Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
One of the main problems with the death penalty is that the places that are quickest and eagerest to administer it have been the places least likely to ensure a fair trial, including such places in the U.S, particularly where the accused are poor, racial minorities, or have been subjected to a great deal of pre-trial adverse publicity.
Most people executed in our country received kangaroo trials primarily because they were black and/or poor. Often their lawyers were drafted and literally mounted half hearted defenses under protest. Many trials culminating in the death penalty lasted less than two days. Needless to say, our country has executed a multitude of innocients.
|
Huh? "a multitude of innocents"? You lost me with that last line. I'm no legal expert or scholar but I was under them impression that very few, if any, executions in the U.S. have had defendants that have later been shown to be innocent (I'm thinking the defendants claims of innocence, post conviction, don't exactly count as being shown to be innocent). I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I think it is fairly rare.
Have people been convicted and sentenced to death on sometimes questionable evidence? Yes. Have people been convicted and sentenced to death and then later exonerated by new evidence? Yes. Are there cases where the sentence has actually been carried out and the defendant has later been proven to be innocent? I've never heard of any but I'll grant that it may have happened. Does any of this equate to a "multitude of innocents"? Not in my book it doesn't.