4 ms·

what's more disturbing is that states allow people to be executed based on circumstantial evidence in the first place

Retric 17y ago
If 17 people on death row out of less than 4000 were innocent, then clearly we executed innocent people prior to DNA testing. So, perhaps we should increase the level of evidence required to kill someone.
- boredguy8 17y ago
  Or, you know, not kill them.
- JshWright 17y ago
  Or... y'know... stop killing them...
- Nelson69 17y ago
  We've pretty clearly executed the wrong people since there has been DNA testing too. Grisham wrote a non-fiction about it "The Innocent Man." There is some heavy stuff in it. I guess I'm kind of torn, I think we want prosecutors to be aggressive when they go to court. One the case is over, it seems like they need to be removed, their opinion on DNA testing or other things should no longer be needed. DNA or not, how do you convict an innocent man of a crime he didn't do? Just incredibly bad luck and circumstantial evidence? I don't buy that, not if he has a good defense which he's entitled to. The other thing in this Grisham book is that a lot of the mis-convicted folks are poorer, maybe not the most emotionally balanced, and often kind of outsiders in their communities (like the black guy in the all white town, or the dark haired gothic guy in the rural community) and there is more than just DNA evidence that have been perverted. To have any reasonable oversight or feed back into the system, you'd have to remove the prosecutor once his job is done.
- protomyth 17y ago
  I've gotten to the point that I think the death penalty should be abolished and substituted with life / guaranteed no parole. I am not morally opposed to the death penalty, but I believe that we are not perfect and shouldn't 'accidentally' execute anyone. Plus, it is a whole lot cheaper to keep someone in prison for life then the cost to governments for a full run through the appeals process. In short, its a badly designed, error prone, high cost process.

If 17 people on death row out of less than 4000 were innocent, then clearly we executed innocent people prior to DNA testing. So, perhaps we should increase the level of evidence required to kill someone.

boredguy8 17y ago
Or, you know, not kill them.
JshWright 17y ago
Or... y'know... stop killing them...
Nelson69 17y ago
We've pretty clearly executed the wrong people since there has been DNA testing too. Grisham wrote a non-fiction about it "The Innocent Man." There is some heavy stuff in it. I guess I'm kind of torn, I think we want prosecutors to be aggressive when they go to court. One the case is over, it seems like they need to be removed, their opinion on DNA testing or other things should no longer be needed. DNA or not, how do you convict an innocent man of a crime he didn't do? Just incredibly bad luck and circumstantial evidence? I don't buy that, not if he has a good defense which he's entitled to. The other thing in this Grisham book is that a lot of the mis-convicted folks are poorer, maybe not the most emotionally balanced, and often kind of outsiders in their communities (like the black guy in the all white town, or the dark haired gothic guy in the rural community) and there is more than just DNA evidence that have been perverted. To have any reasonable oversight or feed back into the system, you'd have to remove the prosecutor once his job is done.
protomyth 17y ago
I've gotten to the point that I think the death penalty should be abolished and substituted with life / guaranteed no parole. I am not morally opposed to the death penalty, but I believe that we are not perfect and shouldn't 'accidentally' execute anyone. Plus, it is a whole lot cheaper to keep someone in prison for life then the cost to governments for a full run through the appeals process. In short, its a badly designed, error prone, high cost process.