Why the death penalty is stupid

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

:edit:

To clarify the numbers of people freed by DNA in Dallas County and Texas: 31 people in Texas have been fully exonerated through DNA testing in Texas

StandDown Texas Project: Another DNA Exoneration in Dallas County




And then we get to the issue of deny a re-test that would prove innocence or guilt.

DNA retesting denied for Texas death row inmate

There's this catch-22 that "You need the evidence to show you're innocent, but you can't get into court without the evidence." His evidence to prove he's innocent is a DNA test, but they won't do it because he doesn't have evidence that he's innocent. WTF.

Ok. So we are talking TOTAL inmates, not death row inmates.


So what if there was no doubt the person did what they did. Say by DNA evidence and eye witness accounts or even an admission of guilt. Would it be ok for the death penalty then?

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok. So we are talking TOTAL inmates, not death row inmates.


So what if there was no doubt the person did what they did. Say by DNA evidence and eye witness accounts or even an admission of guilt. Would it be ok for the death penalty then?

if they raped or murdered someone, as in a very horrific crime, then yes.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

if they raped or murdered someone, as in a very horrific crime, then yes.

You're focusing on the "horrific crime" and ignoring the "horrific injustice" that could come from executing an innocent person. It's easy to get all worked up when people use sensational examples like raping little girls but that has little bearing on whether execution is right or wrong.

And you STILL refuse to answer my question.

You keep saying "If he did it...." but you're not telling me how you *KNOW* he did it. Is there a reason you're avoiding the obvious answer, "because the jury found him guilty"?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

You're focusing on the "horrific crime" and ignoring the "horrific injustice" that could come from executing an innocent person. It's easy to get all worked up when people use sensational examples like raping little girls but that has little bearing on whether execution is right or wrong.

And you STILL refuse to answer my question.

You keep saying "If he did it...." but you're not telling me how you *KNOW* he did it. Is there a reason you're avoiding the obvious answer, "because the jury found him guilty"?

Hello?

So what if there was no doubt the person did what they did. Say by DNA evidence and eye witness accounts or even an admission of guilt. Would it be ok for the death penalty then?

Are you trying to say there is no way that someone can be found guilty and be 100% right????

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

and i guess i'm in the minority, but i believe in the eye for an eye when it comes to rape or murdering someone in cold blood. that person doesn't deserve to live, and on top of that, their execution brings some closure to the family of those victims.

I know plenty of people feel differently here, but that's how I feel.

So in other words you support revenge instead of justice? Because that is what you are basically saying here, that it is ok to kill someone because it makes somone else feel better.

In any case, some crimes make me very angry, but that does not mean justice system should be there to make me feel better. If I was personally affected, then emotional problems arising from the crime should be dealth with via professional means, not revenge.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hello?



Are you trying to say there is no way that someone can be found guilty and be 100% right????

Are you saying nobody has ever been coerced into a confession?

American Civil Liberties Union : Following New Evidence of Coerced Confessions, NYCLU Calls on Police to Videotape Interrogations

Even if the person stands in court and says "I did it, I want to die" IMO the penalty is too final...too "un-doable." Here are just a few times someone stood up in court and said "I did it" and it was later discovered that the person did not but had some other reason (usually fear) to say they did.

False confession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also find it interesting how many of them were ultimately overturned by DNA, NOT the guy saying that he didn't do it.

This guy is on death row because of a false confession by someone else that also implicated him.

Damien Echols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by 7960

You're focusing on the "horrific crime" and ignoring the "horrific injustice" that could come from executing an innocent person. It's easy to get all worked up when people use sensational examples like raping little girls but that has little bearing on whether execution is right or wrong.

And you STILL refuse to answer my question.

You keep saying "If he did it...." but you're not telling me how you *KNOW* he did it. Is there a reason you're avoiding the obvious answer, "because the jury found him guilty"?

considering i don't have to live in a state with these types of decisions, i don't feel i have to ever worry about the very minute chance of an innocent person being given the death penalty sentence.

but yes, i think if the evidence is there, DNA points to the person, that beyond a reasonable doubt, they are convicted, for whatever horrific crime that warranted the death penalty, that person should be sentenced accordingly.

now i know you're going to dive right in and pick apart, word for word, what i just said, but i don't feel the need to explain myself anymore, so feel free to waste your time and start nitpicking when you know exactly what i'm saying. just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you have to turn all thor on me.

thankyoupleasedrivethrough.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

So in other words you support revenge instead of justice? Because that is what you are basically saying here, that it is ok to kill someone because it makes somone else feel better.

In any case, some crimes make me very angry, but that does not mean justice system should be there to make me feel better. If I was personally affected, then emotional problems arising from the crime should be dealth with via professional means, not revenge.

if someone commits those types of times, their life is forfeit in my opinion.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

considering i don't have to live in a state with these types of decisions, i don't feel i have to ever worry about the very minute chance of an innocent person being given the death penalty sentence.

but yes, i think if the evidence is there, DNA points to the person, that beyond a reasonable doubt, they are convicted, for whatever horrific crime that warranted the death penalty, that person should be sentenced accordingly.

now i know you're going to dive right in and pick apart, word for word, what i just said, but i don't feel the need to explain myself anymore, so feel free to waste your time and start nitpicking when you know exactly what i'm saying. just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you have to turn all thor on me.

thankyoupleasedrivethrough.

good god you know how to avoid a question

I'm not going to pick what you said apart. I'm just trying to rectify the two ideas going back and forth here.......you say "if someone rapes then he should be put to death" but there's also no denying that people are wrongly convicted. So in your world, apparently you're ok with putting a few innocent people to death so that the other really bad guys are stopped.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

good god you know how to avoid a question

I'm not going to pick what you said apart. I'm just trying to rectify the two ideas going back and forth here.......you say "if someone rapes then he should be put to death" but there's also no denying that people are wrongly convicted. So in your world, apparently you're ok with putting a few innocent people to death so that the other really bad guys are stopped.

And you cherry picked my post as well.

You make it seem that it is impossible to be 100% sure someone did something and that is absolutely not true.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And you cherry picked my post as well.

You make it seem that it is impossible to be 100% sure someone did something and that is absolutely not true.

I'm saying that this is not a one-person system. With all the judges, lawyers, witnesses, etc, innocent people are going to get convicted and sent to death row. I'm saying with the finality of the penalty we can't be sure the right decision is made 100% of the time and I'm not willing to stick names on a dartboard year after year hoping we don't execute the wrong guy.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And you cherry picked my post as well.

You make it seem that it is impossible to be 100% sure someone did something and that is absolutely not true.

I don't know how you can say that. how can we ever be 100% certain? I don't see how it's possible.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't know how you can say that. how can we ever be 100% certain? I don't see how it's possible.

He said if there's "DNA evidence and eye witness accounts or even an admission of guilt" then we know 100%.

And then I gave him examples where people stood up in court and said "I did it" and were later exonerated by DNA (not a legal technicality)...........but I cherry picked his post

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

He said if there's "DNA evidence and eye witness accounts or even an admission of guilt" then we know 100%.

And then I gave him examples where people stood up in court and said "I did it" and were later exonerated by DNA (not a legal technicality)...........but I cherry picked his post

I just think that the likley hood that we could ever be 100% certain is so low that even the option of having the death penalty doesn't make sense.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

if someone commits those types of times, their life is forfeit in my opinion.

That isn't the point. Of course we could kill them, that does not mean it is a good idea. In fact it is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

People being upset at something bad happening isn't something that should be addressed by the legal system directly - and all to often it is, which leads to oppression, unfair law and persecution.

An eye for an eye was always supposed to be a limitation, not a minimum. In this day and age we should, as a society move away from irrational decision making and irrational reaction to crime.

The primary goals of the justice system in relation to crime should be:

1) To prevent crime
2) To rehabilitate

Unfortunately the criminal justice system has poor ability to react to specific situations and does little to prevent re-offending (probably increases the chance)

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

That isn't the point. Of course we could kill them, that does not mean it is a good idea. In fact it is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

People being upset at something bad happening isn't something that should be addressed by the legal system directly - and all to often it is, which leads to oppression, unfair law and persecution.

An eye for an eye was always supposed to be a limitation, not a minimum. In this day and age we should, as a society move away from irrational decision making and irrational reaction to crime.

The primary goals of the justice system in relation to crime should be:

1) To prevent crime
2) To rehabilitate

Unfortunately the criminal justice system has poor ability to react to specific situations and does little to prevent re-offending (probably increases the chance)

I don't agree with you.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I just think that the likley hood that we could ever be 100% certain is so low that even the option of having the death penalty doesn't make sense.

And that is a ridiculous statement.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And that is a ridiculous statement.

so 100% of the time the outcome of every trial is always correct?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

so 100% of the time the outcome of every trial is always correct?

That's not what I said and you know it.