Why the death penalty is stupid

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

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

right. what you said was in ONE individual trial it's possible to be 100% sure that ONE guy did it and it'd be ok to execute him.

are you sure that's possible for 10 trials? or 100? or 1,000?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

right. what you said was in ONE individual trial it's possible to be 100% sure that ONE guy did it and it'd be ok to execute him.

are you sure that's possible for 10 trials? or 100? or 1,000?

You have to take it case by case. Some are clear cut and there is no doubt.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You have to take it case by case. Some are clear cut and there is no doubt.

And then 27 years later they find that there was doubt and they relea..........oh wait, he's dead.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

I don't agree with you.

Which is obvious, I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I was merely pointing out the current system is irrational.

People with your attitude are exactly why the death penalty shouldn't be an option, this attitude is the same thing that drives "mob justice".

I would go as far as saying this sort of attitude is dangerous, divisive and unjust.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I would go as far as saying this sort of attitude is dangerous, divisive and unjust.

you think it's unjust. i think in certain situations, it's more than warranted.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

you think it's unjust. i think in certain situations, it's more than warranted.

Your outlook and responses are bit childish. With each of your posts I get this image of a kid with his fingers in his ears going "LALALALALALA" so he can hear the truth.

You admit the system isn't perfect, you know people lie, cheat, steal, and say what's going to benefit them the most, and yet you still hold on to this belief that some things are "so bad" that we should set all that aside and kill someone for what you *think* you know with 100% certainty.

So the question...........how can you know it with 100% certainty if the system isn't perfect, people lie, cheat, steal, and say what's going to benefit them the most?

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by 7960

Your outlook and responses are bit childish. You admit the system isn't perfect, you know people lie, cheat, steal, and say what's going to benefit them the most, and yet you still hold on to this belief that some things are "so bad" that we should set all that aside and kill someone for what you *think* you know with 100% certainty.

So the question...........how can you know it with 100% certainty if the system isn't perfect, people lie, cheat, steal, and say what's going to benefit them the most?

there are certain instances where it is possible to know with 100% certainty that some horrific crime was committed and who committed it. in these far and few instances, i feel if agreed upon in court, the death penalty is warranted. and skewing that whichever way you want to spin it, with this hypothetical and this or that possible scenario, isn't going to change my mind.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

there are certain instances where it is possible to know with 100% certainty that some horrific crime was committed and who committed it. in these far and few instances, i feel if agreed upon in court, the death penalty is warranted.

I'm sure that everyone had "100% certainty" when they put this guy in jail 27 years ago.

Man cleared by DNA free after 27 years - CNN.com

and skewing that whichever way you want to spin it, with this hypothetical and this or that possible scenario, isn't going to change my mind.

I know it's not going to change your mind. You're sitting there with your fingers in your ears singing "LALALALALA."

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

there are certain instances where it is possible to know with 100% certainty that some horrific crime was committed and who committed it. in these far and few instances, i feel if agreed upon in court, the death penalty is warranted. and skewing that whichever way you want to spin it, with this hypothetical and this or that possible scenario, isn't going to change my mind.

Even DNA evidance is not 100% certain. If you could find with a 99.99% certainty that the DNA at the scene matched the DNA of the accused, that's only, what 1 out of 10,000? With 6 billion people on the planet, and 300 million people in this country, there are 30,000 DNA "matches" in the US alone, 600,000 in the world. So with, lets say, 30,000 other people that could also match the DNA and are in the country, are you 100% certain that you have the right person?
I am just questioning your idea that it's possible to be 100% certain about anything. In my opinion it's a bit like a limit in calc. Your certainty can approch 100% but it can never reach it. As you add in additional factors, such as DNA, finger prints, eye witness accounts, etc, your degree of certainty increased and can be close to 100% but it can never reach it.
You can give me any case you can think of and I gaurantee you there is an alternate explantion, however unlikely, that would make your accused person not guilty.

[imind]

A former F.B.I. scientist pleaded guilty to falsifying DNA evidence reports in dozens of cases. The scientist, Jacqueline M. Blake, 40, faces a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. She admitted that from 1999 to 2002, she certified that she had completed DNA control tests in more than 100 cases when she had not. Justice Department officials said her false statements did not affect the outcome of any criminal cases. Eric Lichtblau (NYT)

link

that her misconduct did not affect the outcome of any cases is irrelevant. even dna evidence is by no means 100% trustworthy.

we have no business executing people given an, as already labeled, fallible justice system.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You can give me any case you can think of and I gaurantee you there is an alternate explantion, however unlikely, that would make your accused person not guilty.

I remember reading aobut a defense lawyer's answer to the question "how can you defend those people?"

He said he had a clear-cut case where a girl was driving drunk, went off the road and had some horrific accident where the passenger died. Between how drunk she was and her injuries she had no memory of the evening. So here she is on trial for (manslaughter? whatever) and on the stand one of the first responders gave a description that ended up meaning this girl had to be the passenger, not the driver. The police had asked this guy for his story a bunch of times and other lawyers had questioned him and it either didn't get recorded or he never mentioned it. If not for this testimony and a quick-thinking lawyer she would have gone to jail for years and lived thinking she killed the other girl.

An alternate explanation, however unlikely, that would make your accused person not guilty. Even at 99.999% there is still too much room for mistakes, corruption, and "iron clad" evidence to be wrong.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

you think it's unjust. i think in certain situations, it's more than warranted.

Which is an emotional response, and there are some circunstances that make me feel the same way. That does not mean it is a good idea to act that way.

[DosEquis]

Personally I think killing someone via the death penalty is creating the easy way out for them. I'd rather they are put in a prison cell for the rest of their lives so they can sit for the next 20-30-40 years thinking about it.

[kombayn]

Well, the thing is... They actually wait a good 10 to 15 years before they execute the prisoner. Some studies have said this is a form of mental torture. Knowing you're going to be executed some day. I completely agree though, let them rot in prison. Also, I think criminals should have to pay back the people they harm or cause in damages.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You have to take it case by case. Some are clear cut and there is no doubt.

And I am sure there was no doubt, in any of these cases that have been proven wrong. How does what is clear cut to you dictate infallible truth?