Login

TheO-LineMatters · 02-26-2021, 03:26 PM

(02-26-2021, 02:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 12:51 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Give me some examples of where people were caught in the act of murder or had their DNA all over a dead body, but were innocent? You say this undeniable evidence can be proven wrong, yet you give no examples. You just spout unfounded generalizations.

As for being a liberal, if you preach liberal ideology, how do you expect people to react? What you are saying, certainly sounds like speech from the far left.

https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonera...ed-states/

130 DNA exonerees were wrongfully convicted for murders; 40 (31%) of these cases involved eyewitness misidentifications and 81 (62%) involved false confessions [as of July 9, 2018]

23 (22%) of the 104 people whose cases involved false confessions had exculpatory DNA evidence available at the time of trial but were still wrongfully convicted [as of July 29, 2020]

It's really kind of pathetic that you think a fair trial is "liberal ideology". It's makes your bloodthirst quite understandable though.

You're not helping your case here at all. These are just generalizations and random stats. I want specific cases where seminal fluid, saliva and/or blood was found on the body or skin cells were found under the victims fingernails or someone was caught in the act of murder and they were shown to be wrongfully convicted. Those are specific examples of undeniable evidence proving someone's guilt. You simply cannot argue against this. These are hard facts.

I never once even brought up false confessions, so I don't know why you are bringing this up? I know some people make false confessions and I know witnesses make mistakes as well. Those things don't pertain to what I have been talking about. None of that is undeniable evidence and doesn't pertain to this specific conversation. In those types of cases, of course the appeals process would remain in tact. I never disputed that, but in the cases I mentioned in my first paragraph specifically, that evidence is "rock solid" and appeals in those cases should be denied and murders should be put to death. How do you not get the difference?