• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma will execute innocent man

ReverendHellh0und said:
Death penalty should only be considered under conviction with DNA evidence.
Click to expand...

If there had, for example, been an audio recording of this murder being planned, would that be sufficient, in your opinion?
 
Paleocon said:
If there had, for example, been an audio recording of this murder being planned, would that be sufficient, in your opinion?
Click to expand...


For the Death penalty? Probably not. I think requiring DNA for the death penalty eliminates most questions.
 
Paleocon said:
If there had, for example, been an audio recording of this murder being planned, would that be sufficient, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Audio recordings are remarkably easy to fake and notoriously difficult to detect.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's more expensive to warehouse you. This is what the private prison industry wants.
Click to expand...

Lol the autocorrect making "em" "me."

Anyways, last I checked, it was cheaper to warehouse, but I'll get back to you with some evidence instead of making baseless claims.
 
Gaius46 said:
Jailhouse informants lie. They are unreliable. They are often given consideration for their cooperation. Juries usually don't hear any of that.

Maybe he's guilty. I don't know. But wrongful conviction based on lies told by people in jail is hardly unheard of.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that jail house informants are unreliable. Are you suggesting the myriad of people who reviewed this case are not aware of that?
 
MaggieD said:
Because HIRING someone to kill someone is a heinous crime. There would be no DNA.
Click to expand...

Let's play devils advocate. Was there anything other than the testimony?

I never saw anything saying something like "the defendant withdrew X amount from his bank account and at around that time the murderer received X amount" etc. etc.

:shrug:
 
Luftwaffe said:
Lol the autocorrect making "em" "me."

Anyways, last I checked, it was cheaper to warehouse, but I'll get back to you with some evidence instead of making baseless claims.
Click to expand...



How in the world, logically could warehousing them cost LESS than sticking a needle into them?



Paleocon said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Audio is unreliable, can be staged, edited, etc.



MaggieD said:
Because HIRING someone to kill someone is a heinous crime. There would be no DNA.
Click to expand...



Sure it is, but if you don't have that DNA, it's not conclusive, I'd rather risk keeping the wrong person in jail for thier life than killing them outright.
 
Andalublue said:
Have you read that Grisham non-fiction book? There were many, many stages of that case where an injustice was compounded and ignored for so many good and bad reasons. It certainly didn't leave you feeling very confident about the Oklahoman judicial system. Do you think there's much reason to believe it has improved much in recent years?
Click to expand...

As I wrote, I believe the jury system as it is currently set up leaves much to be considered. In principle, the concept of a jury of one's peers is a sound one. However, we know how that gets manipulated. I've often thought there should be professional juries populated by people who have a better grasp of the concept of guilt, innocence, and evidence. One can pick apart that idea as well, so I'm not sure where that leaves the question.
 
ocean515 said:
My understanding is that jail house informants are unreliable. Are you suggesting the myriad of people who reviewed this case are not aware of that?
Click to expand...

Appellate courts generally don't look at the facts of the case so the reliability of a witness isn't a question they'd look into. Aside from that there's the governor who could but chose not to exercise his pardon powers , which given that this is Oklahoma is hardly surprising.

Who else would have looked at it?
 
ocean515 said:
My understanding is that jail house informants are unreliable. Are you suggesting the myriad of people who reviewed this case are not aware of that?
Click to expand...

As I said before, that's not a question the appellate court can address.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Audio is unreliable, can be staged, edited, etc.
Click to expand...

DNA can be staged to. Hardly seems relevant to the general question.





Sure it is, but if you don't have that DNA, it's not conclusive, I'd rather risk keeping the wrong person in jail for thier life than killing them outright.
Click to expand...

Why? Surely if the evidence is insufficient to end someone's life, it's insufficient to ruin someone's life.
 
Paleocon said:
As I said before, that's not a question the appellate court can address.



DNA can be staged to. Hardly seems relevant to the general question.







Why? Surely if the evidence is insufficient to end someone's life, it's insufficient to ruin someone's life.
Click to expand...



rather not kill them so there is a chance to rectify that mistake, the rest of your post is going off the deep end.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
rather not kill them so there is a chance to rectify that mistake, the rest of your post is going off the deep end.
Click to expand...

How does one rectify the loss of several decades of a person's life?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Death penalty should only be considered under conviction with DNA evidence.
Click to expand...

so someone who conspires to murder someone else, and hires a hit man to do the job....they arent as guilty as the guy pulling the trigger?

i think they are MORE guilty.....and deserve at least the same if not harsher penalty than the one that carried out the crime
 
gdgyva said:
so someone who conspires to murder someone else, and hires a hit man to do the job....they arent as guilty as the guy pulling the trigger?
Click to expand...

Never made that argument.


i think they are MORE guilty.....and deserve at least the same if not harsher penalty than the one that carried out the crime
Click to expand...


I agree, as long as you can prove it with DNA, if you can't you shouldn't be killing them on he said/she said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom