Death Penalty DNA testing

[Odin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.