New Jersey to Become First State to Ban Death Penalty in 42 Years

[24KT]

yeah that does sound weird.

Point being however, some people are on death row who have been convicted and sent there on lesser evidence than should be.  That's my point.  We should make those guys lifers.  But the guy that killed someone and was caught immediately at the scene with weapon in hand and DNA matched and witnesses confirmed who saw the whole things, well that seems pretty certain.

Precisely. It is this capricious standard that must also be guarded against, ...and regardless of our opinions about people's guilt or innocence, we must demand that certain standards in place (whether imperfect or not) be adhered to, otherwise society is placed in far greater danger.

We just saw a whole whack of infant bodies exhumed, and new autopsies performed as a result of mistakes made by the same forensic pathologist that sent innocent people to jail. Had there been a death penalty, these people surely would have fried.

[Dos Equis]

In a perfect world yes, but it's not.  And we've seen convictions overturned because other evidence has come to light and tragically some of these people were innocent and were executed.   

that's why, the Death penalty should abolished AND kept.  Abolished for the ones without overwhelming evidence and Kept for the ones with.

What you just said there is good in principle but not working in practice.

I'm not aware of any innocent person being executed.  Are you thinking of a specific case or making an assumption? 

Isn't there already a heightened standard for the death penalty?  I think there is something called "lingering doubt" or something like that, that comes into play during the penalty phase?  Not sure. 

I understand what you're saying, but I really don't see much of a difference between overwhelming evidence and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." 

I do agree that the system isn't perfect. 

[OzmO]

I'm not aware of any innocent person being executed.  Are you thinking of a specific case or making an assumption? 

Isn't there already a heightened standard for the death penalty?  I think there is something called "lingering doubt" or something like that, that comes into play during the penalty phase?  Not sure. 

I understand what you're saying, but I really don't see much of a difference between overwhelming evidence and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." 

I do agree that the system isn't perfect. 

I'm basing my assertion on things I've read and seen over the years.  But here's a link:


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/08/10/928/05423

    A man sentenced to death as a teenager was freed Monday by DNA evidence, and said he had been certain from the beginning that he would be vindicated. For more than seven years, Ryan Matthews has said he had nothing to do with the 1997 robbery and murder of a grocer. He said he knew that someday he would be freed.

    Jurors were told that no physical evidence linked Matthews to the holdup and murder of Tommy Vanhoose. But two witnesses identified him as the gunman, and a co-defendant, Travis Hayes, told police that he drove the getaway car after Matthews, then 17, shot Vanhoose. Ultimately, DNA found in a ski mask that was tossed from the getaway car was found to match that of Rondell Love, who is serving time for an unrelated killing. In addition, Matthews' lawyers said, other inmates have told investigators that Love bragged about killing Vanhoose.

Another one:

     Charges were dropped this week against a Louisiana man who spent nearly five years on death row for a crime he did not commit, making him the 115th former death row inmate in the United States to be freed due to actual innocence.

    Ryan Matthews is the 7th former death row inmate in Louisiana to be cleared of murder. He is also the state's third African American juvenile proven to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.

115th?   1 is too much for me BB. 


How many have we executed that were innocent if 115 have already been found?

[Dos Equis]

I'm basing my assertion on things I've read and seen over the years.  But here's a link:


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/08/10/928/05423





Another one:


115th?   1 is too much for me BB. 

What that says is innocent people were wrongfully convicted and placed on death row.  Doesn't say an innocent person was executed. 

It would be an absolute tragedy if an innocent person was executed.  I'm unaware of that happening. 

Have you seen The Life of David Gale?  Decent movie.  Deals with this issue.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/

[24KT]

I'm not aware of any innocent person being executed.  Are you thinking of a specific case or making an assumption?

Saccho & Venzetti (political pressure) - the lindbergh baby was high profile.

The Rosenbergs (deliberate misconduct)  - the justice dept knew they were innocent, but went ahead and not only charged them, but sought the death penalty, and allowed it to be carried out.

Isn't there already a heightened standard for the death penalty?  I think there is something called "lingering doubt" or something like that, that comes into play during the penalty phase?  Not sure. 

higher standards are irrelevant when they are capriciously applied

I understand what you're saying, but I really don't see much of a difference between overwhelming evidence and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." 

they're made even more irrelevant when they are indiscernible by a jury with the power of life & death in their hands

I do agree that the system isn't perfect. 

...but you have no problem taking a man's life using such an imperfect system?

Have you seen "The Life of David Gale"?

[24KT]

Have you seen The Life of David Gale?  Decent movie.  Deals with this issue.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/

   Ooops. Took a phone call while typing my response and hadn't seen this comment, but since you've seen it, how can you be all for the death penalty? Truly, how can you not see where & how innocent people can be executed?

[Cap]

Holy Cow, ...now I see how stupid our hypothetical scenarios can become when we make them up on the fly? {lol}

No one is saying DNA evidence is exclusively a problem in the US, however, Canada does not have the death penalty.

When you actually know someone who was wrongfully convicted of multiple homicide, received a death sentence, was eventually exonerated, and whose life was only saved due to an end to the death penalty, you have a different perspective on the death penalty

To me, state sanctioned murder has no place in a civilized society. So you are against the death penalty?

Jag, you might as well come out and call me stupid because I know you want to.  My hyperbolic examples proved the point that your idea about overwhelming occurrences of corruption are stupid.  They do happen but not to the extent you claim and not to normal people, and if you look past you hatred of me you could see that those examples can happen and the second is actually a "type" of scenario that women have done to men many times in rape cases.

If it is easy for police to plant evidence to to convict a murderer or otherwise, as you assert, or for a lab to do the same why would it be so far fetched for a "perp" to do the same. 

If I see person X kill person Y and I apprehend X, why should he/she be allowed to live?  Shouldn't the animals in a civilized society be killed?  What about the sick people who rape and then kill their victims (women and children)?  What value do they have?  What purpose do they serve?  I love reading liberals here and abroad back abortion, call US soldiers baby killers and want to save the shit of society.  How dumb are these people?

Ozmo, you are right.  Innocents should not die but we cannot scrap a utilitarian system because if we tried make every case perfect then we would spend too much money and cases would never process.  DNA is freeing people who were convicted at a time without it and some within.  Times will progress and DNA will go a long way.  We all bitch about CCtv and spying but the Brits can build some good cases with it.  Not to mention if you aren't guilty and have an alibi for when you allegedly killed a person.  These things add up to make the system work; the system that failed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman by letting OJ escape death.

[24KT]

Jag, you might as well come out and call me stupid because I know you want to.

No that wasn't what I was doing. I was calling your example stupid, and in the process acknowledging how ridiculously sounding some of my hypotheticals were.

My hyperbolic examples proved the point that your idea about overwhelming occurrences of corruption are stupid. 

I make no statement that all examples of death row inmates are there due to overwhelming corruption. I'm simply stating that in addition to corruption, ...mistakes can be made. Mistakes of incompetence, neglect, or simply overwhelmingly superficial appearance of guilt.

They do happen but not to the extent you claim and not to normal people, and if you look past you hatred of me you could see that those examples can happen and the second is actually a "type" of scenario that women have done to men many times in rape cases.

This makes no sense to me so I will address each discrepancy separately.

1^st. Since you acknowledge they do happen, how can you so cavalierly defend the death penalty?

2^nd. I have no 'hatred' of you. Anything I may or may not feel for you are irrelevent to my position in this. The issue is not Cap 86. The issue is the death penalty.

3^rd. David Milgarde was an ordinary normal person, as were Saccho & Venzetti, the Rosenbergs, and countless others whose names we do not know.

4^th. The idea of us having any kind of sex, protected or otherwise is so far a stretch of the imagination it is too ridiculous for words. I'd never consent to such a thing, ...and you'd probably not even be able to ...ahem ...rise to the occasion.

5^th. I'm beginning to think it is your inability to look past your hatred of me that is prompting much of your responses, ...or maybe you're just not communicating your position clearly enough. I've been there, it's straight in our minds, but putting it into type doesn't quite communicate it.

If it is easy for police to plant evidence to to convict a murderer or otherwise, as you assert, or for a lab to do the same why would it be so far fetched for a "perp" to do the same. 

My assertion was that it is posible for police to plant evidence to convict a 'person they believe to be guilty', and in the case of the Rosenbergs, someone they considered to be merely pawns they intended to use as leverage. I also did not claim it was far-fetched for a 'perp' to plant evidence in an attempt to frame another.

If I see person X kill person Y and I apprehend X, why should he/she be allowed to live?  Shouldn't the animals in a civilized society be killed?

  Dude you don't know what you're saying. The last thing you want is PETA on your ass.

What about the sick people who rape and then kill their victims (women and children)?  What value do they have?  What purpose do they serve?

My point is unless you are the victim (and occassionally that isn't even definitive enough) we don't know that someone accused of a crime, yet maintains their innocence, is actually guilty of the crime or not. We can only turn to the evidence to form our opinions. But opinions are not fact. The execution of a death sentence is FINAL (pun intended). Your arguments appear to me to state that everyone convicted of a crime is infact guilty of having actually committed the crime. We both know that is not always the case.

I love reading liberals here and abroad back abortion, call US soldiers baby killers and want to save the shit of society.  How dumb are these people?

Ozmo, you are right.  Innocents should not die but we cannot scrap a utilitarian system because if we tried make every case perfect then we would spend too much money and cases would never process.  DNA is freeing people who were convicted at a time without it and some within.  Times will progress and DNA will go a long way.  We all bitch about CCtv and spying but the Brits can build some good cases with it.  Not to mention if you aren't guilty and have an alibi for when you allegedly killed a person.  These things add up to make the system work; the system that failed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman by letting OJ escape death.

The system didn't fail, ...the police who failed to maintain a proper chain of custody of their evidence, and a DA who knowingly put shit before a jury. Do you know they tried their case 6 times before mock jurys and lost every time? Why would it have been any different on the day?

[Cap]

No that wasn't what I was doing. I was calling your example stupid, and in the process acknowledging how ridiculously sounding some of my hypotheticals were.

I make no statement that all examples of death row inmates are there due to overwhelming corruption. I'm simply stating that in addition to corruption, ...mistakes can be made. Mistakes of incompetence, neglect, or simply overwhelmingly superficial appearance of guilt.  This happens in every type of crime, hence my examples.  Should we scrap the whole system because of it?

This makes no sense to me so I will address each discrepancy separately.

1^st. Since you acknowledge they do happen, how can you so cavalierly defend the death penalty? Because when actually used and not just seen as a "Maybe" it can work but that's not the system we have.

2^nd. I have no 'hatred' of you. Anything I may or may not feel for you are irrelevent to my position in this. The issue is not Cap 86. The issue is the death penalty.  Then keep your posts strictly on what I write, don't mention me and I will do the same.

3^rd. David Milgarde was an ordinary normal person, as were Saccho & Venzetti, the Rosenbergs, and countless others whose names we do not know. High profile cases involving treason are different than murder 1.

4^th. The idea of us having any kind of sex, protected or otherwise is so far a stretch of the imagination it is too ridiculous for words. I'd never consent to such a thing, ...and you'd probably not even be able to ...ahem ...rise to the occasion.  And I thought this was personal.   

5^th. I'm beginning to think it is your inability to look past your hatred of me that is prompting much of your responses, ...or maybe you're just not communicating your position clearly enough. I've been there, it's straight in our minds, but putting it into type doesn't quite communicate it.  See above.  I know what I have said and written and due to the fact that you can even respond I gather you get my points but simply disagree.

My assertion was that it is posible for police to plant evidence to convict a 'person they believe to be guilty', and in the case of the Rosenbergs, someone they considered to be merely pawns they intended to use as leverage. I also did not claim it was far-fetched for a 'perp' to plant evidence in an attempt to frame another.

  Dude you don't know what you're saying. The last thing you want is PETA on your ass.  No, I'm talking about the animals like Tookie Williams.

My point is unless you are the victim (and occassionally that isn't even definitive enough) we don't know that someone accused of a crime, yet maintains their innocence, is actually guilty of the crime or not. We can only turn to the evidence to form our opinions. But opinions are not fact. The execution of a death sentence is FINAL (pun intended). Your arguments appear to me to state that everyone convicted of a crime is infact guilty of having actually committed the crime. We both know that is not always the case.  No but we all act like there are a majority of cases involving massive amounts of DNA evidence when I would imagine there are many robber turned murder or crimes of passion where the guilty party is clearly known but still not executed.

The system didn't fail, ...the police who failed to maintain a proper chain of custody of their evidence, and a DA who knowingly put shit before a jury. Do you know they tried their case 6 times before mock jurys and lost every time? Why would it have been any different on the day?  Those people should be fired then.

[OzmO]

What that says is innocent people were wrongfully convicted and placed on death row.  Doesn't say an innocent person was executed. 

It would be an absolute tragedy if an innocent person was executed.  I'm unaware of that happening. 

Have you seen The Life of David Gale?  Decent movie.  Deals with this issue.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/

It only stands to reason that before wide spread DNA testing that innocent people were executed.  That's the point, as you said the system isn't perfect.  And these examples are ones the4y did find.


try this:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm

Aside from that BB, very few people are actively investigating a person's innocent after thier execution. 

What's the point you know?  So you are probably not going to find out about it.  But hte Graham case shows there isn't a standard for capital punishments convictions as you eluded to.

[24KT]

 Damn I hate sloppy formatting and quotation marks! 

This happens in every type of crime, hence my examples.  Should we scrap the whole system because of it?

no, ...but we should certainly stop the death penalty. In addition to being open to unalterable or unrecompensable error, ...it is a drain on the system.

Because when actually used and not just seen as a "Maybe" it can work but that's not the system we have.

But this is about the system currently in place

Then keep your posts strictly on what I write, don't mention me and I will do the same.

   When have I done otherwise? It's you who keeps mentioning me constantly.
If I didn't know better, ...I might think you were a fan. 

High profile cases involving treason are different than murder 1.

David Milgarde was convicted of raping and murdering a woman. Saccho & Venzetti were about the kidnap and murder of an infant. Whether the Rosenberg trial involved treason is irrelevant. They were ordinary normal people who should not have gotten knowingly railroaded by the government.

And I thought this was personal.

Oh man, I can see we have a real miscommunication problem here. nothing personal about that comment.
It was not an aspersion cast upon your masculinity, ...but rather a joke in reference to your feelings about me.   

I know what I have said and written and due to the fact that you can even respond I gather you get my points but simply disagree.

Some of your points I get, ...but simply disagree. Others are somewhat contradictory and appear to be argumentative simply for the sake of being so. Now as I re-read that, I can see where my own posts would give that appearance, but as Jake pointed out the other day, I'm extremely anal. I believe in the specificity of language for a reason, and the use of vague words or innappropriate words has a tendency to throw off the meaning imparted to a sentence. There is power in connotation, and if someone is not purposely attempting to spin or be deceiptful, they should take great care in the specificity of the vocabulary they choose to employ. see immediate example below

My assertion was that it is posible for police to plant evidence to convict a 'person they believe to be guilty'.

Someone is not guilty until proven to be so, ...and the attempt to ensure conviction of someone believed to be guilty is heinously unnacceptable. Belief is not proof, and for a society to turn a blind eye because they may also share that belief is a real slippery slope to be climbing.

No, I'm talking about the animals like Tookie Williams.

I know you were. I was simply being facetious. But the Tookie Williams case is a perfect example.
He was a man who was not only convicted based upon circumstantial evidence, but he was given the death penalty for it.  Whether or not you think the guy is innocent or guilty, an animal or a human being, or even whther or not you believe in the death penalty itself, you have to at least demand that in carrying out such a FINAL solution, that legislative standards required for a capital case be in place.

And the absolute BS of knowingly breaking the law, then enacting retroactive legistion is such an insult to the intelligence of the citizenry, it makes such a mockery of the constitution, and everyone in the republic, ...if you can still call it that.

No but we all act like there are a majority of cases involving massive amounts of DNA evidence when I would imagine there are many robber turned murder or crimes of passion where the guilty party is clearly known but still not executed.

I won't deny that there are guilty people (both in the letter of the law, as well as the spirit of the law) that are not executed, ...but again, it goes back to my original position that a civilized society has no business in state sanctioned murder even for guilty people. The chances of convicting and executing an innocent person (no matter how remote) makes it even more of an imperative that such a barbaric practice be done away with.

Look at certain regimes overseas. They are barbaric backwards states inhabited by barbaric backward people. Guess what, 50 years ago, their citizens were not so backward. A barbaric state breeds barbaric people.

Those people should be fired then.

Oh Puleaze! That wouldn't be America! They got an outpouring of sympathy, multiple book deals, and in the case of one prosecutor, if my info is correct, ...another kick at the can 13 years later! 

Anyways... gotta run. Got some truckers to organize for a conference call.

[24KT]

Cap,

What would you think of a case where an individual was caught coming from Afghanistan in possession of poppy seed heads in his luggage, and 0.6 grams of hashish in his pants?

In a "zero tolerance for drugs" state, should such an individual pay the stiffest penalty allowed by law?

[Dos Equis]

It only stands to reason that before wide spread DNA testing that innocent people were executed.  That's the point, as you said the system isn't perfect.  And these examples are ones the4y did find.


try this:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm

Aside from that BB, very few people are actively investigating a person's innocent after thier execution. 

What's the point you know?  So you are probably not going to find out about it.  But hte Graham case shows there isn't a standard for capital punishments convictions as you eluded to.

So you are indeed making an assumption.  I concede that with the number of people who have been taken off death row, that it's possible an innocent has been executed.  But all we have is speculation. 

And I don't think Graham is a good case for anti-death penalty proponents to hang their hat on.  The guy was a scourge on society:  "he pleaded guilty to a week-long rampage of 10 robberies around the same time but said he was innocent of the murder."  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_5_98/ai_63537150 

It's possible Graham was innocent.  I doubt it.  Check out this discussion by one of his crime victims:

KING: All right, Charles, you stay with us, because we'll be going back to you.

Let's go to Houston now and talk with David Spiers, who was robbed and shot by Graham in May of 1981. Mr. Spiers is a supporter of the death penalty and a supporter of the death penalty for Gary Graham.

Was this -- was your occurrence with him after or before the alleged murder?

DAVID SPIERS, VICTIM: Hello?

KING: Yes, David.

SPIERS: Yes. Mine was on May 16, it was a Saturday, And I was...

KING: And the murder occurred when?

SPIERS: I don't know the exact date right now.

KING: Was it after your occurrence?

SPIERS: I think it was after.

KING: All right. And what happened to you?

SPIERS: When I was on the freeway, he pulled out a sawed-off -- my car broke down on Interstate 10, and Gary Graham came over to help me, he pulled over, and said he was going take me to service station to get some help. I jumped in the back seat of his car. As we were driving down the freeway, I noticed we had passed my exit sign, and all of a sudden he pulled out a 12-gauge shotgun and put it to my chest.

At that time, he said he was going go ahead and kill me, because he had already killed three or four other people, and he also told me that he was going to go back and kill my fiancee and her parents afterwards. At that time, he pulled the hammer back of the shotgun and blew my leg in half. I grabbed shotgun away. I fired at him, I fired at him. The windshield went out. The car started spinning. We were fighting. I had the butt of the shotgun. I was hitting him back and forth.

Larry, it was probably one of the most violent things a human being can go through. Cars were hitting us. It was raining very, very hard. It was 10:00 on Saturday night. All of a sudden, another car hit us. My leg was severed. I grabbed my ankle, threw myself out of the car. It broke my leg, my other leg. I pulled myself to the side of the road. I was lifelined to one of the local hospitals here, and I spent three months in the hospital. And I went in a weighing about 205 pounds, Larry, and when I came out, I was weighing about 135.

KING: Did he rob you, David?

SPIERS: Yes. He did rob me, and he -- you know, the funny thing about this was I was an eyewitness to my own murder. But I fought back, and I fought for my life, and the thing about this is that when I spent three months in the hospital, I almost died. I got my last rites. After that, I didn't walk for two years. I still don't walk properly today. I've lost a lot of movement, a lot of function in my leg.

But the scary thing was one reason I did fight for my life is because he did tell me that he murdered two or three people, and I was just going to be another one. But what really scared me was that he told me he is going to go back and murder my fiancee and her parents so they could go with me.

KING: Sure. Did you -- you of course did not testify in his murder trial, as one had nothing to do with the other, correct?

SPIERS: Unfortunately, Larry, I did not, because I was in critical shape. But my violent crime was part of the punishment phase.

KING: It was part of the -- in other words, you were able to testify when they were deciding on life or death.

SPIERS: No. I was not in there, but they took all the 22 crimes that he did, or the 21 plus the murder of Bobby Lambert, and they put it all in one, and that was in the punishment phase. You know, when I was in the hospital, the police brought in stack of photographs, and I picked out three separate photographs of him. I had a visual eye-to- eye contact with him. And when I see him on TV today, 19 years later, and I look at his eyes, I see violence, and I know that he tried to murder me.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/22/lkl.00.html

[OzmO]

So you are indeed making an assumption.  I concede that with the number of people who have been taken off death row, that it's possible an innocent has been executed.  But all we have is speculation. 

BB, based on the "standard of convictions that become Capital Punishments" that you eluded to the fact that many of these people who were on death row turn out to be innocent shows it's flawed.  We are putting people on death row without evidence that is beyond the shadow of a doubt you said it was. 

That needs to change, IMO.

And I don't think Graham is a good case for anti-death penalty proponents to hang their hat on.  The guy was a scourge on society:  "he pleaded guilty to a week-long rampage of 10 robberies around the same time but said he was innocent of the murder."

Killing someone and robbing from other poeple are 2 different things.

Just becuase this guy had a track record of robbing doesn't make him guilty.



Now for the transcript you pasted.

This is exactly what i am talking about. 

Graham was convicted largely on the testimony of a person who saw the murderer 40 feet away trough a dirty windshield without physical evidence.



And it seems you've already made up your mind he's guilty based on information unrelated to the murder charge.

This is beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Had this man been convicted on evidence that included, DNA, procession of the murder weapon, he being placed at the time and location of the crime etc...  I'd say hang the bastard.

But that's not the case here.

This is how innocent people get executed.

This is why the system is flawed.

This is why the system needs to change.

[Dos Equis]

BB, based on the "standard of convictions that become Capital Punishments" that you eluded to the fact that many of these people who were on death row turn out to be innocent shows it's flawed.  We are putting people on death row without evidence that is beyond the shadow of a doubt you said it was. 

That needs to change, IMO.

Killing someone and robbing from other poeple are 2 different things.

Just becuase this guy had a track record of robbing doesn't make him guilty.



Now for the transcript you pasted.

This is exactly what i am talking about. 

Graham was convicted largely on the testimony of a person who saw the murderer 40 feet away trough a dirty windshield without physical evidence.



And it seems you've already made up your mind he's guilty based on information unrelated to the murder charge.

This is beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Had this man been convicted on evidence that included, DNA, procession of the murder weapon, he being placed at the time and location of the crime etc...  I'd say hang the bastard.

But that's not the case here.

This is how innocent people get executed.

This is why the system is flawed.

This is why the system needs to change.

Ozmo I don't think it's accurate to say "many" people on death row have been innocent.  As of year end 2006, there 3228 people on death row.  http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm.  Not counting the moratorium, there has to have been many thousands of other people on death row in the past 50 years or so.  So 114 (?) isn't really a big number. 

Regarding the legal standard, I've said there really isn't a difference between "overwhelming evidence" and "beyond a resonable doubt."  Really just seems like semantics to me.  People need to be convinced that a person committed a crime (any crime) before convicting and handing down a sentence. 

I am not losing any sleep over Graham.  He got what he deserved.  Robbed ten people in one week?  Tried to murder another?  I don't know if any of that evidence was used at his trial, but talk about a bad actor. 

I know it's not appropriate to convict a person based on their prior misconduct, but hard to ignore what a predator this guy was. 

I haven't read enough about his case to know about all of the evidence used to convict him. 

I hear what you're saying about the need to be careful; to be sure.  I agree with that.  But I think there are plenty of safeguards in place for people facing the death penalty.   

[OzmO]

Ozmo I don't think it's accurate to say "many" people on death row have been innocent.  As of year end 2006, there 3228 people on death row.  http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm.  Not counting the moratorium, there has to have been many thousands of other people on death row in the past 50 years or so.  So 114 (?) isn't really a big number. 

Regarding the legal standard, I've said there really isn't a difference between "overwhelming evidence" and "beyond a resonable doubt."  Really just seems like semantics to me.  People need to be convinced that a person committed a crime (any crime) before convicting and handing down a sentence. 

I am not losing any sleep over Graham.  He got what he deserved.  Robbed ten people in one week?  Tried to murder another?  I don't know if any of that evidence was used at his trial, but talk about a bad actor. 

I know it's not appropriate to convict a person based on their prior misconduct, but hard to ignore what a predator this guy was. 

I haven't read enough about his case to know about all of the evidence used to convict him. 

I hear what you're saying about the need to be careful; to be sure.  I agree with that.  But I think there are plenty of safeguards in place for people facing the death penalty.   

114 to me is too many.  It's an unacceptable rate of potential mistakes.   Besides, How many years do these people spend in prison for something they didn't do?

Regarding the legal standard, I've said there really isn't a difference between "overwhelming evidence" and "beyond a resonable doubt."  Really just seems like semantics to me.  People need to be convinced that a person committed a crime (any crime) before convicting and handing down a sentence. 

There's a huge difference. A jury doesn't determine the truth.  In every case of the 114, the jury wrongly convicted those people based on incomplete evidence that someone decided was "overwhelming evidence" or "beyond a resonable doubt." It's FLAWED.  I believe it would be better not to put some people to death and have them spend their lives in prison rather than have to go through a costly appeal process on death row and find out they were innocent and risk executing an innocent men which, before DNA, certainly happened.   And then when we do execute someone, it's beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I am not losing any sleep over Graham.  He got what he deserved.  Robbed ten people in one week?  Tried to murder another?  I don't know if any of that evidence was used at his trial, but talk about a bad actor.

I know it's not appropriate to convict a person based on their prior misconduct, but hard to ignore what a predator this guy was.

I agree, but not appropriate none the less and not just, fair, right, objective etc...

I haven't read enough about his case to know about all of the evidence used to convict him.

I hear what you're saying about the need to be careful; to be sure.  I agree with that.  But I think there are plenty of safeguards in place for people facing the death penalty.

I think there should be more safe guards, I wonder what constitutes a death penalty conviction?  I'm sure there are many murderers with life sentences who deserve to die who were convicted with an air tight level of evidence.

[Dos Equis]

114 to me is too many.  It's an unacceptable rate of potential mistakes.   Besides, How many years do these people spend in prison for something they didn't do?

There's a huge difference. A jury doesn't determine the truth.  In every case of the 114, the jury wrongly convicted those people based on incomplete evidence that someone decided was "overwhelming evidence" or "beyond a resonable doubt." It's FLAWED.  I believe it would be better not to put some people to death and have them spend their lives in prison rather than have to go through a costly appeal process on death row and find out they were innocent and risk executing an innocent men which, before DNA, certainly happened.   And then when we do execute someone, it's beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I agree, but not appropriate none the less and not just, fair, right, objective etc...

I think there should be more safe guards, I wonder what constitutes a death penalty conviction?  I'm sure there are many murderers with life sentences who deserve to die who were convicted with an air tight level of evidence.

It's never acceptable for an innocent person to spend a single night in prison.  But it happens.  The system isn't perfect.  I don't think there is an acceptable number of mistakes, because a person can never recoup lost time in prison.  We will never be able to eliminate mistakes in the criminal justice system, particularly when money--or the lack thereof--plays such a huge role.  But we don't stop prosecuting and punishing people because mistakes will be made.  Mistakes are part of the system and of life in general. 

I just watched an interview by Larry King of a death row inmate.  You might find this interesting.  It supports much of what you've been saying.  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/19/lkl.01.html