|
Post by judywaits4u on Feb 27, 2006 0:04:56 GMT -5
We can say without any question of doubt that Jesse Tafero was an innocent who was murdered by the State in a botched execution. Why can we be so sure? Because at the time of the murder her was with Sunny Jacobs and DNA proved that she was not present at the murder either.
People in civilized countries do not have CP, it is as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Feb 27, 2006 11:12:25 GMT -5
This may seem like a stupid question, but why ARE you against the death penalty? Some of my friends are against it, and the only reason they have against it is that innocent people may be executed..... That is one reason to oppose the death penalty, but there are many others. The arbitrariness, the influence of race, the excessive cost involved, the simple fact that it has not made for a less violent society and perhaps has worked to make the U.S. even more violent... there are many good reasons to oppose capital punishment. Basically, there is just no reason to execute murderers. There is no death penalty in most of the nations of the world. Somehow, those families of victims manage to deal with their loss. Maybe there are better services available to them... counseling, support groups... I don't know. But whatever the case, if others can manage, U.S. families can also manage.
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Feb 27, 2006 11:41:50 GMT -5
Notice that you said they 'manage'. Maybe that isn't good enough for them. Maybe you've never been in their shoes to have had a family member taken away from you by murder to know their pain, and maybe they've never lost a family member to DR to know your pain (if that's the case with you). Other countries have different government, therefore they have different laws. So as to compare the U.S. as to what other countries do is irrelevant. I oppose DP on a moral value and also because of the innocents on DR, otherwise I would support it.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Feb 27, 2006 12:17:14 GMT -5
There are many reasons to be opposed to the DP. Skyloom has really stated all of them. In terms of victim's families, yes, they require tremendous support. Most countries in the western world, at least, do offer a rather high level of support. If MVF require vengeance, well, that's just not acceptable, nor are victim impact statements. A court of law's purpose is to be dispassionate, objective. Once the element of emotion comes into play, no defendant is able to obtain a fair trial.
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Feb 27, 2006 12:26:57 GMT -5
I agree totally with you that it should not be a case of vengeance, but I disagree that impact statements affect a fair trial. Impact statements only affect the sentencing as that they are only presented at sentencing. I think it is more than fair for victims families be allowed to confront the accused if they so choose. I don't, however, believe that it should weigh in part of the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Feb 27, 2006 12:34:47 GMT -5
Actually, I did neglect to point out that it is during the penalty case of the trial. You're right, Jennaleigh, Victim Impart Statements do affect only the sentencing, however, an egregiously emotional statement complete with graphics really does influence the decision between life and death.
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Feb 27, 2006 13:12:29 GMT -5
Yes, it does and for that I do not agree. As far as confronting the accused I believe the victims have that right. I just hate that it affects life or death.
|
|
|
Post by Falcon66 on Feb 27, 2006 22:11:43 GMT -5
what about peole like Joyce Gilchrist, who manufacture evidence?? where is the justice in sending someone that is 1000% innocent to death row? Not to mention the problems with court reporters who destroy evidence that could have helped prove innocence and don't get punished, like in the Darlie Routier case
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Feb 27, 2006 23:38:14 GMT -5
Falcon66, I agree that there are innocent people on DR, which is one of the reasons DP should be abolished. I can't say that I agree that Darlie Routier is innocent, I'm undecided. I think no matter what difference we as anti's make, there will always be corruption in the legal system. The upside is the fact that if DP is abolished we will at least be assured no innocent person will pay the ultimate price of death for a crime they did not commit.
|
|
|
Post by Falcon66 on Feb 28, 2006 13:14:29 GMT -5
I agree. I think too that once the death penalty is no longer politically correct, people will see that it is the wrong way to go about doing things.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on May 24, 2006 12:14:15 GMT -5
The prosecutors are just doing their job. Their job is to present the Jury with incriminating evidence. I really don't think the jury should be allowed to sentence anyone to death unless they are 100% sure the defendant is guilty. But even if the jury makes a mistake, the system still works. There has been 100 people freed from death row. That to me is proof that the legal system works to punish the guilty and free the innocent. No, it proves exactly the opposite. The very first time that someone was released from death row because of actual innocence the whole system should have been shut down and examined. The 'system' is NOT working if the release is due to new technology (DNA), or a confession by the real killer, or efforts by those not directly involved such as reporters, law students or others. Ask yourself this: If you were in hospital with a major disease and all of the doctors agreed that you were going to die and there was nothing that could be done and then the lady who cleans your room pointed out something that they had all missed how impressed would you be with the idea that the "medical system works"? Wouldn't you be screaming with rage at the incompetence of the paid professionals? What is the real difference?
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on May 24, 2006 12:20:33 GMT -5
The prosecutors are just doing their job. Their job is to present the Jury with incriminating evidence. I really don't think the jury should be allowed to sentence anyone to death unless they are 100% sure the defendant is guilty. But even if the jury makes a mistake, the system still works. There has been 100 people freed from death row. That to me is proof that the legal system works to punish the guilty and free the innocent. No, it proves exactly the opposite. The very first time that someone was released from death row because of actual innocence the whole system should have been shut down and examined. The 'system' is NOT working if the release is due to new technology (DNA), or a confession by the real killer, or efforts by those not directly involved such as reporters, law students or others. Ask yourself this: If you were in hospital with a major disease and all of the doctors agreed that you were going to die and there was nothing that could be done and then the lady who cleans your room pointed out something that they had all missed how impressed would you be with the idea that the "medical system works"? Wouldn't you be screaming with rage at the incompetence of the paid professionals? What is the real difference? Very well put hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by attitude on May 29, 2006 3:33:00 GMT -5
I believe the State of Texas is suing her for breach of contract....ie she was paid for doing a decent job but didn't....Maybe they have no legal way of imposing criminal sanctions what about peole like Joyce Gilchrist, who manufacture evidence?? where is the justice in sending someone that is 1000% innocent to death row? Not to mention the problems with court reporters who destroy evidence that could have helped prove innocence and don't get punished, like in the Darlie Routier case
|
|
|
Post by attitude on May 29, 2006 3:36:41 GMT -5
Not a realistic analogy...the cleaning lady is unlikely to be a qualified physician.... I suppose you are talking about the university students who were researching cases. Maybe they in themselves were not qualified but they were working on it and they were under the superivision of someone who knew how to "investigate" rather then be a lawyer The prosecutors are just doing their job. Their job is to present the Jury with incriminating evidence. I really don't think the jury should be allowed to sentence anyone to death unless they are 100% sure the defendant is guilty. But even if the jury makes a mistake, the system still works. There has been 100 people freed from death row. That to me is proof that the legal system works to punish the guilty and free the innocent. No, it proves exactly the opposite. The very first time that someone was released from death row because of actual innocence the whole system should have been shut down and examined. The 'system' is NOT working if the release is due to new technology (DNA), or a confession by the real killer, or efforts by those not directly involved such as reporters, law students or others. Ask yourself this: If you were in hospital with a major disease and all of the doctors agreed that you were going to die and there was nothing that could be done and then the lady who cleans your room pointed out something that they had all missed how impressed would you be with the idea that the "medical system works"? Wouldn't you be screaming with rage at the incompetence of the paid professionals? What is the real difference?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on May 29, 2006 18:25:53 GMT -5
Not a realistic analogy...the cleaning lady is unlikely to be a qualified physician.... I suppose you are talking about the university students who were researching cases. Maybe they in themselves were not qualified but they were working on it and they were under the supervision of someone who knew how to "investigate" rather then be a lawyer You have clearly missed the entire point. One can only say "the system works" IF the system does not convict the innocent or, if it does, rapidly reverses its errors. This is clearly not the case. DNA should have confirmed each and every case for which it was analyzed. Instead it proved over and over again that the system does NOT work and that its errors are numerous and grievous. The same applies to cases where journalists, journalism students or law students have uncovered errors. Otherwise you have to support the position that the system only works if every case is dealt with by such groups - a truly ludicrous position to take. You also have to admit that all cases need to be analyzed by as yet unknown scientific tests - also a truly ludicrous position to take.
|
|