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.
Highdesertmutz, yes, I said that, my comments were, had he lived, would have deserved the death penalty?? Of course now the forth officer has died as well..
Highdesertmutz, yes, I said that, my comments were, had he lived, would have deserved the death penalty?? Of course now the forth officer has died as well..
Nita
Well, I am confused. First they said the officer was critical, then they said he passed away, then they said he was alive but brain dead. That story is difficult to keep up with since they're changing the officers condition all of the time.
Yes, obvious they (police) got the right person/assailant, and, had he lived, he would probably received the death penalty if convicted.
But, I have heard the waiting list and time for executions is very, very long.
And, the New Mexico state government is still going to have blood on their hands IF they execute the wrong person, which can happen.
DNA isn't always the problem solver, it is forensic science too, circumstancial evidence that sometimes convinces juries to convict. Even eye witness testimony is sometimes flawed.
Too many ifs to ever wonder about the reasonable doubt theory. Some will always wonder if they truly, without mistake have the right person, if the perpetator of a crime isn't caught red handed.
Yes, obvious they (police) got the right person/assailant, and, had he lived, he would probably received the death penalty if convicted.
And, the New Mexico state government is still going to have blood on their hands IF they execute the wrong person, which can happen.
DNA isn't always the problem solver, it is forensic science too, circumstancial evidence that sometimes convinces juries to convict. [B
Even eye witness testimony is sometimes flawed.[/b]
Too many ifs to ever wonder about the reasonable doubt theory. Some will always wonder if they truly, without mistake have the right person, if the perpetator of a crime isn't caught red handed.
Ask any experienced cop..especially a detective. They'll tell you that eyewitness, firsthand testimony is OFTEN wrong, though they'll use it if it benefits their case. Tests confirm this as well.
An interesting op/ed piece on the veracity and reliability of eyewitness evidence by a Professor at Yale Law School: Yale Law School | Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True--A Commentary by Steven B. Duke
Now this link you provided is an interesting read.
Wonder if people who are selected as jurors would have second thoughts of convicting someone based on eye witness testimony? if they read this article before or after being selected for service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecpatl
Ask any experienced cop..especially a detective. They'll tell you that eyewitness, firsthand testimony is OFTEN wrong, though they'll use it if it benefits their case. Tests confirm this as well.
An interesting op/ed piece on the veracity and reliability of eyewitness evidence by a Professor at Yale Law School: Yale Law School | Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True--A Commentary by Steven B. Duke
Well, I am confused. First they said the officer was critical, then they said he passed away, then they said he was alive but brain dead. That story is difficult to keep up with since they're changing the officers condition all of the time.
Yes, obvious they (police) got the right person/assailant, and, had he lived, he would probably received the death penalty if convicted.
But, I have heard the waiting list and time for executions is very, very long.
And, the New Mexico state government is still going to have blood on their hands IF they execute the wrong person, which can happen.
DNA isn't always the problem solver, it is forensic science too, circumstancial evidence that sometimes convinces juries to convict. Even eye witness testimony is sometimes flawed.
Too many ifs to ever wonder about the reasonable doubt theory. Some will always wonder if they truly, without mistake have the right person, if the perpetator of a crime isn't caught red handed.
I think you read a similar story (probably the same one) that I did this morning, but according to the Ca forum he has died. My understanding was they were not going to disconnect until a decision was made about organ donations, but that could have been incorrect as well..
Now, as for the eye witness testimonies, I happen to agree with tecpati, even they can make mistakes. I remember a case many years ago, probably before any of you were alive or certainly before you were adults where this could have been a situation. A man (in Ca btw) was finally executed and was most likely guilty, but the eye witness accounts were a little sketchy..
Tecpati:
who should have the right to take a life? I don't know, this is, of course one of the debates. I happen to believe the state or the federal government (depending) does have that right. Would this be a decision anyone would take lightly? I doubt it, but we make many decisions in our life that are not easy..
I wonder, how many who are opposed to the death penalty are just as opposed to Abortion or ending a persons life by disconnection forms of support that keep them alive...
Nita
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.
if they read this article before or after being selected for service.
