Hey guys, I've been a way from the forums for a while, but i guess I found a doozy to get myself back into the swing of things
, so heres my two cents.
I am for the death penalty....but I dont beleive that the day you are convicted of heaven forbid a crime like rape and murder or something else that is heinous that you are put to death the week after, for the simple reasons as follows:
1) The canadian law system (very similar to US law) in my oppinion is flawed big time. Heres why, from what i have seen attending court sesions (for my own education purposes) and ones that I have seen in Phildadelphia when visiting relatives; rather than seeking justice
, it appears to be this a"arch-rival" game of chess between the prosectuor and the defense...who is the better lawyer. The prosecutors job is simply to get convictions, and defense is make the burdon of proof harder for the prosectuor. And then, after it all, we have to give if off to a jury....who many times cant help but bring their personal beleifs into the matter or sometimes (and its not THEIR fault), they dont understand certain aspects of the law, or the criteria that need to be met for conviction. I mean lets face it, these guys havent gone to law school for 4 years and studied this.
2) The old phrase, it is worse to convict 1 innocent person then let 10 guilty ones go free
. I personally beleive this. I'll give you an example that really swayed me. As a scientist, i get all excited about the use of all these new DNA tools in crimefighting and all these other great techniques, as you can imagine I salivate when CSI comes on
. But, DNA evidence is not the end all be all. Heres an example, and this truly made made my stomach turn. There was a case here in Canada many years ago in the west part of the country. I beleive the case went something as follows..... So there was this women who was sexually assaulted by a man. Durring the horffic ordeal, he never used a rubber and for lack of a better word( please forgive me) ejaculated on her many times. When she reported this to the police, she first gave the name of a man she had been seeing, and the man was married (they had been having an affair). They brought the guy in and he denied it. Now I dont know all the details, but her assualt was sooooo gruesome that anyone one woulda probably want to break this guy in half who this to her. Anway, the guy VOLUNTEERD his DNA, thats how confident he was that he would be vindicated. But apparently, the medical examiner had herd of this gruesome tail and only swabbed a few parts of the woman that would be really easy to test, he later admitted in a deposition that he thouhgt he too could speed the whole process up as it were. So he did the mouth, hands, neck etc Basically places that could be explained by kissing or fooling around. The DNA test obviously came back positive for the accused man. Who still swore he did nothing, and that it was true he had kissed the woman that day, he never slept with her. Long story short, he gets convicted, and gets 20 years if i recall. After 10, in some kind of appeal (im not good on law terms) they get another medical examiner to do the test. It turns out the samples that were taken from the womans clothes were DNA of another man...who they eventually caught and he actually admitted to it. So the other guy was let go. BUT here is the crappy part, the other guy spent 10 years in jail. He was raped, now has HIV, his family wants nothing to with him as the re-located and he cant find them, professionally he is ruined, he didnt even know how to use the transit system as it had changed in the 10 years he was locked up, TV, internet, getting a loan etc etc....... I only know this because he came to speak at my intro to criminology class when i was an undergrad.
So my point is, if you want to kill someone for a very henious crime, then i think its justified. But, if you want to deprive someone of their liberty and kill them as an act of justice, then I think you need to be damn sure you have the right guy. I would suggest that after a conviction of your peers (the jury) the courts spend a good 2-3 years solidy re-investigating every aspect of your case...with trained law professionals and forensic analysts only, not with the bias that "its my job to convict you" or "i have to defend you cuz im getting paid to do so", but to investiagte if you are innocent, in any way. And i think that these cases should get priority in a court system because of the aformentioned. If after all this effort, they still cant find ANYTHING to imply thtat you may be innocent, then I think death is justified. Just my oppinion, have a good night all.