|
On September 23 2011 18:53 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 18:03 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death. Well, of course. But that doesn't change that fact. There have been black people in Georgia with death sentences that were commuted to life in prison as well. We can say that race is irrelevant to the crime as much as we want, because it's true, but statistically it's not irrelevant. It's irritating me the amount of people in this thread calling others out for playing the race card when the sad, awful truth is that it is very relevant and it's a problem. Just protesting that race shouldn't be an issue isn't helping. It shouldn't be an issue. It is. In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American. A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American. A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring.
I wonder why the data you're citing includes all murders when we know that not all murders are capital murders that are pre-meditated or heinous. I think the person that killed Caylee Anthony should be punished more severely than the person that killed Tupac and it's not because one of them is white and the other is black.
|
On September 22 2011 10:57 Supert0fu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:52 SonicTitan wrote: What can I say?
I stand against the idea of a state-enforced death penalty, but even by the State's standards, they don't have enough evidence to put this man to death.
On another note, I'd like to ask what you mean, exactly, by pointing out that "he's black and being held in Georgia." If you mean to imply that his sentence has something to do with the fact that he's black, and furthermore he's being held in a southern (implied "racist") state, then you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. As the story points out, Texas, another southern state, just put a white supremacist to death for dragging a black man behind his vehicle by a chain. We can talk about institutional racism and the moral implications it has for state-enforced capital punishment, but we've at least got be up front about it, eh? Don't beat around the bush. Many black Americans believe he was convicted, because he was black. In america a lot of people believe that police officers blame a black guy because they know that it will be easy to convict. I know in my town (in Maine) where 90% of the people are white, I see the small number of backs in our town getting pulled over more frequently than other members of our town. It is appalling that racism still is an integral part of our legal system.
I don`t know about the statistics for your locla area, but in my country, most crimes are actually commited by blacks and other immigrants.
There are certain groups of people the police are to be more suspicious about, and at least in our case, it is justified through actual statistics and experience.
Call it racism, call it whatever you like, but the color of your skin has nothing to do with this. It is however, a simple result of experience.
On topic: Don`t really mind death penalty, hard to discuss the topic though, imo. Wether he was guilty or not, well I`m no one to speak on that subject.
|
Guilty or not, racist Georgia wants a scapegoat. What would be better than a black man to be the scapegoat for a state that had the rebel flag in their state flag for about 50 years.
What appalls me is how this is an issue that's been going on for a long time, this specific case that is. Yet nobody cared enough to spread the word in every internet forum until it's too damn late. Every forum I visit has a thread about this. Yet none of the threads even existed before September. Yea, pretend to care, a month ago most people did not even have a clue what was going on. And in a few weeks you'll completely forget the entire scenario.
Act offended or appalled at the entire situation from that comfortable computer chair. But don't attempt to do anything about it. Oh no, that would require EFFORT.
|
On September 23 2011 20:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 18:53 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 18:03 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death. Well, of course. But that doesn't change that fact. There have been black people in Georgia with death sentences that were commuted to life in prison as well. We can say that race is irrelevant to the crime as much as we want, because it's true, but statistically it's not irrelevant. It's irritating me the amount of people in this thread calling others out for playing the race card when the sad, awful truth is that it is very relevant and it's a problem. Just protesting that race shouldn't be an issue isn't helping. It shouldn't be an issue. It is. In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American. A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American. A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring. I wonder why the data you're citing includes all murders when we know that not all murders are capital murders that are pre-meditated or heinous. I think the person that killed Caylee Anthony should be punished more severely than the person that killed Tupac and it's not because one of them is white and the other is black.
So you're saying that white people are much more likely to be the victims of heinous crimes, and that those crimes are more likely to be committed by black people? a) that is highly unlikely considering how stark the above numbers are and b) you have nothing to support that, it's just an idea that would disprove the stats from Amnesty International if they were true. You don't have any evidence that it is true...it would just suit you if it was.
Anyway you missed a bit; - A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
|
I love this anti-death penalty stuff, you actually believe people can be rehabilitated, which is untrue most of the time. People that commit these kinds of acts, once released from prison, return to either the same or worse circumstances than beforehand, which, if anything, force them back into that kind of behavior.
Not only that, but do you know how easy it is to talk a shrink/parole board into believing what you want them to believe? Hint: really fucking easy. It's impossible to tell when someone has been "rehabilitated" except to throw them out and hope they don't kill anyone else (and they most likely will).
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly and have it be a logistical nightmare. Yeah, I've seen that all those 9 billion appeals cause more legal fees than it takes to simply house the inmate for the rest of his life, but that's a bureaucratic issue, not a practical or ethical one.
Therefore, we need a death penalty.
Every time we execute someone, somebody makes a thread somewhere about it being a grave injustice, but let's face it: it's a necessity.
|
Just because the rehablitation system in the US is basically non existant and therefore does not work it is not a "fact" that rehabilitation does not work.
No, it's not a necessity at all and it's like you did not read a single post of anyone arguing in a factual way against it.
|
On September 23 2011 22:01 deth2munkies wrote:
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly
Err how many people do you think are executed a year? And how many do you think are sitting on death row for years and years?
I'll give you a hint. One number is much much bigger than the other.
|
On September 23 2011 22:01 deth2munkies wrote: I love this anti-death penalty stuff, you actually believe people can be rehabilitated, which is untrue most of the time. People that commit these kinds of acts, once released from prison, return to either the same or worse circumstances than beforehand, which, if anything, force them back into that kind of behavior.
Not only that, but do you know how easy it is to talk a shrink/parole board into believing what you want them to believe? Hint: really fucking easy. It's impossible to tell when someone has been "rehabilitated" except to throw them out and hope they don't kill anyone else (and they most likely will).
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly and have it be a logistical nightmare. Yeah, I've seen that all those 9 billion appeals cause more legal fees than it takes to simply house the inmate for the rest of his life, but that's a bureaucratic issue, not a practical or ethical one.
Therefore, we need a death penalty.
Every time we execute someone, somebody makes a thread somewhere about it being a grave injustice, but let's face it: it's a necessity. LOL, you didn't think that through one bit. It's not a necessity. The experience of the rest of the developed world says so.
|
To me death penalty being right or wrong doesn't matter, the answer is subjective. We don't have the tools to understand which criminals can be rehabilitated and which can't so one system will release some delinquents into society while the other will eliminate people that shouldn't be. I think the fairest punishment is always forced labor and the type and quantity should depend on the offence dealt to society, but whatever it's just not going to happen. What I really don't understand is why death penalty has to be so expensive and long term while they can just shoot a simple bullet in the prisoner's head.
|
For the skin color thing, it seems to me there is more correlation between poverty levels and similar than actual skin color. That is not to say that skin color can not affect a jury and/or the police and so forth.
As for the death penalty its stupid in all cases whit less then 100% certainty on the question of guilt and severity of the crime. The USA (as far as I know) and most(or all) other countries with death penalty has life long imprisonment as an alternative(as far as I know(again)) for crimes like this.
I do not know if Troy Davis is guilty, frankly I don't care, as far as I am concerned killing a person is never right, no mater the circumstances. (and just so people don't think I am stupid, just because it isn't right dose not mean it can't be an alternative or even, in some extreme cases, necessary)
As for the death penalty being necessary: + Show Spoiler +On September 23 2011 22:06 Velr wrote: Just because the rehablitation system in the US is basically non existant and therefore does not work it is not a "fact" that rehabilitation does not work.
No, it's not a necessity at all and it's like you did not read a single post of anyone arguing in a factual way against it. + Show Spoiler +On September 23 2011 22:10 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 22:01 deth2munkies wrote:
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly Err how many people do you think are executed a year? And how many do you think are sitting on death row for years and years? I'll give you a hint. One number is much much bigger than the other. My addition to this is as follows: + Show Spoiler +The USA dose have a lot of laws that might not be necessary or at the very lease should not be crimes one gets sent to prison fore, an example:
Some time ago a high school kid got a prison sentence for putting a blow-up doll in the girls bathroom. A very silly prank but not something anyone should be sentenced to prison for(or punished in court for at all...)
There might also be the argument that the death penalty has a positive effect on the crime rate, to which I say thins, there appears to be higher crime rates in death penalty stats in the US at-lest but this does not really prove anything. Research however say that most crimes are, crimes of passion(where people don't think) planed crimes(where people convince themselves that they will not be caught) or crimes of insanity( where people don't think)
Summary: + Show Spoiler +Racism might very well be a problem in the legal system but statistically I think its more other factors that actually make "colored people" more prone to crime, the death penalty is silly, Troy Davis should have had his new trail, and the Death penalty is not necessary.
I am sorry for all the anecdotal evidence and source less quotes and claims! But frankly I can't be bothered to look it up ^^ "lazy"
|
Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
This article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem.
Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty.
|
On September 23 2011 22:28 aTnClouD wrote: To me death penalty being right or wrong doesn't matter, the answer is subjective. We don't have the tools to understand which criminals can be rehabilitated and which can't so one system will release some delinquents into society while the other will eliminate people that shouldn't be. I think the fairest punishment is always forced labor and the type and quantity should depend on the offence dealt to society, but whatever it's just not going to happen. What I really don't understand is why death penalty has to be so expensive and long term while they can just shoot a simple bullet in the prisoner's head.
It's expensive so that wrongfully convicted people won't just get a bullet through the head as soon as they are convicted before they have exhausted every possibility of it being a mistake. Even so innocent people evidently still get executed. If you cut costs on this then you'd just have more wrongly executed people.
|
I wish we still had the death penalty. Not that I think it will have any affect on crime. Some people just need to die, there is nothing else to it. Justice demands it. I really don't think letting people sit in jail watching TV and lifting weights is a punishment nor is it rehabilitation.Its just putting a wall between them and the rest of society which is not a satisfactory outcome in my opinion. Either rehabilitate or punish I'm sure both have there advantages, but this current business is pointless.
Although if I am honest I would prefer we bring back the work gang, make the prisoners do some hard labour, not just busy work either, let them build houses for the poor for example, that kind of thing, they can earn there keep and they are kept away from the rest of us. Lets face it a little hard work never harmed anyone. It might even do them some good, develop some skills they can use once they get out of jail (the less serious offenders) so they can use them to make a living and avoid landing back in jail.
I know it goes against some UN thing but lets face it everyone else is forced to work to survive, why should prisoners be except?.
|
On September 23 2011 23:38 Egyptian_Head wrote: I wish we still had the death penalty. Not that I think it will have any affect on crime. Some people just need to die, there is nothing else to it. Justice demands it. I really don't think letting people sit in jail watching TV and lifting weights is a punishment nor is it rehabilitation.Its just putting a wall between them and the rest of society which is not a satisfactory outcome in my opinion. Either rehabilitate or punish I'm sure both have there advantages, but this current business is pointless.
Although if I am honest I would prefer we bring back the work gang, make the prisoners do some hard labour, not just busy work either, let them build houses for the poor for example, that kind of thing, they can earn there keep and they are kept away from the rest of us. Lets face it a little hard work never harmed anyone. It might even do them some good, develop some skills they can use once they get out of jail (the less serious offenders) so they can use them to make a living and avoid landing back in jail.
I know it goes against some UN thing but lets face it everyone else is forced to work to survive, why should prisoners be except?. You think it's fun to be in jail?
Like seriously?
|
On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty.
The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine?
Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty.
I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made.
I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice.
Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live.
Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though.
|
On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. lol you think your justice sends 0,0001% innocent people only to death? You are a bit optimistic about American justice I'm afraid.
Your conception of justice, I call it retaliation. Pretty much the opposite from justice. Justice is not to do to people "what they deserve". If not we would torture people for days and cut their balls and then burn them alive. Some people deserve that. But we don't do it. Just as we don't hang, or decapitate, or kill by lethal injection. Why? Because that would make us just as barbarian as the criminal themselves.
|
On September 23 2011 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 23:38 Egyptian_Head wrote: I wish we still had the death penalty. Not that I think it will have any affect on crime. Some people just need to die, there is nothing else to it. Justice demands it. I really don't think letting people sit in jail watching TV and lifting weights is a punishment nor is it rehabilitation.Its just putting a wall between them and the rest of society which is not a satisfactory outcome in my opinion. Either rehabilitate or punish I'm sure both have there advantages, but this current business is pointless.
Although if I am honest I would prefer we bring back the work gang, make the prisoners do some hard labour, not just busy work either, let them build houses for the poor for example, that kind of thing, they can earn there keep and they are kept away from the rest of us. Lets face it a little hard work never harmed anyone. It might even do them some good, develop some skills they can use once they get out of jail (the less serious offenders) so they can use them to make a living and avoid landing back in jail.
I know it goes against some UN thing but lets face it everyone else is forced to work to survive, why should prisoners be except?. You think it's fun to be in jail? Like seriously?
Reading is a great skill, find the word fun in my previous post please. I am of the opinion I never said jail is fun.
|
On September 24 2011 00:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. lol you think your justice sends 0,0001% innocent people only to death? You are a bit optimistic about American justice I'm afraid. Your conception of justice, I call it retaliation. Pretty much the opposite from justice. Justice is not to do to people "what they deserve". If not we would torture people for days and cut their balls and then burn them alive. Some people deserve that. But we don't do it. Just as we don't hang, or decapitate, or kill by lethal injection. Why? Because that would make us just as barbarian as the criminal themselves.
I just threw out a number, i have no idea what the real numbers are.
But i just dont get why people think jail for life is ok. But killing someone is a million times worse. It's almost the same thing. Sitting in a small cell for the rest of your life with other criminals is terrible. Why is the death penalty much worse. Why is the death penalty barbaric, but locking them inside a concrete cell for 70 years is ok? I think both are ok, depending on the crime they did.
I dont get it. But i guess it's just a subjective question.
|
On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though.
I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven.
Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them?
|
On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them?
Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over.
Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad.
|
|
|
|