I did not read the case and while I always agree that there will be human error, I still feel that the risk of error is worth the reward. Now the prosecutor should be punished for this and I know that does not fix the mistake but there will always be human error. The loss of innocent life is terrible no doubt about it but there is also a loss of innocent life in war so should we give up our morales and standing for what is right?

 

One could argue since there is human error and horrible people in the medical field performing surgery we should discontinue it. There have been many doctors with God complex that have patients lives indangered just for the opportunity to save them.

 

While this is a tragic story it does not change the picture as a whole for me. Not saying I am right just my two cents.

 

Where do I begin?

 

I'll just ignore the war analogy . It's simply not plausible.

 

It's easy to say in theory that the loss of a few innocents is worth us getting the really bad guys. IN THEORY. UNTIL it's someone you know and love.

 

Human error by itself should be enough to nullify the DP.

 

The doctor argument, like the war argument, just doesn't fit. A person can forgo an operation if they are concerned. A falsely-accused person cannot forgo a trial.

Yeah, definitely with you. I don't know how you do it at all. I'd have a really hard time abolishing the death penalty and it meant those got to live.

 

I don't know how the DNA not matching doesn't end this case right then and there.

 

So I give you two options.

 

The law can tilts towards a guilty person living.

 

The law tilts towards your future son being falsely charged and put to death.

So I give you two options.

 

The law can tilts towards a guilty person living.

 

The law tilts towards your future son being falsely charged and put to death.

 

I'd choose to let the guilty person live. Don't think any father or future father would probably say differently.

 

I definitely get what you're saying, its just very hard to wrap my brain around completely abolishing the death penalty.

Yes those cases do.

 

However, how do you write law to allow those obvious cases vs the 1000s of cases like the guy in the article I linked? If you can't then IMO the desire to go "eye for an eye" against the Boston bomber is NOT worth killing an innocent person. I struggle with the logic that says otherwise.

I still don't think you can have it both ways. In this day and age, the evidence is different than back when we were kids. DNA, video, etc.

 

I totally understand your angst in this case and I wholeheartedly agree that an appeal of the case to be revisited should occur. And in the event it's found that a prosecutor, or someone of that ilk, has buried evidence prudent to the decision, I'm for their imprisonment.

I still don't think you can have it both ways. In this day and age, the evidence is different than back when we were kids. DNA, video, etc.

 

I totally understand your angst in this case and I wholeheartedly agree that an appeal of the case to be revisited should occur. And in the event it's found that a prosecutor, or someone of that ilk, has buried evidence prudent to the decision, I'm for their imprisonment.

 

Too late , though, for the dead innocent person. That's the issue.

 

Yes, science is there today but ONLY if the DA follows the rules and shares ALL info with the defense. They're humans. They get promoted and recognized for convictions and press. Too many will sacrifice the life of a "loser"(in their eyes) for their own personal wins.

 

That by itself is enough for me.

 

Quit putting dudes selling weed or users into prison. That will free up plenty of space for the truly guilty .

I'd choose to let the guilty person live. Don't think any father or future father would probably say differently.

 

I definitely get what you're saying, its just very hard to wrap my brain around completely abolishing the death penalty.

 

When it becomes personal it's much easier.

 

When it's abstract it's very easy to say "sucks for that person but we got the Bomber."

Wonder if there's enough manpower in the anti death penalty group to do a review of all 3000 cases on death row. Put a hold on all executions until it's completed. Cases like this sure seem like they would be an easy discovery for an independent reviewer. Obviously other cases are not so blatant and would take more time. Probably a pipe dream.

It's hard for me to see any way that we, as a society, benefit from putting people to death.

Too late , though, for the dead innocent person. That's the issue.

 

Yes, science is there today but ONLY if the DA follows the rules and shares ALL info with the defense. They're humans. They get promoted and recognized for convictions and press. Too many will sacrifice the life of a "loser"(in their eyes) for their own personal wins.

 

That by itself is enough for me.

 

Quit putting dudes selling weed or users into prison. That will free up plenty of space for the truly guilty .

I don't really have any issue with anything you're saying. However, is it really much different if a "rogue" DA puts an innocent man in prison for life without the possibility of parole with the exception of the date of death? I'm not comparing the two sentences other than to say that it will happen if we don't have some oversight in the legal system where someone loses their life in either instance.

 

I just think that there are instances where there are those slamdunks that need the chamber. McVeigh for one, among many others.

 

Should/could we be more selective? Sure.

What's the difference between putting an innocent person in prison for life with no chance of parole or putting them to death. They have lost their life in either case. Maybe evidence comes out to clear an accused, but wouldn't that evidence come out in the 15-20 years they sit on death row?

What's the difference between putting an innocent person in prison for life with no chance of parole or putting them to death. They have lost their life in either case. Maybe evidence comes out to clear an accused, but wouldn't that evidence come out in the 15-20 years they sit on death row?

 

I'm not sure what your point is. The difference would be that the person is still alive and MAYBE can get someone to help him.

I don't really have any issue with anything you're saying. However, is it really much different if a "rogue" DA puts an innocent man in prison for life without the possibility of parole with the exception of the date of death? I'm not comparing the two sentences other than to say that it will happen if we don't have some oversight in the legal system where someone loses their life in either instance.

 

I just think that there are instances where there are those slamdunks that need the chamber. McVeigh for one, among many others.

 

Should/could we be more selective? Sure.

 

Agreed on slam dunks. How do you word that to ensure the innocent non-slam dunks do not get put to death?

I've said it before I don't like the idea of the government having the ability to end a citizens life.

 

An enemy combatant or a terrorist is different .

I'm not sure what your point is. The difference would be that the person is still alive and MAYBE can get someone to help him.

 

What is the average a person is on death row? If you are wrongly accused, I think 15 - 20 years is enough to clear your name. How many wrongly accused get out of prison that were sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole after 20 years? I think you see more people working harder to free a death row prisoner than you would a lifer. If you get sentenced to life, I think there is a good chance you will be there for life. To me, that would be the same as a death sentence.

What is the average a person is on death row? If you are wrongly accused, I think 15 - 20 years is enough to clear your name. How many wrongly accused get out of prison that were sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole after 20 years? I think you see more people working harder to free a death row prisoner than you would a lifer. If you get sentenced to life, I think there is a good chance you will be there for life. To me, that would be the same as a death sentence.

 

I can't answer that.

 

I also wouldn't use that as justification to keep the DP.