Vallerina 2 #51 January 10, 2006 Quote I'm 100% against it. And I agree 100% The death penalty is not a deterrent. Also, the government shouldn't be allowed to play God and decide who lives and dies. Killing just one innocent man is too many. Whether someone is dead or in jail, they are no longer a threat to society, so why not let them live?There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,070 #52 January 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteEurope, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other nations with similar culture to US do not seem to have suffered any from abolishing the death penalty. I'm 100% against it. Other countries being (either better or worse) is not an argument (your words, frequently). Agreed, but I wasn't making a value judgement. Other countries' experiences in abolishing it with no ill effects are valid data in the debate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #53 January 10, 2006 QuoteQuote I'm 100% against it. And I agree 100% The death penalty is not a deterrent. Also, the government shouldn't be allowed to play God and decide who lives and dies. Killing just one innocent man is too many. Whether someone is dead or in jail, they are no longer a threat to society, so why not let them live? I agree 100%----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #54 January 10, 2006 Quote>If the intention is truly to lock someone up until they die - why >not just execute them. 'cuz a) it's cheaper and b) if we have a flawed system (as we do now) then you can 'fix' the mistake later. If we fix the system, then the only issue is - what's cheaper? Right now life in prison is. We can fix that (the fact that it costs more to execute them than to kill them). As someone else said, it's ridiculous to see superfluous appeals when the guilt is established beyond all doubt. It appears with our current DNA testing technology, we are nearly to the point, or maybe already there with a few new rules, where mistakes will be so rare as to be within acceptable limits. I know that sounds cold at first, but think about it - would we stop building cars forever knowing that someday, somewhere, a car is going to be built that will result in a death because of poor workmanship or design? Absolutely not (Pintos, Gremlins, and Vegas aside)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #55 January 10, 2006 Quotewould we stop building cars forever knowing that someday, somewhere, a car is going to be built that will result in a death because of poor workmanship or design? Absolutely not (Pintos, Gremlins, and Vegas aside). but, but, DON. If it just saves ONE INNOCENT LIFE. I'm converted, we should eliminate all cars immediately. other side - BUT, convenient transportation is so much more important than heinous crime. Edit: Actually, it's a great point and highlights that there is a level of tradeoff between accuracy and societal needs - even in terms of life or death. I'm 100% convinced of that. Whether we want to accept it or not is another issue. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #56 January 10, 2006 Quotestatistics can prove the pope is a gay black man, if you're so determinded It's way easier than that! Just unzip the pope-suit he's wearing! -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #57 January 10, 2006 QuoteQuotewould we stop building cars forever knowing that someday, somewhere, a car is going to be built that will result in a death because of poor workmanship or design? Absolutely not (Pintos, Gremlins, and Vegas aside). but, but, DON. If it just saves ONE INNOCENT LIFE. I'm converted, we should eliminate all cars immediately. other side - BUT, convenient transportation is so much more important than heinous crime. Edit: Actually, it's a great point and highlights that there is a level of tradeoff between accuracy and societal needs - even in terms of life or death. I'm 100% convinced of that. Whether we want to accept it or not is another issue. You've revealed my secret identity! Curses, to the Barn, . . . I mean Batcave." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #58 January 11, 2006 Quote We can fix that (the fact that it costs more to execute them than to kill them). As someone else said, it's ridiculous to see superfluous appeals when the guilt is established beyond all doubt. ). It is unconstutional not to appeal. Wouldn't work.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #59 January 12, 2006 QuoteI think everyone pretty much knows that occasionally innocent people are put to death, but this will be the first concrete evidence of it. Nope. Test confirms guilt of Virginia man executed in 1992 Reuters Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:01 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new DNA test confirmed the guilt of a Virginia man who proclaimed his innocence up until his 1992 execution for rape and murder, the Virginia governor's office said on Thursday. "We have sought the truth using DNA technology not available at the time the (Virginia) Commonwealth carried out the ultimate criminal sanction" against Roger Keith Coleman, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner said in a statement. "The confirmation that Roger Coleman's DNA was present reaffirms the verdict and the sanction." Coleman was executed in May 1992 for the 1981 rape and murder of his 19-year-old sister-in-law, Wanda McCoy. He repeatedly proclaimed his innocence. The governor's office said the new test by the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto concluded Coleman could not be excluded, on the basis of biological evidence, as the source of incriminating DNA found on the victim. "The probability that a randomly selected individual unrelated to Roger Coleman would coincidentally share the observed DNA profile is estimated to be 1 in 19 million," the center said in its report. The original DNA testing in the case, done in 1990, indicated that evidence taken from the victim would match DNA shared by Coleman and 2 percent of the Caucasian and African-American populations. New Jersey-based Centurion Ministries, which advocates for those it believes are wrongly convicted and pushed for the updated DNA test in Coleman's case, accepted the lab's findings. "We who seek the truth must live or die by the sword of DNA," James McCloskey, Centurion's executive director, said in a statement. "I had always believed in Roger's complete innocence. In my view, he had no motive, means or opportunity to do this crime. I now know that I was wrong. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow." Warner, a Democrat who supports the death penalty, leaves office on Saturday. Last month, Warner pardoned two men who served prison terms for sexual assault after they were exonerated by DNA testing techniques unavailable when they went to trial. The men had already completed their sentences, serving terms of nearly 20 years and 11 years, respectively. © Reuters 2006 Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-01-12T210111Z_01_DIT275657_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-VIRGINIA-DNA.xml&archived=False Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #60 January 12, 2006 Well this is good news, I can rest peacfully knowing he recieved a just punishment for his crime. (Next) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #61 January 13, 2006 Yeah, I just read about the latest test results tonight, it looks like he really did it, along with the other evidence. Anyway the guy's still dead. My dad was the foreman on a murder jury in Boston about ten years ago. It was a very difficult case, based on circumstantial evidence. The crime had been committed some years before and had gone "cold", except for one determined detective who kept working it when he could find the time. The murder weapon had never been found. Dad said that it was a lot easier to keep his mind on the facts because he didn't have to worry about whether he might be responsible for executing an innocent man, as Massachusetts has no death penalty. In the end they convicted the guy and he was sent up for life - in Walpole, which is such a miserable shithole that prisoners have to buy their drinking water from the trusties who are supposed to serve it to them. So no question the guy's being richly punished. But my dad, who signed the verdict, also feels better that IF he made a mistake, the guy could be let go someday, if he lives that long. Recommended reading/viewing is either the book or video of "The Thin Blue Line", about a guy named Randall Adams, who was very nearly executed in Texas for a cop killing he didn't commit. Adams was a drifter who had his troubles with the law, not the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to bring home for dinner. But not a killer or a cop killer. But he couldn't afford a decent lawyer either and by the time he was arrested, the local law enforcement was ready to pin the crime on just about anybody, so they decided to pin it on him. They even based most of their case on testimony from the guy who turned out to be the real killer ! They never questioned any of the onconsistencies in the evidence or his testimony, it was a complete travesty. Adams was first commuted to a life sentence and it took many more years before his conviction was reversed and the state declined to re-try him. And this is the same state that leads the nation in executions. Their recent ex-governor, now unfortunately our President personally approved 152 executions because he "knew they were all guilty". If you don't trust the government to deliver the fucking mail, how in god's name can you trust it to put people to death ? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 January 13, 2006 QuoteQuote We can fix that (the fact that it costs more to execute them than to kill them). As someone else said, it's ridiculous to see superfluous appeals when the guilt is established beyond all doubt. ). It is unconstutional not to appeal. Wouldn't work. Would you please cite the section of the Constitution to which you are referring as a guarantee of the right to appeal a murder conviction? I'm not saying it's not there somewhere, but I'm wondering what you think forms such a guarantee. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of anything in the Bill of Rights that clearly protects a right to appeal a criminal conviction. And I see NOTHING AT ALL to justify "automatic appeals" of a capital conviction, which some states have. That must surely be strictly a legislated thing. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christoofar 0 #63 January 13, 2006 Well he did it. Now we know. ____________________________________________________________ I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #64 January 13, 2006 QuoteQuote I'm 100% against it. And I agree 100% The death penalty is not a deterrent. Also, the government shouldn't be allowed to play God and decide who lives and dies. Killing just one innocent man is too many. Whether someone is dead or in jail, they are no longer a threat to society, so why not let them live? The government brings the charges and prosecutes the case. It is the People who form the jury and decide guilt or innocence. This is not a case of some untouchable tribunal deciding life-or-death. This is the way the laws made by the People's representatives set forth the rules by which we play. The issue is that we as a society don't seem to have the balls to keep dangerous people in prison. Yes, it's true that if people are in prison they are not out and about to harm the public. But they aren't kept there forever, not even the ones who commit vicious, reprehensible crimes. And even the ones who are not allowed out escape now and then, so having them in prison will not necessarily keep the public safe. No dead guy ever murdered anyone. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #65 January 13, 2006 QuoteDad said that it was a lot easier to keep his mind on the facts because he didn't have to worry about whether he might be responsible for executing an innocent man, as Massachusetts has no death penalty. I would have thought that if the consequences were grave, that would inspire people to weigh the facts all the harder. But that's just me. QuoteBut my dad, who signed the verdict, also feels better that IF he made a mistake, the guy could be let go someday, if he lives that long. And if the guy rotted in prison for 20 years before someone got off their ass and got him exonerated, your dad would not be very nearly as upset that the guy lived 20 years in a hellish prison existence (you described it being pretty bad in Walpole)?? Some people describe a death sentence as "getting off easy" compared with life in prison, since living in prison sucks big-time. Yet here you are, saying that your dad would have felt better, if a mistaken verdict had been given, if the guy had been enduring the horror of being wrongly imprisoned for 20 years rather than being dead -- "the easy way out." So your explanationof your dad's rationale for preferring life in prison is AT ODDS WITH what many others say about WHY they want people given life. Many people say they want life (as opposed to death) BECAUSE it's a nastier sentence for a nasty person who deserves it. Death penalty proponents like me say we want death because it's the final punishment, and says, "Hey, scumbag, you don't get to enjoy the privilege of living anymore, and you have to face the psychological horror of being put to death!" Which side are you on: the side that wants life imprisonment because it's harsh, or because it's a way to make amends if there's a wrongful conviction, and death would be "too final"? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #66 January 13, 2006 QuoteIf you don't trust the government to deliver the fucking mail, how in god's name can you trust it to put people to death ? Strawman. Who said we don't trust the government to deliver the mail? They always do fine by me, actually. Every time we put a letter into the mail, we're trusting them to get it there. Do they often fail you? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #67 January 13, 2006 QuoteBut my dad, who signed the verdict, also feels better that IF he made a mistake, the guy could be let go someday, This is frightening, your Dad helped put someone in jail for a very serious crime even though he had a 'shadow of reasonable doubt'? Or was it just butterflies. This is a poor acceptance of the juror's responsibilities (IMO). The potential penalty should have nothing to do with the juror's responsibility to return the verdict to the best of their abilities. A jury must decide guilt or innocence first, the penalty for the crime should have nothing to do with it. If execution is the penalty for a crime, then the execution of the guilty person is the fault of the guilty party for committing the crime, not the fault of the jury that gave the verdict. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #68 January 13, 2006 QuoteNew Jersey-based Centurion Ministries, which advocates for those it believes are wrongly convicted and pushed for the updated DNA test in Coleman's case, accepted the lab's findings. "We who seek the truth must live or die by the sword of DNA," James McCloskey, Centurion's executive director, said in a statement. "I had always believed in Roger's complete innocence. In my view, he had no motive, means or opportunity to do this crime. I now know that I was wrong. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow." Obviously, this person never truly believed. McCloskey sold out. The way things are done is that you state emphatically and believe in his innocence. The more DNA evidence and other evidence that you have that shows he actually did it, the more you declare the system to be unjust. How can this guy just accept this to be so? He's got no future whatsoever in the political arena. "A bitter pill to swallow?" Why in the hell would he admit that? I wish everyone had his level of integrity. You just don't see that every day. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolph 0 #69 January 13, 2006 Dammit dude, you keep beating me on delivering the Good Points(tm)! I have taken note of this behaviour. You, Sir, are clearly a stalker. Not much to add really. Guilt or innocence dictates whether a person should be punished. The act the person is guilty of dictates what the punishment will be. Guilty/Not guilty --> to punish or not Act guilty of --> determines range of punishment Not range of punishment --> affects "degree of guilt". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #70 January 13, 2006 QuoteQuote I'm 100% against it. And I agree 100% The death penalty is not a deterrent. Also, the government shouldn't be allowed to play God and decide who lives and dies. Killing just one innocent man is too many. Whether someone is dead or in jail, they are no longer a threat to society, so why not let them live? I completely agree with Vallerina...for once. I don't think we should have the power to take a man's life away for the sake of punishment. ( war is a different story) Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #71 January 13, 2006 QuoteDammit dude, you keep beating me on delivering the Good Points(tm)! I have taken note of this behaviour. You, Sir, are clearly a stalker. I'm more worried about being annoying on the internet. I don't want to go to jail. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #72 January 13, 2006 Did anyone mention that one movie? I forget the name, with Kate Winslet as a reporter interviewing a guy on death row about to be executed who knew he was innocent and timed it so that she would only be able to prove it after he was put to death? Very interesting. Edited to add: Googled it: The Life of David Gale 2002, with Kate Winslet & Kevin Spacey. Regarding the death penalty, I'm not really for it, or against it. It certainly doesn't weigh heavily on my mind. But, for such a usually decisive person, it annoys me I can't seem to stick with one thought on this onePaint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #73 January 14, 2006 Don't feel bad -- I can't make up my mind on abortion! (Used to be staunchly "pro-choice"; now I find myself inexplicably feeling that no, it IS killing what amounts to a human life, and I feel opposed to it. At the same time, I see futility and danger in trying to ban it. But I read a statistic in the paper the other day -- a whole story about abortion -- that last year there were 1.2 MILLION abortions in the U.S., and that was a DECREASE from prior years! That's a lot of dead babies, dude.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #74 January 14, 2006 Interesting...one part of my problem with the death penelty is I'm pro-choice. So, I don't see how I could be against the death penalty without calling myself a hypocrite. But, still....I have other thoughts on the subject I'd rather not get in to. Like I said, it doesn't weigh heavily on my mind. I'm more concerned with increasing the severity of the the maximum sentences for child abusers/molesters and sex offenders---and in those cases, I find myself really leaning toward death penalty!Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #75 January 14, 2006 QuoteQuote I completely agree with Vallerina...for once. I don't think we should have the power to take a man's life away for the sake of punishment. ( war is a different story) Far more than combatants are killed in war. Sarah, it seems that you have forgotton about the collaterals. The innocent children, mothers and fathers and all the people who are there to help those who are injured due to collateral damage. When you say "war is a different story" what type of war are you refering to. All wars? Or, a particular kind of war? In my opinion, as is that of like minded people, war is nothing but a death machine and does not discriminate. Anyone or anything in its path will feel its wrath. By unleashing this machine, man is playing "god" and using this power to take the lives of many who are not the objective of the conflict. The death penalty has handed down to many in Iraq when Bush decided to invaded and occupy. It is the screwed up mentality of a nation that views killing in one fashion to be good and the opposite in another. I have stated before that I have no solid view one way or the other on the death penalty. If a person was to be convicted for killing my family members, I would much rather they do solitary confinement untill death. Yet, I would not fight the state to keep that person alive. I would want that person to suffer. Anyways, it turned out that Roger Coleman was guilty. They should test many others where there is doubt and put some minds to ease."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)