[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by wacor

Thought there was a Texas guy that it was determined was likely innocent?

Not sure about that. There are some that are probably very questionable.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

That's true; DNA isn't. The basis of our legal system is that people hear the evidence and determine if there is sufficient evidence for a guilty plea. That system must work.

The basis of our legal system is that those we convict are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. "Sufficient evidence" is not enough.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

We may have definitive proof that someone is not guilty. It's brought to light, and the person is set free.

You can never prove that someone is not guilty. Since I believe you are getting this backward, allow me to change your wording to illustrate my point. "We may have definitive proof that someone is guilty. It's brought to light, and the person is incarcerated."

Originally Posted by Drabdr

That is the system; the system works.

How do you know this? You state it as a matter of fact but the innocence project gives us a strong argument that the system does not work.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

But we don't have any evidence that one truly innocent person in the past 30 or so years has been put to death. I limit the 30 years due to racial murders, and some of the swift, but maybe misguided, punishment that transcended in the Old West in the early 1900's.

How many dead people file an appeal?

Originally Posted by wacor

Thought there was a Texas guy that it was determined was likely innocent?

Who could know? The Governor fired the panel before they could release their findings. I guess supporters of the DP are uncomfortable enough with the possibility that they just don't want to know.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

That's true; DNA isn't. The basis of our legal system is that people hear the evidence and determine if there is sufficient evidence for a guilty plea. That system must work.

As we move forward, DNA testing will be one of the components of the trial, instead of a retrospective examination as it is now.

We may have definitive proof that someone is not guilty. It's brought to light, and the person is set free. That is the system; the system works. But we don't have any evidence that one truly innocent person in the past 30 or so years has been put to death. I limit the 30 years due to racial murders, and some of the swift, but maybe misguided, punishment that transcended in the Old West in the early 1900's.

Hiya Drabby.

You claim the system works, but if that were the case then no innocents would be sentenced to die at the hands of the State. The system works most of the time, but to say it always works is simply not true.

Take a look for yourself. There are thousands of links from which you can choose.
Hundreds of people were sentenced to DIE that later turned out to be innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death. RIGHT HERE IN THE USA.

I know that it is not that many in the overall picture, but if a SINGLE innocent is put to death by the State for crimes they did not commit, then I cannot support the DP for any of them.

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I do not oppose the DP for the guilty.
I oppose it for the innocent.
And until our screwed up system can guarantee that no innocent will ever AGAIN be sentenced to die wrongfully, I simply cannot support the DP, and neither should you or anyone else.

Unfortunately, that means that there will be THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of guilty people DESERVING of the electric chair who will have to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives, without the possibility of parole. But that is a small price to pay when securiung the life of even a single innocent person who may be found innocent well after the time they would have been executed by the State.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

......Unfortunately, that means that there will be THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of guilty people DESERVING of the electric chair who will have to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives, without the possibility of parole. But that is a small price to pay when securiung the life of even a single innocent person who may be found innocent well after the time they would have been executed by the State.

Hiya Lan

My reasons for opposing DP go somewhat beyond this but that in no way lessens the pertinence of the case you make.

Equally good of you to point out that there are things you can't equate in money, convenience or personal desires. No free meal as they say.

[LANMaster]

Hiya .. Count Buffenstein

I would support the DP for the most heinous crimes out there. I believe there is a Biblical principle which can lawfully be prescribed for the DP.

But the person has to be guilty. And the crime has to warrant the punishment.

With our court system today (in the US) sentencing has been altered from "beyond a shadow of doubt" to "beyond reasonable doubt".
So there simply is too large a question, IMO, of whether some people may or may not be guilty.
In addition, some murders are crimes of passion, where a fight may have broken out and self defense turned into retaliatory attack in a mater of seconds. Or if a spouse was caught in bed with someone else.
These types of cases are sometimes set to qualify for the DP whereas, IMO, they should not.

The point is not about how common or uncommon these situations transpire. A single instance of any one of these events coming to pass resulting in the execution of either an innocent or simply an overzealous sentencing make it impossible for me to support the DP legislation.

We can suppose from Mulder's testimony in this thread that the right guy was aprehended and that he deserves nothing less than his own demise. I could support that. Heck, I'd be honored to pull the lever, so long as the evidence is beyond doubt.

But what happens tomorrow, when Mulder's brother is the one who is charged with the crime that he may not have committed?

People are convicted on circumstancioal evidence all the time. I am not willing to vote for DP legislation until it is only prescribed for the guilty of heinous pre-meditated murder.

I voted FOR the DP in California in 1982. It was on the ballot. I would not vote the same today.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I voted FOR the DP in California in 1982. It was on the ballot. I would not vote the same today.

I admire someone who can rethink an issue and change his mind.

Even a caveman can do it. I like the new Avatar.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Hiya .. Count Buffenstein

I'm gonna have to start a list.

Great passport photo of yours BTW. Exactly matches what I thought.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by buffoon

I'm gonna have to start a list.

El Conde de Andalusia de la Montaña Buffo Escudero.

I know I butchered the Spanish but why do the Spaniards of old have so many dang names?

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

El Conde de Andalusia de la Montaña Buffo Escudero.

I know I butchered the Spanish but why do the Spaniards of old have so many dang names?

They tend to be more precise. Somebody called Shepard (spelled wrong as usual in the US) simply denotes by his name that his forebears showed strange preferences.

With Juan Luis Pastor de los Milvacas de la Sierra Blanca y Madrugada you know exactly the where, when and how many.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by buffoon

They tend to be more precise. Somebody called Shepard (spelled wrong as usual in the US) simply denotes by his name that his forebears showed strange preferences.

With Juan Luis Pastor de los Milvacas de la Sierra Blanca y Madrugada you know exactly the where, when and how many.

One reason I had to snicker at the article you posted with Wolfgang Schneiderhan as a German General.

[TooBad]

Add my condolences Chris! I did not go into this thread before today and am not sure what drove me here now as I don't like the arguements used in the death penalty debate. I know the delayed reaction first hand and it can't be explained as to why some are affected immediately and others take time for it to "sink in". My prayers and thoughts are with you and your family.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

The basis of our legal system is that those we convict are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. "Sufficient evidence" is not enough.

Yes, I stated beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are on a jury and vote guilty, there's sufficient evidence.

You can never prove that someone is not guilty. Since I believe you are getting this backward, allow me to change your wording to illustrate my point. "We may have definitive proof that someone is guilty. It's brought to light, and the person is incarcerated."

Our system has heavy Type II error (not detecting a difference when one actually exists). We let guilty people walk. The probability of getting 12 people to do the same thing is very low. It just takes one person to say not guilty.

How do you know this? You state it as a matter of fact but the innocence project gives us a strong argument that the system does not work.

How many dead people file an appeal?

The second question is answered by the first. The Innocence Project and many other investigative type people spend a fair amount of time reviewing every one of the cases.

Who could know? The Governor fired the panel before they could release their findings. I guess supporters of the DP are uncomfortable enough with the possibility that they just don't want to know.

Ummm... you're talking about Rick Perry. Nothing that man would do or not do would surprise me.

In situations like above, they better put the sentence on hold and review everything.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Hiya Drabby.

My my! I think someone started in early on all the Halloween candy!!

You claim the system works, but if that were the case then no innocents would be sentenced to die at the hands of the State. The system works most of the time, but to say it always works is simply not true.

True point. I didn't say the system was perfect and that no mistakes were made. I'm saying that a society has to agree that the system works well enough that we can live by it. As I stated to Thingy, the system is so heavily designed to let guilty people walk.

Yes, I agree. I would hate to be the statistical error of a guilty verdict when there is actual innocence. But there has to be a system, and until we come up with a better one, it seems to give a pretty decent result.

In talking about this, the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind. What a silly system; but in the end, she herself believed she got a fair trial.

Take a look for yourself. There are thousands of links from which you can choose.
Hundreds of people were sentenced to DIE that later turned out to be innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death. RIGHT HERE IN THE USA.

I know that it is not that many in the overall picture, but if a SINGLE innocent is put to death by the State for crimes they did not commit, then I cannot support the DP for any of them.

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I do not oppose the DP for the guilty.
I oppose it for the innocent.
And until our screwed up system can guarantee that no innocent will ever AGAIN be sentenced to die wrongfully, I simply cannot support the DP, and neither should you or anyone else. Unfortunately, that means that there will be THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of guilty people DESERVING of the electric chair who will have to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives, without the possibility of parole. But that is a small price to pay when securiung the life of even a single innocent person who may be found innocent well after the time they would have been executed by the State.

Thinking someone was innocent, believing someone is innocent, and knowing without a doubt they were innocent are different. Morally disagreeing with DP is totally cool; and I respect that. To me (it's just me) building a case against DP because innocent people have been put to death, is that case in which I'm trying to argue against. There is simply not enough evidence to put a label around the neck of DP that too many innocent people have died. It's not there.

When there is sufficient evidence that something is hinky, there are plenty of appeals and reviews for the cases.

We're not talking about the difference of serving 20 years vs. Death Penalty. It's are you going to die in your cell, or in a chair? I'm not saying anyone here believes this, OK? But I do think about decisions society makes. And just because someone is locked away in a cell for their life does not leave my memory. I have as much responsibility for their predicament as I do the DP case. I hope that makes sense. I am as concerned for both being wrongly accused. Both, have been done horribly wrong by society when they are wrongly accused.

I might even present an argument that DP inmates get more reviews and more opportunities for case review than non-DP inmates. And rightfully so.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Yes, I stated beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are on a jury and vote guilty, there's sufficient evidence.

Semantics? Just checking. Is this the part where we start hurling personal insults?

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Our system has heavy Type II error (not detecting a difference when one actually exists). We let guilty people walk. The probability of getting 12 people to do the same thing is very low. It just takes one person to say not guilty.

That would be a hung jury and not an acquittal would it not? I wouldn't argue with this for those cases that go to trial. I doubt 12 TSG'ers would ever agree on anything.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

The second question is answered by the first. The Innocence Project and many other investigative type people spend a fair amount of time reviewing every one of the cases.

As far as I know, the Innocence Project is, understandably, focusing their efforts on those who are alive and can be released. I know of no objective study on the question at hand - "have we executed any innocent people?"

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Ummm... you're talking about Rick Perry. Nothing that man would do or not do would surprise me.

There will always be the "Rich Perry" types. Should we have some safeguards against this? So many of these cases wind up in the governor's hands and I would not want to be that governor! I'm good enough at finding doubt somewhere that I would probably commute every sentence to life.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

In situations like above, they better put the sentence on hold and review everything.

The sentence is always put on hold for as much review as possible. I'm not saying that we don't try to get it right. Race is still an issue even though it may be focused on middle eastern and Hispanic descent. The arson case in question involved children and such an allegation may be greater than any other type of prejudice.

But we still may have missed it as the group investigating the arson case would assert if they were allowed to do so. I would note that you dropped the name "Perry" to dismiss the entirety of the case thereby avoiding the question of whether we've executed someone innocent.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Semantics? Just checking. Is this the part where we start hurling personal insults?

Most definitely. And pages and pages of posts, too!

That would be a hung jury and not an acquittal would it not? I wouldn't argue with this for those cases that go to trial. I doubt 12 TSG'ers would ever agree on anything.

As far as I know, the Innocence Project is, understandably, focusing their efforts on those who are alive and can be released. I know of no objective study on the question at hand - "have we executed any innocent people?"

True. That to me, would be worth some resources is trying to truly examine some of the questionable cases.

There will always be the "Rich Perry" types. Should we have some safeguards against this? So many of these cases wind up in the governor's hands and I would not want to be that governor! I'm good enough at finding doubt somewhere that I would probably commute every sentence to life.

True again. But, this goes back to us holding these bozos accountable for their jobs. This would be true for those handling that DP case in my Scalia thread.

If they can't handle something as serious as a DP correctly, what else are they screwing up on?

The sentence is always put on hold for as much review as possible. I'm not saying that we don't try to get it right. Race is still an issue even though it may be focused on middle eastern and Hispanic descent. The arson case in question involved children and such an allegation may be greater than any other type of prejudice.

But we still may have missed it as the group investigating the arson case would assert if they were allowed to do so. I would note that you dropped the name "Perry" to dismiss the entirety of the case thereby avoiding the question of whether we've executed someone innocent.

I dropped the Rick Perry name, as I would not trust him to take out my trash. Saying, it would not surprise me anything he would screw up.