Texas may have put innocent man to death, panel told

[Macfistowannabe]

Careful - one might plea "theocracy" on that comment.

 

[Angela Harlem]

How FUNNY!




No, really, isn't life, from a Christian perspective, a gift from God? And yes, I am pointing out the blind hypocrisy of some, here (here in my point, not 'here' as in this forum but take it how you will). These supporters of the death penalty then totter off to church and preen themselves about how they are good and loving and forgiving Christians. But beg my pardon, who's gift are they allowing to get removed? When it is about abortion, it is about a soul that was given from God. When the person is tried from a jury of peers, it is cut and dried and A-OK.

Another reason why this is so hard for me to understand, that's all.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

How FUNNY!




No, really, isn't life, from a Christian perspective, a gift from God? And yes, I am pointing out the blind hypocrisy of some, here (here in my point, not 'here' as in this forum but take it how you will). These supporters of the death penalty then totter off to church and preen themselves about how they are good and loving and forgiving Christians. But beg my pardon, who's gift are they allowing to get removed? When it is about abortion, it is about a soul that was given from God. When the person is tried from a jury of peers, it is cut and dried and A-OK.

Another reason why this is so hard for me to understand, that's all.

That argument can be switched around. I've found pro-PETA types as well as anti- death penalty types to be supportive of abortion rights. Hey, what can you say... people are weird like that.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

No, really, isn't life, from a Christian perspective, a gift from God?

You are correct.

And yes, I am pointing out the blind hypocrisy of some, here (here in my point, not 'here' as in this forum but take it how you will). These supporters of the death penalty then totter off to church and preen themselves about how they are good and loving and forgiving Christians.

They should be loving and forgiving as you say. Following the point I made earlier, I would like to see alternatives to the death penalty, because this thread is a great example of its fallability. Perhaps more prisons for life imprisonment, and don't be suprised if a few penny pinchers bitch about their taxes or whatever it might be.

But beg my pardon, who's gift are they allowing to get removed? When it is about abortion, it is about a soul that was given from God. When the person is tried from a jury of peers, it is cut and dried and A-OK.

They aren't the same issue - one deals with innocent life, the other (in most cases) does not. However, it's at fault and created by humans, and lethal injection is more painful than many believe to think of it.

 

[trevster2k]

The present system convicts people based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You propose a reform which allows the death penalty in cases where a person is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt plus some standard that the "evidence is so overwhelming that they must have done it" Now we have the people convicted for murder beyond reasonable doubt but not reach the standard of having "evidence so overwhelming that they must have done it" not getting death penalty punishments. We can't have two levels of guilty verdicts in the legal system. Basically, you would be saying that "we are confident that you deserve to die but we aren't really to sure about you so we will stick you in jail instead" Lawyers would have a field day with this argument. Besides, there are still flaws in the overwhelming evidence which may suggest that a person is the perpetrator. Confessions can be coerced, witnesses are not always accurate, dna may be contaminated, evidence tampering, biased judges, etc.
This is what has happened to the poor citizens who have been wrongly convicted of murder in the past.

If we had no cases of innocent people being wrongly convicted of murder nor being executed, by all means, kill the guilty. But we cannot guarantee this will not happen in our legal system because we are humans and we naturally have bias and make mistakes in judgements. Locking someone up for life and throwing away the key is sufficient for me.

I agree to disagree.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I am a penny pincher for some things as I've indicated. I don't mind a moratorium on the death penalty if people want to tinker with the system. Lethal injection may be painful but not any less painful then the pain a Jessica Lunsford went through or what her family is going through.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

The present system convicts people based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You propose a reform which allows the death penalty in cases where a person is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt plus some standard that the "evidence is so overwhelming that they must have done it" Now we have the people convicted for murder beyond reasonable doubt but not reach the standard of having "evidence so overwhelming that they must have done it" not getting death penalty punishments. We can't have two levels of guilty verdicts in the legal system. Basically, you would be saying that "we are confident that you deserve to die but we aren't really to sure about you so we will stick you in jail instead" Lawyers would have a field day with this argument.

I propose some type of reform. What? I honestly don't know for sure.

With that said, aren't there technically two "levels" of guilty verdicts in the legal system when OJ Simpson is proclaimed innocent in his criminal case but liable in a civil case?

In terms of sentencing, why not have another session or trial to determine what penalty a convicted criminal deserves with specific guidelines to be followed? Technically a review. A jury case determines if the person is innocent or guilty of charges not the penalty. Of course reform and change would flip upside down the legal system, but maybe its necessary if one believes innocent people are being executed.

 

[melon]

Lethal injection may be painful but not any less painful then the pain a Jessica Lunsford went through or what her family is going through.

In other words, an eye for an eye?

Melon

 

[Flying FuManchu]

In other words, an eye for an eye?

Melon

That was me being emotional for a sec...

 

[Angela Harlem]

Macfisto I do understand that there is hypocrisy on both sides, and I do not intend to drag on this abortion angle any more than I have already, but...how does man's assigning guilt change what is essentially a gift from God? Why is the gift of life given to a guilty man so different to that of an unborn and purely innocent baby? Personally, I'm against all methods of life taking except euthenasia, so therein lies my personal hypocrisy, but what bothers me greatly is the justification by religious people who pick and choose where this gift given to us as a loan matters and where it does not. I guess I am challenging the very views of those who are devoutly religious as I cannot see how they can continue to call themselves good and fair people when they support such an arrogant stance.

I have seen the same too, fu manchu. As this is FYM I want to ask why and how it is justified. Either side will do.

 

[trevster2k]

I propose some type of reform. What? I honestly don't know for sure.

With that said, aren't there technically two "levels" of guilty verdicts in the legal system when OJ Simpson is proclaimed innocent in his criminal case but liable in a civil case?

In terms of sentencing, why not have another session or trial to determine what penalty a convicted criminal deserves with specific guidelines to be followed? Technically a review. A jury case determines if the person is innocent or guilty of charges not the penalty. Of course reform and change would flip upside down the legal system, but maybe its necessary if one believes innocent people are being executed.

I don't think criminal cases and civil cases are two levels of guilty verdicts. The two levels I refer to would be 2 different people charged with the exact same kind of murder. Person A is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt yet no death penalty because the evidence does not reach the standard of certainty to allow capital punishment while person B is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt too but is given death penalty because there is " no doubt" that they committed the murder. How can the courts convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt but differentiate in the confidence it has in quality of the evidence used to convict the person. It would never work.

It is not about believing if innocent people are being executed. Innocent people have been executed, are on death row, serving life sentences and are being absolved as we sit here in both Canada and the US. It is a small percentage, perhaps as low as 1% but that is still too high.

Read my earlier post regarding the province of Newfoundland, Canada. 3 high profile murder cases in my province and all three were wrongly convicted. If we had a speedy capital punishment system, they would be dead instead of having a few years of their lives ruined by this false conviction which is also horrible in itself.

If we could have a system without any error, I am for capital punishment but we don't and never will, so in good conscience I cannot support the death penalty in a humane society.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

My point is that there is a form of differentiation (in my example with OJ) in the current system NOW, that even the current system proposed wouldn't be too farfetched, would it?

Why can't the type of evidence decide whether or not a person gets the death penalty or a life sentence, after a trial is over and done with? Outside of a death penalty case, sentencing isn't always consistent is it? Precedence plays a part, but don't many sentences fall under the whim of a judge (not completely of course)? Didn't Scott Peterson, after his guilty verdict, still have a chance for life imprisonment over the death penalty but instead got shafted? I mean there was actual surprise when he was given the death penalty, all around the networks if I remember.

 

[trevster2k]

My point is that there is a form of differentiation (in my example with OJ) in the current system NOW, that even the current system proposed wouldn't be too farfetched, would it?

Why can't the type of evidence decide whether or not a person gets the death penalty or a life sentence, after a trial is over and done with? Outside of a death penalty case, sentencing isn't always consistent is it? Precedence plays a part, but don't many sentences fall under the whim of a judge (not completely of course)? Didn't Scott Peterson, after his guilty verdict, still have a chance for life imprisonment over the death penalty but instead got shafted? I mean there was actual surprise when he was given the death penalty, all around the networks if I remember.

You suggested that if they had "no doubt" that someone was guilty of the crime then they should get the death penalty. They already have guidelines determining whether they push for the death penalty or not which has nothing to do with the evidence. This isn' t about those guidelines. We have been discussing how IMO it is impossible to achieve " no doubt " of guilt level to have a death penalty verdict while at the same time not have the death penalty imposed on the same crime when the "no doubt" level is not reached. Also, sentencing in non-murder trials has no bearing as once you execute someone, you can't take it back.

The system cannot impose guilty of murder on a person and then say we have "no doubt" based on evidence you killed that person so you get lethal injection AND at the same time impose guilty on another person and then say we have "some doubt" based on evidence so you get life imprisonment. Guilty is guilty, there are no degrees of guilt based on the quality of the evidence. And there can never be such a thing.

People are found to be guilty because the evidence is compelling and has persuaded the judge/jury that the person committed the crime. If after the guilty verdict, they review the evidence and determine that they cannot implement the death penalty for fear of executing a innocent man because the evidence isn't airtight then why has he been found guilty in the first place?

I'm done. Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it. Very civil and adult.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Macfisto I do understand that there is hypocrisy on both sides, and I do not intend to drag on this abortion angle any more than I have already, but...how does man's assigning guilt change what is essentially a gift from God?

I have issues with both sides of the fence , but crimes should be punished, justice should be served, innocent people should be protected, prisons should not be so overcrowded, revenge should not rule the heart of the system, and life should not be taken for granted. It is just as bad for a wrongfully convicted murderer to be executed as it is for someone to get away with murder. The system is flawed, and alternatives that favor life need to be discussed, such as more prisons and so forth. I dislike the death penalty, but the mindset for the hard left has evolved into opposing spanking.

Why is the gift of life given to a guilty man so different to that of an unborn and purely innocent baby?

A good question. If he has in fact taken the life of another person, he is a threat to society, and can no longer be trusted under the eyes of the law. He justly deserves to be punished for what he has done one way or the other. Law enforcement has that duty in order to protect innocent people.

Personally, I'm against all methods of life taking except euthenasia, so therein lies my personal hypocrisy, but what bothers me greatly is the justification by religious people who pick and choose where this gift given to us as a loan matters and where it does not. I guess I am challenging the very views of those who are devoutly religious as I cannot see how they can continue to call themselves good and fair people when they support such an arrogant stance.

I admit a lot of it is picking and choosing, but at least here in the States, the system hardly leaves you options. You can either take the life of an innocent person or a guilty one. Ending the death penalty as we know it would not bother me, as long as they are not served with lenient sentences.

 

[coemgen]

Angela Harlem — you're right, it doesn't make sense to be pro-life and support the death penalty, which has been proven to be racist, not be a deterrent, and used on the mentally ill and for those who like to cry about tax dollars, is much more expensive than prison time once appeals are factored in.

As a Christian who is pro-life, I also don't support the dp. Here's some other reasons why.

Consider this — China, Iran, the United States and Vietnam accounted for 97 percent of the executions recorded by Amnesty International last year. We're in great company people.

Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China actually have since abolished the juvenile death penalty.

"I don't think we should be proud of the fact that the United States is the world leader in the execution of child offenders." –U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, November 11, 1999

A New York Times survey, released in September 2000, found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

The above facts are from AI's abolish the DP page. I think there just a glimpse of the problems with this system.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

We abolished execution on juvenile offenders recently, it was ruled unconstitutional. About a month ago, we had a thread on it.

 

[Do Miss America]

I don't believe in the extremist view of your example and I doubt many people on the pro-capital punishment side do either. Obviously the problem with your illustration is that punishment may seem too extreme for that specific crime. But is capital punishment too extreme for people alah the DC sniper or a Zarquawi type? Your example, doesn't prove it to be an extreme measure.

Well at least you're honest and don't believe in consistency along your lines of "retribution".

 

[Do Miss America]

I don't believe in the eye for an eye mentality, lenient sentences, or overcrowding prisons. Alternatives to the death penalty need to be discussed, such as more prisons if the death penalty should be abolished.

Well the whole system needs to redefined. We're crowding up our prisons with drug users who need to be in rehab programs.

 

[coemgen]

Oh, I remember that now.

Sorry guys, it was on the AI Web site still. Thanks for bringing that up Macfistowannabe.

I'll just be over here if you need me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well the whole system needs to redefined. We're crowding up our prisons with drug users who need to be in rehab programs.

Drug users and drug dealers need both prison and rehab.

 

[Do Miss America]

Drug users and drug dealers need both prison and rehab.

I'm not sure I agree with users needing jail time. But we have a problem when we have people spending life in prison for posession especially when it's first time offences, and violent crimes getting lesser sentences.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm not sure I agree with users needing jail time. But we have a problem when we have people spending life in prison for posession especially when it's first time offences, and violent crimes getting lesser sentences.

Can you show me where first time drug offenders get life sentences? It sounds a little twisted for the first time offense. I'd appreciate a link if you can pull me one.

 

[Do Miss America]

Can you show me where first time drug offenders get life sentences? It sounds a little twisted for the first time offense. I'd appreciate a link if you can pull me one.

There was a thread in here not too long ago, but I'm not able to search:

http://www.statenews.com/editionssummer97/052197/op_col2.html
(basically a life sentence)

http://www.battlecryofinnocence.com/prisoners/cases/georgeM.html

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache...rst+time+offender&d=A3E556DBE4&icp=1&.intl=us

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Thanks for the links. You have a point that they are spending too much time for a first offence for a non-violent crime. A few years maybe, and some rehab, but not a life sentence. Drug use is illegal, drunk driving is a bad enough problem in this country. The thought of anyone driving under the influence of drugs boggles my mind, therefore I'd rather have them illegal in order to prevent more incidents from happening.

The system does need changes, I agree with that much.

 

[Angela Harlem]

...A good question. If he has in fact taken the life of another person, he is a threat to society, and can no longer be trusted under the eyes of the law. He justly deserves to be punished for what he has done one way or the other. Law enforcement has that duty in order to protect innocent people.
...

Thank you coemgen and macfisto, for your answers. Very much appreciated

Mac, this last sentence is probably the gist of my issue. The religious who are for the death penalty say 'after all, we try and seperate church and state', and whether you want this or not is another issue. But, with the death penalty, isn't the law going one step beyond keep church and state together and becoming the church? In commonspeak, it is pretty much legalising God's role isn't it? We are taking something which is not ours to play with, or to take on or assume, and arrogantly putting man's desires above God's?? Where are the Christian principles of forgiveness and loving your fellow sinner in executing a man (or woman)? Don't get me wrong, I don't have any sympathy for proven felons or murderers etc, and frankly have limited belief in prisoner reform, but that is what jail is for. Little might come of 50 years spent behind bars. Many might not ever apologise or truly feel remorse, but while they are alive, anyone can try. A dead man cannot be forgiven.
Anyway, thanks again.

 

[daygloeyes2]

This is one of the reasons I am against the death penalty.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Thank you coemgen and macfisto, for your answers. Very much appreciated

Mac, this last sentence is probably the gist of my issue. The religious who are for the death penalty say 'after all, we try and seperate church and state', and whether you want this or not is another issue.

It is open to interpretation. One side can say let them live, one can say death is too good for them, while another can say they have taken a life, and the punishment should fit the crime. In the end, it's not about "forgive and forget", and no crime should go unpunished. Outside of the box, one has to believe in justice, but it all comes down to how it is served.

But, with the death penalty, isn't the law going one step beyond keep church and state together and becoming the church? In commonspeak, it is pretty much legalising God's role isn't it? We are taking something which is not ours to play with, or to take on or assume, and arrogantly putting man's desires above God's?? Where are the Christian principles of forgiveness and loving your fellow sinner in executing a man (or woman)?[/

These are some good questions. I don't completely see it that way, I don't see it that much as a religious issue. Faith should guide your moral compass if you choose to believe in one. Crazed orthodoxy types might suggest the golden rule "the wages of sin is death", which really has more to do with a spiritual belief - relating more to Old Testament than modern Christianity. I'll try not to dig too deep about it. Other types might suggest "love the sinner, hate the sin." Just because we feel the person should be punished doesn't mean we don't love them or want what is best for them. If your child acts up, you would take priveliges away, but that doesn't imply that you don't love them. I guess it could be argued that we have a divine moral obligation to bring justice. I'm not convinced that the death penalty is the best answer, and the story is living proof of that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any sympathy for proven felons or murderers etc, and frankly have limited belief in prisoner reform, but that is what jail is for. Little might come of 50 years spent behind bars. Many might not ever apologise or truly feel remorse, but while they are alive, anyone can try. A dead man cannot be forgiven.

It is interesting how some find their true passive selves when living behind bars. It's scary though what kind of violence could break out inside a prison. There have been stories of inmates killing each other, which isn't exactly news, but it makes you wonder. I agree with a lot of your points here.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I differ from most of my fellow Republicans and Conservatives on this issue.

Innocent people DO get executed. In my mind, just the chance that an innocent person could be executed is enough to abolish teh death penalty altogether. I'd much rather have my taxes pay to keep a guilty man in prison for his entire life than for one single innocent person to be executed.

 

[Irvine511]

I differ from most of my fellow Republicans and Conservatives on this issue.

Innocent people DO get executed. In my mind, just the chance that an innocent person could be executed is enough to abolish teh death penalty altogether. I'd much rather have my taxes pay to keep a guilty man in prison for his entire life than for one single innocent person to be executed.

hey ... we agree!

 

[80sU2isBest]

It's amazing, isn't it?