None of those menâ€˜s innocence has been conclusively proven, and you throwing their names out there doesnâ€™t prove anything.
Try reading the post again. At least one has been. And likewise I could say you'd be wasting your time trying to convince me that they aren't innocent. That's the problem with the system, when people get fucked by the system, it gets covered up, ignored, and nobody takes responsibility. Not a very good position to take.
and especially why would you sully that list by including a certified scumbag like Gary Graham?
Because his other crimes are irrelevant and there are a number of things wrong with his case. Besides the obvious racial issues, if he had been convicted today, he would not have gotten the death penalty. By today's standards, his execution would be deemed unconstitutional as he was still a minor when convicted. There is also the way in which the police handled the case. With their "key witness" they first took a record of her vocal description of the suspect and then presented her with images of six men, only one of which actually fit that description and only one of which was a suspect. That's not standard procedure, not now or then. When she did the face-to-face, it was the same drill. When other witnesses were questioned in the standard procedure, they were unable to identify Graham as the killer. The judge let this slide and accepted the testimony from the "only witness" who supposedly saw the suspect commit the crime. This was the ONLY EVIDENCE used against him. There was no physical evidence to prove he was the killer, no confession, and the court did not take into consideration that witness testimony was conflicting at best. That's just to name a few.
If there's something wrong with your appeals process, you fix it, but perfection is not achievable and is an unacceptable standard for anything.
Except the problem is not limited to the appeals process. It is a problem every step of the way. The goal is to prove without a shadow of a doubt that someone committed a crime, not to say, well, maybe he did it, so we should kill him. Unfortunatley, that's the way our system works a disturbingly large percent of the time. The investigation is about removing doubt, but not proving guilt. Trials by jury are more often about trying to prove innocence than trying to prove guilt, juror go in EXPECTING the suspect to be guilty and it is up to the defense to prove otherwise (which is the exact opposite of how the system is supposed to work). Sentencing is based on petty prejudices and public opinion, not on the nature or severity of the crime. The appeals process is also highly prejudiced and frequently doesn't give adequate attention to individual cases. Still, the system should be trying to weed out mistakes at step one, not just during the appeals process. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the way the system should work, not guilty until proven innocent 18 years down the line during the appeals process, which is pretty much how it works now.
And somehow not getting that makes ME the moron?
Do you still have time once released from prison? Yes. Does financial compensation make up for lost wages and allow for one to live comfortably while readjusting to society and possibly longer? Yes. Is it possible to pick up and lead a normal life from then on? Yes. Now if you're dead, what do you get? NOTHING. You may lose time, but that does not negate the possibility of getting your life back on track or even making it better than it was as compensation tends to be pretty considerable With the amount of time your average life or death row inmate stays in jail before getting exonerated, the money they get in states supporting compensation could buy them a house and allow them to live comfortably without a job for 15-20 years, that's going to make up for some time. If you're dead, you're dead. You can't get anything back, you can't make anything of yourself, the government doesn't even give you the opportunity to clear your name so that your benefactors can seek compensation.
Iâ€™ll say it again because it bears repeating: Being acquitted in a court of law does not mean you are innocent.
And it doesn't mean you're guilty, either. It means the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt, which is what the system is meant to establish from the beginning. It is not something that SHOULD be delegated to the appeals process as you seem to think. The appeals process is a safety net. You don't send the performers up to do their act on a broken trapeze and claim that's what the safety net is for.
The system is designed to slant more toward letting the guilty free than toward possibly punishing the innocent.
Really? Because that's not how it works.
Actually it isn't.
Actually it is. Just because your priorities lie elsewhere, that doesn't make it less of an argument. Quite frankly, I find it far more valid than your argumnts up to this point which pretty much just boil down to "it's right because it's the law" which isn't much of an argument when the question is whether or not that law is justifiable. The law is going to support itself, that's a given, but it doesn't make it right. There are a number of unjust laws that have come and gone and this country would be pretty backwards today if everybody thought that way.
And the system does work. It just doesn't work perfectly.
Once again, I would have to disagree. To me, whether a system works or not is highly dependent on whether or not that system upholds the principles it was built upon. Our modern justice system does not do this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that the system does not work.
And just because actions may have severe consequences is in no way a reason not to engage in them.
Actually, in politics, that is quite frequently reason enough not to do something. It also seems to be the argument of people who think the death penalty is a deterrant.