yep, exactly what I've been saying for years why the death penalty isn't even needed. solitary is worse than a death sentence.
I'd be willing to bet that if the death penalty is banned, the next thing under attack will be solitary confinement as it will be seen as cruel and unusual punishment.
yep, exactly what I've been saying for years why the death penalty isn't even needed. solitary is worse than a death sentence.
I'd be willing to bet that if the death penalty is banned, the next thing under attack will be solitary confinement as it will be seen as cruel and unusual punishment.
and with good reason.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'd be willing to bet that if the death penalty is banned, the next thing under attack will be solitary confinement as it will be seen as cruel and unusual punishment.
and with good reason.
Those who think victims like Victoria Stafford deserve a little more than 25 years of foosball and television for their murderer wouldn't agree with you, Hugh.
You see... they think that after Michael Rafferty chose to kidnap, savagely rape, and then murder 8 year old, Victoria with a hammer to her head... that he doesn't really deserve comfort.
And I'm not saying prison is a country club. For some... prison is almost unfair; but for sick, twisted murderers such as this loser... prison any way you can offer it is too good. Way too good.
So should they also ban solitary confinement? The article posted by 81 was a good read and I have no idea how someone could live 1 year like that...so it is not enough to just lock them up...we need solitary confinement so they go crazy...it seems to me that sentence is far worse than death itself...so where do we draw the line? If the death penalty is seen as cruel and unusual then so should solitary confinement, and if you are against torture then you should be against solitary confinement...because putting someone in solitary confinement for years may not be physical torture but surely is mental torture.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I'd be willing to bet that if the death penalty is banned, the next thing under attack will be solitary confinement as it will be seen as cruel and unusual punishment.
and with good reason.
Those who think victims like Victoria Stafford deserve a little more than 25 years of foosball and television for their murderer wouldn't agree with you, Hugh.
You see... they think that after Michael Rafferty chose to kidnap, savagely rape, and then murder 8 year old, Victoria with a hammer to her head... that he doesn't really deserve comfort.
And I'm not saying prison is a country club. For some... prison is almost unfair; but for sick, twisted murderers such as this loser... prison any way you can offer it is too good. Way too good.
But if we kill via the death penalty, are we really any better than Rafferty? Put him in a cell, study his brain to see how it works to prevent future crime and make fker work for his food, stamp license plates. Vengence is not healthy.
long timers become "important" in the prison world and have status amung their group, point is that while I never heard of anybody getting a blow up doll they do become comfortable in their soroundings
As opposed to giving in to the alternative; going mad, or killing yourself.
Those who think victims like Victoria Stafford deserve a little more than 25 years of foosball and television for their murderer wouldn't agree with you, Hugh.
Except prisoners don't get 25 years of football and television, so your point is moot.
But if we kill via the death penalty, are we really any better than Rafferty? Put him in a cell, study his brain to see how it works to prevent future crime and make fker work for his food, stamp license plates. Vengence is not healthy.
I advocate for the death penalty in extreme cases.
All sentences are vengeance. Some forms of vengeance are not as finite as others. Nobody wants to exercise any form of vengeance, but we are forced to. Given that we are forced to... how do we respond?
Those who think victims like Victoria Stafford deserve a little more than 25 years of foosball and television for their murderer wouldn't agree with you, Hugh.
Except prisoners don't get 25 years of football and television, so your point is moot.
They don't get 25 years of cabbage soup, cold showers and day old bread either. My point stands.
Those who think victims like Victoria Stafford deserve a little more than 25 years of foosball and television for their murderer wouldn't agree with you, Hugh.
Except prisoners don't get 25 years of football and television, so your point is moot.
They don't get 25 years of cabbage soup, cold showers and day old bread either. My point stands.
Being confined to a tiny concrete cell 23 hours a day, with no t.v, and no football, doesn't constitute getting 25 years of football and television.
Are they? Or does the prison system have more to do with control? Vengeance usually takes the form of an emotional reaction that involves some form of violence. Whereas it's been argued that the prison system is really an extreme extension of society as a whole - see Michel Foucault's 'Discipline And Punish'.
Are they? Or does the prison system have more to do with control? Vengeance usually takes the form of an emotional reaction that involves some form of violence. Whereas it's been argued that the prison system is really an extreme extension of society as a whole - see Michel Foucault's 'Discipline And Punish'.
Vengeance could more accurately be described as any emotional reaction to an injustice or grievance. And vengeance isn't always exacted with violence.
Are they? Or does the prison system have more to do with control? Vengeance usually takes the form of an emotional reaction that involves some form of violence. Whereas it's been argued that the prison system is really an extreme extension of society as a whole - see Michel Foucault's 'Discipline And Punish'.
Vengeance could more accurately be described as any emotional reaction to an injustice or grievance. And vengeance isn't always exacted with violence.
I wouldn't describe imprisonment as violence, but more a form of humiliation and/or degradation. Though it could be argued that humiliation and degradation is a type of violence against a mans soul.
Vengeance could more accurately be described as any emotional reaction to an injustice or grievance. And vengeance isn't always exacted with violence.
I wouldn't describe imprisonment as violence, but more a form of humiliation and/or degradation, of which there is plenty in the prison system.
Sure... but nonetheless a form of vengeance, no?
Well, I just checked the dictionary definitions of 'Vengeance' and 'Punishment', and it turns out they're pretty much the same thing, so I'll give you this one.
There have been 303 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 236 exonerations.
• 18 of the 303 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,041.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.
Races of the 303 exonerees:
188 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
6 whose race is unknown
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 147 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.
• The Innocence Project was involved in 170 of the 303 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions. Read more.
Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct. Read more.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. 28 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.
Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases. Whenever informant testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the informant might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and informants should be recorded.
I am very familiar with the innocence project: 100s of individuals wrongfully convicted. The points you have posted are not lost on me.
We are never going to agree on this, Byrnzie; but nonetheless... don't get me wrong- I don't think all murders qualify for the death penalty. It is my opinion that the extreme cases demand it (serial/mass types or acts against children for example).
I realize if there is a shadow of doubt, people are not supposed to be convicted. So, I cannot say that certain perameters must be met to establish 100% guilt and then bring the death penalty into play- they were already supposed to be met. I would like this to be so though.
To my way of thinking... executing an innocent man is the only reason against the death penalty that makes me pause.
There have been 303 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 236 exonerations.
• 18 of the 303 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,041.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.
Races of the 303 exonerees:
188 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
6 whose race is unknown
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 147 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.
• The Innocence Project was involved in 170 of the 303 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions. Read more.
Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct. Read more.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. 28 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.
Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases. Whenever informant testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the informant might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and informants should be recorded.
To my way of thinking... executing an innocent man is the only reason against the death penalty that makes me pause.
I will never understand why anyone thinks it is their right to take the life of another human, no matter what. that's just not how civilization should work.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
To my way of thinking... executing an innocent man is the only reason against the death penalty that makes me pause.
I will never understand why anyone thinks it is their right to take the life of another human, no matter what. that's just not how civilization should work.
I know you feel this way, Hugh. You are more tolerant than I.
Civilization also should not see some of its members do some of the things we have borne witness to as well. The rape and mutilation of a child, or murders in serial fashion from a predatory animal warrant a punishment that meets the level of the crime (even though execution would not come close to matching depraved torture and rape followed by death).
Surely you must be able to see why some feel strongly regarding this?
To my way of thinking... executing an innocent man is the only reason against the death penalty that makes me pause.
I will never understand why anyone thinks it is their right to take the life of another human, no matter what. that's just not how civilization should work.
I know you feel this way, Hugh. You are more tolerant than I.
Civilization also should not see some of its members do some of the things we have borne witness to as well. The rape and mutilation of a child, or murders in serial fashion from a predatory animal warrant a punishment that meets the level of the crime (even though execution would not come close to matching depraved torture and rape followed by death).
Surely you must be able to see why some feel strongly regarding this?
in some ways, yes, I can see why some feel it is a just way of dealing with things. But I think, meaning no disrespect, that these people are short sighted and think that death is the worst punishment. it is reality that death is easier than life in prison. I really don't believe that is debatable. then again, after reading that article posted recently, that I think even life in solitary is not warranted, even in most extreme cases. I find that cruel and unusual. and i'm not a liberal bleeding heart like you paint me to be. far from it. these crimes anger me like you wouldn't believe. which actually can make it more difficult to hold the convictions about this topic that I do.
I just believe that it is no human's choice to take the life of another's no, NO exceptions.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
To my way of thinking... executing an innocent man is the only reason against the death penalty that makes me pause.
I will never understand why anyone thinks it is their right to take the life of another human, no matter what. that's just not how civilization should work.
I know you feel this way, Hugh. You are more tolerant than I.
Civilization also should not see some of its members do some of the things we have borne witness to as well. The rape and mutilation of a child, or murders in serial fashion from a predatory animal warrant a punishment that meets the level of the crime (even though execution would not come close to matching depraved torture and rape followed by death).
Surely you must be able to see why some feel strongly regarding this?
The death penalty acts as a deterrent to potential criminals
FACT
The death penalty does not deter crime. It stimulates it.
The death penalty does not deter crime
A new, comprehensive study states that there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. A panel at the National Research Counsel claims that no research about capital punishment to date can be trusted. Neither has it been investigated in the past 35 years whether the death penalty deters crime more than other punishments (e.g. life in prison).
US states practicing capital punishment have murder rates at least 48% higher than the states with no death penalty, and studies in the US have consistently shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent (Do executions lower homicide rates? The views of leading criminologists, a study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock). A recent poll found that only 1 in 100 American police chiefs feel the death penalty has a serious impact on crime.
“I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime." -Willie L.Williams, Police Chief, Los Angeles, CA
People do not consider the consequences of their actions at the time they commit murder.
People who commit murders either believe they will not be caught, are acting in a moment of a blinding anger or passion, or are substance abusers who murder impulsively. Furthermore, because the death penalty is discretionary, a defendant could not know in advance whether he would be sentenced to life or death.
2. The death penalty stimulates crime.
In the US, research shows that homicide actually increases on either side of an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect":
Executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill;
The state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable;
Executions also have an "imitation effect" in which people follow the state's example. If people feel the government can kill its enemies, they believe they can too (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983).
Ultimately, the death penalty teaches our children that killing is an acceptable way to deal with problems.
in some ways, yes, I can see why some feel it is a just way of dealing with things. But I think, meaning no disrespect, that these people are short sighted and think that death is the worst punishment. it is reality that death is easier than life in prison. I really don't believe that is debatable. then again, after reading that article posted recently, that I think even life in solitary is not warranted, even in most extreme cases. I find that cruel and unusual. and i'm not a liberal bleeding heart like you paint me to be. far from it. these crimes anger me like you wouldn't believe. which actually can make it more difficult to hold the convictions about this topic that I do.
I just believe that it is no human's choice to take the life of another's no, NO exceptions.
the vengeance you seek is the same vengeance that will take your child. that's the way I sometimes look at it. I too don't believe a life for a life is the answer. and I often think what if it were my child or loved one who was under the death sentence. would I feel the same way if I believed in a life for a life? the only answer I come up with is hell no of course not. what sane person would be ok with that? id be angry at the actions of my child or loved one... I couldn't stop loving them but could I just support them being put to death? absolutely not. if death is the only answer to heinous crimes then we as a society have failed. remove the killer from society for as long as it takes for them never to commit murder again.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
in some ways, yes, I can see why some feel it is a just way of dealing with things. But I think, meaning no disrespect, that these people are short sighted and think that death is the worst punishment. it is reality that death is easier than life in prison. I really don't believe that is debatable. then again, after reading that article posted recently, that I think even life in solitary is not warranted, even in most extreme cases. I find that cruel and unusual. and i'm not a liberal bleeding heart like you paint me to be. far from it. these crimes anger me like you wouldn't believe. which actually can make it more difficult to hold the convictions about this topic that I do.
I just believe that it is no human's choice to take the life of another's no, NO exceptions.
I think a lot more of you than what you suggest, Hugh.
Both you and Byrnzie (as do others) have very sound arguments against the Death Penalty. Many of the points are very difficult to argue against; however... I hold fast to my opinion that certain cases deserve it. I come from the camp of the survivors. You guys come from the camp of society as a whole. Which one warrants more consideration? You guys say society... I say the survivors.
Yes, I know some survivors do not wish for death for the ones that took away their most precious commodity, but likewise... there are members of society that feel death is justified given the crime.
There are many very well-versed people that feel the same as I. It's not so much about what could be the worst thing we could do to someone... it is about levelling a punishment befitting of the crime. I think this actually defines the standards for society: the crime is so detestable that society deems death as the only true measure of justice.
The death penalty acts as a deterrent to potential criminals
FACT
The death penalty does not deter crime. It stimulates it.
The death penalty does not deter crime
A new, comprehensive study states that there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. A panel at the National Research Counsel claims that no research about capital punishment to date can be trusted. Neither has it been investigated in the past 35 years whether the death penalty deters crime more than other punishments (e.g. life in prison).
US states practicing capital punishment have murder rates at least 48% higher than the states with no death penalty, and studies in the US have consistently shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent (Do executions lower homicide rates? The views of leading criminologists, a study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock). A recent poll found that only 1 in 100 American police chiefs feel the death penalty has a serious impact on crime.
“I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime." -Willie L.Williams, Police Chief, Los Angeles, CA
People do not consider the consequences of their actions at the time they commit murder.
People who commit murders either believe they will not be caught, are acting in a moment of a blinding anger or passion, or are substance abusers who murder impulsively. Furthermore, because the death penalty is discretionary, a defendant could not know in advance whether he would be sentenced to life or death.
2. The death penalty stimulates crime.
In the US, research shows that homicide actually increases on either side of an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect":
Executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill;
The state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable;
Executions also have an "imitation effect" in which people follow the state's example. If people feel the government can kill its enemies, they believe they can too (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983).
Ultimately, the death penalty teaches our children that killing is an acceptable way to deal with problems.
A panel at the National Research Counsel claims that no research about capital punishment to date can be trusted.
This works both ways. If one was inclined, one could make points suggesting that some states with the death penalty have managed to decrease the level of violent homicide. Statistics and polls can be manipulated to support almost anything.
88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent (Do executions lower homicide rates?
I contend that we don't use it as a deterrent. I agree that there are bigger social issues which are beyond our comprehension and we will always bear witness to sick, sadistic murders. We are human beings and our very nature lends itself to breeding potential monsters periodically. When the 'perfect storm' hits and these potential monsters meet certain sociological and psychological climates at the right influential time of development... well... we get Clifford Olson or Robert Pickton. This is more about justice and what is and what should be after the fact.
Executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill.
I call bullshit. This is just like saying the death penalty scares people so they don't kill. Not quite a (what the hell did you say that time?) load of odd cobblers but fluff.
Comments
:fp:
Probably so
and with good reason.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I wanted to barf.
It's called "The Paper Boy".
Even Jon Cusak's character was creepy.
Those who think victims like Victoria Stafford deserve a little more than 25 years of foosball and television for their murderer wouldn't agree with you, Hugh.
You see... they think that after Michael Rafferty chose to kidnap, savagely rape, and then murder 8 year old, Victoria with a hammer to her head... that he doesn't really deserve comfort.
And I'm not saying prison is a country club. For some... prison is almost unfair; but for sick, twisted murderers such as this loser... prison any way you can offer it is too good. Way too good.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
But if we kill via the death penalty, are we really any better than Rafferty? Put him in a cell, study his brain to see how it works to prevent future crime and make fker work for his food, stamp license plates. Vengence is not healthy.
As opposed to giving in to the alternative; going mad, or killing yourself.
Except prisoners don't get 25 years of football and television, so your point is moot.
I advocate for the death penalty in extreme cases.
All sentences are vengeance. Some forms of vengeance are not as finite as others. Nobody wants to exercise any form of vengeance, but we are forced to. Given that we are forced to... how do we respond?
They don't get 25 years of cabbage soup, cold showers and day old bread either. My point stands.
Being confined to a tiny concrete cell 23 hours a day, with no t.v, and no football, doesn't constitute getting 25 years of football and television.
Are they? Or does the prison system have more to do with control? Vengeance usually takes the form of an emotional reaction that involves some form of violence. Whereas it's been argued that the prison system is really an extreme extension of society as a whole - see Michel Foucault's 'Discipline And Punish'.
Vengeance could more accurately be described as any emotional reaction to an injustice or grievance. And vengeance isn't always exacted with violence.
I wouldn't describe imprisonment as violence, but more a form of humiliation and/or degradation. Though it could be argued that humiliation and degradation is a type of violence against a mans soul.
Sure... but nonetheless a form of vengeance, no?
Well, I just checked the dictionary definitions of 'Vengeance' and 'Punishment', and it turns out they're pretty much the same thing, so I'll give you this one.
Yep, sounds like paradise.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... ations.php
Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations
There have been 303 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 236 exonerations.
• 18 of the 303 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,041.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.
Races of the 303 exonerees:
188 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
6 whose race is unknown
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 147 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.
• The Innocence Project was involved in 170 of the 303 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions. Read more.
Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct. Read more.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. 28 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.
Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases. Whenever informant testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the informant might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and informants should be recorded.
I am very familiar with the innocence project: 100s of individuals wrongfully convicted. The points you have posted are not lost on me.
We are never going to agree on this, Byrnzie; but nonetheless... don't get me wrong- I don't think all murders qualify for the death penalty. It is my opinion that the extreme cases demand it (serial/mass types or acts against children for example).
I realize if there is a shadow of doubt, people are not supposed to be convicted. So, I cannot say that certain perameters must be met to establish 100% guilt and then bring the death penalty into play- they were already supposed to be met. I would like this to be so though.
To my way of thinking... executing an innocent man is the only reason against the death penalty that makes me pause.
Interesting stuff Byrnzie, thanks.
I will never understand why anyone thinks it is their right to take the life of another human, no matter what. that's just not how civilization should work.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I know you feel this way, Hugh. You are more tolerant than I.
Civilization also should not see some of its members do some of the things we have borne witness to as well. The rape and mutilation of a child, or murders in serial fashion from a predatory animal warrant a punishment that meets the level of the crime (even though execution would not come close to matching depraved torture and rape followed by death).
Surely you must be able to see why some feel strongly regarding this?
in some ways, yes, I can see why some feel it is a just way of dealing with things. But I think, meaning no disrespect, that these people are short sighted and think that death is the worst punishment. it is reality that death is easier than life in prison. I really don't believe that is debatable. then again, after reading that article posted recently, that I think even life in solitary is not warranted, even in most extreme cases. I find that cruel and unusual. and i'm not a liberal bleeding heart like you paint me to be. far from it. these crimes anger me like you wouldn't believe. which actually can make it more difficult to hold the convictions about this topic that I do.
I just believe that it is no human's choice to take the life of another's no, NO exceptions.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
There are worse things than death. Read the article 81 posted: http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/11/voi ... han-death/
MYTH
The death penalty acts as a deterrent to potential criminals
FACT
The death penalty does not deter crime. It stimulates it.
The death penalty does not deter crime
A new, comprehensive study states that there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. A panel at the National Research Counsel claims that no research about capital punishment to date can be trusted. Neither has it been investigated in the past 35 years whether the death penalty deters crime more than other punishments (e.g. life in prison).
US states practicing capital punishment have murder rates at least 48% higher than the states with no death penalty, and studies in the US have consistently shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent (Do executions lower homicide rates? The views of leading criminologists, a study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock). A recent poll found that only 1 in 100 American police chiefs feel the death penalty has a serious impact on crime.
“I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime." -Willie L.Williams, Police Chief, Los Angeles, CA
People do not consider the consequences of their actions at the time they commit murder.
People who commit murders either believe they will not be caught, are acting in a moment of a blinding anger or passion, or are substance abusers who murder impulsively. Furthermore, because the death penalty is discretionary, a defendant could not know in advance whether he would be sentenced to life or death.
2. The death penalty stimulates crime.
In the US, research shows that homicide actually increases on either side of an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect":
Executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill;
The state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable;
Executions also have an "imitation effect" in which people follow the state's example. If people feel the government can kill its enemies, they believe they can too (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983).
Ultimately, the death penalty teaches our children that killing is an acceptable way to deal with problems.
the vengeance you seek is the same vengeance that will take your child. that's the way I sometimes look at it. I too don't believe a life for a life is the answer. and I often think what if it were my child or loved one who was under the death sentence. would I feel the same way if I believed in a life for a life? the only answer I come up with is hell no of course not. what sane person would be ok with that? id be angry at the actions of my child or loved one... I couldn't stop loving them but could I just support them being put to death? absolutely not. if death is the only answer to heinous crimes then we as a society have failed. remove the killer from society for as long as it takes for them never to commit murder again.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think a lot more of you than what you suggest, Hugh.
Both you and Byrnzie (as do others) have very sound arguments against the Death Penalty. Many of the points are very difficult to argue against; however... I hold fast to my opinion that certain cases deserve it. I come from the camp of the survivors. You guys come from the camp of society as a whole. Which one warrants more consideration? You guys say society... I say the survivors.
Yes, I know some survivors do not wish for death for the ones that took away their most precious commodity, but likewise... there are members of society that feel death is justified given the crime.
There are many very well-versed people that feel the same as I. It's not so much about what could be the worst thing we could do to someone... it is about levelling a punishment befitting of the crime. I think this actually defines the standards for society: the crime is so detestable that society deems death as the only true measure of justice.
A panel at the National Research Counsel claims that no research about capital punishment to date can be trusted.
This works both ways. If one was inclined, one could make points suggesting that some states with the death penalty have managed to decrease the level of violent homicide. Statistics and polls can be manipulated to support almost anything.
88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent (Do executions lower homicide rates?
I contend that we don't use it as a deterrent. I agree that there are bigger social issues which are beyond our comprehension and we will always bear witness to sick, sadistic murders. We are human beings and our very nature lends itself to breeding potential monsters periodically. When the 'perfect storm' hits and these potential monsters meet certain sociological and psychological climates at the right influential time of development... well... we get Clifford Olson or Robert Pickton. This is more about justice and what is and what should be after the fact.
Executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill.
I call bullshit. This is just like saying the death penalty scares people so they don't kill. Not quite a (what the hell did you say that time?) load of odd cobblers
in any case - i see the arguments continue to be circular ... it's like every 10 pages it repeats itself ...