mud_shark: Shouldn't we focus on reforming our courts so innocent people are never convicted



No. The purpose of the courts is that anybody's ass can be threatened to go to jail at anytime whatsoever especially if someone higher up the food chain disagrees with you. Reform would be beside the point.

Also, most crimes don't even get reported if you compare victimization surveys vs. crimes reported.

CruiserTwelve: What cop would plead no contest to such serious charges knowing he was facing many years in jail for something he didn't do?

Maybe they worked him over like they do to citizens.

I've seen that interrogation scene in Menace II Society

Everyone involved in this clusterfark should undergo scaphism while hooked up to life support. Poor guy.

browser_snake: Those of you railing against capital punishment, I present you a few points:

1. If this had been a capital punishment case, the flimsy evidence from the prosecution would have been scrutinized a hell of a lot more than it was at the time.

2. Appeals all the way up the chain would have been automatic.

3. The defendant would have had much better representation than he did initially.

F that. All cases should be scrutinized to the fullest extent. He was sentenced to TWO LIFE TERMS. Even if the potential punishment drives the quality of the case, no better than capital punishment.

dahmers love zombie: Absolutely no statements by ANY person should ever be admitted into evidence if the individual cannot be fully cross-examined by the defense.

Ever.

In fact, this should have been appealed as unconstitutional for that very reason.

Sounds like someone isn't getting a Father's Day card.

Man, don't get me started on vindictive ex-wives. They can make up all kinds of shiat, then they just walk after you spend your life-savings defending yourself.

mud_shark: onebadgungan: And yet, there are still innocent people on death row.

Who exactly?

Name them and present credible evidence and I will fight to get them out of prison. Otherwise, STFU.

Well, since we already brought up the Satanic Panic of the '90s, how about this guy? Link(pops)And then read the page on the case.

If there hadn't been an irrational belief in Satanic cults that caused daycare centers to be accused of ritual child abuse, these three would have never been convicted.

Acharne: mud_shark: This is another example of why guilty verdicts should be beyond a reasonable doubt. The anti-death-penalty-pansies just want to ban capital punishment but have no regard for anyone else unfairly convicted.

I follow your argument as being for more accountability... but your first paragraph is very confusing. I am taking from it that you not only think it is an injustice when people are unfairly convicted... but that you also support the death penalty? I'm confused. What about if this fellow had been murdered by the state before his children were of an age of conscience?

I'm not arguing with you... I just felt your first paragraph completely conflicts with the rest. Just seeking some disambiguation.

I'm pro-death. I just want to be sure that anyone convicted of a crime is definitely guilty before enduring whatever sentence they are faced with.

If you're guilty of jay-walking, let's have the evidence. That should be relatively easy to prove in a court of law. If you're guilty of murder, let's see the evidence. Prove the case and then let's execute the motherfarker!

What we shouldn't do is skimp on justice. If the prosecutor cannot prove his case, then let the defendant go free. I don't care how guilty the person looks - if they cannot prove his guilt, then let him walk.

I say this having served on a jury in a felony trial where my peers (i.e. the other members of the jury) felt the defendant was guilty as hell. We just didn't think he was guilty of the charge that we were asked to consider.

The case ended in a mistrial before we had a chance to decide, but I was certainly not going to find him guilty and I suspect most others weren't either. My not-guilty vote would have been enough to clear him of the charge which he was accused.

I did think he was guilty - just not of the charge which we were asked to consider. Should he have served time? Yeah, probably, but again not on the charge that we were asked to consider. I can only guess that the defendant was facing other charges in other coutrooms where I sincerely hope the prosecutor did a better job, but I was not going to vote "guilty" simply because I thought the defendant was a low-life scumbag.

Are other people who are picked for jury duty less ethical than I? Probably. I just wish that others had the same moral values that I do. I know that's a pipe dream though. Now I need another beer

Yet another reason for not having kids.

We really should start requiring some evidence, as in any at all, before convicting people of abuse/molestation. The mere accusation just should not be enough. Most especially not an accusation from someone with obvious emotional/revenge motive (bitter ex-wife).

The kids are innocent. It doesn't take a master manipulator to get a 5 year old to believe a lie (tooth fairy, santa, easter bunny, jesus, god). If you've ever dealt with a kid with a monster under his bed you know what I'm talking about. The other cop, the wife, and the public defender however, are lousey sacks of shiat. I'd take a few months to enjoy my family then I'd hunt them each down and make them suffer. Dude's got a bad heart- his life's about over. At least get some righteous vengeance and go out like a hero. Life is all we really own, and taking a life- either through murder, false incarceration, or just abusing someone so bad that life becomes horrible- is the ultimate crime. Them farkers need to suffer and be made an example of.

proof of Canada's flawed system.

Remember: if you love children, lynchings are awesome.

//I feel ill.

rotsky: I'd say he's had quite a rockyrockey road.

/sorry, pet peeve.

scottydoesntknow: All those involved with his prosecution should face defamation charges.

Defamation? That's it? They've got perjury, coercion of a child, and obstruction of justice easily. They'll be touring their own PMITA prisons before long...

mud_shark: onebadgungan: And yet, there are still innocent people on death row.

Who exactly?

Name them and present credible evidence and I will fight to get them out of prison. Otherwise, STFU.

133 People Exonerated from Death Row (new window)

These people would probably know more about it. (new window)

I do wonder, though, if any evidence would be credible to you, regardless of its validity. I guess we'll see.

Need_MindBleach: mud_shark: onebadgungan: And yet, there are still innocent people on death row.

Who exactly?

Name them and present credible evidence and I will fight to get them out of prison. Otherwise, STFU.

Well, since we already brought up the Satanic Panic of the '90s, how about this guy? Link(pops)And then read the page on the case.

If there hadn't been an irrational belief in Satanic cults that caused daycare centers to be accused of ritual child abuse, these three would have never been convicted.

Sorry, but Wikipedia is blocked. Try again.

mud_shark: Need_MindBleach: mud_shark: onebadgungan: And yet, there are still innocent people on death row.

Who exactly?

Name them and present credible evidence and I will fight to get them out of prison. Otherwise, STFU.

Well, since we already brought up the Satanic Panic of the '90s, how about this guy? Link(pops)And then read the page on the case.

If there hadn't been an irrational belief in Satanic cults that caused daycare centers to be accused of ritual child abuse, these three would have never been convicted.

Sorry, but Wikipedia is blocked. Try again.

Fine, look up Damien Echols in onebadgungan's link. Unless that's mysteriously blocked too.

Honestly, you anti death penalty dudes do make a good point if someone is innocent...

On the other hand, if I was innocent and got to choose between twenty years in prison and being killed

stick the needle in me ASAP.

/life without freedom is not worth pursuing

davynelson: Honestly, you anti death penalty dudes do make a good point if someone is innocent...

On the other hand, if I was innocent and got to choose between twenty years in prison and being killed

stick the needle in me ASAP.

/life without freedom is not worth pursuing

Oh, I'm not anti-death penalty as a concept. I'm just anti-death penalty for innocent people. I also don't consider it a deterrent - it's state-sanctioned revenge. If that's what you need to get over whatever the criminal did to you or your family, go to it. Unfortunately, it rarely gives peace of mind or closure. Victim Resources (new window)

mud_shark: Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

This is where you shift into "tarded"

I have never heard anyone say "Abolish the death penalty because sometimes people who are wrongly convicted die. But the people who are wrongly convicted of lesser crimes... meh... no biggie."

mud_shark: I'm pro-death. I just want to be sure that anyone convicted of a crime is definitely guilty before enduring whatever sentence they are faced with.

Do you propose a 100% accurate way of doing this?

mud_shark: Sorry, but Wikipedia is blocked. Try again.

Ah, the classic 'I don't believe you so why don't you go do all the research' bit.

Need_MindBleach don't fall for this trick and do mud_shark's homework for him. He's the skeptic, let him go research this stuff. It'll be a growing experience.

jst3p: mud_shark: I'm pro-death. I just want to be sure that anyone convicted of a crime is definitely guilty before enduring whatever sentence they are faced with.

Do you propose a 100% accurate way of doing this?

Well, you can dunk them in the lake. If they drown, they were innocent. If they survive, burn them at the stake, they are obviously guilty.

onebadgungan: jst3p: mud_shark: I'm pro-death. I just want to be sure that anyone convicted of a crime is definitely guilty before enduring whatever sentence they are faced with.

Do you propose a 100% accurate way of doing this?

Well, you can dunk them in the lake. If they drown, they were innocent. If they survive, burn them at the stake, they are obviously guilty.


Or just weigh them.


Duck and all.

If his ex-wife suddenly turned up impaled on a ten foot high spiked iron fence with no buildings around and handcuffed with five bullets through her head, a wire around her neck and a mouth full of strychnine, and I were the investigating detective... I would write "suicide" on my forms and let it go.

/srsly

jst3p: onebadgungan: jst3p: mud_shark: I'm pro-death. I just want to be sure that anyone convicted of a crime is definitely guilty before enduring whatever sentence they are faced with.

Do you propose a 100% accurate way of doing this?

Well, you can dunk them in the lake. If they drown, they were innocent. If they survive, burn them at the stake, they are obviously guilty.


Or just weigh them.


Duck and all.

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

It goes without saying that I feel awful for the father, but I also feel really bad for those kids. First they're bullied into making up some garbage stories just to make the constant interrogations stop, then their father is sent to prison, then they spend the rest of their childhoods being told by THEIR OWN FARKING MOTHER that they'd had these horrible things happen to them when she had to know damn well that they didn't. Did it never occur to the mother that in the process of farking over her poor ex-husband she was also using her children in a horrible way? What if they had ended up believing her? If you read up on what happened when Gerald Amirault was released, even then some of his now-grown, alleged "victims" were convinced, thanks to their being repeatedly told these things, that all of this had really happened to them and were freaking out and spending about half their waking hours in therapy. Sounds like a great life.

For these two to have stepped back and rationally examined the ideas that had been fed to them without contradiction throughout childhood and come to the conclusion they did took a lot of character. Especially since I can't believe they're real happy with Mom and her law enforcements buddies right now.

mud_shark: Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

You can say this until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. I've never known anyone who felt this way, IRL or online.

The_Gallant_Gallstone: CruiserTwelve: What cop would plead no contest to such serious charges knowing he was facing many years in jail for something he didn't do?

Maybe they worked him over like they do to citizens.

I've seen that interrogation scene in Menace II Society

He didn't confess. At least the article says he didn't confess.

browser_snake: Those of you railing against capital punishment, I present you a few points:

1. If this had been a capital punishment case, the flimsy evidence from the prosecution would have been scrutinized a hell of a lot more than it was at the time.

2. Appeals all the way up the chain would have been automatic.

3. The defendant would have had much better representation than he did initially.

And yet the innocence project continues to get people convicted of capitol crimes freed because- they didn't do them!

Including:
People in Chicago coerced into false confessions.
People in Mississippi convicted by a medical examiner who fabricated evidence.
People in Florida convicted by a miracle dog who could find scents left months before!

This justice system isn't responsible enough to have the death penalty.

\or other nice things

onebadgungan: These people would probably know more about it. (new window)

Do you find it suspicious that the Innocence Project refuses to release statistics on how many death row inmates guilt has been supported by DNA as a result of their investigations?

onebadgungan: jst3p: mud_shark: I'm pro-death. I just want to be sure that anyone convicted of a crime is definitely guilty before enduring whatever sentence they are faced with.

Do you propose a 100% accurate way of doing this?

Well, you can dunk them in the lake. If they drown, they were innocent. If they survive, burn them at the stake, they are obviously guilty.

It's a fair cop...

rotsky [TotalFark]

I'd say he's had quite a rocky road.rode

Sorry, pet peeve

Rockstone: proof of Canada's flawed system.

They're talking about Vancouver, Washington. Not BC.

In other words...Fail.

Went through some similar bullshiat back when i was 11-12. Difference was an innocent almost went to jail but luckily had enough money (200k in 1988) to hire a decent attorney / pay off judges to get off.

The DHR/CPS/etc workers who investigated these things were to me at the time way worse than the actual problem. Tricking you on words, how your lying about it not happening by crossing your arms, blocked memories etc... And how they would keep going on and on and on and on until you said what they wanted you to say just to get them to shut up about it and leave.

I'm 33 now and really don't know if i was molested or not. I think it is just recurring nightmares i have had since back then as the investigators would be really graphic on what molestation was. If i was i know it wasn't the person they were trying to convict but the then current stepfather who i know did some farked up shiat not necessarily in the molestation category but cutting it really close.

I still feel like crap that the innocent party was almost sent to jail and cost him a lot of money. I met up with him about 10 years ago and he said he doesn't hold a grudge and doesn't blame me but I still feel like shiat over the issue.

CruiserTwelve: onebadgungan: These people would probably know more about it. (new window)

Do you find it suspicious that the Innocence Project refuses to release statistics on how many death row inmates guilt has been supported by DNA as a result of their investigations?

That in itself is illogical, because why would a person who not only knows he is guilty but also knows that DNA evidence will confirm it even ask the Innocence Project to look at his case? You have to write these people and persuade them to take your case on, they don't go and find inmates to toss lawyers and investigators at.

There is no "suspicious", because it doesn't happen.

that's farked up. poor man. poor kids (I mean, 9 and 5?). Everybody that maliciously prosectued this man should be brought to beg at his feet for forgiveness. that and 1 million.

PfizerX: scottydoesntknow: That's farked up. He spent 20 years in a Federal PMITA prison for child abuse...and he's an ex-cop. Like others have said, he's lucky to be alive. If I were him, the first thing I would have done upon release is walk up to now-retired Detective Krause, and cockpunch him for every day I was in there.

7300 Cockpunches. That would be the most consecutive cockpunches since Keith Hackney Fought Joe Son's crotch at UFC 4.

Again, I'll point out that the detective who helped put this guy in jail was a female. So the point of your cockpunches may be lost on her.

rewind2846: That in itself is illogical, because why would a person who not only knows he is guilty but also knows that DNA evidence will confirm it even ask the Innocence Project to look at his case?

Why not? What does a person on death row have to lose?

There is no "suspicious", because it doesn't happen.

Yes, it does. I can't find a quote but Barry Scheck himself has admitted that in many cases their DNA tests have proven their clients guilty. The Innocence Project has refused to release numbers though.

So here's another question: Do you think more guilty people are found innocent by juries than innocent people are found guilty? I would guess that far more guilty people are acquited than the other way around.

dahmers love zombie: Absolutely no statements by ANY person should ever be admitted into evidence if the individual cannot be fully cross-examined by the defense.

Ever.

Unless you are an "enemy combatant".

hej: PfizerX: scottydoesntknow: That's farked up. He spent 20 years in a Federal PMITA prison for child abuse...and he's an ex-cop. Like others have said, he's lucky to be alive. If I were him, the first thing I would have done upon release is walk up to now-retired Detective Krause, and cockpunch him for every day I was in there.

7300 Cockpunches. That would be the most consecutive cockpunches since Keith Hackney Fought Joe Son's crotch at UFC 4.

Again, I'll point out that the detective who helped put this guy in jail was a female. So the point of your cockpunches may be lost on her.

Sex change surgery is a biach.

CruiserTwelve: onebadgungan: These people would probably know more about it. (new window)

Do you find it suspicious that the Innocence Project refuses to release statistics on how many death row inmates guilt has been supported by DNA as a result of their investigations?

No. Why is that important? If their results are one innocent person not killed and 100 guilty people confirmed guilty, they still did a good job.

veive: hej: PfizerX: scottydoesntknow: That's farked up. He spent 20 years in a Federal PMITA prison for child abuse...and he's an ex-cop. Like others have said, he's lucky to be alive. If I were him, the first thing I would have done upon release is walk up to now-retired Detective Krause, and cockpunch him for every day I was in there.

7300 Cockpunches. That would be the most consecutive cockpunches since Keith Hackney Fought Joe Son's crotch at UFC 4.

Again, I'll point out that the detective who helped put this guy in jail was a female. So the point of your cockpunches may be lost on her.

Sex change surgery is a biach.

I think that surgery is called an addadiktome.

/audio joke
//say it out loud and you might laugh

jst3p: mud_shark: Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

This is where you shift into "tarded"

I have never heard anyone say "Abolish the death penalty because sometimes people who are wrongly convicted die. But the people who are wrongly convicted of lesser crimes... meh... no biggie."

Really? Do you not pay attention to the news or what? People don't actually say that, but they definitely mean that - oh, and to that other poster who told me to follow someone else's link that wasn't to a Wikipedia site - it was a Wikipedia site.

Sorry, but I demand facts, not opinions. You don't need to convince me that some people have been wrongly convicted - I want to stop that more than you do. I just think that justice should be served no matter if the crime is seemingly minor or something that I feel is worthy of the death penatly.

mud_shark: You can't just buy prosecutors off though (okay, well, maybe you can

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/26/national/main4895883.shtml
Oh, you can.

mediaho: Police interrogations are an unholy mindfark I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Believe me, it's just as easy to mindfark 'em back, if you know how the game is played and you're lucky.

farkin_Gary: mediaho: Police interrogations are an unholy mindfark I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Believe me, it's just as easy to mindfark 'em back, if you know how the game is played and you're lucky.

How many 5 year old kids know how the game is played though??

onebadgungan: Oh, I'm not anti-death penalty as a concept. I'm just anti-death penalty for innocent people. I also don't consider it a deterrent - it's state-sanctioned revenge. If that's what you need to get over whatever the criminal did to you or your family, go to it. Unfortunately, it rarely gives peace of mind or closure. Victim Resources (new window)

While I agree it can be misused for such purposes, I believe the death penalty isn't revenge OR a deterrent. It's taking out the trash. I mean, if you really have evidence-- I mean evidence like we had against Saddam Hussein, not some cop saying you did it and circumstantial crap-- then it's better for everyone involved if you kill the guy. You save money, time, energy, and you take care of someone who cannot be put back onto the streets anyway. No revenge involved, just eliminating individuals whose life can only harm us.