Reply With Quote
Reading your posts is like watching Jerry Springer. It's completely mindless entertainment.
*This post was sponsored by the AFI (American Fun Ins ute)
Reading his posts is like watching a car accident unfold before your eyes. You shouldn't look, you know it's going to turn out horribly, but you can't turn away.
BTW, what is your fascination with me?
Reading your posts is like watching Jerry Springer. It's completely mindless entertainment.
*This post was sponsored by the AFI (American Fun Ins ute)
sounds like his friend is the one who killed him to me.. he should've spoken up a long time ago...
whoa Clandestino
have you and whottt been on a retreat for freedom or what?
some of us have to work
That's the flaw in the system. That and the fact that cops are a crooked bunch.
You don't get it do you!? Its doesn't matter who is at fault, the man was innocent! If an innocent man can be executed by mistake, no matter why or how, the death penalty shouldn't be implemented.
Where does it say he was innocent?
This is the quote from the initial post in this thread:
Executed man may have been innocent
How many innocent people do we sacrifice on the altar of vengence?
I would rather see them in jail for life than executed. You dodged the fact that it costs more.
Time out of society is all we need. That is what prisons are for.
What is your point here, other than to slam whatever it is I happen to be saying?
What's funny about it and why would you post this a mere 45 minutes after the thread was started?
I'm not against nor am I a diehard supporter of the death penalty but there have been 100,000 "innocent" people murdered since 1999, are those the innocent people you are referring to?
My understanding is that there is no proof that any innocent man has been executed so how does that temotely justify an arguement against the death penalty in light of the fact that 100,000 innocent victims were brutally and unmistakenly identified as being murdered in the last 6 years alone?
Typical BS that goes on where the victims are virtually ignored while the criminals are treated by some as if they're the victims!
^^^Cary Ann Medlin - "Jesus love you, Jesus loves you" said over and over to her rapist just before he murdered her.
Go ahead and support with your dying breath the right of s bags like the one that murdered Cary having the right to live based on the hypothetical premise that somewhere down the line one innocent person might be executed.
How proud you must be, you that are so full of concern and compassion for those that have shown no regard for human life.
Sleep well in remembrance of Cary.
All this boils down to is the simple saying that has been around since Biblical times.
"You can't make an omelete without breaking an egg."
None have been that I know of but go present that arguement to the families of those whose cherished Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons and Daughters that have been senselessly and brutally murdered.
Personalize it RG, the question you pose may not be so easy to throw out there.
WTF does the time of a post have to do with anything?What's funny about it and why would you post this a mere 45 minutes after the thread was started?
I'm not against nor am I a diehard supporter of the death penalty but there have been 100,000 "innocent" people murdered since 1999
My understanding is that there is no proof that any innocent man has been executed so how does that temotely justify an arguement against the death penalty in light of the fact that 100,000 innocent victims were brutally and unmistakenly identified as being murdered in the last 6 years alone?
Typical BS that goes on where the victims are virtually ignored while the criminals are treated by some as if they're the victims!
^^^Cary Ann Medlin - "Jesus love you, Jesus loves you" said over and over to her rapist just before he murdered her.
Go ahead and support with your dying breath the right of s bags like the one that murdered Cary having the right to live based on the hypothetical premise that somewhere down the line one innocent person might be executed.
How proud you must be, you that are so full of concern and compassion for those that have shown no regard for human life.
Sleep well in remembrance of Cary.
Where did I say I support "with my dying breath" s bags?
And I sleep very well with a clear conscious and I guess your own BS makes you proud of yourself. Step off the pedestal you've put yourself on and get back to earth like the rest of.
Yeah..you are one to talk about typical BS.
Hit a nerve did I? Good! That's what I meant to do!WTF does the time of a post have to do with anything?
Where did I say I support "with my dying breath" s bags?
And I sleep very well with a clear conscious and I guess your own BS makes you proud of yourself. Step off the pedestal you've put yourself on and get back to earth like the rest of.
Yeah..you are one to talk about typical BS.
The first sentence of my post that you alluded to was aimed directly at you, the rest of my post consisted of my personal feelings about the topic in general. Personalize if you need to.
My observation was that this thread was too top heavy in worrying about the hypothetical innocent"1" that might be executied with little or no thought for the multiplied thousands of innocents that without question are executed (murdered) on a yearly basis.
My compassion is with the victims of those on death row, not with the imaginary wrongfully executed person. If you consider that "sitting on a pedestal" then I sit there with a clear conscience.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 11-26-2005 at 11:04 AM.
I'm sure that there have been innocent people executed.
In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...d=1617&scid=64
Executive Summary
The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the criminal justice system is getting worse. A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate.
This report tells the stories of people like Rolando Cruz, released after 10 years on Illinois's death row, despite the fact that another man had confessed to the crime shortly after his conviction; and Ricardo Aldape Guerra, who returned to Mexico after 15 years on Texas's death row because of a prosecution that a federal judge called outrageous and designed to simply achieve another notch on the prosecutor's guns.
In 1993, the Death Penalty Information Center was asked by Representative Don Edwards, then Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Cons utional Rights, to prepare a report on the problem of innocent people on death row. The Center 's report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. The growing number of additional cases in the ensuing years has prompted us to issue another report.
This report particularly looks at the dramatic narrowing of the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence. The federal funding for the death penalty resource centers, which helped discover and vindicate several of the innocent people cited in this report, has been completely withdrawn. Some courts have now taken the position that it is permissible for executions to go forward even in the face of considerable doubt about the defendant's guilt.
The current emphasis on faster executions, less resources for the defense, and an expansion in the number of death cases mean that the execution of innocent people is inevitable. The increasing number of innocent defendants being found on death row is a clear sign that our process for sentencing people to death is fraught with fundamental errors--errors which cannot be remedied once an execution occurs.
Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent. -Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., 19941
Introduction
In mid-1993, the Death Penalty Information Center received a request from Rep. Don Edwards, then Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Cons utional Rights, to prepare a report on the problem of innocent people on death row. At that time, crime bills were being introduced which involved an expansion of the federal death penalty and a curtailing of the capital appeal process. There also had been a series of highly publicized releases of people from death row in which it had belatedly been discovered that the wrong person had been convicted and sentenced to death.
The Center prepared a report for the Subcommittee, basing its research on its own monitoring of this issue and on groundbreaking work done by other researchers, most notably Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo Bedau.2The report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. It also explored why such critical mistakes had been made in the legal process, and whether it was likely that such errors would continue.
The report was released as a Staff Report of Rep. Edwards's Subcommittee in October, 19933 and received considerable media coverage and public attention. It continues to be widely cited. The Appendix to this Report contains the original list of 48 cases of people released from death row because of evidence of their innocence.
The Need for a New Report
The problem of innocent people facing execution because of errors in the criminal justice process has in no way diminished since 1993. For example, in the summer of 1996, the state of Illinois dropped all charges against four men who had been convicted of a 1978 murder. Two of the men had been sentenced to death. The investigation which led to the discovery that the wrong men had been convicted was conducted by three journalism students who had been assigned the case in class. These releases came on the heels of the release from death row of two other men in Illinois, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez. Three former prosecutors have been indicted for obstruction of justice in that case. Although the public may have learned something about these dramatic reversals, they probably have heard little about the continuous string of mistakes in capital cases which throws doubt on the reliability of the entire death penalty process.
There is considerable evidence that the crisis of wrongful death penalty convictions has worsened: the annual average of people released from death row because of their innocence has increased since the first report was prepared, while the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence has recently shrunk dramatically. The federal funding for the death penalty resource centers, which helped discover and vindicate several of the innocent people cited in this report, has been completely withdrawn. Some courts have now taken the position that it is permissible for executions to go forward even in the face of considerable doubt about the defendant's guilt. Yet, recent research indicates that there may be a greater chance of mistaken convictions in death cases than in non-death cases.4
Part I of this report discusses why so many innocent defendants are being found on our nation's death rows and the prospects for lessening the danger of mistaken executions in the future. Part II lists the new releases from death row and also discusses additional cases which may be added to the list when the cases are concluded.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=45&did=292
If you really believe that there is no proof that any innocent person has ever been executed, you aren't as smart as I think you are. Retract this as baseless rhetoric.
Fallacy: Straw ManTypical BS that goes on where the victims are virtually ignored while the criminals are treated by some as if they're the victims!
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Secondly, you seem to be confusing opposition to the death penalty to opposition to punishing criminals. Again, you're smarter than that.
It isn't hypothetical. I won't do your work for you, so why don't you look up the proof of innocent people executed yourself. If you truly are as educated and as smart as you think you are, don't you think that you might want to educate yourself on an issue instead of clinging to flawed logic and canned talking points? Have you really truly weighed this based on all the evidence or just that evidence that you agree with emotionally?Go ahead and support with your dying breath the right of s bags like the one that murdered Cary having the right to live based on the hypothetical premise that somewhere down the line one innocent person might be executed.
How proud you must be, you that are so full of concern and compassion for those that have shown no regard for human life.
Sleep well in remembrance of Cary.
Defining Critical Thinking
(A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction)
Summary
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/abou...finingCT.shtml
I'm in the middle of preparing a belated Thanksgiving Dinner (au gratin potatoes at the moment) so I can't respond in full at this time. You seem to think that I have confused the issues which I have not, as I stated in an earlier post I am merely commenting on or drawing in another critical aspect of the death penalty (bye-bye strawman), the victims and I'm stating that there is no proof that anyone has been executed wrongfully. My homework assignment will not be to search for info contradicting this but feel free to present concrete evidence to support your premise that there have been.
I assume it wasn't at your googling fingertips or you already would have.
(I used text size 5 to trump your size 4 as you seem to think it matters in presenting persuasive arguements).
Last edited by jochhejaam; 11-26-2005 at 02:31 PM.
I'll again precede my post by saying that I'm rather ambivalent about the death penalty. I agree with others that with a "death row" sentence far more retributation is extracted from the murderer than to end that suffering with lethal injection.
If we were to apply the anti-death penalty rationale to war we'd lose every one. How could we possibly defend ourselves against the enemy if we knew that by retailiating we'd be almost sure to kill innocent civilians?
Here's an interesting read for those interested, I'll post a small portion of it and the link if you'd be interest in reading it in its entirety.
INNOCENCE ISSUES -- THE DEATH PENALTY
by Dudley Sharp
A thorough review finds that death penalty opponents have lied, extensively, regarding the numbers of innocents sentenced to death, that such risk is extraordinarily low and that the cessation of executions will put many more innocents at risk.
I. Innocents Released from Death Row: A Critical Review of the Claims
Death penalty opponents claim that "Since 1973, 102 (now 114) people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence," (1)
That is a blatantly false claim.
The foundation for these claims begins in 1993, when a study, released by US Rep. Don Edwards, purported to find that 48 innocents had been released from death row since 1973 (2). Rep. Edwards concluded that "Under the law, there is no distinction between definitively innocent and those found innocent after a trial."
Rep. Edwards was wrong.
The law recognizes the specific distinction between those legally innocent and those actually innocent, just as common sense dictates. Yes, there is a difference between the truly "I had no connection to the murder" cases and "I did it but I got off because of legal error" cases.
Rep. Edwards and other death penalty opponents combine these two conflicting groups to increase their "innocents" number. This is a continuation of a pattern of deception by death penalty opponents, that had been obvious for years.
In addition, Rep. Edwards selected an anti death penalty group, The Death Penalty Information Center (the DPIC), to conduct the study, thereby negating objective confidence in the results.
The source for the updated 102 innocent number is also the DPIC (3). Richard Dieter, head of the DPIC, has confirmed, again, what their "innocent" means:
". . . according to death penalty opponents, who say they make no distinction between legal and factual innocence because there is no difference between the two under the law and because there is no objective way to make such a determination. 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' " (4)
What nonsense.
As this public policy debate is only about the actually innocent, we know why the DPIC fails to make that obvious distinction -- they wish to, deceptively, expand their "innocents" claims.
Furthermore, for many years, the United States' courts have repeatedly enforced the obvious, common sense, important distinction between the actually innocent and the legally innocent (5). Mr. Dieter and all of those active in this debate are well aware of this. Death penalty opponents have chosen to be deceptive. (also see Sections IV. OK to Execute the Innocent? and VI. The Innocent Executed, below). This is hardly surprising.
As Dieter and other death penalty opponents make no distinction between the actually innocent and the legally innocent, why don't they claim that over 2500 innocents have been "exonerated" from death row? That is the number of legally and actually innocent released from death row since 1973 (6). The answer is obvious. They hoped that the media and others might just assume that the 102 (and the previous lesser numbers) were actually innocent and not ask any questions. And that is exactly what has happened -- a successful deception, aided by the poor fact checking standards of the media. The 2500 number, even for the media, is just too large a number for such blind acceptance.
As this deception has begun to unravel, Dieter "clarifies" that all 102 former death row inmates on the innocence list have been exonerated in one of three ways.
"A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon." (7)
Dieter is consistent.
None of those exoneration categories establishes, or even suggests, actual innocence.
Acquittal, which is a "not guilty" verdict, means that the state was unable to meet the necessary burden of proof, in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with establishing actual innocence.
In a case that has been overturned on appeal, the prosecution may drop the charges because of many reasons, the least likely being actual innocence (insert citation). For example, appellate courts may rule that evidence or testimony was cons utionally inadmissible, thereby removing the specific evidence of actual guilt from any prospect of a new trial and, thereby, precluding another trial.
And an absolute pardon may have nothing to do with actual innocence.
Just recall all the uproar over the pardons granted by President Clinton on the eve of his leaving office. I recall only one of those many cases wherein the defendant claimed actual innocence, and I don't recall any appellate judge giving any support to such a claim. Or recall ex-President Richard Nixon, pardoned by President Gerald Ford? Does anyone doubt that President Nixon was actually guilty of obstructing justice? Of course not.
Once again, we have example after example, whereby Dieter tells us that the DPIC standards have nothing to do with actual innocence. And this is simply back peddling on his part. As more and more people observe the extent of the fraud within the innocence claims of death penalty opponents, Dieter and other opponents will continue to change their definitions to justify their deceptive numbers.
And the "innocence" standards get worse.
Death penalty opponents have " . . . included supposedly innocent defendants who were still culpable as accomplices to the actual triggerman." (8). The law often finds such criminal accomplices legally guilty for their involvement in murders, even if they, themselves, didn't "pull the trigger". For example: Does anyone think that Bin Laden was innocent in the 9/11 World Trade Center bombings?
The DPIC, and other opponents, allegedly so devoted to legal standards in one cir stance -- presumption of innocence -- abandon a legal standard -- the law of parties -- when doing so can further increase their false "innocents" claims.
What "standards" will death penalty opponents create next to deceptively raise their innocence claims?
As the innocence frauds of death penalty opponents continue to unravel, they are now changing their definitions, as if they never meant that all the cases were actually innocent. In other words, they are just piling lie upon lie.
The evidence is overwhelming that some death penalty opponents were stating that the 102, nationwide, were actually innocent people, who had no connection to the murders. They lied.
Now they are stating it was just some function of release, as related above, or that they were only speaking of the "presumption of innocence", the legal standard for defendants, during trial. They have always been lying about the collective innocence claims, now they deceptively change the definitions, as their previous claims are imploding.
<snip>
http://prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm
I did that more to set what I was saying apart from the long text I quoted. Sorry if it seems a bit like shouting. I will stick to bold or something then.(I used text size 5 to trump your size 4 as you seem to think it matters in presenting persuasive arguements).
Part II: The Cases of Innocence
I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me. -Marquis de Lafayette
What follows is the list of 21 individuals who had been sentenced to death and for whom there is now convincing evidence of their innocence. All of these defendants were formally exonerated. These cases are in addition to the 48 cases of innocence discussed in the original report. (See Appendix).
A second group of cases consists of eight individuals whose capital convictions have been reversed, but there has been no formal exoneration. In some of these cases there may be a re-trial, in other cases the charges may be officially dropped later. If the defendant is finally cleared, that case would be added to the list of cases in the first category. This list is not an exhaustive compilation of all reversals in death cases, but rather a collection of prominent cases in which exoneration appears probable.
A third group consists of eight cases in which the defendant has been taken off of death row and evidence of innocence has emerged, but a conviction against him or her in the underlying charges remains. Some of these cases are the result of compromise between the prosecution, which threatens to seek the death penalty again after a reversal on appeal, and the defense, which is claiming complete innocence. In order to avoid the uncertainty, expense and trauma of another trial, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for immediate release. In other cases, a governor, troubled by a defendant's possible innocence, has commuted the death sentence to a life sentence. Again, this list is not exhaustive of all cases in which the death sentence was lifted.
Finally, the report discusses a few cases which may fall into one of the above categories in the future, but for now remain unresolved.
57. Joseph Burrows Illinois Conviction 1989 Released 1994
No physical evidence linked Burrows to the murder of William Dulin. The prosecution's two chief witnesses recanted their testimony against Mr. Burrows, and one of them confessed to the murder for which Burrows had been sent to death row. One of the witnesses said he had been coerced by prosecutors and police. Burrows was released in September, 1994, and the Illinois appellate courts have upheld the overturning of his conviction.
60. Rolando Cruz Illinois Conviction 1985 Released 1995
Cruz was sentenced to death for the murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. Another man, Brian Dugan, who had already pled guilty to two rapes and murders, including that of an 8-year-old girl, authorized his lawyer to tell the prosecutors that he killed Nicarico. Cruz was convicted at a second trial in 1990, at which Dugan did not testify. In July, 1994, the state Supreme Court overturned Cruz's second conviction. An assistant state attorney general resigned because she thought the evidence showed Cruz was innocent and thought it wrong to pursue the prosecution. Other law enforcement officials also protested the continued efforts to prosecute Cruz. Cruz was finally acquitted at his retrial in November, 1995. The judge did not even wait for the defense to put on its case before entering a directed verdict of not guilty. Three prosecutors and four law enforcement officers involved with the prosecution of Cruz and his co-defendant (see below) have been indicted for obstruction of justice in this case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions