Death Penalty Split from Death of Prof thread

[MKSheppard]

The fact no one has bothered to overturn convictions is because they're kind of dead.

Then explain why people keep trying to exonerate their anecestor's names?

(Doctor Mudd Springs to mind)

[Stormbringer]

The fact no one has bothered to overturn convictions is because they're kind of dead.

Then explain why people keep trying to exonerate their anecestor's names?

(Doctor Mudd Springs to mind)

Because they're family? But lets face it. Most people are guilty or there isn't the evidence in that sort of cold case.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Example Sam Sheppard (No relation to Mark here), was originally sentanced to death, his conviction was later overturned on a technicality, DNA evedence shows that he was not the person his pregnant wife scratched fighting for her life. Posthaustums exam on the bloodwork of the person his son and most people presume as the most likely suspect shows that man did indeed get injured by Mr, Sheppard's wife. The Authorities in Ohio beleive that there is not reason to open a closed case, and insist that Sam Sheppard is the only criminal.
-well known case here

Example 2: The Thin Blue Line episode, A man spent 20 years in Texas Prison, for a murder of two cops he did not commit. DNA, forensic evedence etc. All pointed to a criminal who was a minor at the time, and was the chief witness against him. A documentary film, resulted in public pressure and a federal court release of Mr. White. Again police and prosecuters claim they had the right man.

Example 3: The sixty minutes DEA witness investigation. After a College student who had exhausted all appeals. However it was revealed in Rolling Stone and Sixty Minutes that the College Student had been framed by a Drug informant who had planeted the ecidence against him, and thanks to currupt DEA handleers was the chief witness against the kid. Facing being forced to release the man as a result of the Federal Misconduct inquiry, the state of Florida's prison officials placed the young man in GENERAL POPULATION, and allowed him to be torchered, raped and murdered. The wrongful death suit by man's family was dismissed without review by the Florida Suprieme court. (They could of course take it to a higher court)

[RedImperator]

I notice that a lot of libs claim that since DNA evidence has proved innocence beyond question in many capital cases, the death penalty should be repealed. What they don't see is that DNA can also prove GUILT beyond question. I don't want innocent people executed, I want GUILTY people executed. I love DNA, because it can make all your silly 'but he might be innocent' arguments the worthless BS they are. If the man is irrefutably guilty, why not execute him?

Are you a troll or just retarded? How does DNA make "they might be innocent" arguments "worthless BS", when the "they" in question are PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED? And by the way, while I'm sure such subtleties are wasted on you, I never argued for the abolition of the death penalty--I said there were serious problems in its application.

[RedImperator]

The fact that there are people that have gone through the system and been found innocent later proves that it doesn't work right all the time.

That has never been proven after a person has been executed (at least after 1918 IIRC--nearly a century), proving that the appeals process serves entirely its point and purpose in weeding out false convictions.

Sure..... If we've got so many people innocent that are on death row and convicted don't you think it's obvious some have been wrongly executed? The fact no one has bothered to overturn convictions is because they're kind of dead.

Not to mention that states routinely destroy the DNA evidence after the execution and in some cases refuse to allow the evidence to be examined.

[jezrianna]

Are you a troll or just retarded? How does DNA make "they might be innocent" arguments "worthless BS", when the "they" in question are PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED? And by the way, while I'm sure such subtleties are wasted on you, I never argued for the abolition of the death penalty--I said there were serious problems in its application.

Ok, first I don't recall accusing you specifically. I am all in favor of preventing the execution of innocents. I am also in favor of universal DNA testing. I DON'T want innocent people executed. I want GUILTY people executed.

[Darth Wong]

Are you a troll or just retarded? How does DNA make "they might be innocent" arguments "worthless BS", when the "they" in question are PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED? And by the way, while I'm sure such subtleties are wasted on you, I never argued for the abolition of the death penalty--I said there were serious problems in its application.

Ok, first I don't recall accusing you specifically. I am all in favor of preventing the execution of innocents. I am also in favor of universal DNA testing. I DON'T want innocent people executed. I want GUILTY people executed.

As long as we're on the subject of naive perfect worlds, I'm also in favour of perfectly fair taxation, completely just laws, world peace, and everyone having great sex with good-looking partners.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Erm, this is starting to get ugly I may move this, But I won't delete this.

Going to try and get some consensus. first.

[jezrianna]

As long as we're on the subject of naive perfect worlds, I'm also in favour of perfectly fair taxation, completely just laws, world peace, and everyone having great sex with good-looking partners.

And of course, you, like he, are all in favor of perfection when DNA suggests innocence, but not when it suggest's guilt. If you can use DNA testing to claim perfect exonhoration, I can use it to claim perfect guilt. After all, it's either infallible, or it isn't. So which is it?

[Darth Wong]

As long as we're on the subject of naive perfect worlds, I'm also in favour of perfectly fair taxation, completely just laws, world peace, and everyone having great sex with good-looking partners.

And of course, you, like he, are all in favor of perfection when DNA suggests innocence, but not when it suggest's guilt. If you can use DNA testing to claim perfect exonhoration, I can use it to claim perfect guilt. After all, it's either infallible, or it isn't. So which is it?

You're an idiot, and your logic is faulty. Blood-typing can also prove someone's innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it can't prove someone's guilt. That's an analogous situation for you, and if you don't understand it, you're as stupid a fucking box of hammers.

PS. the fallacy you're committing is a leap in logic: assuming that if a method can be used in one way, it can be used in any way.

[jezrianna]

You're an idiot, and your logic is faulty. Blood-typing can prove someone's innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it can't prove someone's guilt. That's an analogous situation for you, and if you don't understand it, you're as stupid a fucking box of hammers.

Since when does blood type equal DNA testing? I may have the same blood type as you, but not the same DNA. Maybe you are the one related to hammers... 'eh?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Correct: Examples, the Zodiac killer, the chief suspect has now been completly ruled out, as his DNA does not match that of others. It's easier to prove someone didn't do the crime then it is to prove someone did. Figure how many years it took to Identify Czar Nicholas, Joesph Mengle, & Jesse James from their remains.

[Darth Wong]

You're an idiot, and your logic is faulty. Blood-typing can prove someone's innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it can't prove someone's guilt. That's an analogous situation for you, and if you don't understand it, you're as stupid a fucking box of hammers.

Since when does blood type equal DNA testing? I may have the same blood type as you, but not the same DNA. Maybe you are the one related to hammers... 'eh?

It's an example used in order to show how your faulty leap in logic is clearly erroneous, you idiot. If a test can be used to prove innocence, this does not necessarily mean that it must also work to prove guilt. Ergo, your leap in logic is disproven through example.

Perhaps I should have avoided using four-syllable words, eh? It appears that I actually overestimated your intelligence by comparing you to a box of hammers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

You're an idiot, and your logic is faulty. Blood-typing can prove someone's innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it can't prove someone's guilt. That's an analogous situation for you, and if you don't understand it, you're as stupid a fucking box of hammers.

Since when does blood type equal DNA testing? I may have the same blood type as you, but not the same DNA. Maybe you are the one related to hammers... 'eh?

First of all depends on quality of sample and degredation, contamination ect. Basically in most cases the DNA sample can basically determine matrialiner DNA which means that they can determine that as long as the person has X said grandmother, and she had all daughters their primary tags would be the same. Great for excluding: Dude it wasn't me the guy your looking for had a completly different Mother. Bad for including (my Grandmother had 3 daughters, so that's a total of 4 guys and 6 girls who have the same matrialiner DNA chain tags. It's not like Star Trek were we can grow a whole new YOU from your dead skin.

[jezrianna]

It's an example used in order to show how your faulty leap in logic is clearly erroneous, you idiot. If a test can be used to prove innocence, this does not necessarily mean that it must also work to prove guilt. Ergo, your leap in logic is disproven through example.

Ah, so. But, by your example, anyone NOT proved innocent MUST be guilty, since your evidence must be taken as irrefutable proof of their innocence.

[Darth Wong]

It's an example used in order to show how your faulty leap in logic is clearly erroneous, you idiot. If a test can be used to prove innocence, this does not necessarily mean that it must also work to prove guilt. Ergo, your leap in logic is disproven through example.

Ah, so. But, by your example, anyone NOT proved innocent MUST be guilty, since your evidence must be taken as irrefutable proof of their innocence.

Now you're resorting to a syllogistic fallacy of the form: if A is not true, then B must be true. Sorry, but you're still as dumb as a box of hammers.

If someone is not proven innocent by blood-typing, this only means that he (and millions or perhaps even BILLIONS of people who share his blood type) has not been ruled out. It does not necessarily mean that he is guilty.

[RedImperator]

It's an example used in order to show how your faulty leap in logic is clearly erroneous, you idiot. If a test can be used to prove innocence, this does not necessarily mean that it must also work to prove guilt. Ergo, your leap in logic is disproven through example.

Ah, so. But, by your example, anyone NOT proved innocent MUST be guilty, since your evidence must be taken as irrefutable proof of their innocence.

DNA evidence can conclusively exonerate a suspect--it's exclusionary evidence. DNA evidence CANNOT conclusively prove a suspect committed a crime--testing isn't precise enough for that. Understand that? It can be irrefutable proof of innocence, but not guilt.

To take another example not involving high technology: If someone is murdered in my neighborhood and I happen to have an airtight alibi (like video footage of me in another state at the time the murder was committed), that's irrefutable evidence I didn't do it. Does that mean that if I don't have an airtight alabi ("I was home alone all night arguing with idiots on an Internet message board, officer"), I'm automatically guilty?

[jezrianna]

If someone is not proven innocent by blood-typing, this only means that he (and millions or perhaps even BILLIONS of people who share his blood type) has not been ruled out. It does not necessarily mean that he is guiilty

But if DNA evidence says that only one of ten billion humans is guity, and the one in police custody is a match, is he not guilty? And therefore worthy of death?

[Darth Wong]

If someone is not proven innocent by blood-typing, this only means that he (and millions or perhaps even BILLIONS of people who share his blood type) has not been ruled out. It does not necessarily mean that he is guiilty

But if DNA evidence says that only one of ten billion humans is guity, and the one in police custody is a match, is he not guilty? And therefore worthy of death?

Probably. Most DNA tests are not that precise, and it depends on the nature of the DNA sample. Let's suppose you find a dead woman with a man's semen in her. The natural conclusion is that the man raped and killed her, but when you arrest the man, he says he met her at a bar and fucked her in the back alley, then went home. This is not an implausible story, so the fact that his DNA is in her does not necessarily mean he killed her; there is a bit of doubt (although he's still in pretty deep shit).

[The Yosemite Bear]

NO it doesn't depends on the condition of the Original sample!!!

now say a murder victim, scratches her killer, or has a single bit of hair on her body.

We know that the hair color, the blood type, but not how tall the person is from the skin+Blood+hair sample. Now if some fuck used amonia well that's a natural enzyme, it kinda fucks up the results and degrades the tissue, IT's next to impossible to pull a full match.

what we can tell is that we are looking for someone of this blood type, this hair color. Untill you give me a suspect we can eleimnate it. If there is enough of a match, we can find supporting evidence. Now were we get the 1 in 96 billion is say there's a shit load of blood on your genes and you say oh no, that's from a BBQ, we can say, well by blood typing we know it didn't come from Chicken, Hog or Cow, we know it's human, we know that the person who died had the same mother as a missing person. (Note mostly what we can identify are Matralier chains) Thats the only way you can use DNA in a prosecution.

Most of the evidence is I didn't rape that girl. Hey guess what the condom we found shows the semen came from someone with a completly different MOTHER then you, sorry about ruining your life, can we all get along. Oh and the local victims rights groops are still going to be stalking you for a while.

[Darth Wong]

Right, so it depends on the NATURE of the blood sample; the victim's blood in your car is pretty damning, but your hair in her car is potentially less damning.

[jezrianna]

Probably. Most DNA tests are not that precise, and it depends on the nature of the DNA sample. Let's suppose you find a dead woman with a man's semen in her. The natural conclusion is that the man raped and killed her, but when you arrest the man, he says he met her at a bar and fucked her in the back alley, then went home. This is not an implausible story, so the fact that his DNA is in her does not necessarily mean he killed her; there is a bit of doubt (although he's still in pretty deep shit).

Ok, first I thought you claimed DNA was infallible proof of innocence. Now, I'm willing to believe your theory (about the rape, or lack thereof). So which is it? Does DNA infallibly prove innoncence, or does the fact that my semen's in her cunt prove I raped her?

[jezrianna]

Ok, the fact that MY DNA isn't in her cunt probably proves that I didn't rape her, but if YOUR DNA is in her cunt, and under her fingernails, and she says "He raped me!" how are you going to argue when I put a rope around your neck?

[Darth Wong]

Ok, the fact that MY DNA isn't in her cunt probably proves that I didn't rape her, but if YOUR DNA is in her cunt, and under her fingernails, and she says "He raped me!" how are you going to argue when I put a rope around your neck?

I'll say "she agreed to it!"

Of course, it's safer to stay away from one-night stands with strange women, but that's another issue.

[Darth Wong]

So which is it? Does DNA infallibly prove innoncence, or does the fact that my semen's in her cunt prove I raped her?

Oh, for chrissakes. You can't really be this dense.

MISMATCHED DNA proves innocence, but while matching DNA fails to prove innocence, but it does not necessarily prove guilt either.