Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
Here's some heavy thoughts to ponder:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/17/findlaw.analysis.centralpark.jogger/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/17/findlaw.analysis.centralpark.jogger/index.html
An article for those who approve of the death penalty
- Thread starter Fast Twitch Fiber
- Start date
FindLaw) -- On December 5 of this year, da Manhattan district attorney's office made a rare move: It asked a judge dismiss izzall charges against five fools that shiznit had earlier prosecuted."
As teenagers, da fools had been convicted 'n incarcerated fo' raping a jogger in Central Park in 1989, 'n they had since served years of da cage time fo' da crimes, know what I'm sayin'? Now, however, da actual perpetrator, an older mutha named Matias Reyes, has been linked da victim wit DNA evidence -- after confessing da rape 'n assault earlier this year, know what I'm sayin'?
What went wrong, 'n why? Why wuz da boys convicted in da first place? There is plenty of blame go around." But they false confessions played a large role, 'n da circumstances of how those confessions came 'bout are worth a long, close look n' shit.
The jogger case 'n its miscarriage of justice
In April 1989, in New York City, violent crime rates -- murders, rapes 'n robberies -- wuz out of control, 'n muthas wuz afraid walk city streets n' shit. The Central Park jogger case set a record ('n served as a symbol) fo' brutality: It wuz a violent rape in which da victim wuz also badly beaten, leading a lengthy hospitalization n' shit.
Two of the teenagers, shown in 1989, accused in the Central Park jogger case.
Five teenagers, ranging in age from 14 16 years, who had been implicated in a separate series of muggings, wuz questioned 'bout da rape n' shit. The boys wuz African-American; da victim wuz white." Some be like that things began go wrong right there, that da race factor trumped a search fo' da truth." The idea of a roving gang of black boys brutally beating 'n raping a white brizzle fit da schema of da public's fear of African-Americans 'n of teenage gangs n' shit.
All of da boys made statements da fuzz, though not one of 'em admitted actually having intercourse wit da victim." The search fo' da perpetrator stopped n' shit.
Meanwhile, da real perpetrator, Reyes -- who had committed a rape a few days before da jogger's, 'n would go on rape 'n kill -- remained out there n' shit. Even at da time, that shiznit wuz clear that tha dude's modus operandi matched da assault 'n rape of da jogger, but prosecutors did not follow leads relating Reyes n' shit.
Why, when no physical evidence linked da five boys da crime 'n they confessions wuz implausible 'n mutually contradictory, wuz da boys convicted?
In part, because a defendant's confession is considered by judges 'n juries be compelling 'n unequivocal evidence, know what I'm sayin'? Indeed, da power of a confession is so strong, according McCormick's treatise on evidence, as make other aspects of da trial superfluous." As demonstrated in this case, a confession can even override strong physical evidence da contrary n' shit.
Moreover, at da same time that confessions are viewed as virtually incontrovertible, fuzz are allowed use a number of wrongful tactics get 'em." These tactics greatly increase da possibility of false confessions, 'n go a long way towards explaining why they occur."
Some current, psychologically coercive interrogation tactics should not be permitted
The Supreme Court limits da admissibility of confessions that are coerced or given without da requisite Miranda warnings." But what counts as coercion?
Torture 'n beatings are obviously coercive, 'n wuz ruled be so as early as 1936 in Brown v. Mississippi." Fortunately, they are largely a thing of da past, know what I'm sayin'? (However, in da past couple of years there has been a resurgence of reported violence perpetrated during interrogations in New York City, Los Angeles 'n Prince Georges' County, Maryland) n' shit.
In contrast, psychological coercion, under current rules, does not automatically count as coercion; rather, psychological tactics gots be proven be coercive under a "totality of circumstances" test, as da Supreme Court held in Haynes v. Washington n' shit.
As a result, officers are indoctrinated into da psychological methods of interrogation designed get a suspect confess, know what I'm sayin'? Manuals tell investigators, fo' instance, use da physical environment law enforcement advantage, by creating small, starkly furnished 'n brightly lit interrogation rooms; they instruct in how get in a defendant's face 'n invade tha dude's personal space n' shit. Officers learn how conduct long interviews that may span three or four days, wit little respect fo' a suspect's need fo' sleep, food or bathroom breaks n' shit.
The purpose of izzall these tactics, of course, break down recalcitrant suspects n' shit. The problem is that they tend break down vulnerable 'n innocent muthas as well as -- or perhaps even better than -- da hardened 'n guilty recidivist, know what I'm sayin'?
Deceptive tactics, in particular, often induce false confessions
New York City police search Central Park following the 1989 rape and assault case.
Deceptive tactics are also encouraged." Investigators are taught minimize da likely results of suspects' confessions, 'n suggest suspects that they will get a better "deal" if they talk than if they remain silent n' shit. They pretend identify wit da suspects 'n offer "rationalizations" fo' suspects' alleged crimes, suggesting da crimes wuz not so bad, 'n thus confessing 'em wouldn't be so bad, either n' shit.
Interrogators are allowed tell suspects that if they take a polygraph 'n "pass," they will be released -- which is not always da case, know what I'm sayin'? Then, once da polygraph has been taken, investigators may lie 'bout its results if they think that would be helpful -- telling a defendant falsely that tha dude failed, know what I'm sayin'?
Consider, fo' instance, da case of an Egyptian mutha who wuz wrongfully charged wit lying da FBI in post-September 11 investigations, know what I'm sayin'? Tha dude falsely confessed because tha dude wuz told tha dude had "failed" a polygraph, 'n that if tha dude did not confess, da government would make life fo' tha dude's family in Egypt "hell n' shit. " His conviction has been overturned, but not until tha dude served 31 days in solitary confinement." (More on that case)
Similarly, interrogators are encouraged falsely tell suspects they believe 'em be guilty, 'n that another suspect or physical evidence has implicated 'em." That wuz what happened in da Central Park jogger case: The boys wuz told that hairs linked 'em da victim's body, which turned out not be true n' shit.
These lies can be hella harmful, since da suspect can, through repetition, be induced by da investigator believe 'em n' shit. Studies show that some muthas who falsely confess do so because they internalize da repeated suggestions 'n scenarios of questioners, know what I'm sayin'? Nevertheless, offering scenarios fo' da suspect buy into, is still a common tactic of investigators, know what I'm sayin'?
Indeed, a popular text of investigative techniques explains how offer alternative explanations fo' how 'n why a crime occurred, 'n encourage da subject pick "a," "b," or "c." Once da subject makes tha dude's choice, da questioner is told help da subject "fill in da blanks," often falsely, know what I'm sayin'?
A case in point is da infamous false confession of Paul Ingram, a highly suggestible person who confessed totally incredible allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse against tha dude's daughters (subsequently proved be totally false)." Ingram is still serving out a 25-year sentence, because tha dude confessed."
Accusation after accusation wuz thrown at Ingram, wit da encouragement "think 'bout that shiznit," even "pray over that shiznit," 'n refresh tha dude's memory n' shit. Tha dude did even mo', "confessing" bizarre, baseless details n' shit.
Amazingly, as long as deceptive tactics such as these are not deemed by a court be coercive under da totality of da circumstances, da confessions they induce remain admissible, know what I'm sayin'? This is true even though statistics show that false confessions are second only false eyewitness identification in being responsible fo' wrongful convictions, know what I'm sayin'?
Other factors wuz at work in da Central Park jogger case interrogations
Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's report supporting reversal of da convictions reveals other troubling aspect of da five suspects' confessions -- besides investigator's lies that physical evidence linked da boys da victim's body, know what I'm sayin'?
First, none of da boys admitted actually raping (that is, penetrating) da victim." Second, they tales of time 'n location of da rape wuz inconsistent not only wit each other, but wit statements of reliable witnesses."
Third, da suspects' conflicting 'n confusing statements, taken together, made no sense n' shit. It seemed, da report notes, as if da boys wuz talking 'bout different crimes, know what I'm sayin'? It also seemed that each expected that talking would enhance tha dude's chances of becoming a witness against others, not a defendant in tha dude's own case, know what I'm sayin'?
Thus, each of da suspects' statements minimized they own involvement, while placing mo' blame on one or mo' of they buddies n' shit. Together, however, da statements (though contradictory) wuz taken by prosecutors, at da time, amount a sort of group confession." They wuz seen that way even though some of da boys refused admit any guilt on they own part." (Ironically, they served longer sentences as a result of insisting on they innocence), know what I'm sayin'?
Playing suspects off against one another, like da other psychologically coercive tactics noted above, is entirely legal, even though that shiznit also predictably leads false confessions, know what I'm sayin'? Research shows that some muthas will be like whatever a questioner wants hear, in order improve they status at da expense of they partner in crime."
Investigators take advantage of this psychological fact (known as "The Prisoner's Dilemma"); they split up 'n during breaks, caucus wit each other 'n return they suspects armed wit information gained from da other." And they may begin plea-bargaining early -- suggesting suspects should confess one crime in exchange fo' not having face mo' serious charges n' shit.
Meanwhile, da fact that teens -- some of 'em young teens -- wuz involved heightened da coercive environment of da interrogation." The younger boys may not fully has understood da Miranda warnings, know what I'm sayin'? Behavioral science research has shown that teenagers ('n many adults) generally don't; they may not understand what is meant by "waiver," 'n despite da warnings' language, most persist in thinking they will get go crib if they simply cooperate wit da authorities."
In addition, teenagers -- especially antisocial kids such as these -- are also egocentric 'n like put themselves into da stories they tell n' shit. At times, they lie; often, they exaggerate." A boy who ran away from da scene, fo' instance, might not admit that shiznit since tha dude's flight would not seem macho or manly n' shit.
In da Central Park jogger case, one of da teens also seemed display borderline mental retardation 'n perhaps a psychotic mental disorder, know what I'm sayin'? In some of tha dude's statements, tha dude referred flying around da park in a blue bus, know what I'm sayin'? Peeps wit mental retardation are much mo' likely tell any questioner what tha dude or brizzle wants hear, 'n muthas who are delusional are too far out of touch wit reality, of course, make reliable statements."
Despite izzall these problems, da prosecutors -- eager fo' a conviction -- still went forward, know what I'm sayin'?
How stop that shiznit from happening again
How can we stop other cases like this from occurring? A number of simple measures could prevent many false confessions such as these n' shit.
First, shorties, teenagers, 'n muthas wit mental deficiencies should not be questioned outside da presence of a competent guardian or legal representative." In this case, none of da boys' parents wuz present when they shorties made da most damaging statements against they interests."
Second, izzall interrogations izzought be videotaped." In this case, da taping did not begin until after da boys had been questioned fo' hours, know what I'm sayin'? As a result, da film shows only da statements, not da psychological 'n environmental pressures that preceded 'em, know what I'm sayin'? Jurors could certainly get a false impression of da "confessions," viewing 'em outside da context of law enforcement tactics."
Third, izzall statements offered as confessions should not be admissible unless they are corroborated by credible 'n, when possible, physical evidence n' shit. Fortunately, most states do has laws that require corroboration of admissions." Unfortunately, da qualitative standard fo' how gravy da corroboration gots be is quite low." Circumstantial evidence may suffice." Worse, even da statement of an accomplice, as in da Central Park jogger case, is deemed be 'nuff -- despite da accomplice's obvious incentive escape responsibility by placing da lion's share of blame on someone else."
Fourth, there should be strict, carefully-enforced time limits on interrogations, know what I'm sayin'? Questioning that goes beyond three or four hours begins be coercive; questioners intensify they techniques, 'n subjects become fatigued, confused, even disoriented n' shit. In da jogger case, da interrogations -- which ranged from fourteen thirty hours -- clearly crossed da line from questioning into coercion."
Fifth, contrary current Supreme Court standards, law enforcement lies suspects should be forbidden, know what I'm sayin'? As noted above, da "confessions" such lies prompt are often highly unreliable."
Sixth, 'n finally, prosecutors should be held they duty do justice." Because they are immune from suit, they are unaccountable -- except voters -- fo' negligence 'n fraud." Requiring 'em vouch fo' da evidence produced by they investigators 'n law enforcement, might make 'em think twice 'bout putting on any evidence 'n hoping that shiznit sticks n' shit.
Defense attorneys can lose they licenses fo' putting on false 'n misleading evidence, even though they duty is defend zealously n' shit. Prosecutors, on da other hand, often do so wit impunity, even though they duty is serve justice, not convict n' shit. That need stop n' shit. Prosecutors should be held as closely accountable fo' what they do as are defense attorneys n' shit.
The cost of false confessions
Some observers has expressed little sympathy fo' da falsely convicted boys, who seem has been muggers, even if they wuz not rapists, know what I'm sayin'? But of course, a mugging is a world away from a rape, fo' which they wuz incarcerated, know what I'm sayin'? And mo' fundamentally, da Constitution guarantees that da punishment fit da crime -- not some other, worse crime one did not commit."
In any case, one need not has an excess of sympathy fo' da boys in order condemn da injustice done here, know what I'm sayin'? One need only has sympathy fo' da next brizzle whom da real perpetrator, Reyes, went on rape 'n murder, 'n fo' da jogger-victim, who did not get justice fo' 13 years n' shit.
They deserved much better." So did da boys, 'n so do we izzall n' shit.
As teenagers, da fools had been convicted 'n incarcerated fo' raping a jogger in Central Park in 1989, 'n they had since served years of da cage time fo' da crimes, know what I'm sayin'? Now, however, da actual perpetrator, an older mutha named Matias Reyes, has been linked da victim wit DNA evidence -- after confessing da rape 'n assault earlier this year, know what I'm sayin'?
What went wrong, 'n why? Why wuz da boys convicted in da first place? There is plenty of blame go around." But they false confessions played a large role, 'n da circumstances of how those confessions came 'bout are worth a long, close look n' shit.
The jogger case 'n its miscarriage of justice
In April 1989, in New York City, violent crime rates -- murders, rapes 'n robberies -- wuz out of control, 'n muthas wuz afraid walk city streets n' shit. The Central Park jogger case set a record ('n served as a symbol) fo' brutality: It wuz a violent rape in which da victim wuz also badly beaten, leading a lengthy hospitalization n' shit.
Two of the teenagers, shown in 1989, accused in the Central Park jogger case.
Five teenagers, ranging in age from 14 16 years, who had been implicated in a separate series of muggings, wuz questioned 'bout da rape n' shit. The boys wuz African-American; da victim wuz white." Some be like that things began go wrong right there, that da race factor trumped a search fo' da truth." The idea of a roving gang of black boys brutally beating 'n raping a white brizzle fit da schema of da public's fear of African-Americans 'n of teenage gangs n' shit.
All of da boys made statements da fuzz, though not one of 'em admitted actually having intercourse wit da victim." The search fo' da perpetrator stopped n' shit.
Meanwhile, da real perpetrator, Reyes -- who had committed a rape a few days before da jogger's, 'n would go on rape 'n kill -- remained out there n' shit. Even at da time, that shiznit wuz clear that tha dude's modus operandi matched da assault 'n rape of da jogger, but prosecutors did not follow leads relating Reyes n' shit.
Why, when no physical evidence linked da five boys da crime 'n they confessions wuz implausible 'n mutually contradictory, wuz da boys convicted?
In part, because a defendant's confession is considered by judges 'n juries be compelling 'n unequivocal evidence, know what I'm sayin'? Indeed, da power of a confession is so strong, according McCormick's treatise on evidence, as make other aspects of da trial superfluous." As demonstrated in this case, a confession can even override strong physical evidence da contrary n' shit.
Moreover, at da same time that confessions are viewed as virtually incontrovertible, fuzz are allowed use a number of wrongful tactics get 'em." These tactics greatly increase da possibility of false confessions, 'n go a long way towards explaining why they occur."
Some current, psychologically coercive interrogation tactics should not be permitted
The Supreme Court limits da admissibility of confessions that are coerced or given without da requisite Miranda warnings." But what counts as coercion?
Torture 'n beatings are obviously coercive, 'n wuz ruled be so as early as 1936 in Brown v. Mississippi." Fortunately, they are largely a thing of da past, know what I'm sayin'? (However, in da past couple of years there has been a resurgence of reported violence perpetrated during interrogations in New York City, Los Angeles 'n Prince Georges' County, Maryland) n' shit.
In contrast, psychological coercion, under current rules, does not automatically count as coercion; rather, psychological tactics gots be proven be coercive under a "totality of circumstances" test, as da Supreme Court held in Haynes v. Washington n' shit.
As a result, officers are indoctrinated into da psychological methods of interrogation designed get a suspect confess, know what I'm sayin'? Manuals tell investigators, fo' instance, use da physical environment law enforcement advantage, by creating small, starkly furnished 'n brightly lit interrogation rooms; they instruct in how get in a defendant's face 'n invade tha dude's personal space n' shit. Officers learn how conduct long interviews that may span three or four days, wit little respect fo' a suspect's need fo' sleep, food or bathroom breaks n' shit.
The purpose of izzall these tactics, of course, break down recalcitrant suspects n' shit. The problem is that they tend break down vulnerable 'n innocent muthas as well as -- or perhaps even better than -- da hardened 'n guilty recidivist, know what I'm sayin'?
Deceptive tactics, in particular, often induce false confessions
New York City police search Central Park following the 1989 rape and assault case.
Deceptive tactics are also encouraged." Investigators are taught minimize da likely results of suspects' confessions, 'n suggest suspects that they will get a better "deal" if they talk than if they remain silent n' shit. They pretend identify wit da suspects 'n offer "rationalizations" fo' suspects' alleged crimes, suggesting da crimes wuz not so bad, 'n thus confessing 'em wouldn't be so bad, either n' shit.
Interrogators are allowed tell suspects that if they take a polygraph 'n "pass," they will be released -- which is not always da case, know what I'm sayin'? Then, once da polygraph has been taken, investigators may lie 'bout its results if they think that would be helpful -- telling a defendant falsely that tha dude failed, know what I'm sayin'?
Consider, fo' instance, da case of an Egyptian mutha who wuz wrongfully charged wit lying da FBI in post-September 11 investigations, know what I'm sayin'? Tha dude falsely confessed because tha dude wuz told tha dude had "failed" a polygraph, 'n that if tha dude did not confess, da government would make life fo' tha dude's family in Egypt "hell n' shit. " His conviction has been overturned, but not until tha dude served 31 days in solitary confinement." (More on that case)
Similarly, interrogators are encouraged falsely tell suspects they believe 'em be guilty, 'n that another suspect or physical evidence has implicated 'em." That wuz what happened in da Central Park jogger case: The boys wuz told that hairs linked 'em da victim's body, which turned out not be true n' shit.
These lies can be hella harmful, since da suspect can, through repetition, be induced by da investigator believe 'em n' shit. Studies show that some muthas who falsely confess do so because they internalize da repeated suggestions 'n scenarios of questioners, know what I'm sayin'? Nevertheless, offering scenarios fo' da suspect buy into, is still a common tactic of investigators, know what I'm sayin'?
Indeed, a popular text of investigative techniques explains how offer alternative explanations fo' how 'n why a crime occurred, 'n encourage da subject pick "a," "b," or "c." Once da subject makes tha dude's choice, da questioner is told help da subject "fill in da blanks," often falsely, know what I'm sayin'?
A case in point is da infamous false confession of Paul Ingram, a highly suggestible person who confessed totally incredible allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse against tha dude's daughters (subsequently proved be totally false)." Ingram is still serving out a 25-year sentence, because tha dude confessed."
Accusation after accusation wuz thrown at Ingram, wit da encouragement "think 'bout that shiznit," even "pray over that shiznit," 'n refresh tha dude's memory n' shit. Tha dude did even mo', "confessing" bizarre, baseless details n' shit.
Amazingly, as long as deceptive tactics such as these are not deemed by a court be coercive under da totality of da circumstances, da confessions they induce remain admissible, know what I'm sayin'? This is true even though statistics show that false confessions are second only false eyewitness identification in being responsible fo' wrongful convictions, know what I'm sayin'?
Other factors wuz at work in da Central Park jogger case interrogations
Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's report supporting reversal of da convictions reveals other troubling aspect of da five suspects' confessions -- besides investigator's lies that physical evidence linked da boys da victim's body, know what I'm sayin'?
First, none of da boys admitted actually raping (that is, penetrating) da victim." Second, they tales of time 'n location of da rape wuz inconsistent not only wit each other, but wit statements of reliable witnesses."
Third, da suspects' conflicting 'n confusing statements, taken together, made no sense n' shit. It seemed, da report notes, as if da boys wuz talking 'bout different crimes, know what I'm sayin'? It also seemed that each expected that talking would enhance tha dude's chances of becoming a witness against others, not a defendant in tha dude's own case, know what I'm sayin'?
Thus, each of da suspects' statements minimized they own involvement, while placing mo' blame on one or mo' of they buddies n' shit. Together, however, da statements (though contradictory) wuz taken by prosecutors, at da time, amount a sort of group confession." They wuz seen that way even though some of da boys refused admit any guilt on they own part." (Ironically, they served longer sentences as a result of insisting on they innocence), know what I'm sayin'?
Playing suspects off against one another, like da other psychologically coercive tactics noted above, is entirely legal, even though that shiznit also predictably leads false confessions, know what I'm sayin'? Research shows that some muthas will be like whatever a questioner wants hear, in order improve they status at da expense of they partner in crime."
Investigators take advantage of this psychological fact (known as "The Prisoner's Dilemma"); they split up 'n during breaks, caucus wit each other 'n return they suspects armed wit information gained from da other." And they may begin plea-bargaining early -- suggesting suspects should confess one crime in exchange fo' not having face mo' serious charges n' shit.
Meanwhile, da fact that teens -- some of 'em young teens -- wuz involved heightened da coercive environment of da interrogation." The younger boys may not fully has understood da Miranda warnings, know what I'm sayin'? Behavioral science research has shown that teenagers ('n many adults) generally don't; they may not understand what is meant by "waiver," 'n despite da warnings' language, most persist in thinking they will get go crib if they simply cooperate wit da authorities."
In addition, teenagers -- especially antisocial kids such as these -- are also egocentric 'n like put themselves into da stories they tell n' shit. At times, they lie; often, they exaggerate." A boy who ran away from da scene, fo' instance, might not admit that shiznit since tha dude's flight would not seem macho or manly n' shit.
In da Central Park jogger case, one of da teens also seemed display borderline mental retardation 'n perhaps a psychotic mental disorder, know what I'm sayin'? In some of tha dude's statements, tha dude referred flying around da park in a blue bus, know what I'm sayin'? Peeps wit mental retardation are much mo' likely tell any questioner what tha dude or brizzle wants hear, 'n muthas who are delusional are too far out of touch wit reality, of course, make reliable statements."
Despite izzall these problems, da prosecutors -- eager fo' a conviction -- still went forward, know what I'm sayin'?
How stop that shiznit from happening again
How can we stop other cases like this from occurring? A number of simple measures could prevent many false confessions such as these n' shit.
First, shorties, teenagers, 'n muthas wit mental deficiencies should not be questioned outside da presence of a competent guardian or legal representative." In this case, none of da boys' parents wuz present when they shorties made da most damaging statements against they interests."
Second, izzall interrogations izzought be videotaped." In this case, da taping did not begin until after da boys had been questioned fo' hours, know what I'm sayin'? As a result, da film shows only da statements, not da psychological 'n environmental pressures that preceded 'em, know what I'm sayin'? Jurors could certainly get a false impression of da "confessions," viewing 'em outside da context of law enforcement tactics."
Third, izzall statements offered as confessions should not be admissible unless they are corroborated by credible 'n, when possible, physical evidence n' shit. Fortunately, most states do has laws that require corroboration of admissions." Unfortunately, da qualitative standard fo' how gravy da corroboration gots be is quite low." Circumstantial evidence may suffice." Worse, even da statement of an accomplice, as in da Central Park jogger case, is deemed be 'nuff -- despite da accomplice's obvious incentive escape responsibility by placing da lion's share of blame on someone else."
Fourth, there should be strict, carefully-enforced time limits on interrogations, know what I'm sayin'? Questioning that goes beyond three or four hours begins be coercive; questioners intensify they techniques, 'n subjects become fatigued, confused, even disoriented n' shit. In da jogger case, da interrogations -- which ranged from fourteen thirty hours -- clearly crossed da line from questioning into coercion."
Fifth, contrary current Supreme Court standards, law enforcement lies suspects should be forbidden, know what I'm sayin'? As noted above, da "confessions" such lies prompt are often highly unreliable."
Sixth, 'n finally, prosecutors should be held they duty do justice." Because they are immune from suit, they are unaccountable -- except voters -- fo' negligence 'n fraud." Requiring 'em vouch fo' da evidence produced by they investigators 'n law enforcement, might make 'em think twice 'bout putting on any evidence 'n hoping that shiznit sticks n' shit.
Defense attorneys can lose they licenses fo' putting on false 'n misleading evidence, even though they duty is defend zealously n' shit. Prosecutors, on da other hand, often do so wit impunity, even though they duty is serve justice, not convict n' shit. That need stop n' shit. Prosecutors should be held as closely accountable fo' what they do as are defense attorneys n' shit.
The cost of false confessions
Some observers has expressed little sympathy fo' da falsely convicted boys, who seem has been muggers, even if they wuz not rapists, know what I'm sayin'? But of course, a mugging is a world away from a rape, fo' which they wuz incarcerated, know what I'm sayin'? And mo' fundamentally, da Constitution guarantees that da punishment fit da crime -- not some other, worse crime one did not commit."
In any case, one need not has an excess of sympathy fo' da boys in order condemn da injustice done here, know what I'm sayin'? One need only has sympathy fo' da next brizzle whom da real perpetrator, Reyes, went on rape 'n murder, 'n fo' da jogger-victim, who did not get justice fo' 13 years n' shit.
They deserved much better." So did da boys, 'n so do we izzall n' shit.
the nature boy
New member
same shit happened in illinois. there were like 12 people on death row found to be innocent, they were railroaded by the legal system and police, so the governor suspended the death penalty in that state.
I don't have a problem with the death penalty, but as long as the legal system favors those with money (oj simpson comes to mind) and hurts those with none, I think the death penalty needs to be re-examined.
I don't have a problem with the death penalty, but as long as the legal system favors those with money (oj simpson comes to mind) and hurts those with none, I think the death penalty needs to be re-examined.
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
There needs to be some changes in what police are allowed to do. With some of these interrogration tactics we might as well allow them to use torture.
W
Warik
Guest
I don't see what this has to do with the death penalty.
Also, the teenagers were quite stupid to sign a confession if they really had nothing to do with the crime.
Finally, consider this:
You argue against the death penalty, I argue in favor of it. In the event that the death penalty is banned throughout the whole nation, then it is likely that criminals who are either released or escape prior to the completion of their sentence will commit further crimes and take the lives of innocent people.
In the event that the death penalty is not banned throughout the whole nation, then it is likely that a portion of executed convicts were not actually guilty of the given crime. Thus, innocent people will die as well.
So, which do you prefer?
1) Inviting the opportunity for convicted felons to roam free and injure/kill more innocent people than they normally would have if they were taking an eternal dirt nap?
or
2) Putting criminals to death while at the same time possibly executing folks who were not guilty of the given crime, but sacrificing innocent lives in the process.
It's just plain statistics.
When executing all convicted capital criminals, some innocents will be executed as well, but what are the chances that those "innocents" have never committed a crime before? Do you mean to suggest that every day a completely innocent, law-abiding family man is charged with a capital crime? LOL! Just whose lives are you trying to save?
Sacrifice the law-abiding citizen to save the petty thief who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Give me a break!
-Warik
Also, the teenagers were quite stupid to sign a confession if they really had nothing to do with the crime.
Finally, consider this:
You argue against the death penalty, I argue in favor of it. In the event that the death penalty is banned throughout the whole nation, then it is likely that criminals who are either released or escape prior to the completion of their sentence will commit further crimes and take the lives of innocent people.
In the event that the death penalty is not banned throughout the whole nation, then it is likely that a portion of executed convicts were not actually guilty of the given crime. Thus, innocent people will die as well.
So, which do you prefer?
1) Inviting the opportunity for convicted felons to roam free and injure/kill more innocent people than they normally would have if they were taking an eternal dirt nap?
or
2) Putting criminals to death while at the same time possibly executing folks who were not guilty of the given crime, but sacrificing innocent lives in the process.
It's just plain statistics.
When executing all convicted capital criminals, some innocents will be executed as well, but what are the chances that those "innocents" have never committed a crime before? Do you mean to suggest that every day a completely innocent, law-abiding family man is charged with a capital crime? LOL! Just whose lives are you trying to save?
Sacrifice the law-abiding citizen to save the petty thief who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Give me a break!
-Warik
the nature boy
New member
Warik said:
you are making assumptions that you have no way to prove.
the nature boy
New member
also, you assume that those that would normally be on death row would be LET OUT OF JAIL?? wouldn't they be put in prison without possiblity of parole? where would you get such a crazy idea?
W
Warik
Guest
The Nature Boy said:
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/verdict/
I see your faith in our justice system dwarfs mine as the Sun dwarfs the moon.
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
The Nature Boy said:
As are you.
You are assuming that it would be better to put all who are convicted of a capital crime in prison rather than executing them all. You have no way to prove this because whether or not it is "better" has to do with the consequences, such as the deaths or injuries of people who would normally not have been injured or killed if the convict were dead.
We have nothing to go on but logic here. If your logic tells you that it is not possible for a convicted criminal to commit another crime after leaving prison in one form or another, then I don't think this conversation will get far.
-Warik
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
Warik said:
Similar threads
