DeletedUser
Include a pay-per-view option with multiple camera angles and I'm sold on this island idea.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
That's relevant how?
DeletedUser
they had a pay per view on the races. the racers were prsioners
DeletedUser
I despair...:sad:
DeletedUser
Again, me seeing this movie or not is relevant how?
DeletedUser
I was just asking. because what you were talking about is baslicly part of that movie
DeletedUser
Seriously gizmo, pick up a book sometime, will you. The violent criminals were all executed. The people sent to Australia (and to America, for that matter) were just petty criminals who committed crimes against property, like pickpockets.
DeletedUser
well then would you rather have iggyberto idea
DeletedUser
Have you ever been to Utah Giz? I have, and I have been to Australia. I would much rather give up Utah.
DeletedUser
OMG, did you read anything I've posted, gizmo?
DeletedUser5046
*sigh*
can i kill someone?! :laugh: then tell me tat i am wrong and have to be executed. . .
can i kill someone?! :laugh: then tell me tat i am wrong and have to be executed. . .
DeletedUser
We'll just call it "justifiable homicide" and let you off, Ang. 
DeletedUser5046
We'll just call it "justifiable homicide" and let you off, Ang.
then i guess i could kill gizzy now
DeletedUser
Everyone assumes that the only crime punishable by death in the US is murder. In fact you can receive the death penalty for treason, kidnapping and rape as well.
If you argue that the death penalty is a valuable tool for law enforcement in the deterrence of violent crime, that would be false.
In January of 1995 a national opinion poll of randomly selected police chiefs was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The police chiefs were given the opportunity to express what they felt worked well in fighting crime. The death penalty ranked last as a way of reducing violent crime and as a cost-effective resource. Insufficient use of the death penalty was ranked next to last as a major problem area. Swift and sure punishment are regarded by law enforcement as the best deterrent to violent crime.
If you argue that states that have the death penalty are 'safer' because people will think twice about committing a violent crime, that would be false.
As of January 1, 2007 there were 3,350 inmates on death row in 37 states. California, Texas and Florida house nearly half of those with 1,450 death row inmates combined. It is of note that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that through 2004 California, Texas and Florida respectively rank at numbers 11, 13 and 3 for violent crimes per capita. Alaska, ranked 8, is the first of the states with no death penalty to emerge on the list. Michigan, ranked 16, is the second listed state with no death penalty. This means that out of the top listed 16 states for violent crimes per capita 14 of them have the death penalty.
When you take into consideration contributing factors such as drugs, alcohol, and mental illness where people are not in full control of their actions the 'that will make em think twice about it' stance is a joke.
If you argue that it is cheaper to execute someone rather than imprison them for life, that would be false.
In actuality it costs more to proceed with a death penalty case than it would be to incarcerate them for life. In 2006 the Office of the Public Defender of the State of Ohio spent over $15,000 per death penalty case than all other types of cases combined. The state of Ohio could have saved $2,634,462 just in the public defenders office if the death penalty was not an option.
This money could be better used in law enforcement to put officers on the street, equip officers with effective equipment and educational programs to reduce alcoholism, drug use and gang activity. These are issues that law enforcement officers find most useful in helping to reduce the number of violent crimes in their community.
If you argue that the death penalty is applied fairly, that would be false.
Without even getting into race/economic standing I can give examples where the death penalty was not applied fairly.
From January, 1985 through August, 1996 seven inmates were executed that did not personally commit murder. These executions include Doyle Skillern who was an accomplice in the murder of an undercover narcotics agent. Mr. Skillern was waiting in a car nearby when his partner shot and killed the officer. The actual shooter is serving a life sentence and is eligible for parole. Another executed inmate that did not personally commit a murder is Steven Hatch. Mr. Hatch participated in a home invasion. After he left the house his accomplice murdered the family. The accomplice is serving a life sentence . While Mr. Skillern and Mr. Hatch were not innocent bystanders they were executed while the killers are serving life sentences and may one day be free from prison.
So I throw this out there. Proponents of the death penalty state that no innocent person has ever been executed. Some could argue that the seven inmates executed (as referenced above) were innocent of actual murder. I think if you would ask the average person "Are you in favor of the death penalty for murderers" and they said 'Yes', that they may have a different opinion if they found out that people that didn't actually commit the murder were being executed while the actual murderer was eligible for parole. At the very least I think they would be concerned about the application of the death penalty and call for revamping of the system.
If you argue that the death penalty is a valuable tool for law enforcement in the deterrence of violent crime, that would be false.
In January of 1995 a national opinion poll of randomly selected police chiefs was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The police chiefs were given the opportunity to express what they felt worked well in fighting crime. The death penalty ranked last as a way of reducing violent crime and as a cost-effective resource. Insufficient use of the death penalty was ranked next to last as a major problem area. Swift and sure punishment are regarded by law enforcement as the best deterrent to violent crime.
If you argue that states that have the death penalty are 'safer' because people will think twice about committing a violent crime, that would be false.
As of January 1, 2007 there were 3,350 inmates on death row in 37 states. California, Texas and Florida house nearly half of those with 1,450 death row inmates combined. It is of note that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that through 2004 California, Texas and Florida respectively rank at numbers 11, 13 and 3 for violent crimes per capita. Alaska, ranked 8, is the first of the states with no death penalty to emerge on the list. Michigan, ranked 16, is the second listed state with no death penalty. This means that out of the top listed 16 states for violent crimes per capita 14 of them have the death penalty.
When you take into consideration contributing factors such as drugs, alcohol, and mental illness where people are not in full control of their actions the 'that will make em think twice about it' stance is a joke.
If you argue that it is cheaper to execute someone rather than imprison them for life, that would be false.
In actuality it costs more to proceed with a death penalty case than it would be to incarcerate them for life. In 2006 the Office of the Public Defender of the State of Ohio spent over $15,000 per death penalty case than all other types of cases combined. The state of Ohio could have saved $2,634,462 just in the public defenders office if the death penalty was not an option.
This money could be better used in law enforcement to put officers on the street, equip officers with effective equipment and educational programs to reduce alcoholism, drug use and gang activity. These are issues that law enforcement officers find most useful in helping to reduce the number of violent crimes in their community.
If you argue that the death penalty is applied fairly, that would be false.
Without even getting into race/economic standing I can give examples where the death penalty was not applied fairly.
From January, 1985 through August, 1996 seven inmates were executed that did not personally commit murder. These executions include Doyle Skillern who was an accomplice in the murder of an undercover narcotics agent. Mr. Skillern was waiting in a car nearby when his partner shot and killed the officer. The actual shooter is serving a life sentence and is eligible for parole. Another executed inmate that did not personally commit a murder is Steven Hatch. Mr. Hatch participated in a home invasion. After he left the house his accomplice murdered the family. The accomplice is serving a life sentence . While Mr. Skillern and Mr. Hatch were not innocent bystanders they were executed while the killers are serving life sentences and may one day be free from prison.
So I throw this out there. Proponents of the death penalty state that no innocent person has ever been executed. Some could argue that the seven inmates executed (as referenced above) were innocent of actual murder. I think if you would ask the average person "Are you in favor of the death penalty for murderers" and they said 'Yes', that they may have a different opinion if they found out that people that didn't actually commit the murder were being executed while the actual murderer was eligible for parole. At the very least I think they would be concerned about the application of the death penalty and call for revamping of the system.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Sorry for bringing this back up, but I've been trying to decide if I should respond to it or not.
There were people in Australia when the "criminals" were shipped there before too. Just like there were people living in the US when Europeans "discovered" it. Natives of Australia (Aborigines) are people too.
DeletedUser
I will once again reiterate my main reason for opposing capital punishment, which echoes a comment David Crocket made towards the beginning: even if all of the positives of the pro-death penalty adherents are 100% accurate, they don't justify the risk of one innocent person being falsely executed.
From The Innocence Project:
Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations
There have been 237 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 33 states; since 2000, there have been 170 exonerations.
• 17 of the 237 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,941.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.
Races of the 237 exonerees:
141 African Americans
65 Caucasians
21 Latinos
1 Asian American
9 whose race is unknown
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 103 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• About half of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 25 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• 33 percent of cases closed by the Innocence Project were closed because of lost or missing evidence.
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 77 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Of that 77 percent, about 40 percent of cases where race is known involved cross-racial eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.
Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. In 35 percent of false confession or admission cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 500 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.
Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 15 percent of cases. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony.
From The Innocence Project:
Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations
There have been 237 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 33 states; since 2000, there have been 170 exonerations.
• 17 of the 237 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,941.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.
Races of the 237 exonerees:
141 African Americans
65 Caucasians
21 Latinos
1 Asian American
9 whose race is unknown
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 103 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• About half of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 25 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• 33 percent of cases closed by the Innocence Project were closed because of lost or missing evidence.
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 77 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Of that 77 percent, about 40 percent of cases where race is known involved cross-racial eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.
Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. In 35 percent of false confession or admission cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 500 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.
Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 15 percent of cases. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony.
DeletedUser
Nothing more to add.
Well said El.
Well said El.
DeletedUser
A friend of mine from high school was charged with murder a few years ago, and was almost convicted because of false evidence. During his trial, the key witness changed his story and admitted that the guy hadn't been involved at all. He was offered a "deal" if he would testify that the defendent had done it, but he refused once he was under oath in court.
In that case, the police badgered 2 defendents into incriminating a 3rd person; it took the jury less than an hour to acquit the third one, but the first 2 were found guilty (one entered a plea of guilty and the jury convicted the other). If Dale had stuck with his agreement with the police, the other guy would most likely have been convicted too, even though he was innocent. I really doubt this was the only time something like that happened.
We don't have the death penalty in this state, but I don't doubt that someone who was executed was not guilty of the crime, or possibly of any crime.
In that case, the police badgered 2 defendents into incriminating a 3rd person; it took the jury less than an hour to acquit the third one, but the first 2 were found guilty (one entered a plea of guilty and the jury convicted the other). If Dale had stuck with his agreement with the police, the other guy would most likely have been convicted too, even though he was innocent. I really doubt this was the only time something like that happened.
We don't have the death penalty in this state, but I don't doubt that someone who was executed was not guilty of the crime, or possibly of any crime.
DeletedUser8950
Per usual, probably not...