of course, the OK case he mentions, he neglects to point out that they were captured within a short time, (those of course were in a regular max prison) and, where’s that check you were talking about for me - the solution for the TX one that you found (first and only in 64 years), well, gee, don’t let death row inmates have access to hacksaws. Ya think?
and, of course, in both of those cases, either the inmates were recaptured in a short amount of time or they died, w/o killing others.
I’d suggest that you do a bit more research on your data before submission. (hacksaw on death row? surely you don’t think thats a standard)
and Once again you deliberately mischaracterize my position and that of other DP foes. Spare me. I’d suggest that you save some of your righteous indignation for the families of those who’ve been wrongfully convicted, the kids who were deprived of their fathers because the state wanted to kill their dad, the mothers who died while their sons languished on death row 'cause somebody ‘made a mistake’
I can’t believe that you have the gall to post the above piece of slander once again, after finally having to slink away admitting that you couldn’t show a statement where a DP foe was ‘contemptuos’ of the victims/families.
IOW, you can’t answer my question. All you can do is point to isolated examples and say “Prisoners can escape! See?!” No one has ever claimed it was impossible for a prisoner to escape. We have claimed it was very difficult, and very rarely occurs. We know there is a risk, but it is so low only an unreasonable person would worry about it.
There is a kind of common ground here: Neither group wants innocent people to be killed. You want to execute murderers so they won’t kill innocent people again; we want executions to halt so no innocent person is killed. Surely you can see why one is preferable to the other.
Jack, if you refer one more time to innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit as “convicted killers,” and imply that my sympathies lie with killers, I’m going to reach through the Internet and smack you silly.
Are you even remotely cognizant of the fact that being innocent of a crime is not a “legal technicality”?
Are you aware that 92 people being discovered innocent years after their convictions strongly implies there might have been 93, and that that 93rd may not have been so lucky? Or do you just not care?
I realized another potential difference: If a real convicted murderer escapes from prison, presumably, the public is alerted, the police are actively searching for them, and citizens can at least be on the lookout and potentially defend themselves.
By contrast, when an innocent person is convicted of a capital crime and facing execution, as long as there were no Constitutional issues or procedural errors, there is little they can do. Appeals courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, are unlikely to agree to hear a case based on protestations of innocence. As I mentioned, Justice Scalia has stated on record that actual innocence is not sufficient reason to stop a legally-ordered execution.
That’s what I find morally repugnant. The idea that, as long as the "t"s are all crossed and the "i"s dotted, the state can proceed with an execution whether you committed the crime or not.
Also: Jack keeps bringing up Gary Graham’s record for rape and robbery as if they were relevant to whether he committed the murder for which he was executed. They aren’t. Robbery and, to the best of my knowledge, rape, are not capital crimes; and the old, “Well, he musta been guilty of sumthin” excuse is crap. We don’t punish people for crimes they didn’t commit. We’re not supposed to, anyway.
That’s true. When the death penalty was reinstated it could only be used in murder cases. And it can’t be mandated in murder cases, there must be additional circumstances to warrent the DP. Applying the DP in any other way is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.