Quote

Every prisoner should have the right to prove his innocense

That's assuming they are innocent in the first place.

That is law in every civilized conntry...innocent until proven guitly.

Yes I have internet access, but I still do not know where to find those laws.

I can understand, that questioning for DNA testing might delay an execution or sometimes is just for that simple reason.

But testing DNA is not costy anymore and can be done quickly and easily.

Several inmates demanded for ages that DNA which was found to be tested. In vain. They wher executed. Though they even consented in paying that test themselves.

Now take the szenario that tests would have proved them to be guilty.

Then they could have been executed years beforehand. and no such great costs would have amounted.

And if proven innocent, might be that the true offender would have been found.

Denying DNA testing blocks justice rather than helping it.

Quote from: Maiken on February 05, 2011, 10:24:38 AM

Sorry, i do not have the time to read law texts from all the states which deny DNA being tested.

But you expect others to use their time and do it for you?  Why do you think your time is more precious than everyone else's?
And why would you form an opinion without the rudimentary facts to back it up?  Doesn't that make your opinion worthless?
And once again, you're in luck since all the statutes are similar.  Just pick one state and read it.  Go ahead, give it a try. 

Quote

If DNA is availabe and was not tested beforehand it should be done afterwards, no matter why it was not tested beforehand.

Repeating the same fallacy isn't going to make it true.

Quote

The truth sohuld be found out. thats important. Nothing else.

Correct. And that is why we have laws governing post conviction DNA testing. Your way has nothing to do with truth. In fact, I would say, you want just the opposite.

Sorry, I do not have access to the laws.

DNA-testing can help to find out the truth .  Every prisoner should have the right to prove his innocense.
Some states simply refuse that right.

That way not only innocent people might be executed. also it means that some crimes simply stay unpunsihed.

I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, but generalities do not work here.  Killing someone because of drugs or money, or gangss is not an escalating act of violence unless you are looking soley at the incident at hand. 

I still do not understand what you are meaning about "coldblooded" killers not getting caught.  Can you provide some specifics?

Plea bargaining is an important and useful tool within any District Attorney's office.  It is not used wildly as a club, but often as a strategic tool to benefit the greater good.  We do not choose the characters we deal with, they are presented to us via arrest.  As such, some may receive a better outcome than others, but not to the level you imply.

I think it goes to an greater impact, than most believe.

Juan Melendez was a victim of such a deal, stayed on death row for 17 years, though an taped confession of the true murderer was at the office of the district attorney all the time.

Debra Milke is on death row cause of what police officer said, that she ordered the murder of her child, though there was no evidence against her, except what the murderer said.

From the guys who killed chester Poage in horrendous way, only one was spared...the one who made a deal.

And there are quite a few people in prison which got framed all over the world.

Since the 70th over 1300 poeple were executed in the state AND abut 130 people released or their sentence commuted.

This is every 10th case, where mistakes had to be corrected. Isn't that an impact?
Often after spending more then 10 years on death row.

Not forgotten those, which where executed, though innocent.

Quote from: Maiken on February 05, 2011, 09:45:21 AM

Sorry I would rather have it to be explained to me in more simple language.

I'm sure you would. However, I rather that you do your own research which is something you should have done before voicing an opinion.   And you're in luck: the language of the statutes is pretty straight forward.

Quote

In a lot of cases, which gsometimes go back to the 90th or 80th, DNA tests were not available.

The statutes governing post conviction DNA testing address that issue.

Quote

so it should be the right of an an inmate to test them now.

Only if allowed under the post-conviction DNA statutes.

Sorry, i do not have the time to read law texts from all the states which deny DNA being tested.

If DNA is availabe and was not tested beforehand it should be done afterwards, no matter why it was not tested beforehand.

The truth sohuld be found out. thats important. Nothing else.

"Most murderersare not coldblooded"?   That is a most interesting comment to say the least.

If by coldblooded, you mean a callous disregard for human life, then you would be wrong.  There are many who try to romanticize murder by insinuating that murders are committed jealous lovers or as a result of abusive situations, but that is only a percentage of murders today.  I deal with murders committed over drug deals, gang affiliations, insults, and many other reasons.  The one thing they have in common is that the killer held little value of human life and were willing to take one in order to further their own cause.  They are caught for a variety of reasons: good investigations, stupidity on the part of the killer, being turned in, guilt, and even dumb luck.  Lastly, prisons are filled with "coldblooded" killers.  Life is not a movie, look at it from a realistic and honest perspective and you might seen things a litle different.

You are right.


But what I say, is right too. Most murders are not real planned in cold blood, but happen in an escalating situation of violence.

Really coldblooded murderers stand better chances NOT to be caught, or to be spared from the DP.

It is sad to watch, when 3 guys kill a person, 2 will often make a plea bargain, and the most harmless of the three gets the DP or even an innocent man.

Nothing new.

Quote from: Maiken on February 05, 2011, 08:13:15 AM

Quote from: Gregg Fisher on February 05, 2011, 08:03:55 AM

Quote from: Maiken on February 05, 2011, 06:59:50 AM

Quote from: JTiscool on February 05, 2011, 06:48:53 AM

The latest DNA technology has yet to fail. When someone who was sentenced to death in the 2000s with the new DNA testiing is factually proven innocent, then you can tell us that the DNA testing was a mistake.

We already have education to help others learn that committing crimes is wrong and it's called a TV.

You can't prevent someone from murdering others and I don't feel like wasting my time on some hopeless scum only for them to kill again.

No one needs help. 98% of all murderers know right from wrong and those who claim that they didn't are looking for a way to evade punishment.

Well also a lot of people managed to prove their innocense by late DNA-Testing.

Yes, it is a good thing.

Unakceptable, that some staes  in USA do not allow inmates tove DNA tested, that they are executed, though DNA is availabe, only they are not allowed to have it tested. Or that that they must fight for years to have it tested.

No, it's very acceptable to not allow DNA testing in all cases. I suggest you actually read the laws governing DNA testing and you might understand why it is not allowed.

Please be so free and tell my why it is very aceptable to deny DNA-Testing.

Available DNA should be tested anyway. not only if it suits the prosecution.

Please be so free to do what I suggested you do, i.e., read the actual laws governing DNA testing.

Also, before trial the defense has a big say as to what items are DNA tested.

Sorry I would rather have it to be explained to me in more simple language.

In a lot of cases, which gsometimes go back to the 90th or 80th, DNA tests were not available.

so it should be the right of an an inmate to test them now.

Quote from: Maiken on February 05, 2011, 06:59:50 AM

Quote from: JTiscool on February 05, 2011, 06:48:53 AM

The latest DNA technology has yet to fail. When someone who was sentenced to death in the 2000s with the new DNA testiing is factually proven innocent, then you can tell us that the DNA testing was a mistake.

We already have education to help others learn that committing crimes is wrong and it's called a TV.

You can't prevent someone from murdering others and I don't feel like wasting my time on some hopeless scum only for them to kill again.

No one needs help. 98% of all murderers know right from wrong and those who claim that they didn't are looking for a way to evade punishment.

Well also a lot of people managed to prove their innocense by late DNA-Testing.

Yes, it is a good thing.

Unakceptable, that some staes  in USA do not allow inmates tove DNA tested, that they are executed, though DNA is availabe, only they are not allowed to have it tested. Or that that they must fight for years to have it tested.

No, it's very acceptable to not allow DNA testing in all cases. I suggest you actually read the laws governing DNA testing and you might understand why it is not allowed.

Please be so free and tell my why it is very aceptable to deny DNA-Testing.

Available DNA should be tested anyway. not only if it suits the prosecution.

There was a very case in the USA, which came to public.

A syndrom was named after the name of the victim, which I cannot remember.

Fact was, that her murdere came 3 Times after her, was chased away by her cries for help and the fear to be discovered.

But no one helped and he returned 2 times until she finally was dead.

Thats what I mean with awareness. Several victims could still be alive, if they had got help.

Most murderers are NOT coldblooded. Thats also the reason why they get caught.

People who really murder in cold blood are not even been caught.

Murders often occur out of an escalating situation of violence. Those people do not necessarily be an lifelong threat to the community. Some ore, some not. Thats all.

The latest DNA technology has yet to fail. When someone who was sentenced to death in the 2000s with the new DNA testiing is factually proven innocent, then you can tell us that the DNA testing was a mistake.

We already have education to help others learn that committing crimes is wrong and it's called a TV.

You can't prevent someone from murdering others and I don't feel like wasting my time on some hopeless scum only for them to kill again.

No one needs help. 98% of all murderers know right from wrong and those who claim that they didn't are looking for a way to evade punishment.

Well also a lot of people managed to prove their innocense by late DNA-Testing.

Yes, it is a good thing.

Unakceptable, that some staes  in USA do not allow inmates tove DNA tested, that they are executed, though DNA is availabe, only they are not allowed to have it tested. Or that that they must fight for years to have it tested.

If you call TV as a means to teach others not to kill, ...sorry but the most vicious deeds are seen on TV by youngsters. I do not think that TV helps in any way towards that goal. Remember Hanibal Lector and how do really admire him.....wurgs!!!

Yes, there are people who need help and that are the later victims, before they fall victim to a crime which might be hindere, if some one helps beforehand.

Hi Jonny Two Toes,
Your thread seems to mix to quite separate but equally meritable questions - Does the DP work, your blunt answer is YES - as no executed offender has harmed another living soul.....

I think this very shortsighted. And I have  quite some arguments against it.

1. Did you know, that 95 % of  rape and murder where done by men?
but you would not agree with me, if I said, well lets spay them all and execute them, cause no man spayed will ever be able to rape again or murder?

2. In fact, DP is no deterrent against crimes. It was for example common, that while thieves where publically hanged, their fellow thieves pick-pocketed the audience.

There are really bad people. But either they think, they get away or where so agitated, that they did not think anymore.
Both type of people won't be hindered by executing someone, but rather by a community, that does care and does not lokk away and help, when one is in danger.

I would like to  start this thread so also the other side can beard, people which are against death penalty and have reasons against which are far from being blue-eyed or want to discriminate the victims of crimes.

With some thugs I would rather prefer a quick lynching, though thats forbidden, I know.

But I also knwo, that despite very good police work a smokescreen can rise up, which makes innocent people to appear as monsters, which later turned out to be innocent. Even DNA -Analysis might fail.

In Germany was a yearlong hunt for a woman serial killer, whose DNA was found at a lot of homocide crime scenes.

Later it turned out, the she was just a sloppy laboritist, who had contamined crime DNA with her own while testing it.

People spend ages on death row often without being a threat at all.

Since the seventies more then 100 people where released from death as innocent, often after spending more than ten Years in jail.

Should they have been executed earlier?

Think about the costs which that makes! The ruined lifes of those innnocent and the fact, that many crimes stay unpunished that way.

Should that money not rather be used for the communities, for education and so on?

I think the best way to protect each others is NOT to look away, but to help, when someone near needs it.

Wasting money for punshing makes it missing whre it is more needed...in prevention.

Revisiting former Thug of the Months to keep ya'll updated.  One item of interest in this particular case is that Foster also was implicated in the slaying of a former Texas Tech student, Rachel Urnosky. The same gun used to kill Nyanuer “Mary” Pal was also used to kill Rachel Urnosky.

I believe Foster is now in the 5th Circuit or headed into the 5th, so far his conviction has been affirmed.  I am going to do some more research on this one and post everything I can find. Stay tuned......

If You read all information about him, you will see, that the same roommate Sheldon Ward was also his roommate at that time and involved.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/384058/the_case_of_cleve_foster_another_innocent_pg2.html?cat=17

Take the word from Justice Scalia:


"You want to have a fair death penalty?" "You kill; you die. That's fair."
- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

There can never be a fair death penalty, if you sit down and start thinking.

There are a hell of a lot persons who really make death plans for some other persons. Most times it fails, luckily enough or they withdraw from that plan.

Some other people are not so lucky and the victim dies, though sometimes even unwanted.

How can you be fair to them?

Really, is life fair to us?

Apart from that, that a lot of people, who are on death row, are scapegoats for others. For our society. Is that fair?

Is it fair, to take someone his job, his wife and children, shut him up somewhere for 20 years?

But can it be an answer to kill just to show, that society tries to keep its rules? Scapegoates.

Apart from that, even worse: Roughly 1300 people where killed in the USA and nearly 130 people where released from death row as innocent.

Latest ist Anthony Graves after 18 Years in prison.

Do you call such a system just?

Arbitrary, flawed, murderous.