Death Penalty: If this is true, I'm disgusted so much with the population as a whole

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I'm going to say this one more time. I was not talking about the judicial system as a whole. All my statements refer to the DEATH PENALTY. Stop associating my words with that connection. You seem to think that because I support the penalty I support racism or the like. I know the system isn't perfect. I know it needs improvement.

And I'm going to say this one more time (then you'll say that one more time, etc etc)

The death penalty is not seperate from the judicial system.

In other words, as long as we have an imperfect judicial system, then we have an imperfect death penalty.

Ok, if you say that the death penalty in theory under a perfect system is the ultimate punishment, then sure, I'll agree. But then you go on in your post and say that I am the one who takes up the most obvious arguements for no reason? I think you sat in the electric chair a bit too long if that was your conclusion Mr. the ultimate punishment in a hypothetical environment.

You take up the most obvious of arguments and beat everyone over the head with it endlessly for what reason? To prove you are right?

Hey jackass. Read the initial article. If my arguement is so ing obvious, why is there a survey with THOSE results?

[MannyIsGod]

Your justicfications against the death penalty are valid, but also somewhat naive.

I'll let that statement stand on it's own. I think it speaks volumes about my stance. 5 bucks says the first reply Chris has to this is something along the lines of "you're taking that out of context"

You state that the death of one innocent person is too much, that is a perfectly acceptable statement. How many people have been executed that were innocent? I'd like to see the numbers.

I must admit, noo inmate on death row has ever been proven to have been executed mistakenly.

However with this in mind...

On April 8, 2002, Ray Krone was released from prison in Arizona after DNA evidence proved that he was not responsible for the 1991 murder of a Phoenix bartender. Krone became the 100th person exonerated and released from death row since 1973. Convicted twice for a brutal murder, Krone spent ten years in prison, two of them on death row. The DNA evidence that ultimately proved his innocence also implicated the real murderer

Not everyone gets DNA testing even to this day when it may make a difference....

And...

In many other cases, it was good fortune rather than the criminal justice system that established innocence. In several cases, college or law school students investigated cases and unearthed essential evidence. For example, students in an investigative journalism class at Webster University uncovered evidence of misconduct by prosecutors, who talked a witness into giving false testimony and withheld crucial trial evidence, and helped get a new trial for Louisiana death row inmate Richard Clay. If it had not been for the work of these students, an innocent person may have been put to death.

What about the cases where there isn't some good fortune of this sort?

http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm

Now, you may well believe that this never happens and nothing has ever slipped to the cracks, but then who is the one who is somewhat naive

Compare that to how many innocent people have been shot dead by police on the street. Is it acceptable that a single person is killed by mistake on the street? Of course not, but the system is not perfect.

Why should I compare it? Is the use of an imperfect system in one place justification for use of an imperfect system elsewhere?

[MannyIsGod]

Yet more...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/smith/eight/

[MannyIsGod]

Well me, look at this...

Smith had always maintained his innocence of the murder that put him on death row. Since his alleged crime also involved a rape, it was a prime candidate for DNA testing. But the state of Florida resisted his requests for testing. Smith died from cancer while awaiting the legal skirmishes over his fate. When DNA testing was performed posthumously, it excluded Smith as the perpetrator. The prosecution offered a belated apology, but Smith was never granted the freedom that he deserved, and he died under society's worst condemnation for a crime he did not commit.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...id=1149#Sec02a
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...&did=1149#en36

[Useruser666]

Again Manny, you can say that the death penalty and ham sandwiches are tied together and can't be seperated, but it means nothing. MY STATEMENTS REFERED DIRECTLY TO THE DEATH PENALTY ITSELF! You can not change that! Stop trying to make this about everything. in A! What not just say bad things are bad, and everything that is remotely linked to anything bad is bad!

By the way, the quote from that web site:

Smith had always maintained his innocence of the murder that put him on death row. Since his alleged crime also involved a rape, it was a prime candidate for DNA testing. But the state of Florida resisted his requests for testing. Smith died from cancer while awaiting the legal skirmishes over his fate. When DNA testing was performed posthumously, it excluded Smith as the perpetrator. The prosecution offered a belated apology, but Smith was never granted the freedom that he deserved, and he died under society's worst condemnation for a crime he did not commit.

So he died from cancer, not from being executed?! He could have serving life in prison and died from cancer while tryig to prove himself innocent. That's not an argument against the death penalty. You still have not shown a single case of a person that was executed and was later proven innocent. Even if you were to do ent such a case, that does not mean the penalty of death is unjust or too harsh of a sentence. It simply proves the fallibility of the system.

I'll let that statement stand on it's own. I think it speaks volumes about my stance. 5 bucks says the first reply Chris has to this is something along the lines of "you're taking that out of context"

You are not taking that statement, by me, out of context. I understand your reasoning and logic, I just don't agree with it. I see it as one sided if not short sighted.

I don't think the death penalty is really the issue here. When applied correctly and with due process it serves a purpose. I think improvements need to be made with the justice that wields such power.

[MannyIsGod]

I get your point on Smith, and it's a valid point. But do you dispute that it is almost certain that an innocent person has been executed at least one time?

I'm tying the 2 together because they are Chris. You and I disagree that an imperfect death penalty should not be used. Thats all.

You say:

When applied correctly and with due process it serves a purpose.

What woudl that purpose be? Can you produce figures to back up your statement?

[MannyIsGod]

Ok. We obviously disagree that a death penalty that executes innocent people is a competely useless system. But, as far as this goes:

I see it as one sided if not short sighted.

When applied correctly and with due process it serves a purpose.

And even if you are able to produce stats and figures to back that claim up, I woudl argue that that since we both acknowledge the system is not working as it should right now, there should be a moratorium on all executions untill a point that it is.

But mainly, I want to see what info you produce to back up your statement.

[Useruser666]

I get your point on Smith, and it's a valid point. But do you dispute that it is almost certain that an innocent person has been executed at least one time?

I'm tying the 2 together because they are Chris. You and disagree that an imperct death penalty should not be used. Thats all.

You say:



What woudl that purpose be? Can you produce figures to back up your statement?

I would tend to believe that a person has been wrongly executed. But I still think the death penalty is necessary. I don't think it will ever be perfect, but it never will. Manny, have seen Minority Report? If not, go see it.

I don't know how I would gather figures to support the death penalty. I would tend to believe that there is atleast a remote chance that someone who would be subject to death, has a chance of being a danger to society if they were allowed to serve a life sentence. I guess a simple way to state the argument is this way, "A convicted murderer who is dead, can no longer be a threat to society."

[MannyIsGod]

I would tend to believe that a person has been wrongly executed. But I still think the death penalty is necessary. I don't think it will ever be perfect, but it never will. Manny, have seen Minority Report? If not, go see it.

I've seen it, but it's not a great movie. However, I strongly reccomend Dead Man Walking or The Life of David Gale. Much better, much more applicable.

I don't know how I would gather figures to support the death penalty.

Google, where else? Are you saying that your opinion on this is made up with hearsay and opinion rather than facts?

There's nothing wrong with that, most of my opinions don't have hard figures to back them up, but if you're going to sit here and argue with me about it you'd think you'd at least google a few sites.

I would tend to believe that there is atleast a remote chance that someone who would be subject to death, has a chance of being a danger to society if they were allowed to serve a life sentence. I guess a simple way to state the argument is this way, "A convicted murderer who is dead, can no longer be a threat to society."

Ok, I think if you're going to jusify killing innocent people, there should be a burden of proof of showing where the benefit is.

If you believe 1% of executions are done in error (and I honestly believe it's much higher than that) then you should at least produce something showing that you have beneficial effects out of it.

[Clandestino]

in the movie the life of david gale he was not completely innocent either... good movie though...

[Useruser666]

I've seen it, but it's not a great movie. However, I strongly reccomend Dead Man Walking or The Life of David Gale. Much better, much more applicable.


Google, where else? Are you saying that your opinion on this is made up with hearsay and opinion rather than facts?

There's nothing wrong with that, most of my opinions don't have hard figures to back them up, but if you're going to sit here and argue with me about it you'd think you'd at least google a few sites.



Ok, I think if you're going to jusify killing innocent people, there should be a burden of proof of showing where the benefit is.

If you believe 1% of executions are done in error (and I honestly believe it's much higher than that) then you should at least produce something showing that you have beneficial effects out of it.

What I meant was, I don't know where I to find numbers for people in non death penalty states, who have killed again while serving life sentences. You'd have to do a lot of research or just hypothesize. Has there ever been a person who has killed once before, been released and killed again? Or even commited a lesser crime? With out stating specifics I believe I have heard of a few cases like this. It does require a lot more research to have any real argumentative value.

[Spurminator]

Released prisoners have killed again before, and this will continue to happen regardless of any changes to the Capital Punishment system. I don't think it's any more or less preventable whether the Death Penalty is policy or not.

Given that, we CAN prevent innocent people from being executed by abolishing Capital Punishment. Some innocent people will still be incarcerated, even for life, but they will still have life.

[bigzak25]

one murder by a released or escaped convict is one too many...one murder or rape by someone influenced by a man that would otherwise have been on death row is one too many...

the only time i was against the death penalty was when John Coffey walked the green mile....but today, DNA evidence would have saved his ass too....

would you suggest retrial for any and all inmates on death row where there is not conclusive, unrefutable dna evidence?

of course, dna proof is not perfect either....quite the dilemma.

[Useruser666]

So it makes no difference either way? Just that a VERY FEW number of people will get to spend the rest of their lives in prison rather than being executed.

[Spurminator]

It only makes a difference, I think, if you're counting Innocent People Executed. With the Death Penalty abolished, that number will always be zero. I'll take zero over one or two any day.

[Useruser666]

It only makes a difference, I think, if you're counting Innocent People Executed. With the Death Penalty abolished, that number will always be zero. I'll take zero over one or two any day.

But will you take zero and one or two people killed by those would be lifers?

[Spurminator]

I wouldn't think it would make a difference as far as Lifers go. Anyone who would have gotten the Death Penalty would get Life with No Parole, so they're stuck behind bars anyway.

[bigzak25]

the texas 7 was stuck behind bars too, until they weren't.....killed a police officer on christmas eve.

[Spurminator]

Capital Punishment isn't going to prevent prison breaks.

[bigzak25]

Capital Punishment isn't going to prevent prison breaks.

sure it would. dead people don't escape.

seriously though, arent death row inmates much more limited in their access and such....i need to see who was the last death row inmate to escape.....

[Spurminator]

Well, aside from the instance you pointed out, I don't recall many Lifers escaping either... Can you say for sure that the Texas 7 wouldn't have escaped if they were on Death Row? They certainly wouldn't have been executed yet.

I'm all for increased security at prisons, for all sentences. Death Row security is very tight, but I don't think it would suddenly become more relaxed if there were no longer any death sentences.

[Useruser666]

Well, aside from the instance you pointed out, I don't recall many Lifers escaping either... Can you say for sure that the Texas 7 wouldn't have escaped if they were on Death Row? They certainly wouldn't have been executed yet.

I'm all for increased security at prisons, for all sentences. Death Row security is very tight, but I don't think it would suddenly become more relaxed if there were no longer any death sentences.

There would be more ex-death row inmates to keep track of.

[Spurminator]

I doubt it... Considering how few are actually executed each year, it's probably pretty proportional to the number who would die of natural causes during a life sentence.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm going to step out of this untill the propoents of the capital punishment actually bring some facts to the table.

We can sit here and bang around opinions all day long and not get anywhere. Actually, we can sit here and blast away facts all day to and not get anywhere, but at least views hold more credence.

[Useruser666]

I'm going to step out of this untill the propoents of the capital punishment actually bring some facts to the table.

We can sit here and bang around opinions all day long and not get anywhere. Actually, we can sit here and blast away facts all day to and not get anywhere, but at least views hold more credence.

What facts have you brought Manny? Just that one person died while on death row? I have not made my case on statistics, just my own opinions. The stats that I would like to present are not as readily available.