http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/deathpenalty/

DNA tests tell us half of all death row inmates in America are innocent

In 1997, Illinois halted executions when DNA testing found 52% of their deathrow inmates were innocent.
The people who were exhonorated are: Rolando Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez, Verneal Jimerson, Dennis Williams, Joseph Burrows, Gary Gauger, Carl Lawson, Perry Cobb, Darby Tillis.
In Texas, the following people were found innocent AFTER execution. Texas still executes prisoners.
Frank Basil McFarland was executed for a rape/murder despite multiple inconsistencies in the state’s case, altered evidence, purchased and coerced testimony, and suppressed evidence of guilt. After execcution, he was found innocent by DNA testing.
Troy Farris was convicted of the murder of a police officer. DNA proved he was innocent. Gov. George W Bush deny clemency. Troy Farris was execcuted.
Jerry Lee Hogue was convicted of an arson/murder. Another individual later admited to the crime, but was denied further investigation by Gov. Bush. Mr Hogue was execcuted.
David Stoker was convicted of capital murder based on the testimony of three witnesses, who later recanted their testimony. Doubts aside, Gov. Bush executed Mr. Stoker.
Richard Wayne Jones, was convicted of a murder despite strong evidence that his sister’s boyfriend had committed it. DNA testing was denied by Gov. Bush, and approved his execution.
Willie Williams and Joseph Nichols both shot at their murder victim, but only one hit him. In order to execute both, Texas argued that each had killed the man; in one trial, the state argued that Mr. Williams had shot the victim and Mr. Nichols had missed, and in the next trial, the state argued that Mr. Nichols had shot the victim and Mr. Williams had missed. Both were convicted of capital murder. Mr. Williams was executed by Gov. Bush; Mr. Nichols is still on death row.
James Lee Beathard was convicted of capital murder based on the testimony of the admitted murderer, Gene Hathorn. Still, Gov. Bush executed Mr. Beathard, though he was innovent.
Gary Graham was convicted of capital murder on the basis of one eyewitness’s testimony. Despite DNA evidence that provees otherwise, Mr. Graham was executed by Gov. Bush.
David Wayne Spence was convicted of capital murder although no physical evidence linked him to the crime and almost every witness against him admitted that his or her testimony had been purchased or coerced. DNA evidence says that another man had committed the triple murder. Nevertheless, Gov. Bush executed Mr. Spence.
Cost
A study released on March 6, 2008 found that in USA taxpayers have paid at least $37.2 million for each of execution both innocent and guilty. Can you believe tax payers are willing to pay that much money to kill an innocent person? pdf link      

Doesn't sound like justice to me.

It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to hang an innocent man.

Are YOU prepared to be responsible for the 10,20 or 30 deaths, that would result from allowing the 10 guilty men to go free?????


No? well then it's far better to kill 1 innocent man than to allow 10 guilty one to go free.....

You people have no conceopt of justice.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:




Does justice even exist these days?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 5:10pm:


You'll be hard pressed finding any conclusive evidence that the death penalty has any deterrent effect.

life_goes_on - I agree entirely.

those committing a crime that brings the death penalty have already passed the point of no return.
They kill more readily.

if a defendant is black and illiterate they are MUCH more likely to face the electric chair.
if a white woman is the victim, they are pretty much gone gone

and, who are we, to take anothers life ?

Remember the Skaf Brothers????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 6:06pm:


disagree.
I am not saying that they should be released. Some people should never be realised.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:

Rape has never attracted the death penalty, unless of course your black & it's a white women & it's before about 1970 in southern USA.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 6:36pm:


Yes, but in the case of the Skaf brothers..the sentence went from 55 years, to 38 years and is now down to about 28 years....

A 'long' jail sentence , no longer means a long jail sentence...

Time off for 'good behaviour means that instead of 55 years, this prick could be out in 10-15 years.....Are you prepared to 'bet' that he won't reoffend????

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 6:49pm:



Yeah right...

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 7:15pm:

Nah cant find it but from memory, the inmates wore pink, lived in tents, did hard physical labor and because he was prevented from banning TV he made sure the only channels they watch are the weather channel and disney.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 7:23pm:



Yes and it's the 'non-parole' period that I have aproblem with...

This thread is really an argument for the need of a better legal system,  it`s not a valid argument against the DP.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 9:38pm:



Wouldn't THAT count as a 'trusim'???

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 9:53pm:


Sadly, very true aussie

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 10:06pm:


Especially when some of those said people can just shrug off the murder of innocent persons under the guise of justice. The death penalty has nothing to do with justice, it is vengeance, pure and simple. At least admit that.

athos wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 4:54pm:


If the lawyers and do gooders had their way, the cost would be much higher but for differing reasons.
The US love for lawyers and money can only be explained by their seemingly endless court appeals process.
$37.2 million for each 'execution' is laughable, and only in the US does such stupidity exist.
And despite their costly endless appeals process, they can still get so much so very wrong.
It seems to me that the problem isn't the death penalty, it's the evidence used to convict a person is the issue.
So how many innocent inmates are in gaol over there if they can get this so very wrong?
The Saudi's can get the right job done for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the time, with the same end result.
So, get the evidence right, give them one or two appeals and if there is no new evidence, carry out the sentence.
This rubbish where the guilty linger on death row for twenty plus years is just silly.
One state has it, another doesn't is a very odd occurence in the US and also does not occur elsewhere.
The Americans need to decide whether they support the death penalty or not, and having a foot on both sides of the fence in that country does them no justice.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 8:08am:


I did read last year in the media of killers kidnapping their victims and driving them across the border to commit there crime there, just in case they get caught.
A silly state of affairs.

There is no need for the death penalty in our society. The death penalty isn't going to deter people from committing crimes, in fact, in the US, the states with the death penalty have a higher rate of murders than the states without the death penalty.

Killing someone doesn't bring the victim back, the victim is still dead, the family still grieves.

Let the scumbags spend the rest of their lives in prison to think about what they have done.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:



Again
Is 50% "More occasional" mistake?
I think you should go back to school and study basics of statistics again.

This would be the same if doctors apply medicine that kills half patients, is it allowed.

If someone from your family was prosecuted innocent you wouldn't talk in such cynical way.

50% is not  "More occasional" it is unacceptable negligence.

Dudley, it doesn't bother me what information you have.

I am thankful that we do not have the death penalty in this country, it us unnecessary, we do not need it, and it is not the answer.

Vanessa wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:


I wasn't attempting to bother you, but to educate you.

Changing folks mind on this topic is very rare.

It would just be better to have a fully infomed discussion.

Dudley, the death penalty is nothing to do with justice. It is revenge, pure and simple. Yes punishments need to be tougher, but if it is justice we seek, then the death penalty is not the answer.

dudleysharp wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:


You even didn't read the link which says:

"In 1997, Illinois halted executions when DNA testing found 52% of their death row inmates were innocent".

So there is nothing idiotic about that, it is based on DNA evidence.
Such unlimited arrogance of yours based on nothing?

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 9:44am:


It cannot be about revenge when the legal system has no personal interest in the death of a murderer.
Revenge is something sought by the victims families whom do have a personal interest.
It does however, have everything to do with providing a deterrent, and ensuring the criminal scum never reoffend.
Which is why Saudi Arabia has less murders per year, than the city of Sydney or Melbourne has in a week.
And why should the taxpayer have to pay to lock a man up for the rest of his life until he dies?
That's just cruel, and very expensive to maintain.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 9:44am:


This is exactly what it is. Not justice - you can get justice by keeping that person in prison for the rest of their lives. There is no reason at all to kill them but to get revenge on that person for what they have done.

Imagine what would happen if a judge said to a rapist, 'Well, you've committed rape, so I am going to sentence you to be raped'. That's the same thing - an eye for an eye. Imagine the outcry we would have over that, over the violation of that persons human rights - and rightfully so.

But you see no problem at all with a judge deciding that because someone has committed murder, we should murder them?

Vanessa wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:


Thousands of people die each and every day of the week whether we like it or not, in a thousand different ways.
Death is a part of life for every living creature.
I don't have a problem with seeing certain individuals sent to the afterlife before their time who have been found guilty of committing heinous crimes.
Such a penalty is not murder as such, but ensures the safety of others whilst providing a deterrent to others.
The current system provides no such deterrent as statistics will show.

Quote:


Because we rarely have any say or control over the suffering of victims. Justice comes AFTER the crime - not before. Your statement is emotional and totally devoid of logic. We are not 'contemptuous' of victims. That would require an attitude of disregard and disinterest in their well-being. We do not do that, but if you had any understanding of victimology you would realise that victims of serious crimes do NOT receive some kind of miraculous recovery when their offenders are jailed. Usually it is the reverse. Punishing the offender rarely grants the victims much beyond a very brief sense of 'justice'. Your claim of being 'contemptuous' is simply that we dont extract and 'eye for an eye'. Even then, that did not bring release and recovery - just more pain.

And your idea that we are 'generous' to criminals is equally preoposterous. Jail is not a holiday. Some think granting the accused the right to due process and the assumption of innocence is 'generous'. Do you?

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 9:44am:



Deborah....when you get right down to it, ALL penalties....whether the 'Death Peanlty' or imprisonment, or even a 'fine' for that matter are about 'revenge'.

The whole idea behind the 'criminal justice' system is to make offenders 'pay their debt to society'.....paying your debt, is revenge, pure and simple....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 6:54pm:


thats a bit simplistic. my speeding fines are not about revenge. nor are prison sentences about revenge and nor shoudl they be. they are about CONSEQUENCES and seeking to deter most people from committing crimes as well as putting dangerous people out of circulation for a time.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 7:09pm:


Sure they are...you need to 'repay' society for the action you commit...THAT is revenge....getting back AT you for what you did....

[quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1281336865/60#60 date=1281948876][quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1281336865/45#48 date=1281915852]The whole idea behind the 'criminal justice' system is to make offenders 'pay their debt to society'.....paying your debt, is revenge, pure and simple....
[/quote]

If you owe the bank for your car note and you repay it, is that revenge, or is it the appropriate repaument of that which you owe?

Certainly it is not revenge.

I think we all want folks to get what they deserve in life, in payment for our services, our jobs, as reward for accomplishements, as well as in sanction for our transgressions.

7)  C. S. Lewis:  "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

"I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal."

"The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

"My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being."

"Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .".

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

"The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment."

"But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image."

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. "   The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis


8)   C. S. Lewis:  "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.  They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. "  "The Complete C.S. Lewis", Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002


9)  Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution),  that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior,  that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It  does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.


10)  "Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices...A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims."  Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. "McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment". 21 May 2001

Quote:


When we commit such horror as punishment for a horror someone may or may not have committed, there is something wrong with us. We are damned if you do and damned if we don't.

[quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1281336865/60#63 date=1281950297]actually longweekend, your speeding fines are about raising money.[/quote]

They are about three things.

1. A sanction for violating the social contract
2. A deterrent to speeding
3. Raising money

it is dudly, you might think that one or two innocents is nothing. But I don't.

Yes lets think about all those we save. But it does not work that way.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. many of those who kill don't care if they die.

[quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1281336865/60#72 date=1281965160]many of those who kill don't care if they die.[/quote]

I'll give you suicide bombers, who actually wish to die.

But, about 99.9% of all of those facing the death penalty in the US do everything they can, pre trial, at trial and on appeal to avoid the death penalty and execution.

Life imprisonment is much preferred.

[quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1281336865/75#75 date=1281968916]It was not a personal attack. I do not agree that innocents are at more risk without the death penalty because I do not believe that it is enough of a deterrent.


There is no deterrent if someone really wants to murder someone else. [/quote]

Obvioulsy, you haven't read my link.

Even without deterrence, innocents are more protected with the death penalty.

Of course there is a deterrent if someone really wants to murder someone, just as there really is a deterent for speading and tax evasion, even if someone really wants to do that.

Some will be deterred, some won't be. That is the way with all thivgs that deter.

[quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1281336865/75#77 date=1281970302]exactly what i was getting at. [/quote]

No, deborah, it wasn't.

You said the death penalty does not deter anyone.

Absurd, of course.

Of course it deters some, just as all negative prospects do.

Back to innocents.

Start over.

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:


And yet Asian and Arabic countries crime rates show the opposite.
It's no fluke.
Your statistics obviously come from the US where there citizens love of guns and inconsistent application of the death penalty throughout the nation has been detrimental.

dudleysharp wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 12:17am:


Every single link you post is a biased point of view. CREDIBLE studies (ie not these ones) find there is no deterrence factor in the death penalty. You may find it inconceivable and wrong, but that doesnt make it false. Sorry, there is NO deterrence in the death penalty and your protestations to the contrary and CS Lewis quotes dont change that.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 7:19am:


asian crime rates are not as low as you seem to think. Leaving the crime-ridden USA out of the argument, you wil find that australias crime rate compares very favourably with such places. and did you know that the society with the LOWEST crime rate in the last 50 years was soviet USSR? so you see there IS a cure for crime - but that cure is worse than the disease.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 7:20am:


Because aussie, things are not always how they seem. The person that you are saying has forfeited their rights as a human being, may not actually be guilty, or there may be extenuating circumstances.
Either everyone has the right to be treated humanely or no one does.

Well once again I disagree with Longy, I do NOT disagree with the death penalty on principle, and there are many instances I could think of where I would volunteer to do it if required.

I do however agree with Longy that I do not think we should have a death penalty.

Hunnhhhh??

How can I be for a death penalty in principle, but against a death penalty in practice???

Well the fact that we have an election campaign on at the moment should make it much easier to understand my reasoning, the simple fact is that "ultimately" the final decision of whether a person convicted of a capital crime, lives, or dies, is down to a decision by a politician, and I do not trust any politician to make that kind of decision.

I remember the last hanging in my home town of Melbourne, where there were doubts about the circumstances of how the death occurred, but a local Premier was on the nose with the electorate, and turning the election into a referendum on Law and Order, and who would be tougher on it, saw him make the choice to hang a man.

He won the election.

So, the only way I would support the Death Penalty would be if I was the one who made the decision, because I just do not trust politicians, or our political system, to ever be able to use the power infallibly.

Quote:


Frankly I am a little surprised to see anyone still use such an argument anymore.

It is hidebound nonsense to think that you can apply value judgements about whose life is worth preserving, and whose is not, based upon subjective value assessments like someone having a drug damaged brain.
It is what the whole Master Race philosophy was about, and that did not play out really well did it.

I appreciate the fact that we do have people that do hideous things, due to the fact that they are sick in the head, and if we follow your line of thinking, we just should kill everyone who is sick in the head.

There is the possibility that we will, as a society, get to a point where certain, extremely profound disabilities are considered kinder to euthanise than to artificially support, but the protocols that would need to be put in place before that ever became acceptable, are monumental.

The simple fact is that as a criminal act, someone with reduced capacity to make a conscious moral decision, is far less deserving of receiving the death penalty, than someone with all their faculties.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 1:25pm:


Why does there have to be a 'point' to keeping someone alive? The right to life is immutable. we dont say a person is unworthy of life or a waste of space or better off dead. that is NOT our choice to make and certinaly not yours.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 4:09pm:


why?

The essence of a right is that it is NOT easily denied. and as the right to life is our most basic and important right, then denying it to anyone is to downgrade or even trivialise it.

but let's be honest here. thats not really your argument. You believe in the death penalty for your own reasons and nothing will change that. You could always articulate a logical argument but I dont expect that.

The death penalty prevents re-offending.

100% of the time.

Good enough for me.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 4:55pm:



But it does work 100% on a 'case by case' basis....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:


Semantics, if only life was that simple.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 5:53pm:


People have to want to change. A smack on the wrist isn't the answer either. Harsher penalties sure.
It is not up to us to decide that someone has forfeited their human rights, and that they deserve to die. When we do that, we are in danger of becoming like them.

Life should be life giz, let them live their lives out in solitary.

If we can not give harsh penalties for crimes, how much chance do we have of achieving the death penalty?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 6:36pm:



The point is, we need harsher penalties across the board.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 2:30pm:



Deborah, I don`t know how I gave the impression that I think you should supporty the DP.  Absolutely not the case.

best to you & yours

mozzaok wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:



This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany, or the mas murder of the mentally ill. This is about personal accountability, anyone who takes drugs, alcohol included, must be held accountable or their subsequent actions. The old "I was drunk" or "I was stoned" doesn`t wash as an excuse, never did, never will.

Quote:


Someone needs to tell the judges and politicians that.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 6:13pm:


crap argument. find me an example of ONE serial killer who gets only 15 years. they get life and no parole which is fair.