Obama says child rapists should be executed

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case

I am no fan of the death penalty. But I have to agree with Obama.

Child rapists...especially those who do it multiple times to the same child..should be put to death.

Child abuse is not a crime of passion...perhaps making child rape a Federal crime punishable by death would deter enough folks from doing it.

[Dr Adequate]

Child abuse is not a crime of passion...perhaps making child rape a Federal crime punishable by death would deter enough folks from doing it. I think the law of unintended consequences might bite you in the butt there.

If you make any crime against the person short of murder subject to the death sentence, then there is no practical incentive for the criminal not to go on and kill his victim, and one big practical incentive to do so --- the silence of the witness. The only thing restraining the criminal from protecting his interests by murdering his victim would be ... his conscience? ... oh, hold on ...

In short, it might well decrease rapes, but it might well increase rape-murders.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case

I am no fan of the death penalty. But I have to agree with Obama.

Child rapists...especially those who do it multiple times to the same child..should be put to death.

Child abuse is not a crime of passion...perhaps making child rape a Federal crime punishable by death would deter enough folks from doing it.



Lookie' there! I agree with Obama.

The State should never have the right to execute.


:irule:13:

[gdnp]

I think the law of unintended consequences might bite you in the butt there.

If you make any crime against the person short of murder subject to the death sentence, then there is no practical incentive for the criminal not to go on and kill his victim, and one big practical incentive to do so --- the silence of the witness. The only thing restraining the criminal from protecting his interests by murdering his victim would be ... his conscience? ... oh, hold on ...

In short, it might well decrease rapes, but it might well increase rape-murders.

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest.

BTW, does this include aa16 year old that forces himself on his 15 year old girlfriend? If so, there are going to be a lot of he said/she said rape cases with the death penalty on the line.

How about statutory rape?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest.

BTW, does this include aa16 year old that forces himself on his 15 year old girlfriend? If so, there are going to be a lot of he said/she said rape cases with the death penalty on the line.

How about statutory rape?


This particular case had to due with under 12 years of age.

[Policenaut]

I know the idea has been around for a while but can't we make Pedo Island and be done with it? A conviction will get you a one way ticket. There is no coming back.

[corplinx]

I doubt penalty will deter this crime since its not one for monetary gain and is acted out of impulses and being a fricken defective sicko in the head.

[Policenaut]

No penalty will deter it sadly but we can at least ensure that there are no repeat offenders.

[Puppycow]

Lookie' there! I agree with Obama.

The State should never have the right to execute.

Only one of those sentences can be correct. Obama's position implies that the
state should have the right to execute.

[Puppycow]

It's hard for me to think this isn't just Obama sending a "tough-on-crime" political signal. Child rapists are a safe target.

[Texas]

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest.

BTW, does this include aa16 year old that forces himself on his 15 year old girlfriend? If so, there are going to be a lot of he said/she said rape cases with the death penalty on the line.

How about statutory rape? I am pro capital punishment for murder BUT this was a good decision and the Lindbergh law is a prime example of how misguided the law that the SCOTUS struck down. You don't threaten capital punishment when it encourages killing the only witness.

[corplinx]

What you have to wonder is, is it triangulation? He doesn't come off a pro-death-penalty guy. Is it real or is it just trying to get elected?

[BenBurch]

What you have to wonder is, is it triangulation? He doesn't come off a pro-death-penalty guy. Is it real or is it just trying to get elected?

I'm not a Death Penalty kind of guy, either, but you know I know of people whose cold blooded murder seems worthy of punishment than the rape of a child.

My only reservations are practical;

1. Death penalty cases cost a whole lot more than locking the perp up for life and throwing away the key.

2. The error rate in convictions is just way to high to be absolutely sure you are not killing a convict in error.

[corplinx]

It suspiciously a winning issue with blue collar and union democrats. HANG THEM CHILD MOLESTORS< WHOOOOOWEEEE

I guess he found something other than a bible or a gun to placate their discontent.

[Dr Adequate]

Lookie' there! I agree with Obama.

The State should never have the right to execute. Another bizarre comprehension fail from Jerome the Gnome.

While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.

[Dr Adequate]

What you have to wonder is, is it triangulation? He doesn't come off a pro-death-penalty guy. Is it real or is it just trying to get elected? Well, the quote above is from The Audacity of Hope, so if he's "triangulating" he's been at it for a while.

[Mycroft]

I am no fan of the death penalty. But I have to agree with Obama.

Child rapists...especially those who do it multiple times to the same child..should be put to death.

Then you are for the death penalty.

[SezMe]

I know the idea has been around for a while but can't we make Pedo Island and be done with it? A conviction will get you a one way ticket. There is no coming back.
I did a google on "Pedo Island" and got a lot of junk. Please explain what you meant.

[SezMe]

What you have to wonder is, is it triangulation? He doesn't come off a pro-death-penalty guy. Is it real or is it just trying to get elected?
Good question. Now that he's the nominee, he's got to move toward the middle to maximize his election chances. This is one example and his weakness on FISA is another. Sadly, damn near everything he says has to be filtered through the elections lens. Well, the same is true of McCain so we are left with a credibility gap for both candidates. Oh, well, I guess that is SOP in election years.

[Puppycow]

It suspiciously a winning issue with blue collar and union democrats. HANG THEM CHILD MOLESTORS< WHOOOOOWEEEE

I guess he found something other than a bible or a gun to placate their discontent.

Sure. Of course. Both side play this game. You have to do it because you will lose if you don't.

In 1988, a question about rape and capital punishment tripped up Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.

Dukakis was asked during a nationally televised debate with Republican George H. W. Bush whether he'd still oppose the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered.

His unemotional, dispassionate answer was ridiculed, and gave Republicans more material to paint him as an emotionless liberal.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Only one of those sentences can be correct. Obama's position implies that the
state should have the right to execute.

That was the point. He is a typical political BS artist.

:irule:13:

[gdnp]

That was the point. He is a typical political BS artist.



Only if he has stated he is against the death penalty and for the death penalty for child rapist/murderers.

AFAIK he has stated he is pro-death penalty for some heinous crimes (which would tend to contradict the statement that he is the most liberal member of congress.)

Has he made contradictory statements on this issue? Has he flip-flopped?

If not, your statement that he is "a typical political BS artist" fails.

[Ocelot]

I know the idea has been around for a while but can't we make Pedo Island and be done with it? A conviction will get you a one way ticket. There is no coming back.

Trouble occurs when an island of child abusers get to breed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

Or were you assuming that only males abuse children?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Only if he has stated he is against the death penalty and for the death penalty for child rapist/murderers.

AFAIK he has stated he is pro-death penalty for some heinous crimes (which would tend to contradict the statement that he is the most liberal member of congress.)

Has he made contradictory statements on this issue? Has he flip-flopped?

If not, your statement that he is "a typical political BS artist" fails.


I am completely against the death penalty yet I am commonly called a "right-winger" for most of my ideas on this board.

Does that mean I am a Liberal?


Back to the point. He is; like most politicians, giving a yes answer to both sides of the question.

[Iamme]

This particular case had to due with under 12 years of age.

When then becomes the magic year...the magic day of that year, even?

I think the Bible or other religious texts have it about right when they say 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Rapers should maybe have things cut off...but not killed...with that rule in mind.

[Cicero]

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest.


I see you also attended the Dukakis school of penology. A sex crime multiple offender "cured?" Libs are truly staggering in their capacity to always give the offenders the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the rest of society.

[Dr Adequate]

I see you also attended the Dukakis school of penology. A sex crime multiple offender "cured?" Libs are truly staggering in their capacity to always give the offenders the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the rest of society. Except that if you read what gdnp actually posted, the conclusion he draws is that they should remain locked up even after completing their sentences. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the cure of such people is rare, that will amount in most cases to a life sentence.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I wonder what is.

[BenBurch]

... Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I wonder what is.

Probably spades.

[MrPuck]

Obama did specifically mention a "small child, 6 or 8 years old". Right or wrong, people tend to feel a little stronger about crimes against small children. Especially parents of little ones. By saying it that way my guess is that he is just trying to pull the heart strings of parents in general. If he can pick up a couple redneck "kill 'em all and let god sort it out" type folks then even better.

I have heard it said that these people can't be rehabilitated. I would be curious to see the stats. What percentage of them re-offend? If it is a truly high percentage then the question of capitol punishment is a no brainer.

[BenBurch]

Obama did specifically mention a "small child, 6 or 8 years old". Right or wrong, people tend to feel a little stronger about crimes against small children. Especially parents of little ones. By saying it that way my guess is that he is just trying to pull the heart strings of parents in general. If he can pick up a couple redneck "kill 'em all and let god sort it out" type folks then even better.

I have heard it said that these people can't be rehabilitated. I would be curious to see the stats. What percentage of them re-offend? If it is a truly high percentage then the question of capitol punishment is a no brainer.

I don't have a cite handy, but its an amazingly high percentage. I think limited only by those who are too ill to re-offend when they leave jail and those who somehow manage to not get caught again.

[Babbylonian]

I have heard it said that these people can't be rehabilitated. I would be curious to see the stats. What percentage of them re-offend? If it is a truly high percentage then the question of capitol punishment is a no brainer.
Really? Considering the "success" of capital punishment in the US, I'd say that even if 100% re-offend it's still an unproductive (costly, lousy deterrant to crimes based on extreme emotions/mental illness, unevenly applied, etc.) way to address the problem.

Of course, since you're only asking for a "truly high percentage," I wonder how you'd justify killing the truly tiny percentage who might have been rehabilitated.

[Cicero]

Except that if you read what gdnp actually posted, the conclusion he draws is that they should remain locked up even after completing their sentences. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the cure of such people is rare, that will amount in most cases to a life sentence.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I wonder what is.

Since I posted gdnp's quote verbatim, since his point was unambiguous, where is this subtext "conclusion" you say he drew in the quote?
I do not have the liberal decoder ring.

"Cured" means that a psychiatrist is allowed to decide when to release a sex offender, which means that there was no life sentence without the possibility of parole, so there is no such thing as a life sentence in their case. Penology is not your strong suit, is it? Since your misinformed opinions on this subject effect the rest of society, figuring out what is your strong suit is superfluous.

[Piggy]

I agree with Darrow on this point.

If you impose the death penalty for rape (regardless of the victim's age) then the rapist has no incentive not to murder the victim and remove the witness.

That's assuming that the death penalty actually acts as a deterrent. And if it does not, then I see no benefit in that case, either.

I don't see any benefit to anyone if we allow death penalty for child rape, but I do see potential harm.

[Dr Adequate]

Since I posted gdnp's quote verbatim, since his point was unambiguous, where is this subtext "conclusion" you say he drew in the quote? Highlighted below.

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest. Duh.

I do not have the liberal decoder ring. You wrong your fellow-conservatives. Comprehension of basic English is not limited to liberals.

"Cured" means that a psychiatrist is allowed to decide when to release a sex offender, which means that there was no life sentence without the possibility of parole, so there is no such thing as a life sentence in their case. However, since they hardly ever are cured, it would, as I said, "amount in most cases to a life sentence".

Penology is not your strong suit, is it? Since your misinformed opinions on this subject effect the rest of society, figuring out what is your strong suit is superfluous. If you have a point, perhaps you would tell us all what it is?

[Cicero]

Really? Considering the "success" of capital punishment in the US, I'd say that even if 100% re-offend it's still an unproductive (costly, lousy deterrant to crimes based on extreme emotions/mental illness, unevenly applied, etc.) way to address the problem.



When was capital punishment last used as it was intended? Convicted felons spending 20 years on death row before execution, if ever, is not capital punishment.

The death penalty is cheap. It is the endless appeals that are costly.

Doctors refusing to administer lethal injections on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment is absurd.

[Cicero]

Highlighted below.

Duh.

You wrong your fellow-conservatives. Comprehension of basic English is not limited to liberals.

However, since they hardly ever are cured, it would, as I said, "amount in most cases to a life sentence".

If you have a point, perhaps you would tell us all what it is?

What is this agency that "locks up" child rapists after they complete their court ordered sentences? Why were they released from prison in the first place? Why are they not spending their life sentences where they were initially incarcerated? Having them spend their time in a half way house is not the same as maximum security.

Using the word "cured" in conjunction with the offenders is beyond ridiculous even with the silly caveat "hardly ever."

If these already convicted offenders need to be incarcerated after they leave incarceration, why were they released, and if they are repeat offenders, why were they not executed as obama thinks they should be?

[Babbylonian]

When was capital punishment last used as it was intended? Convicted felons spending 20 years on death row before execution, if ever, is not capital punishment.
As it was intended by whom? The Supreme Court? A sometimes bloodthirsty electorate? Politicians vying for election on "law and order" platforms?
The death penalty is cheap. It is the endless appeals that are costly.
No doubt. Capital punishment would be a lot cheaper if we stopped worrying so much about whether someone might not deserve it (perhaps by virtue of being innocent, or because they were improperly convicted).
Doctors refusing to administer lethal injections on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment is absurd.
If only everyone would come around in that respect (as regards all forms of capital punishment, not just lethal injection)...

[Cicero]

As it was intended by whom? The Supreme Court? A sometimes bloodthirsty electorate? Politicians vying for election on "law and order" platforms?

No doubt. Capital punishment would be a lot cheaper if we stopped worrying so much about whether someone might not deserve it (perhaps by virtue of being innocent, or because they were improperly convicted).

If only everyone would come around in that respect (as regards all forms of capital punishment, not just lethal injection)...

Come on. More than five years of appeals to check over whether a person was fairly tried and sentenced? Name one person executed who was found to be innocent?

You are not being intellectually honest. Even if the convicted felon's crimes were on video tape along with their confession, you would not be in favor of executing them, so their guilt or innocence is not even your argument against the death penalty.

"Everyone?" If the criminals would realize that taking lives by the most heinous methods possible might constitute "cruel and unusual" death the criminal justice system would not have a need for the death penalty, or as many prisons either.

[Piggy]

Name one person executed who was found to be innocent?

Are you familiar with The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/)?

Did you read the story just today about a man pardoned posthumously 86 years after being executed for the rape and murder of a child (http://mnweekly.ru/world/20080530/55331068.html), now exonerated?

[Cleon]

Are you familiar with The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/)?

Hah! But they haven't found anyone innocent AFTER they've been executed!


Did you read the story just today about a man pardoned posthumously 86 years after being executed for the rape and murder of a child (http://mnweekly.ru/world/20080530/55331068.html), now exonerated?

That's Australia, so it doesn't count.

[Babbylonian]

You are not being intellectually honest. Even if the convicted felon's crimes were on video tape along with their confession, you would not be in favor of executing them, so their guilt or innocence is not even your argument against the death penalty.
Where's my dishonesty? You're correct that I'm against the death penalty regardless of guilt or innocence. I personally find it barbaric. Still, one good, evidence-based reason for being against the death penalty is the possibility of innocence versus the finality of a death sentence. This, along with procedural concerns, is the reason for the long appeals process which death row inmates go through.

There are plenty of countries that manage to get by without a death penalty, and I hope that one day the United States reenters their ranks.

[Dr Adequate]

What is this agency that "locks up" child rapists after they complete their court ordered sentences? Why were they released from prison in the first place? Why are they not spending their life sentences where they were initially incarcerated? Having them spend their time in a half way house is not the same as maximum security.

If these already convicted offenders need to be incarcerated after they leave incarceration, why were they released, and if they are repeat offenders, why were they not executed as obama thinks they should be? You still seem to be having baffling problems in comprehension.

What is this agency that "locks up" child rapists after they complete their court ordered sentences?

There is no such agency. Gdnp is proposing that there should be such an agency, not that there is.

Why were they released from prison in the first place?

People are released from prison when they've completed their sentences. Unless gdnp has his way.

Why are they not spending their life sentences where they were initially incarcerated?

This is a bizarre non sequitur with no relevance to the discussion. Why are who not spending their life sentences where they were intitially incarcerated? No-one has suggested moving the prisoners.

Nor, indeed, would gdnp's suggestion affect anyone serving a life sentence.

Having them spend their time in a half way house is not the same as maximum security.

This is also a bizarre non sequitur with no relevance to the discussion. No-one has suggested that a halfway house is the same as maximum security, nor indeed referred to halfway houses in any way.

If these already convicted offenders need to be incarcerated after they leave incarceration, why were they released ...

People are released from prison when they've completed their sentences. Unless gdnp has his way.

... and if they are repeat offenders, why were they not executed as obama thinks they should be..

Because, and this will astonish you, America is not governed by the power of Obama's thoughts.

Using the word "cured" in conjunction with the offenders is beyond ridiculous even with the silly caveat "hardly ever." Would you find the caveat "never" less silly? I was attempting to avoid the appearance of dogmatism, but you would seem to prefer it.

[Policenaut]

Trouble occurs when an island of child abusers get to breed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

Or were you assuming that only males abuse children?

Everyone also get's an all expenses paid castration. Problem solved. Can we start building this island already? Maybe we can outsource it to Dubai.

Oh yea and to the first person that asked it was something I heard before. Nothing official or anything. Maybe it was so fringe that the idea has not permeated the internet but that seems strange in this day and age. Oh well.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's watch this again in slow motion, 'cos it's funny. I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest. Except that if you read what gdnp actually posted, the conclusion he draws is that they should remain locked up even after completing their sentences.Since I posted gdnp's quote verbatim, since his point was unambiguous, where is this subtext "conclusion" you say he drew in the quote?
I do not have the liberal decoder ring. Comprehension ... the liberal decoder ring.

[Cicero]

Are you familiar with The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/)?

Did you read the story just today about a man pardoned posthumously 86 years after being executed for the rape and murder of a child (http://mnweekly.ru/world/20080530/55331068.html), now exonerated?

Why does the notorious Barry Sheck of The Innocence Project beleive DNA is only reliable as a tool for exculpatory, but not inculpatory?

Do you have a case that was on this continent?

Are you saying that Fish, Bundy, Gacy, Williams, etc should have been given life sentences because their guilt was in doubt? And even if it was not, their absence from this earth is a loss?

[Cicero]

Would you find the caveat "never" less silly? I was attempting to avoid the appearance of dogmatism, but you would seem to prefer it.

No. "Never" would be accurate. Perhaps you could share with us your research on the cure rate of sex offenders?

Since you agree with gdnp that it is a sickness and not a voluntary action, what is your prescription for this cure, Doctor?

[Wildy]

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured.

So wait, you are saying that they are sane enough to stand trial and be found guilty as a sane person, but are not sane enough to be freed upon completion of their sentence?

[Piggy]

Why does the notorious Barry Sheck of The Innocence Project beleive DNA is only reliable as a tool for exculpatory, but not inculpatory?

Oh, that's very simple. He does not.

Even if he did, that would still not indicate that DNA cannot be exculpatory.

Think much?

Do you have a case that was on this continent?

You're on the Internet, Cicero. Which continent is "this" continent? (As if it should matter.)

If you mean North America, and you're looking for a case of child rape that was found to be an erroneous prosecution, then yes. I'd start with Aleck Carpitcher.

Are you saying that Fish, Bundy, Gacy, Williams, etc should have been given life sentences because their guilt was in doubt? And even if it was not, their absence from this earth is a loss?

Nope. Not for a moment. I spent 2 years researching a book on multiple murderers, and I would support the death penalty for Fish, Bundy, Gacey, Corll, Starkweather, and a host of others.

But why are you bringing them up?

They're murderers.

The issue here is not whether murders should be put to death, but whether rapists should be put to death.

Really, you should try thinking every now and then. I promise it doesn't hurt too bad.

[Piggy]

So wait, you are saying that they are sane enough to stand trial and be found guilty as a sane person, but are not sane enough to be freed upon completion of their sentence?

Huh?

"Sanity" in the first context merely applies to competency, the ability to know what you're doing when you do it and to understand the charges against you and the process of a trial.

I don't know of any application of the concept of sanity to release for prisoners, rather than persons being held in mental institutions.

[Cicero]

Let's watch this again in slow motion, 'cos it's funny. Comprehension ... the liberal decoder ring.

Does your high-lite function key not work on gdnp's "until they are cured" part of the quote? How about there is no cure and that they actually do life without parole in the first place, or Obama's cure for them which is a lethal does of chemicals. I bet that just raises the bile in your throat. Neither of these are gdnp's solutions. If gdnp believes a serial sex offender can be "cured," why would any of them be serving a life sentence in gdnp's penal system?

[Cicero]

Oh, that's very simple. He does not.

Even if he did, that would still not indicate that DNA cannot be exculpatory.

Think much?



You're on the Internet, Cicero. Which continent is "this" continent? (As if it should matter.)

If you mean North America, and you're looking for a case of child rape that was found to be an erroneous prosecution, then yes. I'd start with Aleck Carpitcher.


Nope. Not for a moment. I spent 2 years researching a book on multiple murderers, and I would support the death penalty for Fish, Bundy, Gacey, Corll, Starkweather, and a host of others.

But why are you bringing them up?

They're murderers.

The issue here is not whether murders should be put to death, but whether rapists should be put to death.

Really, you should try thinking every now and then. I promise it doesn't hurt too bad.


Looks like you are stuck with the "even if it did" escape clause.

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/6132000_bs.htm

Read much?

Babbylonian stated a abhorrence to the death penalty regardless of the crime. So while you may make a distinction, others in the thread do not.

[Dr Adequate]

No. "Never" would be accurate. Perhaps you could share with us your research on the cure rate of sex offenders? I have done none, since no such research would be relevant to the points I have tried to make.

Since you agree with gdnp that it is a sickness and not a voluntary action, what is your prescription for this cure, Doctor? I am not actually arguing in favor of gdnp's proposal, nor did I agree that "it is a sickness and not a voluntary action" (not that that's what he said, of course). I have merely undertaken the task of trying to explain to you what he meant.

No, it's OK, I didn't expect thanks.

[Dr Adequate]

Does your high-lite function key not work on gdnp's "until they are cured" part of the quote? I highlighted the bits that were relevant. It's this little quirk I share with, ooh, everyone else.

How about there is no cure and that they actually do life without parole in the first place ... But unfortunately this is not always the case.

... or Obama's cure for them which is a lethal does of chemicals. I bet that just raises the bile in your throat. Yeah, lethal chemicals can have that effect.

Neither of these are gdnp's solutions. If gdnp believes a serial sex offender can be "cured," why would any of them be serving a life sentence in gdnp's penal system? This seems to have lost something in translation.

I am not sure what gdnp thinks the rate of cure is, I can only read his posts, not his mind, but unless he thinks that it's 100%, then it follows from what he's posted that he thinks that some of them should be locked up for life.

[Babbylonian]

Looks like you are stuck with the "even if it did" escape clause.

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/6132000_bs.htm

Read much?
I don't think that quote means what you think it does. Nowhere in that document does Professor Scheck claim that DNA can only be used as exculpatory evidence. In fact, he points specifically to its dual purpose in both potentially exonerating innocent inmates and identifying potential suspects. Said identification can be presumed to have the potential to aid in conviction of those suspects.

All the above quote says is that most homicide causes cannot be solved through the use of DNA evidence. The document, however, is intended to help convince the Senate Judiciary Committee that when it can be used, it should, and there should be federal law to facilitate an inmate's ability to do so.

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think that quote means what you think it does. Cicero's comprehension deficit amounts to a disorder.

You can see what he's done, can't you?

He's taken the utterly unobjectional statement: "DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases", and thrown away the words "in a narrow class of cases", thus completely changing the meaning of the sentence into some crackbrained drivel that Cicero made up in his head.

[Ocelot]

Everyone also get's an all expenses paid castration. Problem solved. Can we start building this island already? Maybe we can outsource it to Dubai.


That would certainly work. But hang on why do we need the island then? Wouldn't removal of sex glands be enough on it's own?

[Skwinty]

That would certainly work. But hang on why do we need the island then? Wouldn't removal of sex glands be enough on it's own?

Quite frankly, castration isnt enough. Any object could be used to sexually molest a young child.

My vote is for execution.

[Ocelot]

Quite frankly, castration isnt enough. Any object could be used to sexually molest a young child.

My vote is for execution.

But without the glands that lead to sexual desire, is that really likely?

My understanding was that castration leads to personality change.

[Skwinty]

But without the glands that lead to sexual desire, is that really likely?

My understanding was that castration leads to personality change.

Are you talking about chemical castration or physical castration?

[gdnp]

I see you also attended the Dukakis school of penology. A sex crime multiple offender "cured?" Libs are truly staggering in their capacity to always give the offenders the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the rest of society.

LOL. You mistake my intent. I do not believe a true pedophile can be cured, at least with current techniques, and thus I believe they should be locked up for life even after they have served their sentences. I apologize for not making that more explicit. This does not exclude the possibility that an effective cure could be found in the future. Castration has been suggested, but since the castrated person could still take testosterone shots, this might not be 100% effective. It is not even clear to me if castration would completely eliminate the urges. I do not know.

There is precedent for transferring mentally ill patients who commit crimes involuntarily to locked wards once their sentences have been completed if they are still considered dangerous. There are clearly civil rights issues that are important here: it is not that different from locking up Al Quaeda terrorists indefinitely, a process that I have argued against.

The difference I see here is that terrorist acts are, at least for most, voluntary actions. Pedophilia seems to me more of a compulsion over which the actor has limited control. Thus the high recidivism rate. Those who have acted on those compulsions should be removed from society until we can be reasonably assured that they will not do so in the future. Something we cannot do with current psychiatric or pharmacological techniques. Lobotomy, anyone?

This, of course, applies to true pedophiles. It does not apply to the 21 year old convicted of consensual sex with a 14 year old.

[gdnp]

I am completely against the death penalty yet I am commonly called a "right-winger" for most of my ideas on this board.

Does that mean I am a Liberal?

No, but it probably means you are not the most conservative member of the forum, just as Obama's support for the death penalty raises doubts that he is the most liberal member of congress, as others have asserted.

Back to the point. He is; like most politicians, giving a yes answer to both sides of the question.

Really? could you provide quotes? I'd like to take you on your word, but your prior assertions have not always held up to scrutiny.

[Dr Adequate]

LOL. You mistake my intent. I do not believe a true pedophile can be cured, and thus I believe they should be locked up for life even after they have served their sentences. Ah, the icing on the cherry on the cake.

Cicero has now been wrong about the meaning of your post in every possible respect short of saying that it was a sonnet about the foraging strategies of three-toed tree sloths.

Cicero, do you not begin to see that you might have a problem?

[Beerina]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case

I am no fan of the death penalty. But I have to agree with Obama.

Child rapists...especially those who do it multiple times to the same child..should be put to death.

Child abuse is not a crime of passion...perhaps making child rape a Federal crime punishable by death would deter enough folks from doing it.

You don't execute child rapists for the same reason you don't execute adult rapists.

Why?


(Final Jeopardy music plays here for awhile. When tired of listening, scroll down.)



























Since you're gonna be executed anyway, well, dead kids tell no tales





This issue is a wonderful example highlighting the law of unintended consequences colliding with "that feels good!" issue pandering.

[Pookster]

I think the law of unintended consequences might bite you in the butt there.

If you make any crime against the person short of murder subject to the death sentence, then there is no practical incentive for the criminal not to go on and kill his victim, and one big practical incentive to do so --- the silence of the witness. The only thing restraining the criminal from protecting his interests by murdering his victim would be ... his conscience? ... oh, hold on ...

In short, it might well decrease rapes, but it might well increase rape-murders.


I see and understand the point you're making, but I seriously doubt that the unintended consequences would come into play with child molesters. Most perps tend to be family friends or family. While I'm clearly no expert concerning the mindset of a child molester, I suspect that many believe they won't get caught when they are committing the crime. Also, I believe a big majority of cases are generally discovered in the days/weeks/years after the crime is committed. I dare say that most who would be likely to kill their victim to cover up the crime are already doing so without the death penalty. I admit that I can't back up what I'm contending, but this is the impression I get from the cases I've read about in the past.

[Ocelot]

Are you talking about chemical castration or physical castration?

I was presuming that we were talking about physical. I don't know much about chemical castration but thought it'd have simialr effects.

[Snide]

Then you are for the death penalty.Yeah, and...?

[Cicero]

Ah, the icing on the cherry on the cake.

Cicero has now been wrong about the meaning of your post in every possible respect short of saying that it was a sonnet about the foraging strategies of three-toed tree sloths.

Cicero, do you not begin to see that you might have a problem?

You are a piece of work. You reflexively omit gdnp's "I apologize for not making that more explicit," in your haste to make another fustian feckless and fractious retort. Had you allowed gdnp to answer about his own post, which he has now done in greater clarity, you could have saved yourself from these convulsions of cacophonous diatribes. But that would run counter to your nature.

BTW: icing goes on the cake, not the cherry. Surely someone with your caloric consumptions would know this.

[Cicero]

He's taken the utterly unobjectional statement: "DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases", and thrown away the words "in a narrow class of cases", thus completely changing the meaning of the sentence into some crackbrained drivel that Cicero made up in his head.

What? Barry Scheck's meaning was long ago clarified when he dismissed the DNA that incriminated Simpson back in 1994.

[Dr Adequate]

You are a piece of work. You reflexively omit gdnp's "I apologize for not making that more explicit," in your haste to make another fustian feckless and fractious retort. Had you allowed gdnp to answer about his own post, which he has now done in greater clarity, you could have saved yourself from these convulsions of cacophonous diatribes. But that would run counter to your nature.

BTW: icing goes on the cake, not the cherry. Surely someone with your caloric consumptions would know this. You were completely wrong, weren't you?

Did that windy little tantrum make you feel better?

[Dr Adequate]

What? Barry Scheck's meaning was long ago clarified when he dismissed the DNA that incriminated Simpson back in 1994. And yet this "clarification" apparently led you to misunderstand the meaning of a straightforward piece of English.

With clarification like that, who needs obscurantism?

[ZirconBlue]

I see and understand the point you're making, but I seriously doubt that the unintended consequences would come into play with child molesters. Most perps tend to be family friends or family.

Which leads to a hypothesis I heard on the radio the other day: Victims will be less likely to report rapes if the death penalty is applied to such cases. The reasoning goes:

A) Victims will not want their family member to be killed, and/or
B) Other family members will put pressure on the victim not to report, because they don't want their friend/family member to be killed.

I don't know if there is any evidence to back this up, but it seems a non-unlikely scenario to me.

[gdnp]

I'm just thrilled to know that my opinion on how long child rapists should be locked up carries so much weight that it became the main topic of debate. :blush:

[Pookster]

Which leads to a hypothesis I heard on the radio the other day: Victims will be less likely to report rapes if the death penalty is applied to such cases. The reasoning goes:

A) Victims will not want their family member to be killed, and/or
B) Other family members will put pressure on the victim not to report, because they don't want their friend/family member to be killed.

I don't know if there is any evidence to back this up, but it seems a non-unlikely scenario to me.


You make a good point. The law here in South Carolina applied to repeat offenders. I don't know how many of those tend to be family members.

Many/most cases tend to go unreported anyways, based on anonymous surveys of teens/adults who claim to have experienced it. Many cases are discovered because of injury that requires medical attention and/or when STDs are diagnosed. Some cases are discovered because of suspicion of others (like school officials) from how a child may be acting. I guess a lot will depend on each situation.

Edited to add: I also wonder how many cases go unreported now because the victim and/or family don't want their relative to even go to jail or create such a controversy for the family.

[T.A.M.]

I think this is a tough one...

The death penalty in and of itself is not an easy decision for me. As a physician, I am to hold the sanctity of life above all else, or at least in theory that is how it is suppose to work.

Beyond that, personally, I am torn. When I place myself in the position of losing a son or daughter to a murder, my gut instinct is vengeance. I think this is natural of all parents. As well, if one of my children were raped, my natural impulse would be one of vengeance.

I think, however, that it is a mistake to use only the basal instinctive reaction as a decider in such a case. One has to use emotion free logic and practicality as well.

As a result, I think I am likely going to side against Obama on this one. As much as my gut would tell me to seek death for any person who raped my children, the logical, unemotional side of me, tells me such a punishment would, as others have said, lead to more rape-murders, a more horrible crime IMO. Lock them up and throw away the key I say.

TAM:)

[Cicero]

You were completely wrong, weren't you?

Did that windy little tantrum make you feel better?

Right. gdnp explained how I might have misinterpreted his post. But if I had not mischaracterized gdnp's positon, we would have all missed out on your tempest in a tea pot soliloquy.


Here are examples of more Scheckisms:

"We can now use DNA to get suspects and to eliminate the wrong people very, very early in the investigation, but we're not putting enough money into it right now."


"It's going to save money across the board and it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty and excluding the truly innocent."]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/scheck.html

Notice he did not say "convict" the truly guilty. DNA for Sheck is always valuable when arresting suspects/truly guilty, but not valuable for conviction? Yet Sheck is not so wishy washy when it comes to DNA being the avenger of the wrongfully accused/sentenced.

When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution?

[Cleon]

"We can now use DNA to get suspects and to eliminate the wrong people very, very early in the investigation, but we're not putting enough money into it right now."


"It's going to save money across the board and it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty and excluding the truly innocent."]


...There is nothing wrong with either of these statements, as far as I can see. :confused:


Notice he did not say "convict" the truly guilty.

That's some world-class hair-splitting, right there. Congratulations, I guess.

[Babbylonian]

When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution?
What? Why would a prosecutor ever call an attorney - especially a famous defense attorney - as an "expert witness on DNA?" Your Sheck fixation, and your persistence in distorting his words, is really weird.

[Brainster]

There is certainly an argument to be made about whether or not child rapists should be executed. But I think that's an argument better debated in the legislature than in front of the Supreme Court.

[corplinx]

As a result, I think I am likely going to side against Obama on this one.



The first step in your de-programming is done. Check back in next week.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Cicero
When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution?


What? Why would a prosecutor ever call an attorney - especially a famous defense attorney - as an "expert witness on DNA?" Your Sheck fixation, and your persistence in distorting his words, is really weird.

One could also ask "when has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the defense?".

Or, when has any lawyer ever been called as a expert witness in a scientific field? Lawyers are experts in the law (at least in theory). While Sheck may know a lot more about DNA than the average person or average lawyer, I'm fairly sure he's still not qualified as an expert in DNA.

[gdnp]

There is certainly an argument to be made about whether or not child rapists should be executed. But I think that's an argument better debated in the legislature than in front of the Supreme Court.

The supreme court felt otherwise. The majority opinion held that execution for rape was excessive punishment and thus unconstitutional.

[Cicero]

One could also ask "when has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the defense?".

Or, when has any lawyer ever been called as a expert witness in a scientific field? Lawyers are experts in the law (at least in theory). While Sheck may know a lot more about DNA than the average person or average lawyer, I'm fairly sure he's still not qualified as an expert in DNA.

While Sheck was not a "witness" for the Simpson defense, Sheck managed a ridiculous 10-day cross examination of LAPD forensic scientist Dennis Fong during the Simpson case. If he was not an expert, why was Simpson paying him to be on his legal team? His own bio describes him as a "leading DNA fingerprinting expert."

Did you think someone could not be an expert in more than one field? So much for the Renaissance man.

So why doesn't Sheck offer his services to prosecution offices? He would not need to be a defense "witness," since his expertise in DNA would best be served in the capacity as a lawyer, as he did in Simpson. But he can't prosecute a case, not being a prosecutor, so he could only be a "witness" for them.

[Piggy]

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/6132000_bs.htm

Read much?

Yes, I do. Quite a lot, in fact. Perhaps that's why I noticed the phrase "only... in a narrow class of cases" -- you seem to have misunderstood which part of the clause the word "only" applies to -- and the word "most".

[Piggy]

Since you're gonna be executed anyway, well, dead kids tell no tales

That, of course, is the point I raised very early on, and which none of the advocates of DP for rapists bothered to address.

[Piggy]

What? Barry Scheck's meaning was long ago clarified when he dismissed the DNA that incriminated Simpson back in 1994.

The Simpson case is not a good example, because it involved police tampering.

The question the jury had to decide was this: What do you do with a guilty man who has been framed?

In the end, they decided that they had to acquit because of the actions of the police during the investigation. And frankly, I agree with them. Dirty cops are much more of a threat to the public safety than Simpson is now.

[Piggy]

Here are examples of more Scheckisms:

"We can now use DNA to get suspects and to eliminate the wrong people very, very early in the investigation, but we're not putting enough money into it right now."


"It's going to save money across the board and it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty and excluding the truly innocent."]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/scheck.html

Notice he did not say "convict" the truly guilty. DNA for Sheck is always valuable when arresting suspects/truly guilty, but not valuable for conviction? Yet Sheck is not so wishy washy when it comes to DNA being the avenger of the wrongfully accused/sentenced.

"We can now use DNA to get suspects"

"it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty"

Because he doesn't use your magic word, you somehow construe these statements as denying the utility of DNA to prosecute guilty parties?

That's like creationist-level thinking.

[gdnp]

"We can now use DNA to get suspects"

"it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty"

Because he doesn't use your magic word, you somehow construe these statements as denying the utility of DNA to prosecute guilty parties?

That's like creationist-level thinking.

Why do you think that police want to keep DNA databases of convicted felons? It's not to exonerate them. It's to catch them the next time they commit a crime.

[Piggy]

Why do you think that police want to keep DNA databases of convicted felons? It's not to exonerate them. It's to catch them the next time they commit a crime.

Um... I don't get your leap there.

I was only talking about one person's mis-interpretation of cherry-picked quotations by one attorney.

It has nothing to do with law enforcement in general.

My father was a cop, and I have a brother who's a prosecutor. I'm not dissing cops and prosecutors.

[Cicero]

The Simpson case is not a good example, because it involved police tampering.

The question the jury had to decide was this: What do you do with a guilty man who has been framed?

In the end, they decided that they had to acquit because of the actions of the police during the investigation. And frankly, I agree with them. Dirty cops are much more of a threat to the public safety than Simpson is now.

What are you talking about? What "dirty" cops? Where did any Simpson attorney, including Scheck, prove "police tampering?" Your bizarre recollections of the Simpson case make "creationist-level thinking" look positively numinous by comparison.

[gdnp]

Um... I don't get your leap there.

I was only talking about one person's mis-interpretation of cherry-picked quotations by one attorney.

It has nothing to do with law enforcement in general.

My father was a cop, and I have a brother who's a prosecutor. I'm not dissing cops and prosecutors.

Sorry. My post was meant to be in support of your POV, that DNA can be used both to exonerate and convict. It was a response to Cicero.

[Dr Adequate]

Right. gdnp explained how I might have misinterpreted his post. But if I had not mischaracterized gdnp's positon, we would have all missed out on your tempest in a tea pot soliloquy. You may want to find out what "soliloquy" means, but yes, you do have a kind of point --- the only conceivable function of people like you is to give peoplle like me someone to score off.

Here are examples of more Scheckisms:

"We can now use DNA to get suspects and to eliminate the wrong people very, very early in the investigation, but we're not putting enough money into it right now."


"It's going to save money across the board and it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty and excluding the truly innocent."]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/scheck.html

Notice he did not say "convict" the truly guilty. DNA for Sheck is always valuable when arresting suspects/truly guilty, but not valuable for conviction? Yet Sheck is not so wishy washy when it comes to DNA being the avenger of the wrongfully accused/sentenced.

When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution? Right, he specifically says that DNA can be used to "get suspects" and to "apprehend the truly guilty". So when you pretended that: "the notorious Barry Sheck of The Innocence Project beleive DNA is only reliable as a tool for exculpatory, but not inculpatory", you were, as usual, talking complete bollocks, weren't you? I'm not even going to mention your grammar, you've suffered enough.

[gdnp]

What are you talking about? What "dirty" cops? Where did any Simpson attorney, including Scheck, prove "police tampering?" Your bizarre recollections of the Simpson case make "creationist-level thinking" look positively numinous by comparison.

Simpson's defense did not have to prove police tampering, they just had to raise enough doubt in the jury's mind about the chain of evidence that tampering might have taken place, thus making the DNA evidence that so convincingly linked Simpson to the scene of the crime less credible. All they needed was a "reasonable doubt" that there was really any of Simpson's blood at the scene. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors.

[Piggy]

What are you talking about? What "dirty" cops? Where did any Simpson attorney, including Scheck, prove "police tampering?" Your bizarre recollections of the Simpson case make "creationist-level thinking" look positively numinous by comparison.

The case hinged on evidence tampering by the police.

If you don't recall that, then you don't recall the trial.

ETA: Does the phrase "Something wrong" ring any bells for you?

[Piggy]

Simpson's defense did not have to prove police tampering, they just had to raise enough doubt in the jury's mind about the chain of evidence that tampering might have taken place, thus making the DNA evidence that so convincingly linked Simpson to the scene of the crime less credible. All they needed was a "reasonable doubt" that there was really any of Simpson's blood at the scene. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors.

In fact, they had to do less than that, as it turned out.

The jury was put in a rather sticky situation. The evidence clearly pointed to Simpson's guilt. Yet it also clearly indicated police tampering (e.g. the matching glove in the shrubs allegedly found outside the house where no plausible scenario could have reasonably placed it, and DNA evidence supposedly gathered from the Bronco later than DNA collected at the crime scene which was somehow less degraded) as well as legal misconduct (entering Simpson's property with no warrant supposedly to "protect" him, when in fact he was certainly a prime suspect).

The evidence of tampering and misconduct outweighed the evidence of guilt, including legitimate DNA evidence at the crime scene.

[Texas]

In fact, they had to do less than that, as it turned out.

The jury was put in a rather sticky situation. The evidence clearly pointed to Simpson's guilt. Yet it also clearly indicated police tampering (e.g. the matching glove in the shrubs allegedly found outside the house where no plausible scenario could have reasonably placed it, and DNA evidence supposedly gathered from the Bronco later than DNA collected at the crime scene which was somehow less degraded) as well as legal misconduct (entering Simpson's property with no warrant supposedly to "protect" him, when in fact he was certainly a prime suspect).

The evidence of tampering and misconduct outweighed the evidence of guilt, including legitimate DNA evidence at the crime scene.

What evidence of police tampering was presented? It was alleged by the defense but no evidence was provided. You are trying to rationalize the simple fact that the OJ jury was never going to convict OJ on any grounds.

[Undesired Walrus]

What you have to wonder is, is it triangulation? He doesn't come off a pro-death-penalty guy. Is it real or is it just trying to get elected?

He's been like this since the debates with Alan Keyes in 2004 and more recently his book. It's not new.

[Piggy]

What evidence of police tampering was presented? It was alleged by the defense but no evidence was provided. You are trying to rationalize the simple fact that the OJ jury was never going to convict OJ on any grounds.

Apparently, you were not watching the same trial that I was watching.

And no, evidence tampering was not proven, of course, because it did not have to be. However, evidence of evidence-tampering and illegal warrantless search was indeed provided.

On the other hand, you belittle the jury with no support for what you're saying.

By their own accounts, they had a tough decision to make, and there is no indication that there was any predisposition to acquit.

In my opinion, they made the right choice. If I had been on the jury, I would probably have concurred and acquitted Simpson despite being convinced of his guilt.

[Pookster]

That, of course, is the point I raised very early on, and which none of the advocates of DP for rapists bothered to address.


I did.

[Cicero]

--- the only conceivable function of people like you is to give peoplle like me someone to score off.
.

Sorry, but not surprised, to here you are only "scoring" on the internet. Have you thought about getting out of your humble abode? Or from where you are posting, do they only allow for visiting days every other week?

You keep ignoring the fact that if Scheck truly believed DNA was equally reliable as a determiner of guilt, he would not have hitched his wagon to Simpson.

[Cicero]

The case hinged on evidence tampering by the police.

If you don't recall that, then you don't recall the trial.

ETA: Does the phrase "Something wrong" ring any bells for you?

You mean the words mumbled by Henry Lee? The guy who said he wished he had never been involved in the Simpson trial. The guy that Court Judge Larry Fidler concluded had "hid or accidentally destroyed a piece of evidence" from the scene of actress Lana Clarkson's shooting. That guy?


OK. As Vince Bugliosi has already deflated that testimony long ago, here it is again for your edification.

"The principle suspicious thing that caused Lee to say "something wrong," to wit, the transfer stains, wasn't suspicious at all. Contemporaneous with these transfers from the blood drop swatches (item 47), some of the swatches of Nichole's blood (item 42) taken from the pool of blood around the body also leaked, on the very same day at the LAPD lab, onto the paper of the separate bindle enclosing them. Since no one would be crazy enough to beleive that LAPD, for no reason whatsoever, would be planting Nichole's blood in the crime lab, we know there was a perfectly innocent explanation for the transfer stains on the other bindle, too."

Nobody but the Simpson jurors, and their like-minded fans, such as yourself.

What else you got? The bloody glove found at Rockingham? Sure. Furham planted that glove at Simpson's home, without even knowing if Simpson was in town, much less at his house, when the crime was committed. Explain again why Furham would put his career, and risk a jail sentence, for planting evidence on someone who might have had an air tight alibi, but unbeknownst to Furhman, turned out he didn't?

[Dr Adequate]

Sorry, but not surprised, to here you are only "scoring" on the internet. Have you thought about getting out of your humble abode? Or from where you are posting, do they only allow for visiting days every other week? I am not sure where you are getting your ... ah ... "information" from, but as usual, it is inaccurate.

You keep ignoring the fact that if Scheck truly believed DNA was equally reliable as a determiner of guilt, he would not have hitched his wagon to Simpson. Interesting leap of logic. I don't suppose you'd care to connect your conclusion to the premise. That's not the sort of thing you do, is it?

I notice that you've shifted the goalposts from whether it's he thinks its not reliable to whether he thinks it's equally reliable. As your comprehension skills are somewhat limited, I suggest that you abandon your attempts to resolve this question by hermeneutic analysis of his writings, and just email the guy and ask him.

As to why Scheck "hitched his wagon to Simpson", I believe that the fellow is a lawyer and that occasionally they will defend people for money. A few of them, I'm told, even do so without a wholehearted belief in the innocence of every single one of their clients.

The fact is, Cicero old chum, you were, as usual, completely wrong about the meaning of this sentence:

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK And you don't look at all pretty trying to backpedal out of it.

[Piggy]

You mean the words mumbled by Henry Lee? The guy who said he wished he had never been involved in the Simpson trial. The guy that Court Judge Larry Fidler concluded had "hid or accidentally destroyed a piece of evidence" from the scene of actress Lana Clarkson's shooting. That guy?

Exactly. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not making any judgments about the validity of his testimony -- altho it was a brilliant play -- I'm just saying that the issue of evidence tampering was key to the trial.

And it certainly was.

[Piggy]

I did.

My apologies, then.

[Piggy]

Nobody but the Simpson jurors, and their like-minded fans, such as yourself.

What else you got? The bloody glove found at Rockingham? Sure. Furham planted that glove at Simpson's home, without even knowing if Simpson was in town, much less at his house, when the crime was committed. Explain again why Furham would put his career, and risk a jail sentence, for planting evidence on someone who might have had an air tight alibi, but unbeknownst to Furhman, turned out he didn't?

Fans of what?

The guy was guilty as the day is long. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me.

The reason they entered his property illegally with a bogus story about protecting him, and why they planted evidence -- care to give any reasonable scenario which would place the glove where they said they found it? -- was that they were sure he did it and they didn't want him to get off. Happens all the time.

It was just sloppy and dishonest police work. And it's a shame because they didn't have to do it that way. It would have been fairly easy and quick to get a warrant and do it right.

Instead, they wound up putting the jury in a situation where they had to make the choice they had to make.

I was on a jury once where we were confronted with somewhat similar circumstances. Had the police done their job, we could have convicted. Instead, they made early assumptions of guilt and did everything wrong thereafter, which left room for reasonable doubt and we had to acquit.