quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                              Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: UPSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

Of course that is entirely different than the contemporary culture of the United States which admonishes 16 year old boys (who really know sh*t in the world) and demand they, "Be a man," and take responsibility for the child they created through the choices of their own, yet turns around and tells 30 year old women it is ok to be porn stars, have 12 different lovers, and have as many abortions as they want because women should never have to, "Be women," and take responsibility for the child they created through the choices of their own.

I don't want to get too far off track, but what are you talking about?  What makes you think the majority of people approve of women being porn stars, having 12 lovers and as many abortions as they want?

it is entirely immaterial what the majority of people "approve".
The law in fact does approve.

(in reply to TNstepsout)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

I

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

You see, even if a man doesn't choose to do so, he knows every day of his life that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, he can hit the road and get into the wind.

That's waaay dated. Have you checked some of the "new" child-support laws? Do you have any idea how hard it is to hide from LE and work more than the crummiest of jobs?

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                             Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form:
In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if  any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things.
Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever.
The thing is, though, that never has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence.
The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today.
The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                              Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra
I also do not believe that prisoners should sit on death row for years. Perhaps a few weeks at most and then carry out the sentence.

This would be refusing them due process and take away their right to appeal the sentence, thus making the legal system even more unbalanced and unethical than it already is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                            Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

Unlike you, I accept that our system is flawed, which is why I said beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's doubt, don't kill him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                            Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form:
In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if  any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things.
Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever.
The thing is, though, that never has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence.
The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today.
The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on.

I can't make any sense out of this post at all. You say thugs are "beating the hangman" because DNA tests are proving they were convicted on false evidence? The blood and/or semen samples clearly came from someone other than the person who was convicted of teh crime, so how in the world is that "beating the hangman?" It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you saying that if the DNA clearly proves that, say, an eyewitness is mistaken in identifying the criminal, that the eyewitness testimony should be enough to convict the defendant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
I can't make any sense out of this post at all. You say thugs are "beating the hangman" because DNA tests are proving they were convicted on false evidence? The blood and/or semen samples clearly came from someone other than the person who was convicted of teh crime, so how in the world is that "beating the hangman?" It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you saying that if the DNA clearly proves that, say, an eyewitness is mistaken in identifying the criminal, that the eyewitness testimony should be enough to convict the defendant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
And with that statement, you demonstrate either a complete misunderstanding of, or complete lack of respect for, our Constitution. If there is any reasonable doubt, they're not convicted in the first place. There is no legal basis for varying degrees of guilt, for a justice system in which a defendant is not guilty, maybe guilty, probably sorta guilty, or really most sincerely guilty. They're either definitely guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, or they're not guilty. Period. There's no, "Well, this one I'm really sure about, so let's fry him." It just doesn't work that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that.

Thank god the guy who wrote the Constitution felt exactly the opposite. Jefferson's famous quote, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned," explains quite a lot of the reasoning behind why he wrote the Constitution the way he did. I prefer his philosophical approach, and his interpretation of the Constitution, to yours. Thankfully most Anericans still seem to agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Your post is illustrative of some of the confusion prevailing on this subject- and I truly do NOT mean that in any way disparagingly.
Let's start with an examination of your premise- that DNA evidence can prove an eyewitness is mistaken. I can imagine one circumstance under which that premise can almost be true.
1. Witness saw a suspect running away bleeding from his arm.
2. Witness picked a suspect from a lineup.
3. DNA revealed the blood recovered at the scene did not belong to the suspect.
That's the strongest realistic scenario that I can think of, quickly, to support the idea of DNA evidence disproving eyewitness tetimony. But the possibility remains that the suspect committed the crime, and staged the bleeding arm as part of  a frame-up using someone else's blood. It should be clear to any intelligent person that the relatively smart criminals of the future will as a matter of routine plant false DNA evidence.
In our above scenario, the DNA evidence conflicts with the eyewitness testimony but does not disprove it. Conflicting evidence and conflicting testimony are matters for the judgement of the jury. Most if not all criminal trials involve jury resolution of such conflicts.
What has normally happened in the cases so revered by Sheck (sic?) and his ilk are much more easily explained. The presence of a DNA sample, recovered at the crime scene, that does not match that of the convicted man, proves only, and I do mean only, that someone else was present. May have been an accomplice, may have been an innocent person, may have been there before, during, or after the commission of the crime in question; but that's it.
DNA evidence does not and cannot conceivably, imo, prove innocence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
The appeal process doesn't have to take 10 years or longer, thats why it costs so much to kill them, give them 2 years on death row, and execute them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                             Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

Unlike you, I accept that our system is flawed, which is why I said beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's doubt, don't kill him.

I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

quote:

a previous poster stated the exact reason why i also am not an organ donor on my license. if they're more concerned with my parts, they'll worry about that, rather than saving me. and i don't necessarily like that.
my family/loved ones will know my stance on it, and if there is nothing that can be done, they'll know what to do.
but i don't want to be considered spare parts before my life has been saved =p

They wouldn't do that.  If they did, they would be in big trouble.  You and the other member are being excessively paranoid.

quote:

I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

                                                                             Fast Reply

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty

So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding.  Public ones too, did I read that correctly?  Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we?

No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors.

I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form:
In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if  any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things.
Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever.
The thing is, though, that never has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence.
The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today.
The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on.

quote:

Executions: In cases involving reliable eye witnesses (absolutely no doubt) or in cases where there is a confirmed confession, it should be a quick trial for sentencing and immediate execution, no option for appeal. In cases where it is based on circumstantial evidence, allow a reasonable amount of time for appeals (say 2 years) and if not successful, move along to the execution. Under the current system, in most states, you could be seen committing a murder or plead guilty and the case still goes up for appeal. This is ludicrous and serves no purpose. ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
.