I’m always skeptical when I hear these claims of obvious innocence. You are usually only getting one very biased side of the story. If there really is evidence this woman was alive after he left, how did a jury convict them?
Disregarded that testimony, thinking the witnesses had their dates wrong… but I wouldn’t count on the assumption that the jury even heard it. After listening to some true crime podcast, sometimes these sort of things don’t come out until after the trial, when a new witness comes forward, or the defense, for some reason, doesn’t call that witness…
That is one brilliant medical examiner if you ask me. Police find the body on December 3..... The medical examiner determined she died the week of the 29th. Let's see Nov 29 30 Dec 1 2 3 4 5. So the bodies the police found dead on December 3 might have died on Dec 4 or 5??? How did he figure that out?
I’m sure there’s a point you’re trying to make, and it appears your argument is an emotional appeal for revenge. Emotional appeal works on some but not those who place reason above emotion. But what if they find they executed the wrong guy? Would the family of the wrongly accused victim then be justified in taking revenge against the prosecutors, the judge, the jurors, and the witnesses for the prosecution?
Jury’s often convict on only circumstantial evidence or based on testimony of just a few witnesses. Sometimes new evidence comes to light or severe holes are poked in witness testimony AFTER the trial, yet these don’t always get proper weight on appeals. There are too many shows/documentaries on such cases to count. It’s not like juries are infallible. Far from it. Sometimes they fail to convict on seemingly rock solid cases too! To dole out death, it needs to be infallible. In principle I think some crimes are certainly deserving of the death penalty, but not sure how you make it such that the govt only applies the sentence where it is 100% rock solid evidence (such as a mass shooter being caught red handed. a serial killer caught with “trophies” of his victims, etc). The thing is, very few cases are likely t’ed up like this, and more often then not must rely on piecing together evidence and testimony. Even if we assume 90% of the questions are “bs” and the condemned really did do it, there are enough questions in a number of the “kill happy” states that I think the death penalty overall is problematic.
I genuinely doubt if the death penalty has actually deterred a single murder in our country. As with @l_boy, I have no moral opposition to the theory that, much like rabid dogs, society would be better off if some people were just put down. But criminal punishments in general are not a strong deterrent against most crime, and our system is in no way robust enough to give anyone confidence that we won't execute people who are not guilty of the crime for which they're punished.
I get all that. But the claims here are the victim’s own family saw her alive after the alleged murderer had left town. It seems impossible to me that wouldn’t come to light and the defense wouldn’t use that. Therefore my skepticism.
Im against the death penalty. But I think if it did not exist you could have a more wild west mentality and people would be raised with a different mindset. Does it stop a person in the heat of a moment? Maybe not, but it does creates a mindset from a young age with just how serious the act is and that is something we cant measure
My beef with the death penalty of course is I believe that ALOT of people of color are wrongly murdered by the state because of corrupt cops and DA's. To a lesser extent, poor / uneducated white folks too. But when you have an almost clear cut case - Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Spec, and those types - Fry Away Baby!!
For what little deterrent value capital punishment actually has, I suspect life imprisonment with no chance of parole would accomplish the exact same purpose.
There's very strong empirical evidence that the severity of a sentence has no impact on deterrence. I.e., 20 years vs 30 vs life vs execution; it doesn't matter. Criminals and potential criminals are far more concerned with their likelihood of getting caught than the punishment they would serve if caught and convicted.
We also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that life without the possibility of parole is its own kind of death sentence. You can never go back to the life you once had. As awful as it is to wrongfully execute an innocent person, it's near as awful to put them away for life. And although we comfort ourselves with the idea that errors can still be corrected so long as the defendant is not executed, the reality is there is no will, resources, or desire to revisit the vast majority of closed cases. A person condemned to spend the rest of his life behind bars will almost certainly do just that, innocent or not.
Hasn't anyone seen Dateline before? It's ALWAYS the boyfriend / husband. Police focus in on that person even though they say they don't.
The thing is though, once the DP is an accepted penalty we have set up the slippery slope from monsters like Dahmer to convictions gained by ambitious DAs from compromised “eye witnesses”to battered wives who think there is no other way out. Mistakes are made and death is permanent. This is true I think. The innocence project type groups are not as apt to work on the behalf of a life term as they are a DP.
