Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

it's always a good idea to waive your right to a jury trial if you are innocent. the jury is made up of a bunch of bored people who would rather be doing soemthing else. further, they're generally painfully uneducated. and finally, they're almost always in complaint of their life being hard and they never get a break blah blah.they just wanna see someone hang.

no, i'm serious. the likelihood of one actually getting a jury of one's peers and those people not simply wanting a coliseum spectacle is rare. if you're innocent and you think the facts will show this, take a judge trial.

aristo hahaha. good job.actually that's quite my point: that people are self-righteous.
maybe you're experience was good, but the majority of people will look at the accused and see only that they are 'better'. depending of course on their own stereotypes. then their minds will start to warp the information so that they see what they want.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2005 09:18 AM

the question is not can we tell if someone has committed a murder. the question is can we tell when someone has not, even though all the evidence is stacked against him.say a man and his wife live on a farm of sorts or in a cabin out in the woods. say the man goes on a walk one night (as he usually does) and the wife stays to finish some task (which she usually does). someone approximately the same size and strength of the husband breaks into the house wearing gloves of the same brand, miraculously from the same lot which the man owns (no fingerprints, but fibers. note. they don't find the second pair of gloves.) and wearing the same kind of boots (same print) as the husband wears all the time. say he beats said woman to death. say the couple has recently had a great deal of arguments, some culminating in heated, harsh words and maybe even throwing stuff (maybe they were trying to conceive and having trouble and this was putting a strain on their relationship). say the intruder used a blunt object he found at the cabin to beat the woman. there's no evidence of tire tracks. the intruder came through the woods from approximately the same direction as the husband's normal walks. the husband gets home and calls the authorities. they never find the intruder.who do you think would be convicted?why?now are you comfortable with the level of doubt? if a grieving husband is murdered by the state for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (with the wrong pair of gloves).This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2005 09:30 AM

yes. there is a case in which i would say without a doubt that someone did something. but. the point is that cases like the one i mentioned DO end in the death penalty. in such event, we cannot continue the death penalty until this is eliminated.so yes. i suppose if the death penalty were only permitted in cases in which there was uncoerced admission of guilt and multiple eyewitnesses who had not spoken to each other and their stories match nearly exactly and there was photographic or videographic evidence limiting the possible killers to the suspect and a phantom identical twin. then yes, i'd be in support of the death penalty. but the likelihood of that happening without installing government cameras everywhere and infringing on citizens' reasonable expectation of privacy... and of course having clean cops.

i suppose. i was referring to the obtainance of confessions.(yes i know it's not a word, but i use it all the time)This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2005 12:25 PM