Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm with Whembly on "Hard Labor and Chain Gangs"....though I want pink stripe prison outfits. Hell with it. Total pink prison uniforms. Though I do have an issue of the "SoL" factor upon release from a facility and stigma. Culturaly I think its ingrained in us to ignore the "bad people". Their best bet in life....French Foreign Legion

We could totally do better than the French's Foreign Legion.. Probably come up with a flashier name too

If they're prisioners in pink stripey uniforms can we call them the Penile Legion?

Send for Payne!

The FFL doesn't let in serious criminals anymore, so most prisoners wouldn't even have that option.

In a lot of cases working outside is preferable to rotting in a prison cell anyway. There's a reason only well-behaved prisoners get to go on work details.

Welcome to Death Valley Road Clean Up Chain Gang.......till Billy the Kid walks out the mountains looking for his pardon....

There are a couple firefighting teams that are made up of prisoners in California I think.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you are in favour of the death penalty, but only if we have to cross an unreasonably high threshold of evidence? Yeah, again I'm not seeing much potential for constructive dialogue.

Dude, did you read my post? In the last 5 years 14 people have been released having been wrongfully convicted and put on death row in trials in the age of DNA evidence. How is it setting an unreasonably high threshold to want a higher threshold than that?

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you are in favour of the death penalty, but only if we have to cross an unreasonably high threshold of evidence? Yeah, again I'm not seeing much potential for constructive dialogue.

Dude, did you read my post? In the last 5 years 14 people have been released having been wrongfully convicted and put on death row in trials in the age of DNA evidence. How is it setting an unreasonably high threshold to want a higher threshold than that?

Because it conflicts with the sense of power he gets from being able to think of people dying due to a concept of "Justice" he supports. It's that's a rather ugly truth to face hence the vague attacks on every criticism towards the idea, with no substantive argument to back it up. It's hard to admit, even to oneself. That's way the evidence looks to me at least.

Chongara wrote:
Because it conflicts with the sense of power he gets from being able to think of people dying due to a concept of "Justice" he supports. It's that's a rather ugly truth to face hence the vague attacks on every criticism towards him. It's hard to admit, even to oneself. That's way the evidence looks to me at least.

Yeah, it's a primal human thing - harsh punishment for a horrible crime. Which is basically why the death penalty is so dangerous, because when you're tapping in to such a powerful instinct its easy for emotion to get dominance over rationality. Which I think is a pretty major part of the reason so many innocent people ended up on death row.

Did they come off deathrow due to advancement in DNA Forensic? Or did they come off Deathrow due to new evidence appearing? Before we get "unhinge" were those convicted to deathrow when the legal system were started introducing DNA evidence? How many of those were 14 were convicted during the transition period? Lets try not to make it like 90% of deathrow inmates are innocent.

There are still, today, warehouses of DNA kits that were never processed.

 Jihadin wrote:
Did they come off deathrow due to advancement in DNA Forensic? Or did they come off Deathrow due to new evidence appearing? Before we get "unhinge" were those convicted to deathrow when the legal system were started introducing DNA evidence? How many of those were 14 were convicted during the transition period?

If you're genuinely curious, read the link I already posted. Here it is again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#1990-1999. You're free to look up the cases behind any of the exonerations.

We'll start with the most recent acquittal - Seth Penalver. He was released in 2012, after being convicted in 1997 of a 1994 murder. Penalver was linked to the crime by an associate of the other person at murder (who would later state at trial that he wasn't sure if Penalver had been at the scene, and that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol when he told police Penalver was involved... and police would testify at trial that no witness had received a reward for their statement, despite having paid that witness through Crime Stoppers). There was surveillance footage at the home of the victim, and though it was blurry three people who knew Penalver said looked like him (police interview notes would later show none of the three made identifications at first and only did so after considerable pressure, and two stated at trial that they had been told they were signing only to establish that they had looked at the picture, not that they were giving a positive identification). Both the prosecution and the defence facial reconstruction experts stated they couldn't be certain if the image in the surveillance footage was Penalver. Police had a footprints at the scene, including a bloody one, but they didn't match any shoe belonging to Penalver. A shirt found at the scene contained human hair, but it didn't match Penalver's hair. Penalver's ex-girlfriend (one of the people who identified him in the surveillance images) claimed she saw Penalver using a washing machine with pink foam, suggesting he was washing off blood, and driving a car that matched the victim's, but the girl's mother disputed this (the ex-girlfriend would later confess to changing her statement to suit police, to get more leniant treatment for her new boyfriend). There's some other minor stuff, but that's basically the nuts and bolts of the case.

That was enough to get a mistrial (10 guilty, 2 innocent), and then in a second trial Penalver was found guilty and sentenced to death.

In 2006 the case was reviewed, and the judges found that the surveillance footage was not sufficient to make an identification. They also found evidence of police pressure on the eye witnesses, and other dubious elements. This opened the door to another trial, at which, after 15 years on death row, he was fully acquitted.

That's a really brief version, that I only skimmed briefly so I might have a detail or two slightly off. I got the information from here and it isn't that long so I'd recommend reading it for yourself;
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4084


Anyhow, does that give you an idea of how weak some cases are, that still produce death sentences? If you want we can move on to the next one, reading about Penalver was kind of fun

Lets try not to make it like 90% of deathrow inmates are innocent.

No-one is saying that. But exactly how high would you allow the percentage of innocent deathrow in-mates to be before you thought the death penalty was an issue? 5%? 2%?

 sebster wrote:

No-one is saying that. But exactly how high would you allow the percentage of innocent deathrow in-mates to be before you thought the death penalty was an issue? 5%? 2%?

Like I said earlier, I'd abolish Dealth Penatly and reinstitute incarcerated forced hard labor:


Some would argue that many incarcerated would love to work "hard outside" and not exactly punishment. My retort is that it isn't about punishment per se, but to separate those convicted of crimes from society. Plus, inmates who has worked hard all day would be too tired to do any shenanigans in prison.

The other issue, which is OT, is that we need to get away from privatizing our states jail (Federal is still government ran). But, that's a whole different topic.

In 2006 the case was reviewed, and the judges found that the surveillance footage was not sufficient to make an identification. They also found evidence of police pressure on the eye witnesses, and other dubious elements. This opened the door to another trial, at which, after 15 years on death row, he was fully acquitted.

Sounds like an Appeal Court did this. I do prefer a 2nd set of eyes that's impartial to the case to review the case.

Yep

Florida Supreme Court

Bit more info
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

For the life of me I either cannot google fu or make it Barney level to find out how many or the process of appeals an inmate has. Now I'm seeing 20 to 30 yrs wait.

I prefer "Zero" percent in screwing up in executing someone. Even though its a long and lengthy process to actually execute someone who may or may not be guilty. (Pain meds kicking in) We owe it to the individual we condemn to death to be afforded all appeals and any chance to come off death row. Its not a perfect system we have...well some states have but its one system that's being faded out. Granted there should be some nightmare of a person that really needs to go. Like the Arabic guy in Saudie that was recently executed for raping 30+ minors. Brutal raping.

Major Hasan. The Fort Hood shooter. Even though I like for him to get "opted" out. Its not going to happen, This guy wants to be executed. Its more harsher if we let him live.

These goofballs are blaming the victim all wrong.

 whembly wrote:
Like I said earlier, I'd abolish Dealth Penatly and reinstitute incarcerated forced hard labor:


Some would argue that many incarcerated would love to work "hard outside" and not exactly punishment. My retort is that it isn't about punishment per se, but to separate those convicted of crimes from society. Plus, inmates who has worked hard all day would be too tired to do any shenanigans in prison.

The numbers I've seen have shown society doesn't actually get any benefit out of mandatory chain gang labour. The extra costs of security outweigh the work delivered (people who are forced to work for no reward will do just enough to avoid punishment, and it turns out just enough is very little indeed). That changes when you look at voluntary prison workforces (prisoners volunteering to do work, in order to get some kind of benefit like money on leaving prison).

And then there's the issue of security. Maximum security is what it is for a reason, and taking prisoners outside in work situations is a whole lot of steps below maximum security. Even in the days of chain gangs they didn't put the seriously hard nuts to work.

The other issue, which is OT, is that we need to get away from privatizing our states jail (Federal is still government ran). But, that's a whole different topic.

Yeah, it's a whole other topic and a major one. I think it might take another decade for the greater public to realise how screwed up that has been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Sounds like an Appeal Court did this. I do prefer a 2nd set of eyes that's impartial to the case to review the case.

Absolutely. Preferably a third and fourth set of eyes as well, all fully independant of each other.

I prefer "Zero" percent in screwing up in executing someone. Even though its a long and lengthy process to actually execute someone who may or may not be guilty.

Absolutely, and the problem then is that given what we know about the current system, and about human systems in general, I'm not sure 0% is achievable. Especially when you add something as emotive as the death penalty in to the question.

I mean, I don't really have a problem with the death penalty handed out to the people like you mentioned. It's just that having a death penalty for them means having a systems of law where each case needs to be assessed as to whether guilt is unquestionably, 100% certain, or just 'we're pretty damn certain and really angry about what happened to the victim'.

Part of the problem is probably that many people don't realize how horrendous and savage a sentence like life without parole actually is. If there's no chance of parole whatsoever, what reason does the prisoner have to be well behaved or to improve himself?

 sebster wrote:
Dude, did you read my post? In the last 5 years 14 people have been released having been wrongfully convicted and put on death row in trials in the age of DNA evidence. How is it setting an unreasonably high threshold to want a higher threshold than that?

Dude, did you read the post I was responding to? That may have been useful instead of rushing to build a straw man. Here's the post in case you missed it;

 azazel the cat wrote:
I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.

So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.

This is so adorable my ovaries are going to burst.

People sentenced to death found later to be innocent and acquitted:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row


On the other side of the coin:


http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm


convicted murderers who murdered again, either after release or while still in prison:


http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.

So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.


So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:


How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I want HD video, DNA evidence, a bragging confession and maybe even some selfies of the culprit posing with the deceased victim during the act.

So HD video, DNA, and a bragging confession (not even just a regular "I did it" confession), plus optional selfies of the culprit during the act. Please state your case as to how that criteria is in anyway a reasonable request. It is an almost impossible burden to meet, and only gives a veneer to the claim that someone supports the death penalty. Had the same restrictive criteria been placed on providing abortions we would be hearing how grossly unfair and disproportionate they were.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.


So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:


How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.

On the other hand, I think you find it unacceptable that someone who commited a crime to put him in danger of execution avoids that sentence and then goes on to kill other people. The question is in my mind, where is the balance? More people are murdered by those who avoided the death penalty than there are innocent people executed.

Did the Chicken come first? Or the Egg? Yeah... that's the argument guys.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.


So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:


How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.

For someone with an entrenched position, and who sets out agreeing with something in principal but then sets an impossibly high hurdle to the actual practice of it then perhaps it is you who should not have responded as you are not actually interested in a discussion - merely a lecture based on your own talking points.

Funny enough, that was also my reaction when I read your response. Can we please stop with the continued, repeated, worn out fallacy that people supporting the death penalty are in favour of innocent people being executed. It's such a transparent loaded question you may as well ask "Do you still beat your wife".

For someone who so strenuously objects to fallacies, and takes pains to point them out when he sees them, I'm surprised that you would use one yourself.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I want you to know that I seriously expected better of you than this.


So we'll start with this first question, and unless you can answer it, then there is no reason for you to continue here:


How many executions of innocent people do you consider to be acceptable? If you cannot answer this question, then you may as well not respond at all.

For someone with an entrenched position, and who sets out agreeing with something in principal but then sets an impossibly high hurdle to the actual practice of it then perhaps it is you who should not have responded as you are not actually interested in a discussion - merely a lecture based on your own talking points.

Funny enough, that was also my reaction when I read your response. Can we please stop with the continued, repeated, worn out fallacy that people supporting the death penalty are in favour of innocent people being executed. It's such a transparent loaded question you may as well ask "Do you still beat your wife".

For someone who so strenuously objects to fallacies, and takes pains to point them out when he sees them, I'm surprised that you would use one yourself.

It's not a fallacy. If you support the death penalty, you must inherently support the executions of innocents. This is because the justice system is an imperfect system subject to human error - that is not always caught. This means that any sentence passed by it, will at least on occasion be on a passed on an innocent person. This means it is impossible to have a system of capital punishment that does not also execute innocent people..

Executing the innocent is fundamentally a part of running a system of capital punishment. To claim you support the death penalty but not the killing of innocents is like claiming you support the existence of sandwiches, but not the existence of bread. Then when somebody points out "Sandwiches are made with bread, you must support some kind of bread. What is it?" you go "Nuh-Uh. I'm not going to answer your question, it isn't constructive."

The position you seem to be trying to take "The death penalty is something I support, but I don't support the killing of innocents" is entirely incoherent and self-contradicting

Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.

 Frazzled wrote:
Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.

This is also true. It becomes at that point an question of what kind of false conviction rate you're comfortable with before you'd call the system broken.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.

This is also true. It becomes at that point an question of what kind of false conviction rate you're comfortable with before you'd call the system broken.

One is too many? Everyone is guilty of something? Why are you asking me I only work here pal?

 Frazzled wrote:
Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.

3 hots and a cot? What's not to like about being locked up? So you have to deal with your bunk mate getting frisky, and shankings kinda suck, but no rent, no bills, and if you're lucky get locked up in one of the 8 states that allow conjugal visits!

 Alfndrate wrote:
3 hots and a cot? What's not to like about being locked up? So you have to deal with your bunk mate getting frisky, and shankings kinda suck, but no rent, no bills, and if you're lucky get locked up in one of the 8 states that allow conjugal visits!

And a college education with no debt

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Remember, if you support prison, you must inherently support the imprisonment of innocents.

This is also true. It becomes at that point an question of what kind of false conviction rate you're comfortable with before you'd call the system broken.

One is too many? Everyone is guilty of something? Why are you asking me I only work here pal?

I really wasn't asking you directly. Simply pointing out that my line of reasoning is consistent in that respect. To take a "You must support some level of killing innocents" stance in regard to the death penalty, but deny "You must support some level of jailing innocents" in regards to prisons would be hypocritical.

That said I honestly don't really support our prison system as it exists in it's current form. It's incredibly toxic and I'm not wholly convinced it keeps more serious or violent criminals off the streets than it creates and then pushes back out but that's the kind of thing that's hard to get a real handle on. I suppose it represents the least of all of currently available evils, so I kind begrudgingly throw myself in support of it for lack of better option... but that's entirely different topic.

That said if we're talking about false conviction rates in general, I'd probably be comfortable with anything at or below 1 in 500. Just if someone wants an answer similar to the one I've been pushing for from others. Which depending on the figure you believes we're somewhere between "Not quite there" and "Nowhere close to to".

I mean I've got issues all sorts of issues with our criminal justice system, up to an including the retributive approach it uses to handle crime. It's just that death penalty is one of the most egregiously immoral parts of our system, and the one that people are most willing to look at.