And the people who are spending money on things like private investigators and DNA tests tend to spent it on the living, and also tend to be people who are opposed to the death penalty. I don’t understand what kind of non-partisan posthumous investigations **Shodan **is imagining happen.
There are a handful of prisoners whose convictions were being investigated by the media before they were killed, or for whom something raised red flags afterward. But these investigations are invariably short of the kind of certainty that will no doubt be demanded.
Given the number of people exonerated by DNA testing from death row very near execution, and given how few death row prisoners have obtained DNA testing since 1980, it’s a near-certainty that someone has been executed who was innocent.
You are mistaking an answer that keeps the burden of proof where it belongs with not answering.
If you have no objective reason to believe that multiple innocent people have been executed in the US since 1976, just say so. Or continue on as you are, and it will become clear anyway.
I find the notion that we guilty people don’t deserve a fair trial to be an interesting one. If you’re innocent, you deserve a trial. If you’re guilty, you don’t deserve a trial. And apparently we can tell the difference between the innocent person and the guilty person without holding a trial.
Seems like a big time saver. If someone is guilty, punish them without bothering with a trial, if they’re innocent hold the trial. Of course, if we know they’re innocent it seems a bit silly to go ahead with the trial anyway, doesn’t it?
But how do we determine whether a random person is guilty or innocent? If only there were some method, like a hearing that could assess the evidence and make some sort of determination if the person is guilty, and therefore should be punished without a trial, or innocent and therefore should be set free without a trial. And we could have some method of choosing impartial people to conduct the hearing, and get others to present the evidence to the impartial hearing chairman. And we could come up with some rules as to how this hearing should be run. I mean, we need to keep it fair to all the innocent people who deserve to have a fair trial but won’t get one because what’s the point of trying an innocent person?
It’s too bad we don’t have this method, and have to stick with our silly process of giving both guilty and innocent people fair trials, when neither of them deserve it.
Then you should be able to prove it. Which people, specifically, were executed and are now known to be innocent, and what evidence do you have that they were? A specific claim was made, so please provide specific evidence. If you have any.
I’m seeking confirmation that you were trying to change the subject by asking for something that you know doesn’t exist, and I’m getting the sense the answer is yes. This is turning into a hijack, so I’ll leave it there.
Shodan, do DNA exonerations count? Is the Innocence Project an acceptable source?
According to data from the linked website, 18 of the 311 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. I am aware that these statistics are only applicable to those who were not executed, but do you genuinely have doubts that some people were executed wrongly?
If by that you mean that we are all aware that the statement “innocent people have been executed” is without objective foundation, then you are correct. But it was not changing the subject in the least, as you must be aware.
For the same reason people perform autopsies - because just because these specific individuals are beyond saving does not mean that there aren’t others on the same path who might be saved by what you learn.
To those who actually care about the evidence, the fact of the exoneration of the innocent against how many are executed in light of how many are even tested is evidence. Only utopians and denialists think we happened to exonerate the only people ever falsely put on death row. Fortunately, no one was falsely convicted before DNA testing!
(It’s also not just a matter of focusing resources. After the execution, a lot of avenues, such as getting samples held by the state, are closed.)
The vast majority of people who support the death penalty will not change their position upon learning that sometimes innocent people are killed. As I said, people who actually are persuadable are sufficiently convinced of this fact already.
If you are interested in objective foundation for the claim, you should ask for facts- not the judgment of a body that you know doesn’t exist. To that end you could read the work of the Innocence Project. Cameron Willingham’s execution (and the dodgy fire science behind it) has been in the news a bunch recently, for example. But based on the way you phrased your objection I suspect you’re just looking for a reason to ignore it.
I did ask for facts - that’s what “objective foundation” means. See my cite of the post-mortem examination of the Roger Coleman case, which I put forward as an example of how you might approach it, if you had objective evidence.
Fine with me. Who has been executed that the Innocence Project has shown was innocent?
And based on the way you are arguing, I suspect you have no hard evidence.
[QUOTE=Gagundathar]
Shodan, I apologize for distracting you with data contrary to your thesis.
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t present any actual data of actually innocent people who were actually executed.
No. It’s not. It’s reaching a conclusion not based on a case by case analysis as the judicial system requires, but rather a guess that since some innocent people are convicted, then some innocent people must have been put to death. That’s a guess, not evidence.
I am against the death penalty, and have yet to see any persuasive evidence that an innocent person was executed in the modern death penalty era. And I have no desire whatsoever to be agreeing with Shodan.
There’s not conclusive, 100% evidence for reasons given above (concentrating on living inmates and literally letting the dead stay buried), but the preponderance of data collected on exonerated inmates is more than suggestive.
So, I guess I agree that I’ve yet to see any absolute proof of the fact, but that’s a higher burden of evidence than we have to convict people for murder, which is only beyond reasonable doubt.