The thing about executing people who didn't do what they are accused of is that once you kill them, they stop trying to prove they didn't do it. You are calling for them to have even less time to do this before you kill them.
9. Execution of the innocent
As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.
Since 1973, 113 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.
The then Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed. In January 2003 Governor Ryan pardoned four death row prisoners and commuted all 167 other death sentences in Illinois.
10. The death penalty in the USA
65 prisoners were executed in the USA in 2003, bringing the year-end total to 885 executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977. The 900th execution was carried out on 3 March 2004.
Over 3,500 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2004.
if 113 people have been released, it stands to reason that some innocents were not given that luxury. The death penalty is not a deterrent, and is barbaric.
You lib types keep thinking the same crime fighting evidence techniques and gathering tools are the same today as they were 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. Defense attorney's scream for DNA testing and when it doesn't go their way, the technicians, doctors and scientists are inept or corrupt even though the evidence points toward their client. If the DNA evidence excludes their client, that's good for all.
It's the best Judicial system in the world. Is it perfect?...no.
But when it comes to Iraq, the libs poo-poo the "judicial" system under saddam. It's all about oil, don't ya know. Nevermind that 100's of thousands were slaughtered without due process. It's all about the oil. Nevermind the world has been rid of a mass murderer. It's all about oil.
Perhaps Damon and Co. think there is a better system somewhere.
Here's a question the liberals can never answer honestly. A 3 time convicted felon enters your house at night, kiddnaps and kills your 2 year old sister. "Would you be in favor of the death penalty then"?
and your a lying sack. Perhaps you would give the killer a hug like Dukakis said he would. What's Willie Horton up to these days? Room enough for the both of you in mom's basement, Damon?
He asked for a new trial seven years ago after police documents surfaced casting doubt on his guilt, including a statement from a witness who said two other people committed the murder.
Adams' attorney, John J. Barter, also found that the state's star witness had changed his story several times. Another witness recanted her testimony before she died.
I read about a study done by three Cornell professors who are anti-death-penalty. They found that black representation on death row is lower than black representation in the population of murder offenders. And per 100 murderers, 2.8 whites are executed while 1.5 blacks are executed.
Furthermore, by state, Nevada executes more murderers proportionally than Texas. In fact, Texas's rate is below the national average. In terms of executions per 100 murderers, Nevada executes 6, Oklahoma 5, Arizona 4, Florida and Pennsylvania each 3, and the states of Texas and Indiana 2.
The study is online in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, but you have to pay to see it.
Pro. I've been back and forth on it in my life, mostly pro, but when I saw a television special about how Richard Speck made a pretty cushy life for himself in prison at taxpayer expense, my view got set in concrete.
I'm sure there are folks on death row who are redeemable, who could become productive and even help others. But there's no objective way to determine that at the time of sentencing. And I believe that some crimes simply require the ultimate penalty.
Sounds like we're about the same on our view of it. Everytime I think I might be changing my outlook I hear of something like those 3 kids getting their heads sawed off and I say, nope, fry them. About the only thing I've changed on I guess is that I think the evidence should be more than concrete. DNA, a confession, multiple witness to the crime or video of it etc.
The public defender's office in this area is complaining about having to cut staff due to decreased state aid. Well, just about every state aid recipient has had some kind of decreased funding. The Republican Governor promised a balanced budget without raising taxes and he delivered.
There are 41 full time public defenders in this mostly rural area. They all have support staff. Seems a little fat.
"The deadlock instruction gives rise to an unconstitutionally palpable risk that one or more jurors who cannot bear the thought that a defendant may walk the streets again ... will join jurors favoring death in order to avoid the deadlock sentence," wrote Judge George Bundy Smith for the majority of the court.
It sounds to me more like a poorly-written law. If the jurors can't decide between death and life without parole, the judge can give him a sentence WITH parole?
I tried the link to go back to the story but it isn't letting me go there right now. But I still think it's a bad law, in that if a jury can't decide between death and life without parole, a judge can give the convicted person a sentence that includes the possibility of parole.
Death Penalty Debated for California Cop Killer
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118244,00.html
Harris ran for office on an anti-death penalty platform, but police say this is clearly a capital case regardless of her personal beliefs.
I have to agree. I for one am against the death penalty, but I'd have to abide by the law, and not my personal beliefs.
She simply shouldn't have gone for the job if she knew she couldn't uphold the law.
I'm a firm believer in the death penalty for certain cases. Cases that shock the conscience. One appeal that includes any DNA testing. That's it.
I don't think we should back away from the death penalty for cop killers. It should be automatic.
I think the death penalty should be in play when the evidence is overwhelming and I mean extremlely overwhelming. DNA, eyewitness, confession etc.
The only problem is with the current system it costs more to have a prisoner on death row than to put them in general population for life.
Probably because their appeals can take years. If the system were streamlined it would take less time and thus cost less.
and would result in even more people being killed for something they didn't do.
Name one.
do the math
Name one.
The thing about executing people who didn't do what they are accused of is that once you kill them, they stop trying to prove they didn't do it. You are calling for them to have even less time to do this before you kill them.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Name one.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
I don't doubt innocent people have been executed.
The # of people the "Innocence Project" has helped alone makes me believe this.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
The trouble with the "Innocence Project" is they only concern themselves with those they actually have a chance of "saving".
They don't bother with those that have already been executed. So, we may never know how many have been executed that didn't "deserve" it.
if 113 people have been released, it stands to reason that some innocents were not given that luxury. The death penalty is not a deterrent, and is barbaric.
The death penalty is not a deterrent, and is barbaric.
I would agree.
Now, how do you feel about abortion?
keep the topics seperate, if you wish to have a conversation about abortion, create another thread
I mean really, what's the point?
They are already dead.
keep the topics seperate, if you wish to have a conversation about abortion, create another thread
Fine, answer here.
Rich T "Abortion debate" 4/27/04 10:17pm
already did
I mean really, what's the point?
They are already dead.
Exactly.
Opportunity cost.
You can't save the dead.
They shouldn't be dead
They shouldn't be dead
Nope, they shouldn't be.
There is a very small segment of the population that shouldn't be allowed to live after certain crimes.
and if they are falsely accused of those crimes?
You lib types keep thinking the same crime fighting evidence techniques and gathering tools are the same today as they were 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. Defense attorney's scream for DNA testing and when it doesn't go their way, the technicians, doctors and scientists are inept or corrupt even though the evidence points toward their client. If the DNA evidence excludes their client, that's good for all.
It's the best Judicial system in the world. Is it perfect?...no.
But when it comes to Iraq, the libs poo-poo the "judicial" system under saddam. It's all about oil, don't ya know. Nevermind that 100's of thousands were slaughtered without due process. It's all about the oil. Nevermind the world has been rid of a mass murderer. It's all about oil.
Perhaps Damon and Co. think there is a better system somewhere.
Here's a question the liberals can never answer honestly. A 3 time convicted felon enters your house at night, kiddnaps and kills your 2 year old sister. "Would you be in favor of the death penalty then"?
No, two wrongs don't make a right
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html
and your a lying sack. Perhaps you would give the killer a hug like Dukakis said he would. What's Willie Horton up to these days? Room enough for the both of you in mom's basement, Damon?
I'm not saying the person does not deserve punishment.
But the person does not deserve death.
Another death row inmate released.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/20/conviction.overturned.ap/index.html
He asked for a new trial seven years ago after police documents surfaced casting doubt on his guilt, including a statement from a witness who said two other people committed the murder.
Adams' attorney, John J. Barter, also found that the state's star witness had changed his story several times. Another witness recanted her testimony before she died.
No you go to the chair in the morning.
I read about a study done by three Cornell professors who are anti-death-penalty. They found that black representation on death row is lower than black representation in the population of murder offenders. And per 100 murderers, 2.8 whites are executed while 1.5 blacks are executed.
Furthermore, by state, Nevada executes more murderers proportionally than Texas. In fact, Texas's rate is below the national average. In terms of executions per 100 murderers, Nevada executes 6, Oklahoma 5, Arizona 4, Florida and Pennsylvania each 3, and the states of Texas and Indiana 2.
The study is online in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, but you have to pay to see it.
Â
Â
Â
Interesting stuff. Thanks Muskwa.
Â
BTW are you pro or con ?
Pro. I've been back and forth on it in my life, mostly pro, but when I saw a television special about how Richard Speck made a pretty cushy life for himself in prison at taxpayer expense, my view got set in concrete.
I'm sure there are folks on death row who are redeemable, who could become productive and even help others. But there's no objective way to determine that at the time of sentencing. And I believe that some crimes simply require the ultimate penalty.
Sounds like we're about the same on our view of it. Everytime I think I might be changing my outlook I hear of something like those 3 kids getting their heads sawed off and I say, nope, fry them. About the only thing I've changed on I guess is that I think the evidence should be more than concrete. DNA, a confession, multiple witness to the crime or video of it etc.
The public defender's office in this area is complaining about having to cut staff due to decreased state aid. Well, just about every state aid recipient has had some kind of decreased funding. The Republican Governor promised a balanced budget without raising taxes and he delivered.
There are 41 full time public defenders in this mostly rural area. They all have support staff. Seems a little fat.
Not really, a public defender should have as many resources at his.her disposal as a private attorney
Although a balanced budget=money
Public Defender use should require some type of fee. That should be mandatory for multiple users.
Most people who use a public defender won't need them again
Most people who use a public defender won't need them again
Oh yes they do.
According to the defenders here, 6% of the population use their (our) service. Of that, 57% have used it before.
Oh yes they do.
Nah, most of the time they get the Death Penalty
Nah, most of the time they get the Death Penalty
And then the public defender will handle the intial appeals. And many commit crimes while in prison. Guess who gets to handle those cases?
point conceded
"The deadlock instruction gives rise to an unconstitutionally palpable risk that one or more jurors who cannot bear the thought that a defendant may walk the streets again ... will join jurors favoring death in order to avoid the deadlock sentence," wrote Judge George Bundy Smith for the majority of the court.
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123633,00.html
A sure case of the political opinions of the judges superceeding the law.
It sounds to me more like a poorly-written law. If the jurors can't decide between death and life without parole, the judge can give him a sentence WITH parole?
It sounds to me more like a poorly-written law.
How so? It sounds as if it is a clearly written law.
I tried the link to go back to the story but it isn't letting me go there right now. But I still think it's a bad law, in that if a jury can't decide between death and life without parole, a judge can give the convicted person a sentence that includes the possibility of parole.