llllllllllllllllllllll
|
The Death Penalty debate posts excerpted from ACLU message board |
The Best Death-Penalty Website:
Good Message Boardsgood debates, philosophy, politics, economics, social issues
Libertarian-oriented. Proposals for freedom-lovers to all move to one state and try to "take it over." Philosophical arguments about how to pull this off and what should happen in the "free state" after they "take it over." Another minor political party. Maybe the best. Has a "Convention Floor" (message board) which lets participants shape the party's policies/platform proposals. Not necessarily conservative or liberal or moderate or ----. Just seeking the best positions on all the issues. Perhaps a little flaky, this one. Kumbayah, sweetness and light, butterfly wings, etc. But open to all viewpoints. Proposes a new economic system without taxes or "usury". But you can disagree and offer your own theories. Mostly libertarian. Lots of topics, easy to get lost. PoliticalPlatform.netBelow are some good message boards which are easy to get into. You have to register, but it's easy and you can post right away. These ones are open to all viewpoints. They don't kick you off or censor you arbitrarily as long as you obey the reasonable rules of politeness, etc.The improved message boards now let you move from one post to another on the same topic without needing to click to another page. You can just scroll down through multiple messages which address the topic and argue with each other. These are a great debate forum for people who like to argue. Arguing is good. FreeStateProject.org
3rdParty.org
XAT.org
LibertyForum.org
More sites will be added to this list. This listing will be limited to high-quality message board sites only which allow easy access and are open to all viewpoints on the announced topics. Here are some other pages/topics of
interest:
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, move over! Here is the "Best Political Platform" for the U.S. Neolib.net What is a "neoliberal"? Have you heard this term being thrown around? What is neoliberalism? Is this a political philosophy someone is promoting? Night Owl Mk. II Philosophy of Life Good arguments, "Agree with me or show me where I'm wrong" Minimum Wage Law Who is made better off by a minimum wage law? If such a law is good for society, why not increase the minimum wage to $30 or $40 or $50 per hour? Labor Theory of Value Does anyone really defend the labor theory of value anymore? Where are you Marxists? Come and defend this theory or admit that Marxism makes no sense. Have you all jumped ship? That's a Lie! A listing of lies popularly told and accepted in society. Know any good lies? Add your own example(s) to the list. OK2Kill When is killing right and when is it wrong? Capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. ForbiddenIdeas.com like those just above. Do you know of any good "forbidden ideas"? ideas that make some people (the mindless idiot types) want to call you a commie or nazi or worse, just for mentioning them? Have some fun -- get called something evil by adding your own "forbidden idea" to the list. You haven't lived life to the fullest until you've been called a dirty name by some idiot. WhyTheyHateUs.net The "war on terror" // Militant Islam vs. the West Extensive list of minor political parties (You might have to scroll down a little to get past the 2 major parties.) Shorter list of alternative political parties (These are some of the more serious ones.): Do you know of a good website that should be listed with the above? The best kind are those that are controversial and give some invitation to visitors to get their own opinions posted in response. click here to give your suggestion. Also, if you have your own web page, we might trade links. The Best Death-Penalty Website:
Good Message Boardsgood debates, philosophy, politics, economics, social issues
Libertarian-oriented. Proposals for freedom-lovers to all move to one state and try to "take it over." Philosophical arguments about how to pull this off and what should happen in the "free state" after they "take it over." Another minor political party. Maybe the best. Has a "Convention Floor" (message board) which lets participants shape the party's policies/platform proposals. Not necessarily conservative or liberal or moderate or ----. Just seeking the best positions on all the issues. Perhaps a little flaky, this one. Kumbayah, sweetness and light, butterfly wings, etc. But open to all viewpoints. Proposes a new economic system without taxes or "usury". But you can disagree and offer your own theories. Mostly libertarian. Lots of topics, easy to get lost. PoliticalPlatform.netBelow are some good message boards which are easy to get into. You have to register, but it's easy and you can post right away. These ones are open to all viewpoints. They don't kick you off or censor you arbitrarily as long as you obey the reasonable rules of politeness, etc.The improved message boards now let you move from one post to another on the same topic without needing to click to another page. You can just scroll down through multiple messages which address the topic and argue with each other. These are a great debate forum for people who like to argue. Arguing is good. FreeStateProject.org
3rdParty.org
XAT.org
LibertyForum.org
More sites will be added to this list. This listing will be limited to high-quality message board sites only which allow easy access and are open to all viewpoints on the announced topics. Here are some other pages/topics of
interest:
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, move over! Here is the "Best Political Platform" for the U.S. Neolib.net What is a "neoliberal"? Have you heard this term being thrown around? What is neoliberalism? Is this a political philosophy someone is promoting? Night Owl Mk. II Philosophy of Life Good arguments, "Agree with me or show me where I'm wrong" Minimum Wage Law Who is made better off by a minimum wage law? If such a law is good for society, why not increase the minimum wage to $30 or $40 or $50 per hour? Labor Theory of Value Does anyone really defend the labor theory of value anymore? Where are you Marxists? Come and defend this theory or admit that Marxism makes no sense. Have you all jumped ship? That's a Lie! A listing of lies popularly told and accepted in society. Know any good lies? Add your own example(s) to the list. OK2Kill When is killing right and when is it wrong? Capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. ForbiddenIdeas.com like those just above. Do you know of any good "forbidden ideas"? ideas that make some people (the mindless idiot types) want to call you a commie or nazi or worse, just for mentioning them? Have some fun -- get called something evil by adding your own "forbidden idea" to the list. You haven't lived life to the fullest until you've been called a dirty name by some idiot. WhyTheyHateUs.net The "war on terror" // Militant Islam vs. the West Extensive list of minor political parties (You might have to scroll down a little to get past the 2 major parties.) Shorter list of alternative political parties (These are some of the more serious ones.): Do you know of a good website that should be listed with the above? The best kind are those that are controversial and give some invitation to visitors to get their own opinions posted in response. click here to give your suggestion. Also, if you have your own web page, we might trade links. The Best Death-Penalty Website:
Good Message Boardsgood debates, philosophy, politics, economics, social issues
Libertarian-oriented. Proposals for freedom-lovers to all move to one state and try to "take it over." Philosophical arguments about how to pull this off and what should happen in the "free state" after they "take it over." Another minor political party. Maybe the best. Has a "Convention Floor" (message board) which lets participants shape the party's policies/platform proposals. Not necessarily conservative or liberal or moderate or ----. Just seeking the best positions on all the issues. Perhaps a little flaky, this one. Kumbayah, sweetness and light, butterfly wings, etc. But open to all viewpoints. Proposes a new economic system without taxes or "usury". But you can disagree and offer your own theories. Mostly libertarian. Lots of topics, easy to get lost. PoliticalPlatform.net |
All the following posts are presented here in their entirety in order to ensure no bias in editing. So there are some frivolous remarks and some redundancy. Subject: death as a penalty? Death is by far the most severe and permanent punishment someone can receive. How can anyone teach that violence is not the answer to anything and then support death as punishment? The reason, strongest reason at least, I so strongly oppose the death penalty is because you cannot make it foolproof. The fact that even one man has died, despite his innocence, is reason enough to put an end to it. How can we kill man after man knowing there is a chance that any of them may be innocent? The courts are not foolproof either. It's already been proven that many, after death, have been found innocent. Nine inmates were exonerated just last year, fortunately before they met their death! Regardless of whether or not you believe criminals can be "deserving" of death as a penalty, how can anyone support an idea that puts to death innocent people? As a supposed civil and humane society, we shouldn't. Subject: Re: death as a penalty?
I, too oppose the Death Penalty, as a form of punishment. I do, however, support it as a means of eliminating from society the uncontrolled/uncontrollable predators and berserkers who prey upon their fellows, without the cost of maintaining them in prisons, in relative comfort, for years and decades. Subject: Re: death as a penalty? boogiemanilow: "How can anyone teach that violence is not the answer to anything and then support death as punishment?" Any punishment is violence. The above argument is an argument against any punishment, not just against the death penalty. Virtually all arguments offered against the death penalty are really arguments against ANY penalty. "The reason, strongest reason at least, I so strongly oppose the death penalty is because you cannot make it foolproof." The same is true of other penalties. "The fact that even one man has died, despite his innocence, is reason enough to put an end to it." Then put an end to prison terms also. It is just as wrong to imprison an innocent man for 20 years. "How can we kill man after man knowing there is a chance that any of them may be innocent?" How can we IMPRISON a man knowing there is a chance he might be innocent? "The courts are not foolproof either. It's already been proven that many, after death, have been found innocent." That's not true. (What's your definition of "Many"? Over what period of time? What percentage of the total executed?)
That's evidence that the system works to protect the innocent. "Regardless of whether or not you believe criminals can be 'deserving' of death as a penalty, how can anyone support an idea that puts to death innocent people?" or puts them in prison? If you really care about the innocent, you will propose better methods to review these convictions and get the innocent exonerated. Eliminating the death penalty will do nothing to exonerate them. In fact, the death penalty helps to exonerate them, because it forces more to be done to bring their cases up for review. Without the death penalty, many of those exonerated would instead have just spent their lives rotting in prison.
A civil and humane society would do more to review the convictions and distinguish the guilty from the innocent. If everything reasonable is done to protect the innocent (more than is done now) and yet a few innocent ones are still executed, as long as the percentage is small, that is a reasonable price to pay for the benefits of the death penalty. We cannot have a perfect system. Subject: Re: death as a penalty? In response to Hedgwitch: What are you meaning? Do you mean you support summary executions? That would put you in the category you describe. Subject: Re: death as a penalty? In response to Freetrader: You're calling back again?! I thought you'd be to embarrassed about your last post! What the hell is wrong with YOUR brain? Of course, we can run the risk of imprisoning an innocent man, because if he is ever found to be innocent, provided he has not been executed, he can be released and awarded damages (not a preferable way to become independently wealthy), so it is a reasonable risk to take in order to remove those from society that are so without any regard for morality, that leaving them on the street for a day might be considered negligence and reckless endangerment of civilized society. So, you see the innocent man who was imprisoned lost years of his life (which is irreplaceable), but he can be compensated at least to the degree that he may live for free and never have to work again. Subject: Death penalty protects the innocent.
oncelambnowking: "Of course, we can run the risk of imprisoning an innocent man, because if he is ever found to be innocent, provided he has not been executed, he can be released and awarded damages . . . " "can be" but in reality it seldom happens. It is the death-row convicts who get their cases reviewed over and over and attract the attention of the media and crusading groups who want to save the innocent. Not the ones who get prison terms. The latter are ignored and just rot in prison. The death penalty is a benefit to convicts (who are actually innocent) because it assures they will get their case reviewed and gives them a real chance to be vindicated. If you really care about saving the innocent, you should favor the death penalty. The opposing point of view is, in effect: Ah, just let 'em all rot in prison--long as we don't kill 'em. It's too much trouble trying to separate the guilty from the innocent. Everyone is adamant that an innocent man should not be executed. But rot in prison for the rest of his life? No problem. That is the reality. And that is the way it will be for all convicted murderers, both the innocent and the guilty, if the dp is abolished. That is reality vs. theory.
The death penalty is an even more reasonable risk to take in order to gain this social benefit. The chance of an innocent person being executed is less than that of a convicted murderer killing again while in prison. Once the verdict is in and appropriate appeals/reviews have been done, the greater risk to society is in NOT doing away with the convicted murderer. The reckless endangerment of not executing him is greater than the endangerment to innocent ones of being executed wrongly. "So, you see the innocent man who was imprisoned lost years of his life (which is irreplaceable), but he can be compensated at least to the degree that he may live for free and never have to work again." "can be" but in fact won't be. In fact his case will not be reviewed and he will remain in prison to serve his full term. While in the meantime, his innocent colleague on death row will be vindicated and released. Subject: Re: Death penalty protects the innocent. "It is the death-row convicts who get their cases reviewed over and over and attract the attention of the media and crusading groups who want to save the innocent. Not the ones who get prison terms. The latter are ignored and just rot in prison." Innocence projects around the country take up the cases of those in prison not facing the death penalty. While these cases get less media attention, they are not ignored. I'd be curious to see you show some credible source for your opposite assertion. "The death penalty is an even more reasonable risk to take in order to gain this social benefit. The chance of an innocent person being executed is less than that of a convicted murderer killing again while in prison." Again, you make an assertion without any basis. What would be the source of your assertion here that claims to be statistically based? Subject: Re: Death penalty protects the innocent. aasch: "Innocence projects around the country take up the cases of those in prison not facing the death penalty. While these cases get less media attention, they are not ignored. I'd be curious to see you show some credible source for your opposite assertion." Here is my precise assertion (my previous statement on this was too brief): Convicts on death row get much more attention to their cases than do the ones serving a long sentence ('lifer' for short). The chances of a convict getting a thorough review of his case are several times greater if that convict is a death row prisoner. Also, even if a lifer does get an appeal or some attention from crusading groups, he will get much less attention than a death row inmate, given similar circumstances of the case. His chances of being vindicated, if he is actually innocent, are obviously much less. And if the death penalty were abolished, half the crusading groups would close up shop and go home. They would lose interest and would feel they had accomplished their goal. Their goal is not to save the innocent, but to abolish the dp. Once they accomplish that they will be satisfied. I think the above is so obvious that only a fool could think otherwise. However, if you have some credible evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear it (or read it). My view is based on common sense. If you think that lifers and death-row inmates get EQUAL attention/reviews, then you are the one who should present the credible evidence. "The chance of an innocent person being executed is less than that of a convicted murderer killing again while in prison." "Again, you make an assertion without any basis. What would be the source of your assertion here that claims to be statistically based?" There are known proven cases of convicted murderers-lifers who killed again while in prison. They were convicted of that second murder. But what are the known cases of an executed convict who was later proven to be innocent? How about giving us just one example of an innocent one executed since the dp was reinstated. This means a case where the real culprit was caught later and convicted. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume there have been none. Why? Because we never hear of any. The anti-dp crusaders never cite such a case. They cite only cases of convicts who were released because they were vindicated. And from this they extrapolate that maybe there are some innocent ones who were executed before they could be vindicated. But shouldn't they be able to come up with such a case rather than just extrapolating? The vindicating evidence doesn't vanish after the convict is executed. The ones who were vindicated and released did have a case. That's why their cases were reviewed--their case was strong and the necessary attention was given to it. While the others, the ones who were finally executed, did not get the attention because they didn't have a strong case. So what is the basis for the extrapolation? The ones executed are not analogous to the ones who were vindicated. A case in Oklahoma was on the news a week or two ago where one had been executed but later some new evidence turned up which was in his favor, and so maybe he was really innocent. This seems to be the closest we have come to a possible innocent one executed. And there is no legal action to prosecute any new defendant. So far the court system there still thinks they executed the right person. Even if we assume that this one executed convict was actually innocent, that would make only one known case. But there have been many cases of convicted murderers who killed again when in prison. So it is a reasonable assumption that the number of convicted murderers who killed again while in prison is greater than the number of innocent ones convicted and executed. But if you have credible evidence to the contrary, present it to us. In the meantime it is more reasonable to assume that a murderer-lifer will kill again than that an innocent person will be convicted and executed. Or rather, that the number of the former deaths is greater than the number of the latter. Have there been ABSOLUTELY NO innocent ones ever executed? Only a fool would say that. But it should be clear that the number of vindications of innocents is greater as a result of the dp. It's better to increase the chances of vindicating the innocent. Abolishing the dp does virtually nothing, in fact absolutely nothing, to vindicate the innocent. It sloshes all of them, innocent and guilty, into the same group and condemns them all equally. Subject: Re: Death penalty protects the innocent. "Innocence projects around the country take up the cases of those in prison not facing the death penalty. While these cases get less media attention, they are not ignored. I'd be curious to see you show some credible source for your opposite assertion. "Here is my precise assertion (my previous statement on this was too brief): "Convicts on death row get much more attention to their cases than do the ones serving a long sentence ("lifer" for short). The chances of a convict getting a thorough review of his case are several times greater if that convict is a death row prisoner. "Also, even if a lifer does get an appeal or some attention from crusading groups, he will get much less attention than a death row inmate, given similar circumstances of the case. His chances of being vindicated, if he is actually innocent, are obviously much less. "And if the death penalty were abolished, half the crusading groups would close up shop and go home. They would lose interest and would feel they had accomplished their goal. Their goal is not to save the innocent, but to abolish the dp. Once they accomplish that they will be satisfied. "I think the above is so obvious that only a fool could think otherwise. However, if you have some credible evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear it (or read it). My view is based on common sense. If you think that lifers and death-row inmates get EQUAL attention/reviews, then you are the one who should present the credible evidence." I never said that lifers get equal attention as those facing the death penalty, only that they are not ignored as you claimed in your previous post. Your claim is based on your assumption that "their goal is not to save the innocent, but to abolish the dp." Again you provide no evidence for that claim other than your own negative views of those who disagree with you. In reality, there are Innocence Projects all over the country that help both those sentenced to death and those with long prison sentences. Currently, they must focus many resources on those on death row because those are the cases where there is such a literal deadline. If the death penalty were abolished, all those resources could be refocused on helping innocent people serving long prison sentences. And, by the way, simply stating that your conclusion "is so obvious that only a fool could think otherwise" proves nothing.
"How about giving us just one example of an innocent one executed since the dp was reinstated. This means a case where the real culprit was caught later and convicted. "Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume there have been none. Why? Because we never hear of any. The anti-dp crusaders never cite such a case. They cite only cases of convicts who were released because they were vindicated. And from this they extrapolate that maybe there are some innocent ones who were executed before they could be vindicated. "But shouldn't they be able to come up with such a case rather than just extrapolating? The vindicating evidence doesn't vanish after the convict is executed. The ones who were vindicated and released did have a case." Given the argument you just made above, this argument is totally disingenuous. First, you argue that without being on death row, attention to cases would disappear, then you wonder why there haven't been any post-execution exonerations? Isn't it possible that once the person is executed, the case gets less attention and resources? And, unlike your argument, mine is not based on just "abstract reasoning." Take the case of Roger Keith Coleman, executed in 1992. Grave doubts about his guilt existed, but he was executed anyway. When several newspapers and others tried to get post-execution DNA testing they were rebuffed by the courts. You asked for just one innocent person executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty, but I'll give you another strong candidate: Jesse Tafero, executed in 1990 in Florida. Further, as long as we're relying on "abstract reasoning," given all the people who have been taken off death row alive through DNA testing, it seems obvious that many innocents were executed before such testing was available. Given the courts reluctance to allow post-execution testing and the dearth of post-execution resources, it is impossible to say how many innocents have actually been executed. And, if we're comparing these numbers to the number of people who kill in prison, why not add in the number of innocent people who are killed in prison? You have not provided any numbers for the former, so have no way of knowing how many there are of the latter. And, anyway, killing in prison should be almost completely avoidable. It is only the lax attitude of prison officials about what happens to the inmates under their "protection" that allows most prison killings to occur. Isn't that so obvious only a fool could think otherwise? Subject: Re: Death penalty protects the innocent.
That confirms what I said. Those on death row are much more likely to be exonerated than the lifers, given the same circumstances of their case. If you are wrongly convicted of murder, you're better off to get the death penalty, if you want to be exonerated.
The death penalty was abolished for many years. Your theory could be tested. Have you tested it? Were the crusaders to vindicate the innocent just as active during that period as they were before? Was there no sharp increase in this activity when the dp was reinstated? Did the amount of funds devoted to this crusade remain the same after the dp was abolished? And was there no sharp increase in that funding when it was reinstated? Do you have a reference for me on that? That would be a very interesting piece of information, wouldn't it? "First, you argue that without being on death row, attention to cases would disappear, then you wonder why there haven't been any post-execution exonerations? Isn't it possible that once the person is executed, the case gets less attention and resources?" Very unlikely. If you have a good case to make for someone who was just executed, the best thing you could do to save other innocents would be to prove that the executed one was really innocent. If you could make a convincing case, that would shock the public and sentiment for the dp would go down. If you really have a chance to exonerate someone who was executed, you should (and would have) put a lot of resources into it. If you're against the dp. The reason you don't must be because you really don't have a good example of an innocent one executed.
I'm sure you could name a couple dozen more cases. Maybe a hundred. Even if I go off to the wilderness and study this case full-time for "40 days and 40 nights", how am I supposed to separate the facts from the propaganda? That's the same thing as trying to document or debunk every UFO sighting. If the jury system is not working, then we should empty all the prisons and abolish the courts altogether. There is a system for determining who is guilty and who is innocent. If the system fails at a certain point, then there must be other points in the system to catch that. And if the whole system is worthless, then no one should ever be convicted or even imprisoned, let alone executed. The only solution to this is to establish a system to officially reopen cases, even death penalty cases where the condemned one was already executed. This could be done by a grand jury or other official body. I'm all in favor of establishing such a death-penalty case-reopen system for executed prisoners to get an official finding. But I will not rely on propaganda groups which are motivated by ideology. Sure, if I had the time, I could make a life study out of it. And if people are paying you to find innocent convicted and executed prisoners, I'm sure you'll earn your pay and find them. And if those same sources would pay you (or someone else) to find flying saucers or executed murderers who resurrected from the dead or whatever else they want you to find, all that would be found too. When people pay someone to find what they want, they usually get it. Where there's a demand, there's a supply. I will believe it when there has been a fully-documented case, corroborated by some official body, like a grand jury, or a statement from the official prosecuter that an innocent one was executed. I know, the individual prosecuting attorney in the case would never admit to a wrong conviction. Maybe. But his successor would. There must be a way to establish this without having to rely on ideologically-based propaganda organizations.
Let's assume that's true. That only means that the dp is more reliable today than it was before. If the DNA test now goes against the defendant, we surely have a strong case for guilt and can execute with a virtual certainty that we are executing the right one. This is a good argument for more funding for DNA test labs and more research for hi-tech crime detection and suspect identification technology. Soon we should perfect the system to the point where innocent convictions will become virtually nonexistent. And then there'll be no more reason to oppose the dp.
What can be said for certain is that the number of innocents executed is decreasing and will continue to decrease, with advancing technology. This, plus improving the appeal process, is the right way to go, not abolishing the dp. Subject: Re: Death penalty protects the innocent. "In reality, there are Innocence Projects all over the country that help both those sentenced to death and those with long prison sentences. Currently, they must focus many resources on those on death row because those are the cases where there is such a literal deadline." Freetrader: "That confirms what I said. Those on death row are much more likely to be exonerated than the lifers, given the same circumstances of their case. If you are wrongly convicted of murder, you're better off to get the death penalty, if you want to be exonerated." It does not confirm what you said in your original post in this thread, those with long prison terms 'are ignored and just rot in prison.' And, it doesn't even confirm your assertion now that those on death row are more likely to be exonerated. Although more resources are applied to death penalty cases because of the shortage of time, those with long prison sentences don't have less of a chance with fewer resources over a longer period of time. Given the work of the many Innocence Projects around the country, even in non-death penalty cases, you need to admit that you are wrong that innocent people are better off getting sentenced to death. And, sometimes, what is needed for an exoneration is not just resources, but time. Time for the guilty party to make a death bed confession. Time, for crucial evidence to finally surface. Time for lying witnesses or corrupt cops to finally feel the twinge of conscience. All the resources in the world haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, never mind Chandra Levy. But, maybe with time, answers will eventually be found. The death penalty takes away the ability to wait. "If the death penalty were abolished, all those resources could be refocused on helping innocent people serving long prison sentences." "The death penalty was abolished for many years. Your theory could be tested. Have you tested it? Were the crusaders to vindicate the innocent just as active during that period as they were before? Was there no sharp increase in this activity when the dp was reinstated? "Did the amount of funds devoted to this crusade remain the same after the dp was abolished? And was there no sharp increase in that funding when it was reinstated? "Do you have a reference for me on that? That would be a very interesting piece of information, wouldn't it?" You are just a fount of misinformation, aren't you? The death penalty was not "abolished for many years." The Supreme Court invalidated existing procedures for imposing the death penalty in it's 1972 decision in Fuhrman v. Georgia, but that only required states to enact new statutory procedures for imposing the death penalty that met the Court's requirements. Florida was the first state to enact a new statute and did so within five months. Most other states quickly followed. The next actual execution, of Gary Gilmore, took place in Utah in January of 1977. "Take the case of Roger Keith Coleman, executed in 1992. Grave doubts about his guilt existed, but he was executed anyway. When several newspapers and others tried to get post-execution DNA testing they were rebuffed by the courts." "I'm sure you could name a couple dozen more cases. Maybe a hundred. Even if I go off to the wilderness and study this case full-time for "40 days and 40 nights", how am I supposed to separate the facts from the propaganda? That's the same thing as trying to document or debunk every UFO sighting." You ask for cases of innocent people executed, then, when I give them to you, you change the subject to UFOs. I don't expect you to separate facts from propaganda, given that your posting so far have been devoid of facts and full of propaganda. "I will believe it when there has been a fully-documented case, corroborated by some official body, like a grand jury, or a statement from the official prosecuter that an innocent one was executed." I gave you the case of Jesse Tafero, where the conviction of his codefendant was overturned on appeal after he was executed. Isn't that "official" enough? "Further, as long as we're relying on 'abstract reasoning,' given all the people who have been taken off death row alive through DNA testing, it seems obvious that many innocents were executed before such testing was available." "Let's assume that's true. That only means that the dp is more reliable today than it was before. If the DNA test now goes against the defendant, we surely have a strong case for guilt and can execute with a virtual certainty that we are executing the right one. "This is a good argument for more funding for DNA test labs and more research for hi-tech crime detection and suspect identification technology. Soon we should perfect the system to the point where innocent convictions will become virtually nonexistent. And then there'll be no more reason to oppose the dp." The problem with your argument is that most death penalty cases don't involve DNA evidence. And DNA exonerations have occurred in cases where there was eyewitness testimony that convicted the defendant. What the DNA exonerations have shown us is that the evidence we use in death penalty cases is not reliable enough to put people to death. Subject: Re: Death penalty protects the innocent.
It is nutty to say that more resources does not increase the chances of success or that fewer does not decrease the chances. If that were true, then why devote resources to the effort?
Not unless you can demonstrate that the number of exonerations of "lifers" is proportionally equal to that of the death row convicts. The number serving prison terms is much greater. Therefore, the number of those exonerations should be greater by about the same proportion, if your theory is correct. Is it proportionally greater? The ratio of long prison terms to death sentences must be very high. Yet most of the exoneration cases we hear about are death penalty cases. Without clear evidence to the contrary, it is most reasonable to assume that the death-penalty cases get vastly more attention and that those convicts have a far greater chance of being exonerated (if they're innocent).
Is that really how most exonerations take place? In cases where crucial evidence finally surfaced, how long does this take typically? 10 years? really? What we need is an improvement in the appeal/review process. If you really care about protecting the innocent, you will crusade for a new appeal process which will increase the efficiency and reduce the time, so an innocent person doesn't have to rot in prison for 15 or 20 years before being exonerated. It is callous to say in effect "Let 'em rot in prison 20 years, we have to accept a lousy appeal process which takes forever. We need unlimited time." No, what we need is not more time and thus protracted period of injustice. We could greatly speed up the appeal process, or introduce a new review process, which would reduce this long period of time. That's where you would place your crusading effort if you really cared about the innocent. "All the resources in the world haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, . . . But, maybe with time, answers will eventually be found." Can you name a case which was finally resolved (officially, not just in the minds of your fellow propagandists) which dragged on as long as the Hoffa case? Can you name 2 cases? These are pretty rare.
Even if waiting seems appropriate in some cases, where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is less reasonable than other cases, there is no point in waiting in the many cases where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" really is beyond all doubt. In most of the contested cases, the argument is not that the defendant didn't really commit the crime, but rather, that s/he was insane or was now "rehabilitated" etc. In these cases there is no purpose served by the waiting. Some waiting is reasonable. But we should not make a religion out of waiting. The dp puts a reasonable limit on the waiting. There should be a reasonable limit to everything.
"The death penalty was abolished for many years. Your theory could be tested. Have you tested it? Were the crusaders to vindicate the innocent just as active during that period as they were before? Was there no sharp increase in this activity when the dp was reinstated? "Did the amount of funds devoted to this crusade remain the same after the dp was abolished? And was there no sharp increase in that funding when it was reinstated?"
Okay, you win the jargon and technicalities game. But let's get back to the relevant question, instead of digressing off into a semantics exercise on the technical definition of "abolish"? There was no death penalty in practice for many years. During that time did the innocent crusade projects continue along at the same level as before? Did they now divert all their previous attention and resources to exonerating the "lifers" as your theory predicts? Or did the attention and resources diminish in volume? You don't seem to be interested in that question. Would that be because the facts would contradict your theory? I suggest that the resources diminished, because you and your crusading companions are less interested in exonerating the innocent, and far more adamant about abolishing the dp. You care relatively little about all those innocent ones rotting in prison and are mainly interested in doing away with the dp. Why don't you crusade for abolishing all punishments? By your logic, probably half of all convicts are really innocent, so maybe they should all be released, rather than punishing so many innocent ones? Is it right to punish so many innocent, just in order to make sure we get some guilty ones?
"You ask for cases of innocent people executed, then, when I give them to you, you change the subject . . ." Just because you or some propaganda group says the guy was innocent doesn't make it so. Where is the official finding that he was innocent? Of course you can come up with names of people who claimed they were innocent, and a few who believed them. Where is the finding or official decision from a responsible body? That's what I'm asking you for. Name a case where the DA or the police dept. or a grand jury or the judge in the case or someone believable reviewed the case and acknowledges that they executed the wrong person. I didn't ask you for names published by an anti-death-penalty propaganda group. I understand they have many such names. And the analogy to UFO sightings etc. is correct. Propagandists who are highly motivated come up with lots of names and dates and statistics to 'prove' their case.
So you don't see the difference? I told you the difference. I want a finding from a responsible party, someone credible, someone whose job is to make factual findings, not come up with ammunition for a propaganda organization. If you keep pretending not to understand the difference, I can only assume that you do not have such facts to prove your case. Throwing around irrelevant "facts" does not prove your case. You have to produce relevant facts that meet the criteria in question. Name a case where an executed person was later officially exonerated.
No, the one convicted and executed may have been guilty, while his codefendant was innocent. If there was no finding or acknowledgement that the executed one was really innocent, then a reasonable person should accept the original verdict of the jury. That verdict is the best finding to rely upon. Is this example the best that you can come up with? Why can't you cite an unambiguous case? There should be at least one such case. As I said before, we should have a review process where a grand jury or other official body could reopen a case like this and make an official finding. This is the kind of change we need. Not abolition of the dp. We need a change toward more truth-finding and thus exoneration of the innocent. Not across-the-board reduction of punishments to the guilty. "Given all the people who have been taken off death row alive through DNA testing, it seems obvious that many innocents were executed before such testing was available." "That only means that the dp is more reliable today than it was before. . . " "The problem with your argument is that most death penalty cases don't involve DNA evidence." Even if that's true, you still must admit a high degree of reliability in those cases which do rely on DNA evidence. And so in those cases you have no reason to oppose the dp. But there are some other cases also where the evidence is highly reliable and there is no doubt about guilt. "And DNA exonerations have occurred in cases where there was eyewitness testimony that convicted the defendant." Everyone agrees that eyewitness testimony has its limits. But should we then throw out all convictions which relied on eyewitness testimony? "What the DNA exonerations have shown us is that the evidence we use in death penalty cases is not reliable enough to put people to death." Then it's also not reliable enough to put them in prison. Your argument is not against the dp, but against all punishments, prison terms, etc. Just because half or 2/3 of those convicted may really be guilty is no justification to falsely imprison all the others who are innocent (according to your theory). Your reasoning is not that the dp alone should be abolished but rather that the entire criminal justice system should be abolished because it is too difficult to distinguish the innocent from the guilty. From: Freetrader
We don't have absolute perfection or absolute infallible Knowledge which can never be retested. We have to do the best we can with the knowledge we have so far. Without this premise, there can be no decisions or judgments about anything. It is common for later decisions, e.g., court decisions, to in effect cancel or negate previous decisions. In general we assume the later decision-makers had better information, or had new insights which justified their reversal of the previous. But there is no absolute guarantee that the later decision is always the right one. There should always be the possibility of reviewing a previous decision, or reopening a previous case for further review. No decision is absolutely final for all eternity. Response to the above? Post your own argument here (Click here) or in the SocialContract.com Message Board. Return to: OK2Kill
Return to: DebateClub.net
|
|
|
ignore this space |