Death Penalty

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Really? Because it's the lawyers who are "threatening" to sue? Come on, the fact is that the victims are seeking justice and have hired someone to represent them. You dislike lawyers, but in reality, all you are really saying is you dislike people who represent someone else's interests above their own.

By the way, lawyers don't need to be put on a pedestal, but I bet you have never really considered how much you, and all of society, owe them.

I have nothing against lawyers but apparently you have issues with your profession. As for Mr. Pinsky, seems like just another ambulance chaser to me.

Enter Connecticut attorney Irving Pinsky, who announced last month that he would be seeking to sue the state on behalf of an unnamed client referred to only as “Jill Doe.” Pinsky, reportedly the mastermind behind holding up a 1-800-Law-Cash sign in the crowd outside the Today Show studios, argued that the state should be held responsible for the “emotional and psychological trauma” his young client endured.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I was a PD, I know it's dark, but someone has to do it. It's hard. It has all sorts of moral conundrums. It is the most noble profession, yet the most derided.

There is no successful part of our society that hasn't been shaped by lawyers.

It has been a couple of decades since last I saw Henry VI (part 2), but, it seems to me Shakespeare (or at least the production that I saw) makes much of this. Prior to Cade's Rebellion, we hear the famous "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" and everyone laughs. By the end, we have seen a long string of murders, lords and commoners alike, that are the result of "justice" without a functioning justice system, and, having laughed beforehand, we are all complicit.

The reason that we have to have a judicial system is that the alternative, revenge, is hideous, and seldom results in true justice.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Really? Because it's the lawyers who are "threatening" to sue? Come on, the fact is that the victims are seeking justice and have hired someone to represent them. You dislike lawyers, but in reality, all you are really saying is you dislike people who represent someone else's interests above their own.

By the way, lawyers don't need to be put on a pedestal, but I bet you have never really considered how much you, and all of society, owe them.

I think you are confusing lawyers with philosophers.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

The US justice system is broken so your idea is t break it some more, from my jobs post:

"We have 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners. 39% of prisoners are black but on 13% of the US population is. The recidivism rate in the US is about over 60% that 10%-30% higher than the rest of the developed world.

But yea lets continue on the path we've been following ya know "kill-em-all and let god sort them out" or baring that throw the in jail for a good long time that'll teach 'em. I mean it's proven effective so far"

If you look a QOL at U.S. Prisons and compare them to the rest of the world you'll find that our's is worse.

I guess it's much easier to kill and punish than it is to invest in improving society over all. However, those prisons are not cheap. Too bad we can't invest in society, but you know a substantial number of us (in the U.S.) think that's dirty, anti-liberty, liberal type thinking. Mention punishment and it's easy to spend for something God approves of, but don't push that money for low income education and support.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Lighten up Francis. Must we parse every freaking throw away line in PRSI?

When you compare people to pond scum and smelly farts?

Yes.

When you attempt to dehumanize a sizable population, then IMO parsing is in order.

But thank you for clarifying it was a "throw away" post.

I've relegated it to the rubbish heap where it belongs.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Huntn

I guess it's much easier to kill and punish that it is to invest in improving society over all. However, those prisons are not cheap. Too bad we can't invest in society, but you know a substantial number of us (in the U.S.) think that's dirty, anti-liberty, liberal type thinking. Mention punishment and it's easy to spend for something God approves of, but don't push that money for low income education and support.

I get tired of the ****um attitude..

The older I get the less inclined I am to hold my tongue..Like I said in another thread in the community "the older I get the less Punk I look but the more Punk I become" My native proclivities are no longer to "work with the system" or "civil disobedience" that doesn't seem to work any more. I'd love to say I could emulate Dr. King or Ghandi, but I'm much more Malcolm X anymore. One of my greatest failings as a human is that I'm no longer patient with adults especially if there being obtuse. I just want to break their nose then ask them if they understand..

Back to social problems, what do we expect people to do. We take away their self worth especially women at the first mistake. We fail in our education system, not all kids are going to college guys. We ostracize different no matter the different, then we all act shocked when they act out. 1/3 of all black men in America have been in contact with the CJ system and we wonder why their pissed. We send kids to prison, which in a very real sense takes away any hope for the future and wonder why they fight back. Conservatives deride the "welfare queen" with her cell phone and kids as lazy but we took her out of school because she believed some guy, and buys a phone that society tells her she has to have as we idolize it's founder (looking at you steve) who happened to not give one **** about anyone but him self. Immigration we've got an issue with that because their brown, the unskilled Irish (all 4 of my grandparents), Germans, and Russian came here and managed to make a life why cause they're white (there were some issues with the Irish). Our government is run by corporations they threatened us for years that they take our jobs if we didn't give them what they want, well they took them anyway and we still listen to them.

If I was anything other than what I am, a white male, I'd either have self destructed or been in jail.

There are some old fat white dudes who need to get there nose broken, and we as a society need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

end rant

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Huntn

However, those prisons are not cheap. Too bad we can't invest in society, but you know a substantial number of us (in the U.S.) think that's dirty, anti-liberty, liberal type thinking. Mention punishment and it's easy to spend for something God approves of, but don't push that money for low income education and support.

Leaving education out of it for the moment, and only looking at police and the justice system, it turns out that prisons are the most expensive option for reducing the crime rate. Prisons are very, very expensive. Some things are difficult to study empirically. But, it turns out that, although difficult, it isn't impossible to design experiments to measure the effect of different policing and prison strategies on crime. A number of studies have now been done. The empirical result is that there exist pro-active policing strategies that are significantly more cost-effective than prison, and, this is beginning to be recognized even in some Conservative political circles (more the fiscal conservative type than the social conservative type).

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Yes, high legal fees and frivolous lawsuits, thanks a lot lawyers.

Yeah, frivolous suits are usually dealt with by other lawyers who protect the system. The fact that there are suits that might seem frivolous to you, but actually have merit, doesn't even show up on your radar. Do you realize that almost every product you use has to withstand the scrutiny of "scummy" lawyers? You do realize that you can take a shower without losing your eyesight because of lawyers? Do you realize the food you eat is safe because of "frivolous" lawsuits? You can drive down the street without fear of unlawful prosecution because of lawyers.

You would have none of those things without the rule of law, and without the lawyers who dedicate their lives to that rule.

You couldn't do it.

Originally Posted by skunk

I think you are confusing lawyers with philosophers.

No, I'm confusing lawyers with people who dedicate their lives to the rule of law and the order that society needs.

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by mcrain

No, I'm confusing lawyers with people who dedicate their lives to the rule of law and the order that society needs.

"confusing" being the key word here. They are most certainly not all one and the same.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

"confusing" being the key word here. They are most certainly not all one and the same.

Really? Every lawyer I know operates under the same rules and same ethical guidelines. Name any other profession so adamant about protecting its own ethics? Can you name one?

(edit) Most professions cover up their misdeeds. Lawyers actively root it out.

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Really? Every lawyer I know operates under the same rules and same ethical guidelines. Name any other profession so adamant about protecting its own ethics? Can you name one?

(edit) Most professions cover up their misdeeds. Lawyers actively root it out.

Really? Every lawyer "dedicate(s) their lives to the rule of law"??

Could you make yourself sound any more like a martyr?? lol

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Really? Every lawyer I know operates under the same rules and same ethical guidelines. Name any other profession so adamant about protecting its own ethics? Can you name one?

(edit) Most professions cover up their misdeeds. Lawyers actively root it out.

Since a large majority of our elected representatives were graduated from the legal profession, I'm curious if you are including them in your ethics comments (and I include both the (D) kind as well as the (R) kind, since they are equally sleazy).

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Since a large majority of our elected representatives were graduated from the legal profession, I'm curious if you are including them in your ethics comments (and I include both the (D) kind as well as the (R) kind, since they are equally sleazy).

When they were operating as attorneys, then yes. We all have to abide by ethical rules that no other profession sets for themselves.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Huntn

If you look at the number of people who have been incorrectly sentenced to death based on DNA evidence that appeared later, you have to be against the death penalty in principle.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

...... When you remove a persons dignity what do you expect them to do when they're released?

The worst part is something like 16% of the homeless are veterans, and veterans make up less than 10% of the population. the rest can most likely be tied to Reagans cutting of mental health funding.

Two excellent points made here; I agree completely with your comment about the atrocious effects of humiliation and removing someone's dignity on any attempt at rehabilitation.

And your point about the treatment of vets - some of whom are still suffering, years, if not decades later, from the aftereffects of what they may have seen and done while on active service is a very salient one.

Originally Posted by mobilehaathi

I completely agree, and I have serious respect for public defenders, truly. Sorry if my abject cynicism offended you.

Well said.

Originally Posted by mcrain

I was a PD, I know it's dark, but someone has to do it. It's hard. It has all sorts of moral conuncrums. It is the most noble profession, yet the most derided.

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that it is 'the most noble profession' (maybe nurses might qualify for that particular title?) but I will agree that, at their best, (and all democratic societies have benefitted from the input of concerned, dedicated lawyers), lawyers have the potential to do an awful lot of good, and some of the really good ones have been brave and committed in defending the rights of minorities and the oppressed generally, sometimes at considerable personal cost, as the recent murder of outstanding and courageous lawyers such as Sergei Magnitsky demonstrates.

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

If there is talk of prision and the death penalty then poor is always first, and black is always second..

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/video/...ty-Awards.html

That is why I posted. A woman about to be executed in a western society? In the circumstances, it is simply inconceivable that she might be white, and wealthy, and privileged. Such a woman (and man) would never receive the supreme penalty. However, I read this evening that there has been another postponement of that particular planned execution.

Originally Posted by Huntn

I guess it's much easier to kill and punish that it is to invest in improving society over all. However, those prisons are not cheap. Too bad we can't invest in society, but you know a substantial number of us (in the U.S.) think that's dirty, anti-liberty, liberal type thinking. Mention punishment and it's easy to spend for something God approves of, but don't push that money for low income education and support.

I agree completely with you.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

There are a lot of lawyers.

So finding "many" who are somewhere above pond scum but below smelly farts shouldn't be that difficult depending on how you define "many".

How do you define it?

I'm curious.

Come on. We all know of those in the legal professions who have sold their souls to whatever the current exchange rate is for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. Likewise, we all know, or, at least some of us do, that there are those who believe in basic concepts such as human, or civil rights, and are prepared to fight for them, sometimes at considerable personal cost.

I'll go further. In societies where rights are a given, an entitlement where the right of access to such is not so contentious and disputed, in other words, fairer more equal societies, there is not usually as much need to seek recourse to legal representation in order to enforce one's rights.

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I get tired of the ****um attitude..

........

Back to social problems, what do we expect people to do. We take away their self worth especially women at the first mistake. We fail in our education system, not all kids are going to college guys. We ostracize different no matter the different, then we all act shocked when they act out. 1/3 of all black men in America have been in contact with the CJ system and we wonder why their pissed. We send kids to prison, which in a very real sense takes away any hope for the future and wonder why they fight back. Conservatives deride the "welfare queen" with her cell phone and kids as lazy but we took her out of school because she believed some guy, and buys a phone that society tells her she has to have as we idolize it's founder (looking at you steve) who happened to not give one **** about anyone but him self. Immigration we've got an issue with that because their brown, the unskilled Irish (all 4 of my grandparents), Germans, and Russian came here and managed to make a life why cause they're white (there were some issues with the Irish). Our government is run by corporations they threatened us for years that they take our jobs if we didn't give them what they want, well they took them anyway and we still listen to them.

If I was anything other than what I am, a white male, I'd either have self destructed or been in jail.

There are some old fat white dudes who need to get there nose broken, and we as a society need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

end rant

I agree with you. I'd phrase it perhaps differently, but I agree with the general point which seems to me to be that if a society seeks to exclude, insult, alienate certain marginalised groups, deny them their dignity - (remember, humiliation is a very powerful motivation), seeks to deny access to means whereby they can be legitimately included into that society in a meaningful way which allows them status and respect, and then to punish them further when they protest their exclusion, and refuse to allow them the means of rehabilitation, well, then, there should be little surprise at the unwelcome outcome of such policies.

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Leaving education out of it for the moment, and only looking at police and the justice system, it turns out that prisons are the most expensive option for reducing the crime rate. Prisons are very, very expensive. Some things are difficult to study empirically. But, it turns out that, although difficult, it isn't impossible to design experiments to measure the effect of different policing and prison strategies on crime. A number of studies have now been done. The empirical result is that there exist pro-active policing strategies that are significantly more cost-effective than prison, and, this is beginning to be recognized even in some Conservative political circles (more the fiscal conservative type than the social conservative type).

Actually, I'd include education in any such analysis. If you pour money into education at the primary level, the positive payoff for society is incalculable.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I get tired of the ****um attitude..

The older I get the less inclined I am to hold my tongue..Like I said in another thread in the community "the older I get the less Punk I look but the more Punk I become" My native proclivities are no longer to "work with the system" or "civil disobedience" that doesn't seem to work any more. I'd love to say I could emulate Dr. King or Ghandi, but I'm much more Malcolm X anymore. One of my greatest failings as a human is that I'm no longer patient with adults especially if there being obtuse. I just want to break their nose then ask them if they understand..

Back to social problems, what do we expect people to do. We take away their self worth especially women at the first mistake. We fail in our education system, not all kids are going to college guys. We ostracize different no matter the different, then we all act shocked when they act out. 1/3 of all black men in America have been in contact with the CJ system and we wonder why their pissed. We send kids to prison, which in a very real sense takes away any hope for the future and wonder why they fight back. Conservatives deride the "welfare queen" with her cell phone and kids as lazy but we took her out of school because she believed some guy, and buys a phone that society tells her she has to have as we idolize it's founder (looking at you steve) who happened to not give one **** about anyone but him self. Immigration we've got an issue with that because their brown, the unskilled Irish (all 4 of my grandparents), Germans, and Russian came here and managed to make a life why cause they're white (there were some issues with the Irish). Our government is run by corporations they threatened us for years that they take our jobs if we didn't give them what they want, well they took them anyway and we still listen to them.

If I was anything other than what I am, a white male, I'd either have self destructed or been in jail.

There are some old fat white dudes who need to get there nose broken, and we as a society need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

end rant

Thanks for cheering me up.

I imagine an advanced society as an entity that places real value on the overall health of itself and is willing to spend money to achieve the goal. We are not there. It's not even on the horizon. We've got a load of I've-got-mine, or don't-take-mine yahoos looking out for themselves, justifying it by spouting "my liberty!"

The important thing in my rant is that I don't have the answers, just see the problem. I agree with you that as long as large powerful corporations are in charge, we'll never see an overall balance in society. You can't give the responsibility to an organization whose only goal is to make themselves wealthy. They don't seem to be smart enough to know that if they destroy the purchase power of their market, they are doing a disservice to their country. Ah, but then again, the guys in charge will have made off with their golden parachutes to live happily ever after and they don't call them multi-national corporations for nothing...they go where the harvesting is best.

Love it or hate it, government is the only answer. It's our duty to make government better. It's not going to happen in an anarchy.

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Leaving education out of it for the moment, and only looking at police and the justice system, it turns out that prisons are the most expensive option for reducing the crime rate. Prisons are very, very expensive. Some things are difficult to study empirically. But, it turns out that, although difficult, it isn't impossible to design experiments to measure the effect of different policing and prison strategies on crime. A number of studies have now been done. The empirical result is that there exist pro-active policing strategies that are significantly more cost-effective than prison, and, this is beginning to be recognized even in some Conservative political circles (more the fiscal conservative type than the social conservative type).

Yeah, but we're getting our pound of flesh!

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Love it or hate it, government is the only answer. It's our duty to make government better. It's not going to happen in an anarchy.

Or through big business.

As has been pointed out many times, the end goal of business is make profits.

The end goal of government is to take care of its citizens.

It is absolutely is the duty of government to solve this problem

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by skunk

I think you are confusing lawyers with philosophers.

No, philosophers have zero influence, while lawyers actually represent both sides of every dispute. Without the reasoned, and articulated arguments before a learned judiciary, all done within a framework of laws defined by others who understand an incredibly complex system system of rules and laws, you would have anarchy.

Lawyers might be pond scum, until you need us.

The old maxim has always rung true. Pay us now, or pay us more later.

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Come on. We all know of those in the legal professions who have sold their souls to whatever the current exchange rate is for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. Likewise, we all know, or, at least some of us do, that there are those who believe in basic concepts such as human, or civil rights, and are prepared to fight for them, sometimes at considerable personal cost.

I'll go further. In societies where rights are a given, an entitlement where the right of access to such is not so contentious and disputed, in other words, fairer more equal societies, there is not usually as much need to seek recourse to legal representation in order to enforce one's rights.

You argue that lawyers who represent the Judases of the world are somehow terrible, but if it weren't for them, we would have no boundaries. If it weren't for the attorney representing the frivolous plaintiff, no one would know what the limits were. No one would know the boundaries. If you don't challenge the law, and every possible interpretation of the law, then no one knows what they can and can't do.

If you come to me and ask me to give you a legal opinion about what you can or cannot do on a specific issue, I can, but only because others fought about every nuance. You deride those who take fringe positions, but without them, you wouldn't know what was allowed.

Everything you eat, everything you do, everything is defined by a rule of law that is only as good as how effectively and thoroughly it has been tested by effective counsel. I mean, look at our constitution. Every single word has been tested, and retested. Our entire society is defined by scumbag lawyers.

You can continue to bash attorneys all you want. Hell, I know more good attorney jokes than all of you combined. That doesn't change the fact that every time you bash all attorneys, you make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

But hey, keep it up. It is amusing.

(I'll tell you what, I'll start bashing every techie for some imagined, but plausible insult. When I start sounding stupid, then you will know a fraction of how you sound.)

[skunk]

Originally Posted by mcrain

No, philosophers have zero influence, while lawyers actually represent both sides of every dispute. Without the reasoned, and articulated arguments before a learned judiciary, all done within a framework of laws defined by others who understand an incredibly complex system system of rules and laws, you would have anarchy.

Lawyers might be pond scum, until you need us.

The old maxim has always rung true. Pay us now, or pay us more later.



You argue that lawyers who represent the Judases of the world are somehow terrible, but if it weren't for them, we would have no boundaries. If it weren't for the attorney representing the frivolous plaintiff, no one would know what the limits were. No one would know the boundaries. If you don't challenge the law, and every possible interpretation of the law, then no one knows what they can and can't do.

If you come to me and ask me to give you a legal opinion about what you can or cannot do on a specific issue, I can, but only because others fought about every nuance. You deride those who take fringe positions, but without them, you wouldn't know what was allowed.

Everything you eat, everything you do, everything is defined by a rule of law that is only as good as how effectively and thoroughly it has been tested by effective counsel. I mean, look at our constitution. Every single word has been tested, and retested. Our entire society is defined by scumbag lawyers.

You can continue to bash attorneys all you want. Hell, I know more good attorney jokes than all of you combined. That doesn't change the fact that every time you bash all attorneys, you make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

But hey, keep it up. It is amusing.

(I'll tell you what, I'll start bashing every techie for some imagined, but plausible insult. When I start sounding stupid, then you will know a fraction of how you sound.)

You take yourself far too seriously.

And that last sentence, though apparently not aimed at me, was a personal insult.

[thehustleman]

Death penalty is simply hypocritical. You can't essentially say "killing is wtong" then kill them. Plus death is the easy way out. You kill them and they don't suffer. You give them life in the Fleece Johnson penitentiary with the toss salad man and they will suffer.

If I had to choose between real butt rape jail and death I'd jump in the tub, run out wet and naked and sit in the chair and beg them to turn it on.

Life imprisonment is way worse than death

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by thehustleman

Death penalty is simply hypocritical. You can't essentially say "killing is wtong" then kill them. Plus death is the easy way out. You kill them and they don't suffer. You give them life in the Fleece Johnson penitentiary with the toss salad man and they will suffer.

If I had to choose between real butt rape jail and death I'd jump in the tub, run out wet and naked and sit in the chair and beg them to turn it on.

Life imprisonment is way worse than death

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but have never really seen the logic of this line of argument. It basically says "killing someone who killed someone else is wrong, lets give them this far worse punishment instead - then they'll really suffer". I disagree that the death penalty is better than life inmprisonment, but that's not the point. I oppose the death penalty because I'm in favour of modern civilised nations acting in a modern civilised way, and am not motivated by a desire to inflict suffering on others. If somebody's reason for opposing the death penalty is because they support what they believe to be a more cruel punishment, then I'd really rather they kept quiet and stopped making the rest of us look bad.

[MuddyPaws1]

Death penalty should mean the death penalty. Not 20 years of farting around in court.

Prison should go back to hard labor. Not days of sitting around watching TV, surfing the web, playing basketball and crap like that.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Leaving education out of it for the moment, and only looking at police and the justice system, it turns out that prisons are the most expensive option for reducing the crime rate. Prisons are very, very expensive. Some things are difficult to study empirically. But, it turns out that, although difficult, it isn't impossible to design experiments to measure the effect of different policing and prison strategies on crime. A number of studies have now been done. The empirical result is that there exist pro-active policing strategies that are significantly more cost-effective than prison, and, this is beginning to be recognized even in some Conservative political circles (more the fiscal conservative type than the social conservative type).

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Actually, I'd include education in any such analysis. If you pour money into education at the primary level, the positive payoff for society is incalculable.

Originally Posted by Huntn

Yeah, but we're getting our pound of flesh!

Just to clarify what I intended: I think that education is also cost-effective, and, also reduces crime. There are a lot more factors to consider as well. But, a lot of people won't respond to that, because we are getting into complex societal interactions and a lot of people don't want to deal with that. Many people would rather deal with a set of simpler questions. Often, you just can't break down a problem that simply. But, in this case, it turns out that you can. To me, that is good news.

In the last few decades, people have been led to believe that draconian sentencing is the most cost-effective way to reduce crime. And the fact that it isn't, and that smart pro-active policing is more effective, is something that needs to be much more widely understood.

[yg17]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Death penalty should mean the death penalty. Not 20 years of farting around in court.

Prison should go back to hard labor. Not days of sitting around watching TV, surfing the web, playing basketball and crap like that.

Because due process is for sissies

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by yg17

Because due process is for sissies

What due process? If they are found guilty, then they are guilty. Get on with it. Endless appeals bleed our economy. Endless appeals make a mockery of the legal process and punishment. Couldn't get enough support to get rid of the death penalty so make it a life sentence by allowing endless, baseless, frivolous paperwork. Or do you mean due process means they should get HBO?

[yg17]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

What due process? If they are found guilty, then they are guilty. Get on with it. Endless appeals bleed our economy. Endless appeals make a mockery of the legal process and punishment. Couldn't get enough support to get rid of the death penalty so make it a life sentence by allowing endless, baseless, frivolous paperwork. Or do you mean due process means they should get HBO?

So all of the people on death row who were freed by DNA evidence not available at the time of the murder that proved their innocence should just be killed anyways?

Take Michael Morton, for example:

Morton spent 25 years in prison for murdering his wife before DNA evidence led to his exoneration in 2011. At the urging of his attorneys, a Court of Inquiry has been ordered into the actions of Morton's prosecutor, Ken Anderson, who is now a state district judge in Williamson County. Morton has accused Anderson of failing to provide defense lawyers with evidence indicating that another man might have killed Morton's wife, including information that his 3-year-old son witnessed the murder and said his dad was not home at the time

Obviously, Morton's lawyers were just filing "endless, baseless, frivolous paperwork", and we should've taken him out back and shot him immediately after the jury returned a guilty verdict, right?

The only mockery of the legal system here is an overzealous prosecutor failing to provide the defense with evidence, resulting in an innocent man spending a third of his life behind bars.

Here's a list of 300+ who were exonerated of murder charges. You'd rather see these innocent people executed?