Got to love stereotypes...much easier to go that way then to try to understand people.

 

 

Much easier!

Change "many on death row" to "some on death row" and I'm with you. That by itself is my #1 issue with the DP.

 

 

:thumb:

When it comes to the death penalty, 'one' is a "material number." I do not accept collateral damage like that.

 

 

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty and very pround of it!

 

I think that is sad!:cry:

Babies should not be killed, they do not have a choice and plently of people would love to adopt them. When someone kills someone with malice intent they should be put to death.

It is a matter of due process. Criminals get an over abundance of it. The preborn get nothing.

 

I do like HOMELESS CAMEL's 100% rule. However, I would apply it to the woman carrying the baby. Is it 100% certain and verifiable (never trust the word of one doctor) that her life is truly in eminent danger if she carries the baby to term? If not, there is no legitimate justification for destroying a life. If absolutely so, it could possibly be argued that abortion is self defense.

A federal judge in Boston said yesterday that there was mounting evidence innocent people were being executed. But he declined to rule the death penalty unconstitutional.

 

"In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood," the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial.

 

He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence.

 

This judge makes no arguement to do away with the death penalty. With the number of appeals and the time between conviction and execution, if there is DNA evidence or other evidence that would exonerate the guilty party it would come out in time. At the time when an execution is carried out there is little to no doubt.

This judge makes no arguement to do away with the death penalty. With the number of appeals and the time between conviction and execution, if there is DNA evidence or other evidence that would exonerate the guilty party it would come out in time. At the time when an execution is carried out there is little to no doubt.

 

Ever heard of Mark Furman?

Withheld evidence. Destroyed evidence. Witnesses paid to lie. Prosecutors with an agenda. "Experts" who don't think they can be touch, or whom aren't challenged. Overworked, incompetent public defenders, most fresh out of law school. Add that to a system with a built-in bias towards belief in prosecution and police testimony.

 

For every malicious killer out there, there is at least one Mike Nifong.

Babies should not be killed, they do not have a choice and plently of people would love to adopt them. When someone kills someone with malice intent they should be put to death.

 

Kind-of like an eye for an eye. I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right! Just my toughts.

This judge makes no arguement to do away with the death penalty. With the number of appeals and the time between conviction and execution, if there is DNA evidence or other evidence that would exonerate the guilty party it would come out in time. At the time when an execution is carried out there is little to no doubt.

That's not the way the appeal process works. Appeals are based upon administrative mistakes made by the lower court. New evidence is almost never allowed to be presented at appeal.

Babies should not be killed, they do not have a choice and plently of people would love to adopt them. When someone kills someone with malice intent they should be put to death.

 

Why? Defend your argument, please.

That's not the way the appeal process works. Appeals are based upon administrative mistakes made by the lower court. New evidence is almost never allowed to be presented at appeal.

 

And DNA testing is a rare commodity for Defendant's in their lower court cases.

Here is an article about mistakes, intentional and unintentional, made my lab technicians in crime labs. Has a mention of the UK football player who was shot. This article covers DNA and firearm analysis.

 

FBI lab scientist Kathleen Lundy, an expert witness in murder trials who performs chemical comparisons of lead bullets, was indicted earlier this year on a charge of misdemeanor false swearing by Kentucky authorities after she acknowledged she knowingly gave false testimony in a 2002 pretrial hearing for a man accused of murdering a University of Kentucky football player.

 

http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm

There are reasonable moral and policy arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate. I don't think that either side can concretely demonstrate that the other is morally or pragmatically wrong. Where we, as a country, fall down on the issue will depend upon what we, as a country, want our society to look like.

 

The one area where I tend to disagree with those who have advocated against the death penalty here is on the issue of executing innocent people, and whether that is acceptable collateral damage.

 

The fact of the matter is is that we in this country "accept" innocent lives lost as collateral damage all of the time to policy decisions, without batting an eye. I recall Dennis Prager rebutting George Will's stance on this with the 'Speed Limit' analogy. We know, through studies, that raising the speed limit will result in some amount of innocent additional lives being lost, but we accept that collateral damage as a necessary side-effect to the policy benefit of increased interstate commerce. Countless other analogies are applicable here. Additionally, with the 'corrupt prosecutor' argument, the same evidence is true in all other justice system cases, but we put no energy into arguing reform of those cases. Why? Because the stakes in death penalty cases are higher? That argument only underscores that we are willing to accept the 'collateral damage' of people being imprisoned wrongfully, just not executed wrongfully. The argument just does not work.

 

In the end, when there are enough people to vote for one side of the issue, the law will change, perhaps even go back and forth. I am content to follow His command in Romans that we should follow the law, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.