|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
jim 
Asshole
Group: Members
Posts: 1208
Joined: May 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 26 2002,13:00 |
|
   |
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 25 June 2002,08:12) | there is NO fair way to apply the death penalty. there are plenty of cases where we discovered that someone was innocent after we killed them. had they been sentanced to life without possibility of parole, at least they might've had the chance to walk free again.
are you really going to sit there and tell me that innocent people should just "take one for the cause" so that you can feel better about yourself? especially when there is a more effective alternative called "life without possibility of parole?" |
You may need to define "innocent" because of the 83 people that have been freed from death row. I wouldn't call be set free on a technicality innocent.
Also note that think about how many murders have been convicted multiple times for murder. Think of how many TRUELY innocent lives could have been saved by executing this trash!
Here's a couple of your "innocent" death row inmates
Curtis Kyles-Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). After one vacated conviction and four mistrials in which a jury was unable to reach a verdict over a 14 year period, the prosecutor chose not to retry Kyles although the final jury hung 8-4 for conviction (an earlier jury hung 10-2 for acquittal). The man who Kyles alleged did the killing was himself killed by a member of Kyles' family in 1986. New Orleans Times-Picayune, (6/27/98); Baton Rouge Advocate, (2/19/98); New Orleans Times-Picayune, at pp. A1, A13 (2/19/98).
Troy Lee Jones--In re Jones, 13 Cal.4th 552 (1996); People v. Jones, 13 Cal.4th 535 (1996). The conviction was vacated because of ineffective assistance of counsel. The California Supreme Court noted that the evidence of Jones' guilt was not overwhelming but did "suggest" Jones's guilt. The prosecution chose not to retry Jones because of the passage of time since the 1981 murder and unavailability of witnesses in the meantime.
Anthony Ray Peek--Peek v. State, 488 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1986) Peek was acquitted after his two prior convictions for a 1977 murder were reversed. The evidence indicated that two of Peek's fingerprints were found on the inside of the victim's car window several hours after her body was found. Blood and seminal stains on the victim's bedclothes were consistent with Peek's identity as type-O secretor. A hair with features similar to Peek's was recovered in a cut stocking in the victim's garage area. The conviction was reversed because the prosecution introduced evidence of Peek's subsequent, dissimilar rape of a young woman--a crime for which he is apparently now serving a life sentence. Peek claimed that his fingerprints got on the victim's car when he was out of his halfway house and tried to burglarize an abandoned car. There was evidence that periodic night checks at the halfway house did not indicate any unauthorized absences the night of the murder. However, even without the evidence of Peek's subsequent rape, the evidence was still sufficient for a conviction. The acquittal represents a finding of reasonable doubt, not actual innocence
And here's just a few of many examples of murders killing more than once.
Thomas Eugene Creech, who had been convicted of three murders and had claimed a role in more than 40 killings in 13 states as a paid killer for a motorcycle gang, killed a fellow prison inmate in 1981 and was sentenced to death. In 1986 his execution was stayed by a federal judge and has yet to be carried out.
Benny Lee Chaffin kidnapped, raped, and murdered a 9-year-old Springfield, Oregon girl. He had been convicted of murder once before in Texas, but not executed. Incredibly, the same jury that convicted him for killing the young girl refused to sentence him to death because two of the 12 jurors said they could not determine whether or not he would be a future threat to society!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
Pravus Angelus
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,04:37 |
|
 |
Some thoughts on a couple of points brought up...
on "innocents die". You know, this is really a problem with determining guilt, not sentencing. The sentencing should be based entirely on the assumption that the determination of guilt was correct. If not the judicial system couldn't operate. If someone's incorrectly convicted whatever you do will be terrible. Simply giving someone a criminal record (even if only temporary) can have huge negative consequences. Point is, you should be more concerned about refining the process of determining guilt. Plus, this problem is at best short lived. As science progresses our ability to accurately determine what happened (and therefore guilt) becomes greater and greater. If this is your justification for being against the death penalty, then you should be becoming more and more willing to use the death penalty as our ability to determine guilt with a high degree of accuracy increases.
on "death penalty not a deterent" and "killing the criminal won't bring your poor cousin billy back". Nobody has ever (at least, to my knowledge) made the claim that killing the perpetrator of the crime causes an amazing chemical reaction that manages to reanimate the victim of the original crime. This has got to be the quintisential (sp?) straw man argument. As for the death penalty not being a deterent...it does prevent repeat offenders, and ensures the safety of society. If you don't think killing them is worth it, then why is it worth it to lock them up forever?
on "innocents and the death penalty". It's interesting, but if you were innocent and found guilty, in some ways you're better off being found guilty of the death penalty. It still takes forever to be executed and during this time you have more legal right to appeals & the possibility of overturning your sentence than if you'd simply be convicted of jailtime. I'm certainly not suggesting this is a good thing, but it's something to think about...
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
