With threads about famous killers being denied parole and whether the death penalty should be used, I’m wondering about this.
If OJ had been found guilty, should he have gotten life imprisonment without parole? Or with the chance of parole? And how long before he should have been granted parole?
And if California had the death penalty then, should he had been given death?
Well, the prosecution announced they weren’t seeking the death penalty in his case, so, even if he had been convicted, he wouldn’t have gotten it.
Annie,
What if someone you loved deeply, was charged, convicted and executed for a hideous crime he never committed, would you still be pro death?
This happens and all too frequently. In fact, it was so bad in Illinois that the governor declared a moratorium on his state’s shameful practices in this area.
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=359
Innocent people being executed for crimes they didn’t commit does not happen frequently. Your cite does not support it having happened even once. Got anything better?
As for the OP, you’d have to tell us what he was convicted of first. There are many degrees of manslaughter, so it would depend.
It wouldn’t have been manslaughter against Nicole. It was a premeditated act which makes it murder. Ron Goldman was simply in the wrong place at the very wrong time.
I’ve never heard of an innocent person being convicted as a serial killer, spree killer or mass murderer.
BarnOwl how would you feel if someone you loved deeply was killed by someone who had been paroled or escaped while doing time for murder?
Utterly disconsolate.
If you’ve never heard of it, then, of course, it can’t have happened. But if it had - just once - would that affect your stance?
I’ll get back to you when it happens.
Being in prison on death row is not the same as being executed. If the system is releasing people from death row based on new evidence, then obviously it is working. The chance of an innocent person being executed is extremely miniscle. Probably fewer innocent people have been executed than people have been killed by escaped/pardoned convicted murderers.
Dozens have been freed from death row. If you want to try to argue that every innocent person sentenced to death has been exonerated in time to escape execution, you’re welcome to cling to that, but it’s a specious objection, especially sine there is no process for exonerating those who have already been executed.
The poster claimed that: “all too frequently” innocent people were executed and that the Gov of IL halted executions because of that. He then gave a cite that did not back up either one of those assertions. In fact, the latter assertion is patently false. If you’ve got a better cite, let’s see it. I’m against the death penalty, but let’s argue about it with facts, not ignorance.
I think you mean “Murder II”, not “Manslaugher”, which is unintentional killing. (Drunk driving, for example.) Nicole was Murder I, Ron was Murder II, basically.
There are many degrees of homicide, of which manslaughter is often two (voluntary and involuntary). I do not belive any state imposes death for any form of manslaughter.
maybe, maybe not. standards for premeditation vary.
Maybe I watch too much Law & Order then. I always thought manslaughter was unintended, murder one was planned, and murder two was on the spur of the moment.
Yeah, but it’s only a technical gotchya. It’s at least accurate to say that all too often innocent people are sentenced to death. We don’t know how many innocent people have been executed, but it’s extremely unlikely that it’s never happened, and even once is “too often.”
States have statutes that attempt to address this, but at common law, first degree murder required malice aforethought. Does that mean knowing you’re going to kill someone the month before, week before, night before, hour before, half hour before, five minutes before . . . you get the idea? The concepts of “cooling off”, “heat of the moment”, and “crime of passion” are hardly objective. Different jurisdictions have different standards. Different juries make different decisions.
Had he been found guilty as charged, that would have been his mandatory sentence. The prosecution was not seeking the death penalty.
No, it’s not. He claimed that the Gov of IL stayed all executions because too many innocent people had been killed. That is not just a technicality. If it were indeed true, it would sway any number of people to reverse their positions on the subject.
I agree that it is extremely unlikely that it has never happened, especially if you go back to the pre-Civil Rights era. However, I disagree that once is too often. Many of the things we choose to do as a society result in the death of innocent people. That’s unavoidable. You may be of that opinion, and that’s fine. However, I don’t think it’s necessary to hold that view in order to be anti-death penalty (eg, someone like me).
Would it be worth it to you to BE that innocent person? Would it be worth it to you to have your son or your wife or your brother be that innocent person?
Immaterial. I’m sure there are people in prison for life who are innocent and who will die in jail. Is that “worth it” to us if one of them was our loved one? We don’t require cars to be crash proof. Is it “worth it” to do so if one of our loved ones dies in a car accident?
I don’t understand the analogy. We’re talking about killing people on purpose, not by accident. I don’t think anyone has the mora; right to support the death penalty unless they’d be willing to see one of their loved ones be an innocent victim of it.