The Death Penalty

[ericsp23]

Maybe in an ideal world. Here in reality prosecutors refuse to allow new trials when exculpatory evidence is found after a conviction. They are more concerned with their careers than with justice.

[tman_ndsu08]

That would damge their reputation.

Plus I don't believe in new trials. You get one chance and that's it. You can't be charged with the same crime in court twice, so why should you get a second chance to prove your innocence?

[Matt W]

why should you get a second chance to prove your innocence?

The phrase goes 'innocent until proven guilty'. If somebody screwed up, if somebody lied, if somebody bribed a judge or threatened a jury...you don't think a new trial is in order? Nice.

[IndieC]

Let us take an example, lets say... You. If you were acused of murder, and they prove you guilty, are you just going to say. "Ok, i'm innocent, but i'll sit here for a few months or years, or however long it takes until the excecute me, and just accept that i can't do anything about it." Somehow i doubt it. Well, that's how people feel. They want to get off, when they know they aren't guilty.

So, unless you say that if a court rules that you have killed someone, and has sentenced you to be executed, even if you aren't guilty, that you will do nothing to disprove that verdict once the trial is over, you have nothing to say on the subject

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Matt W The phrase goes 'innocent until proven guilty'. If somebody screwed up, if somebody lied, if somebody bribed a judge or threatened a jury...you don't think a new trial is in order? Nice.

If those things happen then there would be a mis trial.

IE, there never would've been a first trial.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: IndieC Let us take an example, lets say... You. If you were acused of murder, and they prove you guilty, are you just going to say. "Ok, i'm innocent, but i'll sit here for a few months or years, or however long it takes until the excecute me, and just accept that i can't do anything about it." Somehow i doubt it. Well, that's how people feel. They want to get off, when they know they aren't guilty. So, unless you say that if a court rules that you have killed someone, and has sentenced you to be executed, even if you aren't guilty, that you will do nothing to disprove that verdict once the trial is over, you have nothing to say on the subject

For there ever to be a trial in which I was accused of being the murderer but was actually innocent, I would use the evidence to prove I was innocent.

[Mia]

And if you were wrongly convicted, you'd just accept that. No appeal, you'd just get ready for your lethal injection. Don't say that wouldn't/couldn't happen. It has happened. People have been found guilty then proven innocent later.

[IndieC]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 For there ever to be a trial in which I was accused of being the murderer but was actually innocent, I would use the evidence to prove I was innocent.

In other words, you would appeal the decision which means taking it to court again, so you are contradicting yourself.

[Mia]

He meant he would use the evidence to prove himself innocent in the first and only trial. His posts indicate he believes this is a perfect system where mistakes are not made.

[tman_ndsu08]

People don't get put on trial for murder simply because they were at the wrong place at the wrong.

I doubt highly that anyone who's ever been convicted of murder is a perfect citizin who just happened to have his/her dna at the crime scene.

There's a reason that a prosecurtor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: IndieC In other words, you would appeal the decision which means taking it to court again, so you are contradicting yourself.

I would prove my innocence in the first and only trial.

[IndieC]

Oh, and if you can't prove your innocence? What if there is not real concrete evidence to suggest that you are innocent? What if someone planted evidence at the scene making it look like you were the person who murdered? If you don't have an alibi, and there is evidence to show that you killed the person, then you're guilty, no question about it really, at least, not to a Jury or a Judge. Not an impartial one anyway. How would you prove you innocence then? I mean, to be honest, unless i had been a good friend of yours, or part of your family, and i liked you... i would call you guilty without thinking twice.

[tman_ndsu08]

You mean being framed? Um, maybe you should come back to reality and stop thinking about Hollywood.

Even if I was framed, they'd have to do some really hard work to get my fingerprints at the scene and my dna.

And why would anyone do that to me in the first place? I'm not an underlord mob boss.

[IndieC]

You never know, in life, who might hate you enough to do that. As for people who have been framed, there are countless numbers, all you need to look up is the cases. I can think of quite a few in the UK alone. Maybe you just happen to have the wrong belief, fall out with the wrong guy. Take the Dreyfus affair, thats a classic century-old example.

[tman_ndsu08]

You could claim that anyone who is found guilty is actually innocent and was framed.

The proof, however, points to their guilt. What proof is there that the defendants were framed?

[IndieC]

That is why there exists the second trial, to find that out. Some people take advantage of that, agreed, to stay off death row, but these trials do help to get people 'off the hook'. The problem is, sometimes, the proof that they were framed comes up after the first trial. If second trials are not allowed, then they would be condemning someone who would be innocent, to their death, and knowing that too. You cannot be proved innocent, other than in a court ruling, thus a second trial. That is why i am for second trials. Now, if there is no new evidence, then there is no point, there i agree, but if evidence does come to light, that could change the court's decision, then there should be a second trial.

[tman_ndsu08]

If there is new, non circumstantial evidence found that proves the innocence of someone before they're executed, then a new trial would be in order.

It better be some solid evidense. And I mean really solid. Otherwise I would encourage the judge to dismiss it.

[IndieC]

Then i suppose we are in agreement that, under special circumstances, and in the light of new evidence, there should be a second trial, but in order to prevent people taking advantage of this system, no second trial should be allowed outside of these circumstances. Am i correct?

[tman_ndsu08]

I would encourage judges to never grant second trials unless the new evidence so overwhelmingly proves the defendant was actually innocent that it would be inexcuseable to dismiss it.

So basically, the only way a second trial could ever happen was if a powerful group framed someone, that someone is convicted of murder and sentenced to be executed, and the leader of that group turns himself in along with the plot to frame that someone.


This is the stuff of hollywood. It just doesn't happen in the real world.

[IndieC]

It does happen in the real world, read up on the Dreyfus affair. Granted, it was over a century ago, but it is the most famous case of this kind, and he eventually got off. It was completely unfair, but that's what happens if you aren't liked by people in high places, for whatever reason. Here it was religion. Dreyfus was a Jew in the French army...

As for other cases, more recent ones, i'm sure i could find some if i wanted to, but i'm honestly not that interested in the subject, so i won't unless you actually ask me to.