New evidenced released that Texas executed innocent man in death of 3 daughters

[glenn1]

So basically we can't do away with the death penalty for US citizens accused of criminal acts because Hitler. That makes lots of sense.

So basically we can't have the death penalty because mankind can't achieve perfection in this world. That makes lots of sense. Maybe it is better that we just give people life without parole since then you guys don't give a shit about them and just let them rot whereas if someone is given the DP you'll spend thousands of hours pro bono trying to exonerate them. Often for evil men who would kill you too given an opportunity.

 

[glenn1]

I'm an American and I don't support the death penalty because of bullshit like this. For one's own government to kill them for no reason? That's FUBAR.

Too bad for you this is a representative democracy then and we live under the rule of the people, not one sensitive person's gut feelings.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm an American and I don't support the death penalty because of bullshit like this. For one's own government to kill them for no reason? That's FUBAR.

The government did kill him for a reason - because a jury of citizens found him guilty and a jury of citizens decided on the death penalty.

You can be against the death penalty no problem, I respect everyone's opinion on that subject. But to say this was done by the government for no reason, is incorrect.

 

[K1052]

So basically we can't have the death penalty because mankind can't achieve perfection in this world. That makes lots of sense. Maybe it is better that we just give people life without parole since then you guys don't give a shit about them and just let them rot whereas if someone is given the DP you'll spend thousands of hours pro bono trying to exonerate them. Often for evil men who would kill you too given an opportunity.

I find it highly interesting that many people who don't generally trust the government to do anything are, in large part, perfectly fine with it executing it's citizens on the say so of a demonstrably flawed justice system.

 

[Vic]

The government did kill him for a reason - because a jury of citizens found him guilty and a jury of citizens decided on the death penalty.

You can be against the death penalty no problem, I respect everyone's opinion on that subject. But to say this was done by the government for no reason, is incorrect.

Would the jury have reached the same decision had they been provided all the evidence? If they had known that the jailhouse snitch had cut a deal in exchange for his testimony?

 

[Vic]

So basically we can't have the death penalty because mankind can't achieve perfection in this world. That makes lots of sense. Maybe it is better that we just give people life without parole since then you guys don't give a shit about them and just let them rot whereas if someone is given the DP you'll spend thousands of hours pro bono trying to exonerate them. Often for evil men who would kill you too given an opportunity.

You're frothing at the mouth and bouncing from one extreme straw man to another.
Your mentality is that of the lynch mob.
If you want to use the death penalty, then you need abide by the law and by justice in its application.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It's neither of those. Some people demonstrate themselves to be basically feral with no regards for others, will always be a danger to others, and no remorse or grief about the damage they have done and would do to their next victims given the opportunity. Some people are not redeemable and we should kill them as we would a rabid animal; humanely, without malice, and swiftly. The world is most certainly not a better place with terrorists, psychopaths, or evil men being allowed to stay alive because we're trying to somehow demonstrate we are better people than they are as we already are.

Then knowingly exeuting an innocent person should call for the same death penalty.

 

[Vic]

I find it highly interesting that many people who don't generally trust the government to do anything are, in large part, perfectly fine with it executing it's citizens on the say so of a demonstrably flawed justice system.

"A crime's been done and someone needs to pay. JimBob, go have the n*****s draw lots to see which one of 'em will face the rope for this."

 

[cubby1223]

Would the jury have reached the same decision had they been provided all the evidence? If they had known that the jailhouse snitch had cut a deal in exchange for his testimony?

You would have to ask the members of the jury that question. These are subjective decisions they are tasked to make.

I was responding to the comment that the government killed him for no reason. That is false. The government killed him because a group of citizens instructed the government to kill him. If you want to argue that citizens should not have the power to make such decisions, then so be it. That is a separate argument.

 

[glenn1]

"A crime's been done and someone needs to pay. JimBob, go have the n*****s draw lots to see which one of 'em will face the rope for this."

Sounds more like liberal cities and their police. BTW, they just shoot unarmed civilians in the face, not hang them.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Frontline did a special on this case that gives more background: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

It now appears a key prosecution witness testified in return for a secret promise to have his own sentence reduced:

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/10/more-questions-raised-cameron-todd-willingham-case/

Texas is a shithole, they executed an innocent man for something that shouldn't have been a crime.

Edit: another good article about the case:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

Edit 2:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ill-do-anything-to-beat-romney-and-obama.html

Jesus Christ the GOP has a fucked up voter base:



Edit 2: Someone on reddit commented on how far Perry went to execute this man, what a piece of shit

man i saw that frontline and it was pretty outrageous. the gov hired psychologists to go into court and testify that willingham was a "sociopath" even though everyone who knew him said he wasnt. they had fake "expert" fire witnesses that just went into court with no qualifications who made up that me had murdered his kids with the fire. they had videos of perry saying all kinds of bad things about him as well in interviews. the american court system is a total scam, if the gov is determined to convict someone of something its gonna happen, "due process" means nothing if the process and the court are frauds. texas is worse than isis or the taliban

 

[Subyman]

You're frothing at the mouth and bouncing from one extreme straw man to another.
Your mentality is that of the lynch mob.
If you want to use the death penalty, then you need abide by the law and by justice in its application.

Of course he is, he admitted the only reason he believes in the death penalty is vengeance. Then he makes extreme hyperbole to try to hand wave his view, which is, as we already know, cemented in vengeance. 😉

 

[Subyman]

So basically we can't have the death penalty because mankind can't achieve perfection in this world.

That is a good argument, especially when there is an alternative and the only reason for doing the other is vengeance.

 

[glenn1]

That is a good argument, especially when there is an alternative and the only reason for doing the other is vengeance.

Do you shed a tear every time a mass murderer is executed? I'd hate to see you cry.

 

[brycejones]

Do you shed a tear every time a mass murderer is executed? I'd hate to see you cry.

Would you shed a tear if you knew an innocent person was executed?

 

[Subyman]

Do you shed a tear every time a mass murderer is executed? I'd hate to see you cry.

No, but stories like the one in the OP are very troubling.

 

[glenn1]

Would you shed a tear if you knew an innocent person was executed?

If you don't believe in the trial by jury system then what's the point? Citizens are empowered to vote for those who would send millions to die/kill in war but are somehow not trustworthy to be empowered to take a life when it's in single digits rather than millions?

 

[Subyman]

If you don't believe in the trial by jury system then what's the point? Citizens are empowered to vote for those who would send millions to die/kill in war but are somehow not trustworthy to be empowered to take a life when it's in single digits rather than millions?

So you believe there has never been a jury that got the verdict wrong? Wow, that's some trust in the general population. You believe a prosecutor would never color the facts? You believe in every expert testimony?

Well, hell! We should just get rid of the appeals courts! 🙂

 

[glenn1]

So you believe there has never been a jury that got the verdict wrong? Wow, that's some trust in the general population. You believe a prosecutor would never color the facts? You believe in every expert testimony?

Well, hell! We should just get rid of the appeals courts! 🙂

You're the one who seems to be insisting that unless we somehow become angelic beings capable of perfection, that execution should be ruled out. Either the standards of trial by jury, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, appeal process, are sufficient for any penalty including death or they aren't sufficient for any.

 

[Subyman]

You're the one who seems to be insisting that unless we somehow become angelic beings capable of perfection, that execution should be ruled out. Either the standards of trial by jury, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, appeal process, are sufficient for any penalty including death or they aren't sufficient for any.

That is not true at all. Someone serving life, like the man executed in this story could have, would have the chance to prove their innocence over time. This man would very likely be released due to all the new evidence. He can't, because he was killed.

And when it comes to society condoning killing your neighbors, there is a strong argument for perfection.

 

[glenn1]

That is not true at all. Someone serving life, like the man executed in this story could have, would have the chance to prove their innocence over time. This man would very likely be released due to all the new evidence. He can't, because he was killed.

And when it comes to society condoning killing your neighbors, there is a strong argument for perfection.

Yeah, take a look at some of the folks that have been executed recently. In the most recent, Askari Abdullah Mohammed he stabbed a guard to death while on death row for other murders. You go tell the family of the guard how their husband and dad's death was a worthwhile sacrifice and that the convict should be allowed to live so he can kill other guards as well and likewise subject those families to similar pain and loss. I'll wait while you go tell them how it's immoral for the "state to kill someone" and how their dad got what was coming to him for being involved with it in the first place.

 

[Vic]

You would have to ask the members of the jury that question. These are subjective decisions they are tasked to make.

I was responding to the comment that the government killed him for no reason. That is false. The government killed him because a group of citizens instructed the government to kill him. If you want to argue that citizens should not have the power to make such decisions, then so be it. That is a separate argument.

Are you deliberately moving the goalposts or are you ignorant of this case?
The government (the prosecutor) intentionally withheld crucial evidence about the witness to the jury.
The government controlled the information that was provided to the citizens that they relied upon in order to come to their decision to so instruct the government.
The jury did its job here perfectly. The prosecutor flat out lied.

 

[Vic]

Yeah, take a look at some of the folks that have been executed recently. In the most recent, Askari Abdullah Mohammed he stabbed a guard to death while on death row for other murders. You go tell the family of the guard how their husband and dad's death was a worthwhile sacrifice and that the convict should be allowed to live so he can kill other guards as well and likewise subject those families to similar pain and loss. I'll wait while you go tell them how it's immoral for the "state to kill someone" and how their dad got what was coming to him for being involved with it in the first place.

What's your point? That it's okay if we execute innocent men on fabricated evidence as long as we get a couple guys like Ackmed here along the way?

 

[brycejones]

If you don't believe in the trial by jury system then what's the point? Citizens are empowered to vote for those who would send millions to die/kill in war but are somehow not trustworthy to be empowered to take a life when it's in single digits rather than millions?

So your basic argument is one of finality instead of justice.

Just fucking wow.

 

[Subyman]

Yeah, take a look at some of the folks that have been executed recently. In the most recent, Askari Abdullah Mohammed he stabbed a guard to death while on death row for other murders. You go tell the family of the guard how their husband and dad's death was a worthwhile sacrifice and that the convict should be allowed to live so he can kill other guards as well and likewise subject those families to similar pain and loss. I'll wait while you go tell them how it's immoral for the "state to kill someone" and how their dad got what was coming to him for being involved with it in the first place.

Death penalty or not, the guard was killed. 😉

You can tell the families of the innocent people killed by the state if vengeance was justified by their relative dying on accident. See I can make BS arguments too.