To: Bill who wrote (462 ) 7/19/2000 10:20:39 PM From: markaerwin Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1013 I think it was the Indiana or Illinios Gov that just recently placed a hold on any further executions due to the fact that most of the prisoners on death row in his state were, in fact, exonerated due to new DNA evidence. Now, I'm a proud Texan, but I'm humble enough to realize that given the great number of people that we have executed, at least some of them are probably innocent of the crime. It's possible that they are all, in fact guilty, but I find it unlikely. Do you REALLY believe ALL of them are guilty? Think about it. Really, how wild IS that statement? I think it's pretty out there. It's our old, dark friend, denial - IMO. What is really disturbing is the certainty statement itself, however, and the willingness of people to accept it. I do not appreciate speaking to obvious unknowns as if there is knowledge, for a fact, of the truth. Although it may be difficult for politicians to be humble, I expect it of them like I expect it from anyone else. Just as in the case of abortion, I may believe that life begins at conception (which I do), but I don't KNOW for sure, and since I don't know, I'm not shoving it down anyone's throat. I'll do my part by encouraging adoption (I'm adopted myself), but I ain't gonna tell someone what they haveta do cause I don't know - and neither does anyone else. I'll leave that decision to the people closest to the situation (in my view, the mother _and_ the father). I can't imagine the pain of such a decision - but I expect it is grueling and nightmarish. People that pretend to know "for sure" are fooling themselves, but they ain't foolin me. I'm old enough to know neither I nor they know everything. It makes for a comfortable lullaby for children - but we aren't children. It's like pretending to know for sure that Qualcomm stock is gonna hit 1000 by the end of the year. Yeah, right. The smart investor knows that he doesn't know. "Look, Bush knows that not a single person executed in the past 50 years in this country has been exonerated of his crime." I'm very interested in this statement, and it's origins. Could you provide the source, please? You're right, in fact, those people were found guilty by a jury. But, the system is flawed. Additionally, appeals do not question matters of "fact". Appeals question matters of "law" only. I'm not saying I know how to fix it all - I don't. But, I think we should admit to ourselves the flaws that obviously exist, and at least attempt to reconcile them. At the very least, I expect free DNA tests to be available to all such cases. I expect politicians have the courage to make available to juries life without parole. I expect we make damned sure the person gets good representation (no lawyers sleeping in court). I expect the system to be as free of political pressure as possible (that means no more elected judges). I expect people of all classes and race to be treated similarly. This is not the case, and we are doing nothing that I know of to correct it. Instead, we argue about wether or not we support it or dont in absolute terms - we completely ignore the other sides points. We've made our decisions, but we haven't implemented them correctly or fully. If we are going to do it, let's do it right, for christ's sake. In reality, I do support the death penalty in one case. The murder of a police officer. I support it for this reason: when an officer is going to arrest someone for a crime of which a severe sentence is possible (first degree felonies, for instance), society must do everything to deter the perpetrator from killing the officer. Otherwise, the criminal can say to himself "well, heck, I'm going to jail for the rest of my life anyway, I might as well whack off this officer". This concept is actually very close to the current legal view (murder while committing another felony). This particular argument also tends to support itself exclusively. Thanks again for the welcome! I was expecting a torrent of angry responses. So, this is a welcome surprise. -Mark