|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:23:46 GMT
There is always the risk of executing an innocent person. However, our legal system is so heavily tilted in favor of the criminal that such an error is highly unlikely. We have reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, requirement for a unanimous jury verdict by twelve jurors, strict rules of evidence, and appeals. No, the system is not tilted in favour of the criminal, it is tilted in favour of the defendent. Not the same thing. The risk is not the same, however, is it? The State may take the life of an innocent person, without justification. If that is you or your son then that is the worse case senerio for most of us. I'm a lot more worried about a heinous murderer like Simpson standing in line with my family at the supermarket rather than being executed as should happen. How do you feel about a member of your family being killed by the State on false evidence? since there is NO possibility of that occurring, we don't worry about it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:25:56 GMT
@ RV - Theoretically I suppose you have a point. The key word there is 'theoretically.' In reality, the 'defendant' has so many legal protections that it is highly unlikely. I'd hazard a guess that chances executing an innocent person are considerably less than the chances of the average commercial airplane pilot being killed in a crash. Do you want to ban air travel because it could result in the death of innocent people? Why would you want to ban the death penalty and not ban air travel if your main focus is risk to an innocent person?? @ Lin - You make an excellent point. Do a google search for Charles Manson if you're unfamiliar with his case. He had himself a harem of young impressionable women when he was quite young. He got them to kill people including a young Hollywood actress who was pregnant at the time. They wrote "Helter Skelter" on the wall of the home they invaded and left those people dead. Manson has been cooped up in San Quentin (California's high security prison) for many many years. Is that a benefit to him? Is that a benefit to society (read: taxpayer)? Are we worried that we might be executing an innocent man (grin)? Why would anyone want Charles Manson to be alive for even one more day? What's the point? NO rational person does
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 27, 2010 12:28:16 GMT
I'd like to point out to the antis that when you sentence someone to LWOP what you are ACTUALLY doing IS imposing a DEATH SENTENCE. Not enough antis seem to realise that. If you impose LWOP then you ARE sentencing someone to DEATH. It just takes longer than executing them. I'm racking my memory for thename of the judge who allegedly said "I don't sentence anyone to death, I only fix the day." People can and do make lives for themselves in prison. They can even do some good if they have a mind to. Anna tells us that when people are given a choice (gruesome thought) they choose Life instead of execution. Not always, Skylark. There have been a few DR inmates who have volunteered to be executed and abandoned their appeal process.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:31:51 GMT
I'd like to point out to the antis that when you sentence someone to LWOP what you are ACTUALLY doing IS imposing a DEATH SENTENCE. Not enough antis seem to realise that. If you impose LWOP then you ARE sentencing someone to DEATH. It just takes longer than executing them. I'm racking my memory for thename of the judge who allegedly said "I don't sentence anyone to death, I only fix the day." People can and do make lives for themselves in prison. They can even do some good if they have a mind to. Anna tells us that when people are given a choice (gruesome thought) they choose Life instead of execution. REALITY!!! it does NOT matter one iota what a murderer does. if an individual were a saint before, and returned to being a saint after, committing murder, is relevant to absolutely NOTHING whatsoever. there is NO atonement for murder. unless, and until, the murderer can restore life to the victim, there is nothing that he can ever do to change the FACT that he deserves to die
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:35:23 GMT
[ totally irrelevant. death deters the executed murderer from ever killing again, and that is the ONLY deterrence that matters in any way exactly jumbo it's really not hard to understand
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:37:06 GMT
taking ANY kind of weapon to commit a crime IS premeditated murder if someone dies. very true..it shows intent...well said jumbo bit like the spouting about human rights by those who have disregarded the human rights of others..all very hyporcritical that's it in a nutshell. it's hypocrisy at its finest
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 27, 2010 12:39:39 GMT
and there is NO possiblity that such an event could occur. the fact that there have been 17 death row inmates exonerated by dna since 1983 is more than conclusive proof that no innocent could ever be executed in the future Utter Bull. You have no RATIONAL proof of that stupid statement. You have no RATIONAL way of proving that people convicted on DNA evidence which had been falsified or that the DNA was planted at the scene or there legitimately or even that DNA evidence was used to convict someone. There is no way you can use 17 exonerated people as proof that everyone else is therefore guilty. That has no basis in FACT or REALITY. To anyone not born in a backward culture could see that the FACT that 17 people were released does not mean the rest are therefore guilty. The REALITY is that you support the death penalty because you are unable to understand the complex issues. Come on, RV, you're getting all aereated again! Jumbo is NOT the only person on this board who supports the death penalty and even some of the antis here (particularly Skylark) understand the arguments in favour of it. If (for the sake of argument) one of the pros here had said to you that the reason you OPPOSED the death penalty was because you couldn't understand the complex issues that would have been just as unacceptable. Let me tell you something, RV. Some people (including myself and people I've known) have had their lives touched by the tragedy of murder. When you come face to face with the dead body of someone you love who's been cruelly murdered it tends to affect your attitude. I know it changed me when I had to gaze into the cold dead eyes of someone I'd loved. I also know that there are plenty of people over whose guilt there is no doubt and that even you would accept had committed brutal murders. Do you seriously doubt that Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley, Wright and Allitt are guilty? Or Ramirez, Pike and Manson? What possible benefit to society is there in keeping these people locked up for years rather than executing them? They ought to pay for their crimes with their lives IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:40:04 GMT
I'd hazard a guess that chances executing an innocent person are considerably less than the chances of the average commercial airplane pilot being killed in a crash. You can hazzard a guess all you want, but the statistics are not really the problem here. Every now and then people are released from prison because the evidence against them was fitted up, or just unsafe. If you are the one person it happens to it is a hundred percent, irrespective of how many other innocent/guilty people are let off/hung. I am not really going to tell a mother or young child that their son/father had to die for another person's crime, for the greater good and that had he became a pilot, there was more chance that he would have died in a crash. None of that matters. Do you want to ban air travel because it could result in the death of innocent people? Why would you want to ban the death penalty and not ban air travel if your main focus is risk to an innocent person?? I am not really sure at what you are driving at here. In Europe we don't shoot down planes with innocent people on board. If we started to do that, I would complain about it. People DO die on planes, but those deaths are not built into the system. There is no law that states that so many people have to die every year or anything like that. Every precaution is taken to prevent innocent deaths (missile attacks from rogue Nations aside) and if something was found that meant innocent lives were put at risk, then that would be eliminated. Failures in the aircraft industry kill people, not the deliberate policy of the airlines. see? you agree that the airline industry and the justice system in the u.s. are EXACTLY the same, since both do exactly the same thing
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:41:47 GMT
and there is NO possiblity that such an event could occur. the fact that there have been 17 death row inmates exonerated by dna since 1983 is more than conclusive proof that no innocent could ever be executed in the future Utter Bull. You have no RATIONAL proof of that stupid statement. You have no RATIONAL way of proving that people convicted on DNA evidence which had been falsified or that the DNA was planted at the scene or there legitimately or even that DNA evidence was used to convict someone. There is no way you can use 17 exonerated people as proof that everyone else is therefore guilty. That has no basis in FACT or REALITY. To anyone not born in a backward culture could see that the FACT that 17 people were released does not mean the rest are therefore guilty. The REALITY is that you support the death penalty because you are unable to understand the complex issues. your aversion to common sense and reality is duly recognized
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 12:43:50 GMT
I'm racking my memory for thename of the judge who allegedly said "I don't sentence anyone to death, I only fix the day." People can and do make lives for themselves in prison. They can even do some good if they have a mind to. Anna tells us that when people are given a choice (gruesome thought) they choose Life instead of execution. Not always, Skylark. There have been a few DR inmates who have volunteered to be executed and abandoned their appeal process. and the abominable thing there is that there are imbeciles in the aclu and elsewhere who insist on filing frivolous appeals anyway
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 13:53:51 GMT
your aversion to common sense and reality is duly recognized Hey, good comeback! At least you made the effort not fill in the blanks with a glib retort!!!! I will give you the chance to redeem yourself. Please explain why you think the seventeen who have been released means the rest MUST be guilty?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 14:21:52 GMT
If (for the sake of argument) one of the pros here had said to you that the reason you OPPOSED the death penalty was because you couldn't understand the complex issues that would have been just as unacceptable. Wait a minute, though Lin. Jumbo has stated that the ‘REALITY’, ‘FACTS’ and points to the only ‘RATIONAL’ option is the death penalty. Anyone who uses language like that, especially when they make totally irrational and unsupported statements concerning the likelihood of innocent people being killed by the death penalty, deserves to be hoist by their own petard. How anyone can claim that because 17 people have been released means that the rest of the people on death row therefore MUST be guilty is beyond me. I cannot find any logic behind that statement. No-one knows for sure how many people are found guilty, but are not in fact guilty, or vice versa. How could we? Let me tell you something, RV. Some people (including myself and people I've known) have had their lives touched by the tragedy of murder. When you come face to face with the dead body of someone you love who's been cruelly murdered it tends to affect your attitude. I know it changed me when I had to gaze into the cold dead eyes of someone I'd loved. No doubt it has changed you and no doubt I would change too in similar circumstances, however, I recognise that ‘justice’ is not about an emotional response and an outpouring of grief, it is about the disinterested examination of facts. In this instance, we have wrongly convicted people and no doubt will in the future and that is regrettable, but inevitable, I am afraid. However, that does not mean that we should compound that injustice by hanging that person before they get a chance to exonerate themselves. You say that you have seen someone you love dead at the hands of a murderer; that must be horrendous, and I can understand your stance, but how would you feel watching someone you love being hanged for a murder they didn’t commit only for new evidence to come to light weeks after his/her burial? How would you like your child to die being thought a child murderer when you knew it wasn’t true? .Do you seriously doubt that Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley, Wright and Allitt are guilty? Or Ramirez, Pike and Manson? What possible benefit to society is there in keeping these people locked up for years rather than executing them? They ought to pay for their crimes with their lives IMHO. The problem with that argument is that someone has to decide who is definitely guilty and who is ‘merely’ guilty. No doubt we could add have a dozen more to that list of people who were definitely guilty only to let free on appeal due to new evidence?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 17:24:38 GMT
your aversion to common sense and reality is duly recognized Hey, good comeback! At least you made the effort not fill in the blanks with a glib retort!!!! I will give you the chance to redeem yourself. Please explain why you think the seventeen who have been released means the rest MUST be guilty? i never said that everyone on death row is guilty. i said that if they are factually innocent, the fact will be found out long before they are executed. that has been the case in EVERY instance since 1976, and the science only gets better. i am fully aware that there are a few numbnuts who have conjured up the idea that dna can be planted, but that is prima facie stupid, particularly since dna, in and of itself, can't result in a conviction to begin with
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 17:28:48 GMT
if they are factually innocent, the fact will be found out long before they are executed. You have no evidence to support such an assertion.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 17:29:58 GMT
the number of those set free by "new evidence", including dna, is miniscule. the overwhelming number get off death row totally because of procedural errors, or having a nutjob for a governor who commutes the sentence for no rational reason whatsoever, such as in the case of kenneth foster. see how nice i am to you? i'm now allowing you to have lin as an ally
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 17:41:01 GMT
if they are factually innocent, the fact will be found out long before they are executed. You have no evidence to support such an assertion. of course there is. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT that there has not been a single innocent person executed since the advent of dna, and the fact that there have been many released because they were discovered to be innocent by other means is proof beyond a doubt
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 18:56:35 GMT
of course there is. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT that there has not been a single innocent person executed since the advent of dna, Where is your evidence for such a claim? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because no more evidence to exonerate someone does not mean that such evidence does not exist or that the defendant is guilty.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 18:58:38 GMT
they were discovered to be innocent by other means is proof beyond a doubt Proof of what, exactly? Proof that the systems puts innocent people on death row?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 19:43:05 GMT
of course there is. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT that there has not been a single innocent person executed since the advent of dna, Where is your evidence for such a claim? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because no more evidence to exonerate someone does not mean that such evidence does not exist or that the defendant is guilty. of course it does. if there is a shred of exculpatory evidence anywhere out there, the appellate attorney is going to find it. those fools do anything to get a criminal off, including suborning perjury, a la troy davis
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 27, 2010 19:44:53 GMT
they were discovered to be innocent by other means is proof beyond a doubt Proof of what, exactly? Proof that the systems puts innocent people on death row? no lad. it's proof that the system gets them off death row before they are executed
|
|