penalty? (Like Timothy McVeigh) What makes their crime so different than others. Is it witnesses? Confessions? DNA evidence? Should it be the same for each jurisdiction? If so, that would be a national law, not a State law. Also, if you need 100% proof, then anyone that doesn't leave DNA evidence wouldn't get the death penalty. Also, considering the hanky-panky and outright falsification of evidence that goes on in some counties, how do you make sure that innocent people aren't getting executed? And why should there be different punishment for person A who raped and murdered someone than for person B, who committed the same crime, but you can't "prove" it with DNA or a video tape of the crime?
I guess I'm just wondering how you'd fix the system.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And why should there be different punishment for person A who raped and murdered someone than for person B, who committed the same crime, but you can't "prove" it with DNA or a video tape of the crime?
Person B's "reward" for being smart enough to not leave DNA evidence is a lifetime in prison.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They same way you determine whether a theif deserves probation over jail time. Specifically for the death penalty aggravating factors must be met, ie cold and calculated, child under age of 10, committed in the process of a felony, and others. Once these are met the State/District/Federal attorney muct make a decision whether to pursue the death penalty which is not a decision made lightly even at that level. If it is pursued first a conviction must be obtained. After the conviction the jury must decide after weighing all factors, ie mitigating, aggravating, repentance, etc. whether to recommend the death penalty. After the jury makes its recommendation the judge must make a final decision which almost always follows the recommendation and when the recommendation is overturned in favor of death it still is life as of the Supreme Court's recent decision.
At least in the case of McVeigh we know for sure he did it, overwhelming evidence and even a later confession, he was unrepentant, and he certainly met enough aggravating factors.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its one thing if you want to limit capital punishment because our system isn't good enough but there's no reason not to execute people like Timothy McVeigh or how about the person who kidnapped, sexually battered, murdered, then dismembered a ten year old boy by the name of Jimmy Rice if any of you Floridians remember.
Well, I can give a reason. The reason is as follows: A life is a valuable thing that you should not end without great need. We can prevent and deter crime, as well as bring about justice, just as well by locking up such criminals forever, rather than killing them. Hence we have no need to take the life, and therefore should not.
Now, maybe you say these people are evil and hence their lives are worthless. Again I'd ask why? Because they killed someone? According to you there are good reasons to kill someone. Besides, why should any action by any person negate the worth of their life? Unless the only value we see in people is the amount of good they do for the rest of society, I don't see why that would follow.
The true reason we kill people who do bad things is that we don't pity them, and hence don't really care about their worth - in much the same fashion as a cold-hearted murderer might not pity his victim or consider his victim's worth when committing the act. But in all situations, a lack of empathy for a person is no excuse to end their life.
posted
nfl, that is the system we have now. I don't know if you've heard, but it isn't working. Innocent people are still being convicted and more than likely executed. Unless you are like the people in Oklahoma, who think that killing a few innocent people is okay, as long as you get to execute a few guilty ones too, that seems to be a bad thing. Until you overcome that problem, what do you suggest?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a good point that the Justice system is INCREDIBLY flawed. Man isn't perfect. I guess there's a difference between thinking a murder should be executed, and capital punishment.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capital punishment, as it is right now, is not a deterrent to crime. You can brutally murder a bunch of people, and your own death is an injection. I say we fire up the old guns, tie up the old noose, or even get back to tying people to a few horses. Capital punishment should be painful and prolonged.
But as an ALTERNATIVE to capital punishment, hard HARD labor. We should ship them down to Antartica, make them dig a hole to live in, and have them hard, HARD, physical labor, make their lives absolutely MISERABLE. Don't allow them to die, keep them alive at all costs, make them feel every moment of their lives. Better yet, while they are serving this horrible sentence, allow very limited human contact. Almost islolation. Heck, we don't even have to MAKE these places. The government could just make a few tapes of what happens if you commit a violent (or white collar) crime. Show it to all the kids in school once a year. Show them what will happen. It may be propaganda, but it would WORK.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That deterrent would work if most violent crimes were contemplated the way other people decide on stock purchases or home equity loans.
Unfortunately most violent crimes, rape and murder included, are committed over moments of passion, or pride, where the idea of "What matters to me doesn't matter as long as I get that @#$#@$ to pay."
Certainly there are hit men and professional killers who see the death of Ms. X as a way to gain money. More often its a drug addicted kid looking for another fix, or a scared theif acting on reflex more than fore thought. Occasionally, like the case for McVey, its a certifiable nut. They may all know, logically, that the violence they are commiting will result in terrible problems for them in the future. However they do not think that far ahead.
If crimminals thought about the distant consequences of their actions--they wouldn't be crimminals.
What a guaranteed Death or Torture sentence will do is kill cops. If I killed my neighbor for snoring, thinking I could get away with it, but am discovered, then I would be facing terrible times ahead. The best bet would be to take that slim chance to escape I would get by violently attacking the police arresting me.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess there's a difference between thinking a murder should be executed, and capital punishment.
Ryan, is it just me or are you making more sense lately? Maybe the good ol' Hatrack meme is having its way with you. Your quote is at the heart of my opposition to capital punishment.
There are plenty of people who deserve death for their crimes. McVeigh was brought up as an example--sorry if I seem bloodthirsty, but I would have cheerfully thrown the switch on him. But with arbitrary sentences of death (see my above post) I don't think justice is served with capital punishment. This is not a position I take lightly. I supported the death penalty my entire life until the past few (5?) years, when the injustice in the justice system just overwhelmed me.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, don't forget about witnesses to crimes, extreme sentencing could put them at more risk as well as cops. I felt years ago that "3 strikes and your out!" (in Georgia I think it's 2 strikes) sentencing laws could lead to more witnesses being killed, but I haven't seen any statistics to support that.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with a lot of these "exhonorated" death row inmates is that they really weren't exhonorated but there was a mistake in the trial, or a small doubt about inconsequential evidence but enough that without a new trial the judge decides not to hold the defendant in jail. In general when people are "exhonorated" its really because the prosecutors can't retry them because of everything from deteroriating evidence to dead witnesses. When a truly innocent person is executed that truly is a sad thing, but it is also tragic when we jail a person for the rest of their life when they are innocent. I don't think any of this warrants removing the death penalty. I also don't put any value on the life of murderers, period.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, nfl, that's just not true. While many are exonerated on technicalities, many are not. For an overview of, well, all of them (since 1973, and there have been at least 10 since the list was compiled), take a look here:
Notice a few things. First, 18 were released on DNA evidence proving that they did not perform the crime. That's 18 innocent people who would be dead except for advances in science. That our criminal justice system had even 18 innocent people sentenced to death is an atrocity, and shoul be enough to ban the death penalty right out. And that's assuming that all of the other 83 who were released were, in fact, guilty; an unwarranted assumption as we see looking through them. Notice, for instance, the large number of people convicted by false/perjured testimony. Heck, notice the large number of people convicted due to both false testimony and police misconduct in the same trial!
If even half of the people on this list are innocent, that's 50 innocent people who would have been killed. That's a little under 1% of all the people who have been killed since 1973 (and the number of people exonerated each year is, on average, rising, as things such as DNA testing enter more common use, suggesting that a number of innocent people were executed in that time period). 1% is an extraordinarily high rate of error, and should not be tolerated. Our current death penalty system is fatally flawed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
DNA evidence proving that they didn't do it usually means that they ran the DNA tests and they weren't conclusive which happens quite often, however, this fact sheads enough doubt as to warrant a release.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
The ACLU report specifically says that by DNA evidence resulting in their release they mean "when DNA evidence proves beyond a doubt that the person jailed for murder, rape, etc, could not have committed the crime".
Furthermore, I have read numerous (about half a dozen, or a third of those on the ACLU list) specific cases where DNA evidence exonerated, and in every one of those cases it was not confused DNA evidence, but DNA evidence which demonstrated certain innocence. I have never heard of a person being exonerated because new DNA evidence wasn't clear. I have, however, heard of several cases where even the possibility of DNA testing is turned down because the person has already been convicted; revisiting evidence is expensive and not a right guaranteed to prisoners (perhaps unfortunately).
Simply put, I think you're pulling your ideas about how the criminal justice system works out of your *rse and have no evidence backing up most of your assertions. I will happily take back this statement if you can show me even one case where a death row inmate was exonerated exonerated due to DNA evidence being unclear (though that will still not make it true for most DNA exonerated inmates).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the ACLU says that, they're pushing an agenda. I don't have a "source" because this all comes from direct experience with the Florida legal system.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucky for you, every case in the legal system is fully documented. You merely need to look one you remember up.
Not only that, but the ACLU has handily compiled for you a list of inmates exonerated on DNA evidence. You merely need to cross reference it with inmates in Florida, then check maybe a case or two (I just checked: one). If your claim is true, one of those cases will have the situation you assert.
Looking at the single case which aquittal involved DNA that was in Florida (excluding possibly more recent cases than the list), you're talking about Hayes. He got off for two reasons: the DNA evidence used to convict him was misanalyzed, and more importantly a hair from the killer found on the victim was not his. I strongly suspect the latter was the largest reason, as it introduces more than a reasonable doubt, particularly as the other big evidence for him doing it (DNA) was not true.
Care to tell me how it's likely he's still guilty, as you've been asserting is true for most cases of death row inmates freed? Heck, you have yet to demonstrate one concrete case of someone being freed on a technicality that was likely still guilty (its not hard to do, they do exist), but it certainly doesn't make your arguments particularly persuasive to argue with exactly zero supporting evidence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a stunning and horrific error a couple posts ago. 50 innocent people (that's half of the people who have exonerated since 1973 in death penalty cases) is would be about 7% of the total number of people executed since 1973, not under 1%.
The horror of the situation is incredible, particularly as recent methods have allowed us more ways to test guilt (such as DNA testing), and only recently have more and more people gotten off. Are most of the innocent people going free? How many innocent people have we executed over the past 30 years? How many will we execute in the next year or two?
Until the death penalty system is seriously remade, it should be abolished.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing is that there is the possibility of DNA testing for one case where the death penalty has already been imposed, but so far, all requests for the evidence to be tested have been denied. Apparently, no one wants to know if they executed an innocent man. (That and the prosecutor says it's irrelevant.) Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again the ACLU list is BS. I've personally looked at another list compiled by an anti-death penalty organization and out of 32 "complaints" concerning Miami-Dade County ALL of them had problems. I don't feel like going through another BS list.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just asking for one. One, single example of a case where a person who was still almost certainly guilty (and sentenced to death) went free on a technicality.
I think you're the one full of BS, at least you have provided no evidence so far.
And I didn't suggest you critique the ACLU list, I suggested you simply use it as a list of cases cross-referenced by state to know which of the cases in Florida you have allegedly had experience with you were talking about. I then did that for you, and pointed out the name of the man convicted. It is then trivial to look up a court case.
These are people's lives. We should not be callous with them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: the DNA evidence used to convict him was misanalyzed
You mean DNA testing (or testers) is fallible? The test can be wrong?
What a surprise...
(If the original DNA data was misanalyzed, then how do we know the hair that was supposedly not his wasn't misanalyzed?)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
