DNA frees another innocent

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 27, 2003, 11:04 am

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/26/dna.i ... index.html

I cannot imagine spending 17 years in prison and being innocent, seems like it would make one even more belligerent than normal. Anyway, I could not imagine the torture.

Circuit Judge Jimmie Edwards apologized to Lonnie Erby for the wrongful conviction, noting that the science of criminal investigation has improved since 1986.

Erby said of the apology: "That was the one thing I was waiting for."

Erby, 49, was sentenced to 115 years for the 1985 attacks on three girls. He was released after genetic testing found that the semen taken from the victims was not his.

Immediately after being freed, Erby hugged the son he had seen just once since his incarceration.

Erby was the second inmate convicted of a St. Louis rape to be freed after DNA testing sought by the Innocence Project, headed by Barry Scheck, who gained fame as part of the O.J. Simpson defense team.

In July 2002, Larry Johnson was released after spending 18 years in prison for the 1984 rape of a Saint Louis University student.

Nationally, more than 300 men and women have been exonerated of crimes and released from prison as the result of DNA testing, the Innocence Project said. Testing has confirmed the guilt of some other inmates.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 27, 2003, 11:20 am

I honestly beleive that DNA testing should be done for anyone servering a life term or on death row as a mandatory requirement of the US Penal System.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 27, 2003, 2:24 pm

Makes you really wonder how many innocent people are truly incarcerated.. or worse, how many innocent people have been executed.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 27, 2003, 3:00 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I honestly beleive that DNA testing should be done for anyone servering a life term or on death row as a mandatory requirement of the US Penal System.

yeah, but the problem is, you dont always have DNA from the crime scene that you can confirm is the perpetrators.

Rape is easy, because of the sperm which can be collected at the hospital if the woman goes there.

sure people leave hairs everywhere they go, but those arent always found.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 27, 2003, 3:25 pm

Perfection is ever elusive in us.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 27, 2003, 3:59 pm

What I'm curious is if there is any sort of compensation for spending 17 years of your life in prison and being found innocent.

You're gonna be hard pressed to get your shit in order after that.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 27, 2003, 4:09 pm

Damn, good question. I doubt it though because the verdict was sound at the time he was judged by his peers, assuming everything went by the book. It's just a case of bad luck I hate to say. Don't get me wrong, if I were him, I'd see if there was any compensation to be had, but I doubt it. The least they should do is maybe make him eligible for social security checks? I really dont have a good answer so I'll let flames roll off me.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 27, 2003, 5:01 pm

there is no set amount of compensation for being wrongfully incarcerated. people that have had it happen to have sued for damages in civil court and financial awards have varied wildly from millions of dollars to a few hundred thousand bucks for 2 decades of incarceration.

if a person is serving time in prison for a crime they did not commit then something somewhere along the line is responsible for being negligent or malicious in regards to the investigation or the trial. a jury cannot convict a criminal without solid evidence, and if he did not do it then there would be no concrete evidence.

stuff like this is the sole reason I oppose capital punishment.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 11:01 am

What's worse?

Death or living the rest of your life in a cage?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 28, 2003, 11:08 am

Rape is easy, because of the sperm which can be collected at the hospital if the woman goes there.

Unfortunately, even in a rape case you aren't going to have DNA most of the time. Most rapes aren't reported immediately, and many victims feel the need to wash as soon as possible.

I agree though, if samples are collected at the crime scene, DNA testing should be mandatory.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 28, 2003, 11:15 am

stuff like this is the sole reason I oppose capital punishment.

Same here cos "kill the fuckers" has such a nice ring to it ><

What's worse?

Death or living the rest of your life in a cage?

As far as modern western correctional facilities go, death is far worse.
Death is worse in almost every case. "Live free or die" is rhetoric fit for hollywood and a very few real people. When the chips are down the vast majority will choose life because that's how we're programmed.

"The dead know only one thing. It is better to be alive"

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 11:39 am

That's right, life in prison is not as bad as death, as so much it isn't adequate punishment for murder as the death penality.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 11:43 am

And yes if you're wrongfully executed, whew what a tragedy.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 28, 2003, 12:05 pm

At the very least, this is an argument to not invoke the death penalty so fast, giving time for appeals etc. It's a pretty popular opinion that once a death sentence is handed down, the person should be taken out back and gassed right away. Comedians like to use this line quite often.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 28, 2003, 12:53 pm

That's right, life in prison is not as bad as death, as so much it isn't adequate punishment for murder as the death penality

That's your opinion, bub, nothing more.
IMO death penalties have much more to do with revenge than justice. Life imprisonment and the death penalty provide the same protection to the public. But the miscarriages of justice are less final without the death penalty.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 28, 2003, 3:38 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:That's right, life in prison is not as bad as death, as so much it isn't adequate punishment for murder as the death penality.

But what about Thou shalt not kill?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 4:17 pm

Poor english translation.

The Hebrew root words forbid murder.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 28, 2003, 4:30 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Poor english translation.

The Hebrew root words forbid murder.

I love people like you who twist and pervert the bible to whatever fits their world view and then pretend piety.

OH THE BIBLE SAYS THIS

OMG THE BIBLE SAYS THAT

well.. in this case the bible might say it but if you look at it upside down in hebrew and say it really fast it more closely resembles my worthless fucking opinion.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 28, 2003, 5:13 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Poor english translation.

The Hebrew root words forbid murder.

How is the death penalty not murder?

The texan cowboy vs fanatic christian moral conflicts must be a real bitch.

Do me a favor and twist another commandment around for me please. My neighbor's wife is hot.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 28, 2003, 5:45 pm

Does the hebrew translation say it's ok to murder someone because they murder?

Now wait before you answer. If you say yes...then we're going to have a big discussion about THE IRREVOCABLE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD being contradictory.

If you say no, then you're contradicting your own beliefs in your support of the death penalty.

WHAT SAY YOU INFIDEL?!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 5:55 pm

Allow me to explain Forthe.

Murder is the premeditated killing of an innocent.

The verse in the bible speaks against murder.

The death penalty by Tanc's confession and my agreement is more severe a punishment than life in prison.

The death penalty is appropriate for convicted murderers.

Is there a chance that there are wrongfull convictions? Yep, and we have an appeals process to handle it.

Is DNA testing a good thing? Yep, it's a great way to add certainity to a case.

Please elaborate where I'm distorting things.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 5:57 pm

Killing an innocent is murder.

Killing someone who has murdered is not the killing of an innocent.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » August 28, 2003, 5:58 pm

I love people like you who twist and pervert the bible to whatever fits their world view and then pretend piety.

Why is it ok, for example, for anti-religious people to claim that a religious text is misinterpreted when it suits them, but it is not ok for religious people to claim a misinterpretation by man of a religious text?

And I mean any religious text, not just Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.

Just curious.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 6:02 pm

Fizzlewhip wrote: Why is it ok, for example, for anti-religious people to claim that a religious text is misinterpreted when it suits them, but it is not ok for religious people to claim a misinterpretation by man of a religious text?

And I mean any religious text, not just Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.

Just curious.

It is fine for anyone to claim a religious text is misinterpreted.

You might get laughed at, or discredited due to a lack of evidence however.

For instance if I said Jesus was a woman and everyone just gets it misinterpreted, I wouldn't be believed because there are plenty of texts and references to check and verify that my claim is wrong.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 6:09 pm

Kyo, I invite you investigate that part of the bible for yourself.

I'm not hiding anything.

Don't belive me, verify it for yourself.

That way you'll know I'm not trying to twist something to fit my agenda.

Better yet, if you can provide a convincing arguement that the Torah does indeed forbid the killing of anything, I'll gladly stop supporting the death penalty.

You'd be doing me a favor.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 28, 2003, 6:14 pm

Adex: Define "innocent."

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 28, 2003, 6:15 pm

Death or living the rest of your life in a cage?

No doubt about it: Life in a cage is 100 times worse. Death means nothing to me, over and done with. But not being able to have my freedom? Not even comparable.

Quite a few inmates obviously agree with me as well since they have requested the death penalty and also requested not to have it appealed.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 6:17 pm

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innocence

Definition b. looks appropriate for this discussion.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 28, 2003, 6:27 pm

Edit: I responded to your post pre-edit. I think what I wrote still applies.

Well I'm not sure.

I'm trying to think of this from your perspective. I would say that an "innocent" is someone who is not a sinner. The problem is that we are all sinners in some respect, especially in a Christian worldview. If I commit murder, you claim that I am not an innocent, and thus, my being put to death would not be murder. But if I commit adultery, am I an innocent? Is it acceptable to kill me then? What if I am a pedophile or rapist? Do these crimes halt my innocent status, and make the death penalty an acceptable punishment? We can't use the eye-for-an-eye argument, because the death penalty can be applied to criminals who don't commit murder, traitors for example. Does committing treason mean that one is no longer an innocent?

I would say that doing any of these things ruins your status as "innocent." Thus, the line that we have drawn for the death penalty seems to me to be an arbitrary, fictional construct, rather than an idea rooted in morality and logic.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 6:38 pm

In this case my perspective is a legal one.

When I speak of innocence I'm talking about definition b.

Talking about definition "a" is a whole other subject which we've covered before and is a bit off topic for this thread.

You mention rape, incest, adultery, and... traitors.

Rape, incest and treachery can be punished by criminal law.

Adultery isn't a crime, but might have an impact during a civil lawsuit.

Going on a power trip and raping somone while bad isn't as horrible as ending a victim's life.

Thus the death penality in my opinion is too much punishment for a rape offence. (In the past it was)

If you do something wrong you owe restitution. If you shoplift you pay a fine. If you insult someone, you say you're sorry.

If you murder someone there's nothing you can give to bring them back so in punishment it costs you all you have. (your life)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 6:39 pm

Sorry about that edit, I was trying to answer you in a better manner.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 28, 2003, 6:39 pm

Hmm, my post vanished. Well writen Sueven. I think the only sin that warrants death is murder, but then I remember passages like Leviticus 20:13, or let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and I realize I am no bible scholar and need to do more soul searching and research on this matter. I used to be for the death penalty, but that one verse makes me take pause, the cast the first stone spoken from Jesus....I don't have all the answers, but the ones I do have, I want to be confident that I am correct on in the eyes of my lord.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 6:45 pm

I look at the very same things you do Krimson and come to the conclusion that its a warning that we must be very careful.

Jesus was pointing out that we are imperfect, and because of this we should be very understanding of each other when we screw up.

If you translate this to a secular legal code I'd say it's an arguement for a rock solid appeals process. We can be wrong, make sure there are plenty of chances for the truth (such as DNA testing) to come forth.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 28, 2003, 7:02 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Kyo, I invite you investigate that part of the bible for yourself.

I'm not hiding anything.

Don't belive me, verify it for yourself.

That way you'll know I'm not trying to twist something to fit my agenda.

Better yet, if you can provide a convincing arguement that the Torah does indeed forbid the killing of anything, I'll gladly stop supporting the death penalty.

You'd be doing me a favor.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/thou_shalt_not_kill.htm

Exodus 20:13

The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack which accurately translates as "any kind of killing whatsoever."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay - has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." The word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not."

Christians (esepcially baptists) like to warp and twist the bible around, using several different passages and translations in order to fulfill their twisted moral code. If you want to accept the hebrew translation of exodus 20:13 then you should learn fucking hebrew and accept the entire thing. Although in this case not even that would help you because you are simply wrong. Any legitimate translation of the bible will tell you that killing is a sin; not just "some killing, but sometimes its ok because my pastor, the Reverend P. Moneypants says that its okay to kill faggots and niggers because the original hebrew text probably said that we should kill as many as possible to get into heaven."

Just because you "might have maybe heard somewhere" from one of your greedy and evil baptist mind controlling charlatan religious leaders that wasting people that they personally feel should be killed is A-OK because the ancient hebrew text says so, maybe you should take a step back and realize that everything that's ever come out of the corrupt sewer pits they call mouths has been a dirty lie that you have been living since you "found" Jesus (who probably wouldn't want anything to do with someone as intolerant as you).

Just some friendly advice.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » August 28, 2003, 7:32 pm

"found" Jesus (who probably wouldn't want anything to do with someone as intolerant as you).

I found him. He was behind the couch the whole time.

sorry, couldn't resist, even though it has absolutely no bearing on either the original subject, or the current twist the topic has taken.

As to the original subject, I am happy that they release him. As to the topic of CP, I am on the fence, but I admit it is probably a product of upbringing, and perhaps an overblown personal desire to see a punishment fit the crime. I can see the view point of a dead man cannot be punished any further..<rest of the post is nothing but waffling back and forth, neither being solidly for CP, or refuting any reasons not to repeal it>

I guess it comes down to a case by case basis. <more waffling>

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2003, 7:35 pm

Relax Kyo,

I'm not some big mean boogy man.

I appreciate you looking into it. I'll read up on what your source says.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 28, 2003, 7:36 pm

Truant wrote:Does the hebrew translation say it's ok to murder someone because they murder?

Now wait before you answer. If you say yes...then we're going to have a big discussion about THE IRREVOCABLE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD being contradictory.

If you say no, then you're contradicting your own beliefs in your support of the death penalty.

WHAT SAY YOU INFIDEL?!

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

You break the commandment and you are no longer protected by the law.

In the old testament there is another verse that states an eye for an eye.

So under the law in the old testament once you stepped beyond the boundaries of the commandments you were subject to punishment.

Lets take the case of kidnapping shall we?
The law states that it is illegal to incarcerate someone against there will.
However if someone commits this crime they themselves will be incarcerated. They no longer can nor should expect to be protected by the same laws that they broke.

Really a rather simple concept. If a suspect is convicted beyond any reasonable doubt (I think this would have to include video or DNA or some other form of incontrovertable evidence) They should be executed.

Save the TAXPAYAH'S MONEY!!!!1!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 28, 2003, 9:18 pm

So you're fine with the government disobeying God's commandment?

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » August 28, 2003, 9:23 pm

Depends on how closely the government hinges it's decisions on god. US unofficial policy is to separate church and state, therefore, there is no moral credence that the government has to subscribe to.

Although there are many references to god in official documents and writings, they're more often than not accepted as persaonal statements within the document.

Exceptions would be the pledge of allegiance, which I find completely unnecessary and have refused to say since I was old enough to comprehend what exactly I was saying in that.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » August 28, 2003, 9:46 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Poor english translation.

The Hebrew root words forbid murder.

..but but but.... You yourself said God can preserve the word of the Bible as the way he meant it. Whatever is in the Bible is hard fact, according to you anyway.

I'll see if I can find the quote where you said something to that effect. I'm sure others remember it as well.

Edit:

Adex_Xeda wrote:Welp, if God chose the bible to be his way of talking to folks, he's going take care of it as it gets translated

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 28, 2003, 10:02 pm

kyoukan wrote:So you're fine with the government disobeying God's commandment?

Based upon the argument I stated above it really amounts to the individual who committed murder killing themself. So I dont see it as the State breaking Gods law. Rather the State is enforcing God's law.

By committing the crime they are no longer afforded the protection of the law. We all make choices in life and if you choose to commit murder (first degree) then you should expect the punishment as prescribed by the law.

I fail to see the benefit in keeping people like this locked up for the duration of their lifetime. Rehabilitation does not enter into the equation and as far as I am concerned these people are a waste of the skin they are using. I strongly object to my taxes going to feed, clothe and entertain these assholes.

Cheers

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 29, 2003, 12:24 am

Of course, capital punishment is way more expensive than life sentences...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 29, 2003, 1:29 am

Vetiria,

Compare the bible to contemporary texts. You'll find a remarkable consistancy, dare I say divinely protected consistancy.

We've talked about the consistancy of the bible before but if you want to refresh your memory try this site.

Accuracy of Biblical Records

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 29, 2003, 2:30 am

Well if you throw "Thou shall not kill" into google, Kyo's source will pop up as link 13 as an arguement for vegetarianism. Heh, now there's you an angle for your veggies. The article further tries to detach any link to meat eating in the bible.

But to zero in on our question Kyo's veggie source pulls the two phonetic hebrew words "lo tirtzack " and translates them as "thou shall not" and "any kind of killing whatsoever"

Well I looked up the phonetic "tirtzack" in a hebrew english dictionary, and then got a record of where this particular verb appears in the bible.

It is used 46 other times in the bible, and repeatedly refers to unintentional or premeditated killing of another human.

Examples of this verb in use:Deut. 4:3 , Josh. 20:3, Num. 35:33, and
Isa. 1.21, etc.

What does it all mean? It means that the six commandment, at its hebrew root, speaks to killing another person.
Intentional or accidental, killing another person is a crime.

Back in the Old testiment days intentionally killing someone was punished by putting the offender to death. Num. 35:33, Gen 9:6

Capital Punishment was used on people who intentionally killed another person.

Accidentally killing someone else was still criminal but was a lesser offence.

I did learn something from this that I didn't know until tonight. The verb used in the sixth commandment criminalized accidental human killing as well as intentional human killing.

You know Kyo, you ask thoughtful questions.

I just wish you'd discard the hateful monologues. They don't fit the target, and they make a stranger think that you are blind, bitter and bellicose.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 29, 2003, 6:40 am

my source didn't come from a vegetarian website. are you questioning the validity of one of the most foremost scholars in ancient hebrew on the entire planet?

and "an eye for an eye" isn't a law written in stone and given to moses as a commandment. "thou shall not kill" is.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 29, 2003, 10:56 am

*shrug* I looked the word up at its root and read all the usages of it in the text.

There is a consistant usage of that word in relation to murder as I said above.

For example, the following verse uses the very same verb "tirzach" as the six commandmant.

""Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
"Gen 9:6

I'm no hebrew linguist but this seems consistant and reasonable.

Tuberok · Post by **Tuberok** » August 29, 2003, 11:12 am

I will throw this into the mix. Many christians who are against capitol punishment take the approach that though one can find death penalty described as an action taken in the goal of justice in scripture, in the U.S. at this point in time the death penalty is more often than not being used as a tool of revenge and not justice. In this case, when a person is put to death for revenge sake, the death is murder and not a just punishment. For example we see the Jesus was put to death but was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of... This makes his death a murder and not a just act.
In our day we see so many problems with our justice system that until a time comes we can insure that not a single person is put to death who is not guilty and that the death penalty is carried out truly as a just act and not one of revenge it is contrary to christian moral ethics to condone the death penalty.

This is one argument that many anti-death penalty christians follow and is food for thought in this on going debate.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 29, 2003, 11:42 am

I only have borderline support for the death penality personally due to the horrifying chance of wrongful convictions.

However murder is heavy crime, and I'd not want to remove the capital punishment option for someone who truely deserved it.

I strongly favor a vigorous appeals process.

:edit typo

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 29, 2003, 11:42 am

kyoukan wrote:my source didn't come from a vegetarian website. are you questioning the validity of one of the most foremost scholars in ancient hebrew on the entire planet?

and "an eye for an eye" isn't a law written in stone and given to moses as a commandment. "thou shall not kill" is.

Sorry but your source is quoted most often by vegetarian groups et al.
I looked for some independent source that bestowed "one of the foremost scholars in ancient hebrew on the entire planet" and found none.

I am not saying that he isn't, what I am saying is that only the "vegetarian sources" are calling him that. What are his credentials.

I did find many other sources that stated the proper translation is "murder" not "kill".

So it should read "Thou shalt not murder anyone" not "Thou shalt not kill anything".

Kinda like a court case where the prosecution and defense have expert witnesses. I didn't quote my "expert" because like yours I could not find credentials on mine.

Cheers

Deward · Post by **Deward** » August 29, 2003, 3:12 pm

I believe in the death penalty. I don't believe in it as a deterrent to other criminals. I believe in it as a way to rid society of a dangerous element. I believe it needs to be watched very carefully though and unless there is clear evidence of the crime occuring then the death penalty should not apply. Clear evidence would be DNA or impartial witnesses. A confession shouldn't be enough for the death penalty because of the chance (however remote) of it being coerced. Also having your buddy narc you out in court to save his own ass should not be grounds for the death penalty either.

I also believe that the death penalty should apply to attempted murder, rape, child molestation and any other sort of extremely violent crime. Treason, unless it leads to the deaths of people, should not carry the death penalty.

For those that care, the bible mentions at least two passages that talk about an eye for an eye. Both of these are from the old testament which modern christian religion seems to ignore while accepting the more "modern" touchy-feely new testament. I am agnostic personally but I enjoy reading the bible from a historical perspective.

Exodus 21:23-25
23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Leviticus 24:19-21
19 "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 "Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.