JoJo said:
Saltyk said:
JoJo said:
This sort of case is why the death penalty, which may be theoretically a good idea in some extreme cases, doesn't really work in practice. No justice system is perfect and in a system where death is an option, inevitably someone innocent will get executed. Is this guy innocent? Maybe, maybe not. I'd sure rather pay for his and a mostly despicable crowd of people to live on safely separated from society than risk a mistake that's can't be fixed.
Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life? Seriously, think about it. Prison is about as close to Hell on earth as you can get without entering an active war zone. Would you want to spend the rest of your natural life with some of the scummiest people on the planet? Would you really be okay with them denying this DNA test despite the belief that he was possibly innocent if the prison sentence was Life instead of Death? How would that be better? How are you or anyone else better than the people denying this test? The outrage should be about an innocent man spending 30 years in prison as much as being executed. Both are travesties!
That being said, I don't care to comment on this particular case.
Leaving an innocent man in prison isn't any better than unjust execution, except that there's the chance that
if new evidence arises showing that the conviction was false for whatever reason, they can be released and compensated. You can't "unkill" someone who's been executed if they turn out to be innocent.
Edit: I've just read some of the discussion above between you and some other posters and I believe you misinterpreted my post. I don't think it's okay to imprison an innocent man, just preferable to death. I won't lie, there are definitely people out there I wouldn't mind executing myself but the right of the possibly innocent to one day be proven not guilty out-weighs the benefits of such a system. There's no such thing as a clear-cut case: witnesses can lie or forget, evidence can be forged, experts can be wrong.
I'm sorry, I was posting here about 10 minutes before leaving for work, so I didn't really get the opportunity to say everything the way I wanted to or explain things in a way that I wanted to. I usually reread before I post to make sure that my thoughts, beliefs and intentions are clear. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
To clarify, I meant that arguments against the Death Penalty always come up with "It's better to imprison a man than kill him in case he in innocent". Which is how I read your post. My problem with this argument is that it implies that it is okay to imprison an innocent man. It is not. One of the founding principles of American justice is that "It is better to allow 10 guilty men to go free than let one innocent man go to prison". I believe this. So when people imply that the real crime in the Death Penalty is the possibility that innocent people can be killed, I have a bigger problem with the idea of innocent people being convicted. Which is a problem on a larger scale. One that if prevented would completely eradicate the possibility of innocent people being executed. Impossible? Yes. But a man can dream.
To be perfectly clear, I have no problem with the Death Penalty, in theory. I don't think it should used in every case, but only in the most extreme cases (like serial killers, mass murderers, and such) and only in cases that leave absolutely no doubt (which shouldn't be hard in the previously listed cases). Honestly, I don't know the full details of this case, but I see no harm in allowing the DNA test. Like you, I don't want innocent people to be killed by the state. I merely wanted people to address the idea of innocent people being imprisoned in general. I feel like we always acknowledge the idea of them being executed, but no one talks about them being imprisoned. Which, if less serious, is more rampant.
Also, consider that if the test were to prove his innocence resulting in his release, he would have lost 30 years of his life. His family, friends, loves, children, would all have grown and moved on. He would have lost years to strive a life, a career, education, or anything. Is his mother still alive? Did she did thinking her son had committed murder or believing his was wrongly convicted? Nothing the state could do would fix that. No amount of money would atone. THAT is no less tragic than killing an innocent man. Sure killing him is final, but destroying their life is pretty final, too.
Blablahb said:
Saltyk said:
You are! Yeah, your opinion is worthless to me. Nice try, though.
Fortunately I can always count on the rudeness of gun nuts to discredit themselves before I even start writing.
Although there's quite a similarity to saying it's okay to murder someone because he stepped onto your lawn, and murder someone because a convicted killer trying to pin his murder on someone else claims that person did it.
Shows what you know. I don't even own a gun. Try again. I could use a good laugh.
Also, the case I referenced before wasn't about someone "stepping on their lawn". It was about someone breaking into their house, endangering their child, and then breaking into the locked bathroom they were holed up in for 20 minutes while on the phone with the police. The idea that you would even suggest that is murder sickens and saddens me. But you already made your opinion on that known. Which is why I don't value or respect your opinion.
Honestly, I can understand people who have a problem with the Death Penalty. I can. I don't mind people who don't agree with it. So if you have a problem with this case, that is okay. But to even compare it to the one I referenced is just repugnant. On all levels. Good day, sir.
