RE: The death penalty

RE: The death penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 8:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Well I'd say if you can use DNA to exonerate then you could also use it to convict...can't have it both ways I think. And that is the sort of bad logic that lets DNA get misused in the courtroom. A DNA comparison may definitively exclude someone as being the source of the sample. Conversely it can never show conclusively that a person is the source of the sample. All it can do is show, based on the number of markers the sample and the source have in common, the rough size of the group of people who are also included. As many genetic markers occur at different frequencies between various ethnic groups and even fairly distantly related people will share the same markers it is often true that even though the odds against a false positive match are 1 in 30 million, for instance, for the general population when the local demographics are taken into consideration the odds may drop to as low as 1 in 5000. Courts have finally gotten sophisticated enough to disallow the outrageous claims where very low quality matches were assigned odds against a false positive as being 1 in hundreds of billions. Unfortunately too many jurors still hear positive DNA test and immediately jump to guilty.

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 9:26:58 PM)
I have never claimed to be an expert on DNA... I don't think you are one either... But it seems to me 99.9 percent likelihood will have some weight along with corroborating evidence. You will have a hard time convincing me that standards for evidence cannot be set to assure accuracy in Capital Punishment cases. Butch

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 9:46:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I have never claimed to be an expert on DNA... I don't think you are one either... But it seems to me 99.9 percent likelihood will have some weight along with corroborating evidence. I thought you said absolutely infallible, Butch. Now 99.9% would be close enough? quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You will have a hard time convincing me that standards for evidence cannot be set to assure accuracy in Capital Punishment cases. Evidently. But you have yet to even try to convince us that it can. I'd still be interested in hearing your ideas on what those standards would be. I respect the sentiment and the ideals behind your position, but will continue to maintain that it's totally impractical until presented with a convincing argument to the contrary.

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 10:29:59 PM)
The 99.9 was for DNA evidense...one part of the whole. I already stated what I thought would be a standard in an earlier post...look it up. Butch

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 10:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I have never claimed to be an expert on DNA... I don't think you are one either... But it seems to me 99.9 percent likelihood will have some weight along with corroborating evidence. You will have a hard time convincing me that standards for evidence cannot be set to assure accuracy in Capital Punishment cases. Butch Actually I know quite a bit about biology and can run a PCR comparison given the necessary supplies and machines. After the PCR test is run you have a set of markers which are in the tested sample. It's then pretty easy to compare two samples to see if they share all the markers. Of course the problem for using DNA evidence in a criminal investigation is that the sample(s) left at the scene have always begun to decay before they can be collected and often enough samples actually contain a mixture of more than one persons biological material. PCR amplifies the remaining DNA so very old and degraded samples can be tested however if, as is often the case, ,any of the marker loci are missing from the sample then the comparison to the suspects DNA is much more suspect. The two samples may match at 5 markers but dozens of others may be missing from the crime scene sample. So the DNA lab produces an estimate saying that the odds of another person from the general population having those 5 markers but not be otherwise excluded is, for instance, 1 in 100,000. Of course the crime scene evidence could have degraded so that a marker loci that would have excluded the suspect is simply not in the sample any more. This is much the same problem as fingerprint identification. Compare 2 perfect prints and you can identify the specific person. But perfect prints are rarely left. So ID's are based on how many points of similiarity exist between the prints. High quality ID's involve more than 10 points of similiarity. Low quality ID's, often presented to juries as definitive, can be as low as 5. Which is how that west coast guy got accused of being involved in the Madrid bombings a few years back. The FBI got a real low point match, 6 IIRC, and ruined a guys life for nothing. In short forensic evidence as presented in court rooms is not nearly as neat and orderly as they would have you believe. Unfortunately too many people have learned no science to speak of and base their knowledge of such matters on CSI and the like.

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 7:43:04 AM)
Hi Domken Outside of this argument...which is not really one with me because I think the existing CP guidelines need to be changed....Is DNA useful in the courtroom for prosecution? Do you think strong DNA evidence along with multiple eyewitness accounts supported by physical and video evidence and motive is enough to assure guilt. I do…I believe it is possible to assure guilt in some cases. These guidelines would take away the argument of false convictions and force people to decide the morality of Capital Punisment. Butch

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 12:42:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Hi Domken Outside of this argument...which is not really one with me because I think the existing CP guidelines need to be changed....Is DNA useful in the courtroom for prosecution? Do you think strong DNA evidence along with multiple eyewitness accounts supported by physical and video evidence and motive is enough to assure guilt. I do…I believe it is possible to assure guilt in some cases. These guidelines would take away the argument of false convictions and force people to decide the morality of Capital Punisment. Butch As I said DNA cannot positively identify a specific sample as coming from one specific individual. All it can do is include the suspect in the group of possible sources, which can be a very large or very small group based on the quality of the sample, or positively exclude the suspect as the source of a sample. In short it is never more than cicrcumstantial evidence in favor of guilt although it can be very strong circumstantial evidence in some cases. Eyewitness accounts are effectively worthless as evidence. Beyond the well known problems with eyewitness accuracy, prosecutors and police often provide overt or covert pressure for witnesses to 'correctly' identify the suspect. Go through the list of exonerated death row inmates and you'll see numerous cases of eyewitnesses lying as well as cases where very weak identifications were the primary evidence resulting in conviction. Other physical evidence can be useful in determining guilt but it all must be taken with a grain of salt. The lab9s) must be monitored for bias and some sort of double blind procedure needs to be instituted where the lab worker testing the sample doesn't know the source of the sample(s). As to photographic and video evidence, have you seen what a pro can do with photoshop? Taken as a whole I do not believe it is now or ever will be possible to determine guilt sufficiently to allow people to be executed.

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 12:52:11 PM)
"As I said DNA cannot positively identify a specific sample as coming from one specific individual. All it can do is include the suspect in the group of possible sources, which can be a very large or very small group based on the quality of the sample, or positively exclude the suspect as the source of a sample. In short it is never more than cicrcumstantial evidence in favor of guilt although it can be very strong circumstantial evidence in some cases." Well said Ken. The history of so called positive identifications ranging from metabolites in the urine to breathalyzers is striking in how often these technologies are portrayed as infallible- and in the hands of the courts, produce far worse results than elsewhere- where nobody thinks of them as infallible. As noted before- Forensic Science -isn't. Sam

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 2:17:12 PM)
Say I am 19 and in the library of my local collage...Two boys I have seen around school walk in with AK47's and start shooting people. This is recorded on school video cameras... the boys are overwhelmed by police on the scene.... I guess there is no certainty of guilt? I am riding on a subway in New York… A man starts walking down the isle shooting people in the head… I get a clear view… the scene is recorded on video… the man is tackled and subdued by bystanders and subway police… I guess there is no certainty of guilt? I am visiting my local 7/11 for a loaf of bread… A man walks up to the counter and shoots the cashier in the head… I get a clear view of his face… The murder is recorded on video… There is a police pursuit… the car runs into a family of four killing 3… the perpetrator is captured on the scene as he tried to escape on foot. I guess there is no certainty of guilt when captured? I am a bank teller… a man walks up to the security guard and shoots him in the head… he then approaches me and demands money… I give him money and a die packet that explodes as he leaves the bank… He is captured stained with die… I identify his face… the bank video confirms… I guess there is no certainty of guilt? Give me a break… there are many crimes of absolute guilt. Butch

philosophy -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 2:23:13 PM)
...and not a single one of your examples uses DNA. What they do use is multiple types of media. Eye-witness, video, etc.... None of them either use just one type of proof.

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 2:27:21 PM)
I did not say it had too... please read my post earlier on what I thought would be conclusive evidence. post 79 I believe... Butch

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 2:41:03 PM)
Butch Let's turn the problem around a little bit-shall we? Let's accept that the punishment fits the crime and that you've identified the handful of cases where you think the identification is ironclad. So the grieving family says- "He killed my Norbert- FRY HIM"- and he gets executed. The next grieving family comes along with a dead Noreen. But this time, the evidence isn't so clear cut- the video is grainy, you never get a good look at his face, the granny's glasses are smudged- whatever. According to your standards, since things aren't so clear cut- the suspected perpetrator shouldn't get fried, he should only get life imprisonment. However, the family with the dead Noreen now bellyaches. How come the family with the dead Norbert got to watch his killer go out of this world twitching and we have to live with the idea that our dear Noreen's killer is sitting in jail, watching TV and getting three squares a day? This isn't fair- we want to see our dear Noreen's killer go out of this world twitching too.... Which is why the death penalty is given for offenses- not for whether or not there is a positive ID. And this is where the abuse of innocents come in- that the prosecutors and judges and cops want to make sure that there's a body twitching for the family of the dead Noreen- and they're really not as careful as they should be that they've got the right guy. Which is why DNA evidence exonerates a bunch of folks and people like me bellyache that it's possible that there are more misidentifications for capital punishment offenses than for other types of crimes. Sam

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 2:49:53 PM)
Sam I do understand what you are saying... more than once in this thread I have said the current standards for cp are not fair or uniform. Your example however is not relevant… if there is a standard and a case meets it there could be a death sentence… if the standard is not met then there will not be a death sentence. It is that way now to determine degrees of punishment. It is not just a handful of murders that meet the examples above... a significant portion do. I keep posting because people are stating there is no murder that the evidence can be absolutely conclusive... and that is just nonsense. Butch

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 3:06:59 PM)
The case where the evidence actually is absolutely conclusive is so rare as to be statistically insignificant. However having capital punishment only where the evidence is conclusive would open up which cases qualify to subjective decision making by prosecutors and/or judges, which is functionally the same way it is now, and we'd still be having innocent people sentenced to die. I think the problem is that you think the prosecutors and judges who make these decisions now are honest people looking for real justice. However the evidence is overwhelming that prosecutors and judges are often craven people interested in other things besides true justice. Investigate the Jeanine Nicarico case for an example of why we cannot put decision making about capital sentences in the hands of anyone.

calamitysandra -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 3:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Butch Let's turn the problem around a little bit-shall we? Let's accept that the punishment fits the crime and that you've identified the handful of cases where you think the identification is ironclad. So the grieving family says- "He killed my Norbert- FRY HIM"- and he gets executed. The next grieving family comes along with a dead Noreen. But this time, the evidence isn't so clear cut- the video is grainy, you never get a good look at his face, the granny's glasses are smudged- whatever. According to your standards, since things aren't so clear cut- the suspected perpetrator shouldn't get fried, he should only get life imprisonment. However, the family with the dead Noreen now bellyaches. How come the family with the dead Norbert got to watch his killer go out of this world twitching and we have to live with the idea that our dear Noreen's killer is sitting in jail, watching TV and getting three squares a day? This isn't fair- we want to see our dear Noreen's killer go out of this world twitching too.... Which is why the death penalty is given for offenses- not for whether or not there is a positive ID. And this is where the abuse of innocents come in- that the prosecutors and judges and cops want to make sure that there's a body twitching for the family of the dead Noreen- and they're really not as careful as they should be that they've got the right guy. Which is why DNA evidence exonerates a bunch of folks and people like me bellyache that it's possible that there are more misidentifications for capital punishment offenses than for other types of crimes. Sam But, as the law only knows guilty or not guilty, and we (fictionally) just raised the bar for guilty, to make the death penalty safe, should Noreens (alleged) killer not be declared innocent because of lack of evidence and set free?

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/5/2009 6:18:57 PM)
Hi Sandra I've been trying to point out to Butch that what he's envisioning requires a double standard- and you've just pointed it out as well. Butch- "Your example however is not relevant… if there is a standard and a case meets it there could be a death sentence… if the standard is not met then there will not be a death sentence. It is that way now to determine degrees of punishment. " This is factually wrong. The heinousness of the crime sets the standard for punishment, not the degree of surety in identification. As Sandra points out as well- the law knows either guilty or innocent and if the standard of reasonable doubt isn't met- then the alleged criminal should be set free. Sam

gman992 -> RE: The death penalty (5/6/2009 10:42:21 PM)
First of all, when your daughter or son is murdered, you'll be for the death penalty. And more whites are killed on death row then black. So, it's not racial movtivated, as death penalty opponents say it is. It's just a tactic, to make people feel guilty. Like calling a person a racist because he happens to like to keep some more of his hard earned money, etc. They can't deal with the facts, so they use ad hominem attacks. From the Department of Justice: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks committed 51.5% of murders between 1976 and 1999, while whites committed 46.5%. Yet even though blacks committed a majority of murders, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports: "Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up the majority of those under sentence of death." (Emphasis added.) Whites continued to comprise the majority on death row in the year 2000 (1,990 whites to 1,535 blacks and 68 others). In the year 2000, 49 of the 85 people actually put to death were whites."

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/6/2009 11:27:44 PM)
No. I will never be for the death penalty. Revenge is pointless. As to your claims that bias doesn't enter into capital prosecutions tell that to the men released from Pennsylvania death row when it was proven that the prosecutor involved had illegally excluded black jurors. Or maybe you could explain why Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were twice sentenced to death when their white co defendant was allowed to walk free after the first jury deadlocked, same trial, same evidence but two death sentences for the hispanics and a deadlocked jury for the white guy.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/6/2009 11:33:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. I will never be for the death penalty. Revenge is pointless. As to your claims that bias doesn't enter into capital prosecutions tell that to the men released from Pennsylvania death row when it was proven that the prosecutor involved had illegally excluded black jurors. Or maybe you could explain why Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were twice sentenced to death when their white co defendant was allowed to walk free after the first jury deadlocked, same trial, same evidence but two death sentences for the hispanics and a deadlocked jury for the white guy. Anecdotes dont refute statistically significant differences in death penalty rates. Nice try though. And sorry Bob, Hurricane was a great song, but Ruben Carter was guilty as hell.

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/7/2009 12:03:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. I will never be for the death penalty. Revenge is pointless. As to your claims that bias doesn't enter into capital prosecutions tell that to the men released from Pennsylvania death row when it was proven that the prosecutor involved had illegally excluded black jurors. Or maybe you could explain why Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were twice sentenced to death when their white co defendant was allowed to walk free after the first jury deadlocked, same trial, same evidence but two death sentences for the hispanics and a deadlocked jury for the white guy. Anecdotes dont refute statistically significant differences in death penalty rates. Nice try though. And sorry Bob, Hurricane was a great song, but Ruben Carter was guilty as hell. I didn't attempt to refute any stats, although if you really want to I can easily enough show what is wrong with those stats, but presented data points that prove that racial bias did affect at least those prosecutions in Philadelphia and Illinois. He claimed the death penalty was not racially motivated which is a sweeping claim not supported by his presented evidence and disproven by any data showing that there was racial bias in any capital prosecutions.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875