So just how does one fight for that?Well, xxxrayted, I am sure if a loved one of yours is ever on death row for a murder he did not commit then I am sure that it wouldn't matter whether there were many innocent people wrongly convicted or just your loved one. Do not believe it cannot happen. If you check out some of these stories of the innocent then you will find that none of them every believed this could happen to them.
You believe in executing ones with irrefutable evidence against them, you say. Well, how do you determine who those are when there are those that have been on death row that were innocent?
If we would hold prosecutors more responsible as I have stated earlier we might not have as many innocent people sitting on death row. If they were not withholding evidence and fighting to keep evidence from being tested then maybe our system could be improved. We have a person on death row now in Texas that the prosecutor is fighting to keep the evidence from being tested and his reason is that the defending attorney could have had the evidence tested at time of trial. Well, should this person die because he had an unqualified attorney?
Newer technology limits our ability to make mistakes you say--but is it often not being tested because of the fight against it by the prosecuting attorney? Also, what about the cases where there is no DNA evidence?
You tell me to find a better system. Well, I have just told you one way to improve the one we have. If you want to fight for something then why don't you fight for that?
I'm assuming that if it were possible to make any and all evidence admissible, you would then be okay with the death penalty?
For every one person that has a loved one wrongly convicted of murder, there are at least a thousand people that have to console a person that lost a loved one to a murder.
Ever watch those forensic science shows they usually run on Sunday's? Very interesting. What's more interesting is how much evidence they have to collect in order to get any kind of trial for a suspect.
Irrefutable evidence? I would say video tape is pretty irrefutable. Testing the material inside a suspects car and finding blood or hair that matches the victim is pretty irrefutable. Or testing a suspects home for verifiable evidence is pretty irrefutable. For home invasions, getting prints of the suspects shoe is pretty irrefutable. Same goes for fingerprints or DNA of hair samples in the home or on the windows where the suspect entered the home.
These are just at the top of my head. Again, those forensic shows.
I remember one show they had. The body of the victim was found wrapped up in a plastic trash bag. What they found is that each box of trash bags has it's own lot number. Under a microscope, no two lots are the same because they each have their own set of stretch marks because of the way they are made. They are like fingerprints. They got a warrant to search for trash bags inside of the suspects home, and the box they took from the suspects home had the exact same markings on it as the bag the victim was wrapped up in. Yep, irrefutable if you ask me.