From your link: Factors leading to wrongful convictions include: * Inadequate legal representation * Police and prosecutorial misconduct * Perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony * Racial prejudice * Jailhouse "snitch" testimony * Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence * Community/political pressure to solve a case So the answer is to improve the judicial system; not rule out the death penalty. The examples given in that article make it appear to me that the wrongful convictions could easily be avoided (two were because of corrupt officials) .
And until we improve the judicial system, when we can be sure there will be no more human error (probably have robot judges?), do you agree that the death penalty should be halted, in order to save innocent lives? On my part, i will say that yes, if we can be 100% sure no innocent lives will be taken, i am for the death penalty ( if you can also prove to me it is a better deterrent, and cheaper then other alternatives). But as of yet, it still is humans who judge others, and humans make mistakes, are corrupt and have biases.
That's why i put in those vague words like, usually to counter anyone saying I'm wrong, because I'm not. Now if i were to say "The system works 100%" then yes i would be wrong but i didn't say that. Do you have a bigger list of overturned death penalty cases? If there are more and the rest are overturned by DNA claims, then i think we're pretty much good to go with this Death Penalty business.
So, again, you favor taking the chance of killing an innocent person or two, as long as many guilty ones are dead? From this link (yes, by the title, they might be a little biased, but hey, truth always has a liberal bias ) : Yeah, some people got lucky and were found to be innocent before they were murdered (death penalty) But how can you guarantee that everyone has such luck? If they were on death row, and were innocent, how many of them were never found to be innocent, while they actually were? How can you trust the government to be so infallible on this issue? It amazes me that the people who usually don't trust the government, are the ones who are most in favor of death penalty, assuming the government does a flawless job on this single issue, while screwing up everything else.(Not saying you are in this group of people, since i don't know your political views)
They're still separate religions, unless you're trying to tell me that Islam can be covered under the umbrella of Christianity, which is complete BS. Confucianism is as much a religion as Scientology. Deism believes that the god doesn't give a toss about us and ignores our actions altogether. Basically you've tried to avoid being wrong by spreading around some BS and ignoring any point made that you couldn't come up with a smokescreen for. Also Chinese Religion.
Mark, you bring up solid points. I am still in favor of it though, although i may alter my perception of how condemnation should occur, perhaps under extraordinary circumstances like if the act is caught on video. Such an interesting subject this is. And you bring up another interesting fact, I do indeed mistrust the American Government AND support the death penalty. You are a smart guy.
So maybe we should just have no legal system and all and no laws whatsoever; that way there will never be any innocent person convicted of a crime that they didn't commit ever again? So long as there are humans judging, there shall be errors in judgement; realistically, we may only look to limit the mistakes. Working to make realistic improvements to our respective legal systems is the way to make the death penalty as fair to the innocent as possible (but it will never be perfect). No; I think that more innocent lives are destroyed (either through it being taken away, or otherwise ruined) by people that are released from prison to commit further horrific crimes. Duh. Also, the only mentioning of DNA testing in the link that you supplied for Littlekill is that someone was exonerated by it in 1993.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." With such a flawed system, how can mankind justify taking matters of life and death into its own hands? Statistically speaking, there are likely far more wrongful executions than we know of, if only for the fact that once a convict is executed there is little reason to investigate, through DNA testing or other means, whether or not they may have been innocent. See also: pretty much everything in this thread that I've said to calvin. [quote author=Wikipedia] Wayne Felker was a recently released sex offender and a suspect in the disappearance of a woman in 1981. He was under police surveillance for two weeks prior to the woman's body being found. Her autopsy was conducted by an unqualified technician, and the results were changed to show the death as having occurred while Felker was under surveillance. After his conviction, his lawyers presented testimony by forensic experts that the body couldn't have been dead for more than three days before it was found. A stack of evidence was found that had been hidden by the prosecution—evidence that wasn't presented in court and included DNA evidence that might have exonerated Felker or cast doubt on his guilt. There was even a signed confession from another suspect in the paperwork, but despite all this, Felker was executed in 1996.[5] In 2000, his case was reopened as the first executed person to have DNA testing used to prove innocence after execution. Although the tests were ruled inconclusive as to innocence or guilt, coupled with the other testimony and mishandling of evidence they might have been enough to prevent his conviction or at least led to a new trial.[9] [/quote]
Thank you Littlekill, for being open minded enough to analyze different viewpoints and being able to change yours as you consider new arguments. I tip my hat to you for that. Lol, i feel if we ever get into political debates, we won't be agreeing much either Thank you for the compliment. I'm not that smart, since i quit school when i was 16, and now have to work in a very effed up job, lol. But again, you were able to change your point of view, even if just a little.It takes a smart person to be able to do that. Are you honestly telling me that you can't tell the difference between killing an innocent person, and locking him up? Think about it, if he is locked up, and is found to be innocent, does he still have the chance to be set free, and start a new life? What if he is dead, and found to be innocent? I seriously can't believe you don't see the difference.It seems you are just desperately trying to be right on this. But until then, let's keep killing, right? Do you have any source that could maybe make me agree with you? Your point being? Just wanted to say, thumbs up on pretty much everything you have said in this thread!
Thanks, feels good to be appreciated. More than that, though, it feels better to not be debating alone.
With such a flawed system, how can mankind justify passing out sentences that lock people away for a great many years? With such a flawed system, how can mankind justify allowing people out of prison when they pose a threat to the innocent? As I've said, the system can never be perfect; it can be better though. If you're waiting for me to post a method by which the death penalty would be completely fair; you'll be waiting until you're dead. And that's terrible, but again, I think that the number of people that would be protected from criminals would far exceed the number that would be wrongly executed. I already have; I don't see how the majority of it applies to me. ...No? If criminals that I've said I think are worthy of the death penalty are to be locked up indefinitely (with reviews to there cases taking place periodical to ensure that they are indeed guilty); then the death penalty wouldn't be necessary. My argument from the beginning is that the death penalty should be given for certain crimes (like murder - although, I accept that if the murderer is extremely unlikely to commit murder again they should not be sentenced to life in prison or death- and rape) which would see the criminal released back into society to harm more people. Here in Britain (I'm not sure about elsewhere), a "life sentence" usually means that a criminal serves less than 15 years before being released (criminals may be sentenced to more than this, but they are usually released before they serve even half their sentence). Sentencing is generally pretty lenient here in Britain Excuse me? "Desperately trying to be right"? I'm not desperately trying to be anything. Having an opinion doesn't entail me expending any great amount of effort; and I'm not deluded to the point that I would think that I'm going to change the minds of other people whom have already looked at the facts themselves and come to their decision. I wasn't aware that this was a debate between keeping offenders locked up indefinitely or executing them; I was under the impression that we were discussing whether making the death penalty the consequences or serious crimes is preferable to the current systems of releasing criminals after a few years to potentially re-offend (you know, the system that most western countries have IRL?). And as for "not seeing the difference", I think that you're just assuming that I'm unable to think clearly because I have an opinion other than yours I'm not sure whether your failed interpretation of my arguments is purposeful or not, some clarification on how exactly you came under the impression that I don't understand the points that you've made would be nice. Also, I find the implication that I don't care about innocent people being killed offensive. I doubt it, but here are some anyhow. http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article778681.ece http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2716217.ece http://www.atv.ca/london/news_37315.aspx http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2010/05/28/14180961.html The prison sentences for paedophiles would be laughable if it weren't so terrible. Even if a small number of the re-offend; the damage that they do to children's lives with these further offences more than justifies their execution in my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735857 This story is important because it shows that despite the years of rehabilitation, Venables hadn't changed in the slightest. He is still the monster that he was when he was just a child; he's an example of a significantly dangerous person that went through years of rehabilitation and is still too dangerous to be allowed back into society.
I watched Bullshit by Penn and Teller last night, I dont usually like them, but this episode happened about be about the Judicial System we have here. I think I have expanded my hit list from just the people in this forum, to 20% of the lawyers out there.
If venables hadn't been the age he was when he commited the murder he would never have been released from prison. The problem is not lack of death penalty; he would not have been sentenced to death anyway. The problem with the buldger case is the fact that he was automatically released when he reached 18, because that is what happens when children are convicted.
The point that I was making is that despite the extensive rehabilitation that he's received since he was sentenced; after being released he sought out child pornography. But you're right; I've no idea how my proposed issuing of the death penalty dangerous individuals who are only children when they commit the crime/s (that they would be given the death penalty for) would work (or rather, I know exactly how it would work: with either the distressing turn of events of children being sentenced to death, or them being taken into custody until they're legally old enough to be executed). Children committing crimes like that are such freak occurrences, it's really shocking and I don't think that there's any way to deal with them using laws structured around crimes that people would only ever think an adult (or, at least, someone in their teens) committing without a lot of controversy. From Wikipedia I think that I'll stand by my reasoning that the death penalty should be given to people whom have commited crimes like the Bulger murder, and by extension; that Venables and Thompson should have been sentenced to death. It may not be pleasant to think about (children being given the death penalty); but I think that it's better than more innocent children being put at risk.
tl;dr your specific country's judicial system sucks ass. I'd think that would be reason more to abolish the death penalty rather than reinstate it. As you say, the system can be improved, ideally so that only the innocent and truly rehabilitated are released. There'd be no need for capital punishment; would that not be preferable to risking such severe miscarriages of justice as wrongful executions?
As I said before, if keeping perpetrators of certain crimes in prison indefinitely is an option, yes, it would be preferable to the death penalty (although, there likely would have to be many more prisons built to accommodate these prisoners). I don't think that even rapists et al that are "rehabilitated" should be allowed back into society though; they could not be trusted 100% not to re-offend, and they forfeited their right to walk amongst other people when they commited their crimes.
No one can be trusted 100% not to offend, but if there's reasonable doubt that they might then they shouldn't be considered rehabilitated.
Maybe we wont need the death penalty for pedo's: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100801/tuk-sarah-s-law-rolled-out-nationally-dba1618.html We will be able to punish them ourselves if we have their address
Hey Markswan, first i am sorry if i offended you, it was not my intention. I was mistaken, in thinking you were arguing for the death penalty vs life sentence. Here in the USA we do have life sentences were people never again see the light of day. And as a typical American, i assumed this was the only system to be debated (shame on me) I see through your conversation with tehuber1337 that you would prefer a true life sentence to the death penalty. So, we are basically in agreement here. The only thing i don't understand is, why are you arguing for the death penalty, if you clearly prefer life sentences? Shouldn't you be arguing for your country to change it's legal system into adopting this law?
