The Death Penalty

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

callen wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.

The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.

The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.

Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.

Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.

Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.

No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.

No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.

And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.

No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.

And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.

Sometimes conclusive evidence can be false evidence. Again, unless the justice system is infallible and free of corruption, there is always a risk of innocent people being murdered.

Not to mention the fact that punishing people for murder with murder is a dubious and sinister thing to do.

Explain to me how the actual scenario I presented as 'conclusive evidence' could be considered 'false evidence'.

Dubious and sinister? Check the definitions for these terms. Then compare them with the definition of justice.

If you feel good about housing Clifford Olson for all those years: paying him cash so he would tell where the bodies of the children rested after he tortured, raped and murdered them; providing him sex dolls; ensuring he received the greatest cancer treatments possible; and other such 'nice' things... then that is your value system. Don't paint me as 'evil' for my value system which seeks an appropriate punishment that meets the crime and I won't paint you as a tissue soft, bleeding heart weakling.

callen wrote:

Respect your posts and views but criticize argument not the person.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.

The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.

On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.

Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... ase-denied

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.

The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.

On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.

Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... ase-denied

I think the general consensus is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to go to prison or be killed. I personally agree with that sentiment. You are fully aware of all the implications that issue has on our right to freedom and liberty, so I don't have to go into that obviously.

callen wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

callen wrote:

Respect your posts and views but criticize argument not the person.

This goes both ways doesn't it?

Geez, man. Are you serious?

I don't call out my fellow pj peeps as being weak.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

callen wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.

The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.

The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.

Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.

Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.

Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.

No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.

No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.

And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.

The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.

On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.

Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... ase-denied

I think the general consensus is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to go to prison or be killed. I personally agree with that sentiment. You are fully aware of all the implications that issue has on our right to freedom and liberty, so I don't have to go into that obviously.

I have already said I seek 100% certainty before convicting anyone of a crime. My point to illustrating the 2 examples I provided were to illustrate the fact that the law is not ruthlessly detaining people on hunches and suspicions as is sometimes suggested in these discussions.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Again, spoken from the 'soft' perspective. You are completely entitled to your opinion which, no doubtedly, would change if you were directly affected by such a crime. Nice and easy to philosophize about fluff when it's not your child with nails driven into his skull after he was raped, huh?

I have no idea how I would feel if that happened to me, and neither do you, but I do NOT think my perspective on this issue would change if it did, and there are MANY people who have had such things happen to their loved ones who do not support the death penalty. I do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime.

Dr. William Petit changed his stance and viewpoint on capital punishment after his wife and two daughters were taken from him. Understandably so.

You do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime? Provide me with a link that demonstrates such. I would agree that there are some people that feel as you describe... but they are the overwhelming minority.

In the entirety of this thread, I have produced multiple links that have shown the peace and closure victims have felt when their children's murderer is sentenced to death or put to death.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Your values. I'm okay with you having them. I get my back up when I'm called out on mine that are different than yours- in particular when I feel I am right.