Still think Texas has never executed anyone who was innocent?

Hey, no one else will answer, so we'll try you: How many innocent people do you think is an acceptable number to execute to ensure that 100 guilty men are executed?

You can say whatever you like, other than zero. You say innocent people have been executed, but you also say capital punishment works. So obviously part of the proper functioning of the capital punishment system is the execution of innocents.

 

I didn't say the execution of innocents is part of the proper functioning of the capital punishment system. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I do think the system works, even though innocent people have been executed. You want to tell me a system anywhere that doesn't have its flaws?
I'm not trying to minimize here, just saying there are mistakes made, but on the whole, I think it works. As for your number, I'm not going to answer because as I said, you're putting words in my mouth that were never there.

 

I think you make the most important point - there is not one system that is flawless and/or perfect but our system is usually pretty good.

 

I am making these numbers up, because the research is awfully squirrelly, but suppose one execution saves, say, 4 innocent lives (i.e., people who would have been murdered otherwise). That means that for every 100 executions there are 400 innocent lives spared. If you find that your unjustly executed rate is 1% and stop executing murder convicts as a result, what do you tell those 400 people who are now dead?

 

So let me get this straight - you really believe the reason OJ was found not guilty is that the jury was mostly black people and they won't convict one of their own?

 

Bam! Or as we say in the Army, "Hooah!" You're exactly right.

 

I thought it was the glove.

 

Or that people had no idea what DNA was at the time.

 

No. I believe that in that specific case, the mostly black jury was eager to acquit a rich black man being charged by white establishment.

 

I see - so the system of juries that you are decrying did not work?

Or maybe, just maybe, the jury new thought a man was "likely" guilty but based on a horrible prosecution, based on corrupt cops getting caught planting some evidence and lying, based on the fact that the judge let people run all over the place they understood that "likely" does not equal "beyond a reasonable doubt" and thus had to bring back a verdict of not guilty.

In other words, maybe, just maybe, they did their job and got it right, which would seem to indicate that juries aren't as dumb or wrong as you and others whining about innocent people being executed would like to believe......

 

Nope. Juries are still dumb and they come to the wrong conclusion a lot.

 

Boy, for a bunch of people who think the death penalty's just fine, you all sure get defensive when asked for a specific number.

"You wanna make an omelette, you gotta crack a few eggs."

"How many eggs?"

"I LIKE OMELETTES WHY DO YOU HATE OMELETTES?"