- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
After 27 years behind bars, Michael Anthony Green is slated for release from a Texas prison today after an investigation revealed that he was innocent of a 1983 aggravated sexual assault for which he was sentenced to 75 years in prison.
He'll be the second man wrongly-convicted of rape to be freed from a Texas jail in the past week.
Green and Allen Wayne Porter, who was released on bond last Friday after it was determined that he was not one of the three men who invaded a southwest Houston apartment in 1990 and raped two women, served a combined 46 years before a group comprised of local lawyers and investigators reviewed their cases and unearthed new facts.
This is the reason I'm also against the death penalty.
Your post raises a more pressing issue though, which is what explains the crime and punishment system in the U.S.: it provides a steady stream of cheap, private labor through the corrections system.
You know, that's a total of 46 years of prison time for 2 men who were innocent. The good news is that one of them is going to get more than 2 million dollars for the time he spent in prison, and I am sure that the other will get a huge amount also. That won't get a huge chunk of either man's life back, but it will at least pay them compensation for their unjust convictions.
In what is known as the Texas "for profit" plantation prison system, not all the system is bad. In fact, things are improving. The department which led the investigation that eventually freed both men was created by the Harris County Prosecutor's Office, right here in Houston. Yes, even in a place like Texas, things are changing, and for the better.
People ask me why I am against the death penalty. To be honest, if it was perfect, then I would be the first to throw the switch. But it isn't, not in Texas, nor anywhere else in the US. These 2 inmates are lucky they were not convicted of a capital offense. At least they will be compensated. Someone wrongfully executed for a murder he did not commit is totally screwed, and compensation becomes a meaningless concept. THIS is why I oppose the death penalty, and always will, until it becomes 100 percent accurate, and no innocent people are put to death, which will happen................ Never. At least, not in Texas, also known as the nation of "Hang 'em High", for both, those who murder, and the occasional person who does not.
Article is here.
Groan. Can you even show where its been proven a single man was killed by the state in the last 30 years who was proven innocent?
I prefer people who have true moral issues with the dealth penalty other than asking for a perfect system
Groan. Can you even show where its been proven a single man was killed by the state in the last 30 years who was proven innocent?
I prefer people who have true moral issues with the dealth penalty other than asking for a perfect system
The moral issue is that we don't want to condemn someone to death when they are innocent. Killing someone who was wrongfully convicted of a crime is also murder at the state level. They didn't commit the crime, through flaws in the justice system an innocent person is sentenced as guilty and placed on death row. The moral issue is that we don't want to kill an innocent person when we know innocent people get wrongfully sentenced as guilty. It is a true moral issue.
Are you telling me ALL life as sacred?
Yes, I do believe all life is sacred and should be preserved if at all possible.
Sacred stops when you cross the line from innocent to criminal
Why?
-ten characters-
lol...There are crimes and actions that merit death as a punishment, or as the result of self defense, war, etc. Do you agree or not?
lol...There are crimes and actions that merit death as a punishment, or as the result of self defense, war, etc. Do you agree or not?
I agree with self defense and war. Hence my addition "if at all possible." In order to preserve your life and other's lives you must take another. However, it is not a crime to kill in self defense or in war.
And "Life is sacred" does not extend to saying a murderer can't be sentenced to death. Is that ok with you?
That is not ok with my. Why is the life of a murderer not sacred? Why do we have the right to determine that someone is no longer worthy of living? Is it ok for strict countries to punish people by death for blasphemy against religion, infidelity, or speaking out against the state?
Whoa there!
We do not live in a theocracy. The government of the United States (of the People, by the People and for the People) has determined levels of punishment for various crimes. That includes the death penalty.
That is not ok with my. Why is the life of a murderer not sacred? Why do we have the right to determine that someone is no longer worthy of living? Is it ok for strict countries to punish people by death for blasphemy against religion, infidelity, or speaking out against the state?
So then life is given value based on what others deem it to be? If the justification is that a jury of our peers deems one's life to die, would that apply for any reason? What if a jury of someone's peers believed that stealing a loaf of bread was worthy of death? Is human life something that ins inherently valuable? Or is it only valuable if we project value on it?Why do we have the right to determine that someone should be killed? Because if that jury of your peers deems it so? That makes it so and that is the way it should be.
So if someone confesses to wrong actions do they still deserve to die? If they admit their wrongs should they be put to death? Why do we have the right to dictate that someone's life is forfeit because they committed "x" action? And who's to stop anyone from going to extremes and defining "x" action as being something so subtle as saying a curse word or hurting someone's feelings?The only problem with the death penalty is that we do not use it enough. I am talking about cases where they confess, caught on tape, caught where there is NO doubt.
Yes, but that does not address my question. Why do those countries have the right to enact the death penalty for crimes they deem are worthy of death? Likewise, what separates us from them? Why do we have the right to say X crime merits the death penalty? If it's because "the government has the right to make laws and enact the death penalty" then so do other world governments for whatever reason they want. You may disagree with other nations having crimes that merit death, but by the same logic they are justified in their sentencing if the logic is simply "government has the right to determine levels of punishment for various crimes."
So then life is given value based on what others deem it to be? If the justification is that a jury of our peers deems one's life to die, would that apply for any reason? What if a jury of someone's peers believed that stealing a loaf of bread was worthy of death? Is human life something that ins inherently valuable? Or is it only valuable if we project value on it?
So if someone confesses to wrong actions do they still deserve to die? If they admit their wrongs should they be put to death? Why do we have the right to dictate that someone's life is forfeit because they committed "x" action? And who's to stop anyone from going to extremes and defining "x" action as being something so subtle as saying a curse word or hurting someone's feelings?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?