09 Jun 06
The other day I went to a talk by Nick Yarris.
He was sent to prison in 1981 and to death row in 1982 for a murder he didn't commit.
After two decades of protesting his innocence and campaigning to be the first death-row prisoner to have DNA testing to prove his innocence, he gave up hope in 2002 and wrote to his appeals judge asking to be put to death.
In January 2004, after the testing proved his innocence, he walked free after 23 years in prison (almost all on death row) - more than half his life (he's now 45).
Does anyone who is in favour of the death penalty have any comments on this story?
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by zeebleboti'm not expecting anything. personally i'm not in favour of the death penalty.
are you expecting a six-sigma error rate, from a profession inhabited solely by attorneys?
if not, what error rate is acceptable?
i'm just wondering what people who are make of this story. it's a miracle this guy wasn't executed. think of all the others who were.
i can't see how any error rate is acceptable.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by murrowThere is no acceptable error rate, but humans being human we're certainly going to make mistakes.
i'm not expecting anything. personally i'm not in favour of the death penalty.
i'm just wondering what people who are make of this story. it's a miracle this guy wasn't executed. think of all the others who were.
i can't see how any error rate is acceptable.
I have a tough time with the death penalty for this very reason. Others feel taking a life is wrong no matter the cirumstances or the crime committed. I'm not one of them. My only issue is the fallibility of the system.
Recently we've had quite a few men released from prison due to DNA evidence. Most were sex offenders. So if we've made mistakes there how many other mistakes have we already executed and buried?
That's not the sort of thing a state with the death penalty wants to investigate. No one likes to go back and look for their own horrible mistakes. So who really knows how many innocent people we may have already put to death in the last 100 years?
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotI agree with that statement. Considering the number of appeals and reviews that occur before someone is put to death in the US it's rare, IMO, that an innocent man slips through and winds up with a needle in his arm. But like we said, we're human. And if there's any way to fudge something up... we'll find it.
so, actually, the death penalty is fair, as far as a human-operated system can implement it.
Then there's the argument about defining the word "fair". That's a whole other can of worms.
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by murrowI bet he is pretty suprised how screwed up the world is now. Any sane person would of asked to stay in jail.
The other day I went to a talk by Nick Yarris.
He was sent to prison in 1981 and to death row in 1982 for a murder he didn't commit.
After two decades of protesting his innocence and campaigning to be the first death-row prisoner to have DNA testing to prove his innocence, he gave up hope in 2002 and wrote to his appeals judge asking to be put to death.
...[text shortened]... now 45).
Does anyone who is in favour of the death penalty have any comments on this story?
10 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by danielsmithYou can't say that. If you were placed inside a jail cell for the wrong reason and promised death after some time you might rather have that death as opposed to sitting and rotting, I think it could drive someone mad, or just to the level that they want what they are getting threatened with.
I bet he is pretty suprised how screwed up the world is now. Any sane person would of asked to stay in jail.
[EDIT] I may of misread your post, oh well I will leave what I posted.
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by wibAnd there's also the defining of the word "innocent". While it is certainly rare that someone is innocent of the crime for which they are executed, I expect it is even far more rare that they are "innocent" in terms of being innocent of any other major crimes. I expect very, very few of the very rare "innocent" are actually people one wants back on the streets.
I agree with that statement. Considering the number of appeals and reviews that occur before someone is put to death in the US it's rare, IMO, that an innocent man slips through and winds up with a needle in his arm. But like we said, we're human. And if there's any way to fudge something up... we'll find it.
Then there's the argument about defining the word "fair". That's a whole other can of worms.
However, that doesn't excuse any legal mistake, it's just an observation on the use of the word "innocent".
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by DelmerI think this post says that anybody who gets tried in a court is guilty of something anyway so should be punished.
And there's also the defining of the word "innocent". While it is certainly rare that someone is innocent of the crime for which they are executed, I expect it is even far more rare that they are "innocent" in terms of being innocent of any other major crimes. I expect very, very few of the very rare "innocent" are actually people one wants back on the street ...[text shortened]... excuse any legal mistake, it's just an observation on the use of the word "innocent".
If a person was innocent of a crime, yet convicted, then presumably the jury should have come up with a verdict of "Not guilty" at the original trial. You just said that "these people" are probably guilty of something else so presumably, you are saying that a "not guilty" verdict should be ignored.
This could save a LOT of money because we could do away with the courts completely!!! Anyone the police arrest go straight to prison or the execution chamber!!!
I like it!!!
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by WheelyI'm glad you like it Wheely, but are you sure that's what I said?
I think this post says that anybody who gets tried in a court is guilty of something anyway so should be punished.
If a person was innocent of a crime, yet convicted, then presumably the jury should have come up with a verdict of "Not guilty" at the original trial. You just said that "these people" are probably guilty of something else so presumably, you ...[text shortened]... Anyone the police arrest go straight to prison or the execution chamber!!!
I like it!!!
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by DelmerI inferred it from this part of your post.
I'm glad you like it Wheely, but are you sure that's what I said?
I expect it is even far more rare that they are "innocent" in terms of being innocent of any other major crimes. I expect very, very few of the very rare "innocent" are actually people one wants back on the streets
I do appreciate that you probably didn't mean it quite like that but I felt it a rather dangerous thing to be saying.
10 Jun 06
Originally posted by Wheelythat is the dumbest defence of the death penalty I've ever heard...
I think this post says that anybody who gets tried in a court is guilty of something anyway so should be punished.
If a person was innocent of a crime, yet convicted, then presumably the jury should have come up with a verdict of "Not guilty" at the original trial. You just said that "these people" are probably guilty of something else so presumably, you ...[text shortened]... Anyone the police arrest go straight to prison or the execution chamber!!!
I like it!!!