Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

At least in this case, the poor bugger was only wrongfully imprisoned for twenty years due (arguably) to police misconduct. Just imagine if the state had whacked the guy instead. One thing that really pisses me off is that prosecutors tried to block the use of DNA evidence, presumably because they thought (knew?) it would clear him. That just doesn't seem right to me. Are prosecutors not supposed to be bound by the truth? Is the prosecutorial view now that even a wrongful conviction is better than no conviction at all?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8790793/

wow...this guy has either lost it or is a saint.

He spent 19 of his best years in prison and he didnt get to see his kids grow and he doesnt seem bitter about it.

What this case shows, is the easiness some judicial systems will put someone to jail with minimal or no evidence. I wonder if the judges and detectives who are responsible for him losing so much of his life will be held responsible and go to jail....I doubt it...and its plain wrong.

Yeah, his lack of bitterness is truly remarkable. If that happened to me I'd be suing everyone I possibly could.

Rasafaros has an excellent point. I wonder if the DA worked to block the evidence to provide cover for the criminal wrongdoings of somebody in his department.

Beyond aboloshing the death penalty, I'm also 100% in favor of aboloshing jailhouse witnesses. You're going to offer a guy who's facing 15 years a 5 year sentence to come in and testify against somebody else? And you expect him to be honest? Give me a freakin break. I bet the vast majority of convicts would finger their own mother on a murder rap to get a few years knocked off their sentence.

Quote:

---

He was sentenced to 13 to 26 years in prison and was denied parole four times because he refused to accept responsibility for the crime.

---

Well the purpose of parole is'nt to find you guilty again but to see if you are threat to society and if you can handle the world without being a menace.

This is the same type of argument that is used against guns, and its a weak one. Lets trot out some poor soul who was wronged and garner enough of an emotional response as to erase logical reasoning.

Every policy has its shortcomings. By your logic Goof, we should stop imprisoning people because there are cases of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. Also we should stop police from arresting people because there could be mistakes made there too. ~:rolleyes:

At least he got a egree and learned seven(!!!) musicial instruments. ~D ~;)

I think those prosecutors should go to prison because they wanted to refuse the DNA tests, how can one stand against justice like that? If you are against such tests, there´s a high chance their outcome won´t be good for you. I don´t see any other reason to be against it.

Quote:

---

Beyond aboloshing the death penalty, I'm also 100% in favor of aboloshing jailhouse witnesses. You're going to offer a guy who's facing 15 years a 5 year sentence to come in and testify against somebody else? And you expect him to be honest? Give me a freakin break. I bet the vast majority of convicts would finger their own mother on a murder rap to get a few years knocked off their sentence.

---

It can serve a purpose though, Don. If you can put away a criminal you could not have before, a criminal who causes far more grief and suffering than the jailhouse witness, then I don't see a problem.

As to the point of the thread, agreed, one of the biggest reasons against the death penalty and why it should never be allowed in a decent society.

This is a good example of where the "Death Penalty" is wrong. Another life saved. The justice system is not perfect, why let it deliver the ultimate sentence. This case proves that point.

IMHO the death penalty should not be abolished but the case should be reveiwd many times over just in case. And while the death isn't great at deterring crime it gives many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done and a murder will never be let out or be able to live in prison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

... many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done ...

---

So killing is "Justice" in your mind. That isn't impartial to me. It is more like "revenge".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Justice is a concept involving the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

So killing is "Justice" in your mind. That isn't impartial to me. It is more like "revenge".

---

I belive if a 30 year old man rapes and kills a 7 year old he does deserve death and I do believe thats justice those kind of people shouldn't be around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

This is the same type of argument that is used against guns, and its a weak one.

---

No it's not, and no it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Every policy has its shortcomings.

---

But not every policy's "shortcomings" involve the state murdering an innocent person for no reason other than a hunger for vengeance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

By your logic Goof, we should stop imprisoning people because there are cases of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. Also we should stop police from arresting people because there could be mistakes made there too. ~:rolleyes:

---

Speaking of weak arguments...

Where did I say anything about wanting to abolish prison terms or arrests? You are the one who is making a very faulty leap of logic in order to set yourself up a nice, plump straw-man to take down.

There is nothing wrong with handing out lenthy prison terms. Even if we get it wrong, I still do not fault th police or prosecutors (as long as they acted in good faith and within the law).

But the problem is that the death penalty is final; there's no righting a wrong decision when that type of punishment is applied. And given the alarming amount of wrongful convictions that take place, to me, it's simply not worth the risk to execute people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

I belive if a 30 year old man rapes and kills a 7 year old he does deserve death and I do believe thats justice those kind of people shouldn't be around

---

That is an "emotive" statement. How many Deaths Penalties are given out for that in proportion to Death Penalties for Adult vs Adult. I think the latter would be higher.

What would happen if the person accused and killed is later found not guitly due to new evidence. Oh Well we get things wrong sometimes. No consideration is given to the person accused and the loss their family had to endure.

That is an "emotive" statement. How many Deaths Penalties are given out for that in proportion to Death Penalties for Adult vs Adult. I think the latter would be higher.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm read these


What would happen if the person accused and killed is later found not guitly due to new evidence. Oh Well we get things wrong sometimes. No consideration is given to the person accused and the loss their family had to endure.[/QUOTE]

Good point this is why if were about to sentence the man we better have not one possible shred of doubt

Checked that link. . Only 1 out of 5 checked involved children.

Its not just about the children its about the raped and murder women the convient store clerk shot at point blank range for sheer greed. In some states these pepole are given chance for parole PAROLE :furious3: thats bull sh**

Quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with handing out lenthy prison terms. Even if we get it wrong, I still do not fault th police or prosecutors (as long as they acted in good faith and within the law).

But the problem is that the death penalty is final; there's no righting a wrong decision when that type of punishment is applied. And given the alarming amount of wrongful convictions that take place, to me, it's simply not worth the risk to execute people.

---

99% of the time a life sentence is final as well.

Your argument, or how it appears is, "since there was a mistake made in this case and others, the death penalty should not be applied." By that same logic, any sentence that has been applied wrongly on occasion should not be implemented.

Whats the difference between someone getting the death sentence for a crime they didnt commit and spending the rest of their life behind bars for the same reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

99% of the time a life sentence is final as well.

Your argument, or how it appears is, "since there was a mistake made in this case and others, the death penalty should not be applied." By that same logic, any sentence that has been applied wrongly on occasion should not be implemented.

Whats the difference between someone getting the death sentence for a crime they didnt commit and spending the rest of their life behind bars for the same reason?

---

I don't know how I can make this any clearer:

The difference is that we can fix our mistake if we lock up the wrong person. If we kill the wrong person, we can't fix our mistake.

I am willing to take the risk of somebody (even myself) being wrongfully imprisoned, in the interest of public safety. I am not willing to take the risk of wrongfully executing somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their bloodlust.

The distinction is quite simple, really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

It can serve a purpose though, Don. If you can put away a criminal you could not have before, a criminal who causes far more grief and suffering than the jailhouse witness, then I don't see a problem.

As to the point of the thread, agreed, one of the biggest reasons against the death penalty and why it should never be allowed in a decent society.

---

How could you possibly have any sense of trust in the testimony? You are literally holding the man's life in his hands and telling him that if he testifies to what you want him to testify to, he'll get some of it back quicker.

The only way I could possibly see them being fair is for the DA to say "Okay, Mr. Corleone. You're up for 12 to 25. We'll knock that down to 8 to 12, regardless of what you say, but if we find out you're lying, you'll have the original sentence, plus perjury time". In other words, his time out of jail is dependent on the honesty & accuracy of his testimony, not whether or not he actually 'gives the goods' on somebody. You're giving him one hell of a motive to frame somebody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I don't know how I can make this any clearer:

The difference is that we can fix our mistake if we lock up the wrong person. If we kill the wrong person, we can't fix our mistake.

I am willing to take the risk of somebody (even myself) being wrongfully imprisoned, in the interest of public safety. I am not willing to take the risk of wrongfully executing somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their bloodlust.

The distinction is quite simple, really...

---

Not that simple!

How do you fix being sodomized Goofball? How do you give him back those 19 years?

How many 25 year old guys, if given the choice between immediate execution and spending 19 years in prison, getting out at age 44 would choose prison? Of course they don't give you the choice of immediate execution, instead they drag it out for something like 11 years now, IIRC.

Long term imprisonment doesn't seem all that much more humane to me. I don't much care for wrongfully imprisoning somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their sadism.

Miscarriages of justice happen regardless of the system held to. Errors that do occur are more properly understood as procedural not conceptual.

Save for pacifist positions killing is considered appropriate as a societal defense. This is the justification of having a military. The basis for the Death Penalty is retribution. If one holds that there are acts that are so egregious that the offender can no longer be part of society then the guilty should be killed. Life imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

For once, Pindar is right. ~:cheers:

---

Once?


"A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

IMHO, some of you guys have seriously devalued concepts of the gift of life itself.

Execution more humane? It's not even on the same level. Totally incomparable, because it's plain old "lights out" for the executed criminal. How can one measure a life of imprisonment against oblivion? Apples and oranges.

If that same criminal were alive, he would still have the opportunity (albeit limited by his own actions) to develop himself as a human being. There would still be something to be extracted from his time on this planet.

OK, so what if he doesn't choose to grow and better himself, and remains a savage dog of a man? Well, it largely doesn't matter, because he has been removed from polite society anyway.

Cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think so. Rather, it is an opportunity, whether or not the lifer realises it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Yeah, his lack of bitterness is truly remarkable. If that happened to me I'd be suing everyone I possibly could.

---

Oh ya baby.

I agree with you. Roark. A human life is more valuable, then a Death.

Who says you need to make prison too comfortable ? Liberals yes. Conservatives No.

Prisoners, should pay for their time in prison. Either, while they are in there, by working or when they get out, by paying of the debt. This will make crime cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

One might just call you Naive, Roark.

Life is great, bla bla. Yeah, it is. But when you commit a crime, you put your life in the hands of the state that you have hurt. If execution is the best way to get the miscreant out of the damageable public, then so be it. Be damned if these people should go on living in prison, with cable TV and all, at the expense of our tax dollars. That's money that should be going to schools, police stations, fire stations, and homeless shelters. Not condemned felons.

---

I'm not talking about concepts like utility or economic efficiency here.

I was actually just challenging the idea that the value of a human life can be measured in such superficial terms.

I won't try to convert you from your viewpoint on corrections policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Forced Labor for a fixed period without possibility of getting out early is something i'd support. But good luck getting any liberal, and some conservatives, to agree with that.

---

What happened to the good old days of using them for free labor? Highways, parks etc need to be cleaned. And I would like to smack whoever got these scumbags 'conjugal' visits.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

IMHO, some of you guys have seriously devalued concepts of the gift of life itself.

Execution more humane? It's not even on the same level. Totally incomparable, because it's plain old "lights out" for the executed criminal. How can one measure a life of imprisonment against oblivion? Apples and oranges.

If that same criminal were alive, he would still have the opportunity (albeit limited by his own actions) to develop himself as a human being. There would still be something to be extracted from his time on this planet.

OK, so what if he doesn't choose to grow and better himself, and remains a savage dog of a man? Well, it largely doesn't matter, because he has been removed from polite society anyway.

Cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think so. Rather, it is an opportunity, whether or not the lifer realises it.

---

Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.

Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.