Prove to me that the death penalty has never been used on an innocent person.

[trumad]

You can't---can you?

Didn't think so.

So--- now tell me why you approve of a penalty that most likely has killed innocent people?

What---the old argument that sure mistakes happen but it's for the betterment of society?

Just imagine if you were that mistake.

[SIMPLYB1980]

1. Prove to me that John Allen Muhammad is innocent

of his charges.

[MNDemNY]

6. what has that to do with anything?

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. That is the case that is setting off the anti Death penalty crowd.

Personally I will do a little jig when the deed is done.

[trumad]

10. Oh---so pick and choose....

Maybe this guy---maybe not....

Guess what--- the innocent people that were killed by the death penalty probably had people who felt the same way as you do about John Allen. Guess what--- they were wrong.

You can';t have a half ass death penalty.

[SIMPLYB1980]

17. Yes actually that is just how I approach it.

I would not be for the Death penalty for anyone with a reasonable doubt. Due to new evidence or evidence revealed in the case in question.

[trumad]

22. LOL

WOW--- Have people been put to death who were innocent?

[MNDemNY]

23. What about evidence that comes 10-20 years later??

Where do you draw the line? ANYTIME a human is involved there is a chance of error.

[SIMPLYB1980]

28. Then that is sad, but doesn't change my stance.

[MNDemNY]

63. So you say it is ok to kill how many innocent people??

1? 3? 123? 3000? how many?? tell me what the proper price to pay is.

[EOTE]

40. Damn straight, the DP is not a lunch buffet.

I hear so many people say: "Well sure, racial bias is a problem, but..." or "Well sure, maybe a few innocents have been killed, but..." or "Well sure, the DP might not be an effective deterrent to crime, but..." as if it's fine to continue with the DP until all those kinks are ironed out. If you support the DP, you support it warts and all. And the blood of the innocents who have been killed are on your hands as well. People who support the death penalty are either completely oblivious to its flaws or just don't care. It's pretty sick either way.

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. I approve of it in cases where it's known with certainty that they have the right person

and that settles it for me.

[MNDemNY]

8. Who gets to decide when it is "known with certainty"?? A human?

There in lies the problem. Humans err. You can not take the human factor out of it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Is there any doubt that John Muhammad is NOT the right guy?

Any whatsoever?

[trumad]

18. That's not the point..

I betcha folks thought they had the right guy when they executed the wrong guy. What about that guy?

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. It's completely the point. Just ask John Muhammad.

Muhammad is one of the DC Snipers, period. Whatever happened outside of his case is irrelevant.

[EOTE]

44. I don't think you quite grasp this issue.

The standard for the death penalty is that it's used ONLY when a person's guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd certainly say that John Muhammad has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet we know that innocent people have been put to death by the death penalty. You can't say that you only support it when it's a sure thing when you know that there were "sure things" already put to death who have later proven to be innocent. Either you support the DP or you don't. And if you do support it, you should know that some innocents are going to be killed by it. You should also know that the DP is applied with a racial bias and it's extremely expensive compared to life in jail and doesn't act as a deterrent. If you're still good with supporting the DP while knowing those facts, then so be it. But you certainly should be aware of those facts.

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. I'm grasping it just fine

John Muhammad did it. This is not in dispute. Likewise, Hasan did it. Also not in dispute. Death to each.

Are there innocent people on death row who were convicted on flimsier evidence? Yes, definitely. I would not execute them.

I don't know where the threshold is. I do know, however, when that threshold has been crossed with certainty, eg, John Muhammad.

If you want this to be a more interesting discussion, make it about someone closer to wherever that threshold of certainty is.

[EOTE]

59. Does Cameron Todd Willingham pass your threshold?

He is most certainly innocent and he was most certainly murdered by the state. If you support the death penalty, you're also supporting his murder. I'm sure you'll say "But I wouldn't have had him killed.", but it doesn't matter. You support the system which killed him. You don't get to choose the cases where the DP is used or not. You either support it or you don't.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. I support the DP when it's known with certainty that they have the right guy

otherwise I don't support it.

My view is crystal clear, and I don't need to read any links to clarify it anymore. I'm sorry if you can't or won't comprehend my views on the death penalty.

If you're the thinking person that you probably claim to be, you'd realize that I'm NOT a proponent of the death penalty as it exists today, but would instead prefer to condemn a much smaller percentage of suspected murderers, viz. those that are known to have committed murder.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt under the evidence provided is a much weaker criterion that KNOWN.

I'm sure you're more enraged than ever, though, so have a nice day.

[EOTE]

69. I support AIDS when it kills serial killers and child rapists.

Otherwise, I don't support AIDS at all. I think my view is crystal clear. I'm sorry if you can't or won't comprehend my views on AIDS.

If you truly mean it when you say "I'm NOT a proponent of the death penalty as it exists today", then I'm guessing you support a moratorium on the death penalty until such a time that it can be proven that there's not even a chance that an innocent person be put to death?

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. In all of that horse crap, you managed to leave a pony

I would absolutely support a moratorium on the death penalty except in cases where guilt has been established by confession and/or extraordinary preponderance of evidence, eg, DNA + witnesses + circumstantial evidence, or perhaps video footage, or something else that crosses the reasonable doubt threshold with considerable room to spare.

[EOTE]

74. So you support a moratorium.... except.

Apparently you have no idea what a moratorium is if you think it can be applied selectively. You've just proven how little you know about this issue. I'll give your simple little mind a clue. There's already a ban on the death penalty EXCEPT for instances where guilt has been established by an extraordinary preponderance of evidence. It's called "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your logic on this issue is so simple minded it's pathetic.

[Dreamer Tatum]

81. I have to laugh

Really, now. Is it that difficult for you to see that I'm in favor of strengthening the existing criteria for putting someone to death?

Really?

Let me state it very simply for you, not because you're stupid, but because you're flailing about, trying to argue against everything other than my simple point.

I am in favor of a permanent moratorium on the death penalty, except in the rare set of cases where there is NO doubt that the prospective condemned is actually the killer.

This is probably an EXTREMELY rare set of cases.


(did you see what I just said? Extremely rare? That means that I think there isn't enough evidence to make most convicted murderers pay with their lives)

[EOTE]

85. Once again, your lack of comprehension shines through.

There's already a ban on the death penalty except in the rare set of cases where there is NO doubt about guilt. What about evidence tampering? The only true standard for "NO doubt" would be if the jurors had actually seen the crime take place. And yet, the DP still puts innocents to death. You can't have a moratorium on the DP and then say, "Oh, but you can still put these people to death." This is something Governor Ryan of Illinois realized when he put a moratorium on the DP in Illinois in 2000. He realized that the system was broken and the only solution is to put a stop to it until the problems could be fixed. Governor Ryan, a republican, realized that he couldn't pick and choose the ones who fell through a ridiculously flawed system, he knew that he had to put an end to it until the problems could be addressed. You, however, seem to think we all live in the fantasy world that only exists in your head. Where we have the ability to divine the absolute truth without fail. From everything you've said, it's clear to me that if you followed your own logic, you'd only support the death penalty in the utopia you've built in your mind, yet you still fail to condemn the death penalty as it exists in the real world. That shows to me that you've got an extreme logical disconnect.

[Dreamer Tatum]

89. Oh, now I see. You're arguing semantics,splitting hairs, and chasing your tail.

What's that saying? "When the law is against you, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; when both are against you, claim conspiracy. When you can't tell the difference, argue semantics."

Please refer back to the man standing on your lawn with your daughter's severed head in his clutch. I struggle to see how evidence tampering would exonerate that man, so once again, that example (admittedly extremely rare) would pass the evidence tampering test with flying colors.

If you'd stop for a moment and think, you'd see that we mostly agree on the flawed nature of the system. That's why I'm only comfortable with the DP on the condition that a murderer would be put to death under arbitrarily strong criteria.

If you're one of those people who can't let go without being told "you're right," then here you go: You're right, EOTE.

But it's not the Perry-Mason-finale sort of right. It's the patting-you-on-your-head-and-dismissing-you-to-go-play kind of right.

[EOTE]

93. You STILL don't get it.

You admit that the DP has loads of flaws, yet you still say you support it. You can say that you'd support the death penalty IF all of those flaws were taken care of ahead of time. You CAN'T logically say that you'd support the DP only if those issues were taken care of AND say that you still support the death penalty as it exists now. The only logically consistent argument to take is that you support a moratorium on ALL DP cases (because that's what a moratorium is) UNTIL all of those issues have been worked out. The only logically consistent argument you can take is to say: "I don't believe in the death penalty as it exists today. However, if the many flaws in the DP are addressed to my satisfaction, then I can support the DP again." Anything else and you're just fooling yourself, or trying to defend the indefensible. Not quite sure which.

[Dreamer Tatum]

95. Your argument stands in posterity. I've made my point, and you've missed it.

Run along and play.

[EOTE]

97. Great way to concede the argument. Run along and take your meds.

[Dreamer Tatum]

103. Yes, unfortunately, after dealing with you, I require meds.

[MNDemNY]

105. No, your point is unattainable with human involvement.

You know this but continue to act the fool. A typical reaction for knee-jerk folks who refuse to admit the fallacy of any position that does not concede that any death penalty standard will result in innocent deaths.

[Dreamer Tatum]

106. False.

We might put all of one person a year to death, but that person will be known to be guilty or it wouldn't happen.


Say, was Timothy McVeigh guilty?

[MNDemNY]

107. "known" by who??? so if 1 person does not believe in the guilt, then no execution??

Your either an idiot or an asshole. Which is it?(I do not think you are an idiot).

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. Here is a list of people known by DU to be guilty of murder, based on DU threads

Timothy McVeigh
Scott Roeder
George W. Bush
Richard Cheney

and I could go on.


Please don't preach to me about the notion of guilt. Guilt is assigned here every single day of the week. At issue is punishment.

I'm not totally sure that even my criteria would condemn McVeigh, and in fact I am furiously reading links to determine whether John Muhammad would truly pass that test, either.

[MNDemNY]

110. NO the issue is "mistakes" are you dense?

[Dreamer Tatum]

113. We are awfully damn sure about that list of people I showed.

So again, would any of them meet strengthened criteria to actually be put to death?

I don't know.

I have already stated that I am all for eliminating the DP except in cases where no mistake is being made. That extreme criterion might make death row all of ten cells for the entire country, for all I know.

[EOTE]

108. Ahhh, an annual sacrifice. What a grand idea.

So you'd suggest putting away each year's most guilty murderer. You know, just to show the fuckers that we can do it. Just curious as to a couple things. First, what would be the benefit of such a system (aside from bloodlust, of course.) And second, what happens if someone we know to be guilty, turns out, perhaps many years later, not to be guilty. Do we scrap the system again, or do we just hope for better the next time?

[Dreamer Tatum]

111. I'm patient enough to entertain your misunderstanding of my point, but not your fatuousness. Ignore.

[EOTE]

112. Whoo hoo! I'm on ignore!

Usually I have to make someone feel like quite the idiot before they put me on ignore.

[MNDemNY]

116. ignored by an idiot? you must be crushed.

[EOTE]

117. Somehow I'll find the strength to make it through the day. NT

[MNDemNY]

118. I wish you the best, I know how it is.

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. Imagine the nerve of someone not agreeing with you!

:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

121. Imagine the nerve of someone...

willing to execute Innocent people, (even one) to make some perverted "point". Imagine that! Please put me on "ignore" , you ignorant slut.

[Dreamer Tatum]

123. Show me whereI suggested putting one innocent person to death.

PLEASE. Show it to me.

Predicted response: "Not worth my time."

Actual meaning: "Um...you didn't. I just don't like you."


:eyes:

[EOTE]

125. You support a system that has put innocents to death.

So, by extension, you support putting innocents to death. It's a harsh reality to face, but it's reality.

[MNDemNY]

128. You allow executions based on human judgment of guilt. Humans are not infallable...

ergo you are willing to allow the execution of an innocent, as long as some form of human determination has been made. Do you not see the fallacy of your position?? The only infallible fail-safe is to NOT execute. The end.Anything else is just a lie.

[Dreamer Tatum]

133. True or false: Scott Roeder is guilty of murdering Dr. Tiller.

True. Especially to the extent that, oh, he just confessed to it.

I would put him to death.

Some poor guy railroaded on shoddy evidence and racism, more or less framed to look like a stereotypical murderer? I would NOT put him to death.

I find it striking and amazing that I have defined circumstances under which I would support the death penalty, and these circumstances are so demanding and restrictive that almost no one would ever be condemned, but somehow I'm bloodthirsty and
willing to put innocent people to death. I never said such a thing, and no one has a whit of evidence that I did.

I take it from the collection of horrified replies to my posts that Scott Roeder should avoid the DP for at least one of the following two reasons:

1. The death penalty is unjust (a belief with which I differ, but which I completely respect);
2. He might be innocent, because innocent people have probably been put to death and innocent people are probably on death row.

The second reason is a logical fallacy. If 10 percent of death row inmates are innocent, that does not make Scott Roeder 10 percent innocent.

Oh well. Odd world.

[trumad]

50. perfectly said.

I'm amazed that some here don't grasp this.

[EOTE]

122. So am I. The legal system is relatively transparent.

If a law features points A through Z, you can't say you support it, but only if issues D, F, G, I, P and T are removed. You support the whole thing or you don't support it at all. We don't make up the law as we go, we elect senators and representatives to craft and vote upon laws. If we don't like a law, we don't have the ability to change it, we only have the ability to vote in or out politicians that most represent us. When we send them the message that having an extremely, extremely flawed death penalty is better than having none at all, we tell them that nothing needs to be changed. It's really sick how complacent we've become as a society that we let travesties of justice like this stand.

[MNDemNY]

20. Again, a human must make that determination, sometimes, as here they may be right, other times,

maybe not. the issue is that even one is too many Innocent to put to death. therefore, we must never use it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. When they're right with certainty, I'm in favor of the DP. Pretty simple. nt

[MNDemNY]

60. WHO DECIDES when it is "with certainty"???you?

Do you not see the problem???

[Dreamer Tatum]

70. Don't be stupid. We have courts of law. nt

[MNDemNY]

75. Humans. They OFTEN make mistakes.

Again, how many Innocent people are OK to kill?? You need to be able to address that question to maintain your position.

[Dreamer Tatum]

83. None. No innocent people. That is tautological to my position. nt

[EOTE]

88. So you support the DP only in the mythical land of rainbows and unicorns.

OK, just so long as you don't support it in the U.S. and other places that exist in reality.

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. If there are only truly guilty people in worlds with rainbows and unicorns, I suppose so.

If I ever turn to a life of crime. I'm going to make you my only victim, because I know I can probably convince you I didn't steal your wallet even as I show you that I have your wallet.

[EOTE]

94. You were the one who had to make up a theoretical world in order to justify your views.

Don't get mad at me when I need to remind you that your theoretical world only exists in your head.

[SOS]

61. These people were convicted beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to die:

"Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086

As of today, 139 innocent people released from death row.

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. Reasonable doubt < certainty nt

[SOS]

76. Exactly

The legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not certainty.
That what makes the DP untenable.

Especially for those 139 men.

[Ignis]

119. Thanks for posting this list.

For progressives, we're sure often bloodthirsty on DU. :shrug:

[baldguy]

32. Every prosecutor says they got the right guy.

Sometimes they can convince a judge & jury that they have the right guy.

And the fact is sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes they're lying on purpose.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. I ask again: is John Muhammad the right guy? Come on, his life is on the line here.

Is this an exercise in pissing in the wind, or are your saying he didn't do it?

[baldguy]

46. I'm saying the generally same standard should be applied to every death penalty case.

The same laws that empower us to kill the assumed to be guilty John Mohammad allowed us to kill the apparently innocent Cameron Todd Willingham. You can't have one without the other.

http://camerontoddwillingham.com/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

[Dreamer Tatum]

54. You guys are talking about statistical errors, I'm talking about mass points

and they're totally different things.

I am saying (for the statistically inclined) when there is a mass point at "He/she did it," then I am in favor of the DP.

If the court system (the test) is of very low power, then I am not in favor of the DP.

Sorry that's got too much jargon in it, but it's an easy way to recap my opinion.

[EOTE]

62. The DP is NOT a Chinese takeout menu.

You can't say "Well, I'd use it here, but I'd let this guy go." You either support the DP as it exists currently, or you don't. It's a very digital scenario, 1 or 0, on or off, there's no in between. If you support it, that's your right, but no that you're supporting the system warts and all.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. Allow me to draw a diagram for the simpleminded of you

Assume that a man is standing on your front lawn with a bloody machete in one hand, and your daughter's severed head in the other. Assume that man is chanting, "I did this. I did this. I did this." Also assume that your son, who is cowering behind the sofa, saw that man sever your daughter's head.

That man is guilty under any test of guilt you might wish to apply. Unless that man is provably insane and and had no control of his actions, that man is eligible for the death penalty.

The evidence against John Muhammad is not quite so overwhelming (it's outlined here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x729181#729526), but it takes us well beyond any reasonable doubt. The odds that John Muhammad and Lee Malvo were not the snipers is smaller than miniscule. I believe John Muhammad can be put to death for his crimes without fear that the real killer is still roaming around free. As regards mental illness, please see the disclaimer above.

I never said I'd let anyone go. A convicted murderer who did not leave an overwhelming amount of evidence should sit in prison unless and until exonerated some other way.



Pretty simple. Any simpler, and I will have to borrow my daughter's crayons and fire up the scanner for you.

[EOTE]

71. Pretty ironic, you talking about simpleminded.

In case you're daft, I'll say as I've said before, I have no doubt that John Muhammad is guilty. It's not his guilt that's in question, it's the systemic, state sponsored murder I have a problem with.

What you seem completely incapable of understanding (perhaps those crayons would come in handy) is that you can't support the death penalty as you'd like it to exist, you have to support the death penalty as it DOES exist. I'm sure that's not getting through to you as I've said the same thing to you four times now.

Pretty simple, eh? I guess not simple enough.

[Dreamer Tatum]

78. You're reasonably smart, so try to accept the following

There is the ideal world, in which (if people should be put to death at all) only people who are known with certainty to have killed are put to death.

Then there is the world we live in today, where we have (almost certainly) put innocent people to death along with people who were, indeed, guilty.

Let us assume for the moment that the death penalty is ever appropriate.

Then there are killers who fall into the intersection of the criteria for the death penalty as it exists today, and the MUCH STRONGER criteria for the death penalty in this mythical perfect world.

We have now agreed that John Muhammad is the correct guilty party. I am fine with putting him to death BECAUSE HE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR BEING PUT TO DEATH IN A WORLD THAT CAN'T EVEN EXIST: ONE BASED ON PERFECT CERTITUDE.

That is the only sense in which I support the death penalty.

[EOTE]

80. Oh, so you don't support the death penalty at all then.

I'm glad we've cleared that up. You support the death penalty only as it would exist in a perfect world, so you don't support it at all. That is the only way to interpret your words that make any sense whatsoever. Once again, you fail to grasp that YOU or I have no control over who is sent to their death or not. You have to leave that up to the state. As you are clearly concerned that the state is capable of and has in fact, fucked up cases pertaining to the death penalty in the past, I can only logically conclude that you don't support the death penalty. Thanks for clearing that up, you could have done it a lot sooner.

[Dreamer Tatum]

82. Yeah, you're just flailing now. That's sad - you're clearly a smart person.

We leave ALL issues of crime and punishment up to the state, Mr. Godel.

I have made amply clear that I favor a vast strengthening of the criteria that condemns people to death by state execution.

If you don't like the DP at all, that's fine, but it's a completely different discussion.

[EOTE]

86. I'm flailing? You're the one who has to make up conditions to suit your argument.

I'm quite aware that the world isn't perfect, so I have to base my beliefs on knowing that we live in a very flawed world. You have to make up Utopian conditions in your mind just so you can rest easier knowing that you support, by extension, putting innocents to death. You can say that you only support the DP in limited cases, but that's been the goal of the DP from the very beginning, it simply hasn't worked. So either you want to put an end to it completely until all its flaws are resolved, or you want it to continue to be implemented just the way it is. You fail to realize that the conditions for which you'd support the DP exist solely in your head.

[Dreamer Tatum]

92. The point, which is now for everyone other than you, is that some people are guilty

no matter how utopian the criteria of guilt.

Those are the only people I would ever feel comfortable condemning.

[EOTE]

96. Yep. And that same standard has been used since the DP took its first life.

Once again Dreamer (what an appropriate name), YOU don't have the ability to determine who is eligible for the DP or not. You have to cede that power to the state. Something I'm guessing you're OK with. You ever hear the expression "You go to the dance with the one who brung ya'?" Well, that applies very much to the DP. I'd like to have a perfect DP system as well. But that's just not going to happen.

[Dreamer Tatum]

99. So, the criminal justice system is what it is, with no possible changes, ever?

Your argument is that the system is too flawed to support the death penalty.

GRANTED.

My argument is that the death penalty might be supportable if the criminal justice system could be altered to support a higher standard of guilt than currently exists for cases involving the death penalty.

My argument is also that, notwithstanding the previous point, some people are so clearly and unarguably guilty that they would be put to death even after the entire system is overhauled to make as certain as humanly possible that no innocent people are put to death.

It APPEARS as though you're saying that if the current system condemns an innocent person, then it isn't fit to condemn a person KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY (ie, irrespective of the criminal justice system) to be guilty of murder. If that's what you're saying, I don't think that makes any sense.

In any event, your argument seems to depend on the assumption that the criminal justice system cannot be changed, which seems like a faulty assumption. My argument, conversely, assumes rather critically that we the people can alter our justice system to suit our needs and the rights of the innocent not to be unjustly condemned.

[EOTE]

104. Of course the system can change. But the change comes FIRST.

You know how recently laws were changed to make it easier to track meth labs by putting pseudo-ephedrine based drugs behind the counter? Let's say that after that law was passed, grandmas all over the country started getting arrested for buying a couple packs of Sudafed for wanting to stock up a bit (I know this has happened in limited cases, but let's say this becomes an epidemic). The proper response to that wouldn't be to say "Oh, well let's hope that we can fix this problem in this legislative session or the next so we have less grandmas in jail." The proper response would be to say "Well, this is obviously a bad law that we have right now, we should get rid of this immediately until we're able to craft it into something less egregious." You don't keep something with such abhorrent flaws and then hope to fix it sometime in the future. You get rid of it and then you can try to start over again. You don't just take innocent peoples lives and instead say that they're an acceptable loss in order to satisfy one's bloodlust.

[trumad]

124. Dude---you're getting your ass handed to you and you don't even know it.

It's hard to get out of that box ain't it?

[Dreamer Tatum]

126. Ass handed to me while I'm trying to make executions more rare?

That's sort of a joke. So much for the deeeeeeeeeep thinkers on DU.

[trumad]

48. You're missing the bigger point...

So what if he's the right guy? The folks who put innocent people to death felt the same way about the guy they put to death.

What about that guy.

It's got to be 100 percent the law---or not the law... You can't pick and choose.

[Dreamer Tatum]

57. You're missing MY point nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. A jury and the courts as is should be.

[MNDemNY]

77. How many innocents is it OK to kill?

How many give me a number or your point is just that you are a willing murderer.

[NYC_SKP]

3. No argument here. I've forever been against the death penalty.

It was a sad day when it returned to the US.

:cry:

[NYC_SKP]

11. PS: to post #1 and #2 type replies. It's not about guilt or innocence. It's about giving the state

that kind of power, the power to take a life.

And the tone it sets for the rest of the country, that killing is sometimes OK.

Or, killing is OK, as long as the government is doing it.

And a billion other reasons.

The US needs to join the rest of the civilized world and ban the death penalty.

Period.

:patriot:

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. Is abortion OK?

I don't have a problem with either.

[MNDemNY]

26. You liken the 2???

[SIMPLYB1980]

31. Yes as well as war.

All is killing for what you think is right.

[NYC_SKP]

43. I would be against state sponsored abortions against the mother's will, yes. n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

53. Apples and oranges.

I don't care if Mohammad wants to be put to death or not. I would be upset for a woman being forced to have an abortion though.

[MNDemNY]

4. It's easier to prove the converse.

The man executed for the arson death of his family has basically been exonerated.

[Wapsie B]

19. Didn't Fat Tony Scalia talk about innocence not being enough to overturn a conviction?

:banghead:

[Patiod]

37. Good point!

Advocates don't care if someone is innocent.

I've actually heard people say they don't care, as long as it gets the guilty killed - that's all that matters - delivering retribution.

I actually have a theory, which could be wrong, that police and prosecutors are MORE likely to get the wrong person for murder vs other crimes because the public pressure is so high to solve murder cases.

[Wapsie B]

66. There's also pressure on the part of prosecutors to have a high conviction record,

especially if they have higher political aspirations. Unless there is overwhelming exculpatory evidence there is no incentive other than doing what is right to reopen a case.

[mule_train]

5. I'm certain that it's been used on innocent people

and that is the only reason i'm not for the death penalty

[trumad]

15. Yep

[jobycom]

7. Prove to me that the world was not destroyed and recreated last week.

You can't. So you can't prove that "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" is fiction, so why shouldn't we all carry towels?

I'm opposed to the death penalty, and I would be even if I believed every victim of it was guilty. I doubt many supporters of it care if innocent people are killed.

[slackmaster]

9. I know that it has, and can be again, and that is why I am opposed to it

People aren't smart enough to get it right every time.

[Wapsie B]

13. You wanna make an omlet ya gotta break a few eggs.

Standard rwing response. :eyes:

Those making that argument have most likely not had an innocent friend or family member put to death.

[AllentownJake]

16. Ironic the followers of a religion based on an innocent executed man

Love them some death penalty.

[closeupready]

52. Yeah, but he was convicted - his innocence is irrelevant.

:sarcasm:

[baldguy]

25. Civilized govts don't kill their own citizens.

No matter what the reason is.

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. Since when?

Lots of "Civilized" governments have enforced a death penalty through out history.

[baldguy]

34. Name one.

I guess we have a different definition of "civilized".

[SIMPLYB1980]

36. The US for one. China for another.

The list goes on and on into the history of civilization.

[baldguy]

39. Might as well add Iran, Saudi Arabia & N Korea.

Such illustrious company we keep. I wouldn't say they were "civilized" though.

[SIMPLYB1980]

41. Are you saying that those country's aren't civilized?

How progressive of you to insult entire countries and their traditions and laws. I guess you know better than those countries on how to run their affairs.

[baldguy]

47. Are you saying they are?

After all, they kill their own citizens.

[SIMPLYB1980]

51. So do we. Within the law just like them.

It's when people like McVeigh or Mohammad decide that they want to blow up innocent people that I support the death penalty fully.

[baldguy]

127. Nazi Germany killed 12 million people - all within the law, just like us.

[Rabrrrrrr]

114. Precisely! One important litmus test of civilized is no death penalty.

Any country that has the death penalty is not civilized.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

35. Not Only Can That NOT Be Proven, But..............

..............there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary; that innocent people DEFINITELY HAVE been killed by the State. There have been literally HUNDREDS of people who have been posthumously exonerated, mostly since the advent/discovery of DNA evidence (a new technology that has just become available to us in the past few years). Imagine if we'd had the ability to analyze DNA evidence all along, and just imagine what technological advances could be made in the future. How many innocent people have died simply because the evidence to acquit them didn't happen to exist at the time?

The fact of the matter is that the death penalty has no place in an enlightened society. It's nothing more than revenge, and revenge is not ever to be State-sanctioned. When the State kills a prisoner, they're killing in YOUR name (that's why it's "The State of X vs. Prioner Y" and not "The Court/Prosecutor vs. Prisoner Y.") I don't EVER want anyone killed in MY name.

Here's another fact that is NOT in dispute: there is not one, single justification for the death penalty that can be scientifically proven. Deterrence? Nope. Just the opposite. Cost/benefit? Again, nope. Just the opposite. So, since there IS no benefit to having the death penalty, the only POSSIBLE reason people still want it is because it makes them feel good (which has never been a justification that held water in any Court in the nation--if it did, vigilante justice would be legal, and we all know it isn't.) But does it, really? Quite possibly the best argument against the death penalty I've ever heard came from none other than Michael Jordan just days after the people who murdered his father were captured. When asked if he wanted to see them put to death, he said no, because it wouldn't bring his father back.

And besides, whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"? Should we change it to "two wrongs don't make a right, but if the second wrong makes you feel a little better about the first one, maybe it's OK"? Sorry, but revenge has ALWAYS been illegal in this country. Simply put, Americans can't claim to be enlightened if they support the death penalty.

Let's not forget that Puritans felt totally justified in burning witches at Salem. Are you CERTAIN that every person you want to kill is guilty? Because in order to believe that, you also have to believe that witches exist.

[rd_kent]

56. Witches DO exist.....

They are called Wiccans......

I guess that blows your whole theory, huh?

[ChoppinBroccoli]

65. You Totally Got Me

I fully believe that Wiccans can cause farmers' crops not to grow and steal people's children and eat them, just like the Puritans said.

I also believe that Wiccans are made of wood and weigh the same as a duck now too.

You totally busted me.

[rd_kent]

67. Glad you understand now. Have a nice day.

[Birdiesmom]

38. Some quotes...

If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.
- Justice Sandra Day O’Connor


The best available evidence indicates that, on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence often does not emerge until long after their convictions.
- United States v. Quinones


A legal regime relying on the death penalty will inevitably execute innocent people - not too often, one hopes, but undoubtedly sometimes. Mistakes will be made because it is simply not possible to do something this difficult perfectly, all the time. Any honest proponent of capital punishment must face this fact.
- U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor

[Birdiesmom]

42. FYI...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

[jpljr77]

45. Deleted

d

[Leftist Agitator]

55. Prove to me that the death penalty HAS been used on an innocent person.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

58. WAAAAAYYYYYY Too Easy

These are just two examples found after about one second of searching.

Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005).

South Carolina Pair Exonerated 94 Years After Execution - The South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services voted 7-0 to pardon Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin for the 1913 murder of former Confederate Army veteran John Q . Lewis. The pair were executed in 1915 for the murder after another man, Monk Stephenson, plead guilty and received a life sentence in exchange for implicating the Griffins. "Stevenson later told a fellow inmate that he had implicated the Griffin brothers because he believed they were wealthy enough to pay for legal counsel, and as such would be acquitted," said legal historian Paul Finkelman. Two others, Nelson Brice and John Crosby, were also executed for the crime. The pair were great uncles of nationally syndicated radio show host Tom Joyner. "It's good for the community. It's good for the nation. Anytime that you can repair racism in this country is a step forward," Joyner said. (CNN.com, October 15, 2009)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935#also


Here's another one: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1325

"Texas man executed on disproved forensics"


And check out the first paragraph of this article: http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086

"Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row."

[upi402]

79. If the death penalty killed an innocent, then we are all guilty of murder

and we are

[dmallind]

84. I cannot - I can however prove that people convicted of capital crimes have killed again

And I assume we both take it as axiomatic that there is no way for an executed person to do so outside George Romero movies.

There is little serious doubt that the DP has been applied to people innocent of that specific charge, even in modern times.

There is absolutely no doubt people who were spared executions have killed others.

Which set of innocents is more worthy of protection? Which set is greater in number? It's not as cut and dried as DP opponents often suggest.

If there another 100% cast-iron guarantee to stop recidivism in the same way that execution is 100% I would cease any support for the DP immediately. There is not. Life without parole is often subject to clemency and obviously subject to the whim of future governments. Even in rare cases where we can effectively dismiss these possibilities, prison guards and other prisoners who are perhaps more redeemable have been victims, and LWOP convicts have escaped.

[Igel]

87. Yes, precisely the old argument.

I had a roommate once who worked as a hostler. He wanted to become an engineer, like his dad.

He took the test, was interviewed for a trainee position, and was told, point blank: "It's a near certainty that during your career as an engineer you will kill somebody. You will be at the controls of the engine and watch helplessly as the train you're in charge of runs into somebody trapped in a car or stuck on the tracks, whether they're there on purpose or not. You might back the train up into a parked passenger car or not realize that a hostler is in harm's way. The rail might fail and you'll look backwards to see cars tipping over and dragged along by your diesel, and be unable to do anything about it as you watch people die. Do you still want the job?" He said no, got up, and left.

Mistakes happen. We could spend a few billion dollars a year to prevent most such accidental deaths, but we've generally decided that it's not worth it. Yet railroads continue to exist because it's too useful to have them. Same for cars, bikes, knives, rope, etc., etc.

The number of people in the US killed by murderers found innocent because they couldn't be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" exceeds the number killed by execution. The argument is that it's better to let the guilty go free rather than kill an innocent, and yet mistakes happen. Sometimes the prosecutor, judge, and jury know that it's a mistake, but the "reasonable doubt" standard hasn't been met. Sometimes a judge rules out evidence that would inculpate the guilty in order to punish "the system". Mistakes happen. Sometimes a juror will decide that instead of "beyond reasonable doubt" the actual standard is "beyond any doubt."

You can argue that the difference is that we hire a person to actually kill another person, knowing full well who that other person is, and that *this* is the crucial distinction. When we set a killer free, from parole or because constitutional rights protected him, we think that justice is served even if he kills again. It's a mistake, but a morally right mistake with a horrible outcome. But when we make a moral mistake by mistakenly sentencing another human being, that mistake can be avoided. Well, we could avoid setting killers free, too, and save even more lives. At that point the argument, "We are taken positive actions that lead to innocent death" tends to fall flat on its face. We value rights over lives. We do not believe in protecting every life possible, we usually drag that canard out, quacking and flapping its wings for all its worth, when it's necessary to justify what we already think is right. As soon as the argument's reversed--we could save more innocent lives--that canard is ready for roasting.

The distinction between picking the individual to die and knowing that in any given year X number will die was utterly lost on my roommate with his rather simple moral calculus. At least when he was driving he could do things to avoid injuring people--yet he accepted that risk, because he knew that most people go through life not committing vehicular manslaughter. The same was probably true of railway engineers, but he couldn't dispute the interviewer.

So I'll agree with you--capital punishment is a moral evil since it might lead to an innocent's death. But I'll only do so if you agree with me--setting the guilty free in the name of constitutional rights is also a moral evil, since that might also lead to an innocent's death. What? That deal doesn't appeal to you? It doesn't appeal to me, either, even though the deal would, if adopted by society, yield a net increase in saved lives.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. Why? Are You Or Your Opinion That Important?

Bit arrogant, no?

Should the death penalty, as the justice system stands now in deriving a verdict towards it, be allowed to stand? Not at all. Way too much wiggle room.

Should it be reformed with far stricter guidelines, but still in use for absolute piece of shit scumbags that are obviously factually guilty? Possibly.

[yurbud]

98. there are only two good arguments for the death penalty, but I don't think they are enough:

1. It prevents dangerous people from accidentally being paroled or escaping. I think this was what part of the drive to reinstate the death penalty was about in the 70's. Sentences appeared to have gotten so soft that people were afraid killers would get out.

2. The second is to protect prison guards and other inmates. If there is no death penalty, what do you do with someone already in for life who kills inside? Take away their ice cream?

Both point to an ugly reality about our prisons: they are snake pits run by the inmates themselves that harden marginal criminals and terrorize those who don't want to affiliate with racist gangs and be someone's prison bitch.

Obviously, executing prisoners isn't the way to fix that broader problem, but I don't know what is.

[Kaleva]

100. Can't prove a negative

[dionysus]

101. happens all the time in texas. if people want revenge so bad, bring back hard labor.

[HughMoran]

102. I can probably statistically prove that innocents have been executed

Governments should never attempt to play god (even though there are many cases where I'm just as happy to see a person executed.)

[Motown_Johnny]

115. I don't think anyone doubts that the death penalty has resulted in many many innocents being killed

The problem (IMO) is not with the death penalty itself but in the way our system administers it.


We now have the technology to prove someone committed a crime, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I don't think the death penalty should be administered to people found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO no doubt at all can be considered reasonable when deciding if someone lives or dies.

I do think the death penalty can, and sometimes should, be administered to people found guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt. One example of this would be the gunmen who held up a bank in CA. some years ago. Multiple cameras caught them walking down the street shooting AK-47s. Then the cameras showed them being injured by return fire from law enforcement. The cameras then showed law enforcement arrest the gunmen.


IMO there is no doubt what so ever that the men arrested in that bank robbery were guilty. In that extreme example I would support the death penalty being administered if the State of California deemed it appropriate.

[Forkboy]

129. Jesus, I've recced two threads of yours in as many minutes.

What the Hell has happened to us? :rofl:

[paulsby]

130. that's a logical impossiblity and ridiculous

not only is it impossible from a logical standpoint, but it's not even relevant. our standard of evidence is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. that necessarily means that sometimes innocents will be convicted.

that's tangential to whether or not the death penalty is justified.

but even IF an innocent person has never been convicted, there is no way to PROVE that, logically speaking.

hth

[DFW]

131. There was a sci-fi book about this issue about 15 years ago with a cool take on the question

"The Truth Machine" by James Halperin

A guy invented a fool-proof lie detector, and justice was meted out immediately. Of course, the guy who invented it
put some code in it so he would be the only one to be able to beat it. But one of the points of the book was that
the machine was needed because innocent people WERE being put to death for crimes they didn't commit.

If it means letting scum like John Muhammad rot in jail for the rest of their lives, fine, but NO civilized society
has any business conducting state executions until it can be proved, not beyond a "reasonable (a subjective term)"
doubt, but beyond ANY doubt.

And THAT is something we cannot do in every case. If we can't do it in every case, we have no business doing it in any
case, because the line being drawn between sure cases and cases with doubt is drawn by imperfect humans, and not a
foolproof machine (note--did I mention the machine was in a science-FICTION novel? as in NOT REAL?). I would not want
to be one of those mistakes mentioned in the OP, and in Texas, we have had our share of them.

[RedCappedBandit]

132. We have no right to criticize people who use violence..

when we are willing to commit executions. Such acts from the government do nothing but breed more violence.

And I'm sure every single death penalty advocate would change their stance were they the innocent on death row.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. That is not a falsifiable assertion.

Its opposite however - prove that the death penalty has been used on an innocent person, is pretty easy to prove as there are cases where the general consensus is that an innocent person was put to death, as for example the recent case in Texas. Which is the point. Miscarriage is not only possible, it is a certainty.