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.
What the OP is fundamentally saying is that no one should be punished unless the state can prove its case against an individual with absolute certainty. The legal system we have is very good. There are many protections for the accused built in. The accused is always represented by legal counsel, even if he or she cannot afford their own. After the trial and sentence, there are appeals courts etc. But the system is only as good as the people in it. It will never be perfect. And people lying in their testimony makes it pretty hard for the system to always end up with the right verdict. Put the blame on those who corrupted the system, not the whole system.
Texas has the death penalty and it is widely supported in this state. Only the worst cases are sentenced to death, and those with an extremely high degree of certainty that they have the right person. Even then, it takes many years and many appeals before sentence is carried out. I've lived in Texas now 16 years and I've never heard of any case where any serious person thought that the person who was executed didn't commit the crime.
I was watching Dr Phil today. A 2 year old girl had been beaten and sexually abused to death by her step mother. She deserves to die , death by torture of you ask me.
Saying that, sending one innocent man or woman to death for a crime they never committed is enough reason to be against death penalty.
Texas has the death penalty and it is widely supported in this state. Only the worst cases are sentenced to death, and those with an extremely high degree of certainty that they have the right person. Even then, it takes many years and many appeals before sentence is carried out. I've lived in Texas now 16 years and I've never heard of any case where any serious person thought that the person who was executed didn't commit the crime.
Another example of p*ss poor job by the prosecution jury and low IQ jurors. If some had their way this guy would have been dead for years. While I generally don't have sympathy for murders, you need to actually make sure you have the right person.
If the Ferguson family didn't have the money to take this through the appeals process, Ryan Ferguson would be languishing in jail for the next 30 years.
Unfortunately, most do not have the resources to clear their name.
The jury is partially responsible because they're suppose to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The word of a convicted felon should not be valid reason alone to convict.
It wasn't. As far as we know the jury didn't even know the past history of any of those testifying.
Quote:
Heck, the word of the Pope should not be reason alone to convict. There was no other evidence against this guy, just the "word" of two individuals.
Hundreds of thousands are convicted based upon the word of others. Are you saying that if some women is raped and she is able to pick her rapist out of a line-up, says she is 100% he is the one, we should just let him go if that's all the proof we have?
I believe in the death penalty only if the charged has been found guilty using DNA, video, or if the murder was commited in front of a crowd of witnesses.
Circumstancial evidence? Absolutely not!!!
The jury is partially responsible because they're suppose to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The word of a convicted felon should not be valid reason alone to convict. Heck, the word of the Pope should not be reason alone to convict. There was no other evidence against this guy, just the "word" of two individuals.
Really - Think about that again. Based on that reasoning many rapist and child molesters would go free. Crimes conventions aren't like TV where there is a nice, orderly line of physical evidence that points directly at one criminal. Most crime are solved by some stating "I saw him do it".
What the OP is fundamentally saying is that no one should be punished unless the state can prove its case against an individual with absolute certainty.
Which would be wrong. It's up to a jury to not find someone guilty if the case wasn't proven within a reasonable doubt. Many are convicted by a plethora of circumstantial evidence.
Quote:
The legal system we have is very good. There are many protections for the accused built in. The accused is always represented by legal counsel, even if he or she cannot afford their own. After the trial and sentence, there are appeals courts etc. But the system is only as good as the people in it. It will never be perfect. And people lying in their testimony makes it pretty hard for the system to always end up with the right verdict. Put the blame on those who corrupted the system, not the whole system.
Which is where our system does fail us in some cases. You are right that the system is set up pretty good. There are a few things I would change but the failure comes in when the rules and laws are not upheld. Two examples.
It is supposed to be illegal for anyone in a trial to lie, including the lawyers. Westerfields lawyers lied in court. Nothing was done to them.
Then while not a trial, Lloyd Blankfein lied his ass off while under oath in from of a Congressional investigation. Indeed it's a tough argument to make that since Congress lies to us all the time that we shouldn't be able to lie in return but our laws have to be above that.
While we do have a pretty good system it is not always equally applied. Martha Stewart goes to prison for a relatively minor lie but Lloyd Blankfein has been richly rewarded for his.
Quote:
Texas has the death penalty and it is widely supported in this state. Only the worst cases are sentenced to death, and those with an extremely high degree of certainty that they have the right person. Even then, it takes many years and many appeals before sentence is carried out. I've lived in Texas now 16 years and I've never heard of any case where any serious person thought that the person who was executed didn't commit the crime.
IMO the only legitimate argument against the death penalty is that if it's wrong to kill someone, it's wrong to kill someone.
Really - Think about that again. Based on that reasoning many rapist and child molesters would go free. Crimes conventions aren't like TV where there is a nice, orderly line of physical evidence that points directly at one criminal. Most crime are solved by some stating "I saw him do it".
And they should if no evidence backs up their claim. Eye witness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Any cop or DA will tell you that off the record and they teach you this in criminal law classes. You need only look at the vast mess of vacated convictions in the child molestation scare during the 80s. Look at the case of the little angle Tracy West. If it wasn't for security cameras her Ex would likely be spending 30 years in jail, all because she said "I saw him do it".
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.
