DEBATE HELP

[rebeltosociety]

i need a good attack on innocents may be executed for the pro deathpenalty side. i already have the argument: any mistakes made are only a small percentage of the total something only like 33%. Errors are very rare; nearly every human endeavor woth taking may cost the lives of innocent people

[Donnie]

rebeltosociety said:

i Errors are very rare; nearly every human endeavor woth taking may cost the lives of innocent people

It is not a question of other human activities possibly taking lives, they do take lives. Without any prior preparation, ask a group of people what they think are the twenty most likely ways that they might be killed. It would be a real surprise if anybody put "innocent of murder and executed".

[Donnie]

rebeltosociety said:

i need a good attack on innocents may be executed for the pro deathpenalty side. i already have the argument: any mistakes made are only a small percentage of the total something only like 33%.

The 33% number is misleading. Since 1976, the number of people accidentally executed in the US is zero.

[Donnie]

rebeltosociety said:

Errors are very rare; nearly every human endeavor woth taking may cost the lives of innocent people

For a "catalog of risks" scroll down and go to link number 4 on this website:

www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/

[onetwobomb]

rebeltosociety said:

i need a good attack on innocents may be executed for the pro deathpenalty side. i already have the argument: any mistakes made are only a small percentage of the total something only like 33%. Errors are very rare; nearly every human endeavor woth taking may cost the lives of innocent people

33%?!? That would mean 1/3 people executed are innocent. I would be surprised if that number was 1/1000.

[Anne]

donnie said:

Since 1976, the number of people accidentally executed in the US is zero.

Are you sure? I don't think any system is that infallable.

[cc]

yes, they are sure. why should that be a surprise to you?
WE HOPE ALL MURDERERS ARE EXECUTED! and, in a timely manner, not like it is now.

[Anne]

Wasn't it in Illinois a few years ago where the governor commuted the sentence of everyone on death row because it was found that about a dozen of them were in fact innocent? That doesn't make much of case for the infallibility of the justice system. Especially when it is being run by human beings.

[Even]

Even

Anne said:

Wasn't it in Illinois a few years ago where the governor commuted the sentence of everyone on death row because it was found that about a dozen of them were in fact innocent?

None of them were found to be innocent. The governor killed at least six innocent people with corruption. He was pretty sure that he was going to be going to prison for his crimes so he wanted the murderers on his side to protect him once he was in prison.

That doesn't make much of case for the infallibility of the justice system. Especially when it is being run by human beings.

The justice system is designed to be fallible by releasing the guilty by placing the burden of proof on the state. As a result, many people are killed by murderers who were not convicted or who could not be brought to trial due to the requirement to prove them innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. There have also been at least 810 people murdered by murderers who were not executed after their first murder conviction. So if you are truly worried about innocent people being killed, you should be a strong supporter of the death penalty.

[matthew5v38]

You sound like you're an honest debater, addressing the very real possibility of innocents being executed rather than doing the head in the sand routine. And I think you are making the best move a this juncture - point to the very real risks involved in any human activity. Which means I don't know what you are asking for.

[Anne]

I guess you were addressing me, so I'll answer. All I am asking for is that unless we are 100% sure that the person accused of a crime is guilty, that we not be so quick to want to apply the death penalty.

[Atty]

Anne said:

I guess you were addressing me, so I'll answer. All I am asking for is that unless we are 100% sure that the person accused of a crime is guilty, that we not be so quick to want to apply the death penalty.

The standard is not 100% but beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, there is something called "lingering doubt" that a defense attorney can argue during the penalty phase at a capital case. There is nothing quick about a capital case in that there are many levels of investigation and review -- initially by the police, the prosecution, the guilt phase, the penalty phase, the post conviction motions, the appeal, the state habeas corpus, review by the federal court up to the USSC, the federal appeal, the federal habeas corpus, and again review by the USSC. The only thing that appears to be quick are the opinions of those unfamiliar with how our criminal justice system works.

[Charlene]

What does "so quick" mean to you? I haven't noticed anything speedy about capital punishment....

Anne said:

I guess you were addressing me, so I'll answer. All I am asking for is that unless we are 100% sure that the person accused of a crime is guilty, that we not be so quick to want to apply the death penalty.

[Charlene]

Oops, sorry Atty, I answered before I read your so-much-better response.

Atty said:

Anne said:

I guess you were addressing me, so I'll answer. All I am asking for is that unless we are 100% sure that the person accused of a crime is guilty, that we not be so quick to want to apply the death penalty.

The standard is not 100% but beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, there is something called "lingering doubt" that a defense attorney can argue during the penalty phase at a capital case. There is nothing quick about a capital case in that there are many levels of investigation and review -- initially by the police, the prosecution, the guilt phase, the penalty phase, the post conviction motions, the appeal, the state habeas corpus, review by the federal court up to the USSC, the federal appeal, the federal habeas corpus, and again review by the USSC. The only thing that appears to be quick are the opinions of those unfamiliar with how our criminal justice system works.

[Even]

matthew5v38 said:

You sound like you're an honest debater, addressing the very real possibility of innocents being executed rather than doing the head in the sand routine. And I think you are making the best move a this juncture - point to the very real risks involved in any human activity. Which means I don't know what you are asking for.

I am for making murderers even with their victims. That seems to be the only treatment of a murderer that is even close to being fair. When a murderer is buried we can say: "There, they are even now." In such a case, the victim was not treated as fairly as the murderer and justice was not provided for the victim, but finally they are even.

Why would we not want to make the murderer even with his victim?

[Anne]

Atty said:

The standard is not 100% but beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, there is something called "lingering doubt" that a defense attorney can argue during the penalty phase at a capital case. There is nothing quick about a capital case in that there are many levels of investigation and review -- initially by the police, the prosecution, the guilt phase, the penalty phase, the post conviction motions, the appeal, the state habeas corpus, review by the federal court up to the USSC, the federal appeal, the federal habeas corpus, and again review by the USSC. The only thing that appears to be quick are the opinions of those unfamiliar with how our criminal justice system works.

In a perfect world maybe. However, I have heard of several cases where the wrong person was convicted, even more than once. We had a case like that a couple of years ago here in North Carolina. Darryl Hunt was convicted (twice in two trials) of killing a newspaper delivery woman in a botched robbery. Now I know some people might think anyone put through that is guilty if two juries say so. Well fast forward a decade. Turns out, he was innocent all along. Someone else finally came forward after 18 years and confessed to the crime. As a result, an innocent man who had been wrongly jailed for 18 years was freed.

Cases like this are why we need to be careful when we think about someone being put to death by the state. A defense lawyer may try to argue "lingering doubt" in the penalty phase, but you don't know what is in the mind of the jury. We're supposed to have a fair and impartial system in this nation, but let's face it, it doesn't always work the way its supposed to. That is why I am very wary of the death penalty. If we have the wrong person, and later evidence, or even a confession (as in the case I described) comes out years later, and the person the system had already thought did the crime is dead, then what?

[Atty]

I'm sorry but most of your response makes little sense. And for the record, conviction is just one step in the criminal prosecution process. It isn't over until the appeals are finished. That is why when someone dies while their appeals are pending, the conviction is reversed and vacated (e.g., Ken Lay). If a case has been over turned on appeal, it means the system works. Why not be honest and admit you are against the death penalty no matter how much proof against the murderer? Because, you are really not fooling anyone.

[Anne]

Well forgive me for having a conscience.

[Donnie]

Anne said:

Well forgive me for having a conscience.

You are forgiven. But how does you conscience handle the hundreds of people who are killed by previously convicted murderers whom you failed to execute?

[Anne]

donnie said:

Anne said:

Well forgive me for having a conscience.

You are forgiven. But how does you conscience handle the hundreds of people who are killed by previously convicted murderers whom you failed to execute?

My conscience doesn't see killing more people as the solution to anything.

[Wickedlyamoral]

Anne said:

donnie said:

You are forgiven. But how does you conscience handle the hundreds of people who are killed by previously convicted murderers whom you failed to execute?

My conscience doesn't see killing more people as the solution to anything.

This does not answer Donnie's question. Previously convicted murderers released and then murder again due to no execution bother you yes or no is what I got..