Why do people stay on death row for years and years?

[Feuer Frei!]

Why are we talking about the death penalty and if it's right or wrong?
This particular case has nothing to do with that. Whether you think it's morally right or wrong to cause death by injection or to electrocute someone to death if they committed a crime.

This has to do with human error.
On 2 counts.

The Detective for seriously botching this investigation by not following the procedures to the letter.
The Judge for 'believing' a Person rather than following through with the correct procedures.

What about the jury?
Does the jury hold accountability? Does a jury get given details like the method of interrogation? In what environment a interrogation was conducted? If there were witnesses present at the interrogation? If notes were made at the interrogation and were they submitted for full scrutiny?

If so, then we need to hold the jury accountable as well.

This was 22 years ago.

Unfortunately this is not the first case of serious negligence on the law's behalf.
It won't be the last.

[fireftr18]

I am a self described silent opponent of the death penalty. What I mean, is that I don't try to make an argument against it. Statistically, it is not a deterrent to crime, yet I do feel there are people who need to be permanently removed from society. I agree sitting in prison for rest of your life is a larger punishment than execution. That being said, if it makes sense (it makes sense to me), if we are going to execute people, then we need to make absolute certain that they are guilty and execution fits the crime.

[Stealhead]

If a death sentence was handled the way it with some species of animals it would be for logical.

For example a Murder(flock) of crows when ever they stop to rest or eat in a location it is the duty of one crow to stand watch.If that crow fails to spot a threat to the others and sound the alert that crow is killed by the other crows for its failure.You may or may not have noticed that even if you try it is very hard to sneak up on a murder of crows now you know why.

I know myself if someone killed a loved one and that person was killed (no matter how) if in my mind I still felt anger or hatred I would feel no closure or comfort.

I know one thing for sure I would refuse to be a juror on a death penalty trial.I simply could not feel comfortable deciding a person fate like that indirectly.

In self defense or in a war I would kill someone or an enemy combatant if they where clearly willing to fight not that I would enjoy it.I would not even enjoy killing a person in self defense honestly even if they where clearly going to kill me.Hell I hunt some and I don't get a pleasure out of shooting killing an animal I only hunt something that I am going to eat(mostly boar) or share with others.But I make sure that when I pull the trigger it is a quick kill if I have any doubt I wont fire.If you only wound you cant be sure that you will find the animal again and it might suffer for days.

[BossMark]

If found guilty and the death penalty is given and DNA evidence is correct then it should be done straight away.

[Jimbuna]

I'm happy we abolished the death penalty here in the UK but would certainly advocate it for premeditated murder for example but only if DNA made the conviction 100% safe.

Personally I think the entire system of dealing with criminals in the US is atrocious and needs work. Corrupt guards, prisoners being treated like animals, overall terrible conditions being based around containing the criminals instead of rehabilitating them. Its all horrid and half the time ends up turning normal people who screwed up into hardened criminals by the time they get out. Entire bloody thing needs a reformation.

As for executions, eh it shouldn't be blanket "If you do this you die" If someone has a chance to be rehabilitated they should be given that chance and death penalties only considered for those with absolutely no chance of ever being rehabilitated, people who have been worked with by psychologists for a large amount of time and no improvement.

[fireftr18]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Personally I think the entire system of dealing with criminals in the US is atrocious and needs work. Corrupt guards, prisoners being treated like animals, overall terrible conditions being based around containing the criminals instead of rehabilitating them. Its all horrid and half the time ends up turning normal people who screwed up into hardened criminals by the time they get out. Entire bloody thing needs a reformation.

I agree with you to a point. To attain true justice, then the convicted person would be fully rehabilitated, gets released, and goes on to become an honest, productive member of society.

With that said, my wife worked in a local jail. Her job was a counselor to women that had a good chance of rehabilitation. There were some successes, but most of them didn't take it seriously and wound up back in jail.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Why are we talking about the death penalty and if it's right or wrong?

I appreciate your noble effort to keep this thread on topic.

A jury should be held accountable if they knowingly, willingly, and wittingly violate a law. Making a mistake, in good faith, should not be punished.

With some exceptions, juries are in "receive mode" only. They listen to what is presented by the prosecution and the defense. I believe that in all cases, the jury is instructed, by the judge, to only consider that which was presented by the prosecution and defense in making their decision.

This places a great responsibility on the prosecutor and defense to, combined, give the jury the most complete accounting, from the two different viewpoints.

I have never understood how many people can denigrate defense attorneys but not equally denigrate prosecutors. Both should be equally suspect and both need to be held accountable. If I were king, I would have both prosecution and defense attorneys under oath during the trial.

There should be a line, that when crossed, would require prosecution of a prosecutor or defense attorney who blatantly corrupts and perverts the justice system.

I do know that if I were on a jury, I would have a hard voting for conviction, for a serious crime, when the only evidence is a single personnel testimony. There has to be some evidence, no matter how circumstantial, to collaborate human testimony.

I have a hard time trusting a system where the prosecutor is rewarded by number of convictions.

Speaking from the position of an innocent person, I strongly believe in the schema "better to let 10 guilty people go free then to wrongly convict an innocent person".