lethal injection gone wrong

[Mooshi]

But that's the big problem man......Because it can take a looooong time getting the courts to realize that the person is innocent. Look at this link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/4900#92) and see how many are freed after 10+ years on death row.

 

DNa isn't always available but people are still convicted on witness testimony or really circumstantial evidence.

 

Your solution is a great modern way to do mob justice but its not justice....especially if those family members ends up shooting an innocent person who they believed was guilty. Now you just made them killers

 

This only highlights how inefficient the system is overall. It's not easy being an American, living in fear your own government could turn on you at any given moment or that one person you disagree with can literally ruin your life with croc tears and a sob story.

 

Let's just agree that the world all over could do without real criminals and corruption.

 

We have the power to put a man into space and land a rover on Mars, but we can't tale the time to make sure someone is guilty before putting them behind bars. It's pitiful.

 

I'm anti-tax payer waste, anti-false imprisonment, anti-delay in innocence/guilty testing

[Admire]

I'm fine with the death penalty, but death row makes no sense.

 

It costs a lot to keep prisoners in for a life sentence, which is why I don't think death row makes sense. You're spending more to keep them in prison than to just kill them off.

 

So, we should just not let them try to prove their innocence?

 

 

"

 

1970–1979[edit]

1977

• Delbert Tibbs, Florida. Convicted 1974.^[11]

1980–1989[edit]

1987

• Joseph Green Brown. He was re-arrested in 2012 and charged with another murder in North Carolina.^[12]

1989

• Randall Dale Adams, Texas (Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281) (Tex. Crim App. 1989). Convicted 1977.^[13][14]
• On April 8, 2010, former death row inmate Timothy B. Hennis, once exonerated in 1989, was reconvicted of a triple murder, thereby dropping him from the list of those exonerated.^[15]

1990–1999[edit]

1993

• Gregory R. Wilhoit Oklahoma. Convicted 1987. Along with Ron Williamson, Wilhoit later became the subject of John Grisham's 2006 non-fiction book The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town.^[16]

1995

• Robert Charles Cruz. (Cruz disappeared in 1997. His remains were found in 2007.^[17])

1996

• Joseph Burrows. Joseph Burrows was released from death row after his attorney Kathleen Zellner persuaded the real killer to confess at the post-conviction hearing, and Peter Rooney, a reporter for the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, obtained a recantation from a key witness.^[18] The Burrows case was the subject of a book by Rooney titled Die Free: A True Story of Murder, Betrayal and Miscarried Justice.

• Gary Gauger^[19]

1999

• Shareef Cousin, Louisiana (Louisiana v. Cousin, 710 So. 2d 1065 (1998)). Convicted 1996.^[20]
• Anthony Porter, Illinois. Convicted 1983.^[21]
• Ron Williamson, Oklahoma. Convicted 1988. Along with Gregory R. Wilhoit, Williamson later became the inspiration for and subject of John Grisham's 2006 non-fiction book The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town.^[16]

2000–2009[edit]

2000

• Earl Washington, Jr., Virginia (pardoned). Convicted 1994 (1984, without life sentence).^[22]

2002

• Juan Roberto Melendez-Colon, Florida. Convicted 1984.^[23][24][25]
• Ray Krone, Arizona (State v. Krone, 897 P.2d 621 (Ariz. 1995) (en banc)). Convicted 1992.^[26][27]

2003

• Nicholas Yarris, Pennsylvania Convicted 1982.^[28]

2004

• Alan Gell^[29]

2008

• Glen Edward Chapman, North Carolina. Convicted 1995.^[30]
• Levon "Bo" Jones,^[31]
• Michael Blair^[32][33][34]

2009

• Nathson Fields, Illinois. Convicted 1986.^[35]
• Paul House, Tennessee. Convicted 1986.^[36][37]
• Daniel Wade Moore, Alabama. Convicted 2002.^[38]
• Ronald Kitchen, Illinois. Convicted 1988.^[39]
• Michael Toney, Texas. Convicted 1999. Toney later died in a car accident on October 3, 2009, just one month and a day after his exoneration.^[40]

2010–2014[edit]

2010

• Joe D'Ambrosio, Ohio. Convicted 1989. While he was freed in 2010, but not yet exonerated, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by the state of Ohio challenging the unconditional writ of habeas corpus and bar to D'Ambrosio's re-prosecution on January 23, 2012, nearly 2 years later, making D'Ambrosio the 140th death row exoneree since 1973.^[41][42]

• Anthony Graves, Texas. Convicted 1994.^[43]

2011

• Gussie Vann, Tennessee. Convicted 1994.^[44]

2012

• Damon Thibodeaux, Louisiana. Convicted 1997.^[45]

• Seth Penalver, Florida. Convicted 1994.^[46]

2013

• Reginald Griffin, Missouri. Convicted 1983.^[47]

2014

• Glenn Ford, Louisiana. Convicted 1984.^[48]"

 

 

 

^{All these people have been freed from death row....Look how long many of them sad in prison while the system were trying to kill them.}

 

^{And you want to kill them quicker}

[Jumper118]

How should they do it different? "On December 21, Seth Penalver was acquitted of all charges and will be freed from Florida's death row, 13 years after being sentenced to death. He was originally charged with a triple murder and armed robbery that occurred in Broward County in 1994. "

 

So, how early in that sentence would you have killed him?

the second he stepped into death row. at least it would have cost less and saved him the inconvenience of having to spend 13 years in there. 

 

I completely agree. Putting someone on death row is definitely wrong.

I suspect that's not quite what you meant though. The reason why it's so expensive is because of the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT conviction process.

If you think that's wrong then you are indirectly saying that suspected criminals should not be able to defend themselves, which would lead to a huge number of innocent being executed (we are talking about several hundreds of people here) and even more people being put in prison.

It is completely idiotic to say that the conviction process should be cut down.

its worth it. everything has a value and some things have to go wrong for progress to occur. to do it correctly they should take cases where they know 100% that they did the crime, like video evidence and get it done straight away. otherwise they should be released into the public to fend for themselves and if they end up there a second time for another crime then they probably did the first one as well.

[IdeaStormer]

I am against the botched execution just as I am against any botched murder. :mellow:

 

Botching anything should be instant death penalty! :blink:

[LAwLz]

the second he stepped into death row. at least it would have cost less and saved him the inconvenience of having to spend 13 years in there. 

Thank God you're not the one making the rules, because you would have literally killed over a hundred innocent people if you enforced that.

 

 

its worth it. everything has a value and some things have to go wrong for progress to occur. to do it correctly they should take cases where they know 100% that they did the crime, like video evidence and get it done straight away. otherwise they should be released into the public to fend for themselves and if they end up there a second time for another crime then they probably did the first one as well.

Killing innocent people is never worth it.

[Jumper118]

Thank God you're not the one making the rules, because you would have literally killed over a hundred innocent people if you enforced that.

 

 

Killing innocent people is never worth it.

that is subjective. 

[Admire]

that is subjective.

 

Damn. You want to kill hundreds or thousands of innocents just to save money.....

 

That is taking evil to a totally different place.

[austin541]

i think it should be quick and painless (bullet to the head)

[CJPowell27]

Without probably cause. sure if they killed someone or some other heinous crime they deserve to die, I am a strong believer in an eye for an eye.

If there's say a murder, who gets to stay alive in prisons for life wasting taxpayer money; they didn't give the person they killed a chance so why

should they get an opportunity?  However, I think in order to give someone the death penalty there shouldn't be any doubt,

 

Also, how about just a bullet in the head? It's cheaper and quicker

[Jumper118]

You are seriously a unbelievable evil person......Damn. You want to kill hundreds or thousands of innocents just to save money.....

 

That is taking evil to a totally different place.

i dont want to kill them. it is just a side effect of getting rids of hundreds of evil people. also they would make it much more efficient and get better at proving that people had committed the crime. lack of evidence is usually the problem, but they would definitely do a better job of collecting it if they did end up killing loads of innocent people. 

[julekule]

[Admire]

i dont want to kill them. it is just a side effect of getting rids of hundreds of evil people. also they would make it much more efficient and get better at proving that people had committed the crime. lack of evidence is usually the problem, but they would definitely do a better job of collecting it if they did end up killing loads of innocent people.

 

That doesn't make it better...it makes it worse! Im so appalled at you right now that I can't even handle it. That is the sickest opinion I have ever heard regarding this issue. Killing innocents to get rid of evil people.

 

You have got to be kidding me

[Jumper118]

That doesn't make it better...it makes it worse! Im so appalled at you right now that I can't even handle it. That is the sickest opinion I have ever heard regarding this issue. Killing innocents to get rid of evil people.

 

You have got to be kidding me.

you are entitled to your opinion.

[LAwLz]

its worth it. everything has a value and some things have to go wrong for progress to occur. to do it correctly they should take cases where they know 100% that they did the crime, like video evidence and get it done straight away. otherwise they should be released into the public to fend for themselves and if they end up there a second time for another crime then they probably did the first one as well.

That logic would only work if prosecutors were 100% honest and if there were some method of making 100% sure that the person in question actually was guilty. It doesn't work in the real world where evidence is withheld and sometimes even forged in order to sentence a person for a crime they have not committed.

Also, the idea that "oh he got caught for one crime that means he did the other crime as well" is extremely flawed. What if he happens to be innocent both times? What happens if he was innocent once and the other crime was a really minor one (like maybe he downloaded a song from YouTube or something)?

 

 

that is subjective.

No... Saying that killing hundreds of innocent people is a very very bad idea is not "subjective".

I really hope this is just some tough guy act you're playing to sound cool on the Internet. If it's not then I pity you.

 

 

i dont want to kill them. it is just a side effect of getting rids of hundreds of evil people. also they would make it much more efficient and get better at proving that people had committed the crime. lack of evidence is usually the problem, but they would definitely do a better job of collecting it if they did end up killing loads of innocent people.

Let me ask you this. You only have two options.

1) Your mom/dad/partner/whomever you love the most gets executed along with 25 murderers who are currently in prison, and some money from the government that were suppose to fund hospitals, schools, public infrastructure etc disappears.

2) The 25 murderers spend the rest of their lives in prison unable to do any more harm.

 

Which sounds like the best opinion to you?

Personally I wouldn't kill a single innocent person even if it meant 1000 real murderers were killed, because they are already unable to harm anyone when they are in prison.

[ObeseWalrus]

I don't think death penalty is okay, life imprisonment is much better even though it costs more.

[Jumper118]

That logic would only work if prosecutors were 100% honest and if there were some method of making 100% sure that the person in question actually was guilty. It doesn't work in the real world where evidence is withheld and sometimes even forged in order to sentence a person for a crime they have not committed.

Also, the idea that "oh he got caught for one crime that means he did the other crime as well" is extremely flawed. What if he happens to be innocent both times? What happens if he was innocent once and the other crime was a really minor one (like maybe he downloaded a song from YouTube or something)?

 

 

No... Saying that killing hundreds of innocent people is a very very bad idea is not "subjective".

You are an absolutely atrocious human being. I really hope this is just some tough guy act you're playing to sound cool on the Internet. If it's not then I pity you.

 

 

Let me ask you this. You only have two options.

1) Your mom/dad/partner/whomever you love the most gets executed along with 25 murderers who are currently in prison, and some money from the government that were suppose to fund hospitals, schools, public infrastructure etc disappears.

2) The 25 murderers spend the rest of their lives in prison unable to do any more harm.

 

Which sounds like the best opinion to you?

Personally I wouldn't kill a single innocent person even if it meant 1000 real murderers were killed, because they are already unable to harm anyone when they are in prison.

Sadly option 1 sounds fine. If you think about it, ww2 would have ended very very badly if no innocent people were killed. We would not be on this forum right now and we would be in a situation similar to north Korea on a worldwide scale. 

[Shakaza]

I find it really intriguing that even amongst such a small sample of people, the percentage of those who support the death penalty versus those who don't is nearly a 50/50 split.

Myself, I'm not sure if I really have an opinion on this topic. There are so many factors, including morality, economics, etc., that need to be considered, and I'm not really able to give an opinion because a) I don't entirely understand the full scope of this topic and b') because I just don't really care so much that I could give a definitive opinion one way or another.

The people who have posted thus far have all provided good reasons to support their views on this, and I want it to keep going; this is really fascinating.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't know why they don't use long drop hangings? They seem a lot more humane than any of the alternatives

 

I'd prefer firing squads though. If I was on death row, I'd want that.

 

You should change the poll to:

1. Do you believe the death penalty can be morally right?

2. Do you trust the government to send people to death row?

 

I don't think the death penalty in itself is bad, but I don't trust the government to do it.

[piggykid1]

The death penalty is stupid and the idea should be killed.

[piggykid1]

Yes. but they need to take more precautions and make sure the person would die, because our tax payer money is going toward keeping people in jail and lifetime sentences can be expensive.

[ShiverMePenguins]

I don't know why they don't use long drop hangings? They seem a lot more humane than any of the alternatives

 

I'd prefer firing squads though. If I was on death row, I'd want that.

 

You should change the poll to:

1. Do you believe the death penalty can be morally right?

2. Do you trust the government to send people to death row?

 

I don't think the death penalty in itself is bad, but I don't trust the government to do it.

at that point you can't trust it to the masses. look at how many people wanted zimmerman to be put to death even though he:

A) wasn't white

B) didn't take the first punch

C) fired his weapon after he was getting beaten.

 

you must trust it to non-opinionated and impartial indivduals from a multi-tude of social and economical backgrounds.

[Sammael]

...and the lowest reoffending rate in Europe.

 

Imo they have better criminologists and a better general understanding of the criminal psyche and the effects the prison system has on the population as a whole... Most countries seem to neglect the bigger picture...

 

 

Do you think they have such a low reoffending rate because of the kid gloves used for criminals or because they are a population of Norwegians?

[Enderman]

why? if an individual truly is dangerous and can never be put back into society as a working individual it would be a waste of resources to keep him fed and sheltered until he finally dies having had an empty unfulfilled life.

Thats part of the punishment. Its nicer to get killed than to spend 60 years in a room, isn't it?

I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in jail.

The 'jail' is part of the punishment, and is even worse than death.

[Art Vandelay]

at that point you can't trust it to the masses. look at how many people wanted zimmerman to be put to death even though he:

A) wasn't white

B) didn't take the first punch

C) fired his weapon after he was getting beaten.

 

you must trust it to non-opinionated and impartial indivduals from a multi-tude of social and economical backgrounds.

That smiley.

 

Also, being convicted by a jury isn't like people just wanting you to get the death penalty, there needs to be real evidence. I still don't think it's secure enough system to not end up killing the wrong person on occasion.

[_ASSASSIN_]

My biggest problem with it is

1. It costs a lot to have the on death row

2. Irreversible, if he is later found guilty, you can't bring back a life