• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Death Penalty

DeletedUser

So by saying that innocent people get put to death, so it should be banned. Well then innocent people get imprisoned so that should be banned. I am seeing a pattern here.

Lolwut? Are you seriously saying death is equal to prison? You can fix unjust imprisonment. You cannot fix unjust execution. Not to mention, being killed by the government is not the same as dying in a car accident. One is deliberate. The other is an accident.
 

DeletedUser

No, I am seriously saying that prison (for an innocent person with no criminal background) is far worse then death. Let me see.... I can have a swift and painless death, or I can be jumped by gangs, be raped by other men, sold off as a slave for to the highest bidder of cigarettes, and live in a cell/cage that is smaller then an average bathroom for the next 40 years. All in hopes that some day there will be some new DNA evidence that proves my innocence. Sure give me the rape, mental and physical abuse, beatings, constant fear, and living in a cage for the rest of my life? I still believe in Santa Claus so sitting there in hopes that some fluke happens and maybe, just maybe I may be found innocent should not be that hard.

I will tell you what. I will meet you half way. At least give me the choice. I choose the lethal injection (lol I will be safe from infection with Dom's clean needle program) and you can sit there and hope for the rest of your life..... Well stand there and hope as you will be to sore to sit :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I think a choice would be fine, though they'd have to undergo psychological evaluation and there would be a waiting period.
 

DeletedUser

So by saying that innocent people get put to death, so it should be banned. Well then innocent people get imprisoned so that should be banned. I am seeing a pattern here. It seems no matter what the debate, the people on the far left of things want perfection.
Slippery slope fallacy, invalid. Let me know when you can bring an innocent man back from the dead, or when the legal system has time to examine cases of the executed innocent to restore a reputation to the benefit of the family. Meanwhile, let's stick to imprisoning the innocent, at least that's a partially reversible action even if perfection is impossible.

No, I am seriously saying that prison (for an innocent person with no criminal background) is far worse then death. Let me see.... I can have a swift and painless death, or I can be jumped by gangs, be raped by other men, sold off as a slave for to the highest bidder of cigarettes, and live in a cell/cage that is smaller then an average bathroom for the next 40 years.
Using stereotypes for a subjective appeal, invalid. Again, let me know when Mr Cool has been on death row. Better yet, point me to some cases where [later proven] innocent defendants have decided not to appeal a decision where the death penalty was given, for the primary purpose of avoiding possible life imprisonment. Even if you do manage to produce a few isolated cases, which would not reflect the vast majority, I am sure most of those defendants made their decision without knowing the potential of modern DNA evidence that could exonerate them. Being wrongly convicted is not as permanent and hence damning as it used to be...
 

DeletedUser34

I personally don't worry about killing an innocent person. That rarely happens, and specifically I don't know of a single case RECENTLY. The appeals process is soooooo long and drawn out these days that there is ample opportunity to flush out those who are wrongly convicted.

It was funny though, we had a young girl who was killed by her boyfriend two years ago, and he was sentenced yesterday....to...you ready??

120 days in jail, with 10 years probation. Everyone was griping at the top of their lungs how justice was not served. IMO....the public fickle that it is needs to make up its bloody mind.
 

DeletedUser

Paul Ryan, who is running for VP, recently had an audit of death row inmates who had been on death row for upwards of ten years, to use new techniques that weren't available at the time of their trial. One more than half were found to have been convicted improperly and were let go, I think it was like 15 people out of 28 that were sentenced to death. So yeah, innocent people do go to be executed, and the judicial system can make mistakes. (gasp!) So while I believe that if someone is 100% guilty, especially if he says he is, then it's okay to use the death penalty on them, but if there is a question, I'd rather keep them all in jail than kill an innocent person.
 

DeletedUser34

Paul Ryan, who is running for VP, recently had an audit of death row inmates who had been on death row for upwards of ten years, to use new techniques that weren't available at the time of their trial. One more than half were found to have been convicted improperly and were let go, I think it was like 15 people out of 28 that were sentenced to death. So yeah, innocent people do go to be executed, and the judicial system can make mistakes. (gasp!) So while I believe that if someone is 100% guilty, especially if he says he is, then it's okay to use the death penalty on them, but if there is a question, I'd rather keep them all in jail than kill an innocent person.

Ok, riddle me this.....they were let go, ergo, your point? There is NO difference in your "example" than there is in being sentenced to life in prison...ergo, my point still stands. They get cleared before they die if they were wrongly convicted YEARS ago. Hardly valid as an argument Greenfireflygirl. I ask you again, name me a single person RECENTLY convicted who was found innocent before they got the needle and still put to death, OR a person cleared AFTER death.
 

DeletedUser

Well let me ask you a few things Mr. Fallacy.... When you say innocent people just what do you define as an innocent person? Do you mean innocent people of color who were not given a fair trail? The ones when it was more of a witch hunt and then years later DNA proved their innocence? Maybe the death penalty is not at fault here or should not even be discussed. The only reason it is discussed is so we can ignore the real problems of unfair trails.

You are right, I have never been on death row but I have worked on the other side of the bars. You see a 145 pound guy brought in (note were I said innocent person with no criminal background) and you know he is in trouble. Gangs to him were something he saw on TV. Fighting is something he always tried avoiding. You can say stereotype all you want. So lets hear of your background on either side of the bars. Were you on the inside of the bars, making this guy cry all night? Were you on the other side of the bars having to hear it? Just what advice would you give him dad? Just to ignore the bullies? Maybe to tell the teachers on him? I know, you would advise standing up to them, cuz deep down they just need love too? Of course we were talking about the death penalty and not if death was better for truly innocent people, so back to that.

It must be nice, when you can just lump everyone and everything together to validate your argument. It must be nice to always ask others to prove a point, yet never have to do it yourself (I am not the only one who has called you out on this). So lets try this again..... Do not skew your numbers with those not given a fair trail. This in no way has anything to do with if the death penalty is effective or not. So the police frame an innocent man, lets get rid of the death penalty? Works out perfect right? Of course since you think prison is a great place and has no negative effects on an innocent person, I guess I can see your delusional stand point. Why not address the police problem itself? Do not skew the numbers with a person of color, that was sentence by a jury of another color. Again the witch hunt cases are a separate problem/issue that needs to be addressed. Of course all guilty people want to be given a chance of a DNA test and are in no hurry to die. Of course they have no problem with prison life, since they have lived it half their life. Again taking a person who has raped and or murdered over a dozen times and the ONE TIME they were innocent... does not do your argument a lot of justice. This was not an innocent person. This was a guilty person, innocent of that crime. If they would rather live life in prison vs death proves nothing. So get us some true data/numbers to show just how many truly innocent people, who were given a truly fair trial, who were truly judged by a jury of their "peers", that were put do death. Then come back here and tell us about how slippery a slope is! I think the number is going to be VERY SMALL and of course would kind of destroy your arguments. That is why you will not get nor want these numbers.

We have a person as a president who creates 100,000 jobs to do the 2010 census. Then turns around and tells us that the job market is getting better. We really do not need a person who can twist things into their warped version of reality. Think that a select few of people (and of course feels they are on that list) knows what is best for all mankind and when they say anything, it should just be considered fact, posting things in here.

Besides how can you be the dictator of the world if you have Butterfly who feels that theirs is the only mind that matters. History has shown us that splitting an empire up does not work. Looks like you two are gonna have to fight to the death to see whose views should be law. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I personally don't worry about killing an innocent person. That rarely happens, and specifically I don't know of a single case RECENTLY. The appeals process is soooooo long and drawn out these days that there is ample opportunity to flush out those who are wrongly convicted.
Ok, riddle me this.....they were let go, ergo, your point? There is NO difference in your "example" than there is in being sentenced to life in prison...ergo, my point still stands. They get cleared before they die if they were wrongly convicted YEARS ago. Hardly valid as an argument Greenfireflygirl. I ask you again, name me a single person RECENTLY convicted who was found innocent before they got the needle and still put to death, OR a person cleared AFTER death.
Ignoring the subjective appeal I cut out of the quote, do not confuse rarely with never. Serious question: how few can be wrongly sentenced before we pull the sheet over our eyes and scream "lalalalala"? (Is a 11% rate low enough? That's how many people are released from death row after being convicted beyond all reasonable doubt.) You're asking us to pull data that simply does not exist -- once a person has been executed, there is very little option for recourse. Not surprising really, no government is willing to admit a stuff up and time is better spend working current cases than crying over spilt milk. Nevertheless, below are four examples where I do believe reasonable doubt exists. All were executed from 2000-12.

Shaka Sankofa
"Verdict doubts


  • [*=1]Only one of six witnesses has identified Graham as the killer
    [*=1]Gun found on Graham could not have fired the fatal bullet
    [*=1]Four witnesses say Graham was elsewhere when the crime took place"

Claude Jones
"Claude Jones always claimed that he wasn’t the man who walked into an East Texas liquor store in 1989 and shot the owner. He professed his innocence right up until the moment he was strapped to a gurney in the Texas execution chamber and put to death on Dec. 7, 2000. His murder conviction was based on a single piece of forensic evidence recovered from the crime scene—a strand of hair—that prosecutors claimed belonged to Jones.

But DNA tests completed this week at the request of the Observer and the New York-based Innocence Project show the hair didn’t belong to Jones after all. The day before his death in December 2000, Jones asked for a stay of execution so the strand of hair could be submitted for DNA testing. He was denied by then-Gov. George W. Bush."

Cameron Todd Willingham
"While Texas authorities dismissed his protests, a Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental...

'At the time of the Corsicana fire, we were still testifying to things that aren't accurate today,' he said. 'They were true then, but they aren't now.

'Hurst,' he added, 'was pretty much right on. ... We know now not to make those same assumptions.'"

Troy Davis
"The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. All but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial recanted or contradicted their testimony.
Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester "Red" Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles."

Illusion shattered? :devil:
 

DeletedUser

Ok, riddle me this.....they were let go, ergo, your point? There is NO difference in your "example" than there is in being sentenced to life in prison...ergo, my point still stands. They get cleared before they die if they were wrongly convicted YEARS ago. Hardly valid as an argument Greenfireflygirl. I ask you again, name me a single person RECENTLY convicted who was found innocent before they got the needle and still put to death, OR a person cleared AFTER death.


My point was, and still is, that mistakes are made that sentence innocent people to death. This example was just to illustrate how high the fail rate could be because someone in this thread posted it was so low as to be negligible. Another poster has provided recent examples so I won't bother, but while I have no problem executing someone who is guilty, I have enough problem executing someone who is innocent that I don't want to risk that another mistake has been made, so I'm still against it.
 

DeletedUser34

Illusion shattered? :devil:
No :D
Everyone says they are innocent. Why hasn't it been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they were wrongly executed? You'd think people would be trying to move heaven and earth to do so, JUST to prove the death penalty is wrong. None of those cases do that.

My point was, and still is, that mistakes are made that sentence innocent people to death. This example was just to illustrate how high the fail rate could be because someone in this thread posted it was so low as to be negligible. Another poster has provided recent examples so I won't bother, but while I have no problem executing someone who is guilty, I have enough problem executing someone who is innocent that I don't want to risk that another mistake has been made, so I'm still against it.
big difference between the death penalty and life in prison....so to me your argument doesn't apply
 

DeletedUser

No :D
Everyone says they are innocent. Why hasn't it been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they were wrongly executed? You'd think people would be trying to move heaven and earth to do so, JUST to prove the death penalty is wrong. None of those cases do that.
Two good reasons:
  1. It is incredibly, incredibly rare to allow a rehearing after the defendant has been executed. The US legal system is far too expensive and convoluted to allow for it; judges invariably say no. Not to mention that the original trial would become the biggest scandal since Watergate... and we wouldn't want to implicate Dubya, would we now?
  2. It is a fundamental American principle that someone is innocent unless proven guilty. No-one needs to prove these four defendants were innocent, they merely need to cast reasonable doubt on allegations posed against him.

So there we go. In all four cases, enough contra-evidence has been provided, such that if a retrial were possible then the defendant would​ be acquitted. If only they weren't six foot underground ;)
 

DeletedUser34

That, Diggo, my friend... is crap.

They were found guilty...and if there was indeed evidence to suggest otherwise it was gotten outside of the court system, and I don't doubt for one second the "anti-death penalty" folks if it could prove just one case was executed in error, they would be all over it, because nobody in their right mind would support the death penalty for "un" guilty people. If they could prove just one time it was done on an innocent person, their war would be over, and won.

The evidence isn't in the court system, and so if they can prove it accurate in the court of public opinion, then there you have it...that is all that is needed. So far zilch nada, nothing.....
 

DeletedUser

That, Diggo, my friend... is crap.

They were found guilty...and if there was indeed evidence to suggest otherwise it was gotten outside of the court system, and I don't doubt for one second the "anti-death penalty" folks if it could prove just one case was executed in error, they would be all over it, because nobody in their right mind would support the death penalty for "un" guilty people. If they could prove just one time it was done on an innocent person, their war would be over, and won.

The evidence isn't in the court system, and so if they can prove it accurate in the court of public opinion, then there you have it...that is all that is needed. So far zilch nada, nothing.....
Lol, the crap is coming out of your mouth on this one I'm afraid. Alas, even in this thread there is evidence to contradict your notion that proof of one innocent person executed would not be a game changer:

Perfection is not possible! In wars, innocent people die. In prisons innocent people die, go insane or become criminals. In police shootouts innocent people die. Why should the death penalty be any different? I guess I just do not value an individual life as much as some.
(Continuing response to Dom) If you google any of the above four cases, you'll see the "anti-death penalty folks" have been pushing all the buttons. Look what has come from it, indeed so far zilch nada and nothing, because the state knows the risks involved. If they allowed a fair retrial, the result would almost inevitably go against them, and then people "in their right mind" may begin jumping the fence.
 

DeletedUser34

And Diggo,
I disagree. The media and the advent of the freedom of information act, would not have required a court of law. If they wanted to take it to the public, they could run their own tests on their "new" information/evidence...which is NOT in the court system, and ergo fully accessible to them. The only need of a retrial is legality. It is all dancing babies here.....if they really had proof, they would have already publicized the results in tandem with the evidence of the trial.

Look at Casey Anthony, and more so....George Zimmerman...the only reason he is in the boat he is in is because of public outcry. Soooo if and that is a huge qualifying IF there was absolute proof, there would be no shutting them up.
 

DeletedUser

And Diggo,
I disagree. The media and the advent of the freedom of information act, would not have required a court of law. If they wanted to take it to the public, they could run their own tests on their "new" information/evidence...which is NOT in the court system, and ergo fully accessible to them. The only need of a retrial is legality. It is all dancing babies here.....if they really had proof, they would have already publicized the results in tandem with the evidence of the trial.
Hehe, only skimmed over the links I posed?
  • In Shaka Sankofa's case, a ballistics report was withheld (but since released under freedom of information) that conclusively proved that the weapon he possessed was not that which fired the fatal bullet. Not to mention the witnesses on public record, both identifying Sankofa was not the killer and confirming his alibi...
  • In Claude Jones' case, the hair presented as evidence was obtained and retested using more modern DNA matching methods, from which it was shown the DNA actually did not match.
  • In Cameron Todd Willingham's case, it has been publicly shown that evidence presented was based upon false and outdated assumptions, overlooking critical points. (See reports in original link.)
  • In Troy Davis' case, all but two of nine non-police witnesses have partially or fully retracted/contradicted their testimonies, citing police pressure when originally presenting them. They instead implicate Sylvester Coles, one of the two witnesses who have not retracted their testimony.
You're right, they've publicized proof in tandem with the evidence of the trial, so they must be innocent in actuality. It's only the legality that's under question :mrgreen:

Got any more false pretences to present?
 

DeletedUser34

No. You know there was a time I would fight tooth and nail about something, even as stupid as the Iraq war. Sadly, that fire is tired. I really don't believe in the death penalty cases for cases like those. I happen to know Jeff Blackburn personally, and so am well aware of the Shaka Sankofa case. What I am having a hard time coming to terms with is something you and I have discussed before. I feel that killers that there is no doubt in their guilt deserve the death penalty....but as you pointed out. Where do you draw the line. As to that, that is a struggle I am trying to find balance in.
 
Top