Quote:
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief
Eye witnesses are the worst evidence as peoples memory is faulty. DNA is good but needs to be done by an independent DNA analysis firm. State crime labs have been found to be biased if not totally corrupt. Video is good but that is a rarity.
Your thirty days system is also really bad. If the prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence, what happens when the state executes an innocent person? There is a reason for the Innocence Project. The prosecutor isn't liable thanks to immunity, the cops aren't liable thanks to immunity, the state is and that is money coming from the taxpayers.
The fact that you are okay with executing innocent people, studies have shown probably about 4% of people on death row are innocent, including people who were innocent that were executed like Cameron Todd Willingham, Joesph Roger O'Dell III in which the state had evidence destroyed that probably would of proved him innocent, and Johnny Garrett which DNA evidence proved was innocent.
So we can't trust the justice system to be competent much less uncorrupt, we know innocent people have been executed, the prosecutors and police are not held liable when they railroad people, and you want to make the process of execution quicker?
What reality are you living in that makes that moral?
|
I said credible eyewitnesses. Not someone who saw something in a dark alley or from 500 yards away. An eye witness like in the Carr brothers case is what I was talking about. You know, where there is a 0% chance that they are identifying the wrong person.
I'm fine with DNA analysis being done by an independent firm and both the prosecution and defense are only allowed to use that firms findings. That sounds reasonable.
The fact remains that there are many cases where the person's guilt is not in question, but they are allowed to appeal for years over trivial things just to stay alive. In these cases, where guilt is not in question, there should be no appeals allowed and death should be quick.