General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould anyone ever be sentenced to death based upon the testimony of a single eyewitness
who cut a deal with the prosecution to save his own skin in exchange for his testimony?
9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
1 (11%) |
|
No | |
8 (89%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Lyric
(12,675 posts)Warpy
(111,384 posts)on the testimony of a single eyewitness who is a stranger. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable to the point that I plead poor eyesight when asked to give an eyewitness account of anything.
In the absence of forensic evidence, there should be no conviction. I know that's tough for mugging victims to take, but unless the guy is still toting the gun or knife he used to threaten them, no dice.
OnlinePoker
(5,727 posts)It is state sanctioned murder, and I believe it is listed as homicide on the death certificates in some states.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)But "no" logically applies to the question as a whole as well.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)MineralMan
(146,338 posts)The state should not be executing people based on a jury's decision. Too much room for error. Wartime is a different situation.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Only the most barbaric countries remain, including the US.
Ilsa
(61,709 posts)Eyewitness testimony is unreliable unless the witness actually knows the person. And then you have to consider that person's motivation. If the witness doesn't know the perp, then identification becomes more difficult if they are different races.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus did fantastic research on cognition and memory.
I vote No.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Iggo
(47,578 posts)JCMach1
(27,581 posts)... ironic, no?