xnew
New Arrival
Posts: 2
|
Post by xnew on Apr 1, 2007 14:23:57 GMT -5
I have few questions to ask, which is the main reason why I have decided to make an account on this site. Note - I don't know how 'legal systems and laws work together for judges to decide' very well, so sorry if I misunderstood in any way.
Recently, I've seen numerous news of executed prisoners, most of them were proved either gulity or innocent, but either way; they were stictly sentenced to death and unfortunately they had no hope (certainly not all have hope because some were set free). Some prisoners claimed to be innocent with honest. That question I'm asking is because as I heard that specific judge of some state indeed have sentenced prisoners to death or imprisonment WITHOUT pure evidence or proof, is it just me or they had no choice but sentenced them because they relied on prosecutors against such prisoners?
That's another reason why I'm against death penalty, it's too painful to face especially when such prisoners are indeed innocent (aka miscarriage of justice). Not only because of that but as I heard according to some report that establishing executions are more expensive than putting imates in jail for years.
Thank you, and nice site by the way ^_^.
|
|
xnew
New Arrival
Posts: 2
|
Post by xnew on Apr 6, 2007 11:09:01 GMT -5
bump... ?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Apr 6, 2007 13:48:22 GMT -5
I find your argument(s) very hard to follow. Perhaps English is not your native language?
In the US it is true that many people are sentenced to death or to prison despite the evidence, which in many cases is slight or may even all go to innocence. Often, other matters are allowed into the court despite the fact that they are not evidence at all but are mere prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Apr 10, 2007 14:13:34 GMT -5
I have few questions to ask, which is the main reason why I have decided to make an account on this site. Note - I don't know how 'legal systems and laws work together for judges to decide' very well, so sorry if I misunderstood in any way. Recently, I've seen numerous news of executed prisoners, most of them were proved either gulity or innocent, but either way; they were stictly sentenced to death and unfortunately they had no hope (certainly not all have hope because some were set free). Some prisoners claimed to be innocent with honest. That question I'm asking is because as I heard that specific judge of some state indeed have sentenced prisoners to death or imprisonment WITHOUT pure evidence or proof, is it just me or they had no choice but sentenced them because they relied on prosecutors against such prisoners? That's another reason why I'm against death penalty, it's too painful to face especially when such prisoners are indeed innocent (aka miscarriage of justice). Not only because of that but as I heard according to some report that establishing executions are more expensive than putting imates in jail for years. Thank you, and nice site by the way ^_^. Welcome, xnew. You are right to notice that prison sentences vary from state to state and even from court to court. There are also many ways for prosecutors to influence the outcome of a trial. The Innocence Project website <http://www.innocenceproject.org/> lists some of those ways. A capital trial does indeed cost much more. The prosecution and the defense each need to present evidence which sometimes requires expensive testing (like DNA testing) and expert witnesses (like psychiatrists) need to be paid to evaluate the defendant's mental state. My own personal opinion is that about one in ten convicted murderers is actually innocent. But even if a person is guilty, it seems inconsistent and very unfair to execute some murderers and not others. We claim to execute only "the worst of the worst" but how on earth can anyone possibly make that distinction? It seems far better, as I see it, to impose Life Without Parole when that seems warranted than to risk the real possibility of executing an innocent individual.
|
|