patriciajnsn
Steering Wheel Holder
I'm really surprised how heated this issue has become.I think i'm keeping my opinions cival.I've been touched by the Troy Davis case for weeks and thought i'd finally post it on here.
The Death Penalty
- Thread starter patriciajnsn
- Start date
patriciajnsn
Steering Wheel Holder
Think what a person must go thru especailly if the person is innocent and going thru a botched execution.They go to sleep then die so they say.We may never know because the 2nd drug injected shuts the brain down and paralyzes you.
snowflake
Ow ya goin'
"and the beat goes on....." they are still readin' and posting...amazing what generates interest.....
patriciajnsn
Steering Wheel Holder
I think in time this thread is going to top your chocolate thread snow,LOL kidding.
cajuntrucker59
Well Known Smart Azz
Blow Jay Simpson perhaps?
patriciajnsn
Steering Wheel Holder
I can't find that pituclar post that cajun quoted you so i'll reply to your response here.EXACTLY James,what about the guilty that gets off.Guilty goes free and the innocent loses his or her life,does'nt sound fair does it.None of us knows every detail pertaining to Mr.Davis but what kind of justice is that you sentence a man to death only by testimony.Troy went to his grave saying he was innocent.
One innocent person dying is "one too many". I can definitely agree with that.
However, we have THE BEST system in the world in regards to being able to be judged by your peers and until something better is brought forward, I'll take it.
Some concern is being brought up over whether this man was truly guilty or not, and assumptions of innocence are being made by many people over what they are hearing on the news (which is never the true or real story).
Today, it is becoming next to impossible to convict people without 100% proof, and most of the time, you simply cannot get that. Therefore we have trials. On rare occasions, a mistake may be made. We have to deal with that until someone can come up with a better idea.
So, who's got that "better idea"? And before you get too in depth, money IS an object, so you can't go overboard on things.
Personally, my biggest problem with the death penalty is the fact that it costs more financially than a life sentence. Something is just wrong with that.
At the same time, I have no problem with abolishing the death penalty, as long as life sentences truly last the person their entire life. I also want their entire life to cost me NOTHING. If a life prisoner, or any other prisoner wants to continue living in prison, they can do so with minimal conveniences, and be put on worthwhile work details that fund their existence in prison. Any inmate who refuses to perform the required work detail automatically gives up his right to eat and drink while in prison. I have to work and pay my way, why should they be rewarded with the ability to do nothing after being convicted of a crime? If they are paying their own way, I don't care how many people are spending life terms in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
However, we have THE BEST system in the world in regards to being able to be judged by your peers and until something better is brought forward, I'll take it.
Some concern is being brought up over whether this man was truly guilty or not, and assumptions of innocence are being made by many people over what they are hearing on the news (which is never the true or real story).
Today, it is becoming next to impossible to convict people without 100% proof, and most of the time, you simply cannot get that. Therefore we have trials. On rare occasions, a mistake may be made. We have to deal with that until someone can come up with a better idea.
So, who's got that "better idea"? And before you get too in depth, money IS an object, so you can't go overboard on things.
Personally, my biggest problem with the death penalty is the fact that it costs more financially than a life sentence. Something is just wrong with that.
At the same time, I have no problem with abolishing the death penalty, as long as life sentences truly last the person their entire life. I also want their entire life to cost me NOTHING. If a life prisoner, or any other prisoner wants to continue living in prison, they can do so with minimal conveniences, and be put on worthwhile work details that fund their existence in prison. Any inmate who refuses to perform the required work detail automatically gives up his right to eat and drink while in prison. I have to work and pay my way, why should they be rewarded with the ability to do nothing after being convicted of a crime? If they are paying their own way, I don't care how many people are spending life terms in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
cajuntrucker59
Well Known Smart Azz
I thought some of you may be interested in these statistics from the Innocence Project, which has now had some 100 death sentences overturned based upon post-conviction evidence. According to their study of the first 70 cases reversed:
•Over 30 of them involved prosecutorial misconduct.
•Over 30 of them involved police misconduct which led to wrongful convictions.
•Approximately 15 of them involved false witness testimony.
•34% of the police misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatory evidence. 11% involved evidence fabrication.
•37% of the prosecutorial misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatroy evidence. 25% involved knowing use of false testimony.
•Over 30 of them involved prosecutorial misconduct.
•Over 30 of them involved police misconduct which led to wrongful convictions.
•Approximately 15 of them involved false witness testimony.
•34% of the police misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatory evidence. 11% involved evidence fabrication.
•37% of the prosecutorial misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatroy evidence. 25% involved knowing use of false testimony.
R
Racer X 69
Guest
Do a Google search. Since the advent of DNA testing, literally thousands of people on death row have been exonerated.
R
Racer X 69
Guest
Good stuff Cajun!
Interesting stats, but how many death sentences did they have to look at to get the 100 exceptions? Also: just because there was police or prosecutorial misconduct that exonerates the accused, it does not mean the accused was not guilty.
How else are you going to have a court case if not with testimony? Without people talking nothing could ever be resolved.
I wasn't sure but I was gonna guess at something like 10,000 cases altogether, which 100 people would represent 1%.
As Mike said we have a pretty good system and nobody sneezes at a 99% accuracy rate.
I have a little personal knowledge on the legal system as does my wife.
She's worked for a prosecutor, been a deputy, and volunteers now as a guardian ad litem.
My experience is......well..........from a different perspective.
1% innocence is probably a good guess. and it doesn't sound like much to live with.........unless........by some twist of fate, it happens to be you.
Probably not until that day, would most people give any serious consideration to that 1%.
But on THAT day, you'd wish the whole world to listen and pay attention.
Now, before anyone says it, let me say it for you.
The one thing that 1% probably all have in common is this, right up until it happened.
"Well, #1, I don't do anything wrong, wouldn't ever be in that position and don't even know or hang out with a criminal element, therefore it couldn't possibly happen to me."
Was that pretty close?
Now consider this.
How many times have you said or heard, "Well, they must have been doing SOMETHING wrong, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten arrested."?
Sound familiar?
Back to the stats.
As the link points out, if only 1% are innocent, out of 2 million that's 20,000 people.
A small city.
That's for all crimes, not just death row.
And this I wanted to point out........
Going back to the stats Cajun reported, about 1/3 of prosecutorial and police misconduct involved hiding exculpatory evidence.
That's fancy legal talk for evidence that proves you didn't do it.
So yeah, misconduct like search warrant technicalities might not mean you're innocent, but misconduct involving exculpatory evidence meant there was a 1 in 3 chance you were.
Are those stats abnormal?
Not really.
Like I said from experience and the amount of cases they are finding wrongdoing here in NC and having to throw out or retry - I'd say that was pretty accurate too.
So.
Given the facts, or rather probabilities, to the best that we can figure, that brings up a most difficult question, one that was just discussed.
I think we'd all like to the accuracy at 100% instead on 99%, but the complaint usually is, "But we let guilty people go in the process."
And that's absolutely true.
So which is worse?
A few innocents get punished or guilty-as-sin go free?
I've thought about this myself and lean towards making as sure as possible, no innocent is executed.
I'll tell you why.
Because that puts me in the executioner position, too.
Everyone who votes, pays taxes or pulls jury duty has a finger on the button when it happens. IOW. I'm an accomplice to that murder, the innocent one, I mean.
It hurts to think I'd be an accomplice to letting a murderer free and he murders again, but the decision to murder is his alone, even if I provided the opportunity.
But the innocent one didn't make that choice, I did.
That burden belongs on my conscience, and I don't want it if I can help it.
That's a very compelling argument. But your finger is on the button either way. If the guy way walks and goes out and kills somebody else, then you are an accessory to that murder. You really can't win.
Yes, the 1% stat doesn't seem like a big number till its one of us, but we deal with similar stats every day. Driving is a good example. We are at the mercy of under-skilled drivers every day, but odds are they will not effect our lives today. But one day we will be at the wrong place at the wrong time and could possibly end up dead. That is just a risk we take ever time we pull out of the driveway. When it happens, we start to question licensing, training, and vehicle safety standards. Yes, improving these standards will reduce risk, but no matter how much you reduce those risks there will still be accidents, and people will still die.
My biggest complaint is that there is often no recourse for officers/ lawyers who suppress exculpatory evidence. Many times this discovery is not made till years after the person is retired. In my opinion: anybody who who suppresses exculpatory evidence should be held liable to crime greater than that of the original crime they suppressed, and this liability should extend their entire for their entire life. That would mean they would have to stand trial for their crime(s) even after retirement and would have their pension yanked as well.
R
Racer X 69
Guest
Like the "other side of the fence" maybe? I can relate to that.
I'm with you on this Rebel. I feel that our system is pretty good too, but there absolutely, positively must be no doubt when t comes to ending the life of another, or even incarceration for extended and permanent periods.
You come up with very good stuff here, I for one appreciate your concise, well thought out contributions.
Thank you!
I would support legislation following this idea. If there was a chance that a cop or lawyer could lose their pension, or even their liberty by inappropriate behavior while acting in their professional capacity, a lot less of them would think twice before breaking the law.
patriciajnsn
Steering Wheel Holder
How else you ask,with evidence not just word of mouth.Mr Davis did not have any physical evidence,NONE.I wonder if he even got to speak on his behalf at the trial.Many cases all the defendant does is just sit there and let his lawyers speak for him.Now how fare is that,you can't even speak at your own trial.Things were said behind closed doors and Troy was'nt even there to defend himself.What's the point of defendants going to trial.
jamesc
Well-Known Member
you do have the right to speak at your trial most choose not to they dont want to dig a deeper hole for theirself
Duck
Sarcastic remark goes here
Now that you've explained your view a little better we seem to be on the level.
Cops, prosecutors, etc. who suppress exculpatory evidence or knowlingly allow witnesses to lie on the stand should be charged criminally with kidnapping if the innocent person they're attempting to imprison serves any prison time. Attempted murder if the innocent person is on death row, and premeditated murder if an innocent person is executed.
Duck
Sarcastic remark goes here
Lawyers argue for a living. They're professionals. Even if they know their client is guilty, or if a prosecutor knows the defendant is innocent, it doesn't matter to them. They will argue their case, twist and distort the facts, and a person with lesser verbal skills will lose the argument. It doesn't mean the loser of the argument is guilty, but it looks that way to a jury. That's why in most cases, a defense attorney will advise their client not to take the stand. If the defendant takes the stand, the prosecution will make them look guilty if the defendant lacks the verbal skills the prosecutor has, or gets nervous when speaking publicly. A jury will interpret stage fright as guilt too.
jamesc
Well-Known Member
i was replying to patricias post that the defendant never speaks for theirself at trial i know that some defendants are dumber than a rock and the prosecution wil eat them up
