Actual innocence on death row..

[redcard]

I'm moving this discussion here to talk about whether or not "the system" works. This discussion started in the Scott Peterson Adjusting to Prison Thread.

It is my contention that with 1100 people executed and 129 CLEANLY exonerated (link here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) that the process of the death penalty is flawed. With the average time of exoneration being 9.5 years after the date of sentencing and the fact that Texas on average executes their death row members after 10.26 years (on average), I indicated that Texas had installed an "Express Lane."

While I am against the death penalty, and wish it's complete and total abolition, I know we do not have that at this time, so my contention is that we must be certain to be fair.

For every 8 people executed, one person has gone out the door COMPLETELY wrongfully convicted. (The link above does track all death penalty cases, but the 129 on the list are CLEARLY innocent. If it's close, they are not put on the list, and there exists a seperate list containing the "technicalities")

So.. let's discuss :)

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by redcard
I'm moving this discussion here to talk about whether or not "the system" works. This discussion started in the Scott Peterson Adjusting to Prison Thread.

It is my contention that with 1100 people executed and 129 CLEANLY exonerated (link here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) that the process of the death penalty is flawed. With the average time of exoneration being 9.5 years after the date of sentencing and the fact that Texas on average executes their death row members after 10.26 years (on average), I indicated that Texas had installed an "Express Lane."

While I am against the death penalty, and wish it's complete and total abolition, I know we do not have that at this time, so my contention is that we must be certain to be fair.

For every 8 people executed, one person has gone out the door COMPLETELY wrongfully convicted. (The link above does track all death penalty cases, but the 129 on the list are CLEARLY innocent. If it's close, they are not put on the list, and there exists a seperate list containing the "technicalities")

So.. let's discuss :) [/*]

As requested, I came over from the Scott Peterson thread.

I would love for you to post the peeling of the onion on the 129 cases showing what was the root cause of the wrongful convictions; e.g., jury error, malicious prosecution, withholding of evidence, planted evidence, corrupt LE, falsified lab test results, incompetent lab testing, etc..

Thanks

[redcard]

Originally posted by Wudge+


As requested, I came over from the Scott Peterson thread.

I would love for you to post the peeling of the onion on the 129 cases showing what was the root cause of the wrongful convictions; e.g., jury error, malicious prosecution, withholding of evidence, planted evidence, corrupt LE, falsified lab test results, incompetent lab testing, etc..

Thanks [/*]

If you click on the names in that list of the 129, you can see what happened in each case.

[lucielle]

Originally posted by Wudge+


As requested, I came over from the Scott Peterson thread.

I would love for you to post the peeling of the onion on the 129 cases showing what was the root cause of the wrongful convictions; e.g., jury error, malicious prosecution, withholding of evidence, planted evidence, corrupt LE, falsified lab test results, incompetent lab testing, etc..

Thanks [/*]

With all due respect, if someone is wrongfully convicted what does it matter? An innocent person was jailed for something they did not do.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard
I'm moving this discussion here to talk about whether or not "the system" works. This discussion started in the Scott Peterson Adjusting to Prison Thread.

It is my contention that with 1100 people executed and 129 CLEANLY exonerated (link here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) that the process of the death penalty is flawed. With the average time of exoneration being 9.5 years after the date of sentencing and the fact that Texas on average executes their death row members after 10.26 years (on average), I indicated that Texas had installed an "Express Lane."

While I am against the death penalty, and wish it's complete and total abolition, I know we do not have that at this time, so my contention is that we must be certain to be fair.

For every 8 people executed, one person has gone out the door COMPLETELY wrongfully convicted. (The link above does track all death penalty cases, but the 129 on the list are CLEARLY innocent. If it's close, they are not put on the list, and there exists a seperate list containing the "technicalities")

So.. let's discuss :) [/*]And some of them are back in prison, on other later charges. They're not all upstanding citizens. :rolleyes:


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2019

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
And some of them are back in prison, on other later charges. They're not all upstanding citizens. :rolleyes:


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2019 [/*]

No, they aren't.

But here's a question for you, does that mean that putting them in prison and on death row is "okay, because they are bad people?"

And a vast majority of the 129 were not ever arrested for anything ever again.

That should still bother you. I'm concerned that it doesn't bother people a lot more.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


No, they aren't.

But here's a question for you, does that mean that putting them in prison and on death row is "okay, because they are bad people?"

And a vast majority of the 129 were not ever arrested for anything ever again.

That should still bother you. I'm concerned that it doesn't bother people a lot more. [/*]It doesn't bother me. They're out, the system worked. Nothing is perfect.

There are other people who get wrongful judgments in non-criminal courts, they have to live with it, too.

Everyone is affected in different ways.

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
It doesn't bother me. They're out, the system worked. Nothing is perfect.

There are other people who get wrongful judgments in non-criminal courts, they have to live with it, too.

Everyone is affected in different ways. [/*]

The system worked? How can you say that? In most cases, the system would go on and kill these people. The people FIGHTING the system are the ones who end up getting this drawn to the public eye.

For example, in the case of Lee and Pitts, when another man confessed to the crime that they committed, a florida sherrif said "I already have two ni**ers waiting to get fried for that one."

The system was just fine with killing them.

It took a polygraph operator BREAKING THE LAW by revealing what he had heard in an interrogation to the press (and the state of florida threatened him, too, with charges) to get the innocent men released.

The system doesn't work. If the system worked, it'd be finding these facts on its own, and releasing these people. But that's not how it's happening. It's happening by people from outside the system whistle-blowing, or coming forward, and most times that alone isn't enough either.

[redcard]

I guess I'd be less disturbed if people responded with "That's a TRAVESTY" instead of "Well, see, the system works!"

Innocent people should not be on death row for an average of 9.5 years before exoneration. When they are released because they are innocent, the response should not simply be "Well, the system works, aren't you happy?"

[redcard]

I suppose it'd be different if the death penalty actually accomplished anything.. but what we've seen statistically is that it costs more than life without parole, and it doesn't deter crime at all.

Over all murder rates are down, but on average, the states WITHOUT the death penalty have markedly lower murder rates than the states WITH the death penalty. Not only that, the difference between the two has been growing, not shrinking.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard
I suppose it'd be different if the death penalty actually accomplished anything.. but what we've seen statistically is that it costs more than life without parole, and it doesn't deter crime at all.

Over all murder rates are down, but on average, the states WITHOUT the death penalty have markedly lower murder rates than the states WITH the death penalty. Not only that, the difference between the two has been growing, not shrinking. [/*]The DP removes all those who are not fit to live in society, even prison society. The guards at those prisons are in danger every time they punch in. Let's have some uproar about that. :rolleyes:

[wandering]

Originally posted by Beebee


The wrongfully convicted are victimized over and over again every day while incarcerated.

This speaks volumes. Barry Scheck is my hero. WHY don't more people take notice of this??!


http://youtube.com/watch?v=KJ9a0UMtq_U [/*]Barry Scheck is an egotistical big mouth, who got hysterical on Catherine Crier when she tried to question one of his "exonerated."

He's only interested in promoting himself.

He didn't invent DNA, and he denies help to many. He only takes those he thinks he can win. He certainly is no "hero."

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


If you click on the names in that list of the 129, you can see what happened in each case. [/*]Yeah, I did. I skimmed it. I noted a few who confessed, but the technicalities ruled the confessions out. I don't call that "innocent." There were others who died, etc.

To say they are "innocent" is not quite true.

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
Yeah, I did. I skimmed it. I noted a few who confessed, but the technicalities ruled the confessions out. I don't call that "innocent." There were others who died, etc.

To say they are "innocent" is not quite true. [/*]

Technicalities like, what, they were tortured?

Name some names.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by lucielle


With all due respect, if someone is wrongfully convicted what does it matter? An innocent person was jailed for something they did not do. [/*]

From a macro perspective I'm interested in primary causes, particularly by State. I thought someone might have done such a sorting.

[wandering]

Originally posted by Beebee


Really?

What do you do to help the wrongfully convicted? [/*]i write letters. I also write to keep creeps in prison, and hopefully get their parole denied.

I don't have to answer to you. You're just a poster on a message board, same as me.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by Beebee



We are talking about innocent people on this thread.... and you slammed Barry Scheck, a man who helps INNOCENT people.

"same as me"..... No, I am nothing like you. Thank God.

Feel free to ignore my posts, as I will certainly be ignoring yours. [/*]


Why do you all take things so personally? This IS JUST A message board. You are just the same as someone else. You sit behind your computer and type your thoughts in...
No difference...
No two people are going to think the exact same way about any subject. Ignoring other peoples opinions because you do not agree with them is not debating. That is the purpose of this thread.
Obviously some can't handle the fact that others may not see things the same way, get over it!!!!....DEBATE it !!! Don't just tell people you will ignore them and them you... If so, why even be here????

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


Technicalities like, what, they were tortured?

Name some names. [/*]Bad List: A suspect roll of Death Row 'innocents.'

:read: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_54/ai_90888288

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
Bad List: A suspect roll of Death Row 'innocents.'

:read: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_54/ai_90888288 [/*]

That's funny.

Most of these statements in this story are based on items that are not or were not ever mentioned in trial transcripts.

Oops.

Perhaps you can find some evidence from something that isn't a neo-conservative political magazine with open support of the death penalty?

You know, something a bit more .. unbiased?

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


That's funny.

Most of these statements in this story are based on items that are not or were not ever mentioned in trial transcripts.

Oops.

Perhaps you can find some evidence from something that isn't a neo-conservative political magazine with open support of the death penalty?

You know, something a bit more .. unbiased? [/*]I could say the same to you, regarding your position.

In addition, your op says "clearly exonerated," which is not true.

Now, where's that link I asked for?

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering


Now, where's that link I asked for? [/*]

What link? I looked back through, and can't find it..

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard
I suppose it'd be different if the death penalty actually accomplished anything.. but what we've seen statistically is that it costs more than life without parole, and it doesn't deter crime at all.

Over all murder rates are down, but on average, the states WITHOUT the death penalty have markedly lower murder rates than the states WITH the death penalty. Not only that, the difference between the two has been growing, not shrinking. [/*]I can't find it, but this is the statement I want a link for. I think I forgot to post the request, sorry.

As for being conservative, lol, I'm an old neo-hippie from San Francisco, peace and love and all that. I just happen to have my own mind, not having done drugs or anything to alter my consciousness.

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
I can't find it, but this is the statement I want a link for. I think I forgot to post the request, sorry.

As for being conservative, lol, I'm an old neo-hippie from San Francisco, peace and love and all that. I just happen to have my own mind, not having done drugs or anything to alter my consciousness. [/*]

Oh, no problem :)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


Oh, no problem :)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168 [/*]Thanks. I'm glad we can debate reasonably. I have to go out now, but I'll bbl, and think about this link while I'm out. I am open to reasonable debate, lol...:seeya:

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


Oh, no problem :)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168 [/*]Oh, and I just wanted to mention that my state doesn't have the DP. The people voted for it, but the legislators overruled that vote.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


That's funny.

Most of these statements in this story are based on items that are not or were not ever mentioned in trial transcripts.

Oops.

Perhaps you can find some evidence from something that isn't a neo-conservative political magazine with open support of the death penalty?

You know, something a bit more .. unbiased? [/*]How about Joseph Duncan? You think he should live?

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?threadid=329011

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
How about Joseph Duncan? You think he should live?

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?threadid=329011 [/*]

That's a hell of a loaded question there, and I hope you admit that not all people on death row are like Joseph Duncan. Many have been sent there with far less evidence than exists in this case, and I think it's not fair to those who are innocent and on death row anyways to be equated with Joesph Duncan just because the law has sentenced them to death. So please understand that the question you are asking me is one that is guaranteed to evoke an emotional response.

And here's my answer, which will evoke an event more emotional response.

No. I do not think Joseph Duncan should be put to death. I think he is a horrible, horrible man, and I think he deserves to die, but that's an emotional response. Surely if this happened to one of my family members, I'd be screaming things like "I'll pull the switch m'self." That doesn't mean it'd be correct.

Now we have to look at what led to Dylan and Shasta's event.

First, it wasn't just Joseph Duncan's depravity that cost Dylan his life and Shasta to be horribly violated.

Duncan was a convicted sex offender who was given bail after he groped a six year old's genitals. He jumped bail. A judge gave this man bail. A man who had moved around the country got bail, and that is one reason why Dylan and his family are dead, save for his sister, whose life is forever tortured.

The easy thing to do to this man would be to kill him. Kill him, burn any evidence he existed, and then move on.

But is that the right thing?

DO you know what happens when a human body enters hypothermia? How long someone can live on average? The organs that shut down? What can be done to revive those organs?

Much of the knowledge we use today in medicine was derived from the Nazi experiments on Jews. Now , of course, at the Nuremberg trials, we decided to set up a code of ethics.. but guess what? All that research the Nazis had? The right and easy thing to do would have been to BURN it. Get rid of it. Kill it and pretend like it never existed. Instead, we learn from it, and perhaps you or someone you love has gotten to live because a concentration camp person died.

That's what we should do with Joseph Duncan. Lock him up. Yes. Throw away the key. Absolutely. Study him forever. Figure out what makes him tick. Find out how we can figure out where evil people like him come from. Find out how we can protect children. Find out who else he killed so other families can sleep at night.

He's not going anywhere. Unlike that first judge who set a known sex offender who forced his hands down the pants of a six year old child free, this time, nobody's going to let him out. Ever. All these things you hear about lifers getting out? That doesn't happen. Especially not at the federal level. Especially not in Idaho.

It won't cost us anymore than we already are paying.. heck, if you feel guilty about the cost, let twenty people who smoked a joint and got caught free and that should be about the same amount of money that you'll spend on this guy for the rest of his life.

It won't dissuade anyone from doing what he did, the man is sick and sick men don't really seem to notice the difference between right and wrong. Or at least they don't care. I promise you, Joseph Duncan's execution won't stop the sick people out there. Studying him and learning what makes him tick, though, that just might.

Plus, frankly, I don't want him to have an easy exit. I don't want Joseph Duncan to be able to walk away from this. I want him to live with it every day for the rest of his life. I want him to feel it burning his conscience away. I want him to be old, in prison, and wondering why he threw his life down the crapper. I don't want him to be Timothy McVeigh.

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh committed the largest act of domestic terrorism ever committed on the US. Despite having connections to Islamist terrorists and having deep seated hatred of the US brought about by executing surrendering prisoners of war in Iraq under orders, we pushed hard to get him killed. On June 11, 2001, he was executed.

We'll never know his exterior motivations. We'll never know who else he worked with. We'll never know if his connection in the Phillipines to members of Al Qaeda has any connection to what happened three months after his death. We'll never know WHY Oklahoma City had to happen.

But if he lived, perhaps we'd know.

And that's why I think Joseph Duncan should spend the rest of his days behind bars , concrete, retaining walls, more concrete, and perhaps a few more retaining walls. Because I want to learn what can be learned from him so that no other kid goes through what Dylan and Shasta did.. so that no other family goes through what that family went through.

And I hope he lives a god-damned long time.

[lonetraveler]

Originally posted by redcard
I'm moving this discussion here to talk about whether or not "the system" works. This discussion started in the Scott Peterson Adjusting to Prison Thread.

It is my contention that with 1100 people executed and 129 CLEANLY exonerated (link here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) that the process of the death penalty is flawed. With the average time of exoneration being 9.5 years after the date of sentencing and the fact that Texas on average executes their death row members after 10.26 years (on average), I indicated that Texas had installed an "Express Lane."

While I am against the death penalty, and wish it's complete and total abolition, I know we do not have that at this time, so my contention is that we must be certain to be fair.

For every 8 people executed, one person has gone out the door COMPLETELY wrongfully convicted. (The link above does track all death penalty cases, but the 129 on the list are CLEARLY innocent. If it's close, they are not put on the list, and there exists a seperate list containing the "technicalities")

So.. let's discuss :) [/*]

==============================================
You need to take Timothy Bailey Hennis off of this list. He is being retried by Military for the third time for triple murder because DNA evidence puts him at the murders. In case you are thinking double jeapardy is taking place, you're wrong. Hennis was tried in state criminal court. Military reinstated him last fall just to charge and try him for the three murders in military court. Due to not having a way to prove the sperm belonged to him in 1989, that was left behind from the rape committed during the murders, the jury had to find him not guilty. The first jury found him guilty. He appealed and received the 2nd trial. The trial is this year. Unusual circumstance but I do believe that if DNA can free you from a guilty it should also be able to prove you guilty if you were found not guilty prior to DNA testing was available. I feel it should go both ways.

[lonetraveler]

Originally posted by redcard


That's a hell of a loaded question there, and I hope you admit that not all people on death row are like Joseph Duncan. Many have been sent there with far less evidence than exists in this case, and I think it's not fair to those who are innocent and on death row anyways to be equated with Joesph Duncan just because the law has sentenced them to death. So please understand that the question you are asking me is one that is guaranteed to evoke an emotional response.

And here's my answer, which will evoke an event more emotional response.

No. I do not think Joseph Duncan should be put to death. I think he is a horrible, horrible man, and I think he deserves to die, but that's an emotional response. Surely if this happened to one of my family members, I'd be screaming things like "I'll pull the switch m'self." That doesn't mean it'd be correct.

Now we have to look at what led to Dylan and Shasta's event.

First, it wasn't just Joseph Duncan's depravity that cost Dylan his life and Shasta to be horribly violated.

Duncan was a convicted sex offender who was given bail after he groped a six year old's genitals. He jumped bail. A judge gave this man bail. A man who had moved around the country got bail, and that is one reason why Dylan and his family are dead, save for his sister, whose life is forever tortured.

The easy thing to do to this man would be to kill him. Kill him, burn any evidence he existed, and then move on.

But is that the right thing?

DO you know what happens when a human body enters hypothermia? How long someone can live on average? The organs that shut down? What can be done to revive those organs?

Much of the knowledge we use today in medicine was derived from the Nazi experiments on Jews. Now , of course, at the Nuremberg trials, we decided to set up a code of ethics.. but guess what? All that research the Nazis had? The right and easy thing to do would have been to BURN it. Get rid of it. Kill it and pretend like it never existed. Instead, we learn from it, and perhaps you or someone you love has gotten to live because a concentration camp person died.

That's what we should do with Joseph Duncan. Lock him up. Yes. Throw away the key. Absolutely. Study him forever. Figure out what makes him tick. Find out how we can figure out where evil people like him come from. Find out how we can protect children. Find out who else he killed so other families can sleep at night.

He's not going anywhere. Unlike that first judge who set a known sex offender who forced his hands down the pants of a six year old child free, this time, nobody's going to let him out. Ever. All these things you hear about lifers getting out? That doesn't happen. Especially not at the federal level. Especially not in Idaho.

It won't cost us anymore than we already are paying.. heck, if you feel guilty about the cost, let twenty people who smoked a joint and got caught free and that should be about the same amount of money that you'll spend on this guy for the rest of his life.

It won't dissuade anyone from doing what he did, the man is sick and sick men don't really seem to notice the difference between right and wrong. Or at least they don't care. I promise you, Joseph Duncan's execution won't stop the sick people out there. Studying him and learning what makes him tick, though, that just might.

Plus, frankly, I don't want him to have an easy exit. I don't want Joseph Duncan to be able to walk away from this. I want him to live with it every day for the rest of his life. I want him to feel it burning his conscience away. I want him to be old, in prison, and wondering why he threw his life down the crapper. I don't want him to be Timothy McVeigh.

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh committed the largest act of domestic terrorism ever committed on the US. Despite having connections to Islamist terrorists and having deep seated hatred of the US brought about by executing surrendering prisoners of war in Iraq under orders, we pushed hard to get him killed. On June 11, 2001, he was executed.

We'll never know his exterior motivations. We'll never know who else he worked with. We'll never know if his connection in the Phillipines to members of Al Qaeda has any connection to what happened three months after his death. We'll never know WHY Oklahoma City had to happen.

But if he lived, perhaps we'd know.

And that's why I think Joseph Duncan should spend the rest of his days behind bars , concrete, retaining walls, more concrete, and perhaps a few more retaining walls. Because I want to learn what can be learned from him so that no other kid goes through what Dylan and Shasta did.. so that no other family goes through what that family went through.

And I hope he lives a god-damned long time. [/*]

==============================================
Do you actually believe that this POS has a conscience?????? He needs to be put down like a mad dog. He doesn't deserve to live, even in prison. He needs to make room for others like him. I think the judge that let him out should take his cell.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


That's a hell of a loaded question there, and I hope you admit that not all people on death row are like Joseph Duncan. Many have been sent there with far less evidence than exists in this case, and I think it's not fair to those who are innocent and on death row anyways to be equated with Joesph Duncan just because the law has sentenced them to death. So please understand that the question you are asking me is one that is guaranteed to evoke an emotional response.

And here's my answer, which will evoke an event more emotional response.

No. I do not think Joseph Duncan should be put to death. I think he is a horrible, horrible man, and I think he deserves to die, but that's an emotional response. Surely if this happened to one of my family members, I'd be screaming things like "I'll pull the switch m'self." That doesn't mean it'd be correct.

Now we have to look at what led to Dylan and Shasta's event.

First, it wasn't just Joseph Duncan's depravity that cost Dylan his life and Shasta to be horribly violated.

Duncan was a convicted sex offender who was given bail after he groped a six year old's genitals. He jumped bail. A judge gave this man bail. A man who had moved around the country got bail, and that is one reason why Dylan and his family are dead, save for his sister, whose life is forever tortured.

The easy thing to do to this man would be to kill him. Kill him, burn any evidence he existed, and then move on.

But is that the right thing?

DO you know what happens when a human body enters hypothermia? How long someone can live on average? The organs that shut down? What can be done to revive those organs?

Much of the knowledge we use today in medicine was derived from the Nazi experiments on Jews. Now , of course, at the Nuremberg trials, we decided to set up a code of ethics.. but guess what? All that research the Nazis had? The right and easy thing to do would have been to BURN it. Get rid of it. Kill it and pretend like it never existed. Instead, we learn from it, and perhaps you or someone you love has gotten to live because a concentration camp person died.

That's what we should do with Joseph Duncan. Lock him up. Yes. Throw away the key. Absolutely. Study him forever. Figure out what makes him tick. Find out how we can figure out where evil people like him come from. Find out how we can protect children. Find out who else he killed so other families can sleep at night.

He's not going anywhere. Unlike that first judge who set a known sex offender who forced his hands down the pants of a six year old child free, this time, nobody's going to let him out. Ever. All these things you hear about lifers getting out? That doesn't happen. Especially not at the federal level. Especially not in Idaho.

It won't cost us anymore than we already are paying.. heck, if you feel guilty about the cost, let twenty people who smoked a joint and got caught free and that should be about the same amount of money that you'll spend on this guy for the rest of his life.

It won't dissuade anyone from doing what he did, the man is sick and sick men don't really seem to notice the difference between right and wrong. Or at least they don't care. I promise you, Joseph Duncan's execution won't stop the sick people out there. Studying him and learning what makes him tick, though, that just might.

Plus, frankly, I don't want him to have an easy exit. I don't want Joseph Duncan to be able to walk away from this. I want him to live with it every day for the rest of his life. I want him to feel it burning his conscience away. I want him to be old, in prison, and wondering why he threw his life down the crapper. I don't want him to be Timothy McVeigh.

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh committed the largest act of domestic terrorism ever committed on the US. Despite having connections to Islamist terrorists and having deep seated hatred of the US brought about by executing surrendering prisoners of war in Iraq under orders, we pushed hard to get him killed. On June 11, 2001, he was executed.

We'll never know his exterior motivations. We'll never know who else he worked with. We'll never know if his connection in the Phillipines to members of Al Qaeda has any connection to what happened three months after his death. We'll never know WHY Oklahoma City had to happen.

But if he lived, perhaps we'd know.

And that's why I think Joseph Duncan should spend the rest of his days behind bars , concrete, retaining walls, more concrete, and perhaps a few more retaining walls. Because I want to learn what can be learned from him so that no other kid goes through what Dylan and Shasta did.. so that no other family goes through what that family went through.

And I hope he lives a god-damned long time. [/*]I suppose you think Richard Ramirez should live, too. I know one of the survivors of one of his victims. His life is destroyed.

Your posts clearly have no compassion for the survivors, imo.

Richard Allen Davis is a POS, too. The DP law is designed exactly for the worst of the worst.

The survivors lives have forever been changed, yet they must go on, knowing these monsters walk the earth, while their loved ones are gone forever.

That is not justice.

[wandering]

Originally posted by lonetraveler


==============================================
Do you actually believe that this POS has a conscience?????? He needs to be put down like a mad dog. He doesn't deserve to live, even in prison. He needs to make room for others like him. I think the judge that let him out should take his cell. [/*]ITA. :patriot:

[redcard]

Originally posted by lonetraveler


==============================================
Do you actually believe that this POS has a conscience?????? He needs to be put down like a mad dog. He doesn't deserve to live, even in prison. He needs to make room for others like him. I think the judge that let him out should take his cell. [/*]

If he didn't have a conscience, then he wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong, and that is no different then executing a child. WOuld you execute a child, too? They don't have appreciation of their actions, and that's what you're insisting here.

Look, he most definitely has a conscience, and he knows the difference between right and wrong. What I want to know is why he IGNORES it.

You talk about him being a dog.. an animal.. just needing to be put down.

We understand dogs well. We breed for killers in dogs.. ask Mike Vick. Don't you think studying this animal in Duncan would show us how he came to be?

Killing him doesn't deter, doesn't solve, doesn't end, doesn't cost less. There's nothing it does. The only reason you want to kill him is because you think he should suffer and die.

And that makes you share a lot in common with Joseph Duncan, doesn't it?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by redcard
I'm moving this discussion here to talk about whether or not "the system" works. This discussion started in the Scott Peterson Adjusting to Prison Thread.

It is my contention that with 1100 people executed and 129 CLEANLY exonerated (link here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) that the process of the death penalty is flawed. With the average time of exoneration being 9.5 years after the date of sentencing and the fact that Texas on average executes their death row members after 10.26 years (on average), I indicated that Texas had installed an "Express Lane."

While I am against the death penalty, and wish it's complete and total abolition, I know we do not have that at this time, so my contention is that we must be certain to be fair.

For every 8 people executed, one person has gone out the door COMPLETELY wrongfully convicted. (The link above does track all death penalty cases, but the 129 on the list are CLEARLY innocent. If it's close, they are not put on the list, and there exists a seperate list containing the "technicalities")

So.. let's discuss :) [/*]

Since Scott Peterson seems to have generated this thread, I would like to point out that since 1973, from that list, only 3 were from CA. The first person was already in jail and we don't know what his original term was for. It took 4 trials to get him acquitted.

The second and third were not retried. That is a prosecution decision and has NOTHING to do with innocence or guilt. It just means they don't think they can "win" It does not mean that the person charged is "innocent."

Given that small number in the state of CA, I would say the system works much more than it does not. There are over 600 men on death row in CA now, and only 3 have been released since 1973?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


The wrongfully convicted are victimized over and over again every day while incarcerated.

This speaks volumes. Barry Scheck is my hero. WHY don't more people take notice of this??!


http://youtube.com/watch?v=KJ9a0UMtq_U [/*]

You are confusing "not guilty" with "innocent." There is a difference - a HUGE difference. Many are out simply because the prosecution CHOSE not to retry them. That does not mean they are innocent by any stretch of the imagination. The merely means that the state does not want to take teh time and expense to retry them.

A guilty person may well get off death row on a technicality. Taht does snot mean they are innocent.

[redcard]

Originally posted by earth goddess


You are confusing "not guilty" with "innocent." There is a difference - a HUGE difference. Many are out simply because the prosecution CHOSE not to retry them. That does not mean they are innocent by any stretch of the imagination. The merely means that the state does not want to take teh time and expense to retry them.

A guilty person may well get off death row on a technicality. Taht does snot mean they are innocent. [/*]

I would contend that if you are going to kill a man, and then he gets out, and you have a second shot at him and you decide to do nothing whatsoever, it's pretty clear to me that you think he's innocent.

I mean, come on.. you're saying that prosecutor's are saying in two breaths:

"You're evil and the state has the right to kill you."

and then

"We don't want to deal with you anymore."

That makes no sense.

The reason the prosecutor's decided not to retry was because they knew they could not get a conviction, often times because evidence was revealed, withheld, or non-existant (in the form of DNA testing) in the first trial that would be present in the second.

I think we need to start prosecuting the prosecutors who do this hiding of evidence crap, though.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


I would contend that if you are going to kill a man, and then he gets out, and you have a second shot at him and you decide to do nothing whatsoever, it's pretty clear to me that you think he's innocent.

I mean, come on.. you're saying that prosecutor's are saying in two breaths:

"You're evil and the state has the right to kill you."

and then

"We don't want to deal with you anymore."

That makes no sense.

The reason the prosecutor's decided not to retry was because they knew they could not get a conviction, often times because evidence was revealed, withheld, or non-existant (in the form of DNA testing) in the first trial that would be present in the second.

I think we need to start prosecuting the prosecutors who do this hiding of evidence crap, though. [/*]Sometimes the evidence has deteriorated, as well, so it can't be used. Witnesses die, disappear, etc.

I think defense attys hide evidence, too.

Sometimes the money is not there to retry. There are lots of reasons perps go free.

They're not all innocent.

[redcard]

Originally posted by holiday
IMO, you make absolutely no sense. You sound awefully illinformed and bitter.

How about we send those evil murderers to come and live with you instead? Can you afford it?

You don't live in the US do you? ccadp.org perhaps?

:rolleyes: [/*]

Send those evil murderers to live with me?

What the hell are you smoking?

First off, I _NEVER_ said , EVER, that a murderer should be free to roam the streets. You death penalty freaks seem to think that just because I don't want to kill someone, that I want them to live with me. That's called false dichotomy.

Second off, when a prosecutor decides not to retry a murder case, then HE is saying that the guy is innocent. In the US, innocence is PRESUMED until guilt is FOUND. If the case is overturned, then the court says guilt was NEVER FOUND. Don't blame me for prosecutor's not going back and retrying a case.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by redcard


Send those evil murderers to live with me?

What the hell are you smoking?

First off, I _NEVER_ said , EVER, that a murderer should be free to roam the streets. You death penalty freaks seem to think that just because I don't want to kill someone, that I want them to live with me. That's called false dichotomy.

Second off, when a prosecutor decides not to retry a murder case, then HE is saying that the guy is innocent. In the US, innocence is PRESUMED until guilt is FOUND. If the case is overturned, then the court says guilt was NEVER FOUND. Don't blame me for prosecutor's not going back and retrying a case. [/*]

No one is blaming you. Prosecution of a criminal is extremely expensive. Wandering is correct. Witnesses die, evidence deteriorates. Not to retry does NOT have anything to do with evidence or guilt. It has to do with finances.

Peterson is a very good example. His trial taxed the Stanislaus County budget. The trial was moved to Redwood City, which meant that Stanislaus County had to pay that dcounty's jury rate. Stanislaus County only pays its jurors $5 a day. They had to pay for Scott's incarceration in Redwood City also. There are a lot of expenses infvolved in a case that has a venue change. They also had to pay expenses for parosecution witnesses to stay in Redwood City. They would not have had to pay for this had the trial been in Stanislaus County.

So, financess play a HUGTE part in whether someone gets prosecuted or not. It's about finances and circi,stamces pf tje evidence and witnesses. It's not about guilt or innocence. That's just common sense.

It is folly to think that a person who has had a conviction overturned is innocent. It is more likely a reversible error in the trial and that does NOT mean innocence.

[redcard]

Originally posted by capri coral
DICHOTOMY? LMAO

Do you live in the US? Where are you getting your misinformation about the laws in this country? What case would be over turned? No, the court does not say guilt was never found. Where you getting this stuff? I notice you don't provide links to any of your statements.

:confused: [/*]

Yes, I live in the US.

I get my information from the criminal defense lawyers in my family.

Yes, the court says, on the overturning of a case, that the first case NEVER HAPPENED. The whole thing is basically started over from square one. (Or whatever square got overturned) At the start of a case, before ANYONE says a word, the defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT. He is, by all accounts of the law, an INNOCENT MAN.

It's the process of the case that turns that presumption of innocence into the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard that the courts have held here.

Come on, I learned this in pre-law. It's not even what a first year law student learns.

As for providing links, umm.. DUH.. it's called appellate law. Seriously, what do you want me to do, link the Constitution here? Or do you want me to link in the various latin terms that are now used on an order? I can show you the freaking "Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure" right here:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/109th/31307.pdf

I can also point you to US Code Title 28 Part V Chapter 133 Par 2106 which gives the court and all appeals courts the right to vacate:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00002106----000-.html

Is US law and US Court Procedures enough for you, or do you want actual casework too? I'd think this should be enough.

When a case is reviewed and overturned, it is GONE. Everything. Starts. Over.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by redcard


Yes, I live in the US.

I get my information from the criminal defense lawyers in my family.

Yes, the court says, on the overturning of a case, that the first case NEVER HAPPENED. The whole thing is basically started over from square one. (Or whatever square got overturned) At the start of a case, before ANYONE says a word, the defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT. He is, by all accounts of the law, an INNOCENT MAN.

It's the process of the case that turns that presumption of innocence into the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard that the courts have held here.

Come on, I learned this in pre-law. It's not even what a first year law student learns.

As for providing links, umm.. DUH.. it's called appellate law. Seriously, what do you want me to do, link the Constitution here? Or do you want me to link in the various latin terms that are now used on an order? I can show you the freaking "Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure" right here:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/109th/31307.pdf

I can also point you to US Code Title 28 Part V Chapter 133 Par 2106 which gives the court and all appeals courts the right to vacate:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00002106----000-.html

Is US law and US Court Procedures enough for you, or do you want actual casework too? I'd think this should be enough.

When a case is reviewed and overturned, it is GONE. Everything. Starts. Over. [/*]

Presumed innocent only applies in a court. It has nothing to do with what goes on outside.

Ok, the prosecutor startts over. His eye witnesses are dead. TGhe DNA has d eteriorated. He has nothing with which to proseucte again. That does NOT mean the accused in innocent. It means there is no longer the evidence needed to prosecute him. It does not mean that it never existed.

Do you not think there are crfiminals walking the streets as we type? Prosecutors do not try every case that comes across their desks.

[wandering]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Presumed innocent only applies in a court. It has nothing to do with what goes on outside.

Ok, the prosecutor startts over. His eye witnesses are dead. TGhe DNA has d eteriorated. He has nothing with which to proseucte again. That does NOT mean the accused in innocent. It means there is no longer the evidence needed to prosecute him. It does not mean that it never existed.

Do you not think there are crfiminals walking the streets as we type? Prosecutors do not try every case that comes across their desks. [/*]Excellent points. :patriot:

[redcard]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Presumed innocent only applies in a court. It has nothing to do with what goes on outside.

Ok, the prosecutor startts over. His eye witnesses are dead. TGhe DNA has d eteriorated. He has nothing with which to proseucte again. That does NOT mean the accused in innocent. It means there is no longer the evidence needed to prosecute him. It does not mean that it never existed.

Do you not think there are crfiminals walking the streets as we type? Prosecutors do not try every case that comes across their desks. [/*]

Yes, of course I do think there are criminals walking the street.

The problem is, when you have someone vote to convict, and then ten years later, the evidence completely goes the other way (like it is with TN vs House) then there's a problem. Death should not be given out where the evidence is so malleable. Add into that prosecutorial misconduct and police misconduct, and literally, he could have created a situation where a prosecutor was placed on death row for murder by judicial execution.

We have to have better safeguards than what we have now, and if we can't , then we need to stop using the death penalty.

Do you realize that you could just as easily be in this position? All it takes is your significant other dying, the police getting to your children/family, and them remembering a fight. Throw in some blood taken from you, missing vials, withheld information, and that's it. That's all it took in the TN case, and you'll be gone for 23 years. Oh sure, they'll get the right answer.. but ..

We have to start making the police and the prosecutors liable for their mistakes.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


Yes, of course I do think there are criminals walking the street.

The problem is, when you have someone vote to convict, and then ten years later, the evidence completely goes the other way (like it is with TN vs House) then there's a problem. Death should not be given out where the evidence is so malleable. Add into that prosecutorial misconduct and police misconduct, and literally, he could have created a situation where a prosecutor was placed on death row for murder by judicial execution.

We have to have better safeguards than what we have now, and if we can't , then we need to stop using the death penalty.

Do you realize that you could just as easily be in this position? All it takes is your significant other dying, the police getting to your children/family, and them remembering a fight. Throw in some blood taken from you, missing vials, withheld information, and that's it. That's all it took in the TN case, and you'll be gone for 23 years. Oh sure, they'll get the right answer.. but ..

We have to start making the police and the prosecutors liable for their mistakes. [/*]I agree with you. The only way to make them liable is to sue for $$$$$$. All wrongly convicted should do that, imo. Money is the big talker, imo.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by wandering
I agree with you. The only way to make them liable is to sue for $$$$$$. All wrongly convicted should do that, imo. Money is the big talker, imo. [/*]

Never happen, for every person wrongly convicted. People can be wrongly convicted even when every single person involved with the prosecution did everything exactly right, just as people who DID commit crimes get off due to the smallest errors in procedure. Misconduct certainly should be punished (me, I think Nifong didn't get half of what he deserved through the whole Duke case), but assuming that every overturned conviction is grounds for a civil trail strikes me as unfair to the prosecutors who are actually trying to get dangerous people off the street.

[wandering]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


Never happen, for every person wrongly convicted. People can be wrongly convicted even when every single person involved with the prosecution did everything exactly right, just as people who DID commit crimes get off due to the smallest errors in procedure. Misconduct certainly should be punished (me, I think Nifong didn't get half of what he deserved through the whole Duke case), but assuming that every overturned conviction is grounds for a civil trail strikes me as unfair to the prosecutors who are actually trying to get dangerous people off the street. [/*]I'm sure there are many ethical prosecutors, but from what I've seen, some just want the case solved. They look at it differently than we do. It depends on whether they approach it by going where the facts lead them or making the facts fit their theory. Therein lies the difference between good police work and the few who make the rest look bad.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by redcard


Yes, of course I do think there are criminals walking the street.

The problem is, when you have someone vote to convict, and then ten years later, the evidence completely goes the other way (like it is with TN vs House) then there's a problem. Death should not be given out where the evidence is so malleable. Add into that prosecutorial misconduct and police misconduct, and literally, he could have created a situation where a prosecutor was placed on death row for murder by judicial execution.

We have to have better safeguards than what we have now, and if we can't , then we need to stop using the death penalty.

Do you realize that you could just as easily be in this position? All it takes is your significant other dying, the police getting to your children/family, and them remembering a fight. Throw in some blood taken from you, missing vials, withheld information, and that's it. That's all it took in the TN case, and you'll be gone for 23 years. Oh sure, they'll get the right answer.. but ..

We have to start making the police and the prosecutors liable for their mistakes. [/*]

Perhaps, then, you should leave California and Scott Peterson out of your thoughts. Three overturned convictions out of over 600 is pretty weak. Maybe TN has a problem, but CA seems to be in pretty good shape over it.

If you want to dispute the 600 figure, the death penalty in CA was overturned in 1972 and voted back in 1977 so ANYONE who was on death row prior to 1972 would have had their sentences reduced. So anyone on deaqth row is there post 1977. It would seem that the appeals process in CA works pretty well.

[redcard]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Perhaps, then, you should leave California and Scott Peterson out of your thoughts. Three overturned convictions out of over 600 is pretty weak. Maybe TN has a problem, but CA seems to be in pretty good shape over it.

If you want to dispute the 600 figure, the death penalty in CA was overturned in 1972 and voted back in 1977 so ANYONE who was on death row prior to 1972 would have had their sentences reduced. So anyone on deaqth row is there post 1977. It would seem that the appeals process in CA works pretty well. [/*]

There's a LOT more than three.

and there's a lot more than six hundred. (Many have died on Cali's death row and of course pre-1978 numbers still can count)

And California has only executed 13 people since the death penalty came back in. Their "method of handling it" is to error on the side of life, so they do everything in their power to put stumbling blocks in the way. Haven't you noticed that the answer for California lately has been to NOT KILL ANYONE?

Within a few years, I bet they outlaw the DP all together in California, that's how close it is to that.

The only reason CA is "handling things right" is because they are simply not killing anyone.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by redcard


There's a LOT more than three.

and there's a lot more than six hundred. (Many have died on Cali's death row and of course pre-1978 numbers still can count)

And California has only executed 13 people since the death penalty came back in. Their "method of handling it" is to error on the side of life, so they do everything in their power to put stumbling blocks in the way. Haven't you noticed that the answer for California lately has been to NOT KILL ANYONE?

Within a few years, I bet they outlaw the DP all together in California, that's how close it is to that.

The only reason CA is "handling things right" is because they are simply not killing anyone. [/*]

I am sorry, but the site you gave only had three CA on it. If teh citizens have anything to say in it, the death penalty will continue. And not killing anyone has nada to do with it. The three from the site YOU provided were commuted on appeal, not because of delays in death penalty. Maybe you should read the link you provided. I only found Graham, Jones, and Morris.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by GH247
More information. I am willing to consider the California cases of Shujaa Graham and Oscar Lee Morris as exonerations. Graham was granted a new trial because of the exclusion of black jurors, had four trials, and was ultimately acquitted. Morris was convicted on the testimony of a single witness, who later recanted. He was granted a new trial, but not retried. In the Morris case, there may have been prosecutorial misconduct in withholding information from the defense regarding the witness.

These cases reinforce my opinion which I have stated elsewhere in this site, that racism and prosecutorial misconduct are more likely to lead to a wrongful conviction than prosecution primarily based on circumstantial evidence. [/*]

I disagree with that last paragraph.
But I bet you could have guessed I would. :biggrin:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GH247
More information. I am willing to consider the California cases of Shujaa Graham and Oscar Lee Morris as exonerations. Graham was granted a new trial because of the exclusion of black jurors, had four trials, and was ultimately acquitted. Morris was convicted on the testimony of a single witness, who later recanted. He was granted a new trial, but not retried. In the Morris case, there may have been prosecutorial misconduct in withholding information from the defense regarding the witness.

These cases reinforce my opinion which I have stated elsewhere in this site, that racism and prosecutorial misconduct are more likely to lead to a wrongful conviction than prosecution primarily based on circumstantial evidence. [/*]

Graham was already in prison when the crime occurred and I don't believe he was let out on that charge.

[Justice_Dawg]

Supreme Court finds lethal injections a humane means of execution (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-scotus17apr17,0,3787273.story)

The 7-2 ruling shows strong support for the death penalty among justices and sets a high bar for future challenges.

---
Since October, officials and judges in those states -- including California -- have put executions on hold while awaiting the outcome of the Kentucky case decided Wednesday. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the ruling "supports California's lethal-injection protocol" and should allow executions in the state to resume.

[redcard]

Originally posted by capri coral


How many times have you been arrested? Sounds like you have some major ax to grind. What country do you reside in? What is this "we" stuff? Speak for yourself.

I have never seen someone so angry and clueless about our justice system more than you. Where do you get this crazy thinking? Give me real numbers from credible sources. Can you do that?

jmo [/*]

Twice.

Once for protesting the war in Iraq on public property and with a permit.

And once for coming to the aid of a 60 year old lady who was batoned to the ground for resisting arrest after asking an officer what the officer said when we were being moved into a free speech cage.

No charges filed.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


Twice.

Once for protesting the war in Iraq on public property and with a permit.

And once for coming to the aid of a 60 year old lady who was batoned to the ground for resisting arrest after asking an officer what the officer said when we were being moved into a free speech cage.

No charges filed. [/*]No charges filed.

And your point is?

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
No charges filed.

And your point is? [/*]

I was asked why I have a hatred towards the justice system.

I don't have one. I contend that many prosecutors are offered no outs other than to find the bad man guilty, regardless of the truth of his guilt or innocence.

I contend that the police officers who abuse their power, the prosecutors that lie and mislead, and the death penalty lawyers who don't seem to care because it's pro bono hate the justice system far more than I do.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


I was asked why I have a hatred towards the justice system.

I don't have one. I contend that many prosecutors are offered no outs other than to find the bad man guilty, regardless of the truth of his guilt or innocence.

I contend that the police officers who abuse their power, the prosecutors that lie and mislead, and the death penalty lawyers who don't seem to care because it's pro bono hate the justice system far more than I do. [/*]They hate the justice system? Do you have a link for that statement?

If they hate the justice system, why are they working in it? Especially the prosecutors/DAs, who are ELECTED, and can make much more money in private practice.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by wandering
They hate the justice system? Do you have a link for that statement?

If they hate the justice system, why are they working in it? Especially the prosecutors/DAs, who are ELECTED, and can make much more money in private practice. [/*]

I believe in the justice system for the most part. However, there ARE instances of teh "good old boy" network still around and that needs to be changed. It doesn't take an arrest to be a victim of the system - it just takes them dragging your good name through the mud. As for prison, it's not always as violent as they show on TV. Many people get through prison without being raped, assaulted or anything else. At least in some prisons, you can have contact visits, TVs, CD players, abooks etc in your cell. You get exercise time IF you choose to avail yourself of st. You can learn job skills, you c ana go to school, you can get free drdug treatment and counseling. What happens in prison depends solely on the behavior of the prisoner.

[wandering]

Originally posted by earth goddess


I believe in the justice system for the most part. However, there ARE instances of teh "good old boy" network still around and that needs to be changed. It doesn't take an arrest to be a victim of the system - it just takes them dragging your good name through the mud. As for prison, it's not always as violent as they show on TV. Many people get through prison without being raped, assaulted or anything else. At least in some prisons, you can have contact visits, TVs, CD players, abooks etc in your cell. You get exercise time IF you choose to avail yourself of st. You can learn job skills, you c ana go to school, you can get free drdug treatment and counseling. What happens in prison depends solely on the behavior of the prisoner. [/*]Well, I agree, but what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by wandering
Well, I agree, but what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? [/*] There was talk of how the poor "innocent" men languish in prisonl. I was attempting to say that prison does not have to be a bad experience for every inmate. I know for a fact, that prisoners on death row in San Quentin have more privileges than in some jails.

[wandering]

Originally posted by earth goddess
There was talk of how the poor "innocent" men languish in prisonl. I was attempting to say that prison does not have to be a bad experience for every inmate. I know for a fact, that prisoners on death row in San Quentin have more privileges than in some jails. [/*]I see. Thank you for your reply. :seeya:

[earth goddess]

Hedre's a prime example of the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent."

OJ was found not guilty, but I have yet to find anyone who believes he is "innocent." He was just not proven guilty in a court of law.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee






http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/03/13/f_lee_bailey_says_oj_absolutely_didnt_do_it/ [/*]

Let's see here. Isn't a defense attorney PAID to say his client is innocent.

Wasn't he disbarred at one point in his career? And isn't he notorious for having a drinking problem? Of course, if he said OJ wasw innocent, he couldn't sell his book, could he?

The facts remain the same. NO ONE believes OJ is innocent. He is arrogant and has done everything he can to profve he got away with murder.

[Adalena935]

I used to support the death penalty but I don't think I do anymore. DNA technology has made a believer out of me.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by Adalena935
I used to support the death penalty but I don't think I do anymore. DNA technology has made a believer out of me. [/*]

DNA + death penalty is just fine with me. :seeya:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Adalena935
I used to support the death penalty but I don't think I do anymore. DNA technology has made a believer out of me. [/*]

DNA is a wonderful thing, but it hasn't been used frequently in death row cases. It's more useful in rape cases than death row cases. The problem with DNA in capital murder cases is that many are killed by people they know and those people's DNA could be found at the scene - i.e., a husband who kills his wife in their home. The husband's DNA would logically be found all over hte home so it wouldn't be exculpatory at all.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by redcard


I would contend that if you are going to kill a man, and then he gets out, and you have a second shot at him and you decide to do nothing whatsoever, it's pretty clear to me that you think he's innocent.

I mean, come on.. you're saying that prosecutor's are saying in two breaths:

"You're evil and the state has the right to kill you."

and then

"We don't want to deal with you anymore."

That makes no sense.

The reason the prosecutor's decided not to retry w

Bas because they knew they could not get a conviction, often times because evidence was revealed, withheld, or non-existant (in the form of DNA testing) in the first trial that would be present in the second.

I think we need to start prosecuting the prosecutors who do this hiding of evidence crap, though. [/*]

Boy, are you naive. You don't concede that evidence could be lost and that witnesses have died?

Why do you think witnesses go into the witness protection program? So they won't be killed maybe. Criminals, even in jail, can manipulate things on the outside. Many witnesses "disappear" and are no longer available to testify in a retrail

[earth goddess]

Actual Innocence — In order to raise a claim of actual innocence, a prisoner must present evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial — it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have voted for conviction — unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was free of non-harmless constitutional error. The Supreme Court has counseled however, that the actual innocence exception should "remain rare" and only be applied in the "extraordinary case."

Such a claim requires a prisoner to support allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence — whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence — that was not presented at trial. Congress in 1996 passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which added stringent limits to successive habeas corpus petitions and evidentiary hearings, requiring that the reliable evidence be such that it could not have been discovered earlier. Newly-discovered evidence means proof of some new and material fact in the case, which has come to light since the verdict. However, due diligence must have been done to discover all the evidence before the trial.


Innocence srequired NEW RELIABLE evidence. None of the three overturned in CA were overturned because of that. So they are NOT innocent.

[kimmy56]

Originally posted by redcard


The system worked? How can you say that? In most cases, the system would go on and kill these people. The people FIGHTING the system are the ones who end up getting this drawn to the public eye.


For example, in the case of Lee and Pitts, when another man confessed to the crime that they committed, a florida sherrif said "I already have two ni**ers waiting to get fried for that one."

The system was just fine with killing them.

It took a polygraph operator BREAKING THE LAW by revealing what he had heard in an interrogation to the press (and the state of florida threatened him, too, with charges) to get the innocent men released.

The system doesn't work. If the system worked, it'd be finding these facts on its own, and releasing these people. But that's not how it's happening. It's happening by people from outside the system whistle-blowing, or coming forward, and most times that alone isn't enough either. [/*]

It's not the system that doesn't work - it's the people working the system. Just like religion IMO. Until people become perfect (non-corrupt, etc.) then there will always be mistakes everywhere. Do we throw out the death penalty because of that is the question. Some, I know, feel that if one wrongly convicted person has been put to death then the death penalty should be thrown out. I don't know if I agree with that.