(02-26-2021, 03:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(02-26-2021, 03:26 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: 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?

I get the difference, it's you who can't accept the fact that you are wrong. What is "undeniable" really sometimes isn't, and your "hard facts" have been PROVEN to be less than factual in some cases. If you want to go with the Forensic Evidence bit the IP has plenty of additional cases where that evidence was tossed as well. The simple fact is that the idea that a person convicted of a capital offense should not get the opportunity to appeal is foolish bluster. The system we have takes time to get it right before we execute someone and even then is still shown to be wrong sometimes. But I know you don't care that innocent people get executed and you won't right up until that innocent person is you.

If you're not going to cite any specific cases using the guidelines I stated to prove your argument, then there is not point continuing this discussion. If your opinion "held water" then you would be able to point to a case and say, "here is where "undeniable evidence" was wrong." I'm not gonna continue to go back and forth when you just throw out vague, generalizations.

---