why the death penalty is a bad idea

[boldie]

I am talking of modern cases, not those even of 2-3 years ago, the DNA technology has moved on since

Didn't they think it was foolproof 2-3 years ago as well?

sure but I am being difficult for the sake of it

That's the point though, the science keeps moving on and showing things that were thought to incontrovertible previously to be plain wrong.

What level of certainty of guilt would you be happy with before sending someone to their death?

personally I wouldn't BUT I think it becomes a more arguable matter (and a stronger argument for supporters of capital punishment)  as the technology continues to reduce the possibility of miscarriages, to a point where presumably the chances of such are infinitessimal

I agree, however for a long time now it has been argued that DNA evidence is infallible when it qute clearly isn't (actually the DNA itsself is, the test isn't) and that's the problem.

[TightEnd]

serious point to A2M

You might think OJ and Spector were clear cut cases, I might think that..but if found not guilty (because the prosecution fails to make the case to a high enough standard) that is not, to my mind "proof" that those with money can murder

I was,to be frank, expecting a stronger counter-argument than that given your assertion

[ACE2M]

serious point to A2M

You might think OJ and Spector were clear cut cases, I might think that..but if found not guilty (because the prosecution fails to make the case to a high enough standard) that is not, to my mind "proof" that those with money can murder

I was,to be frank, expecting a stronger counter-argument than that given your assertion

i'll draft up something a bit more interesting. off hand these seemed like the easiest illustrations of system manipulatable by money.

Corporate 'murder' with no consequence for individuals is also well documented.

[AndrewT]

serious point to A2M

You might think OJ and Spector were clear cut cases, I might think that..but if found not guilty (because the prosecution fails to make the case to a high enough standard) that is not, to my mind "proof" that those with money can murder

I was,to be frank, expecting a stronger counter-argument than that given your assertion

i'll draft up something a bit more interesting. off hand these seemed like the easiest illustrations of system manipulatable by money.

Corporate 'murder' with no consequence for individuals is also well documented.

There is rarely any such thing as clear-cut, 100% guilt. The guilt has to be proven in court - which is essentially a game you're trying to win. And, like any game, there are things you can do to improve your chances of winning. The more money you have, the more likely it is that you will be able to have access to these tactics.

[TightEnd]

and that is the same in any country?

[Ironside]

and that is the same in any country?

nope Prince Phillip allegedly did away with diana but all fayid's money hasnt got him into the dock yet

[boldie]

and that is the same in any country?

nope Prince Phillip allegedly did away with diana but all fayid's money hasnt got him into the dock yet

lmao

[TightEnd]

and that is the same in any country?

nope Prince Phillip allegedly did away with diana but all fayid's money hasnt got him into the dock yet

sigh, there were no planes that went into the WTC either, it was a hologram

[Ironside]

and that is the same in any country?

nope Prince Phillip allegedly did away with diana but all fayid's money hasnt got him into the dock yet

sigh, there were no planes that went into the WTC either, it was a hologram

r u sure?

[steeveg]

the usa legal system is a joke, i cant blame the oj simpson jury for finding him innocent even if they thought he was guilty, at the time of the trial they where expecting a lot of riots and killings if he was found guilty, so how did the usa protect this jury, they allowed cnn and the media to camp out outside the houses of people on that jury,

[boldie]

the usa legal system is a joke, i cant blame the oj simpson jury for finding him innocent even if they thought he was guilty, at the time of the trial they where expecting a lot of riots and killings if he was found guilty, so how did the usa protect this jury, they allowed cnn and the media to camp out outside the houses of people on that jury,

any Jury system is severely flawed and I can not believe a civilised country still goes with it.

[TightEnd]

the usa legal system is a joke, i cant blame the oj simpson jury for finding him innocent even if they thought he was guilty, at the time of the trial they where expecting a lot of riots and killings if he was found guilty, so how did the usa protect this jury, they allowed cnn and the media to camp out outside the houses of people on that jury,

any Jury system is severely flawed and I can not believe a civilised country still goes with it.

alternative being? relying on the views of a small panel of judges?

[boldie]

the usa legal system is a joke, i cant blame the oj simpson jury for finding him innocent even if they thought he was guilty, at the time of the trial they where expecting a lot of riots and killings if he was found guilty, so how did the usa protect this jury, they allowed cnn and the media to camp out outside the houses of people on that jury,

any Jury system is severely flawed and I can not believe a civilised country still goes with it.

alternative being? relying on the views of a small panel of judges?

Small panel of judges (3-5) with 2 independent people (again experts) attending the trial to check and see that the judges don't go out of line..yeah I think that's better than having people with no knowledge about, sometimes, very complex issues making a desicion. (You should also know that I consider most people too thick to understand even the most basic things..which is why they read the Sun)

[TightEnd]

I have some sympathy for this Boldie

I did jury service four years ago..a personal fraud case that lasted a fortnight

the two people on trial were Asian. (relevance later)

It was complex and when it came to deliberation I was elected foreman and led the discussions

These were to last 8 hours

One lad read the sun throughout, and said right at the start "he's guilty, let me know when you agree, I want to go home"
and took no further part

Conversely another juror was Asian, and said "I will not convict a fellow Asian, no matter what you say I think he's been framed"

so I have to try and lead an agreement!

In the end we came to a 11-1 decision once directed that a majority verdict was acceptable by the judge...but no amount of rational evidence would have persuaded the two extremes above to change their view

[boldie]

I have some sympathy for this Boldie

I did jury service four years ago..a personal fraud case that lasted a fortnight

the two people on trial were Asian. (relevance later)

It was complex and when it came to deliberation I was elected foreman and led the discussions

These were to last 8 hours

One lad read the sun throughout, and said right at the start "he's guilty, let me know when you agree, I want to go home"
and took no further part

Conversely another juror was Asian, and said "I will not convict a fellow Asian, no matter what you say I think he's been framed"

so I have to try and lead an agreement!

In the end we came to a 11-1 decision once directed that a majority verdict was acceptable by the judge...but no amount of rational evidence would have persuaded the two extremes above to change their view

And that is the main problem I have with the jury system. either it is too complex for people to understand (Fraud cases especially can be horrendously difficult) or people don't care/ are prejudiced because someone looks "off".