Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should read John Grisham's "The Innocent Man" out now. It is all about a guy on death row for the past 10 years in Oklahoma for rape and murder of a woman, completely innocent. The cops basically cooked the evidence to close out the case. He was finally let go based on later DNA evidence. At one point he was about 12 hours from getting executed.
Apparently there were other similar cases like this also from the same Oklahoma town... real shoddy police work and lawyering.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,335 posts, read 54,455,929 times
Reputation: 40736
Whether there is a determination of guilt beyond doubt and whether death is a just sentence are two separate issues.
In cases like Sirhan Sirhan where there are numerous eyewitnesses or Timothy McVeigh where the evidence is overwhelming I have no problem with a death sentence being imposed and carried out.
I don't see much sense in a civilized country allowing the death penalty. If the death penalty really worked as a deterrant, then the states that allow it should all have the lowest murder rates. Instead, nearly all the states that don't have the death penalty are below the national average in their murder rates.
I have no issue at all with the death penalty. I would allow one last appeal (not that there aren't enough already) for a final check of DNA against any known samples, if they exist - but then get on with it.
People talk about DNA evidence like it should mean the end of the death penalty. It actually means the opposite. Maybe a DNA review of everyone currently on death row, but if someone is convicted today, with the appropriate DNA evidence, it's lights out, buddy.
People talk about DNA evidence like it should mean the end of the death penalty. It actually means the opposite. Maybe a DNA review of everyone currently on death row, but if someone is convicted today, with the appropriate DNA evidence, it's lights out, buddy.
You know this is something I could agree with...if the crime warrants the death penalty and DNA evidence supports it. I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, but I think the victim's families can get some closure and that is their right. I would want the same if somebody did something awful to one of my kids.
I do think today though there are an awful lot of guys on death row, and let's be honest more so minorities, that are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. I would be real hesitant to want to move forward without overwhleming evidence. Florida and Texas seem to be in a contest to see how many people they can knock off faster. How many innocent guys have been killed in those states alone?
You know this is something I could agree with...if the crime warrants the death penalty and DNA evidence supports it. I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, but I think the victim's families can get some closure and that is their right. I would want the same if somebody did something awful to one of my kids.
I do think today though there are an awful lot of guys on death row, and let's be honest more so minorities, that are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. I would be real hesitant to want to move forward without overwhleming evidence. Florida and Texas seem to be in a contest to see how many people they can knock off faster. How many innocent guys have been killed in those states alone?
The death penalty is a weak deterant for 1 reason. Its slow in being carried out due to an endless trail of appeals.
The death penalty serves 1 absolute purpose. It prevents the criminal from ever having the opprotunity to do it again.
In jails it is not uncommon for violent offenders to continue perpetrating their crimes on fellow inmates. Not that I care mind you. They chose a life of violence and have received their rewards.
I my self would have no issue if everyone were required to surrender a dna sample. Imagine how many unsolved crimes would be solved. How many innocent men would be freed.
Honest people would have nothing to fear. The bad guys? well I am pretty sure they would find a lawyer to represent them. Lawyers have no issue protecting scum bags.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
