Jury's rule.Follow

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2331853020070423


CHICAGO (Reuters) - A man convicted of rape in 1982 was exonerated on Monday on the basis of DNA evidence, the 200th time in the United States that such technology has reversed a conviction, lawyers who worked for the man said.

"I want to get on with my life ... have a life," said Jerry Miller, 48, after an appearance in Cook County Circuit Court where a judge tossed out his conviction at the request of prosecutors.

The New York-based Innocence Project, which has pursued such cases, said it marked the 200th DNA exoneration since 1989. Miller, it said, served 24 years in jail before a parole.

The ones on death row are funnier. "There's no reasonable doubt, kill him. What's that? Oh. Yeah whatever, he still totally did SOMETHING." At least the prosecution didn't argue that he was still guilty as they usually do.

All 14 of them?

There are over 3500 people on death row *today*. 14 is less then .4% of that number. However, that's not 14 out of those there today, that's 14 out of every death row inmate that's been sentenced for the last ~30 years.

Does DNA allow us to more accurately determine if someone committed (or didn't commit) a crime? Absolutely.

Was our accuracy rate horrible prior to DNA? Not really. Or, more importantly, DNA evidence when applied to past death row cases only changed the outcome of the trials by an incredibly tiny percentage. Important to those 14? Absolutely. Sufficient to say we should chuck out the penalty for the other 99.6%? That's a whole different argument...

There shouldn't be a death penalty without 100% certainty.

Nexa

Well there shouldn't be one at all, actually, but that's another story.

I want you to think long and hard about why that 14 number isn't accurate.


I won't even get into the other issues with your stance because it's not worth it.



Edited, Apr 23rd 2007 8:00pm by trickybeck

Well, it's not though (another story that is). There's no such thing in life as "100% certainty". Your test is a non-test. You're just saying there shouldn't be a death penalty, period. Which is an acceptable position to take IMO. Just stand up and make it! :)


I happen to think that there are overweighing issues that make a death penalty worth having. Once we accept that our legal system can never be 100% accurate, then it has to be about measuring that accuracy rate, comparing the costs of various sentences, and assessing the sociological benefit/harm of having or not having any given penalty.

Death penalty cases have by far the *lowest* rate of overturns, not because of a lack of appeals or some other obstacles, but because of the opposite. We make sure that a death row prisoner is given every possible recourse. There's a reason why a prisoner convicted in 1979 was still on death row in 1996 to have his case dismissed due to DNA evidence. While it seems simplitically obvious to simply do away with the death penalty entirely (cause then you could take all the time you want to exonerate the innocent), but IMO the value of having a death penalty is worth that incredibly tiny risk that an innocent might die (or I should say might be executed, but would have lived long enough in the correctional system on a life sentence to have been freed).

There are some crimes that are so heinous, some criminals so unremorseful, that a death penalty is the only way to provide both protection to the society and closure for the victims families. Again. We can debate this, but let's not hide the real issue behind DNA (what Smash was trying to do). That's a tiny tiny fraction of the issue.

Er? Um... It's exactly accurate. How about you check out this site.

It's a list of every single death row inmate released for any cause at all (since 1973 apparently). It clearly lists the number released as a result of DNA evidence. That number is clearly shown to be 14.


Maybe you just assumed the number was higher?

Think long and hard about why a number that is absolutely 100% accurate is wrong?

Um? Maybe you should go take your meds... Just a thought.

Oh, I'm thinking all right. I'm thinking you've been hit over the head one too many times...

Unjust distribition of the death penalty doesn't make the death penalty inherently unjust.

It is, however, a barbaric, absurd, antiquated form of punishment that should be done away with. If you're going to look to numbers, there's no hard evidence to suggest that it acts as a deterrent, which is one of the main arguments for its continued existence. It's also backwards-looking, which ignores the underlying issues that caused the crime(s).

As far as DNA evidence is concerned, it's irrelevant once you accept that we shouldn't be killing people anyways.

You better link that word for him, he has a hard time understanding things without being spoon fed.

Misuse of " 's " rules even more.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2007 11:52pm by DaimenKain

Incarceration doesn't protect society? afaik, it's not the responsibility of the justice system to provide closure to victims either, and in cases of heinous crimes, I question whether it's even possible. I can just envision the justice system implementing a closure system. "Yes ma'am, ok, if you need more closure you'll need to come to the courthouse or visit our website to get the closure request form. Right, there will be a box to check on the lower left of the form if you need the death sentence for full closure. Anything else? Thank you, have a nice day."



I sometimes worry that we're intensively training him to be some kind of super-conservative. Amidst his desperate clinging to the right regardless of all reason, he occasionally makes a valid point :O (not this time though)

It's a list of every single death row inmate released for any cause at all (since 1973 apparently). It clearly lists the number released as a result of DNA evidence. That number is clearly shown to be 14.

Does it list the number already killed who were innocent?