The Innocence project

[Ravi]

No, society as a whole doesn't owe them anything. The particular DA or judicial department I would think does however. The problem is how do you repay someone for the loss of a significant part of their lives? I would certainly rate it on a sliding scale with a completely innocent person who had never been in trouble with the law getting a considerable amount over some person who was constantly in trouble with the law.

Interesting...why?

Because society didn't put them there. That particular judicial branch and DA did.

I disagree...society did put them there if they were innocent.

But that wasn't what I was asking. Why the sliding scale for the completely innocent person? Surely no one, even with a string of lesser crimes, should be sentenced for a rape they did not commit.

 

[Ravi]

We certainly do have a debt to those who have been wrongly convicted. We at least owe it to them to put their life back to where it would have been had they not been to prison and some reasonable compensation to help them secure their future.

However, just because a few are innocent, does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

The DP should stay. For a few reasons. Mainly, because there are some people who just frankly deserve it. What they have done is so barbaric that they do not deserve to live - even in prison. Also, if we scrap the DP and just give out life without parole, we will end up requiring huge investments in more prisons. Our prisons are already overflowing and, if we can't allow these people to walk among us again, then we will end up with huge prisons constantly full of lifers. It's not practical.

In my view, the DP is overused. It is also a bargaining tool and I don't think it should be. We should certainly not be executing people with severe mental problems or educationally subnormal. That is not civilized. We should use the DP sparingly and with great caution. You cannot undo the DP. It's a permanent solution and should be used as such. But we have to have it. Because the alternative is to keep adding to an already overburdened prison population.

Also, we seriously need to address why so many more minorities are convicted than whites. I don't believe for one second that minorities commit more crimes, so why is it that minorities form the majority of our penal system? That, to me, is a huge issue that - as a society - we need to address.

I don't think killing people because otherwise the prison system will be overcrowded is a valid reason.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you've said, except for the death penalty itself. I used to feel that way, but someone on this message board said something once that made me see it as the ultimate big government act. IMO, no government should have the power to relieve someone of their life for committing a crime. War, sure...if the war is justified. But not like this.

 

[Ravi]

Do any of you that oppose the death penalty think there may ever be a case where there should be death?
What is someone confesses to a heinous murder?

Case in point:

My brother's wife. Approximately 10 years ago his wife's sister's ex boyfriend went to their mom's house. The mother of course knew him, and let him in. She was a tiny 80 pound woman. As soon as he got in the door, he punched her in the face. He proceeded to beat her all over the house..with his fists and a hammer, splattering the walls and floor with her blood, beating her to death. Why? He wanted drug money.
Brother's wife found her later that night.

He confessed to the crime..gave details of how it all took place, and of course there was DNA.

He is on death row now, and has been for several years, while my brother's wife - her dad - other siblings are left STILL trying to deal with her death. Especially my brother's wife. It did something to her that I doubt she will ever get over.

This is merely a case for ''life in prison''?????? Why should he live? Give me one good reason.

Because it is not our job to deny someone their life. I don't particularly care if murderers suffer but I don't want to be responsible for murdering people myself.

 

[Valerie]

We certainly do have a debt to those who have been wrongly convicted. We at least owe it to them to put their life back to where it would have been had they not been to prison and some reasonable compensation to help them secure their future.

However, just because a few are innocent, does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

The DP should stay. For a few reasons. Mainly, because there are some people who just frankly deserve it. What they have done is so barbaric that they do not deserve to live - even in prison. Also, if we scrap the DP and just give out life without parole, we will end up requiring huge investments in more prisons. Our prisons are already overflowing and, if we can't allow these people to walk among us again, then we will end up with huge prisons constantly full of lifers. It's not practical.

In my view, the DP is overused. It is also a bargaining tool and I don't think it should be. We should certainly not be executing people with severe mental problems or educationally subnormal. That is not civilized. We should use the DP sparingly and with great caution. You cannot undo the DP. It's a permanent solution and should be used as such. But we have to have it. Because the alternative is to keep adding to an already overburdened prison population.

Also, we seriously need to address why so many more minorities are convicted than whites. I don't believe for one second that minorities commit more crimes, so why is it that minorities form the majority of our penal system? That, to me, is a huge issue that - as a society - we need to address.

I don't think killing people because otherwise the prison system will be overcrowded is a valid reason.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you've said, except for the death penalty itself. I used to feel that way, but someone on this message board said something once that made me see it as the ultimate big government act. IMO, no government should have the power to relieve someone of their life for committing a crime. War, sure...if the war is justified. But not like this.

That may be true but we are a government by the people for the people, so if someone is irrefutably guilty of a heinous crime that warrants capital punishment as a deterrent against further heinous crimes in our society, but instead you opt to only incarcerate them for life, how is that any less of a big brother government act?

 

[jillian]

Barry Scheck was the only good lawyer in the OJ case.

schreck was and is a great lawyer. but how do you define good? cochrane got his client exonerated, yes?

(although i do think schreck was instrumental in turning the jury on the blood evidence issue).

 

[Ravi]

We certainly do have a debt to those who have been wrongly convicted. We at least owe it to them to put their life back to where it would have been had they not been to prison and some reasonable compensation to help them secure their future.

However, just because a few are innocent, does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

The DP should stay. For a few reasons. Mainly, because there are some people who just frankly deserve it. What they have done is so barbaric that they do not deserve to live - even in prison. Also, if we scrap the DP and just give out life without parole, we will end up requiring huge investments in more prisons. Our prisons are already overflowing and, if we can't allow these people to walk among us again, then we will end up with huge prisons constantly full of lifers. It's not practical.

In my view, the DP is overused. It is also a bargaining tool and I don't think it should be. We should certainly not be executing people with severe mental problems or educationally subnormal. That is not civilized. We should use the DP sparingly and with great caution. You cannot undo the DP. It's a permanent solution and should be used as such. But we have to have it. Because the alternative is to keep adding to an already overburdened prison population.

Also, we seriously need to address why so many more minorities are convicted than whites. I don't believe for one second that minorities commit more crimes, so why is it that minorities form the majority of our penal system? That, to me, is a huge issue that - as a society - we need to address.

I don't think killing people because otherwise the prison system will be overcrowded is a valid reason.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you've said, except for the death penalty itself. I used to feel that way, but someone on this message board said something once that made me see it as the ultimate big government act. IMO, no government should have the power to relieve someone of their life for committing a crime. War, sure...if the war is justified. But not like this.

That may be true but we are a government by the people for the people, so if someone is irrefutably guilty of a heinous crime that warrants capital punishment as a deterrent against further heinous crimes in our society, but instead you opt to only incarcerate them for life, how is that any less of a big brother government act?

It isn't really, but it is a more suitable punishment...it isn't giving the government the say in whether someone lives or dies.

I'm also not convinced the death penalty deters anyone.

 

[Kat]

Do any of you that oppose the death penalty think there may ever be a case where there should be death?
What is someone confesses to a heinous murder?

Case in point:

My brother's wife. Approximately 10 years ago his wife's sister's ex boyfriend went to their mom's house. The mother of course knew him, and let him in. She was a tiny 80 pound woman. As soon as he got in the door, he punched her in the face. He proceeded to beat her all over the house..with his fists and a hammer, splattering the walls and floor with her blood, beating her to death. Why? He wanted drug money.
Brother's wife found her later that night.

He confessed to the crime..gave details of how it all took place, and of course there was DNA.

He is on death row now, and has been for several years, while my brother's wife - her dad - other siblings are left STILL trying to deal with her death. Especially my brother's wife. It did something to her that I doubt she will ever get over.

This is merely a case for ''life in prison''?????? Why should he live? Give me one good reason.

Because it is not our job to deny someone their life. I don't particularly care if murderers suffer but I don't want to be responsible for murdering people myself.

Not our job? Then if that is the case, it is not our job to impose any punishment for a crime.

 

[Ravi]

Do any of you that oppose the death penalty think there may ever be a case where there should be death?
What is someone confesses to a heinous murder?

Case in point:

My brother's wife. Approximately 10 years ago his wife's sister's ex boyfriend went to their mom's house. The mother of course knew him, and let him in. She was a tiny 80 pound woman. As soon as he got in the door, he punched her in the face. He proceeded to beat her all over the house..with his fists and a hammer, splattering the walls and floor with her blood, beating her to death. Why? He wanted drug money.
Brother's wife found her later that night.

He confessed to the crime..gave details of how it all took place, and of course there was DNA.

He is on death row now, and has been for several years, while my brother's wife - her dad - other siblings are left STILL trying to deal with her death. Especially my brother's wife. It did something to her that I doubt she will ever get over.

This is merely a case for ''life in prison''?????? Why should he live? Give me one good reason.

Because it is not our job to deny someone their life. I don't particularly care if murderers suffer but I don't want to be responsible for murdering people myself.

Not our job? Then if that is the case, it is not our job to impose any punishment for a crime.

Those are two different things.

 

[jillian]

Do any of you that oppose the death penalty think there may ever be a case where there should be death?
What is someone confesses to a heinous murder?

Case in point:

My brother's wife. Approximately 10 years ago his wife's sister's ex boyfriend went to their mom's house. The mother of course knew him, and let him in. She was a tiny 80 pound woman. As soon as he got in the door, he punched her in the face. He proceeded to beat her all over the house..with his fists and a hammer, splattering the walls and floor with her blood, beating her to death. Why? He wanted drug money.
Brother's wife found her later that night.

He confessed to the crime..gave details of how it all took place, and of course there was DNA.

He is on death row now, and has been for several years, while my brother's wife - her dad - other siblings are left STILL trying to deal with her death. Especially my brother's wife. It did something to her that I doubt she will ever get over.

This is merely a case for ''life in prison''?????? Why should he live? Give me one good reason.

i don't have a problem with offing him under those circumstances.

 

[Valerie]

I don't think killing people because otherwise the prison system will be overcrowded is a valid reason.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you've said, except for the death penalty itself. I used to feel that way, but someone on this message board said something once that made me see it as the ultimate big government act. IMO, no government should have the power to relieve someone of their life for committing a crime. War, sure...if the war is justified. But not like this.

That may be true but we are a government by the people for the people, so if someone is irrefutably guilty of a heinous crime that warrants capital punishment as a deterrent against further heinous crimes in our society, but instead you opt to only incarcerate them for life, how is that any less of a big brother government act?

It isn't really, but it is a more suitable punishment...it isn't giving the government the say in whether someone lives or dies.

I'm also not convinced the death penalty deters anyone.

I struggle with this issue as well...Some psychopaths may actually rationalize committing a heinous crime knowing they'll get the death penalty as an easy out...But if you could demonstrate that it is an effective deterrent wouldn't you change your mind and think that some of the most heinous crimes do warrant capital punishment...?

 

[Ravi]

That may be true but we are a government by the people for the people, so if someone is irrefutably guilty of a heinous crime that warrants capital punishment as a deterrent against further heinous crimes in our society, but instead you opt to only incarcerate them for life, how is that any less of a big brother government act?

It isn't really, but it is a more suitable punishment...it isn't giving the government the say in whether someone lives or dies.

I'm also not convinced the death penalty deters anyone.

I struggle with this issue as well...Some psychopaths may actually rationalize committing a heinous crime knowing they'll get the death penalty as an easy out...But if you could demonstrate that it is an effective deterrent wouldn't you change your mind and think that some of the most heinous crimes do warrant capital punishment...?

No, I wouldn't change my mind.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Barry Scheck was the only good lawyer in the OJ case.

schreck was and is a great lawyer. but how do you define good? cochrane got his client exonerated, yes?

(although i do think schreck was instrumental in turning the jury on the blood evidence issue).

It was a long time ago.
I dont think the jury cared about the evidence, they saw
Mark Fuhrman was guilty of being a racist and the trial was over.

 

[California Girl]

We certainly do have a debt to those who have been wrongly convicted. We at least owe it to them to put their life back to where it would have been had they not been to prison and some reasonable compensation to help them secure their future.

However, just because a few are innocent, does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

The DP should stay. For a few reasons. Mainly, because there are some people who just frankly deserve it. What they have done is so barbaric that they do not deserve to live - even in prison. Also, if we scrap the DP and just give out life without parole, we will end up requiring huge investments in more prisons. Our prisons are already overflowing and, if we can't allow these people to walk among us again, then we will end up with huge prisons constantly full of lifers. It's not practical.

In my view, the DP is overused. It is also a bargaining tool and I don't think it should be. We should certainly not be executing people with severe mental problems or educationally subnormal. That is not civilized. We should use the DP sparingly and with great caution. You cannot undo the DP. It's a permanent solution and should be used as such. But we have to have it. Because the alternative is to keep adding to an already overburdened prison population.

Also, we seriously need to address why so many more minorities are convicted than whites. I don't believe for one second that minorities commit more crimes, so why is it that minorities form the majority of our penal system? That, to me, is a huge issue that - as a society - we need to address.

I don't think killing people because otherwise the prison system will be overcrowded is a valid reason.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you've said, except for the death penalty itself. I used to feel that way, but someone on this message board said something once that made me see it as the ultimate big government act. IMO, no government should have the power to relieve someone of their life for committing a crime. War, sure...if the war is justified. But not like this.

While I can understand where you're coming from on the DP, about not having the right to relieve someone of their life. But I take a different view. In my view, it is not our 'right', it is our responsibility. With rights, come responsibilities.... one of those is to punish those who commit crimes against our society. The stuff about over populated prisons is the practicalities of prison and those practicalities are part of the equation. But the main point is that of responsibility. I don't see the DP as a deterrent, it is not. It is the ultimate punishment and should be used as such.

 

[Valerie]

It isn't really, but it is a more suitable punishment...it isn't giving the government the say in whether someone lives or dies.

I'm also not convinced the death penalty deters anyone.

I struggle with this issue as well...Some psychopaths may actually rationalize committing a heinous crime knowing they'll get the death penalty as an easy out...But if you could demonstrate that it is an effective deterrent wouldn't you change your mind and think that some of the most heinous crimes do warrant capital punishment...?

No, I wouldn't change my mind.

So, it's just that the matter of life and death should only be in God's hands and we as a society should not play God because ultimately human redemption is up to Him?

Or you just think it's not governments role to take a life irrespective of redemption, you'd just rather let heinous criminals live with what they did and suffer the consequences of incarceration for life because you don't feel comfortable giving government that power?

I understand past false convictions should give us all pause, but now that we have DNA technology and the ability to be certain, I am personally less uncomfortable with our society putting our most heinous criminals to death...




Anyway, this is actually another subject for another thread...But since you are the OP, I won't feel too bad for going off track...

 

[westwall]

Interesting...why?

Because society didn't put them there. That particular judicial branch and DA did.

I disagree...society did put them there if they were innocent.

But that wasn't what I was asking. Why the sliding scale for the completely innocent person? Surely no one, even with a string of lesser crimes, should be sentenced for a rape they did not commit.

Because someone who is constantly in trouble with the law will spend a great amount of their time in jail anyway. Why compensate them for something they were doing and going to be doing anyway. A completely innocent person however, who had no criminal record, was employed or going to school to better themselves on the other hand I feel deserve far more compensation for their loss.

 

[Sheldon]

Every time I hear about one of these cases I get pissed off...do we owe these people something, as a society?

DNA restores man's freedom - WMBFNews.com | Myrtle Beach/Florence, SC | News, Weather, Sports

No, society as a whole doesn't owe them anything. The particular DA or judicial department I would think does however. The problem is how do you repay someone for the loss of a significant part of their lives? I would certainly rate it on a sliding scale with a completely innocent person who had never been in trouble with the law getting a considerable amount over some person who was constantly in trouble with the law.

Make up for their lack of earning potential and provide compensation in equal measure for their future security.

That's what I was thinking.

The sad truth is that he'll never get those thirty years back. There's some thing money can't repay: missed births, weddings, watching your kids or grandkids grow up.

He was the victim of a system that won't ever be perfect. But the very thin silver lining is that advances in technology and science can decrease the margin of error. A hundred years ago he never would've even been exonerated on DNA evidence.

 

[jillian]

Barry Scheck was the only good lawyer in the OJ case.

schreck was and is a great lawyer. but how do you define good? cochrane got his client exonerated, yes?

(although i do think schreck was instrumental in turning the jury on the blood evidence issue).

It was a long time ago.
I dont think the jury cared about the evidence, they saw
Mark Fuhrman was guilty of being a racist and the trial was over.

mark fuhrman was a racist who didn't log in the blood evidence for HOURS. That was the killer combo. and the terrible job the prosecution left them without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[westwall]

The DP does not deter anyone from committing murder (other than the one being killed, I can guarantee you they will not murder again) because of the poor way it is used. Anytime there is such a lengthy time for the sentence to be carried out whatever effect of deterence is lost. That being said, as in Kats situation, where there is no doubt that the person committed the crime I feel the DP is appropriate. The State is indeed taking away the criminals right to life but didn't they make that choice for someone else? Didn't they decide that a few bucks were worth more than the person they killed? I feel very much that if a criminal ignores the rights of someone else then after he or she has been convicted of that crime why the hell should we care about them? They have shown they don't care about anyone else so why should we extend the courtesy and decency they denied others?

 

[Sheldon]

The DP does not deter anyone from committing murder (other than the one being killed, I can guarantee you they will not murder again) because of the poor way it is used. Anytime there is such a lengthy time for the sentence to be carried out whatever effect of deterence is lost. That being said, as in Kats situation, where there is no doubt that the person committed the crime I feel the DP is appropriate. The State is indeed taking away the criminals right to life but didn't they make that choice for someone else? Didn't they decide that a few bucks were worth more than the person they killed? I feel very much that if a criminal ignores the rights of someone else then after he or she has been convicted of that crime why the hell should we care about them? They have shown they don't care about anyone else so why should we extend the courtesy and decency they denied others?

That's all based on the assumption that the right person is being convicted. The ability to execute/murder its own citizens is the biggest form of big government; it's not a power I've ever been comfortable with them having. It's an imperfect system, and death is final.

 

[Kat]

The DP does not deter anyone from committing murder (other than the one being killed, I can guarantee you they will not murder again) because of the poor way it is used. Anytime there is such a lengthy time for the sentence to be carried out whatever effect of deterence is lost. That being said, as in Kats situation, where there is no doubt that the person committed the crime I feel the DP is appropriate. The State is indeed taking away the criminals right to life but didn't they make that choice for someone else? Didn't they decide that a few bucks were worth more than the person they killed? I feel very much that if a criminal ignores the rights of someone else then after he or she has been convicted of that crime why the hell should we care about them? They have shown they don't care about anyone else so why should we extend the courtesy and decency they denied others?

That's all based on the assumption that the right person is being convicted. The ability to execute/murder its own citizens is the biggest form of big government; it's not a power I've ever been comfortable with them having. It's an imperfect system, and death is final.

While this is true, the death of a very good, kind, productive woman (in the case I posted) was final as well. I don't think big government had a thing to do with his conviction. He confessed, and even if he had not, they had ample proof.

DP as a deterrent may not work, mainly because ''they'' don't care, as they know they won't actually get death. They will sit in a cell..being provided for BY the very family that lost their loved one.

The guy that murdered my brother's wife's mother should have been executed years ago now.