Does anyone remember the "An Innocent Man Goes Free 33 Years After Conviction" thread from a couple of weeks ago.
That's the crux of the problem - In theory I'm not against the death penalty. We all knows its not a deterrant (most homicides are compulsive/impulsive acts where logic does not enter into it, & where thought & premeditation is involved people just think they won't get cought), but in some horrible cases, even the death penalty doesnt seem strong enough. But we all know of cases where 'reasonable doubt' has ment innocent people going to jail or being executed, so in practise I'd only support the death penalty if 'reasonable doubt' was replaced with 'absolutly no doubt at all' in capital trials.
Here's what I said in that thread, which seems quite on topic for this thread too.
"Notice the title is in quotations, its because I feel that just because someone is found guilty or innocent, it doesn't necessarily mean that actually are.
It does make one wonder about the death penalty.
I'm not against it in theory, there are some cruel bastards out there who ought to have been tortured before they are/were executed. However I'm not suggest that should happen.
But considering all the people who have been executed then later found innocent (the 'Christie murders' is a good example - they arrested someone, then convicted him & executed him but the murders kept on happening & when they finally did catch the bloke, he confessed to the earlier murders & knew facts about them that only the murderer could know) , maybe there should be a moratorium on death sentences, or at least a tightning of the rules of evidence & 'reasonable doubt' changed to 'no doubt' in death sentence cases.
Also considering how easy it is for an experianced well trained & ruthless cop to get a confesion out of even innocent suspects (there are people who have later been found definitly to be innocent, but had been tricked, conned, persuaded & intimidated into making a confession, anyway), maybe confessions should be made inadmissable unless there's independent evidence of the crime itself (not just circumstantial evidence) that corrobarates the confession.
Plus considering the way paid snitches have become a part of the drug war (whether 'freelance' undercover coppers who move across the land contracting themselves out to different police depts & get paid a percentage of the forfeiture profits, on top of their contracy salery; or criminals that have 'crossed the floor' so to speak, & made a deal so the prosecution would drop their case &/or to get a lighter sentence, & an a 'allowance'. In the end both types of snitchs do the same basic job), maybe paid 'snitch' evidence/testimony should also be made inadmissable unless there's also independent evidence of the crime itself (not just circumstantial evidence) that corrobarates the snitch's evidence/testimony.
Otherwise we'll have more cases like that one in, I think Chicago Illinois, where like about 60% of the people on death row had to be released. Or those cases where people had been on death row for years years till expensive DNA evidenve found them innocent & in some cases the real killer was then finally cought.
Let me say again that even though death sentences are not a deterrant (murders are either crimes of passion/impulse where logic thought just isnt a factor; or the murderer just doesn't think they'l get cought), I stll support capital punishment theoritically, but not in practice, the way its currently done on this planet.
Reforms are definitly needed befor capital pumishment can be implimented without the risk of an innocent person being executed."
That's the crux of the problem - In theory I'm not against the death penalty. We all knows its not a deterrant (most homicides are compulsive/impulsive acts where logic does not enter into it, & where thought & premeditation is involved people just think they won't get cought), but in some horrible cases, even the death penalty doesnt seem strong enough. But we all know of cases where 'reasonable doubt' has ment innocent people going to jail or being executed, so in practise I'd only support the death penalty if 'reasonable doubt' was replaced with 'absolutly no doubt at all' in capital trials.
Here's what I said in that thread, which seems quite on topic for this thread too.
"Notice the title is in quotations, its because I feel that just because someone is found guilty or innocent, it doesn't necessarily mean that actually are.
It does make one wonder about the death penalty.
I'm not against it in theory, there are some cruel bastards out there who ought to have been tortured before they are/were executed. However I'm not suggest that should happen.
But considering all the people who have been executed then later found innocent (the 'Christie murders' is a good example - they arrested someone, then convicted him & executed him but the murders kept on happening & when they finally did catch the bloke, he confessed to the earlier murders & knew facts about them that only the murderer could know) , maybe there should be a moratorium on death sentences, or at least a tightning of the rules of evidence & 'reasonable doubt' changed to 'no doubt' in death sentence cases.
Also considering how easy it is for an experianced well trained & ruthless cop to get a confesion out of even innocent suspects (there are people who have later been found definitly to be innocent, but had been tricked, conned, persuaded & intimidated into making a confession, anyway), maybe confessions should be made inadmissable unless there's independent evidence of the crime itself (not just circumstantial evidence) that corrobarates the confession.
Plus considering the way paid snitches have become a part of the drug war (whether 'freelance' undercover coppers who move across the land contracting themselves out to different police depts & get paid a percentage of the forfeiture profits, on top of their contracy salery; or criminals that have 'crossed the floor' so to speak, & made a deal so the prosecution would drop their case &/or to get a lighter sentence, & an a 'allowance'. In the end both types of snitchs do the same basic job), maybe paid 'snitch' evidence/testimony should also be made inadmissable unless there's also independent evidence of the crime itself (not just circumstantial evidence) that corrobarates the snitch's evidence/testimony.
Otherwise we'll have more cases like that one in, I think Chicago Illinois, where like about 60% of the people on death row had to be released. Or those cases where people had been on death row for years years till expensive DNA evidenve found them innocent & in some cases the real killer was then finally cought.
Let me say again that even though death sentences are not a deterrant (murders are either crimes of passion/impulse where logic thought just isnt a factor; or the murderer just doesn't think they'l get cought), I stll support capital punishment theoritically, but not in practice, the way its currently done on this planet.
Reforms are definitly needed befor capital pumishment can be implimented without the risk of an innocent person being executed."
Facebook
Twitter