|
Post by godhasitdown on Jul 16, 2008 19:17:28 GMT -5
Yeah and I really wonder what the pro's think when they hear on the news that someone spent X amount of years on death row and were exonerated. Then they get God knows how much money that has been hundreds of millions for the "time" they spent on death row. Of course there has been innocent executed. It is sad that they cannot be brought back. That is why DNA and physical evidence is so way important. Jury's have "feelings", machines don't. There have been way too many mistakes. I don't know when the US Surpreme Court will do what-ever they do or state to state but here in the states, there are more and more people all the time that want the death penalty abolished. I have a good friend that won a case not long ago, in Washington in litigation with the US Supreme Court. The death row inmate is no longer under the death sentence. He is a really good attorney. Godhasitdown, Brilliant to hear your friend will likely be released, although so sad to hear he's an innocent on Death Row. Although very few Pros will believe he is innocent, until he is proven innocent. That's why there is little point in letting their opinion annoy you. Remember, it is not the fault of Pros that he is an innocent on Death Row. It is the fault of the system.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jul 16, 2008 20:41:27 GMT -5
If someone is released from death row, or prison in general, after being determined that he or she was wrongly convicted, I would have no issue with them receiving a very substantial sum of money from the state. Of course, there is no way in the world that would make up for time spent in prison, but I think the state should do everything possible to help the individual every way possible.
I also think the latest in DNA technology should be used for all previous convictions, if requested. Certainly it should be able to provide definitive answers to several cases.
But I do not know the name of anyone that has been executed but later proven to be innocent.
The most recent polls I saw, taken in 2008 by Gallup and ABC, indicated that anywhere between 60% and 70% of Americans support the death penalty - although that percentage drops to just over 50% when life without the possibility of payroll is an option. According to the ABC poll, this is lowest level of support in 20 years. According to the Gallup poll, the support percentage is lower than 15 years ago, but higher than 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by godhasitdown on Jul 16, 2008 21:45:47 GMT -5
Yeah I agree with the going back and doing it all over again with ALL cases on death row now with the new science. That would pull a lot off of death row right there. As for the innocent being executed, I "think" that I heard somewhere that it happened somewhere in the states a few years ago. How in the world would you even be able to prove that anyway unless someone else came forward. It would not bring that person back. I do know that there have been a lot of people that have claimed innocence and been executed anyway. I don't have a doubt in my mind that "some" of those people really were innocent. ONE execution of an innocent person should be "enough" to abolish the death penalty. If someone is released from death row, or prison in general, after being determined that he or she was wrongly convicted, I would have no issue with them receiving a very substantial sum of money from the state. Of course, there is no way in the world that would make up for time spent in prison, but I think the state should do everything possible to help the individual every way possible. I also think the latest in DNA technology should be used for all previous convictions, if requested. Certainly it should be able to provide definitive answers to several cases. But I do not know the name of anyone that has been executed but later proven to be innocent. The most recent polls I saw, taken in 2008 by Gallup and ABC, indicated that anywhere between 60% and 70% of Americans support the death penalty - although that percentage drops to just over 50% when life without the possibility of payroll is an option. According to the ABC poll, this is lowest level of support in 20 years. According to the Gallup poll, the support percentage is lower than 15 years ago, but higher than 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jul 16, 2008 22:03:31 GMT -5
godhasitdown...you are very good arguing your points when you are not so mad! I like this side of you much better. I do believe it would be naive to think that an innocent person has not been executed. I just not have heard of any confirmed cases. My guess is that a lot of pros would say that the execution of an innocent person would be very unfortunate collateral damage. I am not ready to say that is how I would feel...I would hope I would take it more serious than that. But I do not know if it would change my support. Now if I were a juror I would never get over it. Yeah I agree with the going back and doing it all over again with ALL cases on death row now with the new science. That would pull a lot off of death row right there. As for the innocent being executed, I "think" that I heard somewhere that it happened somewhere in the states a few years ago. How in the world would you even be able to prove that anyway unless someone else came forward. It would not bring that person back. I do know that there have been a lot of people that have claimed innocence and been executed anyway. I don't have a doubt in my mind that "some" of those people really were innocent. ONE execution of an innocent person should be "enough" to abolish the death penalty. If someone is released from death row, or prison in general, after being determined that he or she was wrongly convicted, I would have no issue with them receiving a very substantial sum of money from the state. Of course, there is no way in the world that would make up for time spent in prison, but I think the state should do everything possible to help the individual every way possible. I also think the latest in DNA technology should be used for all previous convictions, if requested. Certainly it should be able to provide definitive answers to several cases. But I do not know the name of anyone that has been executed but later proven to be innocent. The most recent polls I saw, taken in 2008 by Gallup and ABC, indicated that anywhere between 60% and 70% of Americans support the death penalty - although that percentage drops to just over 50% when life without the possibility of payroll is an option. According to the ABC poll, this is lowest level of support in 20 years. According to the Gallup poll, the support percentage is lower than 15 years ago, but higher than 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by godhasitdown on Jul 16, 2008 22:10:25 GMT -5
Justme Yeah I actually can be civil LOL. Yeah and I wouldn't want to be anyhone that had anthing to do with that execution. Judge, juror, warrden, plunger pusher. None of them... They all took part in acting on killing a innocent man/woman. I have always had this problem with acting without thinking. My friend/lawyer told me that it is crazy. He gave me the scenario of getting stuck in the snow. Person that is flipping out revs up the engine and tries to get out of that mess only making it worse on themselves and getting more stuck. On the calm side of things, the person gets out of the car, figures out what tire is stuck, evaluates it and gets something to try to get the snow away. THEN gets back in the car and calmly tries to get out of that rut. It was really great the way he put that to me. I really do get upset at times because I know that there are a lot of decent people behind the walls and they just had too much to drink or went ballistic on drugs. I wonder if Susan Adkins got paroled... Have you heard? They should let her out to die with her family...... godhasitdown...you are very good arguing your points when you are not so mad! I like this side of you much better. I do believe it would be naive to think that an innocent person has not been executed. I just not have heard of any confirmed cases. My guess is that a lot of pros would say that the execution of an innocent person would be very unfortunate collateral damage. I am not ready to say that is how I would feel...I would hope I would take it more serious than that. But I do not know if it would change my support. Now if I were a juror I would never get over it. Yeah I agree with the going back and doing it all over again with ALL cases on death row now with the new science. That would pull a lot off of death row right there. As for the innocent being executed, I "think" that I heard somewhere that it happened somewhere in the states a few years ago. How in the world would you even be able to prove that anyway unless someone else came forward. It would not bring that person back. I do know that there have been a lot of people that have claimed innocence and been executed anyway. I don't have a doubt in my mind that "some" of those people really were innocent. ONE execution of an innocent person should be "enough" to abolish the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jul 16, 2008 22:23:13 GMT -5
Susan Adkins' request for parole was denied. I think they should have let her out as well, although maybe for slightly different reasons. I just think someone that ill, who clearly is no longer a threat to anyone, had to be putting a lot of strain on the California prison system.
But I don't ever want to see that Manson dude let out. He is just too scary.
|
|
|
Post by godhasitdown on Jul 16, 2008 23:17:04 GMT -5
I think Charles would be more of a victim than a danger. If he got released in Los Angels, there are a lot of movie stars and producers that would want him dead. He is a lot safer inside. I don't think he would be dangerous at this time but I do think that he would be a homeless nu sense doing stupid stuff to call attention to the cops..... Susan Adkins' request for parole was denied. I think they should have let her out as well, although maybe for slightly different reasons. I just think someone that ill, who clearly is no longer a threat to anyone, had to be putting a lot of strain on the California prison system. But I don't ever want to see that Manson dude let out. He is just too scary.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jul 17, 2008 9:10:07 GMT -5
Susan Adkins' request for parole was denied. I think they should have let her out as well, although maybe for slightly different reasons. I just think someone that ill, who clearly is no longer a threat to anyone, had to be putting a lot of strain on the California prison system. But I don't ever want to see that Manson dude let out. He is just too scary. For the reasons you mentioned she should have been let out in her final days, plus... the woman is dying and suffering and it's not like she hasn't already served 40 years! In the condition she's in now, not to let her out to die, is just another example of pure revenge.
|
|
|
Post by godhasitdown on Jul 17, 2008 10:17:27 GMT -5
pumpkin I totally agree. She has been there since 1969. At that time, she was not the person that she is not I would almost bet. To let her out to be with what family she does have, would be the humane thing to do. Susan is not a threat anymore. She is not dangerous anymore. 40 years. Yeah. 40 years. That was like her aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh life? That is revenge by the system and the board and who-ever had a hand in that. There are people on death row that are close to dying as well. They need to be with their families too IMO...... :-) Susan Adkins' request for parole was denied. I think they should have let her out as well, although maybe for slightly different reasons. I just think someone that ill, who clearly is no longer a threat to anyone, had to be putting a lot of strain on the California prison system. But I don't ever want to see that Manson dude let out. He is just too scary. For the reasons you mentioned she should have been let out in her final days, plus... the woman is dying and suffering and it's not like she hasn't already served 40 years! In the condition she's in now, not to let her out to die, is just another example of pure revenge.
|
|
|
Post by godhasitdown on Jul 17, 2008 10:28:33 GMT -5
pumpkin.. You are so right on with this. Morons on the jury. In our case, the prosecution gave special "deals" to their wittinesses to say this and that on the stand. Total perjury. AND there was NO physical evidence. NONE. In our last sentencing trial, one juror after she voted for death re-canted and wrote up an affidavit stating that the jury was pushing her to vote for death even though she did not want to. That is bad..... TO ALL MEMBERS OF CCADP! There is no wonder killings and rapes and torture are so common. There is no fear of being held accountible. What about the judicial system? Look at some of the morons who are on juries? The other night I watched a movie based on a "true story" about a woman who married her very old wealthy husband only for his money. She was cheating on him with every guy in the city. He found out and told her he wanted a divorce and that he was taking her out of his will. Very shortly after that he died of causes unknown and when his daughter demanded an autopsy during the time his wife was trying to get him cremated, it was found that he died of a morphine over dose. The wife was charged with poisoning him, the case went to trial and guess what? The jury aquitted her! His daughters got nothing, not a penny out of his will, and his witch of a widow is living in the mansion his daughters grew up in today! Meanwhile... guys are getting the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence and some even end up executed for crimes they didn't commit. Fair justice system huh?
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Jul 17, 2008 10:48:31 GMT -5
Justme,
I'm glad we understand each other. You come across as a very decent individual who has reacted to a shocking double murder by supporting the death penalty. I remember when I first began looking into the Pena/Ertman murders after I befriended one of the convicts, and feeling sick at what had been done to those girls. But it did not stop me from continuing my correspondence with the convict nor does it sway my strong beliefs that the death penalty needs to go.
I am a mother to my 10-month-old, and I couldn't bear to imagine what the Ertmans and Penas went through and are going through. But regardless, I see no good in the death penalty, because I also have to think of what the families of the convicts are going through as well. And the fact that aside from failing to be a deterrent, the death penalty sets a bad example that it is ok to kill, when it should never be ok to kill. There have also been claims that the death penalty is racist and sexist. And looking at the statistics, it's difficult to disagree with that. The innocence claims are overrated, but I do believe that there are some innocents on death row, and Edward Earl Johnson was a young man my heart bled for. I firmly believe he was an innocent. I suppose I could continue ... but I have no interest in changing your mind on the death penalty. It's always interesting and educating to hear the other side's point of view as well.
I enjoy your posts as well, and it's refreshing to see a Pro in here who doesn't celebrate the death penalty nor try to abuse Antis.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jul 17, 2008 18:12:46 GMT -5
ok I understand what you are saying..the dp and murder can be the exact same thing......however I view the death penalty as a lawful sentence and for those who are without a doubt guilty on death row and you cannot say that they are all innocent because some of them are not-to me anyway in my opinion also signed their own death warrent, as well as dug their own grave, danced with fate-however you say it put themselves in this-prepare to die situation--so in a way the death penalty for a death row inmate is premeditated by the death row inmate themselves. They could have avoided it if they had not killed anyone. I don't understand the whole kidnapping part--are you trying to spin it on an innocent person in prison or a guilty one? I will again mention that the death penalty is just a system in place for those who commit murder...and I will mention that again probably in my life time it will be abolished in the USA...however again I will mention that the system still remains in place because there are people who murder other people. So if lets just hypothetically say the dp does not get abolished the only way for it to hypothetically stop is for people to hypotheically stop killing. Until then...many of those on death row who are guilty are going to have to live with the fact that no one else put them in that situation but themselves. Again you can argue the jury, judge, police, and the DA put them there as well but it was only because of their actions. andie. I don't condone any killing what-so-ever as I explained before where it is a citizen or a person in authority. The main thing about the death sentence and execution is that the state, federal, etc. are pre-meditating a death from the very first moment. It is one that is done without drugs/alcohol, it is done with all faculties in place, it is done with planning a murder, not to mention kidnapping is in there as well. Why should "anyone" be able to take life? These death penalty cases are costing billions and billions of dollars. That is contrary to so many things that the money could be used for to "prevent" it from happening again. By the way.... Your statement of the circumstantial evidence is a sign to me that you would be a good prosecutor because we need prosecutors that have physical hard core evidence. NOT this he said she said stuff with absolutely NO DNA or anything else but things that are just a theory. If Charles Manson was released today, he would probably get killed on the outside. I personally don't think he is a threat anymore. Maybe a nu sense but not a threat, yet he will remain in prison until he dies of natural causes. Keeping people on death row for decades and having them go back to court over and over and over again because of this or that is very expensive. Why do it? Isn't there enough crime out here on the streets that need concentration? I guess it's an assumption that all pro's don't know that there are innocent people on death row or in prison for that matter. I am very well aware of people who were once on death row who have been exonerated or even those who had their sentences changed. However, I'm still a bit skeptical about an innocent person being executed...I know it's a high possibility but I have yet to see a judge, State, time, and date state that an innocent person has been executed. But I will add and as a pro, and hope to be prosecuter if I were living in a death penalty state or country for that matter I would not try for an execution if all the evidence I had was circumstancial---that is taking a huge chance---however I would try for life in prison--- again like briseis said it's not the pro's fault that an innocent person is on death row...and it's certanly not our fault, or the fault of the judges, the govenors or the plunger pusher that a guilty person is getting the death penalty. But the only thing that I still don't understand is godhasitdown is that you believe all killing is wrong--ok I get that-- yet you have compassion for those who are on death row and yet, it's like you blame or have a problem with everyone who put them on death row...so, if you believe that killing is wrong and the death penalty is killing then why not understand or have compassion for those who push the plunger or sign the death warrent? Because the way you put the situations i.e. the death row inmate and the death row warrden it sounds the same to me.
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jul 17, 2008 18:27:22 GMT -5
As for the Susan Atkin's thing...first who cares if she served fortyyears her sentence isn't over yet
and second because a brain tumor is considered natural causes and life without parole means you die in prison due to natural causes does that mean all those sick prisoners should be let out because their dying? Did the their victims get to spend their last minutes surrounded by their family?
I honeslty don't care if the prisoner is dying due to an illness we all die...but some of us who i don't know don't commit a crime have the privellage of being with our families those who do should not.
I guess LWOP won't really mean your whole natural life in prison...so maybe life which is 25 years but hey that might be to long too. So where is the happy medium? Because if we take pity on one person we set a legal precedent and then no more death penalty, no more lwop, no more life, no more sentences cause what would happen if a murderer who only served one year of his sentence do if he was dying as well....be let out?
Susan Atkins can take her finally breath in a prison hospital where she belongs--then once she dies, she can be let out in public--she's no longer a threat when she's dead.
And can someone please explain to me how not letting her out is revenge? She's serving a fricken sentence that she got because she killed Tate and her unborn child....keeping her in jail is not called revenge it's called she's serving her time.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jul 17, 2008 19:24:23 GMT -5
andie-
The only reason why I think they could have let Atkins out is, as I said above, because letting her out arguably would be better for the state than having to take care of a terminally ill amputee that is about to die, and no longer a threat to anyone. This is opposed to spending the resources to keep her there and care for her.
I do not think she is in under LWOP. Her sentence was commuted to life, as she has previously been up for parole.
But I can see your point. What those people did was horrific and they are all nuts.
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jul 18, 2008 10:52:52 GMT -5
No matter how you spin every type of system costs money. If there are going to be arguments about how much money its going to cost to keep a person who is terminally ill in prison who is serving a life without parole sentence or a life sentence or even a five year sentence then we might as well let them all roam free....why because excluding prison murders guess what those serving lwop sentences will die of natural causes. It kind of defeats the purpose of your natural life in prison. BTW her sentence is life in prison and because she has been denied parole she will spend her life in prison....life without parole only means you cannot apply for it. andie- The only reason why I think they could have let Atkins out is, as I said above, because letting her out arguably would be better for the state than having to take care of a terminally ill amputee that is about to die, and no longer a threat to anyone. This is opposed to spending the resources to keep her there and care for her. I do not think she is in under LWOP. Her sentence was commuted to life, as she has previously been up for parole. But I can see your point. What those people did was horrific and they are all nuts.
|
|