Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on February 26, 2019, 03:01:27 PM
-
https://apnews.com/90bd94a33312436b89fde5d007258799
71-year-old man spent 39 years in prison before being found to be innocent. DNA links an unknown person to the murder. The subject of the story had an alibi for the time the murder was committed, yet he was convicted anyway.
I have no issue with murderers being zapped (or gassed, or injected). The problem is ... how certain can we be that an accused is really guilty?
-
Cases like the one cited are why I no longer support the death penalty. Courts get it wrong to often. I'd rather see banishment from society as the alternative, to somewhere remote and very difficult/impossible to get back from on their own.
-
This was the linked story. It has a few more details, but not much.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-craig-coley-simi-settlement-20190223-story.html
This guy was convicted on one witness who lied and one witness whose' testimony of time got scrambled or changed. That is pretty flimsy evidence. I would be curious if the summary in the article left something out. It wouldn't be the first case I heard about like this I guess. I assume juries believed witnesses a bit too much in some of these cases and defense lawyers didn't question them very well.
Death penalty cases get a lot more scrutiny and automatic appeals. This guy obviously had a crappy lawyer and the prosecutors dragged him through two trials. The statement about his parents mortgaging the house to pay legal bills makes me think they couldn't afford to appeal.
IMO, non-death penalty cases see a whole lot more of this type of thing. I don't see why this should be used as any justification regarding the death penalty. The whole system needs some work. Removing the death penalty does not remove the injustice.
-
IMO, non-death penalty cases see a whole lot more of this type of thing. I don't see why this should be used as any justification regarding the death penalty. The whole system needs some work. Removing the death penalty does not remove the injustice.
Removing plea bargains would be a good start. Prove the case or the accused walks. If found guilty and it is proven to be a mistake do exactly what they do now, release them and make some sort of payment, if too late to release make payments to their heirs. There is not a single profession that does not make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes result in the death of one or possibly many.
bob
-
I don't support the death penalty because the State doesn't have the moral authority to decide if someone should live or die.
-
Our Justice System seems to be more of contest between two lawyers who are looking to put a notch on the resume' rather than a search for truth.
-
Our Justice System seems to be more of contest between two lawyers who are looking to put a notch on the resume' rather than a search for truth.
When I was at the law firm and I was explaining the trial process to the providers, they often talked about their faith in how the unvarnished truth would support them and they would prevail. I had to tell them that the trial process was not a search for the unvarnished truth, but rather the truth that would support our version of the facts, just as plaintiff counsel was looking for the truth that would support their version of the facts. And that an advantage of the adversary system was that the jury would probably find the truth somewhere in the middle.
-
Removing plea bargains would be a good start. Prove the case or the accused walks. If found guilty and it is proven to be a mistake do exactly what they do now, release them and make some sort of payment, if too late to release make payments to their heirs. There is not a single profession that does not make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes result in the death of one or possibly many.
bob
"Prove the case or the accused walks" should go for hung juries, too. In general, Mr. Prosecutor, if you have not proven your case to all the jurors the first time around, there should be an automatic presumption of reasonable doubt attached to the case. (Obviously, at least one juror had reasonable doubt.)
-
I respect this argument against the death penalty. I think it is a good argument.
I do not, in the end agree with it. Almost every type of human activity will accidentally kill innocent people. For example, over 300 people every year drown in swimming pools. I do not know how many people are wrongly executed every year, but there is no doubt a tiny, tiny percentage of this... given how few executions are actually carried out.
We accept the accidental deaths of hundreds of innocent children yearly to have something as trivial swimming pools. And yet, it is considered unacceptable to have any risk of killing an innocent person in the death penalty?
I think the death penalty is an important tool of justice that is under used. That is why I continue to support it for murderers, even if it cannot be 100% perfect.
The logical end of refusing to administer a punishment if the justice system is imperfect is to not administer any punishments at all. We can't be always 100% sure a person is guilty when they go to prison for a term, so shall we eliminate prisons?
-
When I was at the law firm and I was explaining the trial process to the providers, they often talked about their faith in how the unvarnished truth would support them and they would prevail. I had to tell them that the trial process was not a search for the unvarnished truth, but rather the truth that would support our version of the facts, just as plaintiff counsel was looking for the truth that would support their version of the facts. And that an advantage of the adversary system was that the jury would probably find the truth somewhere in the middle.
There is a radio commercial on all the time for a local ambulance chaser firm... in the commercial, the speaker says something along the lines of “our reputation and presentation at trial matter more than than the facts in your case”
-
I respect this argument against the death penalty. I think it is a good argument.
I do not, in the end agree with it. Almost every type of human activity will accidentally kill innocent people. For example, over 300 people every year drown in swimming pools. I do not know how many people are wrongly executed every year, but there is no doubt a tiny, tiny percentage of this... given how few executions are actually carried out.
We accept the accidental deaths of hundreds of innocent children yearly to have something as trivial swimming pools. And yet, it is considered unacceptable to have any risk of killing an innocent person in the death penalty?
I think the death penalty is an important tool of justice that is under used. That is why I continue to support it for murderers, even if it cannot be 100% perfect.
The logical end of refusing to administer a punishment if the justice system is imperfect is to not administer any punishments at all. We can't be always 100% sure a person is guilty when they go to prison for a term, so shall we eliminate prisons?
Well said.
The government doesn't get to abdicate its duty through incompetence.
-
I abandoned support for the death penalty a while back myself.
My opinion of our government is quite a bit lower than most so I absolutely do not trust it to do the right thing.
Certainly there are criminals worthy of the death penalty. There have been plenty of cases where I’ve been tempted to reevaluate and modify my position.
Lifetime incarceration in a supermax prison fulfills the governments duty without the baggage of capital punishment.
-
Lifetime incarceration in a supermax prison fulfills the governments duty without the baggage of capital punishment.
I recently read something about life in a supermax. You basically live in a box the size of a small bathroom for 23 hours a day. If it's 50 years of that or a bullet to the brainpan, I think I might take the latter.
As I have mentioned in similar threads, I'm still for the death penalty, but only with VERY, VERY concrete evidence. Currently, DNA exonerations are much too high for my comfort.
-
Government shouldn't be given the authority to decide who lives or dies. Some people are silly, they are rabidly against Government mandated education and health care but are supporters of Government mandated death.
What makes you think Government will administer the right to life (or lack thereof) any better than it would administer the right to free speech or bear arms? People who support the death penalty often look at it through an idealized lens, with moral absolutism and certainty that it will only be applied to the very worst scum. What you are doing in fact is setting a precedent that the Government has a claim to your most basic right. How that will be abused in the future is anyone's guess.
-
Government shouldn't be given the authority to decide who lives or dies. Some people are silly, they are rabidly against Government mandated education and health care but are supporters of Government mandated death.
What makes you think Government will administer the right to life (or lack thereof) any better than it would administer the right to free speech or bear arms? People who support the death penalty often look at it through an idealized lens, with moral absolutism and certainty that it will only be applied to the very worst scum. What you are doing in fact is setting a precedent that the Government has a claim to your most basic right. How that will be abused in the future is anyone's guess.
Some people's arguments are silly.
The death penalty precedent was set a long time ago. It's nothing new. And, yeah, I'll go on record as being for a limited government that only fulfills the basic functions of government - one of which is to bring murderers to justice.
-
Government shouldn't be given the authority to decide who lives or dies. Some people are silly, they are rabidly against Government mandated education and health care but are supporters of Government mandated death.
What makes you think Government will administer the right to life (or lack thereof) any better than it would administer the right to free speech or bear arms? People who support the death penalty often look at it through an idealized lens, with moral absolutism and certainty that it will only be applied to the very worst scum. What you are doing in fact is setting a precedent that the Government has a claim to your most basic right. How that will be abused in the future is anyone's guess.
I recognize your argument and where you're coming from, but using the aforementioned Supermax as an example, how do they then have the right to stick me in a tiny, windowless box for the rest of my life? Many would argue that is worse than death.
-
I recognize your argument and where you're coming from, but using the aforementioned Supermax as an example, how do they then have the right to stick me in a tiny, windowless box for the rest of my life? Many would argue that is worse than death.
While both are horrific only one can be partially undone.
-
I at the same time think the death penalty both does not have a high enough burden of proof, and is to limited in use.
In order to be on the table I feel there needs to be 100%, undeniable proof of the accused guilt. You're on camera hacking people to death, have Jeffery Dahmer's pantry, have a lot of rock solid witnesses, etc. Beyond a reasonable doubt is, IMO, not a high enough burden. But when guilt is absolutely proven, go ahead and hit them with the death penalty. And not 20 years from now. And roll things like child molestation, aggravated rape, and the like in with it.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Some people's arguments are silly.
The death penalty precedent was set a long time ago. It's nothing new. And, yeah, I'll go on record as being for a limited government that only fulfills the basic functions of government - one of which is to bring murderers to justice.
Just because something has a precedent set many times in the past we should continue affirming it? There is plenty of precedent regarding bowing to emperors and kings yet we don't seem to be doing that anymore. If you look closely, the death penalty seldom had much to do with justice, mostly it was about asserting the ultimate authority over subjects and terminating dissent.
-
While both are horrific only one can be partially undone.
No, it can't be undone at all. The person in prison cannot get that time back.
I see where you are coming from, but I think that argument gives people wiggle room to avoid the responsibility to get it right the first time. Pinning crimes on innocent people is never acceptable no matter the penalty. That is one reason why I don't like some of these arguments about the death penalty. I seems like many would be okay with a screwed up justice system as long as no one got killed.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/review-finds-ex-death-row-inmate-innocent-of-officers-death
Another example of someone convicted of a capital crime who was later exonerated.
-
Just because something has a precedent set many times in the past we should continue affirming it? There is plenty of precedent regarding bowing to emperors and kings yet we don't seem to be doing that anymore. If you look closely, the death penalty seldom had much to do with justice, mostly it was about asserting the ultimate authority over subjects and terminating dissent.
Oh brother.
You said allowing the death penalty would set a precedent. Which is a funny thing to say, given it's been a precedent for millennia.
As for terminating dissent and the like, I don't think anyone's saying we should go back to Hammurabi's code. Personally, I'd limit it to murder, and possibly treason.
-
No, it can't be undone at all. The person in prison cannot get that time back.
I see where you are coming from, but I think that argument gives people wiggle room to avoid the responsibility to get it right the first time. Pinning crimes on innocent people is never acceptable no matter the penalty. That is one reason why I don't like some of these arguments about the death penalty. I seems like many would be okay with a screwed up justice system as long as no one got killed.
Acknowledging reality means acknowledging the justice system is screwed up and gets it wrong.
There are psychopath and narcissistic prosecutors out there who will send a man to his death to further their careers. It’s not 3rd world common but it is all too common.
Setting an innocent man free with some form of restitution is closer to partially undone than apologizing to the put to death mans family for the mistake.
-
There are psychopath and narcissistic prosecutors out there who will send a man to his death to further their careers. It’s not 3rd world common but it is all too common.
Setting an innocent man free with some form of restitution is closer to partially undone than apologizing to the put to death mans family for the mistake.
Or, as in the case cited by Millcreek two posts above yours, the prosecutors continuing to insist that the innocent man was guilty and that the only mistake was acknowledging the mistake and setting him free.
-
Acknowledging reality means acknowledging the justice system is screwed up and gets it wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal