To be as objective as possible, I went to the Innocence Project site you linked. Here’s the absolutely distilled essence I found:

 

Since 1989—the time the first DNA exoneration took place— there have been 208 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Of these, 15 of the 208 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

 

While I agree that is is terribly unfortunate, if not unconscionable for an innocent person to serve time on death row, I could find nowhere on the site giving hard evidence of any innocent victim being wrongfully put to death for a crime he/she did not commit.

 

In that same 19 year window of time from 1989 through 2007, the CDC documents over 20 million legally performed abortions in the United States of America. That’s over ONE MILLION a YEAR… about THREE THOUSAND a DAY. It is logically, intellectually and spiritually impossible to get any more innocent as a human than a new born baby.

 

I find it monumentally mindboggling that some of you seem so concerned with the possibility of one innocent adult being wrongfully executed for a crime he did not commit, while turning a blind conscience to over 3,000 truly innocent children being killed every day in this nation.

 

Upon examining the facts, this argument is absurd to the extreme.

 

The only thing I would offer in rebuttal is the following:

 

According to these figures, 15 people who were going to be executed, were saved from horrific and wrongful execution by DNA test results, since 1989. DNA, of course, is only one small type of evidence that can be looked at during the "exhaustive appeal process" Kingfish describes. How many other persons are on death row that are there as the result of poor eyewitness testimony? Planted evidence? Surely I don't have to convince others (least of all Kingfish) of the inherent fallability of eyewitness testimony.

 

The other thing, of course, is that DNA evidence has only been viable since 1989, and really only truly useful since about 1997. How many wrongful executions were performed before DNA was there to save us?

 

The fact of the matter is that AllTell keeps asking for specific examples of people wrongfully executed, when he knows darned well that we don't go out very often and re-examine cases of people who have been already executed, so he knows he is asking us to prove a negative.

 

The numbers you have provided indicate that 15 people were saved from a wrongful execution by a miracle of evidence. How many more in the "age of exhaustive appeals" were not so lucky? You have to concede the likelihood is very high. 15 since 1989, in the end, is too high for me.

Anytime that the human element is added to an exercise, the chance of error will always be part of the mix. As Heresay points out, this is true with eyewitnesses. It is true with the gathering of and evaluation of evidence. It is also true with the jury system.

 

 

Nonetheless, as I tell my students, until someone comes up with a more exact method, this admittedly flawed system is it.

 

Because of the tireless and seemingly endless checks and balances (hearings, reviews, appeals, etc.) involved in death penalty cases, the percentage of innocent persons receiving the prescribed punishment is far less than in any of the "lesser" crimes and, most likely, near zero.

 

If, as Jim Schue suggests, my position makes it a deception for me to claim to be "pro-life", so be it. I'll just say I am anti-abortion and pro-victim which includes being pro-death penalty.

 

As for the Kentucky case, look for a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy breaking the tie in favor of the proposition that the procedure is not cruel and unusual punishment. I would add that the cruel and unusual punishment was suffered by the law enforcement officers who were brutally murdered as well as by their surviving families.

I would like to know how the people that oppose the death penalty feel about police officers or citizens taking the life of someone that pose a danger to their life or someone else's life?

I would like to know how the people that oppose the death penalty feel about police officers or citizens taking the life of someone that pose a danger to their life or someone else's life?

 

That is a case in which someone is about to be hurt, and that officer can obviously see the guilt of the person. Also I do believe that Police officers will use deadly force as a last resort.

I would like to know how the people that oppose the death penalty feel about police officers or citizens taking the life of someone that pose a danger to their life or someone else's life?

 

Great question. I can rationalize this by saying that if its "me or you" or "police or bad guy" in a showdown of survival, I'm all for it. If the criminal is going to force the issue, he/she does so at their own risk.

 

The difference is once you have them in custody and behind bars they're no longer a threat so why the need to execute? There are way too many arguments on both sides of the "does the death penalty work" debate to convince me one way or the other, thus, I fall on the side of perpetual lockdown.

That is a case in which someone is about to be hurt, and that officer can obviously see the guilt of the person. Also I do believe that Police officers will use deadly force as a last resort.

 

It's still killing another person for crimes their committing or about to commit, I fail to see the difference, in one case you kill them in the moment of their crime, in the other you kill them after a jury of their peers convicts them of said crime, if your argument to that is a jury can make a mistake, well I'm sure several people have been killed by poor judgment from citizens/officers...

 

And on a side note, I’m appalled to see that you are studying to be a minister and have the stance you do on some pretty serious subjects in today’s society. IMO a minister should study God’s word before they open their mouth and take a stance on anything, in other words a ministers stance should be Gods stance and if its not then your most likely working for the wrong guy…

It certainly seems to me that if any of the various anti-death penalty groups could prove conclusively that an innocent has been executed it would go a long way towards fulfilling their agenda.

 

And Gooch you have said that "only God should decide when to kill someone". I ask again what are your views on euthanasia?

It's still killing another person for crimes their committing or about to commit, I fail to see the difference, in one case you kill them in the moment of their crime, in the other you kill them after a jury of their peers convicts them of said crime, if your argument to that is a jury can make a mistake, well I'm sure several people have been killed by poor judgment from citizens/officers...

 

And on a side note, I’m appalled to see that you are studying to be a minister and have the stance you do on some pretty serious subjects in today’s society. IMO a minister should study God’s word before they open their mouth and take a stance on anything, in other words a ministers stance should be Gods stance and if its not then your most likely working for the wrong guy…

 

My thoughts exactly . . . :ylsuper:

 

Abortion: Don't care for it at all. Probably only would accept it in the case of a rape or if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. But it's not an issue I even consider when ducking into the voting booth, and I hate that it has become that issue for most of the rest of the country.

 

I will address this because I have openly said that abortion is the #1 and in some cases the ONLY consideration that I give in voting.

 

I have not a problem in it, because I feel that is the #1 problem this country has. It is to our generation as slavery was to the generation in the mid-1800's. Would you have been opposed to someone voting on an anti-slavery issue only?

 

Would you feel better that I look at how a candidate will handle the economy and tax breaks meaning how much money is in my pocket compared to the importance of a life?

 

I will give you the same answer I gave my Democrat parents when they were ripping me for voting Republicans "who are nothing but for the wealthy," I care less for what is in my pocket than I do for this country protecting the lives of babies. I hope they can sit in their rockers comfortably knowing that they have more $$$ in their pocket (although that is not true with Dems) while 3,500 babies are being aborted everyday. And remember Billy Boy VETOED the partial birth abortion bill that would have let babies been partially born, 1/2 sticking out of their mothers and then aborted.

 

To paraphrase you, I hate it that money in their pockets is more of an issue to some in this country than the lives of babies.

 

Let me also say, please don't anyone take this as any type of personal attack on JS. I have grown to have tremendouse respect for his views and opinions, even though we do not agree with each other a lot. He gives me things to think about and challenges me.

I will address this because I have openly said that abortion is the #1 and in some cases the ONLY consideration that I give in voting.

 

I have not a problem in it, because I feel that is the #1 problem this country has. It is to our generation as slavery was to the generation in the mid-1800's. Would you have been opposed to someone voting on an anti-slavery issue only?

 

Would you feel better that I look at how a candidate will handle the economy and tax breaks meaning how much money is in my pocket compared to the importance of a life?

 

I will give you the same answer I gave my Democrat parents when they were ripping me for voting Republicans "who are nothing but for the wealthy," I care less for what is in my pocket than I do for this country protecting the lives of babies. I hope they can sit in their rockers comfortably knowing that they have more $$$ in their pocket (although that is not true with Dems) while 3,500 babies are being aborted everyday. And remember Billy Boy VETOED the partial birth abortion bill that would have let babies been partially born, 1/2 sticking out of their mothers and then aborted.

 

To paraphrase you, I hate it that money in their pockets is more of an issue to some in this country than the lives of babies.

 

I appreciate the passion in your response. It gives me insight into your side of the argument.

I would like to know how the people that oppose the death penalty feel about police officers or citizens taking the life of someone that pose a danger to their life or someone else's life?

 

I suffer no qualms from using deadly force in self-defense or defense of others, and would not hesitate to do so myself.

I will address this because I have openly said that abortion is the #1 and in some cases the ONLY consideration that I give in voting.

 

I have not a problem in it, because I feel that is the #1 problem this country has. It is to our generation as slavery was to the generation in the mid-1800's. Would you have been opposed to someone voting on an anti-slavery issue only?

 

Would you feel better that I look at how a candidate will handle the economy and tax breaks meaning how much money is in my pocket compared to the importance of a life?

 

I will give you the same answer I gave my Democrat parents when they were ripping me for voting Republicans "who are nothing but for the wealthy," I care less for what is in my pocket than I do for this country protecting the lives of babies. I hope they can sit in their rockers comfortably knowing that they have more $$$ in their pocket (although that is not true with Dems) while 3,500 babies are being aborted everyday. And remember Billy Boy VETOED the partial birth abortion bill that would have let babies been partially born, 1/2 sticking out of their mothers and then aborted.

 

To paraphrase you, I hate it that money in their pockets is more of an issue to some in this country than the lives of babies.

 

Let me also say, please don't anyone take this as any type of personal attack on JS. I have grown to have tremendouse respect for his views and opinions, even though we do not agree with each other a lot. He gives me things to think about and challenges me.

 

Very thoughtful and honest response. I certainly agree with its contents.

It's still killing another person for crimes their committing or about to commit, I fail to see the difference, in one case you kill them in the moment of their crime, in the other you kill them after a jury of their peers convicts them of said crime, if your argument to that is a jury can make a mistake, well I'm sure several people have been killed by poor judgment from citizens/officers...

 

And on a side note, I’m appalled to see that you are studying to be a minister and have the stance you do on some pretty serious subjects in today’s society. IMO a minister should study God’s word before they open their mouth and take a stance on anything, in other words a ministers stance should be Gods stance and if its not then your most likely working for the wrong guy…

 

 

So in other words they need to see, read and understand God's word exactly as you do?

It's still killing another person for crimes their committing or about to commit, I fail to see the difference, in one case you kill them in the moment of their crime, in the other you kill them after a jury of their peers convicts them of said crime, if your argument to that is a jury can make a mistake, well I'm sure several people have been killed by poor judgment from citizens/officers...

There is a difference, and unless you are being sarcastic you know it.

 

A police offer shooting someone in the moment of the crime is preventing a crime and/or the further infraction of someone else's personal liberties from being violated- I have no problem with that. And there may be some killed by poor judgement, and that is unfortunate.

 

But this country has other resources from keeping someone already incarcerated from harming society other than the death penalty, for example, prison for life.

 

The only time someone should be put to death for their crimes is when there is no other option to protect society.

I will address this because I have openly said that abortion is the #1 and in some cases the ONLY consideration that I give in voting.

 

I have not a problem in it, because I feel that is the #1 problem this country has. It is to our generation as slavery was to the generation in the mid-1800's. Would you have been opposed to someone voting on an anti-slavery issue only?

 

Would you feel better that I look at how a candidate will handle the economy and tax breaks meaning how much money is in my pocket compared to the importance of a life?

 

I will give you the same answer I gave my Democrat parents when they were ripping me for voting Republicans "who are nothing but for the wealthy," I care less for what is in my pocket than I do for this country protecting the lives of babies. I hope they can sit in their rockers comfortably knowing that they have more $$$ in their pocket (although that is not true with Dems) while 3,500 babies are being aborted everyday. And remember Billy Boy VETOED the partial birth abortion bill that would have let babies been partially born, 1/2 sticking out of their mothers and then aborted.

 

To paraphrase you, I hate it that money in their pockets is more of an issue to some in this country than the lives of babies.

 

Let me also say, please don't anyone take this as any type of personal attack on JS. I have grown to have tremendouse respect for his views and opinions, even though we do not agree with each other a lot. He gives me things to think about and challenges me.

 

And you likewise, my friend. :thumb: