Georgia To Execute An Innocent Man?

[KittenKoder]

actually science has determined that life begins at conception.... but don't let the facts get in the way of convenience....

So, do you eat aborted fetus' of chickens?

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmmm ... still need to make more posts to get the links posted.

 

[KittenKoder]

A nice article with some facts:
IMPACT OF DNA EXONERATIONS ON THE NATION’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
A few related stats:
Texas Innocence Network - Causes of Wrongful Convictions
Some anti-death penalty stuff, but still proves the point:
Dead Wrong?, Did The State Of Texas Execute An Innocent Man? - CBS News
A bunch of stuff about all over the country:
201 wrongful convictions are tip of the iceberg, says DNA charity - Times Online

And my fave, a Bullshit episode with some great facts:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

There are already hundreds of current cases so you will have to wait then, until I can filter through them to find the stats from the past. Yes, hundreds of pending executions that are being re-evaluated in Texas and many are being released because the newly discovered (at least that's what the Texans call it) DNA evidence is proving them to have been falsely accused. Many have been put on death row AFTER DNA evidence was proven to be almost perfect.

Fair enough. However, if I may make an observation.

The question before us is: does the state retain sufficient safeguards to make reasonably certain people wrongly convicted (as opposed to specifically innocent, very important distinction in US law) are NOT executed?

If the argument hinges on executions averted pending evidence/procedure reviewed, albeit lately, we need not fear the death penalty because the review of evidence/procedure is obviously in place and intact. It is a part of the due process required to deprive a person of life as well as liberty.

In matters of malfeasance against the unduly convicted we are contending with evidence/procedure manipulated in spite of the facts and, as with all crimes, the law can do precious little to prevent, only to punish. This is where a vigorous review process is in order but that returns us to my first point.

So what we have to know is how many unduly sentenced persons are actually executed. This is where your sources should focus.

Exit question: had these unfortunates NOT been on death row would their cases gain as much review. I doubt it would be of any value to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to life only to be left in legal limbo.

 

[KittenKoder]

Fair enough. However, if I may make an observation.

The question before us is: does the state retain sufficient safeguards to make reasonably certain people wrongly convicted (as opposed to specifically innocent, very important distinction in US law) are NOT executed?

If the argument hinges on executions averted pending evidence/procedure reviewed, albeit lately, we need not fear the death penalty because the review of evidence/procedure is obviously in place and intact. It is a part of the due process required to deprive a person of life as well as liberty.

In matters of malfeasance against the unduly convicted we are contending with evidence/procedure manipulated in spite of the facts and, as with all crimes, the law can do precious little to prevent, only to punish. This is where a vigorous review process is in order but that returns us to my first point.

So what we have to know is how many unduly sentenced persons are actually executed. This is where your sources should focus.

Exit question: had these unfortunates NOT been on death row would their cases gain as much review. I doubt it would be of any value to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to life only to be left in legal limbo.

I know I already answered that part. I said, if he is guilty he deserves the appropriate punishment, regardless of what that has been determined to be. Now we have the technology to determine within a reasonable doubt if they are guilty using DNA evidence, it's just that putting all your faith into something is pretty much a bad idea, as shown by what has happened prior to DNA evidence. Even with DNA there are still ways to muck it all up and kill an innocent person, but that's what the courts have to live with, not me. I won't do jury duty on the grounds that I will not place myself in a position to live with the guilt of placing an innocent person on the 'chopping block' for any reason. Morally I cannot determine a persons innocence.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

DNA evidence has proved that almost 60% of all executions prior to DNA evidence were wrongly convicted (of those they still have the evidence for) totaling over 300. Can't remember the specifics country wide but Texas has the highest rate. Of course if you really cared you'd google it yourself instead of trying to trick someone else into it. However, since you do not care about facts you will attempt to make them look wrong because your mind is incapable of change. I am not against the death penalty, but taking innocent lives in the persuit of justice is no different than murder.

Provide a link. I have read on this before and there is NO confirmed case that ANYONE was innocent. Let me clarify, no evidence thyat any exected person was innocent, which is what YOU are claiming and in huge numbers.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

meh

I didn't intend for you to repost answers already given. I was composing as you were posting.

*shrugs*

Maybe you should consider jury duty as a means of ensuring those who are not guilty are not convicted.

After all, it only takes 1 dissenting vote to, pardon the pun, hang an entire jury. To defend the innocent is noble. To abandon them over personal discomfort is unconscienable.

In the end the idea is to punish the guilty. Punishing the innocent magnifies the calamity inflicted on society as well as rewards the guilty and revictimizes the original victim. If you are even half as conscientious as you want to be you would be a better pick for both sides of the case than someone who was resentful of being in the jury box.

 

[KittenKoder]

meh

I didn't intend for you to repost answers already given. I was composing as you were posting.

*shrugs*

Maybe you should consider jury duty as a means of ensuring those who are not guilty are not convicted.

After all, it only takes 1 dissenting vote to, pardon the pun, hang an entire jury. To defend the innocent is noble. To abandon them over personal discomfort is unconscienable.

In the end the idea is to punish the guilty. Punishing the innocent magnifies the calamity inflicted on society as well as rewards the guilty and revictimizes the original victim. If you are even half as conscientious as you want to be you would be a better pick for both sides of the case than someone who was resentful of being in the jury box.

While your stance is good as well, my problem is that my idea of guilt and innocence varies from most. I would find that all jaywalkers or morons who run red lights should be jailed for life, for example. I cannot stop the system completely, however it is not my duty to tell others hoe to believe (the moderate in me). Really there is too much conflict within my ideals to make such a position impossible. I believe in science, and if there is no science one way or the other then there is no way ANYONE should be put to trial.

 

[KittenKoder]

Provide a link. I have read on this before and there is NO confirmed case that ANYONE was innocent. Let me clarify, no evidence thyat any exected person was innocent, which is what YOU are claiming and in huge numbers.

If you believe that then you are living in a dream world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you believe that then you are living in a dream world.

In other words you have no proof, thanks though for playing.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

While your stance is good as well, my problem is that my idea of guilt and innocence varies from most. I would find that all jaywalkers or morons who run red lights should be jailed for life, for example. I cannot stop the system completely, however it is not my duty to tell others hoe to believe (the moderate in me). Really there is too much conflict within my ideals to make such a position impossible. I believe in science, and if there is no science one way or the other then there is no way ANYONE should be put to trial.

It's not the duty of a jurist to decide what the law should be but only if it was violated and (in some places) if finding in the affirmative to recommend sentence BASED ON THE LAW.

The place to have your thoughts registered on what laws should be and how their violations should be punished is when you vote for legislators.

It is easy enough to operate within the schema. It's a privilege many would fight to possess.

 

[KittenKoder]

In other words you have no proof, thanks though for playing.

Hmmm ... by ignoring all the links, the hundreds of others on google alone, you just show you see only your side as truth and that you are incapable of learning. So why should I waste my time on you, the links I posted show a LOT, though not all the statistics, they show most. When I did post them you still didn't have the brains (or balls if you will) to click on them, showing you do not care about truth but merely wish to attack someone who's opinion or knowledge opposes yours. It is you who are playing, and it's not a winnable game for you ... especially against me. *evil grin*

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hmmm ... by ignoring all the links, the hundreds of others on google alone, you just show you see only your side as truth and that you are incapable of learning. So why should I waste my time on you, the links I posted show a LOT, though not all the statistics, they show most. When I did post them you still didn't have the brains (or balls if you will) to click on them, showing you do not care about truth but merely wish to attack someone who's opinion or knowledge opposes yours. It is you who are playing, and it's not a winnable game for you ... especially against me. *evil grin*

None of them provide a shred of evidence any innocent people were put to death. But hey thanks for playing.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's not the duty of a jurist to decide what the law should be but only if it was violated and (in some places) if finding in the affirmative to recommend sentence BASED ON THE LAW.

The place to have your thoughts registered on what laws should be and how their violations should be punished is when you vote for legislators.

It is easy enough to operate within the schema. It's a privilege many would fight to possess.

Wow, thanks. I have been trying to find the right words to explain my side of this and have been coming up short, but you just made the connections work for me. I am not good with words unless dealing with hard facts, so excuse my not making this clear until now. My problem is that I would allow my personal opinions and beliefs influence my decision so much that I would feel guilty regardless of the outcome if I was responsible for changing said outcome. I am logical, but law is not fully logical, it is more often based on ideals and morals (sometimes wrong, sometimes not). Which is not something I am capable of separating from my own. Did that make it more understandable?

 

[MichaelCollins]

The death penalty exists only in third world nations and in the backward jesus freak states of the US..also third world.

It exists...not as a deterrent..and not in any way interested in executing the guilty..

It exists because jesus freak states are states of fear and hatred.

Jesus freaks love to see others suffer....whether they are guilty or not.

When religion dies..as it did in Europe many years ago... the death penalty will also die.

The Death penalty only exists in dictatorships and religiously extreme stone age nations such as the Middle east, the US and China.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

The death penalty exists only in third world nations and in the backward jesus freak states of the US..also third world.

It exists...not as a deterrent..and not in any way interested in executing the guilty..

It exists because jesus freak states are states of fear and hatred.

Jesus freaks love to see others suffer....whether they are guilty or not.

When religion dies..as it did in Europe many years ago... the death penalty will also die.

The Death penalty only exists in dictatorships and religiously extreme stone age nations such as the Middle east, the US and China.

You sound like someone possessed of fear and hatred.

I wonder: Do you have Diderot quoted somewhere in your life? Your denim-bound notebook or perhaps a cheap tattoo?

 

[KittenKoder]

The death penalty exists only in third world nations and in the backward jesus freak states of the US..also third world.

It exists...not as a deterrent..and not in any way interested in executing the guilty..

It exists because jesus freak states are states of fear and hatred.

Jesus freaks love to see others suffer....whether they are guilty or not.

When religion dies..as it did in Europe many years ago... the death penalty will also die.

The Death penalty only exists in dictatorships and religiously extreme stone age nations such as the Middle east, the US and China.

That was just kind of stupid. Would you rather all our taxes go to pay for people serving life sentences? Sometimes at the cost of 6,000 a day in some states? If so, then you can pay it yourself, because I am not. Some people need to be eliminated, especially in a country that is becoming overpopulated quickly like ours. While I do not agree with putting someone to death if there is a chance of them being innocent, I do not agree that we should be rid of it completely.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The death penalty exists only in third world nations and in the backward jesus freak states of the US..also third world.

It exists...not as a deterrent..and not in any way interested in executing the guilty..

It exists because jesus freak states are states of fear and hatred.

Jesus freaks love to see others suffer....whether they are guilty or not.

When religion dies..as it did in Europe many years ago... the death penalty will also die.

The Death penalty only exists in dictatorships and religiously extreme stone age nations such as the Middle east, the US and China.

Ohh Look the RETARD is in this thread now.

 

[Ravi]

From what I understand, it is actually more expensive to execute someone than it is to imprison them for life.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ohh Look the RETARD is in this thread now.

Why should you be judging him, his views are just the exact opposite of your extreme.