Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on March 01, 2008, 04:29:59 AM
-
link (http://www.wcmessenger.com/update/index.php)
Here's just a couple reasons...
FORMER COUNCILMAN SENTENCED TO LIFE FOR MURDER - Former New Fairview City Councilman Jerry Joe Bradish(R) pleaded guilty Wednesday in Wyoming to murdering his 13-year-old daughter, Teresa Joann Bradish, in Wyoming in 1985. Bradish said in court that he picked up his daughter, had sex with her and then strangled her before dumping her body by the side of a highway. Bradish was arrested in January in Wise County after investigators linked him to the crime. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Bradish will spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
CHILD MURDER ARREST - Police Thursday arrested the mother of 3-year-old Taylor-Rae Baker, the Decatur child whose death on Feb. 17 was ruled a homicide by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner. Jaclyn R. Pennington, 24, was arrested Thursday and is in jail in Tarrant County. According to the arrest affidavit, Pennington "gave several conflicting statements" as to the events that occurred the day of her daughter's death and later admitted to "throwing Baker head first into a fireplace." Baker died after being flown to Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth where doctors performed "several surgeries" in an attempt to save her life, according to the affidavit.
Sadly, only one of these crimes will have the possibility of the death penalty.
-
Convince me that society will lock up vicious killers with no possibility of escape and I will stop supporting the death penalty.
-
When I lived in FLA the typical '1st time' murderer would prolly spend 7 years or so inside.....then be released. You find damn few people mureded by peeps who haven't been convicted of heinous things in the past, for which most would think would warrant life---'life' always seems to end with less than a decade behind bars
-
So if your country is so in love with the death penalty, why don't you just get on with it and kill everyone on death row? How many are waiting to die? How many new death penalties are handed down each year vs the number that are actually executed each year?
I think your society is simply too unwilling to put the money where the mouth is because if you do, it's going to make you look, to the rest of the world, like a pack of vengeful, murdering, inhumane bastids. Like the Chinese look. So if sorting out your death row problem makes you look bad, doesn't that mean that maybe the death penalty is wrong?
Anyway, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see those child-murdering bananas killed for what they've done, but only if there is no shadow of a doubt.
I say take the actual execution out of the hands of the justice system and hand it over to the victims families. I bet death row would be empty.
-
Frankly I don't think anyone in a capital crime murder trial gives a rats posterior about what the "rest of the world" thinks. "The rest of the world" isn't dealing with the murderer at the time.
-
My only concern are the innocents that have been executed. It's happened.
-
I am not aware of one case of an "innocent" being executed can you show me?
I am aware of these guys killing tens of thousands of innocents over the years tho.
I would say that we should be extra careful tho and make pretty darn certain. If we are wrong.. it is bad but nothing compared to eternity.. you would have to be some sort of atheist to fear death so much... er.. oh.. wait...
nevermind.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
link (http://www.wcmessenger.com/update/index.php)
Here's just a couple reasons...
Sadly, only one of these crimes will have the possibility of the death penalty.
I am far from being religious but Jesus put it best
"Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
-
I am for the death penaly in Non circumstantial only cases.
Meaning where there is no question whatsoever that the person did the crime. Where the proof is absolute.
Anything less would be life without parole
Example. Scott Peterson would get life without parole as his case was based entirely around circumstantial evidence.
Jeffry Dahmer would be executed by the state ASAP (yes I know he was by fellow inmates)
-
The current problem with the death penalty is that it is used so sparingly that we do not know if it's a deterrent or not.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not aware of one case of an "innocent" being executed can you show me?
since you asked, here is one I know of, off the top of my head. the whole thing wasn't anything more than a kangaroo court.
Henry Wirz, former commandant of Andersonville prison in Georgia, was the only Confederate soldier to be executed by the United States for war crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not aware of one case of an "innocent" being executed can you show me?
lazs
Will you go on record stating that, in your belief, there has never been an innocent man executed? Or will you start waffling and trying to redefine the question?
-
The current problem with the death penalty is that it is used so sparingly that we do not know if it's a deterrent or not.
We know it's not a deterrent in itself. We also know our criminal justice system is incapable of being trusted with such a significant responsibility. We know that every time we take a look at convictions at any level be it misdemeanor or capitol we find a (to me at least) frightening number of inappropriate sentences and convictions.
We find an unacceptably high ratio of instances where the cases brought against dependents are lousy with misconduct and incompetence by those that we trust to carry out the responsibility of fair and impartial justice. The fact that we chose to close the books on those already executed and subsequently deny them any potential for exoneration is not relevant. It's a cowardly method of evading the central issue most of us (I believe) really have with capitol punishment. It is an appropriate sanction for those who have earned it but with the way we run our courts, in far too many cases, it's impossible to tell if the conviction has any real merit.
The idea that we just recently started to convict the innocent is obviously what many would like us to believe.
Many will point to the occasional case where a defendant has made confessions (assumingly without duress), or is faced with incontrovertible physical evidence that establishes guilt. As if it justifies the "occasional" miscarriage of justice.
We know that we can not trust our courts. Right here on this board there's a plethora of rants questioning the abilities and motivations of those we entrust with our best interests. Only when the "authorities" pander to our own personal agendas do we find ourselves in support of their actions. We ignore the cases where unreliable "expert" testimony, lab results, investigative methods and official misconduct have been proven. As if these are rare occurrences that somehow slipped through the cracks of an otherwise reliable system. I personally believe they are the norm. Our criminal justice system has become a criminal justice industry and it will do anything in it's power to perpetuate itself. Like all industries where accountability and integrity are given less priority than "efficiency".
It is in fact a proven that when apprehension and conviction is reasonably assured there is a decrease in the instance of every category of antisocial behavior. When somebody is fairly sure they will be caught, they rarely commit. Maybe it's time we entered the 21st century and brought all of our current resources to bear in a way that would help us help the criminal justice community serve our interests more in keeping with their fundamental mandate.
-
absolute certainty. Once you have it, kill them and kill them immediately.
-
well.. I guess if the only one you guys can think of is a confederate soldier for war crimes.. well.. I can live with that.
Is there any non military example you guys can name of an innocent man being executed.
We have executed a lot of people.. there are a lot of smart and powerful people who hate that sooooo.. it should be easy to simply give an example or 20.
lazs
-
Before I provide any examples, I'd like to see if you're willing to make a positive statement that you don't think anyone has ever been executed for a crime they didn't commit.
I'll also suggest you speak to the subject of people on death row who are released after DNA evidence exonerates them.
-
So if sorting out your death row problem makes you look bad, doesn't that mean that maybe the death penalty is wrong?
You say it "makes us look bad", that doesn't make it so.
In love with the death penalty? More ignorance. I won't speak for anyone else but while I support the death penalty, I'd be much more happy if it was never given out because there were no murders being committed.
Anyone w/ DNA evidence leading to a conviction and sentencing to death should be executed, today.
-
We know it's not a deterrent in itself.
False
Public execution is the sinlge most effective deterrent.
-
Deterrent or not.
Where there is absolute proof.
There is no reason to keep them around taking up space in the prison system for 30+ years.
Where there is absolute proof. reduce the number of appeals allowed to one.
Loose that one. Loose your life.
Particularly in cases where children are involved.
In cases where children are the victims. I'd take it a step father and say execute them in the most inhumane and torturous ways man can imagine.
-
Originally posted by DieAz
since you asked, here is one I know of, off the top of my head. the whole thing wasn't anything more than a kangaroo court.
Henry Wirz, former commandant of Andersonville prison in Georgia, was the only Confederate soldier to be executed by the United States for war crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz
Hardly innocent. Henry Wirz was in charge of the Andersonville PoW camp for over a year. Thousands of Union soldiers died during that time. Nearly 1 in 3 Union soldiers sent to Andersonville died.
-
BTW, I'll support immediate execution when absolute certainty exists. I'm aware of few cases where this was available, but it does happen.
-
who the **** cares about deterrence anyway. kill the son of a ***** and he never kills anyone ever again. Thats the whole damned point.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You say it "makes us look bad", that doesn't make it so.
Agreed. I didn't say that that was so, just putting out there that it's possible. I guess there's no single answer - it's good if you think it's good and bad if you think it's bad. Good under some circumstances, bad under others.
In love with the death penalty? More ignorance.
It was a turn of phrase. And what do you mean by 'more' ignorance? :)
Anyone w/ DNA evidence leading to a conviction and sentencing to death should be executed, today.
I agree, but as I said, I think the world will frown upon your country if you execute people as fast as you sentence them to death via DNA evidence.
Also, I don't think execution (public or not) is a deterrent. It's pretty well known these days that people who commit these crimes are not in a frame of mind, or they are not brought up, nurtured, educated, or wired in a way for them to be able to evaluate consequences before they act. I also think that countries that have public executions also have secret police running around terrorising/murdering the population and that they are therefore under the fear of death anyway.
-
My problem with capitol punishment is the possible use on an innocent person.
You can say prove to me that an innocent has ever been executed and I would have to say that logic would indicate that they have. DNA has exonerated many on death row, would you say that prior to DNA evidence being available that the trials were more objective and less prone to error?, ludicrous.
Irrefutable DNA evidence is the only way that I would accept capitol punishment being doled out, and what I mean by that is that if the government uses DNA as evidence they must provide an original sample to the defense and pay for the defense to submit it to an independent lab.
If we hear "oh darn, there wasn't enough left we used it all in our test" the governments DNA evidence is booted.
shamus
-
Irrefutable DNA evidence is the only way that I would accept capitol punishment
====
If ten people see someone push someone else into the path of a speeding train what DNA evidence is there to prove who did it?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Irrefutable DNA evidence is the only way that I would accept capitol punishment
====
If ten people see someone push someone else into the path of a speeding train what DNA evidence is there to prove who did it?
With video that can be proved as untampered to substantiate I might be swayed, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable of all.
shamus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not aware of one case of an "innocent" being executed can you show me?
I am aware of these guys killing tens of thousands of innocents over the years tho.
I would say that we should be extra careful tho and make pretty darn certain. If we are wrong.. it is bad but nothing compared to eternity.. you would have to be some sort of atheist to fear death so much... er.. oh.. wait...
nevermind.
lazs
Here in Illinois 2 or 3 people who were on death row were found to actually be innocent, after that Illinois put a stop to the death penalty and commutated all death penalty's to life, so it does happen that innocent people get sent to death row.
-
I'd like to see repeat sex offenders put to death. How many times over the past couple years do we hear about a little girl being kidnapped, raped and murdered and by who......A guy who has spent his life in and out of jail on sex offender offenses.
I have no mercy for these people. If you rape someone, especially a child, I want you dead.
-
I worked death row for over three years in S.C., and there is only one person I felt shouldn't be on it. Even if a state never uses the death penalty, it should still remain on the books so the prosecutors have more to work with to make deals.
P.S. The idea that someone can murder another then get free food, shelter, and medical care is just absurd.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Hardly innocent. Henry Wirz was in charge of the Andersonville PoW camp for over a year. Thousands of Union soldiers died during that time. Nearly 1 in 3 Union soldiers sent to Andersonville died.
put the blame where it belongs.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/exchg1.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/exchg4.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/exchg3.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont3.htm
sure are a lot of unknown names for these crimes.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont3.htm
the level of evidence declines sharply, 11 days after the hanging.
the main page, knock yourself out reading it all.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Wirz.htm
be sure to read the Execution of Henry Wirz. the first paragraph will tell you a lot about the man.
it leads me to this question how many men you know would rather die than to lie?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
who the **** cares about deterrence anyway. kill the son of a ***** and he never kills anyone ever again. Thats the whole damned point.
But even the most infamous and monstrous child killers like John Couey are still alive today.
And with the Supreme Court reviewing the whole issue of what is cruel and unusual punishment, all executions are currently on hold here in the USA, Period!
You know, when the police finally found the buried body of little 9 year old Jessica Lunsford, two of her fingers had managed to break through the garbage bags that he had wrapped her in, while she was still alive, before he dumped her into that hole.
It is not known how exactly long it took her to suffocate, but she obviously struggled against death for awhile, in a vain attempt to escape her fate. But all she could manage to do is get two tiny little fingers poked through.
Perhaps our Constitution needs to be amended to allow for cruel and unusual punishment for those who themselves kill in a cruel and unusual manner??? Would that perhaps be just??
Couey's attorneys are also appealing on the ground that he is supposedly retarded, and should never have been convicted of any crime in the first place, because of that. Even if they cannot get the conviction overturned, just convincing a judge that he is retarded, will then automatically prevent him from ever being executed. For the Supreme Court has already outlawed the execution of any retarded criminals.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I worked death row for over three years in S.C., and there is only one person I felt shouldn't be on it. Even if a state never uses the death penalty, it should still remain on the books so the prosecutors have more to work with to make deals.
P.S. The idea that someone can murder another then get free food, shelter, and medical care is just absurd.
Yep and it's equaly flawed to denounce capital punishment as barbaric and inhumane, while suggesting emprisonment isn't.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Anyone w/ DNA evidence leading to a conviction and sentencing to death should be executed, today.
mistakes can be made with dna evidence, and dna evidence can be planted or manipulated by over zealous cops to get a conviction. it's not as though the planting of evidence hasn't happened. wrong convictions probably happen more often than people might realise, but occasionally there's a glaring example that highlights it. a guy here in nz got life for a double murder only to be pardoned 10 years later when it was proven that the cops planted the evidence that got him convicted. if it had of been a couple of decades earlier before capitol punishment was abolished he would have almost certainly ended up swinging on the end of a hangman’s rope, and that may have been the end of the matter... it would have been for him anyway.
capitol punishment was primarily abolished in nz because the chances of executing an innocent man were deemed to be too great, and even with dna evidence there is still too many dubious convictions to reinstate the death penalty yet.
-
Originally posted by moot
Yep and it's equaly flawed to denounce capital punishment as barbaric and inhumane, while suggesting emprisonment isn't.
I personally knew two death row inmates who gave up all their appeals so they could be executed faster.
P.S. The only thing inhumane is what the criminals did to their victims.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
mistakes can be made with dna evidence, and dna evidence can be planted or manipulated by over zealous cops to get a conviction. it's not as though the planting of evidence hasn't happened. .
show me a single case, from anywhere in the world, where DNA evidence was planted that resulted in a death sentence.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
False
Public execution is the sinlge most effective deterrent.
Then why don't we do it publically?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Then why don't we do it publically?
Ask the left.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
show me a single case, from anywhere in the world, where DNA evidence was planted that resulted in a death sentence.
i have never heard of a documented case and i'm not about to look it up, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't or can't happen. dna testing can provide conclusive proof of guilt by the guilty, but it can also be planted (or withheld) by crooked cops just like other forms of material evidence to gain a conviction. though chances are probably slim that such abuse would lead to the death penalty very often in the western world any how since the u.s is the only western country left that has capital punishment. it's a matter of numbers.
-
Originally posted by rpm
link (http://www.wcmessenger.com/update/index.php)
Here's just a couple reasons...
Sadly, only one of these crimes will have the possibility of the death penalty.
One of the great things about texas,
If you kill someone, we will kill you back.
Still, thats always sad to hear that stuff on the news.....
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Ask the left.
agreed
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Ask the left.
The left says "Hang 'em high."
-
Originally posted by Excel1
i have never heard of a documented case and i'm not about to look it up, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't
Yes, thats exactly what it means, actually.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The left says "Hang 'em high."
No correction. The left says "Its societies fault, we need to quit being so mean to them."
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Yes, thats exactly what it means, actually.
no it doesn't
and how can you be so sure it does.
have you got some insight in to the legitimacy of every death penalty sentence handed down where dna evidence was largely used, or the deciding factor to obtain the conviction, or do you just believe that every example of dna evidence presented by a successful prosecution in every capitol trial was righteously obtained.
i know cops in general, and rotten cops especially, aren’t the brightest bulbs on the xmas tree but if they are clued up enough to deduce that sowing a hard to solve double murder crime scene with the spent cases from a suspects rifle will guarantee a conviction in 1970 then i dont believe it's too much of a stretch to believe in the posability of the planting of dna evidence in 2008 wouldn't be above their ilk.
-
I am not aware of one case of an "innocent" being executed can you show me?
The rebuttal is fatuous partly because of its circular logic. There is no judicial mechanism for review of guilt or pronouncement of innocence after an execution. The courts are done with it. Therefore, it should go without saying that no court has announced that an executed person was innocent, since American courts by definition do not make such findings.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
The rebuttal is fatuous partly because of its circular logic. There is no judicial mechanism for review of guilt or pronouncement of innocence after an execution. The courts are done with it. Therefore, it should go without saying that no court has announced that an executed person was innocent, since American courts by definition do not make such findings.
Shhh. Critical thinking is on the Philosophy forum.
-
Hmmm.. I must not be making myself clear.. I asked for one case where an innocent man was executed and I get... "some guys on death row were let off"
Thruster claims I am making a circular arguement.. perhaps but he is ignoring logic.
It would seem that lots of people who had been executed and were truly innocent would be found so over the years... the real killer would trip up or confess or.. new evidence.
I don't even care that much if one out of 10,000 is executed for the wrong crime.. It is hard to find one executed that.. even if he did not commit the crime in question... that does not deserve to be executed in any case. and.. people die of mistakes every day for no good reason at all.
safeguards must be met. But after a reasonable amount of evidence is presented and it is 99.9% certain.. execute. Is life in prison so much better?
what kind of a person would rather spend his life in prison? Who would fear death so much?
lazs
-
So, still no statement that you don't think anyone innocent of the crime they're accused has been executed, Lasz2?
Crisis of confidence?
-
Originally posted by Excel1
the posability of the planting of dna evidence in 2008 wouldn't be above their ilk.
Let's start with this. Go ahead and tell me how you plant DNA evidence.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Let's start with this. Go ahead and tell me how you plant DNA evidence.
You see what you do is you take, say, a bloody glove from the murder scene.... maybe a double homocide, and you place it just outside the guest residence of... say one of the victims has an ex-husband. Then....
-
The problem is the death penalty is final, there is no undoing it, I would rather see 10,000 guilty get life then a single innocent man be executed, atleast with life a mistake can be undone. Killing someone is never a good option.
-
Originally posted by trax1
at least with life a mistake can be undone.
Tell that to Hurricane Carter.
He lost 22 years.
-
It would seem that lots of people who had been executed and were truly innocent would be found so over the years... the real killer would trip up or confess or.. new evidence.
Google "wrongful executions".
There's too much data to distill and present here.
I don't even care that much if one out of 10,000 is executed for the wrong crime.. It is hard to find one executed that.. even if he did not commit the crime in question... that does not deserve to be executed in any case. and.. people die of mistakes every day for no good reason at all.
Aside from the disturbingly sophomoric perspective this statement exhibits I have to ask;
What ratio becomes unacceptable? Or does something become a problem only when it lands in your back yard?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Let's start with this. Go ahead and tell me how you plant DNA evidence.
very carefully, so as not to contaminate the sample. but apart from that precaution it's no different from any other physical evidence that can be planted to link a suspect to a crime scene.
if there is some absolute reason why it would be physically imposable to plant dna evidence your going to have to explain it
-
Originally posted by Excel1
very carefully, so as not to contaminate the sample.
Where do you get the DNA from? At what stage do you plant this evidence?
You have been watching too much CSI. Planting DNA evidence isn't that simple.
So again, besides "very carefully" which isn't an answer at all, how do you plant the DNA evidence?
-
I have no problem with the destruction of creatures who have been proven to be inhuman. I could do it and I would sleep very well that night. I do have a big problem of giving such enormous power to the state. It is tantamount to giving up our arms. Like the libertarian presidential candidate said, "the time for the death penalty is 3:00 am at the atm".
Governments have a long history of abusing the death penalty. The government of Kampuchea perpetrated a genocide legally with their judicial system. All recipiants of the death penalty were tried and found guilty. All trials and executions were meticulously documented by government beaurocracy. No attempt was made to cover anything up, quite the opposite.
Obviously I'm not comparing our current government to the kmer rouge. But you must see that the death penalty is a tool of power too enormous to be entrusted to those who make the laws. It is an issue pertinent to the peoples freedom, of as much relevance as the right to keep arms since it really is the same principal.
I don't need to list the long number of governments who have used judicial execution as a tool to maintain power.
Now when you consider this countries frigtening trend of profiting from, and integrating into the economy, criminal activity. The prospect becomes more alarming.
The state profits from the drug trade, the state profits from human trafficking, the state profits from the penal system. Now we live in a country where 1% of the population is in prison. Anyway you slice it, there is something wrong with a country that has 1% of it's people in prison.
The war on drugs and the war on illegal immigrants is not going to go away. Quite the contrary, you will see government expansion with the pretext of combating drugs and illegals. It is not in the governments interest to win the war on drugs or illegal immigration.
And now it appears the government has noticed the growth potential of the economy of the penal system.
What happens when countries profit from criminal activity? Let's use the USSR for an example. Prisoners contributed to the economy, so what happened? They began a process of criminalization of the public to the point where basically they could imprison any given person for infractions of an ambigous and abitrary legal code.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Where do you get the DNA from? At what stage do you plant this evidence?
You have been watching too much CSI. Planting DNA evidence isn't that simple.
So again, besides "very carefully" which isn't an answer at all, how do you plant the DNA evidence?
but you do agree that planting dna evidence is possible, right?
testing my knowledge ( or lack of ) of the actual mechanics of planting dna at a crime scene will not alter the fact that it is possible.
but ill play.. i think the ingredients needed would include- bent cops, bent cops with access to both the crime scene, the suspect, his abode, car etc. as for when the evidence is planted, it's surprising what the police sometimes find after the initial search of a crime scene. and as i have already said, that apart from the added risk of contaminating the planted dna evidence, planting an item of a suspects clothing containing his skin and hair for example is not a whole lot different from planting other forms of physical evidence, like spent shell casings from a suspects rifle. and it may add enough weight to circumstantial evidence to get him convicted.
my original point however was that dna evidence is not infallible enough to ensure that every suspected murderer convicted by the use of dna evidence is guilty 100% of the time. so far you haven't posted anything that would give me cause to change my mind.
and no, i don't watch csi. if you have seen one episode you've seen them all.
-
Executions are a waste of time.
use them to cure cancer.
Go farther....and have them REALLY pay a debt to society.......use them for medical experimentation.....better restults than lab rats & bunnies..
Yes...I am serious.
-
Cruel and unusual punishment?
-
Although I dont think that some of these people deserve to be able to use valuable resourses up such as air.
This guy is one of the reasons the death penalty is a very contencious issue for me.
It wasnt in the USA but I dont think that the southern colonials were any worse at placing guilt than in the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan
He was no angel and he more than probably wasnt a murderer, but he was last man to swing in Australia.
I dont think he was alone in swinging for something he may not have done.
-
Originally posted by moot
Cruel and unusual punishment?
If we execute frequently, then it would not be unusual.
The constitution does say cruel and[/i] unusual.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
but you do agree that planting dna evidence is possible, right?
my original point however was that dna evidence is not infallible enough to ensure that every suspected murderer convicted by the use of dna evidence is guilty 100% of the time. so far you haven't posted anything that would give me cause to change my mind.
and no, i don't watch csi. if you have seen one episode you've seen them all.
You are wrong, plain wrong. Conclusive DNA evidence is infallible. I'm not trying to change your mind. Wrong headed people like yourself never change their minds, they will argue an incorrect point merely for the sake of argument and the immature fear of admitting defeat when winning or losing isn't the point at all. The MO is always the same.
You seem to know so little of which you speak, you argue points you actually know nothing about. You insist DNA evidence can be planted, but have no idea how. That makes your argument rediculous.
FWIW, criminals are rarely convicted on DNA evidence alone, there are almost always other factors leading to conviction. Let me guess, all that evidence can be planted too?
If you don't want to execute people who have been convicted largely on DNA evidence, how to you excuse the release of those who have been exonerated by DNA evidence?
Can we ship our convicted murderers to your country? Many of our tax payers would be greatly appreciative of your misguided and uninformed views. :aok
-
trax and others....
What ratio of executed innocents to hard core murderers is acceptable? well.. I would say we are far from that since none of you can even show me an example of one innocent executed in modern times.
but...I will play. lets just look at it from a economist viewpoint... if the ten thousand you let live commit 500 more murders because they lived then...
In a scale of economy.. killing one "innocent" would be very much acceptable... especially if one or ten of the 500 killed by these guys you weep over now was a member of your family or circle of friends.... or.... since life is so precious to you....
say one of em was you.
to use your logic.. you can't undo the damage these murderers do. You can't give back the lives to the victims and say... "ooops.. guess we shoulda put that scum bag out of his misery when we had a chance"
Believe in god? fine.. it will all work out you have taken but a few years of misery..
Don't believe in god or the afterlife? then what's the big deal.. you will turn to nothing soon enough.
seems a win win to me so long as you exercise some care in choosing the ones you execute.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Conclusive DNA evidence is infallible.
Defense attorneys argue against that by attacking forensic technique. The dream team did it in OJ's trial, argueing the lab screwed up in evidence collection and handling.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Defense attorneys argue against that by attacking forensic technique. The dream team did it in OJ's trial, argueing the lab screwed up in evidence collection and handling.
Agreed. They have to argue this becuase the evidence itself is irrefutable.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Agreed. They have to argue this becuase the evidence itself is irrefutable.
The evidence is only as good as those who collect it. Hence it is refuted.
-
I'm sorry. Let's backtrack a few pages here and look at my post. 2 different murderers that have confessed to their crimes. What is the freaking problem???
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The evidence is only as good as those who collect it. Hence it is refuted.
The method is debated, not the eivdence itself... I'm done here. I'm right. The end.
-
don't cut and run yet steve, i'm just warming up
Conclusive DNA evidence is infallible
nope. dna evidence can be conclusive but it never can be infallible.
Robert Hayes, 35
Convicted 1991; released 1997
THE CRIME: A Broward County jury convicted Hayes, a groom at the Pompano Harness Track, of the 1990 rape and strangling death of fellow groom Pamela Albertson. Prosecutors introduced DNA evidence that they said linked him to the homicide. Hayes’ lawyers presented expert testimony suggesting the DNA results were contaminated.
HOW HE GOT OUT: The Florida Supreme Court ordered a new trial because of faulty DNA analysis. “The record contains evidence suggesting that Hayes committed the homicide,” the court said, but it “also contains objective physical evidence suggesting that someone other than Hayes was responsible.” At a retrial, Hayes’ lawyers showed that hairs used to convict him the first time most likely came from a white person. Hayes, who is black, was acquitted.
link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2019)
there goes your theory. if dna evidence can wrongfully put one man on death row then it's not unreasonable to assume that it can do likewise with others.
You seem to know so little of which you speak, you argue points you actually know nothing about. You insist DNA evidence can be planted, but have no idea how. That makes your argument rediculous.
err i did say this, which i note you cropped out of my quote in your reply:
" i think the ingredients needed would include- bent cops, bent cops with access to both the crime scene, the suspect, his abode, car etc. as for when the evidence is planted, it's surprising what the police sometimes find after the initial search of a crime scene. and as i have already said, that apart from the added risk of contaminating the planted dna evidence, planting an item of a suspects clothing containing his skin and hair for example is not a whole lot different from planting other forms of physical evidence, like spent shell casings from a suspects rifle. and it may add enough weight to circumstantial evidence to get him convicted."
if that’s completely implausable or impossible, or if you know that the planting of dna evidence in any circumstances is impossible then skip the evasives and go ahead and refute it with your superior knowledge, because to date you haven’t even come close to doing that. in fact, other than saying " planting dna evidence isn't that simple" you have said nothing of substance.
FWIW, criminals are rarely convicted on DNA evidence alone, there are almost always other factors leading to conviction. Let me guess, all that evidence can be planted too?
been there:
"and it may add enough weight to circumstantial evidence to get him convicted."
If you don't want to execute people who have been convicted largely on DNA evidence, how to you excuse the release of those who have been exonerated by DNA evidence?
why would i want to excuse it? if your implying that my misgivings on dna being the holy grail of evidence in death penalty trials is a sign that i'm against the use of dna evidence then your barking up the wrong tree. if dna evidence convicts the guiltily or tilts the pendulum of proof to the innocent side on the beyond reasonable doubt scale and rights a wrong then i'm all for it.
Can we ship our convicted murderers to your country? Many of our tax payers would be greatly appreciative of your misguided and uninformed views
nah, you keep your convicts, we have enough of our own. and i am quite well guided and formed but i can't say the same for you. you should put that barrow your pushing down once in while and have a good look around
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I'm done here. I'm right. The end.
:lol
-
again.. it is a fact that innocents are not executed... at least in any proveable number.. none at all.
But.. say one or two per ten thousand is...
lets take those who are executed first.. it is a certainty that they will not commit another murder.. it is also certain that many who should have been executed did end up committing many other crimes including murder and assault.
soo.. economics tells us that it is wise to execute so long as you have reasonable safeguards.
morality tells us that it is also moral to do so. is it moral to allow killers to kill again? The hand wringers will tell us that one "innocent" (most likely a carreer scumbag) man executed is too many.
How many innocents murdered by the murderers is too many? 500? 1000? is not every single one of them killed by our neglect to execute at least as important as the one scum bag executed for the wrong reason?
execution with reasonable safeguards passes both the economic and the moral tests.
lazs