Why death penalty...pro and contra

[Maiken]

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.

[JTiscool]

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.

[Maiken]

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.

[Gregg Fisher]

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.

[Maiken]

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.

[Gregg Fisher]

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.

[Maiken]

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.

[Gregg Fisher]

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.

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.

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

Only if allowed under the post-conviction DNA statutes.

[Maiken]

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.

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.

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.

[Gregg Fisher]

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. 

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.

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.

[Maiken]

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. 

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.

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.

[Gregg Fisher]

Sorry, I do not have access to the laws.

You have as much access as everyone else. It's called the internet.

DNA-testing can help to find out the truth . 

In most cases, post conviction DNA testing requests are a waste of time and are meant to delay an execution.

Every prisoner should have the right to prove his innocense.

They did -- at trial.   The right to post conviction DNA testing is governed by the law which is quite logical and fair. Your arguments for DNA testing are not. 

Some states simply refuse that right.

States refuse to grant post conviction DNA testing to those who do not meet the criteria of the post conviction DNA testing laws.

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

Nope.   Post conviction dna laws are meant to prevent guilty people from scamming the justice system and ensuring that the guilty ARE punished.

[JTiscool]

Every prisoner should have the right to prove his innocense

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

[Maiken]

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.

[JTiscool]

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.

But if they are proven guilty at trial and convicted then innocent until proven guilty becomes a moot point.