http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...h_penalty_ryan

This dude is either the dumbest man alive (Bush is dumbest) or a fucking genius.

I'm going with the later, cause fuck, this guy is thinking about problems, albet a tad small, but he is saving lives and trying to keep from making mistakes, go him!

This is why I love This Modern World, it presents valid viewpoints, and it's always relevent.

Good for him.

He is out the door. His political career was self destructed.

The bit about "innocent people" being executed is a bogus arguement with today's foriensic DNA technology.


What this " there is hope for America" title? The best hope for America is that all the hippies would leave.

DNA evidence didn't convict OJ Simpson.

It's not a question of presensence of evidence, it's the conjcture of how evidence became present.

DNA is still fallible. The arguement about being accesssory to murder is still a bogus arguement however.

A right-minded citizen can't kill a convict therefore ANY person killed on death row makes those who support the actions of the state accessories to murder. I have no power to stop all murders being committed during military action. Therefore as I know about them but can't stop them I am still guilty by the above analogy.

Neon

The DNA evidence did not convict OJ Simpson because some members of the jury did not give a toss that OJ killed a white woman (a gold digger at that) and her date. The defense played the racial card and it worked. If anything, the OJ Simpson trial stands out on the issue of jury nullification.

Explain how DNA is falliable.

That last bit is bogus. Its like saying that citizenry are guilty of kidnapping because felons were taken off the street and put in jail.

This brings to mind when people used to think that a radar gun was infallible proof that someone was speeding. Until they clocked a house going 80 mph.

It's not technology that's fallible, it's the people using it. What's stopping a DA from pressuring a lab worker into slipping DNA from the defendant extracted elsewhere onto the slide, and presenting it as "solid and infallible" proof of that person's guilt? And the Jury might be, "well, there's no other proof, and no motive, but you can't argue with DNA".

They clocked a house at 80 mph? Thats interesting...I'd like to read something about that...

Anyway, human error is a big part of any sort of thing as well.

DNA evidence is also far from being 100% accurate, even with no tampering.

{LINK}

Check out the links at the bottom of the page for further info.

I was clocked at 65 mph once. Walking.

A radar gun is a mechanical device that can be worn out and in need of repair.

DNA is more akin to reading fingerprints.

An example:
When a forensic pathologist collects semen from the corpse of a murdered woman. Then uses DNA to find it was from the suspect, a criminal with a history of violent sexual assault...

I ask why a jury is even necessary. Technology has made the jury system a quaint relic like the Royal Family or the House of Lords in Parliament.

The death penalty should be reserved exclusively for pedophiles, rapists, terrorists, anarchists, wife beaters, and serial or mass murderers.

People that murder only one person should automatically get life in prison. Unless it is truely in self defense...
The only other exception should be murdering any of the above mentioned criminal types. That should actually be rewarded... Dont you think it would save tax payers and the government alot of money to just have society hunt down and kill people like that and have a reward system for it?

I dunno about you but that idea sounds pretty appealing.

It is, in a way, but then it could always take a barbaric twist...it could easily turn into a "secret police" type of thing, and that's never good...

For some reason that made the words "mob justice" run through my mind.

But im sure if it were to happen it would be sanctioned.

Something maybe like the victim presenting evidence to a court of some sort and then getting a writ for the death of that person. Or maybe something like that except something like being a self employed bounty hunter?

Im kinda sick of hearing about some poor woman that was beat and terrorized by her husband going to jail for life for murdering him. I say good for her, let her go free.
Or the same case with killing the husband for molesting her children.

Im not saying it would be a good idea or that its totaly realistic, just that it might have its upside.

and what of all the innocents wrongly convicted, can you give them thier lives back after theyve been executed? youre a little tough on that issue, i guess youve probably never suffered through poverty and grew up in a nice niehborhood, a trademark of youthful vigor and sleepy suburban mentality.

First, if you would have looked at the word "sanctioned" and then looked it up in a dictionary... That means there would be rules. Did i say that it would be so people could go out killing whomever they wish and saying that the person they killed was one of those and get away with it? No.

As for the capitol punishment thing... just to clarify for you.

I dont think ive ever heard of anyone being wrongly convicted of mass murder.
If under my proposed policy, they happened to only be accused of murdering one person, theyd at least be alive to be able to prove their innocence.

There are still very few people wrongly accused of anything with DNA testing.. although thats not flawless, its brought the possibility of that waaaaay down.

Im sorry but every rapist, child molester, and wife beater needs to die a horrible death. People are rarely falsely convicted of those crimes. Why? Because there has to be evidence, the kind of evidence that is pretty much tamper proof.

Plus,
It just so happens that im tetering on the brink of poverty... and no i dont live in a nice neighborhood. I've lived in my current neighborhood 90% of my life. I live nowhere near the suburbs.

You obviously do not know anything about south Minneapolis.
Learn to keep your ignorance in check.

I say give them life in prison.. use them for free labor..

or better yet.. make them work hard.. all the money they earn should go to the victims family.. tada.. no messy_bloody stuff.. and the family gets free money.

On an overpopulated planet of diminishing resources, I am rather surprised that people think we can afford to keep these criminals around.

On another point, there are some crimes so vile that nothing short of death is a fitting punishment. Serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeff Dahmer should be executed. So too should mass murderers like Charlie Manson and his gang "The Manson Family.