Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 23, 2019 20:43:18 GMT -8
Here's where I struggle. We've learned that even forensic evidence has turned out to be wrong. Techniques once thought to be advanced science turned out to be inexact. Eyewitness testimony that is deemed credible by jurors, isn't. Confessions are coerced or sometimes just made falsely for a variety of reasons. Our system is made up of people for the purposes of passing judgment on other people. It's the best we've got and ours is actually pretty good. But it's still very flawed. Are we comfortable getting a few wrong as long as we get most of it right? That's where I struggle. It's easier not to think about it and justify the death penalty by looking at the most heinous crimes with the most clear evidence. But that still has the chance of executing the innocent. Are we OK with executing a few innocent people in order to ensure the worst of the worst get their due? Yes. Adjust law to raise threshold of proof. If met, execute within 3 months. If proven later an innocent man was executed, THAT is where reparations would go. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Mar 24, 2019 6:24:19 GMT -8
Here's where I struggle. We've learned that even forensic evidence has turned out to be wrong. Techniques once thought to be advanced science turned out to be inexact. Eyewitness testimony that is deemed credible by jurors, isn't. Confessions are coerced or sometimes just made falsely for a variety of reasons. Our system is made up of people for the purposes of passing judgment on other people. It's the best we've got and ours is actually pretty good. But it's still very flawed. Are we comfortable getting a few wrong as long as we get most of it right? That's where I struggle. It's easier not to think about it and justify the death penalty by looking at the most heinous crimes with the most clear evidence. But that still has the chance of executing the innocent. Are we OK with executing a few innocent people in order to ensure the worst of the worst get their due? Yes. Adjust law to raise threshold of proof. If met, execute within 3 months. If proven later an innocent man was executed, THAT is where reparations would go. What is that threshold, because for a death penalty case, it's already pretty high. What would it take to become certain? Absolutely certain. Every time. Is there a way to even meet that standard? What "reparations" are appropriate for killing an innocent man? Oh, well, we thought he did it. Sorry. Here's some money now go away? Do we prosecute the prosecution for getting it wrong? The judge? The jury? The defense attorney for not doing a better job? What about this chilling fact. Those who have money are more likely to avoid the death penalty than those who don't. They can afford the high price of defending a capital murder case. The army of lawyers and private investigators it takes to find holes. Add balance to the resources of the government. Pay for private forensic tests. Paid expert testimony. The defense is not entitled to all information gathered but only that information that is subject to legal discovery as part of the legal proceeding. Society often vilifies defense attorneys and yet that are an essential part of our process to ensure justice is really done. I really like the idea of the death penalty. I really do. I really don't like the idea that we can never be certain that the only people executed are the guilty. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 24, 2019 7:51:54 GMT -8
Have there been any circumstances where someone convicted of a special circumstance murder was overturned?
I'm having a hard time finding accurate data showing the % of all murder convictions that were overturned in the post DNA Era.
There are plenty of studies showing estimates of "wrongly convicted" death row inmates at the 4.1% total, and how blacks are 7x more likely to be wrongly convicted than whites.
While we're at it, we should also evaluate how many guilty have gotten away with murder over a technicality that excluded incriminating evidence. The OJ's have to be evaluated as well, right?
|
|
