US: The Arkansas executions, first blood

[petej0]

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/local/led...ater/433035718

I'm not having any luck finding anything solid about his other convictions, but it seems pretty clear there were numerous improprieties during this trial. I get that a lot of you basically don't care as long as you feel like you're getting to execute people who you find morally repugnant, but it's worth caring about the integrity of the system for the sake of the integrity of the system. Also, if the first trial, which lead to subsequent convictions, was this fucked up, there's no telling how fucked up subsequent trials may have been.

Look, nobody is for executing innocent people. Nobody is for just random killing of people period. I wish people would stop trying to spread this notion. He had a trial, or two, three....etc whatever the amount was and he was found guilty. I have no reason to believe that this was a Steven Avery situation. The evidence that I have seen (and I wasnt at the trial), doesnt make it look good for his innocence. He also had the innocence project representing him for sometime now. So without further information I would have to conclude he was guilty.

[kail]

We should never rejoice in the misfortune of others much less in the loss of life of another. This is not to say he should not have been executed for his crimes, but is hardly a reason for celebration.

Then why execute in the first place?

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Laymen shouldn't decide over life and death, especially not with a politically appointed judge watching over them. .

Who should then if not for these troublesome "laymen".

[Aggrophobic]

The problem I have with DNA is that it can be misused, and if you have dishonest police and dishonest prosecutors explaining it to a jury that don't understand DNA than its bad for justice

Thats silly. Everything can be misused.

[petej0]

Speaking of spreading misinformation, way to strawman my post.

What about the other evidence in the trial? Do we just overlook that? Does the blood have to be from her to convict him?

[omfgreally]

[SIZE=4]
I don't have any words for this. I think the UN should intervene and punish every1 involved. We can't stand by and do nothing while we let this massacre go ahead.

The UN has no control here. The fact you would even "Suggest" such a thing shows how much of a leftest useful idiot you are.

[Citizen T]

If thats actualy a problem (you didn't link to anything) , it should be corrected.



Laymen shouldn't decide over life and death, especially not with a politically appointed judge watching over them. Thats a recipe for disaster. Any court functioning that way that makes a ruling should be shut down. To underline that: that same court didn't demand the blood to be investigated, it wasn't even tested in a laboratory if it was human or not let alone if the blood was from the victim! That is unthinkable in most developed countries, where courts order these investigations itself if there is even 1% doubt.



Shamefully so indeed, but there are alot of other options. We can do the same thing with the governour of Arkansa and the judges who denied DNA testing as we did with G.W.Bush . That is that in alot of western countries indictments lie dormant to be activated as soon as that person leaves US territory.

What is happening in Arkansa is state organised murder.

The drop of blood would prove or disprove nothing in reality. At worst it could have been the victim's and it would implicate him, at best it would be some other blood that he could have gotten anywhere anytime and would neither prove nor disprove anything to do with this case. Unless he made a statement at sometime that the actual murderer cut himself and bled on him before leaving it means nothing.

Now as to indicting the governor (or others) in another country for an execution that occurred in the US, I'm not sure how you think that any other country would have jurisdiction for such a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why execute in the first place?

The same reason you punish a child for misbehaving. The same reason you punish a thief for stealing. Society has set the punishments for certain crimes to be death. I know not all societies do so, but in the US, the Constitution allows the various states to make that determination for themselves. I don't rejoice a thief being jailed nor a murderer executed. I am pleased that justice was served but that doesn't equate to pleased that a person lost their life.

[Jastall]

Jesus fucking christ.

I mean, such violent deaths are far more gruesome than lethal injection, but ironically they're probably far less painless for the subject. Instant brain destruction means little to no pain. Stuff like the electric chair, hanging and injections (especially when they're botched and last an hour) may look prettier, but make the convict suffer more.

I'm certainly not saying you guys should start executing people by capping the back of their head with a .50 cal bullet in slow-mo on national TV, but I find that there's really no such thing as a humane execution. Dress it up as much as you like, remove the gory bits so it makes better press, but you're still killing someone, even if they're a piece of shit.

I just don't see what benefits the death penalty brings. It's obviously not an effective deterrent since it happens rarely and only after 20+ years of countless appeals, it's not expedient nor cheap for the same reason, it doesn't bring anyone back, it garners tons of bad press, and in the minds of many it's not moral. To me it seems more like vengeance than justice.

[Heladys]

Lol "spinning hypothetical". Apparantly DNA testing to actually confirm that the the blood found on the defendant was that of the victim is "spinning hypotheticals".

He was convicted without it. What would it prove? Answer: nothing. There are any number of ways to get blood on yourself and none of them are exculpatory.

Use your damn head.

[Masark]

Look, nobody is for executing innocent people.

Given that we have established that at least 1 in 25 "convicted" death row inmates are in fact innocent, and you have not allowed that to change your view on executions, that is precisely what you are for.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Given that we have established that at least 1 in 25 "convicted" death row inmates are in fact innocent, and you have not allowed that to change your view on executions, that is precisely what you are for.

I didn't get the memo, when did "we" establish that little fun fact?

[PACOX]

If the evidence is, as you say "bullshit", why keep him in jail then?

Because a conviction doesn't always mean the death penalty. Keeping it sort, certain criteria must met (depending on the state) to warrant execution. You're going to have to with stronger evidence (Arkansas disagrees with me) than untested blood splatters on a show for me to put someone on death row.

[Masark]

I didn't get the memo, when did "we" establish that little fun fact?

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.full

[Adolecent]

Now as to indicting the governor (or others) in another country for an execution that occurred in the US, I'm not sure how you think that any other country would have jurisdiction for such a thing.

It can when it is seen as "a crime against humanity".

offtopic:

The fact you would even "Suggest" such a thing shows how much of a leftest useful idiot you are.

MMO-C should start working with IP-bans.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

A large caliber round to the front of the head or using an explosive charge to destroy the brain instantly. If you think that any method that is used in the US is quick and painless, you chould read medical exam reports from these executions. Anything short of an instant brain destruction can be slow and/or can be botched.

Can't do that, because then the people watching would see somebody dying violently, instead of somebody falling asleep.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.full

So another "estimation" with no conclusive facts?

Um, now I realize why I didn't get the memo, my inbox filters out trash.

[jackofwind]

So another "estimation" with no conclusive facts?

Which is, you know, the entire basis of science. But let's not worry about that and demand arbitrary lists of objective absolutes instead of using our brains!

[Tyrianth]

He was convicted without it. What would it prove? Answer: nothing. There are any number of ways to get blood on yourself and none of them are exculpatory.

Use your damn head.

How could you possibly know that it wouldn't prove anything? You can't and you don't.

I love the disparity between the people in favour of this though. You have people like Thwart who actually contribute with meaningful responses that instigate discussion. Then on the opposite end of spectrum you have people like Super Friendly Kitty Cat who try and shut down discussion by calling anyone who disagrees with them a shit poster and other petty insults.

[Gaaz]

Can't do that, because then the people watching would see somebody dying violently, instead of somebody falling asleep.

And that is the problem, isn't it? People pretend that killing a prisoner is just taking him to a proverbial "farm" far, far away. They are more concerned about being offended by blood and gore of an execution, than the actual ease of passing of the victim. Likely it is the same mentality that makes some people watch races in hopes of seeing a car crash, rather than being genuinely interested in a race itself.
PS: Prof. Michael L. Radelet, University of Colorado on executions in the US
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-ex...hed-executions

[Venant]

It can when it is seen as "a crime against humanity".

offtopic:


MMO-C should start working with IP-bans.

Why doesn't your article mention that the man in question was convicted of 2 other rapes and stood trial for another rape-murder in which there was a hung jury and he was not re-tried due to his conviction and sentence in this case?