Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
So is your argument now that the death penalty, and convictions in general, are skewed based on the wealth of the defendant? If so, wouldn't that make for an even stronger argument against expedited executions?
In other words, if the poor are getting a shoddy defense, don't you think that's something that should be sorted out and reviewed before someone spends significant time in prison?
Also, the OJ case is a tough example for a number of reasons...if you're going to blame anyone for that case, you should probably start with the prosecution.
(Plus, not to get into a whole debate about OJ, but isn't there some disagreement about whether the gloves were soaked in water? Unless you have some inside info about the trial...)
What facts did I state in that manner?
|
No, that's not my argument, KSigkid. The OJ Simpson case is an example of where there wasn't 100% accuracy based on the evidence to convict him. Because of his economic status he was able to secure very expensive, smart lawyers. Whereas a poor person in the same predicament would be at the mercy of the court. I'm not telling you anything that you're not already aware of, but you must recall that the OJ Simpson trial was the very 1st trial in the history of the United States where DNA was used as a tool to exonerate him, clearly a tool that would not be available to someone poor at that time. But since that trial, a number of people on death row have been proven innocent which ties into your argument that I happen to agree with. Now, DNA in all capital crimes (if it can be acquired) is utilized in convictions. Hence, DNA now strengthens my argument (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) which can be administered without question in a very timely manner. And this goes back to what I'm debating. Again, if it's 100% accurate that the crime was committed, that person should have all rights for appeal eliminated. What would be their argument? So, I still think they should be executed immediately and taken off of the tax payer's expense.
Regardless whether the glove was soaked in water or not, it still didn't fit, and that smart, simple trick performed by OJ's lawyers wouldn't have been thought of by a public defender. So, OJ walked. I have no inside information relative to this.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but to me, your facts were based on due process, and I've already addressed that.
Hybrid Mode
