Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kinoxi

So? DNA evidence would be conclusive. It is independent of any possible claims of coercion. If the state is confident that they have the correct man, then why oppose it?


6 posted on 06/02/2006 11:08:59 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: MarcusTulliusCicero

his defense is he wasn't responsible because he suffers from multiple personality disorder according to the article(the last paragraph). he plead guilty. what are you defending here?


7 posted on 06/02/2006 11:14:01 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
So? DNA evidence would be conclusive. It is independent of any possible claims of coercion. If the state is confident that they have the correct man, then why oppose it?


I am not going to argue the point about if the DNA would prove anything, but I do question the timing of the request.

The murder occured over twenty years ago. He has been on death row for a very long time, why wait until the last possible second to bring this point up?

Could his lawyers be playing some legal game?

We have a legal system (as those in that business call it) not a justice system. Once convicted, by definition, he is no longer an innocent man. (In our system, if a man is found not guilty, then by definition, he is innocent regardless if he committed the crime or not.

I am now firmly convinced the concept of one hundred guilty people should be let go rather then to convict an innocent man is wrong. Why is the criminal justice system the only thing we expect 100% perfection?

My reason is simple. If you let 100 known killer free, then the chance are some of those killers will kill again. (There should be no argument over that, there have been a number of cases where condemned men, have managed to escape punishiment, and later were freed, only to return to their former ways, including killing innocent people.

So the price we pay to keep from executing an "innocent" man, is the death of other truly innocent victims.

Unlike those murdered, before a person can be executed, they are tried, can offer a defense, have the verdict appealed. A murder victim is just dead.

Those that defend every death row immate are not defending the person because they believe they are innocent, they do so because they do not believe in capital punishment. They have managed to throw enough sand in the process to make it almost unworkable (and then point to this fact as a reason to do away with capital punishment).

It is for that reason, I do not take any of these last minute appears seriously. Those that are fighting capital punishing by putting as many obstacles in the way of the process as possible, and making it as expensive as they can win either way. I do not belive for a second they care one bit for any individual on death row, to them they are just props to assist them in acchieving their stated goals, no death penalty.

If they win, then more innocent people will die then were ever convicted and executed by the state.

17 posted on 06/03/2006 6:22:52 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson