Why the death penalty is stupid

[Donkey®]

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

Originally Posted by article

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A Dallas man who spent more than 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit was freed Tuesday, after being incarcerated longer than any other wrongfully convicted U.S. inmate cleared by DNA testing.

James Lee Woodard stepped out of the courtroom and raised his arms to a throng of photographers.

Supporters and other people gathered outside the court erupted in applause.

"No words can express what a tragic story yours is," state District Judge Mark Stoltz told Woodard at a brief hearing before his release.

Woodard, cleared of the 1980 murder of his girlfriend, became the 18th person in Dallas County to have his conviction cast aside. That's a figure unmatched by any county nationally, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal center that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions.

"I thank God for the existence of the Innocence Project," Woodard, 55, told the court. "Without that, I wouldn't be here today. I would be wasting away in prison."

Overall, 31 people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high. That does not include Woodard and at least three others whose exonerations will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally accepts the ruling of lower courts that have already recommended exoneration.

How do you rectify a situation like this if you kill the guy?

[Linzyhop]

isn't there a movie about this with kate winslet and kevin spacey make a movie about this very thing? The Life of David Gale?

[motivez]

Stories like this are the exact reason for the lengthy appeals process.. if the government wants to end someone's life, it certainly shouldn't be easy or quick to do so.. and the person who's life would be ended should be afforded every opportunity to defend themselves in the courts.

Maybe someone will say "What about if it's obvious?" -- well, you don't have rules like that in place for when it's obvious, you have them for situations like this, and everyone should be treated the same.

[Stylerod]

DNA testing it making us even more sure that the people who are convicted are actually guilty. And then this kind of thing won't happen again.

[A_C_E]

I agree, the death penalty is stupid. For two reasons:

1.) It costs the taxpayers more money to execute someone than it does to shut them up in prison for life without parole.

2.) If we were to execute so much as one innocent person, regardless of the time period or total number of people executed, then our judicial system has utterly failed. It isn't worth it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

DNA testing it making us even more sure that the people who are convicted are actually guilty. And then this kind of thing won't happen again.

You can't guarantee it, and there is no advantage to the death penalty. It doesn't reduce crime. It does not deter. It does not correct behavior. It's just revenge. What is the difference whether he is in a cement box for the rest of his life or dead? If dead has no advantage over life in a box, and death is irreversible, why should we be putting people to death?

That is not even considering the moral/religous aspects of it. Most religons preach against the death penalty but that's really not a government issue.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

How do you rectify a situation like this if you kill the guy?

You don't. It's the one reason why I think the death penalty is wrong. If courts were infallible then I'd be all for death, but they're not so it shouldn't be an option.

[Kytro]

I have to agree the death penalty is a bad idea, and is little more than revenge.

There are better alternatives in almost all cases, though we don't explore all the options currently.

As long as the current system remains in place for finding people guilty, I can't support any harsh measures.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

2.) If we were to execute so much as one innocent person, regardless of the time period or total number of people executed, then our judicial system has utterly failed. It isn't worth it.

You'd be surprised how many people, even people on this board, disagree with your statement.

There are people who believe it'd be ok to kill a few innocent people if it means getting a bunch of real murderers off the street. You Blackstone's "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," saying? There are people who believe that's an equation that means it's ok to kill/jail some innocent people.

n Guilty Men

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

You'd be surprised how many people, even people on this board, disagree with your statement.

There are people who believe it'd be ok to kill a few innocent people if it means getting a bunch of real murderers off the street. You Blackstone's "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," saying? There are people who believe that's an equation that means it's ok to kill/jail some innocent people.

n Guilty Men

Well, people are certainly entitled to their opinions.

Our judicial system, however, is built upon a notion of procedural justice. Ideally, if you are guilty of a crime, you receive a certain punishment. likewise, then, if you are not guilty, you will not be punished. To execute (pun intended) the ultimate punishment on someone guilty of no crime is the most egregious violation possible of our procedural judicial system. It shakes the very core of our judicial process.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Well, people are certainly entitled to their opinions.

Our judicial system, however, is built upon a notion of procedural justice. Ideally, if you are guilty of a crime, you receive a certain punishment. likewise, then, if you are not guilty, you will not be punished. To execute (pun intended) the ultimate punishment on someone guilty of no crime is the most egregious violation possible of our procedural judicial system. It shakes the very core of our judicial process.

I went grave digging (pun intended)

my question:
(do you think) it's ok to kill a few innocent people so we can punish the guilty ones.

his answer:
Yes. They had their chance in court, they had their appeals, for whatever reasons the powers that be were not in their favor. I see the deaths of the HUGE VAST GIGANCTIC statistical majority that are rightly convicted are worth this minor loss.

Let's talk Death Penalty

It's a "minor loss" when an innocent person is executed.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You can't guarantee it, and there is no advantage to the death penalty. It doesn't reduce crime. It does not deter. It does not correct behavior. It's just revenge. What is the difference whether he is in a cement box for the rest of his life or dead? If dead has no advantage over life in a box, and death is irreversible, why should we be putting people to death?

That is not even considering the moral/religous aspects of it. Most religons preach against the death penalty but that's really not a government issue.

Some crimes are bad enough that death is deserved. Some guy rapes and murders a few little girls. Gets convicted and spends the rest of his life eating free meals, getting free education, working out and watching Deal or no Deal. Yeah, great justice.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Some crimes are bad enough that death is deserved. Some guy rapes and murders a few little girls. Gets convicted and spends the rest of his life eating free meals, getting free education, working out and watching Deal or no Deal. Yeah, great justice.

You make prison sound like a walk in the park.

Try sleeping in a concrete cell, having to undergo 7 hours of mandatory vocational training every day, and 6 AM wake-up and roll-call after being beaten and raped by a 6'6 280 pound dude every night.

Seven nights a week.

52 weeks a year.

For the rest of your fucking life.

You make it sound like you're living in a hotel. It doesn't work like that.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

You make prison sound like a walk in the park.

Try sleeping in a concrete cell, having to undergo 7 hours of mandatory vocational training every day, and 6 AM wake-up and roll-call after being beaten and raped by a 6'6 280 pound dude every night.

Seven nights a week.

52 weeks a year.

For the rest of your fucking life.

You make it sound like you're living in a hotel. It doesn't work like that.

People adjust. That's why we are so successful in this world. Soldiers sleep in a muddy whole in the ground with gunfire and explosions going off. They adjust and adapt and it becomes "normal". Just like prisoners. They adjust to their surrounding and get used to it and it becomes their life. They are a whole lot better off then the person or people they murdered.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Some crimes are bad enough that death is deserved. Some guy rapes and murders a few little girls. Gets convicted and spends the rest of his life eating free meals, getting free education, working out and watching Deal or no Deal. Yeah, great justice.

I totally agree.

And when we create a system that guarantees an innocent person will never be convicted and put to death then I'll be the first to sign the petition to re-instate the death penalty.

But until then humans are too infallible to judge and put other humans to death.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Some crimes are bad enough that death is deserved. Some guy rapes and murders a few little girls. Gets convicted and spends the rest of his life eating free meals, getting free education, working out and watching Deal or no Deal. Yeah, great justice.

Those crimes seem to happen as frequently as innocent people being convicted for something they didn't do. Why is one innocent victim different from the other? How is the little girl raped and killed any more of a victim than the guy jailed and executed for a crime he didn't commit?

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Those crimes seem to happen as frequently as innocent people being convicted for something they didn't do. Why is one innocent victim different from the other? How is the little girl raped and killed any more of a victim than the guy jailed and executed for a crime he didn't commit?

This is a foolish statement. Little girls are raped and killed monumentally more often than innocent people are executed.

I agree in principle with your point, but you're doing a very poor job arguing it. Just trying to offer some a priori advice.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

They are a whole lot better off then the person or people they murdered.

No the people the killed are dead and no longer feel anything. The people who suffer are the friends / family of the victims, and they too (usually) get on with their lives and adjust.

The death penalty serves primarily as revenge, and is not an actual punishment.

[kombayn]

Yeah, I have to agree with the Anti-Death Penalty posters here... If only 1 innocent person dies, the system is flawed. I've been a pretty Pro-Death Penalty person, but the points made here may have to make me reconsider my stance... Because it's true. The courts are not infallible.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

This is a foolish statement. Little girls are raped and killed monumentally more often than innocent people are executed.

I agree in principle with your point, but you're doing a very poor job arguing it. Just trying to offer some a priori advice.

"Monumentally?" Really? How many girls are you assuming are raped and killed? Just in the article they are saying 31 people in Texas alone have been cleared of crimes they didn't commit. We can use any number you want for the rest of the US, how about 5 per state? 49 x 5 = 245...and I think 5 per state is a conservative number. The only thing I can't say is what timeframe this is within...my conservative guess would be when DNA testing became more prevalent and reliable in the US...I'd say that was around the mid to late 80's? How many raped and murdered little girls have their been? You think 1000? That is NOT way off from the number of wrongly convicted men freed by DNA testing. While it may not be the greatest comparison, it isn't as far-fetched as you're trying to make it seem...besides, my point got across just fine.