- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
07 Jan 08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7174463.stm
"Scot Kenny Richey has been freed from prison in the US after spending 20 years on death row.
His conviction in 1987 for starting a fire which killed two-year-old Cynthia Collins, was overturned last August."
The [TV] news also stated that at one point he had been an hour from death.
Inevitably, this brings about questions about the death penalty. Is there an acceptable amount of 'collateral damage'?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmix"His conviction in 1987 for starting a fire which killed two-year-old Cynthia Collins, was overturned last August.
If I'm reading that story right, it doesn't look like he was cleared of any wrondoing, or anything like that. I don't see how this raises questions about the death penalty outside of the sentencing on this one particular case.
...
Appearing before the court, smartly dressed, but in handcuffs, Richey entered a plea of no contest - which is not an admission of guilt - to attempted involuntary manslaughter, child endangering and breaking and entering."
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by HumeAIt doesn't say he was exonerated. Convictions get overturned for lots of reasons that have nothing to to with whether the guy was guilty or not. Perfect example: Hurricane Carter
"His conviction in 1987 for starting a fire which killed two-year-old Cynthia Collins, was overturned last August.
...
Appearing before the court, smartly dressed, but in handcuffs, Richey entered a plea of no contest - which is not an admission of guilt - to attempted involuntary manslaughter, child endangering and breaking and entering."
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The Sham"The question of Carter’s actual guilt or innocence remains a strongly polarizing one. However, this much is certain: either the criminal justice system released a triple murderer from the punishment that two separate juries had recommended, or it imprisoned an innocent man for almost 20 years."
It doesn't say he was exonerated. Convictions get overturned for lots of reasons that have nothing to to with whether the guy was guilty or not. Perfect example: Hurricane Carter
Taken from the wiki page...
It doesn't quite sound 'perfect', but I take your point.
Surely the question remains, however: how can a man go from so close to having his life taken, to being released -- does this not spell problems with the judicial system?
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by HumeAYes it does. Everything has problems. That it has a problem doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Fortunately, it's still among the best judicial systems in the world.
"The question of Carter’s actual guilt or innocence remains a strongly polarizing one. However, this much is certain: either the criminal justice system released a triple murderer from the punishment that two separate juries had recommended, or it imprisoned an innocent man for almost 20 years."
Taken from the wiki page...
It doesn't quite sound 'perfect ...[text shortened]... his life taken, to being released -- does this not spell problems with the judicial system?
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by HumeANo, for even if this conviction hadn't been overturned:
Is there an acceptable amount of 'collateral damage'?
A. You still wouldn't know for sure if he'd done it.
B. No society which calls itself humane would let someone live 20 years under threat of death in such a manner.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by HumeAUnlike 'collateral damage', the notion of the death penalty goes back a long way, to the Mosaic Law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Throughout Western history, if you killed someone, your life was forfeit. It is very basic, fundamental principle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7174463.stm
"Scot Kenny Richey has been freed from prison in the US after spending 20 years on death row.
His conviction in 1987 for starting a fire which killed two-year-old Cynthia Collins, was overturned last August."
The [TV] news also stated that at one point he had been an hour from death.
...[text shortened]... out questions about the death penalty. Is there an acceptable amount of 'collateral damage'?
It is such a simple and elegant principle, you can even explain it to a gradeschooler -- if you steal someone's notebook and destroy it, you should replace it, or give him yours if you cannot.
Your question is, then, should we throw out this elegant principle because there is a very small chance we will make a regrettable mistake when it is applied?
I would say no, do not throw out the principle. But, if it makes people happier, let the convicted choose either death or life in solitary confinement. No contact with anyone; or any printed word or invention dated AFTER his conviction. He would be a person alive but as "dead" to the world as any of his victims.
Sentence to be carried out the same day.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by spruce112358Interestingly enough, the second part (in the same paragraph of the bible) of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is "Turn the other cheek."
Unlike 'collateral damage', the notion of the death penalty goes back a long way, to the Mosaic Law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
It's about breaking a vicious circle (whether it's violence, blood vengeance, punishment, etc. )
08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSam The Sham,
It doesn't say he was exonerated. Convictions get overturned for lots of reasons that have nothing to to with whether the guy was guilty or not. Perfect example: Hurricane Carter
I don't get you. Is it your opinion that the process of law NEVER gets it wrong? Or, is it your opinion, 'yes, it gets it wrong sometimes, but who cares as long as some of the guilty suffer'?
Is it your opinion that 'dress someone up in uniform, give them authority, and they NEVER TELL A LIE, they are prisitine and perfect?'.
It is very likely that this poor guy, who lost his best years of his life, simply agreed to the plea bargain to gain his justified freedom. In return, the corrupt legal system says 'we are not guilty of a misscarriage of justice'. The latter is what you have fallen for. A misscariage has taken place, you can't accept that fact.
The legal system is corrupt. It has nothing to do with 'innocence / guilt', but something else.
08 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by znshoTo answer your questions.
Sam The Sham,
I don't get you. Is it your opinion that the process of law NEVER gets it wrong? Or, is it your opinion, 'yes, it gets it wrong sometimes, but who cares as long as some of the guilty suffer'?
Is it your opinion that 'dress someone up in uniform, give them authority, and they NEVER TELL A LIE, they are prisitine and perfect?'.
It is ver system is corrupt. It has nothing to do with 'innocence / guilt', but something else.
No. No. No.
As far as your claim that a miscarriage of justice took place, please explain what you are basing that on. The family of the little girl that burned up in the fire seem to think there was a miscarriage of justice also, but not the way you think.
And how is the legal system corrupt? Please explain.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamHow is the legal sytem corrupt?
To answer your questions.
No. No. No.
As far as your claim that a miscarriage of justice took place, please explain what you are basing that on. The family of the little girl that burned up in the fire seem to think there was a miscarriage of justice also, but not the way you think.
And how is the legal system corrupt? Please explain.
Try this:
Police / prosecution: Find the accused guilty no matter what evidence we have that he / she is innocent.
Defence: Find the accused party not guilty no matter what evidence we have that they are guilty.
08 Jan 08
3 edits
Originally posted by znshoGot an example of such on the evil prosecutor's part?
How is the legal sytem corrupt?
Try this:
Police / prosecution: Find the accused guilty no matter what evidence we have that he / she is innocent.
Defence: Find the accused party not guilty no matter what evidence we have that they are guilty.
By the way, it's the job of the defense to do what you're complaining about, would you have it any other way?
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The Sham1) The Guilford Four. The Birmingham six. Dereck Bentley. Timothy Evans. Sally Clarke. Barry George.
Got an example of such ?
2) That Landlord guy who terroised his tennants. The police officers who terrorised the Guildford Four (Judge in the appeal court: The Police must have lied). The police officers who interrogated the Birmingham Six.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoyeah yeah yeah you mentioned all those before and I looked them up, nothing about those cases is as clear cut as you make out and they weren't declared innocent of all wrong doing as you claim, it was judicial error, etc.
1) The Guilford Four. The Birmingham six. Dereck Bentley. Timothy Evans. Sally Clarke. Barry George.
2) That Landlord guy who terroised his tennants. The police officers who terrorised the Guildford Four (Judge in the appeal court: The Police must have lied). The police officers who interrogated the Birmingham Six.
I quit, argue with someone else.