(US) Innocent man executed...

davet82

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-041125698.html

wow i bet their faces were red... :P

i think the story is a fairly good arguement to why we should still not execute prisoners?

grindle

Totes awky momo.

Sykk

In 1989 with much less forensic technology available.

The "innocent" guy executed was also on Parol for a series of attacks. Good riddance.

Seachmall

sentenced to death and executed based only on eyewitness accounts

Is there not some sort of filtering system that makes sure bullshit prosecution attempts don't get to the courts.

Jesus, there's a whole Wiki category on why we shouldn't do anything based on eyewitness accounts.

leeroybrown

Sure just execute the other guy too. Sorted!

prinz

davet82 wrote: »

i think the story is a fairly good arguement to why we should still not execute prisoners?

It's also a fairly good indication of where some people's priorities lie, particularly when it comes to those forwarding this story on facebook.

wp_rathead

Sykk wrote: »

In 1989 with much less forensic technology available.

The "innocent" guy executed was also on Parol for a series of attacks. Good riddance.

ya! Kill Everyone!!

Sindri

Seachmall wrote: »

Is there not some sort of filtering system that makes sure bullshit prosecution attempts don't get to the courts.

Jesus, there's a whole Wiki category on why we shouldn't do anything based on eyewitness accounts.

Wiki articles don't hold up in court. You can't just create a page for yourself that says, 'I'm well innocent bruv, innit'.

grindle

wprathead wrote: »

ya! Kill Everyone!!

Not everyone, just scummers.

Seachmall

Sindri wrote: »

Wiki articles don't hold up in court..

Well they should!

davet82

prinz wrote: »

It's also a fairly good indication of where some people's priorities lie, particularly when it comes to those forwarding this story on facebook.

i dont do facebook

iguy

Could the innocent guy's family not press charges against the state for misconduct and whatever other charges could be put against the state,
his family went through a lot of pain a sorrow due to him being executed.

davet82

Sykk wrote: »

In 1989 with much less forensic technology available.

The "innocent" guy executed was also on Parol for a series of attacks. Good riddance.

no forensic technology just wouldnt cut it as an excuse for me if i were that guys brother/father ect

lets kill everyone convicted of assault?

hooradiation

Sykk wrote: »

In 1989 with much less forensic technology available.

The "innocent" guy executed was also on Parol for a series of attacks. Good riddance.

And we're off to a flying start for todays race to the bottom.

tdv123

Sykk wrote: »

In 1989 with much less forensic technology available.

The "innocent" guy executed was also on Parol for a series of attacks. Good riddance.

Your missing the point. Not suprising seeing as how your judgement is clouded by being so blood thirsty.

Plazaman

leeroybrown wrote: »

Sure just execute the other guy too. Sorted!

Seemingly he died in prison before they could kill him. How selfish of him.

[controversial]
I'm a supporter of the death penalty.....
[/controversial]

...obviously only in rock solid cases. This is going back 20 years ago so judging from what's in the article I'm sure the justice system has come a long way since (yes Ireland's is still stuck in a time warp but that's a different thread). Is it a deterrent? Hard to say, but unfortunatley unless evolution eradicates the scumbaggery gene, it should remain.

davet82

Plazaman wrote: »

. Is it a deterrent? Hard to say.

think its easy enough to say it isn't a deterrent as people still murder, i'd probably rather the gas chamber than 50 years in prison myself tbh

bnt

The fact that this is News is something, at least. Imagine if it happened so often that they didn't bother to report it any more?

The Capital Punishment system in the USA is a shambles; putting the convicted on "Death Row" for decades, then releasing some of them anyway, means that any deterrent effect is watered down. I wouldn't try to generalise about Capital Punishment using the USA experience as a (bad) example.

Sykk

tdv123 wrote: »

Your missing the point. Not suprising seeing as how your judgement is clouded by being so blood thirsty.

Let the tax payer foot the bill of keeping the scum in prison until he gets out and ruins someone elses life.

Money could be used elsewhere like in medical research or something useful. But yes my logic is just blood lust in disguise :rolleyes:

hooradiation

Sykk wrote: »

Let the tax payer foot the bill of keeping the scum in prison until he gets out and ruins someone elses life.

Money could be used elsewhere like in medical research or something useful. But yes my logic is just blood lust in disguise :rolleyes:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nodin

Sykk wrote: »

In 1989 with much less forensic technology available.

The "innocent" guy executed was also on Parol for a series of attacks. Good riddance.

I've got a great idea.....why don't we kill everyone - because nobody is really innocent anyway.

Sykk wrote:

Let the tax payer foot the bill of keeping the scum in prison until he gets out and ruins someone elses life.

Money could be used elsewhere like in medical research or something useful. But yes my logic is just blood lust in disguise

You want the death penalty as a deterrent, but aren't bothered about who is executed or why. Essentially you want to have a semi-random series of killings to deter killings. I'm not seeing the logic.

problemchimp

grindle wrote: »

Not everyone, just scummers.

How do you know if you have the right one?
I know, beat and torture until he signs some statement.

Bazzo

iguy wrote: »

Could the innocent guy's family not press charges against the state for misconduct and whatever other charges could be put against the state,
his family went through a lot of pain a sorrow due to him being executed.

Not 100% on this but I'm fairly sure I remember reading somewhere that the US state/federal authorities are immune to prosecution unless they waiver that right voluntarily.

Nodin

problemchimp wrote: »

How do you know if you have the right one?
I know, beat and torture until he signs some statement.

'Dear Judge, I wrecked the Hesperus,

Signed under no duress at all by ___Macker'

Dravokivich

davet82 wrote: »

think its easy enough to say it isn't a deterrent as people still murder, i'd probably rather the gas chamber than 50 years in prison myself tbh

I'd say so as well, but you also got to take into account, a lot of people who would do something that can result in the death penalty, do so under the impression they won't get caught. Making the punishment pretty much irrelevant as as a detterent, but more so to "Fit the seriousness of crime."

preddy

I for one don't like the idea of some Murder wasting 20+ years of my tax money watching TV tucked up with their iphone then getting released as if they are going to be magicaly rehabilitated.

An Eye for an Eye i say.:mad:

Nodin

preddy wrote: »

I for one don't like the idea of some Murder wasting 20+ years of my tax money watching TV tucked up with their iphone then getting released as if they are going to be magicaly rehabilitated.

An Eye for an Eye i say,:mad: and which ever DA/jury convicts an innocent person they get the chair too.

A jury knows what they're told. If the prosecution lies and they go on that lie as truth, they get hung through the crime of another. So its an eye for an eye, and an eye for nothing.

CruelCoin

tdv123 wrote: »

Your missing the point. Not suprising seeing as how your judgement is clouded by being so blood thirsty.

Some people deserve to die.

Take the following example:

Man rapes woman, get released after 4 years, rapes again, 4 years, rapes again 4 years.

This man is beyond all redemption. he will never reform or be reformed, and will remain a danger to the community untill the day he dies.

In what world would this man deserve to live?

hooradiation

CruelCoin wrote: »

Some people deserve to die.

And therein lies the rub - if you take that approach (and I don't) then who decides who "deserves" death?

You?
Our justice system with all it's flaws?
Maybe the fickle mob can vote on it?

Sure, it's easy to go "this guy is a rapist he must die" because it's just a morality play. A flimsy piece of theatre designed to make your point seem valid, but these magic scenarios of definite guilt don't really exist.

The real world is complex and clear cut decisions are few and far between, how is this concept of only executing those that "deserve death" going to work there?

davet82

CruelCoin wrote: »

In what world would this man deserve to live?

a segragated one for life

you cant cure a murder with murder

anyways the death penalty, is not a punishment usually associated with rape in westren societies (i could be wrong?)

TeddyTedson

Why are people so much in favour of execution? There are worse punishments than death.
For example imagine executing a failed 9/11 terrorist. Would people not much rather have them locked up for the rest of their lives and being put to work, similar to the old American chain gangs?

Sykk

Nodin wrote: »

You want the death penalty as a deterrent, but aren't bothered about who is executed or why. Essentially you want to have a semi-random series of killings to deter killings. I'm not seeing the logic.

"Essentially" you don't know what you're talking about.

In a bullet proof case where a person is absolutely guilty of something like murder/rape with a potential to reoffend and an utter threat to society, then I don't see a problem with capital punishment.

Albeit the guy was wrongly executed and those in charge of the investigation should be disciplined. However, I'm not going to shed a tear for the guy as he already had a series of offences after repeat attacks on people.

davet82

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'd say so as well, but you also got to take into account, a lot of people who would do something that can result in the death penalty, do so under the impression they won't get caught. Making the punishment pretty much irrelevant as as a detterent, but more so to "Fit the seriousness of crime."

i appreciate your arguement on the deterrant, most crimes of murder are usually drink/drug related impulse acts i reckon so no deterrant can account for that.

juan.kerr

Unfortunate but just means they should be more careful.

davet82

[QUOTE=Sykk;78692588
In a bullet proof case [/QUOTE]

These too were suppose to be ' bullet proof'... yet there have been 140 people exonerated since 1973 in the usa from death row with evidence of their innocence, luckily they have some sense to pro long the date of exectution but some are not so lucky like the guy in the article

86 of them since 1994, that blows your 'with todays forensics' arguement out of the water

Chuck Stone

davet82 wrote: »

i think the story is a fairly good arguement to why we should still not execute prisoners?

No. It's an appalling argument.

How about we just don't execute people because it's wrong to kill people?

I mean killing people is a bad thing, yeah?

davet82

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. It's an appalling argument.

How about we just don't execute people because it's wrong to kill people?

I mean killing people is a bad thing, yeah?

i was pointing it out to add to the obvious

Chuck Stone

davet82 wrote: »

i was pointing it out to add to the obvious

Ah right.

My mistake.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's wrong to kidnap people and hold them against their will for extended periods of time to but we still have jails and prisons

smellslikeshoes

preddy wrote: »

I for one don't like the idea of some Murder wasting 20+ years of my tax money watching TV tucked up with their iphone then getting released as if they are going to be magicaly rehabilitated.

An Eye for an Eye i say.:mad:

Every time one of these threads come up, the cost argument appears.
It costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.

Chuck Stone

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

it's wrong to kidnap people and hold them against their will for extended periods of time to but we still have jails and prisons

I don't see what viable alternatives there are to incarceration for perpetrators who pose a threat to the community.

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't see what viable alternatives there are when the perpetrator poses a threat to the community.

>.>

<.<

...Australia...

Sykk

davet82 wrote: »

These too were suppose to be ' bullet proof'... yet there have been 140 people exonerated since 1973 in the usa from death row with evidence of their innocence, luckily they have some sense to pro long the date of exectution but some are not so lucky like the guy in the article

86 of them since 1994, that blows your 'with todays forensics' arguement out of the water

Read the first part of your statement, then watch the second contradict yourself...

A factual investigation wouldn't have led to this guys death.... Differing Eye witnesses doesn't make fact. CCTV and DNA make fact. Flaws in the justice system doesn't "Blow my argument out of the water" just because some idiot investigator/judge can't do their jobs properly.

aidan24326

CruelCoin wrote: »

Some people deserve to die.

Take the following example:

Man rapes woman, get released after 4 years, rapes again, 4 years, rapes again 4 years.

This man is beyond all redemption. he will never reform or be reformed, and will remain a danger to the community untill the day he dies.

In what world would this man deserve to live?

In the US, just for example, a guy on a second rape conviction would not be getting 4 years in jail, he'd get life and that would mean life without parole in most states.

And those eye for an eye blood lusting supporters of the death penalty should bear in mind that life without parole in a maximum security prison is a fate arguably worse than the death penalty.

Anyone watch that show 'Russia's hardest prisons'? About the max security prison called 'Black Dolphin'. The prisoners there live a nightmarish existence of solitude, degradation and deprivation. US supermax prisons are not much fun either, with prisoners often confined to their cell for 23 out of every 24 hours, and with no possibility at all of ever being released. I think I'd take the death penalty tbh.

hooradiation

Sykk wrote: »

A factual investigation wouldn't have led to this guys death....

So we now have you acknowledging that the system isn't perfect.
Good

Now, would you like to explain how despite knowing this it makes sense to have a system that is capable of mistakes handing out the death penalty.

davet82

Sykk wrote: »

A factual investigation wouldn't have led to this guys death.....

but it did or at least they thought they did, too many mistakes are being made and last time i checked you cant take 'death' back

DEFTLEFTHAND

Britain have sent men to the gallows on very flimsy evidence as well. In 1953 19 year old petty thief Derek Bentley was hanged on the basis that he instructed his 16 year old accomplice during a hold up by police to surrender his fire arm. The accomplice misinterpreted Bentleys instruction to 'let him have it' and instead opened fire fatally wounding a police officer.

In 1950 Timothy Evans was executed for the murder of his daughter. In the aftermath it transpired that he had in fact been innocent as after a follow up investigation 16 years later his house tenant admitted to the murder. This case would sow the seeds for the abolition of capital punishment in the UK.

preddy

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

It costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.

I doubt that very much.

aidan24326 wrote: »

In the US, just for example, a guy on a second rape conviction would not be getting 4 years in jail, he'd get life and that would mean life without parole in most states.

And those eye for an eye blood lusting supporters of the death penalty should bear in mind that life without parole in a maximum security prison is a fate arguably worse than the death penalty.

Anyone watch that show 'Russia's hardest prisons'? About the max security prison called 'Black Dolphin'. The prisoners there live a nightmarish existence of solitude, degradation and deprivation. US supermax prisons are not much fun either, with prisoners often confined to their cell for 23 out of every 24 hours, and with no possibility at all of ever being released. I think I'd take the death penalty tbh.

3 strikes rule in the states doesnt work like that here!
Did you not see them shows "So I married a man on Death Row" pretty sure they would be in a supermax prison!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

preddy wrote: »

I doubt that very much.

doubt it all you want, it's true.

davet82

preddy wrote: »

I doubt that very much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/

Seachmall

preddy wrote: »

I doubt that very much.

It is actually true.


Edit - Beaten to it.