This is the reason....

Unless it is a recording of the event or I was literally there to see the event happen. It can't be unequivocal.

I watched to and listened to two documentaries of men who were falsely accused. One movie was called the thin blue line. In it, there was this woman who said that she saw Randall Dale Adams in the car. Whoever was in the car shot the officer to death. That was what sealed Randall Dale Adam's fate. Turns out the prosecutor had some kind of deal with the women about either lowering her daughter's sentence or dropping charges on her. The prosecutor feels that her testimony is unequivocal. The jury probably did too. I mean she saw him in the car, right? He has to be the killer. Problem is that the killer had told his friends that he killed officer and then recanted the story to say Randall did it. It is up to each person to think what is unequivocal is. Heck you can doctor recordings. That's why I have a hard time understanding how you can put it on the table with too many flaws. It is as if you are saying I don't care what happens to the innocent as long as the guilty gets what's coming to them. I know you will say no but ask your self if you are going to be paying attention to every death penalty case. Will you be there to defend every case where an innocent person could be put to death? unlikely

It is what it is. Several states have it and enough believe it my way to not.

sucks to be Randall though. 12 years gone just like that.


The other media was a recording.http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/282/diy

In it, A kid says a guy shot and killed another guy. The kid was pressured by the police. You know what's funny. The killer admitted to it but can't be tried because of double jeopardy. The jury probably also thought the witness was unequivocal. I mean he saw it happen, right?

 

And then there are the guilty, where the police obtained evidence illegally or under questionable circumstances, who are set free by juries for those very reasons.

So what's your point? It works both ways...

 

You think letting a guilty person walk is the equivalent of executing an innocent man??:smt108

The death penalty is about revenge, not justice.
It's interesting that all(?) of our Western European allies who experienced the horrors and atrocities of WWII up close have abolished the death penalty in their capital criminal statutes.

 

And if that guilty person was a serial rapist and/or murderer, how many more innocent lives will be affected by that person going free?

There is no right answer (whether you agree with it or not, there isn't) and frankly I'm done talking about this topic. I'm not going to be shamed into changing my opinion. And last time I checked, this is a free country and I'm allowed to have my opinion, as you guys are allowed to have yours.

 

I always ask myself what if I were on death row for a crime I didn't commit or even worst my child. Then I think what if it were a loved one who got killed and the killer walked. Its a tricky question no doubt it, but I think what Boba is saying if they caught a criminal and just imprisoned them they wouldn't be able to hurt anyone else so the death penalty wouldn't be needed. Getting out on a technicality is a completely different animal altogether.

 

yea just stick him or her into prison. simple solution. If they are guilty, they will never get out. If they are innocent, then some one will prove it and they get their life back with some money. still sucks but not much one can do.

 

I get all of that. But back to the OP, this guy was convicted of raping a child and only got a seven year sentence. Seven years. That's nothing, even if he served the whole sentence, that's not even a decade for ruining a child's life FOREVER.

Our judicial system is broken when it comes to crimes of rape and pedophilia.

You guys act like death row inmates are killed quickly. How many have already been on death row for decades?? Charles Manson anyone?

 

yes but we don't know how many people were executed that were innocent. I don't want that on my conscious.

I don't care about the guilty guys getting the chair or long prison sentence. It is the innocent ones that keep me from putting the death penalty on the table.

 

Charles Mansion I don't believe was ever sentenced to death, that's why his parole hearings are a minor media circus because everyone knows he's never getting out.

I agree totally that the child rapist mentioned in this thread NEVER should have gotten out of prison under any circumstances. 7 years was a joke and I guarantee he's already planning on how to commit the same crime again.

I'm against the death penalty on principle, but I am a supporter of chemical castration for dangerous sex offenders.

 

Seven years is a Joke and chemical castration doesn't work, they only move on to other sick depraved way of getting there mental kicks.

 

Exactly. Even if the dead dick isn't working, they can still use their digits and other invasive contraptions.

 

Chemical castration lowers a man's circulating level of testosterone, dampens his libido and sexual fantasies, as well as impotence.

It may not be fool proof, but it is effective in some cases.

I still believe for certain sex offenders they should be facing life in prison without parole.

 

Any rape is very rarely about the act itself, it's about alot of things one of which is power.
When I say chemical castration doesn't work you misunderstood me, I mean you may take away the ability to perform but you cannot castrate/take away the desire to abuse children.

 

And they should be able to make that decision.


Back on topic; I do not support the death penalty.

 

Why is that?

 

It's an easy out. For people who have caused a lifetime of suffering to others, they themselves deserve a lifetime of suffering.