Death Penalty DNA testing

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

Scroll and read, please.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

=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]

Back on topic...

Innocents languishing on Death Row? A myth

 

[Dan G]

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]

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

 

[Dan G]

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).