Billo_Really said:
Do you not understand that you can't point to that guilty verdict as your proof if that guilty verdict was over-turned? Which means there was no guilty verdict in the case. So you can't use that as a phoenix and ressurrect it out of convenience.
His guilty verdict was not overturned.
I'm against the death penalty in any and all cases. I also think that people convicted of murder 1, have lost their right to live in society.
So it doesn't matter if they are guilty or not.
This is where you are mis-representing the facts. How could she admit guilt if her plea bargain was done without an admission of such? That was the specific nature of her plea bargain.
It was a plea BARGIN.
>>Jacobs, now 57, pleaded guilty in 1992 to second-degree murder of two police officers under an "Alford plea," in which she accepted a guilty verdict without abandoning her claim of innocence.
A transcript of her plea-bargain hearing says she acknowledged that prosecutors could prove she took part in the fatal shootings if the charges went to trial. In return for her plea, she was released after nearly 17 years in prison. Jacobs' boyfriend had been executed for the crimes.<<
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...onerated_x.htm
She took part in the shootings, she was/is guilty. She remains a felon and a murderess.
Further in the USA Today story
"Meanwhile, the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), an anti-capital punishment group, says it does not consider Jacobs (played in the film by Sarandon) or Cook (played by Quinn) as innocent because both accepted plea bargains. DPIC Executive Director Richard Dieter says his organization has tracked 117 others "with evidence of innocence" who have been released from death sentences since 1973, but he says Jacobs and Cook don't qualify."
Even groups on your side don't agree with your position.
Quote:
Originally posted by Stinger:
But please inform us of anyone who has been executed whom we now know was perfectly innocent, no ties to the crime at all. Can you name a few?
Stop playing your little bullshit word game.
Again please try to control your emotions.
I posted 116 of them in post #2 of this thread. They're a little hard to miss.
You are claiming all 116 were executed and we now have absolute evidence they were all innocent? I don't think so. Try again. Give me the name of a person who was execute whom we later found out beyond any doubt that they were actaully innocent. And why do you call that simple salient question by the words you used. Can't stand to have your proclimations questioned or something?
This is no attack on you, but I find it pretty disgusting that in light of new evidence admitted into each of these cases, the courts ruling these people should be removed from death row and released, you somehow maintain they were still guilty.
Because most were not removed from death row because they were innocent. It was because a judge over-ruled the death sentence and left them to serve out a prison sentence. Going from murder in the first to murder in the second is NOT an exoneration.
Do you feel that way for the DNA cases as well? Do you even care about the truth?
Feel what way? If the evidence exonerates someone then they should be let out of prison and properly compensated. But you and those who make the same defenses as you do confuse getting off death row to serve a life sentence or at the least a long term with a declaration of innocence. Most of the time it isn't, it is a technicality.
You have a right to your opinion and I thank you for them. However, on my end, I don't see a whole lot of humanity in them. If I am wrong about this, please let me know.
And I see that your arguements have weaken to the point of having to get personal with it. So be it.
