What is Digg?88 Comments
- seacow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33This is why I'm against the death penalty. Without going into the morality of it, there is the simple fact that a prison sentence is reversible and a death sentence is not.
- SuperBob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27How grossly inhumane! First you lose your *THREE* little girls to a fire and then you're executed for their deaths...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25With any luck those responsible for the execution of an innocent man will be brought up on charges for at the very least incompetence leading to death and criminal negligence.
- csimpkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18$430,000 for 17 years!?!? That's a pretty terrible salary rate for possibly the worst job in the world (being an innocent man on death row, that is).
- Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22There's a word for killing an innocent person. "Murder".
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17BugMeNot is your friend.
- cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@crythias
So 3000 out of around 1,700,000 inmates (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pjim97.htm) died. That's about 0.2%. I wonder if you purposely left out the number of inmates. I will assume you forgot.
Around 75 out of 80 death row inmates died. That's about 94%.
How are they more likely to die in jail?
I see where you're coming from, but you can't argue that it's better that an innocent person who is almost gauranteed to die on death row is somehow better off then an innocent person who has a small chance of dying in prison. - theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Oh well, you win some you loose some - but the death penalty is worth it right? I mean think of all those criminals who must have been deterred by this.
***** death penalty advocates are murderers by proxy using this kind of BS excuse to justify killing people for some PR campaign to discourage other criminals. - Gills, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14capital punishment is muder by state. in my book executions are worse than the original crime. and why is it so many death penalty advocates call themselves christians while forgetting the fundamental teachings of Jesus.
- ajlobato, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Won't happen. A jury of his own peers decided that he was guilty of the crime. Short of intentional misleading or negligent prosecuting, both of which are very rare, there are no charges to press.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I think anyone who supports the death penalty should be prepared to personally kill the victims with their own hands before they agree with it...
The sad part about our society it that probably a large number would... - Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Agreed. Also it costs on average 20 million dollars to put a man to death. It costs about 5 million to keep him there for life.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7And don't forget that it was a 24 hour a day job, no nights and weekends off and no vacations.
- crythias, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Less than 100 people (actually it averages less than 80) people are executed per year in the United States. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=1264
There are stays for execution (Death Penalty is Reversible) This year at least 5. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=190
More than 16,000 people are murdered each year in the United States.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
More than 800000 abortions are performed each year in the United States. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm
Something DeathPenalty opponents don't tell you:
In 1997, over 3000 people died in prison.
Of them:
over 530 people died related to AIDS
159 -suicide
75 were killed by another inmate (one more than execution in the same year)
360+ unspecified causes.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus97.pdf
Considering how hard it is to get the death penalty relative to going to jail, where is your outrage about the people who are more likely to die in prison than by the execution?
This moral outrage about Death Penalty needs some tempering. You can mod me down if you want. I'm just giving real facts, even if the opinion isn't popular. - cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@JonBe
I'm going to have to disagree with you here for a variety of reasons. Yes, reversing a prison sentence can't give back time, but it can still give back a person's freedom. You can never give an innocent death penalty victim his/her life back.
I found it kind of ironic that you say to protect innocent's from being killed you would kill repeated offenders even if they are innocent of their death penalty conviction. Wouldn't that be killing an innocent person? Also you say they should be punished even if they are innocent of their last crime, but if they were found guilty of those I'd assume that they had, in fact, been punished. Even if the person is the scum of the Earth, most people would be opposed to killing them for a crime they didn't commit. That is still murder.
I should point out that in your example, non of the crimes you listed were violent, but that was probably just an accident so I won't hold it against you.
Saying that you would have repeated economic criminals executed reminds me of the old 'Three strikes' system in California I believe it was. I'm not sure of the exact details but if you committed three crimes(of what variety I'm not sure), you would have gotten a life sentence. Frankly, to me it seems that the message is that we give up on rehabilitating these people. I don't think that should ever be the attitude we take towards criminals. That's more of a moral issue, so I'll leave it at that.
The possibility of escape shouldn't be used as a reason to kill people, since criminals convicted of non-violent crimes could escape as well. Should we hold them by the same standard and kill them so to prevent that possibility? The same goes for the economic argument that it is expensive to keep criminals in prison.
The phrase "putting them to sleep" should never be used with the death penalty. Scientists have shown that the methods used for lethal injection would be considered inhumane for "putting to sleep" animals.
I don't see why a life sentence with no chance of parole isn't good enough. It has mostly the same effect as the death penalty: It takes away their entire lives and it removes them from society completely. However, it has the bonus of leaving open the possibility of exonerating them instead of murdering an innocent person. - Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@crythias, I know this is cliche, but "eye for an eye and everyone goes blind"
No matter what the numbers, killing someone is still killing someone, I just cannot morally support the death penalty. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Why anyone would want to give such an incompetent, corrupt government the power to carry out the death penalty is beyond me.
- cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@crythias
The percentage is important because ratios are scalable while raw numbers are not. So, raw numbers don't actually tell you anything.
Let me ask you this: You have a choice of living in City A where 1000 people are murdered every year or City B where 50 people are murdered every year. Where would you rather live? City B, right? I mean, 20 times as many people are dying in City A!
By the way, City A has a population of 100 million and City B has a population of 100. Now where would you rather live? If you still want to live in City B where you have a 50% chance of dying... well, good luck with that.
Now, on death row you are almost guaranteed to die. In a normal prison, the chance of dying is extremely low. The ratio is important because if, for some reason, all of a sudden there are only 3000 people in prison, you won't still have 3000 inmates dying every year. You'll have 0.2% of that, or 6. Or how about if you have 80, now you won't even have 1 inmate dying a year. This is what ratios tell you that raw numbers cannot.
So, 75 out of 80 dying a year, or less than 1 out of 80 dying a year. Would you rather be in prison or on death row?
We don't use raw numbers because it makes things sounds a lot better, or a lot worse, than they actually are. - wrinkles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's no such thing as faulty science, only faulty scientists.
- dexim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ patrock
Maybe you should go back and read it again.
"In the Willingham trial, the committee found, a deputy state fire marshal, Manuel Vasquez, erred in tracing the blaze to an accelerant. The committee discredited his finding of arson. "Each and every one of the 'indicators' listed by Mr. Vasquez means absolutely nothing," the report said."
"Other Texas arson investigators and a retired agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that the fire charged to Mr. Willis was also arson, the report said. One prosecution witness said fires were rarely caused by accidentally dropped cigarettes; in fact, cigarettes are the leading cause of fire deaths, the report said." - MattH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Jesus also recived the death penalty for his "crimes"
- cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@patrock
"Mr. Willis was exonerated and pardoned on Oct. 6, 2004, and collected almost $430,000 for 17 years of wrongful imprisonment.
The report says that prosecution witnesses in both cases interpreted fire indicators like cracked glass and burn marks as evidence that the fires had been set, when more up-to-date technology shows that the indicators could just as well have signified an accidental fire. In one case, the signs were accepted as proof of guilt, the report said; in the other, they were discarded as misleading."
Hmm... Yep, it definitely says that at least one of them is innocent, if not both. - numba1xclusive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Texas leads the nation in inmates serving time for arson, the report said: 666 as of 2002, the latest year for which statistics are available."
guh >_> - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What makes you think the power was given, and not taken?
- nwagers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Did anyone else feel like they weren't getting the whole story? This article was more about bad forensics than the pros and cons of the death penalty. I think it's important to keep in mind that the trials of these men were far more complex than a single piece of evidence. I haven't research myself, but I'd imagine that Willingham's case was very strong.
- tutivlahos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I Agree.
- crythias, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And he was innocent :)
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@crythias
"If you want to convince me that 94% of 80 is more important a number than .2% of 1.7 million, I'm seriously willing to listen to your arguments as to why."
Are you serious? If .01% of all car drivers die in a car accident and that number = 100,000 are you saying that cars are more lethal than death row?
Put a man on death row, and he WILL most likely die. Put a man in prison and he has a slightly elevated chance of dying BUT YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHANCE OF DYING IF YOU ARE ALIVE. - vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Penn & Teller: *****! on the Death Penalty: http://www.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=712527
- bigtallmofo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Killing an innocent man sure is a horrific thing. But before you read one news source and decide that's what happened, do a little investigation on your own. Start by searching for the name of the supposedly innocent person that was put to death - "Cameron Todd Willingham". One of the first articles that pops up is:
http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/320.asp
Just look at some of the quotes in there from the testimony at this scumball's trial. You'll quickly see that the NY Times article is misleading AT BEST. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@crythias
1,810,462 Christians died in the United States last year, and only 12,768 Christians were murdered. Considering how hard it is to get murdered relative to dying some other way, where is your outrage about the people who are more likely to die by other causes than by murder? This moral outrage about Christians being murdered needs some tempering. You can mod me down if you want. I'm just giving real facts, even if the opinion isn't popular.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? I haven't changed anything about your argument except the group involved. Think about it. - JonBe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15A prison sentence is not reversible. You can not give back time.
To prevent killing of innocent people you could reserve the death penalty for those that repeatedly is judged and sentenced for (increasingly) (violent) (dangerous) crimes. An example could be someone getting a few convictions for shoplifting, breaking and entering as teenagers, robbery in their early twenties, car theft in their late twenties, ... Later in their life, if they are found guilty again, then the society could say "you never learn, you are a danger to other humans, I'm sorry, but we are going to remove that danger, PERMANENTLY"
No one can found guilty and judged in 5-10 different crimes during their life, and still be innocent for every crime. Yes, they might be innocent for one of the crimes, especially that last one, but they still committed the other crimes, and for that they should be punished.
One could include economic crimes as well, if people are just found guilty enough before they commit the last crime.
Yes you could put people into prison, but occasionally people escape, or at least try, thus endangering the prison guards. Besides putting people in prison cost a lot more than "putting them to sleep".
This system gives chances for wrong doing to people, but if they still wont listen after the first few punishments, fines, community service, county slammer, federal pound me in the ass prison, ... why continue to invest resources into these criminals?
One could see it a little like a business project. First you invest heavily into the project (giving kids an education), then the project runs late, misses some deadlines and the ones responsible is fired (giving fines, putting people in jail), but finally, if the project never succeeds, you kill it... - Dross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now an exact science is blood splatter analysis.
I see the awe inspiring blood splatter analyists on TV and it makes my skin crawl. Why are these guys almost always wearing plaid jackets?
Oh, the amazing things these talented individuals can see from a splatter of blood is quite frankly reminding of the ancients reading sheep guts or tea leaves or how bones fall.
As an engineer and a physicist and I find the computational powers of these guys superhuman. What I would attempt armed only with the most advanced tools and the 'answer' would include an estimate of error, these guys get on the stand and state FACT. I am not worthy. - wrinkles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Aww c'mon, did you see this guy? Looks like some kind of Italian mafioso. Guilty.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The reason the United States has the death penalty is because Americans have a very hard time separating emotion from thought, and vengeance from justice. The death penalty makes absolute sense emotionally, and zero sense rationally. First of all, what do people commit suicide for? Do you really think it's because they think they are so horrible that they deserve to die? No. It's because they want to escape from their tortured life. So why on Earth would you go and perform that service for a low-life murderer? Make them suffer for 60 years in prison. Secondly, someone lay out the logical argument that killing people is an effective way of illustrating that killing people is wrong.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Many arson investigators were self-taught and "inept," "
someone self taught shouldn't be able to put someone to their death.
misleading title.. should be competent scientist prove state used idiot s
scientist to put innocent people to death.
and
"The report says that prosecution witnesses in both cases interpreted fire indicators like cracked glass and burn marks as evidence that the fires had been set, when more up-to-date technology shows that the indicators could just as well have signified an accidental fire."
new technology trumps old technology... happens all the time - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The difference is that in the United States we don't sentence people to death unless they can prove they are innocent. It works the other way around buddy.
- phoggey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Haha, damn right. As one man put it, "Some states are trying to end execution, my state is putting it in the fast lane".
- madinga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree, nice to see some anti Capital Punishment senitment on here. From everything I read about the USA, the people there are usually holding parties when someone is executed. Time to get into the modern age and realise that the death penalty has NO value - not as a deterrent, it's not cheaper, and if one innocent man gets killed...
The Death Penalty is state-sanctioned murder. That's the long and the short of it. - ctech2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I get the feeling info is left out. juries are NOT known to convict based on one piece of scientific evidence without corroberation. There has to have been more. That this case was made by the, what did they call it, "Innocence Society"? raises a red flag--I do not know what the I.S. is, but I suspect an agenda to prove people innocent after convication by a fair trial. Sometimes innocent people are convicated, but I suspect any organization similar to I.S. will find cases of this where there are none.
I also note that the person pardoned was not proven innocent--it was just ruled that he wasn't proven guilty. His evidence may have been different from the executed criminal's evidence too.
There is too much information left out for us to know if there is anything to this story. - raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In an ideal world, but as long as there is no physical proof of malice, they can't be charged, and even if there is, it's just purgery, not manslaughter.
Just shows how screwed up the legal system is. - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not guilty != innocent
- antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Non-registration link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/us/03execute.html?ex=1304308800&en=33742a74f92fc138&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
- turdferguson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There's a word for killing an innocent person. "Murder"." Actually executing a guilty man is just as much murder as killing an innocent one. Make no mistake the death penalty IS murder, not to mention genocide, but (usually) it's a morally justified murder.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 "Those responsible" are guilty of murder, plain and simply, and should be executed.
And no, ignorance is no excuse. - MrGeneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If an expert witness makes an error that results in the death of an Innocent person then perhaps the expert witness should be charged with man slaughter.
- cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@crythias
Sorry, indeed 75 out of 80 isn't the correct number of the total death row inmates who will die, but that's the number who die in one year. and 3000 out of 1.7 million is in one year. You can't say that 80 out of 2000 death row inmates die per year. That is completely misleading since those 2000 inmates are on death row because they are scheduled to die. It doesn't matter if it takes place over many years, the death rate on death row is close to 100%. All the stats manipulating in the world won't change that.
Also, comparing raw numbers is meaningless. 80 dying per year on death row and 3000 in jail sounds like a huge difference, but it's only appearance. You always have to use ratios. For example, the actual number of crimes in Canada is much, much less than in the US. Does that mean Canada is safer in terms of crime? No, because the crime rate per capita is nearly exactly the same. So you are just as likely to be the victim of a crime in Canada as the US. Likewise, 3000 inmates out of 1.7 million is still a 0.2% death rate in prison. And the 75 killed in one year out of 80 scheduled to be killed in one year on death row is still a 94% death rate on death row. - Beej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The funny thing is, so many people think of science exactly that way, as some sort of truth that is coming to take away their beliefs.
If people better understood what science was, I suspect they'd be less afraid of it. - dexim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unfortunately Mr. Vasquez is deceased, and can not be found accountable for this.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So you really believe that blood drops following an identical trajectory will leave different marks each time? If you don't believe that, then you believe in the accuracy of blood spatter analysis.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is