Brian Williams Death Penalty QUestion

[Lakhota]

Despite 41 DNA Exonerations In Texas In Last 9 Years, Perry Says He Never Loses Sleep Over Executing The Innocent | ThinkProgress

 

[Lakhota]

Rick Perry’s Execution Record Includes The Deaths Of Juveniles And The Mentally Disabled | ThinkProgress

 

[Lakhota]

"It takes balls to execute an innocent man" - War Room - Salon.com

 

[Lakhota]

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker

 

[9thIDdoc]

Wasn't OJ found not guilty in spite of DNA evidence? Juries decide how much (if any) weight to give evidence.

 

[Liability]

You're right. The only other option besides killing them is to let them go free.

No. You can settle the question of guilt or non-guilt by lowering the burden of proof to get more convictions. Or, to avoid the prospect of either an erroneous conviction (or, worse yet, the erroneous imposition of a death penalty sentence) you can RAISE the burden of proof. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt can't insure perfect justice. Ergo, the standard has to be "proof beyond all possible doubt." Right?

How many convictions are you gonna get then, Chumley?

DNA testing is considered by most to determine guilt or non-guilt beyond all possible doubt, as past exonerations have proven. Why not require irrefutable scientific evidence to implement the death penalty? I have no problem with that. You'll still get the same amount of convictions as before, it will only alter the possible sentence. I'm assuming this would affect more people that have already been on death row for some time rather than newer cases where DNA testing is readily available during an investigation and is intently gathered if possible in order to establish the strongest case. I'm not anti-death penalty, and I understand that nothing is fail-safe. I just want to be as sure as humanly possible.

You fundamental ignorance on the topic makes it difficult to educate you.

DNA evidence in MANY cases CAN be a very powerful forensic tool when the tests are properly performed and when the evidence has been gathered under proper conditions and when the information which it provides is relevant to an issue in actual doubt.

But DNA is not the be-all and end-all of valid proof in every criminal case -- particularly when it doesn't serve to answer a material issue at a trial.

Sometimes, in fact, there is not a single allele's worth of genetic material available.

Holy smokes. I guess there's no possibility that a prosecution could EVER make a case based on on NON DNA evidence.

 

[bobcollum]

Wasn't OJ found not guilty in spite of DNA evidence? Juries decide how much (if any) weight to give evidence.

True, but that case was an exception in many instances.

O. J. Simpson murder case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wicked Jester]

Call it what you want. It doesn't change the fact that we endorse government sanctioned killings of prisoners. Most of the world looks at it as barbaric and do not ask "why can't we be more like the United States?"We will gradually recognize the death penalty for what it is......biblical, eye for an eye vengeance

AtThen why do we have over 4 million people waiting in line to become citizens?

They come here for the death penalty? Even Mexico doesn't have a death penalty.

Yeah, and look what's going on in Mexico as we speak.......They don't need a death penalty in that 4th world shithole. They kill each other en masse just fine.

And what happens when they go to prison?...Not much different then being back in the hood.

No thanks. We don't need to be another Mexico.......Line up the scumbags, and execute like a MOFO!

 

[Foxfyre]

In all 50 states, both those with the death penalty and those with life with no parole, the defendant is judged by a jury of his or her peers, has full right to appeal a sentence with a court appointed attorney if he cannot afford one, and can take appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

I am not really a proponent of the death penalty, but philosophically understand that there must be a maximum consequence for committing certain kinds of cruel, unconscionable, crimes against the innocent. If there is no death penalty, there is no deterrant from treating people as brutally and horrificly as possible because once you've achieved life in prison, there is no further consequence for anything you do.

As for the stats:

Though Texas' incarceration rate has decline steadily over the past few years, the 2010 Texas Uniform Crime Report shows crime declined substantially from 2009 to 2010, calling into question quite a few assumptions about incarceration and crime.

According to the new "Crime in Texas Annual Report 2010" (pdf) from the Department of Public Safety, "this is the first time since 2000 that all seven index crime rates declined during the same year. Murder was down 7.4%, rape 9.2%, robbery 14.9%, aggravated assault 4.9%, burglary 5.9%, larceny/theft 4.9% and motor vehicle theft 12.3%." Overall, violent crime declined 8.3% and property crimes were down 5.7%.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/2010CIT.pdf

And this is in the midst of the worst recession this country has seen since the 1930's.

And it is true that Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005. And they almost immediately got gangs of terrorist druglords and cartels wrecking havoc on their border with us with their murder rate skyrocketing. I don't know if there was any correlation but I do know there is a movement afoot in Mexico to reinstate the death penalty.

 

[Trajan]

on another note- I am trying to think of some such liberal Iconic location that would provide a forum for a democratic presidential debate ran by and exclusively carried by Fox, but I can't....

 

[bobcollum]

No. You can settle the question of guilt or non-guilt by lowering the burden of proof to get more convictions. Or, to avoid the prospect of either an erroneous conviction (or, worse yet, the erroneous imposition of a death penalty sentence) you can RAISE the burden of proof. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt can't insure perfect justice. Ergo, the standard has to be "proof beyond all possible doubt." Right?

How many convictions are you gonna get then, Chumley?

DNA testing is considered by most to determine guilt or non-guilt beyond all possible doubt, as past exonerations have proven. Why not require irrefutable scientific evidence to implement the death penalty? I have no problem with that. You'll still get the same amount of convictions as before, it will only alter the possible sentence. I'm assuming this would affect more people that have already been on death row for some time rather than newer cases where DNA testing is readily available during an investigation and is intently gathered if possible in order to establish the strongest case. I'm not anti-death penalty, and I understand that nothing is fail-safe. I just want to be as sure as humanly possible.

You fundamental ignorance on the topic makes it difficult to educate you.

DNA evidence in MANY cases CAN be a very powerful forensic tool when the tests are properly performed and when the evidence has been gathered under proper conditions and when the information which it provides is relevant to an issue in actual doubt.

But DNA is not the be-all and end-all of valid proof in every criminal case -- particularly when it doesn't serve to answer a material issue at a trial.

Sometimes, in fact, there is not a single allele's worth of genetic material available.

Holy smokes. I guess there's no possibility that a prosecution could EVER make a case based on on NON DNA evidence.

Hey I'll concede victory to you at this point, for the most part at least. You should try to insult less, only idiots need to do that.

 

[jillian]

Brian Williams showed his liberal disgust with capital punishment in Texas.

And was horrified when the audience applauded.

Perry's answer was awesome. He didn't give an inch.


****snip****

This is why Perry will eventually prevail over Romney and Obama. He doesn't back down from a fight.

perry can't pass the giggle test with anyone but rightwingnuts.

you knew that MOST of the civilized world finds the death penalty barbaric, right.

oh right... you wouldn't.

 

[daveman]

Not going to back down bluster...I recall another Texan like that...

Why should Perry back down to a reporter?

 

[CoolBreeze]

Brian Williams asked Gov. Perry if he struggled to sleep at night because he signed so many death warrants. I would have asked Mr. Williams, with your stand on abortion, do you struggle to sleep at night because of all of the murdered children?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

No. You can settle the question of guilt or non-guilt by lowering the burden of proof to get more convictions. Or, to avoid the prospect of either an erroneous conviction (or, worse yet, the erroneous imposition of a death penalty sentence) you can RAISE the burden of proof. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt can't insure perfect justice. Ergo, the standard has to be "proof beyond all possible doubt." Right?

How many convictions are you gonna get then, Chumley?

DNA testing is considered by most to determine guilt or non-guilt beyond all possible doubt, as past exonerations have proven. Why not require irrefutable scientific evidence to implement the death penalty? I have no problem with that. You'll still get the same amount of convictions as before, it will only alter the possible sentence. I'm assuming this would affect more people that have already been on death row for some time rather than newer cases where DNA testing is readily available during an investigation and is intently gathered if possible in order to establish the strongest case. I'm not anti-death penalty, and I understand that nothing is fail-safe. I just want to be as sure as humanly possible.

You fundamental ignorance on the topic makes it difficult to educate you.

DNA evidence in MANY cases CAN be a very powerful forensic tool when the tests are properly performed and when the evidence has been gathered under proper conditions and when the information which it provides is relevant to an issue in actual doubt.

But DNA is not the be-all and end-all of valid proof in every criminal case -- particularly when it doesn't serve to answer a material issue at a trial.

Sometimes, in fact, there is not a single allele's worth of genetic material available.

Holy smokes. I guess there's no possibility that a prosecution could EVER make a case based on on NON DNA evidence.

I think you raise some good points. I do think that DNA is should be required to sentence somebody with the death penalty, but not life in prison with no parole.

 

[saveliberty]

I give NBC credit for inserting the Death Penalty clip in the nightly news program. Brain was owned. Also, I found the Galileo reference and Global Warming stance to be very satisfactory.

 

[candycorn]

Brian Williams showed his liberal disgust with capital punishment in Texas.

And was horrified when the audience applauded.

Perry's answer was awesome. He didn't give an inch.


Rick Perry Proud Of 234 Executions--Brian Williams Shocked Audience Applauds Deaths - YouTube


This is why Perry will eventually prevail over Romney and Obama. He doesn't back down from a fight.

That remains to be seen; he'll change his tune to suit the crowd as he seemingly always has done. Is he for or against Gay marriage this week? Stay tuned.

I'll be the last to defend Perry but I think you see, in this question asked by B. Williams, exactly why the Network news is fading from importance. The President seldom has to worry about death penalty issues. It was a needless question that was asked for reasons that were dubious at best. Prior to asking Perry about that, he asked Paul about entitlements. It was almost like B. Williams was a USMB poster; not a newsman asking the questions Americans want asked.

 

[candycorn]

I give NBC credit for inserting the Death Penalty clip in the nightly news program. Brain was owned. Also, I found the Galileo reference and Global Warming stance to be very satisfactory.

Galileo wasn't opposed in a vaccum without political pressure form the Crown. It's a non-starter.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's basically because it was Perry that dismantled investigators looking into whether or not that has happened.

This isn't going away.

Actually, the only people who are upset about career dirtbags getting executed are the kind of people who would never vote Republican, anyway.

No politician has come out publically against the Death Penalty since Mike Dukakis said he wouldn't want the man who raped and killed his wife executed.

So keep playing the little violins for baby-burning wife-beaters, the rest of us aren't playing along.

It's kind of funny that the very same people that say the government gets just about everything wrong...trusts the government when it comes to killing people.

Whether that may be invading other nations..or executing our own.

Funny and scary.

Uhhhh most democrats cheer on Obama for warmongering in Libya, couldn't care less how many innocents are killed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now I get it. You dont like to debate.
]You like to orate and when you are backed into a corner, you like to pull shit out of your ass and pray it sticks.

Serving on a jury does not make you part of the government.

Now...enough of your fucking games...

You opted not to debate...that was your choice.

So nothing gained with you ONCE AGAIN.

How can I debate with a moron?

The jury is part of the judicial system which is part of the government.

It's sad that you don't understand this fact. But it is a fact.

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judisical system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was weather or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playinmg semantics.

The whole point of having a jury of one's peers is to NOT have judgement passed by a government entity. That's why we are guaranteed a right to a trial BY JURY, rather than just a trial. Furthermore, those charged with serious crimes must first be indicted by a grand jury, also made up of ordinary citizens.