Electric chair to return

[Ragman]

So you think because there is mistakes in other cases abolish is the answer? What about in the case of say a situation like the fort hood shootings where guilt is not in question?

Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123

I know you address this question to Ragman. Maybe he missed it. Your example is as you put it 'guilt is not in question'. I too posed the question about cases where there was no doubt. I believe I used the term '100 percent guilty'. I pretty much got a 'wow', a few snickers,(not candy bars )and a conniption from another for having the unmitigated gall for thinking that there are such cases with zero doubt. According to some,there is always doubt in every case and never an instance of absolute certain guilt. Even the Fort hood shooter.

I believe this was asked and answered.

Everybody agrees there are many cases where guilt is not in question. The problem is, the laws that allow for the death penalty to be applied the the guilty also allow the penalty to be applied to those that did not do it. I have posted many examples in the past.

 

[LDB]

There's nothing to explain or refute. A live egg and a live sperm join. At that moment they create a new life. No, it's not the living breathing human we see walking around everywhere. It can't live without the life support system to which it's attached and housed inside. It's still a human life. If you want to say that it isn't life because it can't stand on it's own if removed from it's life support system then you have to say the same for certain other specific humans in environments in which they will die if removed from their life support system.

Argue all you want. You are entitled to do so. It's necessary when one (the entire group of pro choice) is wrong. We're either human life from conception or we're never human life and in that case it also doesn't matter who receives capital punishment at any time since we're not life at all.

 

[Ragman]

There's nothing to explain or refute. A live egg and a live sperm join. At that moment they create a new life. No, it's not the living breathing human we see walking around everywhere. It can't live without the life support system to which it's attached and housed inside. It's still a human life. If you want to say that it isn't life because it can't stand on it's own if removed from it's life support system then you have to say the same for certain other specific humans in environments in which they will die if removed from their life support system.

Argue all you want. You are entitled to do so. It's necessary when one (the entire group of pro choice) is wrong. We're either human life from conception or we're never human life and in that case it also doesn't matter who receives capital punishment at any time since we're not life at all.

Ummmm, I believe this is a bit off topic.
The topic is the death penalty, not abortion.

Thank you very much.

 

[LDB]

No, not off topic. Abortion is nothing more than the death penalty unjustly applied to one who is totally innocent no matter what scale of judgment is used, applied by murderers with no conscience.

 

[davekc]

Ummmm, I believe this is a bit off topic.
The topic is the death penalty, not abortion.

Thank you very much.

I think from a religious prospective, many look at the taking of a life as a wrong regardless of the reasons. It would then be logical for some to compare them.

 

[asjssl]

No, not off topic. Abortion is nothing more than the death penalty unjustly applied to one who is totally innocent no matter what scale of judgment is used, applied by murderers with no conscience.

Apprarently you have never seen/spent time around seriously neglected and abused children...you know the ones that get their azz kicked just for breathing...the ones that never have heard the words I love you...the ones that have never been hugged...new shoes food in the refrigerator.. I Dont remember being in my mothers womb...BUT..BUT.. I would remember not being loved ..beat..starved...bet that has some connection with people on death row...
There is no way to take care of all the children that are born now...take abortion off the table...now we have even more problems...
Nobody said abortion is nice...but if your mom is thumbing the yellow pages under "A"...probably not a good outlook for you..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Ragman]

I think from a religious prospective, many look at the taking of a life as a wrong regardless of the reasons. It would then be logical for some to compare them.

This would be an illogical assumption.

One procedure is decided between a person and medical personal, the other is decided for you by governmental action.

World of difference IMHO.

 

[davekc]

This would be an illogical assumption.

One procedure is decided between a person and medical personal, the other is decided for you by governmental action.

World of difference IMHO.

Not from a religious prospective, as the end result is still the same.

 

[Ragman]

Not from a religious prospective, as the end result is still the same.

Not quite.

 

[davekc]

Not quite.

Yes, both don't "quite" exist in the end.

 

[Turtle]

Not from a religious prospective, as the end result is still the same.

And yet we have people, usually the more religious ones, who are adamantly against abortion, but just as adamantly in favor of the death penalty. Oxymoron or hypocrisy, take yer pick.

 

[davekc]

And yet we have people, usually the more religious ones, who are adamantly against abortion, but just as adamantly in favor of the death penalty. Oxymoron or hypocrisy, take yer pick.

That I would agree with.

 

[RLENT]

No, not off topic. Abortion is nothing more than the death penalty unjustly applied to one who is totally innocent no matter what scale of judgment is used, applied by murderers with no conscience.

Unfortunately, some have a great deal of trouble differentiating fact from belief ...

 

[cheri1122]

Even those who are against abortion except in cases of rape, concede that sometimes, abortion is the best solution. Interestingly, those times happen to be when the woman didn't choose to have sex. But they refuse to apply the same logic to the women who chose to have sex, and did not intend to get pregnant, but their birth control failed. Why is that?
Why do they insist that having sex = having babies, when the rest of us have long since recognized the stupidity [and danger to women and unwanted babies & children] ?

 

[Ragman]

For those that may have miss my previous postings . . .

8 People Who Were Executed and Later Found Innocent - NakedLaw by Avvo.com

 

[Moot]

True, but when a jury screws up a verdict, it is nearly always on the side of leniency, especially in those cases where the prosecution has presented its flawless case and the jury surprised the prosecution with a wild hair verdict. The only times a jury screws up a verdict in favor of the prosecution is when the prosecution has misled them with evidence. If the prosecution is held accountable for that crap, they wouldn't do it in the first place.

Again, if the prosecution is held accountable, they will ensure the truth rather than allow evidence that could result in a wrongful conviction in a capital case.

You are still taking a rather simplistic view of our court system if you believe the judge, jury and police have no influence on the outcome of a trial. Even if we were to hold the prosecution responsible for an innocent person being convicted as you purpose, who is the prosecution? Are they the persons representing the state in the courtroom? These people are most likely assistant prosecutors working under the direction of (pick your title) district attorney, attorney general, state attorney etc. Who takes the fall?

Should not the prosecution ( whom ever you decide from above) be given a trial before automatically being sentenced? The prosecution may have been given false or incorrect information from the police. The judge may have ruled against presentation of critical evidence or swayed the jury with instructions prior to deliberation.

What about the defense getting the accused set free and that person commits the same or more serious crime. Should the defense be held accountable?

What you purpose isn't viable because there are too many people involved that have influence over a trial. There was a certain murder trial in California in 1995. If I had my way, the judge, jury, prosecution, defense, police, expert witnesses and the media would all be behind bars. Oh yeah, the accused also!

 

[Ragman]

Interesting graphic from Amnesty International.

In 2012 only Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and China executed more of it's citizens than the United States.
Puts the U.S in fine company (sic).

 

[davekc]

You are still taking a rather simplistic view of our court system if you believe the judge, jury and police have no influence on the outcome of a trial. Even if we were to hold the prosecution responsible for an innocent person being convicted as you purpose, who is the prosecution? Are they the persons representing the state in the courtroom? These people are most likely assistant prosecutors working under the direction of (pick your title) district attorney, attorney general, state attorney etc. Who takes the fall?

Should not the prosecution ( whom ever you decide from above) be given a trial before automatically being sentenced? The prosecution may have been given false or incorrect information from the police. The judge may have ruled against presentation of critical evidence or swayed the jury with instructions prior to deliberation.

What about the defense getting the accused set free and that person commits the same or more serious crime. Should the defense be held accountable?

What you purpose isn't viable because there are too many people involved that have influence over a trial. There was a certain murder trial in California in 1995. If I had my way, the judge, jury, prosecution, defense, police, expert witnesses and the media would all be behind bars. Oh yeah, the accused also!

That is why they have a automatic appeals process for someone facing the death penalty. Most of the time it works, but there are exceptions where it has failed.

 

[Ragman]

That is why they have a automatic appeals process for someone facing the death penalty. Most of the time it works, but there are exceptions where it has failed.

Guess it failed for these guys.

• Ruben Cantu – executed in Texas in 1993. He was 17 years old when he was charged with capital murder for shooting a man during an attempted robbery. Both the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about Cantu's guilt, and "a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man." Juan Moreno, an eyewitness in the case, "says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer." David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant, "signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, 'Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person.' ... "Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury ... said "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that."
• Larry Griffin – executed in Missouri in 1995. A "man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders."
• Joseph O'Dell – Executed in Virginia in 1997. "New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime ... O'Dell asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence but was refused."
• David Spence – Executed in Texas in 1997. Spence was alleged to have been hired by a convenience store owner to kill a girl but killed three others by mistake. "The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: 'I do not think David Spence committed this crime.' Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: 'My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved.' No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony."
• Leo Jones – Executed in Florida in 1998 for murdering a police officer. He had "signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an 'enforcer' who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case."
• Gary Graham – Executed in Texas in 2000. He was 17 when he was charged robbery and shooting of outside of a grocery store and "was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available."
  [*]
  

Innocent People Executed with Capital Punishment | Department of Government and Justice Studies | Appalachian State University

 

[davekc]

I did indicate that there were some failures. As previously mentioned, the issue needs to be addressed with how the cases are prosecuted. That is much different than abolishing the death penalty.