Reply With Quote
Ask yourself; who/what is the source of the information you seek?
Then tell us why that information isnt available.
The system is flawed, sure, have I ever said it wasn't. Just because there are flaws doesn't mean we should do away with the death penalty. The SMALL chance that an innocent person is convicted AND put to death is worth having a such a punishment. No one has come forward with a single stat that shows how many people have wrongly been put to death yet. I'd honestly like to know the figures. If someone could show me a good percentage of cases where this was happening, then I'd have to reconsider my position. I'm already in favor of looking at what the qualifications are for receiving a death sentence.
Ask yourself; who/what is the source of the information you seek?
Then tell us why that information isnt available.
This thread has nothing to do with due process. It has everything to do with the death penalty and the case talked about in the article. Even so, I don't think due process was a real issue in that case. It seems more like witness tampering, ovsealous police/prosecuters, and lying witnesses had the main impact on the outcome.
What I'm asking for is very simple.
"How many people that have been executed in the US have been later proven innocent?"
I honestly don't know the answer. I have never heard of a single case of this happening, but have heard stories simlar to the one in the article that atleast raised su ions about a few cases. I certainly have heard of people being found innocent who were on death row or were serving life or other length sentences for crimes that they did not commit.
My point to SpursWoman was that if due process rights are not respected, you could be punished without having committed any crime, just as Cantu was punished without having committed a crime. I never said that his due process rights were violated.
and we've heard of cases where people fully found guilty of crime were let go .. due to some technicality in the process....
Again, it's a flawed system, which is why we can't trust the system to determine life or death.
For a number of reasons, I don't know that there's a definitive answer to the question. But in an effort to further the discussion, here are some resources I found. To dispense with the bias arguments that are likely to surface, it stands to reason that the only people who would be opining on the likelihood of executing the innocent are those who favor the abolition of the death penalty. So, of course, these studies are derived from people or interest groups with that perspective. With that said, here you go:
1. Here's a Fall 1998 law journal article discussing the situation we're talking about here and providing some hard numbers on exonerations.
Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems (Fall 1998)
2. Here's a series of fact sheets from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty that provide numbers (as of January 1, 2005) related to death row populations by demographic and a survey of cases in which inmates were found to be innocent:
NCADP Main Page
1/1/05 Death Row Population
Fact Sheet on Innocence
3. Here's the prepared statement of Barry Scheck (famed DNA expert of the O.J. Simpson defense) provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2000, concerning DNA acquittals of death row inmates:
Scheck Testimony
Well, if you discount the possibility that due process has anything to do with assuring that defendants get fair trials (which seems to me to be the heart of due process, but why trifle?) then I guess you're right.
Usually, things like witness tampering, overzealous police/prosecutors, and lying witnesses directly present due process problems.
Yes, heaven forbid we make the State play by all of the rules before it punishes someone by taking away his life and liberty. If we think someone is guilty, why bother with the State's obligation to live up to the Cons ution and trifling things like that?
If we think he's guilty, why bother with the need for probable cause to effectuate an arrest? If we think he's guilty, who cares about whether the search that found the instrumentality of the crime was proper or not? If we think he's guilty, send him up, even he wasn't aware of his rights and gave an incriminating statement without counsel present.
I mean, those are just insignificant matters, really. We know he's guilty; that should be enough.
The glove was too tight, or something like that.....right? *sigh*
You stated it was the point of this thread. I never saw anyone arguing that due process shouldn't be followed. In my support of the death penalty I am not taking lightly what it means to render a death sentence. It is a very serious thing to take a person's life. I also am well aware that there are flaws in the system today that gives out such judgments. I still believe, even despite these things, that capital punishment is necessary in today's society.
That wasn't a case were a sentence was overturned on a technicality. A jury found Simpson innocent of the crimes at his trial.
How necessary can it be when there are states, and entire nations, without the death penalty that continue to function? Also, this country did not fall into chaos during those years when the death penalty was not available. I think saying that it is "necessary" is a bit much.
Well they aren't going to answer you so....
Police, DA's & prosecutors.
On what basis are those people promoted?
On the basis of how fairly they administer justice...?
Sure, that is the reason why there isn't a do ented case? I'd like to know of one that's out there. I don't believe that the death penalty has been 100% accurate, but I'd be very surprised if the percentage of wrongly accused people was greater than one tenth of one percent.
The point is, we'll never know how many are out there, because it is not in the people who would be able to supply that information to divulge it.
It wasn't a Democratic congress that impeached Clinton, and it wasn't a Republican one that impeached Nixon.
Besides implying that all the cases involving sentencing blacks is based on racial bias, you'd have to ignore the fact that half the jury is black on those occasions and that would totally undermine your implication. If more blacks commit 1st degree murders than whites simply becuase of environmental reasons,( and i'm not talking about global warming, acid rain, or the ozone for all you who were about to jump the gun on qouting this one line to diminish my argument.), then you are going to have a disproportianate amount of blacks being executed.Even if what you said was so, i can assure you that the idea of capital punishment and the system that now executes the idea are two seperate en ies. Capital punishment does not kill blacks for being blacks. That's like saying that guns intentionally kill african americans. IF the system is unjust. Fix it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, it wouldn't. The jury does not decide whether to make the death penalty available as punishment for cases. The prosecutors make that decision. If prosecutors make more Blacks death penalty eligible than whites, the numbers would be higher for Blacks regardless of the juries.
I am not saying that more minorities are being executed, I am saying that minorities are executed at a higher-rate than their non-minority counterparts who have committed comparable crimes.
Obviously, you cannot implement the idea without the system. If either one is flawed, then the entire process is unjust.
I don't know that it is possible to fix the system, since the system relies on people and people will always bring their biases, prejudices, and fears into the jury box, prosecutor's table, and judge's bench with them. That's why I think using death as a form of punishment is unworkable.
So you just assume it happens all of the time because it's happened once?
I truly understand and agree with a lot of the points the anti-death penalty side is making, and unlike some I don't feel the need to be an asshole to those that don't agree with me. But I believe in equal justice....and as long as I believe that sick, twisted bas s like this do not deserve to live:
I'd be inconsistent if I said only certain murders deserved to fry and not others. I'm willing to bet the story that prompted this thread is a very isolated, atypical scenario...and as it should be, those sentenced to death have either admitted it and/or have evidence against them that is irrefutable, not just heresay as this seems to had to have been.
And no amount of insults are going to change how I feel about it as long as there are people like McVeigh out there committing beyond-heinous crimes.
I am saying that minorities are executed at a higher-rate than their non-minority counterparts who have committed comparable crimes.
If that's the case than obviously that is bull .
^the comparable crimes qualifier is idiotic since every case is different and has it's nuances.
So all that nuances just so happen to be in favor of non-minority defendants. Wow. What a coincidence!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
