# Death Penalty DNA testing



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2006)

"An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight," 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10823771/

This according to Roger Keith Coleman, just before his 1992 execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law.  Anti-Death penalty activists had hoped this would be the case that would show an innocent man was executed.  Apparently they put a little too much stock in his last words.  According to DNA testing, he was absolutely guilty as charged.  

Well, we have now learned that rapists and murderers....are also liars.  Some of us already knew this, but others, I guess, are a little more gullible.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2006)

If similar tests were possible for every one of the more than one thousand people executed since the re-institution of the death penalty, are you confident that there would be zero positive results?

It does not follow that because a person is a rapist they are a liar. 
It does not follow that because a person is a murderer they are a liar.

I do believe this, if a criminal was holding a gun to my head, threatening my life, I would lie like Joe Isuzu to try and prevent the criminal from firing the weapon. Does it surprise you that someone under threat of death by the state would behave in a similar manner?

I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I welcome the results of this test. It is bad enough that the state takes a life. It is comforting that the state did not take an innocent life.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 13, 2006)

sgtmac, surely ... SURELY ... you're not saying that every person on death row deserves to die?  SURELY you're not saying our justice system is infallible? SURELY you're not saying there hasn't been a single convict executed wrongly?

Oh please resurrect my hopes that you are indeed a sensible person and do say you REALLY ... DON'T ... THINK ... THAT....


----------



## jdinca (Jan 13, 2006)

What got me the most was the comment that the anti-death penalty group felt "betrayed" by a convicted felon on death row.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2006)

Heard an interview from the producer of this movie on the radio today. Currently showing only in Los Angeles. Look for wider distribution in upcoming weeks. 

http://www.afterinnocence.com/


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do believe this, if a criminal was holding a gun to my head, threatening my life, I would lie like Joe Isuzu to try and prevent the criminal from firing the weapon. Does it surprise you that someone under threat of death by the state would behave in a similar manner?


No criminal would be holding a gun to your head; only a person persumed innocent until a trial and appeals.

Unless you mean a person who has already been convicted of something...in which case he would be happy to hear that you're totally opposed to the death penalty...I don't know if that would help mitigate the sentancing phase "Yes, your honor, my client shot him in the head; but the deceased was strongly opposed to the death penalty and we should give my client life in prison as a tribute to the humanity reflected in deceased's wishes."


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 13, 2006)

I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> No criminal would be holding a gun to your head; only a person persumed innocent until a trial and appeals.


 
You, of course, Ray, are correct.

And you would, I presume, in a similiar situation, would be a paragon of virtue and tell the innocent man with a gun pointed at your head the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... right?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.


 
Please see the last paragraph of my first post in this thread ... 

here, I'll help 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am completely opposed to the death penalty. *I welcome the results of this test.*


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 13, 2006)

Why do you always seem to think that statements are directed at you? If I were talking TO YOU I would say so.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2006)

I think that DNA testing and personal feelings about the use of the death penalty are two different issues.

DNA testing is a tool.  It can prove, or disprove, guilt.  DNA testing should be used to test old cases to make sure people who are now on death row are not there erroneously. As Michaeledward stated, it is comforting to know that an innocent life was not executed.  But this can go both ways.  Whether or not you believe ANYONE should ever be executed is a different matter.

When my wife was a law student, she worked as an intern with the Innocence Project in New York.  This is an organization that represents convicts on death row and pushes to get DNA testing done on the rape kits and other evidence, since this tool was not available 20 years ago when many of these people were found guilty.  They often have to battle with the police dept. that has the evidence in storage, just to get access to it.  These departments often do not want to dig up the old evidence, and actively stall and attempt to avoid the issue.

The DNA test costs several thousand dollars to do.  This cost is carried by the inmate.  Many of these inmates have been incarcerated for many years, and have few assets, and few friends and family members who have stood by them all this time who would be able and willing to pay the bill.  This fact alone means that often the test is not done.

Before the test is done, the inmates are told very clearly that if they are guilty of the crime, the test will absolutely doom them.  All doubt will be removed.

My wife told me a story about a convict who convinced a worker that he was innocent, but he did not have the money for the test.  The worker footed the bill for the test.  Guess what?  He was guilty.  He scammed her and there is no way this worker will be able to recover the money from him, because he has none.  It happens, people are sometimes gullible.

After my wife was finished working at the Project, she got word that one of the cases she had worked on finally got his DNA test done.  The man was in fact innocent, after spending some 18 years in prison.  He is now free.  Like I said before, DNA testing is a tool, and the results can go both ways.  I don't see this as any reason for anyone to gloat, one way or the other.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.


 


			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Why do you always seem to think that statements are directed at you? If I were talking TO YOU I would say so.


 
Gee ... I guess I just identified with those you call the "anti-death penalty crowd". And maybe, "People" are interested in making certain innocent people are not put in jail, or put to death.

And, if you don't want to talk TO ME, you can certainly add me to your IGNORE LIST. I promise, I won't be offended.


oh, and did I mention this ... www.afterinnocence.com


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt?


 
The thing is, DNA testing IS a reliable way to prove guilt, or innocence, whatever it may be.  It is not a political tool that favors one side or the other.  It is a reliable tool that should be used in the legal process, in determining guilt or innocence.  It should also be used to examine old cases where there may be some question about guilt, even if the convicted individual has already been executed.  It makes sense to double-check our legal systems, whether it means uncovering some errors or reinforcing decisions that were made.  We just need to be willing and ready to face the situation if any horrible mistakes are uncovered.  I don't have the answers to what that would mean, but it is important to do it.  In addition to possibly uncovering mistakes, it may also shed light on fundamental problems with our legal system as a whole.  It is all really about making the system as fair, unbiased, and even-handed as possible.

The Anti Death Penalty side has a valid point:  Mistakes are made, and innocent people are sitting on Death Row, and innocent people have probably been executed.  DNA testing can help shed light on this situation and may ultimatly lead to a reconsideration of the Death Penalty laws.

The Pro Death Penalty people have a valid point: DNA testing has confirmed the guilt of some convicted individuals, and maybe there are fewer mistakes than some people assume.

The morality of the Death Penalty is a different topic for discussion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> sgtmac, surely ... SURELY ... you're not saying that every person on death row deserves to die? SURELY you're not saying our justice system is infallible? SURELY you're not saying there hasn't been a single convict executed wrongly?
> 
> Oh please resurrect my hopes that you are indeed a sensible person and do say you REALLY ... DON'T ... THINK ... THAT....


 I think I just said this one surely did exactly what he denied doing, despite the gullible pleas of 'innocence' among his supporters.  If an innocent man has been executed in the US in the last 30 years, name him and i'll concede your point.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If similar tests were possible for every one of the more than one thousand people executed since the re-institution of the death penalty, are you confident that there would be zero positive results?


 Confidence is irrelavent.  I'm from Missouri...Show me.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> It does not follow that because a person is a rapist they are a liar.
> It does not follow that because a person is a murderer they are a liar.


 :rofl: Hahahahaha!



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do believe this, if a criminal was holding a gun to my head, threatening my life, I would lie like Joe Isuzu to try and prevent the criminal from firing the weapon. Does it surprise you that someone under threat of death by the state would behave in a similar manner?


 Does it surprise me that a man who would rape and murder an innocent woman, to get his jollies, would then lie about it? No.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I welcome the results of this test. It is bad enough that the state takes a life. It is comforting that the state did not take an innocent life.


 I never believed the guy to begin with, this really did nothing but confirm what I already believed.....that a vicious troll died that day, and the world's a better place for it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You, of course, Ray, are correct.
> 
> And you would, I presume, in a similiar situation, would be a paragon of virtue and tell the innocent man with a gun pointed at your head the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... right?


 Well, it's an interesting point.....until we realize the 'lie' is about a rape and murder of a young woman.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 16, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If an innocent man has been executed in the US in the last 30 years, name him and i'll concede your point.


Well, let's start here - and I'll forgive your lackadaisical use of the word "man" because you're you:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 16, 2006)

Lots of "likely", "possibles" and "probables" there. I think your missing his point.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Well, let's start here - and I'll forgive your lackadaisical use of the word "man" because you're you:
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed
> 
> http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm


 A bit of a dodge there.  You have yet to name anyone who has been executed in this country for a crime they did not commit in the last 30 years.  Why? Because you can't.  Listing websites of both dubious intent and even more dubious facts don't really make your case.  

I'll see if I can sum up the argument being used to it's most concise form...'It could have happened, so it MUST have happened'.  That's a bit of a logical fallacy.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 17, 2006)

hmmm....


> Leo Jones
> Leo Jones, convicted of killing policeman Thomas J. Szafranski on May 23, 1981, was executed in Florida on March 24, 1998. Jones' conviction was based on the testimony of a police interrogator who had been forced out in 1988 after being identified by a fellow officer as a torturer. In upholding Jones' conviction and sentence, Florida's appellate system refused to take into consideration the following.
> First, at the time of the shooting, witnesses reported seeing another man running down an alley near the crime scene with a rifle in his hands. These witnesses did not immediately tell the police what they saw, fearing the rifleman's reputation for violence.
> On the day after the shooting, the man with the rifle asked his girlfriend to lie to police and provide him with an alibi for the previous night. Neither the testimony of the eyewitnesses nor that of the rifleman's girlfriend was presented at Jones' trial.
> ...




Is this one a "probably?"


> Baldwin was convicted of the murder of an elderly woman in 1978. After the trial his lawyers found a hotel receipt proving he was hundreds of miles away in another state on the night of the murder. The prosecution promptly claimed that he had driven to the hotel in order to establish an alibi and then returned to Louisiana to commit the murder.



... and this one?


> Baldwin was convicted by an all-white jury. Prosecutors excluded Black jurors, and black residents of the county said that the white population was committed to Baldwin's conviction before the trial was held. The judge, the prosecutor and Baldwin's own court-appointed attorney used racially derogatory language during the trial. A man who was a sheriff's deputy at the time swore in a statement shortly before the execution that Baldwin had been beaten and tortured into a confession by white officers. Prosecutors shifted their theory of the murder. Baldwin's codefendant, executed for the crime in 1996, stated that Baldwin wasn't present at, nor had any knowledge of, the murder. This statement was corroborated by physical evidence. The trial transcript was defective, inhibiting Baldwin's appeals. The trial defense was not granted funding for investigation.




Probablys and possiblys and maybes are not my job to prove one way or the other, it is the job of lawyers to introduce and juries to make accurate decisions on.  Their failings are not mine.  Legalese is not my fault.  Read the ****.

If your philosophy is "kill them all and let God sort them out" then that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A bit of a dodge there. You have yet to name anyone who has been executed in this country for a crime they did not commit in the last 30 years. Why? Because you can't. Listing websites of both dubious intent and even more dubious facts don't really make your case.
> 
> I'll see if I can sum up the argument being used to it's most concise form...'It could have happened, so it MUST have happened'. That's a bit of a logical fallacy.


 
lol!sgtmac seriously,in all honest how on earth do you know if someone commited a crime,evidence??all evidence is subject to questioning,perception you can never be 100% sure that someone commited a crime....and more importantly How the hell are you going to murder someone...because they murdered someone????what sense does that make?why is the dude that flipped that switch not count as a murder??did he not just take another human off the Earth?


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

And another thing I've heard you say your country about 4 times in different posts where is your country??Please do not say America


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 17, 2006)

Per my previous post about the Innocence Project in New York, I gave the example of someone who was found innocent thru DNA testing, after 18 years on death rowe.  I do not have specific examples of innocent people who were executed, but I think it is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that people on death rowe have been discovered innocent, that some innocent individuals have been executed.  Certainly before DNA technology, and advocacy groups like the Innocence Project who would be willing to fight for these people, I believe this must has happened.  How many times?  I have no idea.  But it's not too difficult to connect the dots here.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 17, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Per my previous post about the Innocence Project in New York, I gave the example of someone who was found innocent thru DNA testing, after 18 years on death rowe.  I do not have specific examples of innocent people who were executed, but I think it is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that people on death rowe have been discovered innocent, that some innocent individuals have been executed.  Certainly before DNA technology, and advocacy groups like the Innocence Project who would be willing to fight for these people, I believe this must has happened.  How many times?  I have no idea.  But it's not too difficult to connect the dots here.



One cannot access every single murder trial on the internet, now can one?  And  you're right - it's not a far reach from possible to probable.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> One cannot access every single murder trial on the internet, now can one? And you're right - it's not a far reach from possible to probable.


 
Getting back to the topic of this thread, it is not possible to DNA test for every execution that has taken place in this country.  Not all cases had DNA evidence available, so we will never know.  In my heart, I am sure it has happened.  People will always dispute this no matter what, but I personally am sure it has happened.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> One cannot access every single murder trial on the internet, now can one? And you're right - it's not a far reach from possible to probable.


 
I have to agree. Estimate the probability, and then look at the large number of trials...I believe it's likely that an innocent person has been executed, esp. given the number of reversals based on DNA evidence we've seen over the past several years.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> lol!sgtmac seriously,in all honest how on earth do you know if someone commited a crime,evidence??all evidence is subject to questioning,perception you can never be 100% sure that someone commited a crime....and more importantly How the hell are you going to murder someone...because they murdered someone????what sense does that make?why is the dude that flipped that switch not count as a murder??did he not just take another human off the Earth?


 It makes the same sense as removing a tumorous cell from the body.  Cancer is a living thing too, and a part of your body....until it becomes cancerous, then we destroy it before it damages the rest of the body.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> If your philosophy is "kill them all and let God sort them out" then that's your problem, not mine.


 Invective and hyperbole on your part aside, my philosophy is 'punish the guilty', pure and simple.  If they are guilty of heinous crimes such as murder, they should swing.  The man who is the original topic of this article was guilty, and deserved to die at the hands of society.  It isn't the 'government' that executes people, it's society.  The 'government' is merely a representative of the social will of the people.  

Some day we may become so empathetic as to remove the death penalty as an option, but that is because the criminal justice system has done such a good job of removing social parasites from society, both through the death penalty and through incarceration, as to make it that the dangerous sociopathic killer is a rarity and an aberation, instead of the common scourge they once were.  Lets not delude ourselves, however, and believe that violent crime is going away because we have become 'more enlightened'.  It is going away because we are killing or permanently incarcerating violent criminals so that they are not present in our society.  

Again, the idea that because it 'could have happened, it HAS happened' is a logical fallacy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Getting back to the topic of this thread, it is not possible to DNA test for every execution that has taken place in this country. Not all cases had DNA evidence available, so we will never know. In my heart, I am sure it has happened. People will always dispute this no matter what, but I personally am sure it has happened.


 I'll go a step further.  It is unnecessary to prove that 100% of those executed were innocent in order to make an argument FOR the death penalty.  There is no difference between being executed wrongly and being incarcerated with other violent criminals for 20 years wrongly.  In fact, prison is more inhumane than the death penalty.  It is better to execute someone who has received a life in prison, than to lock them in a cage for the rest of their lives.  

Life's imperfect, if it was perfect we wouldn't need either prisons or the death penalty.


And, MOST importantly, discussing vague generalities is a dodge.  Each case should be examined on it's merits.  The possibility that someone who is innocent 'might' get killed is a red-herring.  We do many things that result in FAR more innocent deaths that will ever be killed as a result of the 'death penalty'.  For example, raising highway speeds for convenience.  We know this will result in dozens, sometimes hundreds more deaths a year, but we do it to drive a little faster.  In the entire recent history of the death penalty in the US it might be possible to point to a small number of people who are alleged to have been innocent.  

Those who tell me 'they are not the same thing' are merely focused on their own emotional response to the death penalty.  Executing two or three innocent people in the course of 30 years, or releasing even MORE guilty people, who then kill even MORE innocent people.  The state wrongly executing 3 people is better than guilty men going free and killing 30 or 50 or 90 innocent people?  You know what the difference is, however?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> One cannot access every single murder trial on the internet, now can one? And you're right - it's not a far reach from possible to probable.


 An innocent man having been executed is not an argument against the death penalty, though it may emotionally seem so.  Any severe punishment administered by the state is egregious when placed on an innocent man.  No one can make an objective argument that executed an innocent man is inherently worse than incarcerating him for 30 years.  Some argue 'well, you can always release a wrongly convicted man', but you can't give him back the years of his life suffering in a cage.  It isn't the punishment that's the issue, it's convicting the right people.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 17, 2006)

Im sure we imprison innocent people so lets not put anybody in prison.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Im sure we imprison innocent people so lets not put anybody in prison.


 That would be the obvious conclusion to the 'unless 100% of the people executed in the last 30 years, we must end it' argument.  Again, the question isn't the penalty, it's the accuracy of the conviction.  We examine each and every case individually.  The gentleman that this thread was founded on, was guilty as charged.  

We don't get any where making vague, broad generalizations, every case needs to be examined individually on it's own merits.  If a jury convicts someone, our legal system has declared them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a perfect world it would be absolutely guilty, however, in an imperfect world we have the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.  We have to deal in the world we live in, not the one we wish we did.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Im sure we imprison innocent people so lets not put anybody in prison.


 
Were we to discover that an innocent person was imprisoned, we could release the prisoner, and pay reparation. That is a bit difficult to do if the wronged person is dead.

As it is, those who are found innocent after being imprisoned wrongfully, they often need to bring legal action to clear their record from the states wrongdoing.

Well ... I suppose that beats being dead.

http://www.afterinnocence.com/



> Vincent Moto - 10.5 years wrongfully imprisoned
> 
> In 1987 Vincent Moto, a father of two, was convicted of rape and robbery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was the first person in Pennsylvania to prove his innocence with the use of DNA testing and was exonerated and released in 1996 after 10 and a half years of wrongful imprisonment. After 8 years of freedom, Vincent is still unable to find full-time employment and his criminal record has not been expunged because of lack of funds.



Nice of us, eh?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Were we to discover that an innocent person was imprisoned, we could release the prisoner, and pay reparation. That is a bit difficult to do if the wronged person is dead.


 Yet, we can never return the years of violence and subjugation they've endured in prison.  Merely releasing them does not, in any way, make up for wrongful conviction.  Moreover, it doesn't make the case that long term imprisonment is preferable to death.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> As it is, those who are found innocent after being imprisoned wrongfully, they often need to bring legal action to clear their record from the states wrongdoing.
> 
> Well ... I suppose that beats being dead.


 I don't think so, i'd rather be dead than live for decades in a maximum security prison.  Death is often a mercy (as many try to claim in support of assisted suicide arguments).  

What's more, I say again that it is not required that the state be 100% correct in the entire history of our legal system.  It is clear that incarcerating criminals protects society.  The idea that we can NEVER incarcerate or execute ANYONE unless we can guarantee that it is NEVER possible to incarcerate or execute someone wrongly, is a polyannic and absurd standard, unachievable, and quite frankly, ultimately destructive.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 18, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yet, we can never return the years of violence and subjugation they've endured in prison. Merely releasing them does not, in any way, make up for wrongful conviction. Moreover, it doesn't make the case that long term imprisonment is preferable to death.


 
I hope that prisons are regulated to some standard above 'violence' and 'subjegation'. You would suppose that all the money we throw at the Prison-Industrial Complex, we could prevent the treatment you imply.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I don't think so, i'd rather be dead than live for decades in a maximum security prison. Death is often a mercy (as many try to claim in support of assisted suicide arguments).


 
Arguing from the specific to the general is a logical fallicy, isn't it? Because you believe death would be preferable to incarceration, everyone must believe death is preferable to incarceration? Nah, that can't be right.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's more, I say again that it is not required that the state be 100% correct in the entire history of our legal system. It is clear that incarcerating criminals protects society. The idea that we can NEVER incarcerate or execute ANYONE unless we can guarantee that it is NEVER possible to incarcerate or execute someone wrongly, is a polyannic and absurd standard, unachievable, and quite frankly, ultimately destructive.


 
I am not certain anyone is make the argument you put forth here, except in irony. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=485320&postcount=31. I believe the argument being made is that systems created by human beings are fallible and having a justice system in which the resolutions are permanent, demands infallibility.

Try to keep your eye on the ball.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 18, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Im sure we imprison innocent people so lets not put anybody in prison.


If you equate putting a person in prison with taking their life, then you might have a problem that need fixing.


----------



## Ray (Jan 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You, of course, Ray, are correct.
> 
> And you would, I presume, in a similiar situation, would be a paragon of virtue and tell the innocent man with a gun pointed at your head the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... right?


I once had a man holding a machette to my throat; I was working in a convenience store.  I didn't say anything. 

I've been shot at a couple times, again, I didn't say anything.

I'm not the strong silient type, either.  Usually, I'm very conversant and witty.  I just couldn't think of anything to say.  

However, I feel the death penalty is warrented in some homicide cases.  Although an innocent person might die because of execution there are still plenty more innocent people dying because of homicide.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 18, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I once had a man holding a machette to my throat; I was working in a convenience store.  I didn't say anything.
> 
> I've been shot at a couple times, again, I didn't say anything.
> 
> ...


I've been on the wrong side of a gun too. And the target of a snake punch to the left temple. And on the business end of a 2 X 4.  And I still say we'd better make damn sure they're guilty before we kill them; that if we're going to use the taking of life as punishment that we should exhaust all leads, explore all possibilities, prove or debunk all probabilities else we become no better than those who commit cold-blooded murder.  We'd damn well better be right.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 18, 2006)

If DNA testing is an adequate standard to "prove" that someone is innocent, can it be said that it is also adequate to prove someone's guilt?  If that can be said, then perhaps the standard of proof to justify capital punishment need only by DNA evidence.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2006)

By the same token, lawyers more and more complain that CSI-loving juries want DNA evidence in all cases, even though it's only available and relevant in perhaps a tenth of them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I've been on the wrong side of a gun too. And the target of a snake punch to the left temple. And on the business end of a 2 X 4. And I still say we'd better make damn sure they're guilty before we kill them; that if we're going to use the taking of life as punishment that we should exhaust all leads, explore all possibilities, prove or debunk all probabilities else we become no better than those who commit cold-blooded murder. We'd damn well better be right.


 Beyond a reasonable doubt has been the standard we've used since the founding of the republic.  It's a fine standard, so I vote we keep it.  Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean 'absolutely, without any possibility of being wrong' because we understand than in an imperfect world, there is always the remote possibility of being wrong.  

Restricting ourselves to the 'without possibility of being wrong' standard is nothing but a recipe to render our legal system paralyzed to deal with violent criminals, resulting in far more deaths than could ever possibly occur as the result of an 'accidental' conviction.

Moreover, it is only on this issue that I hear the 'even one death is too many' argument.  We calmly accept the sacrifice of more innocent lives to raise our speed limits to 70, so that we can get to work quicker.  Unlike the death penalty, in which we can point to a small, less than a handfull of executions, we think COULD have been innocent (even that is disputed) we can quantify hundreds, even thousands of innocent lives, merely for the purposes of saving a few minutes on our way to work.

We accept the trade off of innocent lives so that we can keep our 'right to privacy'.  We accept that more freedom can theoretically result in the deaths of innocent people, and we accept that.  

It is only on this issue that we declare that the remote possibility that someone innocent could be convicted (even without proof that anyone innocent has been executed) is too much.   That argument is bogus in light of the other sacrifices we are willing to make for a free and just society.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 19, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It is only on this issue that we declare that the remote possibility that someone innocent could be convicted (even without proof that anyone innocent has been executed) is too much.   That argument is bogus in light of the other sacrifices we are willing to make for a free and just society.


I don't think so.  Deadly accidents as a result of speeding are no comparison to punishment by death. Potential lost lives due to missed information caused by our insistence on personal privacy are no comparison to punishment by death.

I've heard the "one death is too many" argument on the part of abortion too, so there's one missed.  

Sorry, but you will be hard pressed to convince me that we should do everything we can to be sure (agreed that there is always the tiniest margin for error) before we sentence to death.  Just as you would want an ER doctor to do everything they can to try to save a life, we should be as sure as we can be before we sentence to death.  Defense attorneys sleeping in the courtroom, not bothering to review the case beforehand, all the stories we've read and heard about ... this is unacceptable.  To deny a DNA test if it's a viable possibility and if there is any reasonable doubt in the existing evidence is irresponsible.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I don't think so. Deadly accidents as a result of speeding are no comparison to punishment by death. Potential lost lives due to missed information caused by our insistence on personal privacy are no comparison to punishment by death.


 Of course not.  I can point to hundreds, even thousands of deaths as the result of speed limit changes for commerce and convenience.  You can't name one person killed wrongly as a result of the death penalty.  Aside from that, however, dead is dead.  The dead really don't care that they died as the result of being wrongly convicted, or simply being the victim of a society that decides it's more important to get to work quicker, and move commerce faster.  The only difference is an emotional one, not a tangible one.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> I've heard the "one death is too many" argument on the part of abortion too, so there's one missed.


 As a supporter of abortion rights, I can't really speak to that argument, as I find it absurd as well.  If a mother can't raise a child, who am I to condemn her decision to abort a pregnancy.  



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I you will be hard pressed to convince me that we should do everything we can to be sure (agreed that there is always the tiniest margin for error) before we sentence to death.


 Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard.  There is no higher standard reasonable available.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Just as you would want an ER doctor to do everything they can to try to save a life, we should be as sure as we can be before we sentence to death. Defense attorneys sleeping in the courtroom, not bothering to review the case beforehand, all the stories we've read and heard about ... this is unacceptable. To deny a DNA test if it's a viable possibility and if there is any reasonable doubt in the existing evidence is irresponsible.


 An ER doctor will do everything reasonably necessary to save my life.  He will no donate his own liver.  There is a limit to what should be required to maintain the standard.  'Beyond a Reasonable doubt' is a sure enough standard.  But, again, I don't dispute a DNA test should be performed if reasonable.  However, I do oppose prolonging the execution of sentence to the preposterous 2 plus decades.  10 years is MORE than enough time to gather all evidence available, and review it many times over.  It's not necessary to allow the condemned to die of old age before he receives his just and granted sentence.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jan 19, 2006)

I whole-heartedly supported the death penalty until I took a public speaking class and selected capital punishment as the topic for one of my speeches. While researching the subject, I found myself to be startled by the information that I uncovered. My position changed, so did the purpose of my speech.

I don't believe that this society currently has the capability to accurately determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, this society should not implement the death penalty. Life in prison will have to suffice. 
Those who are truely innocent will have many decades to attempt to overcome the system. Those who are truely guilty will have many decades to contemplate their wasted lives.

The system is flawed. 
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 
Well, it is broken, and it does need to be fixed.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 19, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You can't name one person killed wrongly as a result of the death penalty.


Scroll and read, please.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Scroll and read, please.


 What you named is a few who's supporters have distorted the facts of the case about.  This is not unusual on the internet.  Very little on the internet is based on reality.  What's more, the point is that less than a handful of people you can point to are even alleged to be 'not guilty' by any reasonable measure.  

We trade off lives all the time in this society for what we believe is the greater good.  If you support a thing, the sacrifice is acceptable, if you oppose a given thing, even one sacrifice is too much.  

My point is, however, than in the over scheme of things, the sacrifice of 'innocent lives' by the death penalty is extremely low, especially compared to the number innocent lives we trade every day simply for convenience.

There seems to be a concensus that those who pursue the death penalty, are ignorant of the lives and character of the condemned.  I believe, however, the opposite is true.  Those who oppose the death penalty are ignorant of these men (and some women) and who and what they are.  They meet these men at their most manipulative, I meet them at their most unguarded.  They meet these men in sanitary locations where these men have prepared their 'story' to sound the most sympathetic.  I've seen them when they felt no one else was looking.

I deal with these type of people more closely and intimately than many who post an opinion on the matter.  I've been in the homes of both victim and criminal alike, i've held their children, i've grown to know them as well as anyone will know them in their lives.  

After knowing them so well, I can only come to one conclusion. It is my resolute conviction that there are crimes within society, and especially certain criminals, for which the only just and reasonable punishment is death at the hands of society.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

What you seem to be unable to do is to open your very own mind to the possibility that innocent people might have been convicted or even executed. Logically, this is a possibility, whether our political beliefs and personal convictions allow us to understand it or not.

I suppose if a person can feel fine taking life with the possibility that the person is guilty and "proof enough" then that is the person's burden.  Unfortuately, it is all our burdens and is still wrong.

The above statement does not include any soft feelings for genuine killers nor any suggestion that we might need to extend the time we must wait before the death penalty is meted out - simply that we must be absolutely right.  I have a hard time believing that 'we' are always right.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 5, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I wonder how many death penalty cases justified by DNA testing it will take before the anti-death penalty crowd starts saying that DNA ISNT a reliable way to prove guilt? I think thats what SGTmac is getting at. People seem to WANT to believe the criminal when they say they are innocent.


 
DNA testing is better at proving innocence than proving guilt, assuming that there are no errors, cross contamination etc during the testing (a big assumption).

Combined with other evidence it can be a really powerful indicator of presence at a crime scene, enough to satisfy the reasonable doubt burden.

However DNA, like fingerprinting, isn't infallible.

Statisically it is possible to get false matches. As with fingerprints the likelihood of these false matches can become significant where DNA is the only way of identifying a suspect. The source of the data for the match and the populations size from which it comes becomes very important. As databases get bigger the probability of a false match increases. 

The real danger for a jury is that the probability of a false match increases much more quickly than we intuitively believe. This is called "the Birthday Paradox", "the Birthday Theorem", or "the Birthday Problem".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox

This link gives a decent but painfully complex explanation of some of the issues... :idunno:  
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~fitelson/few/few_04/sober.pdf

This is a clearer article on DNA forensics
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_pti_dna_matching.htm

This is an Australian article that highlights some interesting problems with DNA testing for ethnic groups in high crime areas, and gives an example of a false match that occurred in the UK. (man with advanced Parkinsons and unable to even drive arrested and jailed for burglary committed 100 miles away from his home)

http://www.justiceaction.org.au/actNow/Campaigns/DNA/pdf_files/07-indig.pdf

Not saying it isn't good, just that it isn't as good as we tend to think it is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The above statement does not include any soft feelings for genuine killers nor any suggestion that we might need to extend the time we must wait before the death penalty is meted out - simply that we must be absolutely right. I have a hard time believing that 'we' are always right.


 Of course it does, because that's what we're talking about....being soft on genuine killers, because we fear the 'possibility' that somebody could, someday, be innocent.  That doesn't keep us from getting in a car in the morning, thinking we could run over some innocent person on the way to work, but we have an emotional response when it comes to the death penalty.  

Again, the idea that we must be 'absolutely right' is a standard entirely impossible in this universe.  There is no such thing.  'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the only objectively reasonable standard.

As evidence, name one scientific theory that we've accepted as 'scientific fact' that the evidence shows, with absolute certainty, is 'true'.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

Being soft on killers or being correct on who is the killer? An emotional response? I suppose you'd be emotional too, if it were you who were wrongly accused. Or ... not ....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Being soft on killers or being correct on who is the killer? An emotional response? I suppose you'd be emotional too, if it were you who were wrongly accused. Or ... not ....


 I'd be angry if I died as the result of any sort of mistake....be it being wrongly convicted, or some moron talking on his cell phone crossing the center line....or more specifically was about to die.  Once I am dead, I won't care.  It's the distinction between the two kinds of dead that is the emotional distinction.  You're more likely to be struck by a meteor than wrongly executed in the US for a crime you didn't commit.  In fact, you're more likely to be struck by lightening that executed for a crime you DID commit.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'd be angry if I died as the result of any sort of mistake....be it being wrongly convicted, or some moron talking on his cell phone crossing the center line....or more specifically was about to die.  Once I am dead, I won't care.  It's the distinction between the two kinds of dead that is the emotional distinction.  You're more likely to be struck by a meteor than wrongly executed in the US for a crime you didn't commit.  In fact, you're more likely to be struck by lightening that executed for a crime you DID commit.


But your family might care - your children, your spouse .... And what is their justice when someone else out there is calling you guilty for a crime you didn't commit and complaining that they are being soft on you?

I guess that lighting bolt is pretty powerful ****, eh?  But then, that's beside the point.

Tell me, do you do anything else on this site besides argue your narrow-minded points in the Study?


----------



## Lisa (Feb 5, 2006)

Moderator Note. 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-LISA DENEKA
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 6, 2006)

=Admin Note=

Several very heated posts from this thread have been split off.

Please focus on the topic  "Death Penalty DNA testing" and take the personal issues elsewhere.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

Back on topic...

Innocents languishing on Death Row? A myth


----------



## Dan G (Feb 6, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Back on topic...
> 
> Innocents languishing on Death Row? A myth


 
Good article. The US has a first rate criminal justice system, and unlike other similarly excellent free systems has those freedoms firmly entrenched in a constitution that is largely well respected. (slightly off topic, but the enormous cost of the death penalty is a direct result of the exemplary system and freedoms enshrined in the constitution and the justice system - any country that considers the death penalty a cheap solution is unlikely to be a free or just one. For several reasons I am against the death penalty, but if a country has it I believe it should be expensive - anything else would be shortchanging citizens on their freedoms).

DNA testing is an awesome forensic tool. Doesn't change the key point that relying soley on DNA testing will lead to error in some cases. DNA testing is the scientific miracle of the last century, but it is not infallible even when performed faultlessly, and it is not a "magic bullet" to solve crime.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

I dont think anybody is saying it is. Its just evidence. It should be treated like any other evidence.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 6, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I dont think anybody is saying it is. Its just evidence. It should be treated like any other evidence.


 
I totally agree. Evidence, and good evidence at that, but nothing more. 

There is a tendency to believe it is near infallible, one or two posts were heading that way. It is a bit of a bugbear for me, as biometric ID systems, photo, fingerprint, DNA etc have a kind of scientific veneer that makes them seem more reliable than they actually are. It is relevant to criminal justice, and also to commerce, as at some point soon banks will attempt to start using more biometrics as customer ID. When that happens a lot of defrauded cutomers may lose out, as the perceived reliabilty is at odds with the true reliability making it hard to argue that someone else has used their ID; this true reliability decreases much more when someone has an incentive to falsify biometrics... (bit of a sidetrack, but does point out the importance of perceived reliability and actual reliability to people inside and outside of the criminal justice system).


----------

