Who agrees with Europe´s choice to ban the death penalty?

[clarkatticus]

The chances of executing the wrong person is probably zero or very close to zero TODAY.

Here is a website that claims 10 innocent men were give the DP. Of course. the site does not prove their innocence. And, some of the cases go back years before the new forensic technics were implemented.

http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-cases-of-wrongful-execution.html

funny you should ask, according to the innocent project (www.innocentproject.org) 269 people have been exonerated in 34 states with DNA alone, 17 on death row since 1989. 117 perpertraters have been identified in the same testing. Keep in mind these are just out of the cases that have been reviewed, the vast majority have not. How many do you have to find before it becomes an issue for you? The death penalty does not deter crime, make the convicted work to pay back the victim as much as possible, not the system we have now where they are just warehoused

 

[PLC1]

So how many people sitting on death row have been found innocent after DNA evidence exonerated them? What is the percentage?

What should happen to murderers who were convicted based on DNA evidence?

I would like to turn executions into a spectator sport, and use one method of execution.........death by hanging.

Make hangings into a spectator sport. Charge people admission to watch the hangings, with all proceeds going to the families of the victim(s).

I bet the murder rates would go down, across the board.

It worked for them there uppity n***** before the damn yankees started messing with things.

 

[TruthSeeker]

funny you should ask, according to the innocent project (www.innocentproject.org) 269 people have been exonerated in 34 states with DNA alone, 17 on death row since 1989. 117 perpertraters have been identified in the same testing. Keep in mind these are just out of the cases that have been reviewed, the vast majority have not. How many do you have to find before it becomes an issue for you? The death penalty does not deter crime, make the convicted work to pay back the victim as much as possible, not the system we have now where they are just warehoused

Wow, 17 death row inmates in the past 22 years have been exonerated with DNA testing. Less than one per year. Impressive!

Have you ever considered the fact that the majority of death row inmates were convicted WITHOUT the necessity or need for DNA evidence?

Ever heard of eyewitnesses?
Ever heard of fingerprints?
Ever heard of confessions?
Ever heard of jailhouse snitches?
Ever heard of sting operations?
Ever heard of paid informants?
Ever heard of undercover FBI agents and police officers and ATF agents?

Maybe in your world, killing should only be done by criminals, but in my world, any killing done by criminals makes these criminals automatically eligible for extermination via capital punishment laws. An eye for an eye.

 

[clarkatticus]

Wow, 17 death row inmates in the past 22 years have been exonerated with DNA testing. Less than one per year. Impressive!

Have you ever considered the fact that the majority of death row inmates were convicted WITHOUT the necessity or need for DNA evidence?

Ever heard of eyewitnesses?
Ever heard of fingerprints?
Ever heard of confessions?
Ever heard of jailhouse snitches?
Ever heard of sting operations?
Ever heard of paid informants?
Ever heard of undercover FBI agents and police officers and ATF agents?

Maybe in your world, killing should only be done by criminals, but in my world, any killing done by criminals makes these criminals automatically eligible for extermination via capital punishment laws. An eye for an eye.

My position is that if DNA is the only evidence that exonerated 17 of the very few that were audited, how many more were innocent with the evidence that was used? And 17 is enough in my opinion to end the death penalty as per my arguement in the first post. It's a little high minded, but what I'm saying is one is too many as it defeats the purpose of rule by law. Wouldn't it be better if the perp pays the victim? You really should stop watching TV and sit in on a few dockets of criminal court.

 

[PLC1]

My position is that if DNA is the only evidence that exonerated 17 of the very few that were audited, how many more were innocent with the evidence that was used? And 17 is enough in my opinion to end the death penalty as per my arguement in the first post. It's a little high minded, but what I'm saying is one is too many as it defeats the purpose of rule by law. Wouldn't it be better if the perp pays the victim? You really should stop watching TV and sit in on a few dockets of criminal court.

Seventeen?

Wrongful convictions

As of 23 January 2011, 266 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing. Almost all of these convictions involved some form of sexual assault and approximately 25% involved murder.[7]

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/innocence-project#ixzz1LP3k4ayx

 

[clarkatticus]

read my earlier post, 17 was the number of death row inmates exonerated

 

[PLC1]

read my earlier post, 17 was the number of death row inmates exonerated

Oh, just death row.

It seems to me that freeing the other 249 was pretty important, too.

 

[clarkatticus]

Oh, just death row.

It seems to me that freeing the other 249 was pretty important, too.

yes, read my previous post, I mentioned that

 

[PLC1]

yes, read my previous post, I mentioned that

sounds like a good argument against the death penalty to me.

 

[Rick]

I've always been undecided about this issue, but people who talk about DNA evidence should note that it can be argued that it is an argument for KEEPING the death penalty: with this technology, the wrongly convicted can be exonerated, and the convictions of those in the future will be made all the more correctly decided.

 

[Stalin]

No one has the right to take another person's life.

It is worse when the state does it, because it is supposed to be rational and caring.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Centrehalf]

I hate to see people arguing that forensic techniques are infallible, because the FBI used to use some forensic techniques that in their time were considered infallible, but now we know that they aren't. Even the FBI has admitted this. How many people were convicted due to forensic testimony that has now been discredited?

It's not society's job to kill. Isolate the real criminals, but let's not focus on killing them due to flawed forensic evidence.

 

[dahermit]

I hate to see people arguing that forensic techniques are infallible, because the FBI used to use some forensic techniques that in their time were considered infallible, but now we know that they aren't. Even the FBI has admitted this. How many people were convicted due to forensic testimony that has now been discredited?

What exactly are the "forensic techniques" are you talking about?

 

[Centrehalf]

The latest FBI test to be discredited is their comparative bullet lead analysis test. They have also in the past had techniques to identify explosive residue and hair and fiber matching techniques discredited. The Washington Post and 60 Minutes did a big investigation/report on this in 2007. It's easy to find on the Internet but I can put up a link for you if you want.

 

[Euredo org]

No government has the right to kill, to kill is murder!
Especially not to get rid of political or religious competition.

People not accepting the rules of society (Needed that a living together in harmony is possible) could be moved to an enclosed outlaw place where they can do what they want. Individual freedom is a basic human right what most governments ignore.