Research all you want. Here are a few more to research:

Willie Darden (Florida): Darden was convicted of the murder of a store owner during an attempted robbery. Alibi evidence later surfaced from two independent witnesses came to light in 1986. The witness stated that Darden could not have committed the murder. State and federal rules governing the discovery of newly discovered evidence following trial, however, prevented the evidence from ever being addressed in any court. Even before this new evidence emerged, the U.S. Supreme Court was bitterly divided over the case and upheld the conviction by a narrow five to four majority. The dissenting justices criticized the majority for being "willing to tolerate a level of fairness and reliability so low it should make conscientious prosecutors cringe." Darden was executed on March 15, 1988.

David Spence (Texas): Spence, the prosecution argued, committed triple murder at the direction of Muneer Deeb, who the state claimed was a drug dealer. Deeb allegedly wanted several people dead and then presented evidence that linked the targets of the murder for hire to Deeb. The prosecution than argued that Spence killed the wrong people because he mistook them for the intended target. Someone other than Spence, Terry Harper, confessed to the crime on four separate occasions to four separate people including at least twice prior to the bodies being found. [fn 2] Under Texas evidentiary law at the time of trial the confession of a person not charged with the crime for which the accused is inadmissible and therefore the prosecution did not have to turn over the evidence. Following the trial, many, if not most, of the prosecution's jailhouse informants came forwarded and admitted either perjuring themselves or receiving some form of restitution for their testimony. Deeb, the person who supposedly hired Spence to do the killing, had his capital conviction reversed on appeal unrelated to innocence. At Deeb's new trial much of the evidence unearthed by Spence's legal team was used to obtain Deeb an exoneration. Spence was the -- execution under then Governor Bush. For more details see Bob Herbert's articles in the New York Times , as well as HBO's The Execution machine.

James Adams (Florida) Adams was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and executed in 1984. A witness who identified Adams as driving the car away from the victim's home shortly after the crime was later discovered that this witness was angry with Adams for allegedly dating his wife. A second witness heard a voice inside the victim's home at the time of the crime and saw someone fleeing. He stated this voice was a woman's; the day after the crime he stated that the fleeing person was positively not Adams. More importantly, a hair sample found clutched in the victim's hand, which in all likelihood had come from the assailant, did not mach Adams' hair. Much of this exculpatory information was not discovered until a skilled investigator a month before Adams' execution examined the case.

__________________
lambaste me not

add my .02 worth.

I am in favor of the death penalty. I see it not as vengeance, or a ballast, but rather as a reconciliation for actions. I for one don't think it is right for someone who is convicted of 1st degree murder, to be able to live out their life, at the victims's and other tax payers expense. I realize it costs more to carry out a death sentence, but as I see it, it offers the victim's family and friends closure. If a convicted murderer is sentenced to life, then every time the criminal goes before the parole board, the victim's family and friends have to re-live the entire experience again. It just doesn't seem right that a murderer should be able to watch T.V., read letters, and visits from family and friends. Where is it written that one person's life is worth more than another, why is it that the murderer's life is deemed more valuable than that of their victim(s). I also think that there is some level of deterrence associated with the possibility of a death sentence.

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.

I have no problem with this reasoning. My concerns to not have much to do with the health and well being of people who murder other people. It has to do with the health and well being of people who do not.

I don't mean to sound callous, but so what? Laws should not be made or changed to make people feel good. I am sorry people have to suffer in the world, but this is about justice, not catering to people's emotional wellness. People innocently being put to death by their government is not just. I don't hear people talking about the emotional well being of their families.

You want to carry out the ultimate sentence, but do not want to hold it up to the ultimate charge of proof: beyond all doubt, not just a reasonable one.

__________________
lambaste me not

Whatever happened to killing is simply a bad thing, no matter who does it?

Eh, that died after the 70's.

I don't think that was ever totally en vogue. That is a modern trapping.

__________________
lambaste me not

I randomly chose David Spence: This is a great example of what I mean when I refer to biased sources. First of all, receiving a plea does not mean someone lied. Several inmates admitted to being accomplices in order to be spared the death penalty. They are all serving life terms for admitting guilt. How many inmates would lie and admit guilt to spend the rest of their life in jail?

Spence was also considered to be a violent and vicious human being. He was convicted of various assaults and attempted murder througout his life. No less than a dozen people who knew him personally testified as to his vicious nature over many years. There was also an expert who testified that the bite marks on one body matched Spence.

Next I chose The above completely leaves out several points. One being that Tafero had a lengthy criminal record and had served time in jail for assault and armed bank robbery. At the time that the trooper was killed they were in the middle of a large drug smuggling deal (large enough that they could have had a "normal life" afterwards according to his then wife). The person who testified against him and was also involved was a previous cellmate. The only question was whether or not Tafero was the one who shot the officer or whether it was Rhodes. Tests showed that at the very least he handled the gun which had been used to kill the officer (being involved in the commision of a crime resulting in death is enough to get the death penalty). After they killed the cop they took his car and fled. Tafero was seen in the car and later they ditched it, stole another car and were caught in that car at a roadblock.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Please expound on this point. I want to be clear about your stance.

Where is the justice in allowing the person that committed murderer, live out their life? The scales of justice should be balanced. Taking away someone's freedom of movement is not equal to taking someone's life. Additionally, the convicted murderer is being supported by the victim's tax dollars.
This leads into a debate about what is reasonable and what is not. ALL doubt in some cases would be asinine to consider. An argument could be made in all cases that would create some form of doubt. The line needs to be drawn at some point.
I am certainly not saying that the system is flawless, and is not in need of a long over due re-structure. However, I do think that the system is bogged down by countless appeals, based on loopholes and technicalities, by justly convicted criminals. I am also not saying that there is no need for an appeals process either, as it is a very important part of the checks and balances system for the justice system, however it too needs re-vamping.

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.

Interesting.

"David Spence was executed in Texas on April 3 for the murder of two teenagers. N.Y. Times columnist Bob Herbert investigated his case and concluded: "Mr. Spence was almost certainly innocent." Marvin Horton, the police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of the crime, stated: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." And Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who investigated the murders, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." The case against Spence relied mainly on prison inmates who were given generous favors in return for their testimony. "

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=45&did=541

The original police homicide investigator, Ramon Salinas, acknowledged in the appeals process that he had serious doubts about Mr. Spence's guilt. In a sworn deposition given to Mr. Spence's lawyers in 1993, Marvin Horton, a former Waco police lieutenant who was involved in the case, said, "I do not think David Spence committed this offense."
http://www.crimelynx.com/nytexec.html

You even have the investigating officer claiming he was innocent according to the NY Times. Hmmmmm...

First of all, simply because he had a lengthly criminal record does not mean he committed these murders.

Here are some salient issues that I welcome you to challenge:

"Jesse Tafero was convicted and sentenced to death largely on the testimony of one co-defendant, Walter Rhodes, who named Tafero as the shooter. · In exchange for his testimony, Rhodes was allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder, and avoid the death penalty. · The prosecutor justified Rhodes's plea bargain based on a polygraph test he alleged Rhodes had passed. · The summary of Rhodes's polygraph test was withheld from the defense by the state. · In a legal challenge by Tafero's other co-defendant, Sonia Jacobs, a federal appeals court found that withholding the polygraph test was unconstitutional. · Rhodes recanted his testimony on three separate occasions – in 1977, 1979, and 1982 – stating that he, not Tafero, shot the policemen. Ultimately, Rhodes reverted to his original testimony."

Rhodes confessed. This is widely known by anyone familiar with the case either pro or anti capital punishment.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=45&did=541

__________________
lambaste me not

I am against the death penalty due to recent revelations about the inaccuracy of the American justice system, not because I think killing is murder by default.

The justice lies in not killing people who are innocent in order to get the ones who are guilty.

Exactly. Unless there is no doubt, there should be no death. No ultimate proof, no ultimate punishment.

I do not believe that such a flawed system as you described has any business exacting punishments which cannot be reversed.

__________________
lambaste me not