Put it in perspective with the overall numbers. Until then you distort the true meaning. Which is, it is negligible the amount of times a person is falsely convicted.

Steer me more. Most of these studies present the numbers as if they are overwhelming, when simply putting into context with overall numbers it is with in the margin of acceptable error for a justice system of which can not be perfect. I've read the studies, and I'm realist, I know innocent people are convicted, but I also know in context with all convictions this number is incredibly small and anyone who says otherwise is just lying.

How many capital cases aren't in the spotlight, and how many don't have high priced lawyers defending them? Any idea?

Anyone who's studied wrongful convictions and seen how flimsy some of the evidence was in convicting some people would highly disagree with you. But instead of trying to learn about it, you just try to brow beat people into your flawed thought process.

b

No liar, this is what I said:

Quit being dishonest, only hurts your argument.

No, you've said people are ignorant for not thinking like you do.

No one has said anything about all convictions having to be 100% guilty and no innocents convicted overall. They're saying too many are, especially in regards to the DP. That doesn't mean if you can't execute them, instantly let them off.

b

You have in a round about way with you distorted statistics. How many is too many? One? Two? Three? Your statistics show that it happens way less than that, when put into context of the entire conviction rates. Abolish the death penalty, wont change the fact the same number of people who are innocent will still be convicted. If you do not accept this margin of error, you are stupid. This in no way suggest I'm calling people stupid who advocate for the astonishment of the death penalty.

This is not a case for the death penalty its a case of the system working way more than you want to believe. I'm anti-death penalty. Do away with the sentence, not the system that has to impose it. It is rather accurate when it does impose it, but that does not justify using it.

I'm always stunned how far people are willing to bend over. Juries role is justice not law and people who allow themselves to confuse the two and even embrace their system being undermined by the executive are foolish. Its clear in England that Juries determine justice, pretty sure its in the USA consitution as well.

A famous case is Clive Ponting who clearly broke the official secrets act in disclosing imformation he claimed to be in the public interest - no defense in law but an appeal to justice which succeeded. The jury was, is and should be, fully entitled to find him not guilty.

An old case which set the standard is:

The numbers have been guestimated between .5% and 8%. Do you realize how many people that is, even using the low end? Do you know how high the prison population is? It's bigger than some countries.

What is the margin of acceptable error for the justice system? Where is that written down as an established accepted rate? Citation needed.

I'm guessing you didn't even read this study. Yes, I have more, but apparently you put more weight on your own anecdotes than actual studies done on it given you dismissed this as fast as you did. Meanwhile calling everyone else ignorant. You're so full of crap you must have poop tickling your tonsils.

The fact you put so much weight on a confession alone leads people(who've studied it) to believe you don't know what you're talking about. Couple that with resistance shown towards a study detailing false confessions and its effect during trials, it's kinda obvious your bias runs deep.

And then you try to spin it saying if one is anti-death penalty that equates with anti-conviction, though, somehow, you say you're against the DP. Not sure how your mind does the workaround for that concept.

b

great post.

But it will change the fact of the number of innocent people being put to death, won't it?

Citation needed for the judicial standard for acceptable margin of error.

b

What I said:

What you said:
hmmm...


b

I would think the person on trial would think differently

[QUOTE=bernie;28887564]The numbers have been guestimated between .5% and 8%. Do you realize how many people that is, even using the low end? Do you know how high the prison population is? It's bigger than some countries.

really? You are suggesting that 8% of the 95% that plead guilty are innocent. Then 8% of the 65% of the 3% that go to trial are innocent? I do not believe

Your use of overall numbers is a distortion and to me misrepresentation of the viability and success of the system. Yeah its a big number but in context it is really small and not indicative of how well the system does work. Your suggesting that its not worth having 500,000 people legitimately incarceW have a big population, the numbers are going to be big. To me it is worth having 2500 (.5%) innocent people incarcerated if we have 500,000 legitamte criminals incarcerated.





You are the one making it sound like we should not convict any innocent person. You tell me where that lies. Should we strive to improve the number every chance we get? Hell ya, but blaming an other wise sound system based on distorted numbers is not the way to win an argument, much less abolish the death penalty. I'm anti-DP and I see right through it, so will others.

I've read the studies. Until they paint an accurate picture with out distorting the numbers in order to make the position seem worse or more dire than what it is, I'll give it more credibility. These studies shoot themselves int the foot with the clear agenda they seek to implement.

Here is the problem. Even is a confession you or anyone presume is "false", does not prove the person was not guilty or gave a "false" confession. Hardly any of the studies about false confession can convulsively say the person is innocent. It is my understanding that in most cases today a confession is not the only piece of evidence needed to obtain a conviction.

You are right about my bias, I can not understand how people "confess" to things they do not do. Some cases it does happen, but not as much as some make it out to be. Here is why....a parent can put all the pressure on a kid and he/she will not tell the truth, nor will they admit to wrong doing if they truly did not do it. Hardly scientific, hardly right in some eyes. But if a kid can hold out, what makes it so much harder for an adult who is arguably more mentally stable or better prepared? So yeah, my bias is that "false confession" happen often is bull ****.

I could be wrong and freely admit it.



No. Quit lying. It equates to no death sentence being imposed despite the prosecutor meeting the burden for such a punishment and in lieu of someone personal beliefs that differ from the law. Has nothing to do with conviction, yet the anti-DP want to use that avenue as a form of jury advocacy of the law.

The context is based on the current system we have. This would be protecting people from being dictated to that would be unjustly dictated to.

I suppose Jury nullification could go the other way (white supremacists convict anyone who is black no matter what the evidence), but it's much, much harder to convict someone incorrectly than acquit (or hang a jury) incorrectly.

A ton of innocent people plead guilty. "It will get pled down" is a forum meme for a reason. If you are innocent of a very serious crime and get offered a much lesser crime as a deal (or you offer to plead guilty to it), it's often times worth it for the innocent person.

Edit: Not worth the argument.


I wonder if more guilty people are freed or acquitted than innocent people convicted. I wonder how that balances the numbers.

And some potential jurors lie when being questioned when a jury is being empaneled.

what about cops?

I read this as 'TomCollins doesn't like the current system, so it's OK to have one person dictate what is right and what isn't'

After all, who determines who is "unjustly dictated to"? Seems like you're making some value judgment instead of letting society make it.

What point are you trying to make?

Lots and lots and lots of guilty people should be walking free if the system is working correctly when allowing for the human factor.

Society is making a judgement. I am a part of society. There is no society other than a collection of "I"s.

What makes you think it's not part of the current system.

pretty much lol @ anyone who gets called for jury duty and actually participates in sending a person to JAIL and ruining his life because he had drugs on him.

OK, I'll save this one for use for later.

Thanks for the nit. The point was what TomCollins and other ACists were arguing for.

I keep forgetting to make sure there isn't some minor triviality that people can latch onto instead of getting the main point.

wat.

The main point is jury nullification and it is part of the system