This is why I'm against the Death Penalty

[sdw]

We keep finding that the person accused of doing something was innocent, many times not even in the area. For 40 years the police were sure that they knew who the murderer of these 2 young women was. Now they know it was a car accident with the car sinking into a river. They found the car because of the drought.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27055888

16 April 2014 Last updated at 15:37 ET

Four decade mystery of missing South Dakota women solved

The human remains found in an old car discovered in a drought-parched South Dakota creek last year were two girls who disappeared without a trace in 1971, officials have said.

Police confirmed the bodies of Cheryl Miller and Pamela Jackson, both 17, were inside the 1960 Studebaker.

Investigators say the evidence points to a high-speed road accident.

In 2004 a convicted rapist and kidnapper was accused of killing them but the charges were dropped. . .

 

[Tugela]

Union County Sheriff Dan Limoges said he had no regrets about pursuing Lykken in the case.

"The only unfortunate thing I would add is for the Lykken family, for what they had to go through," he said. "But I don't make any apologies for doing our job."

The fact that they indicted the guy for murder apparently without any evidence at all suggests that he was not doing his job.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Even worse -- because he was convicted and spent 25 years in prison -- and prosecuted maliciously. Also exonerated very recently.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26949733

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

Three reasons I will ALWAYS be against the death penalty:

1) Steven Truscot
2) David Milgaard
3) Guy-Paul Morin

All convicted of first degree murder on circumstantial evidence; all later cleared by either DNA or by other new evidence.

 

[Pantherdash]

Three reasons I will ALWAYS be against the death penalty:

1) Steven Truscot
2) David Milgaard
3) Guy-Paul Morin

All convicted of first degree murder on circumstantial evidence; all later cleared by either DNA or by other new evidence.

What she said.

Amen.

Panther

 

[manni]

I wonder what's the ratio of wrongful convictions to ones actually committed?
it's why I'm FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

 

[P3t3rp4n]

"Live by the gun you gonna die by one"

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

I wonder what's the ratio of wrongful convictions to ones actually committed?
it's why I'm FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

One execution for a wrongful conviction should be enough.

In the case of Steven Truscott, he was only 15 when he was sentenced to death by "hanging by the neck until you are dead, dead, dead." as the judge used to pronounce. I believe after his sentence was commuted due to the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, he remained in prison for at least a decade. To date, the murder is unsolved, but Steven Truscott will always be the man who was wrongfully convicted for it.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

probably something like 100 billion people have been born onto this planet since homo sapiens appeared, and to my knowledge not one of them ever made it off alive

that is no reason for prematurely terminating an innocent person's life; however, all the examples given were convicted before the advent of DNA testing, and would not be convicted under today's much stricter requirements of proof. as a matter of fact many of the examples were exonerated because of DNA testing

i also believe that nobody should be terminated on the basis of circumstantial evidence - but in cases where fingerprint or DNA evidence or enough credible witnesses can successfully demonstrate that the convicted was indeed the perpetrator, beyond any doubt, i see NO reason why they should be subjected to imprisonment. they should be euthanized like the rabid dogs they are

 

[badbadboy]

Three reasons I will ALWAYS be against the death penalty:

1) Steven Truscot
2) David Milgaard
3) Guy-Paul Morin

All convicted of first degree murder on circumstantial evidence; all later cleared by either DNA or by other new evidence.

Absolutely and I agree 100%. I could never support the Death Penalty knowing that someone innocent had been put to death because of some ill considered vigilante attitude.

I wonder what's the ratio of wrongful convictions to ones actually committed?
it's why I'm FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

Bernardo
Olson
Pickton
Shearing

Reasons why I support the death penalty.

So you are guys are ok with killing a few innocent people as long as you get the known to be bad ones?

Your logic escapes me and I do sincerely hope you never find yourself in the position of Steven Truscot, David Milgaard and Guy-Paul Morin who may have died if we had the same people in Govt as our neighbours to the South.

 

[manni]

Absolutely and I agree 100%. I could never support the Death Penalty knowing that someone innocent had been put to death because of some ill considered vigilante attitude.





So you are guys are ok with killing a few innocent people as long as you get the known to be bad ones?

Your logic escapes me and I do sincerely hope you never find yourself in the position of Steven Truscot, David Milgaard and Guy-Paul Morin who may have died if we had the same people in Govt as our neighbours to the South.

and you're okay with Pickton killing all those women?

 

[HankQuinlan]

I wonder what's the ratio of wrongful convictions to ones actually committed?
it's why I'm FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

So what exactly is the acceptable ratio? 1 innocent to 4 guilty? 1 in 10? 1 in 25?

 

[manni]

Killing Pickton doesn't change the crime.
Killing an innocent person is a crime.

the Death Penalty is hopefully a deterent for those thinking the act.
for those wrongly executed, I question the judge and jury.

 

[rick hunter]

the Death Penalty is hopefully a deterent for those thinking the act.
for those wrongly executed, I question the judge and jury.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent, using that logic then the U.S., Iran, China would be mostly murder free.

As for DNA, that can be a problem at times also. There have been cases of lab workers mishandling/tainting evidence and cases having to be thrown out. Also we all know police would never plant evidence or pressure someone into a false confession right?

 

[sdw]

and you're okay with Pickton killing all those women?

Pickton would never be released from prison if the "Truth in Sentencing Act" is followed. KILL Pickton? Why? What if the actual criminal is the loving brother Dave? After All, word is that Dave got away with murder when he was a teen.

 

[bcneil]

Isn't it funny how they just jump right to "so your ok with them killing?" Like a life sentence means they can go out and kill again? Or just because you can see the big picture and don't feel it necessary to kill killers, that you're automatically ok with what the killers did? Lol. How ridiculous. The argument made by someone when they have no valid argument to bring to the debate.

Its called a strawman. Don't think Pickton deserves the electric chair?? Well then that means you agree with him killing prostitutes and probably do the same yourself.

 

[Tugela]

probably something like 100 billion people have been born onto this planet since homo sapiens appeared, and to my knowledge not one of them ever made it off alive

that is no reason for prematurely terminating an innocent person's life; however, all the examples given were convicted before the advent of DNA testing, and would not be convicted under today's much stricter requirements of proof. as a matter of fact many of the examples were exonerated because of DNA testing

i also believe that nobody should be terminated on the basis of circumstantial evidence - but in cases where fingerprint or DNA evidence or enough credible witnesses can successfully demonstrate that the convicted was indeed the perpetrator, beyond any doubt, i see NO reason why they should be subjected to imprisonment. they should be euthanized like the rabid dogs they are

There are plenty of trials that are decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence even now, including capital cases.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

if you did it by firing squad, you could hold a lottery for positions on the squad... with the proceeds going to the children's hospital, lol!!

 

[vancity_cowboy]

I have trouble understanding how we decide which convicted killers are merely guilty versus those that are for sure for sure guilty. Does the law distinguish?

no, the evidence distinguishes, and society extinguishes

There are plenty of trials that are decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence even now, including capital cases.

that's what i'm saying, for circumstantial, they rot in jail

 

[vancity_cowboy]

This basically creates two tiers of guilty. How do we distinguish between them? How do you draw the line? It seems like a lot of room for 'grey area'.

judges have to do it with every decision... sentence suspended, 2 years less a day, five years, life, life without any possibility of parole for 25 years, etc.

Also, DNA evidence can still be planted, and innocent people can be framed.

you've been watching too much tv