Man Put To Death For 1989 Murder

[*michaelsean*]

(04-25-2018, 10:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't include that number. Sentences commuted account for a separate 5%. 

Whatever it is when they switch from death penalty to life in prison.  The number of people on death row who have been exonerated is somewhere around 1.5%.  And 38% still seems ridiculously high unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

Edit:There was a study on it that I can try to find. It was like 4.5% of people convicted of crimes are innocent. 1.5% for those with the death penalty. They think in that difference are people who have had their sentences lessened and therefore their case gets far less scrutiny which would account for the majority, and innocent people who have been executed.

[*michaelsean*]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

They do make some serious assumptions, but this is the study.

[BmorePat87]

(04-25-2018, 10:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Whatever it is when they switch from death penalty to life in prison.  The number of people on death row who have been exonerated is somewhere around 1.5%.  

I got ya. Of the 38%, 10% had their convictions overturned, 21% had their sentence overturned (still guilty), and 7% of the cases saw the death penalty ruled unconstitutional (still guilty). 

So 10% of those on death row had their conviction that put them on death row overturned. Of that 10%, 2% were fully exonerated of all related charges, 8% were still guilty of some charges but nothing that would warrant the death penalty.

That's still 38% that the courts felt they should not be executed or they did not commit a crime that would qualify for execution. 38% that need this process to ensure they can live. 

Even 10% is enough for me. Hell, even 2% is enough for me. With 33 people having been exonerated in the last decade, 26 of them having been on death row for over a decade, there's no reason to support a swift execution let alone any type of execution because of a need for vengeance. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-25-2018, 11:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

They do make some serious assumptions, but this is the study.

These are the DOJ numbers I was using 

https://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/capital-punishment-statistical-tables-2013.pdf


The study you cited is from 2014, but the number of exonerated individuals rose to 1.9% since then.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-24-2018, 11:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: We should get that on a shirt and sell it around here.

Sell them at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions and you've made yourself some serious coin. 

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 10:08 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: But that would be a valid argument, according to you.

No it would not, and my answer explained why.

You needed a machine to live.  A machine has no individual rights.

A fetus needs the mother to live.  The mother DOES have individual rights.  And as long as the fetus can not survive without the mother it does not have individual rights greater than the mother.

[BFritz21]

(04-25-2018, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it would not, and my answer explained why.

You needed a machine to live.  A machine has no individual rights.

A fetus needs the mother to live.  The mother DOES have individual rights.  And as long as the fetus can not survive without the mother it does not have individual rights greater than the mother.

So you think a dog has more rights than a baby growing inside a mother?  You can't kill a dog, but you think it's ok to kill a baby inside a mother.

It may not be able to live on its own yet, but a pregnant woman has a living being growing inside of her, regardless of whether or not it can live on its own.

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2018, 08:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If a person is murdered than we should prosucute the murderer.

What is your point?

And how many innocent people is it okay to execute before you would consider abolishing the death penalty?

My point is you don't abolish a practice because of a minuscule error ratio. You look to make the  practices that cause it and guess what? Prosecute anyone found guilty of deceit.

It is not "okay" to execute any innocent person; but I suppose we must realize nothing is perfect. We must consider cause and effect.

How many innocent people is it okay for a released murderer to kill again before you would consider abolishing parole for murderers?

How many innocent people is it okay for illegal immigrants to kill before you would consider abolishing illegal immigrants?