The Tide Shifting Against the Death Penalty

[Crabtownboy]

Were they innocent or actually found not guilty? Not the same thing.

Or were their sentences overturned for poor legal representation, technicalities, or trial errors?

With DNA tests proving they did not commit the crime how could they not be found to be innocent? We are not talking about a technicality getting them off, but hard evidence.

Read John Gresham's The Innocent Man.

 

[THEOLDMAN]

I don't know - I embrace "mystery" over "certitude." Why do we need certitude when we can cling to mystery in such matters? There, that makes me feel so pious. I am certain that embracing mystery is the only way to go.

Glad you've got everything figured out for the rest of us.

 

[Alcott]

Besides, I think life in prison at hard labor is more punishment than killing someone.

Yes; if I were accused of a capital crime, I would prefer the death penalty; in fact, so much that if the cops had the goods on me for it (guilty or not) I would draw my gun if I were carrying one, or would hide a hand and make that sudden move with it. "It beats a rope," as I've heard the line more than once in old westerns when a lawman had to shoot an old friend in such a circumstance.

I have written a story-- just short of a "novelette"-- on how to get onself killed, about a guy who visited a church one day and was visited and befriended by one of the 'regulars' in the class he attended. The member found out the visitor like hunting, so he invited him to go squirrel hunting. The visitor seemed nervous and asked strange questions for a guy who claimed to like hunting, and he looked really scared as he saw the first squirrel drop from a tree. The visitor said he wanted to hunt alone for a while, so they split up for an hour. Then when they met again in a thicket, the visitor pointed his gun at the member and threatened to kill him. The member tried to talk to him and asked "why?" and about the consequences, finding out the visitor had always been friendless, felt ganged up on, showed no self-confidence and couldn't get a job; so he was going to do away with "at least one" guy who didn't have such problems. But then they heard a rattlesnake, and saw it on the ground near the visitor. The member told him to shoot it, since his gun was ready. But the visitor said his gun is unloaded. The snake was about to strike him, then the member jerked his rifle up and shot and killed the snake. The visitor didn't have the guts to kill himself, so he had connived a plan to get his new friend to kill him. "How could I ever explain what happened here if I had to shoot in self-defense?" the member asked. Then, of course, it leads to an illustration about 'being defenseless against the serpent,' who hates you more than you hate yourself, and a rededication.

So this covers not only the extenuating circumstances of a potential homicide, but a word of caution about going all out for someone who visits your church, and why such a person may have done so. Actually this story is loosely based on a state trooper who began attending my church and tried something very similar.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Yes; if I were accused of a capital crime, I would prefer the death penalty; in fact, so much that if the cops had the goods on me for it (guilty or not) I would draw my gun if I were carrying one, or would hide a hand and make that sudden move with it. "It beats a rope," as I've heard the line more than once in old westerns when a lawman had to shoot an old friend in such a circumstance.

I lean much more toward Churchill's philosophy, "Never, never, never give-up ... especially if I am innocent!

 

[Marcia]

With DNA tests proving they did not commit the crime how could they not be found to be innocent? We are not talking about a technicality getting them off, but hard evidence.

Read John Gresham's The Innocent Man.

Were these all death penalty cases in which DNA showed they did not commit the crime? If not, how many were death penalty cases in which DNA absolved the person? I am aware of some but do not know how many.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Here is yet another problem. In Texas, top execution state in the nation, let's say you are accused of a capital crime, but can't afford an attorney. You get a court appointed one...no problem, right?

Wrong. You don't necessarily get an attorney who specializes in such cases. You get whoever is on call by the judge that day. It may be a divorce attorney, a bankruptcy attorney, or whatever. Think you'll have competent counsel? Think again. Off you go to Huntsville and the needle.

Texas...it's like a whole other country.

 

[sag38]

Don't the bleeding hearts just love Texas. Go Texas!!!!!!!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I guess the lesson is to bring yer victim to a non-CP state to do the deed.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I guess the lesson is to bring yer victim to a non-CP state to do the deed.

Wisconsin anyone?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Don't the bleeding hearts just love Texas. Go Texas!!!!!!!

Can you address the point, or do you just make inane comments?

 

[Dragoon68]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1876397,00.html

Nope, let's just use this great DNA evidence to convict the right people and tighten the noose on the excuses of those that might otherwise get off Scott free by technicalities or lessor quality evidence.

 

[Andy T.]

Glad you've got everything figured out for the rest of us.

I'm glad that you've got it figured out that you have nothing figured out...well, except you have figured out that Andy T. has everything figured out, so that's another thing you've figured out, along with your certitude that mystery should always be embraced over certitude. :laugh:

What a contradictory, self-refuting mess.

 

[carpro]

DNA has shown we have put people to death who are innocent and DNA has freed a fair number of innocent people from death row. Should we not celebrate their being saved from death?

OK.

Name a few that have been put to death that were innocent.

 

[sag38]

Can you address the point, or do you just make inane comments?

Actually, I addressed the point very clearly. :wavey:

 

[Steven2006]

It saddens me to see people more concerned about the supposed immorality of the death penalty, but show little or no concern for the millions of innocents taken out by abortion.

IMHO the most consistent position is to abhor both.

 

[Crabtownboy]

OK.

Name a few that have been put to death that were innocent.

Wrong question, and I expect you know it. How often is a case reopened where the person has been executed. We know innocents have been executed because of the number who have been released because of DNA. There is no way to say that no innocents have not been executed now!

There is no excuse to be anti-abortion and pro-death at the same time. Both are wrong!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Don't the bleeding hearts just love Texas. Go Texas!!!!!!!

One line, cute and silly comment.

 

[LadyEagle]

There is no excuse to be anti-abortion and pro-death at the same time. Both are wrong!

Not according to the Bible.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Actually, I addressed the point very clearly. :wavey:

You totally ignored the point. Do you think getting a bankruptcy atty to defend you on murder charges gives you adequate representation?

 

[Andy T.]

IMHO the most consistent position is to abhor both.

But as Mexdeaf said above, consistency isn't the primary concern - being Biblical is. And CP is Biblical.

The world tells us that "love the sinner but hate the sin" is inconsistent - e.g., think of the homosexual community and how they say you cannot really accept them as people unless you accept their lifestyle. Well, maybe "love the sinner, hate the sin" is inconsistent from a human perspective, but I know what the Bible teaches and that should always trump what we perceive to be consistent or not.

Also, if consistency is your concern over life issues, then you need to take the Amish/Quaker view and be against all forms of violence - even if it entails protecting the innocent, aka my killing spree murderer example above. In the end, such ultra consistency is moral cowardice.