So, it appears this man Texas executed was innocent

[Craig234]

It's good to review this case - covered in a Frontline documentary available to watch for free at the following link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ecute-an-innocent-man-answers-remain-elusive/

Forget the legal protections in place for defendants, the appeals process, the Governor's (Rick Perry and his commission's) power to commute, none of it worked.

What we had here was a failure of poor science presented as credible, and a failure for the justice system to correct the error; a conviction based on the false persuasion of 12 jurors of a '20 point list of evidence proving Arson', appeals to their biases by presenting rock music posters as 'Satanic worship', their inability to understand that one lie about his efforts in the fire did not prove the larger lie that he set the fire.

My prediction: everyone agrees that 'executing an innocent man is a horrible injustice' - but when actually presented with the evidence of it, supporters largely yawn.

'I'm not going to watch that video, it's too much hassle' contradicts the 'I strongly oppose any errors that can result in wrongful execution' claim.

Another bad note is that the officials who were responsible for the wrongful conviction - based on mistake, not intent - have never accepted their error.

I oppose capital punishment altogether; most do not. But this thread can at least be an example depriving the supporters of the false comfort of no wrongful executions.

One postscript after the documentary - when the commission formed after this situation to review capital sentences was finding this person had been wrongfully convicted, Rick Perry fired members and IIRC the commission decided or war ordered specifically not to investigate this case after all. That would have been messy for a presidential campaign.

 

[Ausm]

I don't think there is an execution the Rabid Right wouldn't get behind.

In Regard to humanity,What I don't understand is how the GOP seems to care more about the unborn then the people who are living.

 

[Patranus]

Um. He wasn't innocent. He was proven guilty in a court of law. Under America's legal system (the best system the planet has ever seen) he committed the crime.

 

[Lithium381]

Um. He wasn't innocent. He was proven guilty in a court of law. Under America's legal system (the best system the planet has ever seen) he committed the crime.

so you were there when he allegedly committed the crime?

 

[Double Trouble]

I find the idea that someone innocent might have been executed very troublesome. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history, and it likely won't be the last.

A few things I'd like to point out about this story though. There has never been an actual determination that the guy convicted was actually innocent. What's been determined is that some of the evidence used to convict him was 'problematic'. That would have given me enough doubt to not move forward with execution, it has to be 100% certain. Different scientists have reviewed the evidence and have come to different conclusions, since arson investigation is not an exact science -- yet another reason why I don't think the death penalty was appropriate in this case.

Those opposed to the death penalty will try to use a case like this as part of the argument that the death penalty should not exist. I think that's a crock. The death penalty is (IMO) very much appropriate in certain cases, but I think the process surrounding it's use needs re-evaluated. For one thing, any conviction based on circumstantial evidence or inexact science should mean the death penalty is not in play. It's one thing to convict based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but it's another to have absolute certainty. Putting someone in jail for a crime they didn't commit is bad, and no matter what we do that's going to happen sometimes. Killing someone for something they didn't do is much worse, and I'd hope much less likely to happen, but there is no way to make the system perfect.

Take the Casey Anthony case as an example. I think she's guilty of the crime. Lets assume for a second that she was found guilty and convicted. I'd still not support the death penalty in the case because there simply isn't absolute certainty. There's a mountain of evidence suggesting she did it, possibly enough to convict (though a jury didn't think so), but either way it should not have met the criteria for death penalty eligibility. Just my 0.02.

 

[Doppel]

Um. He wasn't innocent. He was proven guilty in a court of law. Under America's legal system (the best system the planet has ever seen) he committed the crime.

OMF, are you retarded?! Using your grade school idiotic definition of innocence if a person has been found guilty in a court of law they are, by virtue of that court, necessarily actually, in reality, guilty? And so taking this absence of intelligence further we can therefore conclude that in the American legal system nobody innocent has ever been punished for a crime because they were found guilty?

Reminds me of a line "We don't deal with justice here, but with the law."

Those opposed to the death penalty will try to use a case like this as part of the argument that the death penalty should not exist. I think that's a crock.

This is a good example as to why it shouldn't exist (the doubt exposed here, even if it is ultimately possible to deem with all certainty that he did it), but it's only one of many. I take few black and white moral stances but my opposition to capital punishment is so comically easy to defend.

 

[Double Trouble]

I take few black and white moral stances but my opposition to capital punishment is so comically easy to defend.

I understand what you're saying, but disagreeing with it's implementation doesn't mean you have to disagree it's existence. I'm weary of the implementation (racial disparity, cases like this one where I think there's enough doubt for it not to have been used), but I believe 100% that some scumbags should be removed from this earth for their actions.

 

[PeshakJang]

I don't think there is an execution the Rabid Right wouldn't get behind.

In Regard to humanity,What I don't understand is how the GOP seems to care more about the unborn then the people who are living.

Why do Democrats do everything in their power to allow the killing of the unborn, but then proclaim the killing of those guilty of the most heinous of crimes as a tragedy?

I'm not a rabit right-to-life type of person, but any way you slice that, it's just perverse.

Save234

 

[Ausm]

Why do Democrats do everything in their power to allow the killing of the unborn, but then proclaim the killing of those guilty of the most heinous of crimes as a tragedy?

I'm not a rabit right-to-life type of person, but any way you slice that, it's just perverse.

Save234

1) Killing the unborn centers around Religious beliefs and if Conservatives really belief in limited Gubermint then why do they want Gubermint to be involved in every woman's life?

2) Killing someone costs more then letting them rot in prison and as in this case it is possible to execute an innocent person.You would really think the Right would love this since they are pushing the privatization of prisons...AKA Prisons are a Big Biz $$$$.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

As long as we have a 'self regulated' system that essentially functions as a business trying to grow this will continue to happen. Same with ATF, TSA, even local LEOs.

They all function as seperate business entities and are constantly looking for ways to 'continue serving the public' IE come up with new reasons to justify their existence. It's absolutely absurd, and something I think we'll look back on and wonder how it was allowed to end up this way.

It's so obvious with the ATF it disappoints me that it probably won't change in my lifetime. Over the ATF's existence their main functions keep getting restricted or removed, so they come up with some other brand new exciting reason to keep all their agents staffed up and etc.

It equates to convincing wal-mart that they should stop selling food products. Wal-mart would never decide to do something like this on their own, it would have to be forced.


Hell, removing these groups that provide essentially nothing to our overall well-being would probably cause our unemployment rate to double anyway.

 

[GrGr]

Um. He wasn't innocent. He was proven guilty in a court of law. Under America's legal system (the best system the planet has ever seen) he committed the crime.

Lol. Sieg heil. Since when is the US legal system the best in the world? Very few western legal system systematically execute innocent people. This guy wasn't the first. Great system, eh.

You sure have had more than a big mouthful of "America the Great".

 

[a777pilot]

Headline from article...

Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man? Answers Remain Elusive…

Elusive. Not definitive.


.....'nuff said.

 

[Mursilis]

I knew this was the Willingham case as soon as I read the title. I read another article about this case online (Texas Monthly maybe?) about six months ago, and it just reeks of bad "science", scapegoating, and railroaded justice. The magazine even published a rebuttal from the prosecutors, but it was far from convincing, IMHO. I encourage skeptics to investigate more sources regarding the Willingham case - there are serious questions regarding this man's guilt here.

I oppose capital punishment altogether; most do not. But this thread can at least be an example depriving the supporters of the false comfort of no wrongful executions.

I agree with Craig on this - capital punishment accomplishes nothing that life in prison without parole can't also accomplish. It can't end soon enough.

 

[Mursilis]

1) Killing the unborn centers around Religious beliefs and if Conservatives really belief in limited Gubermint then why do they want Gubermint to be involved in every woman's life?

Simpletons can't resist strawman arguments. There are pro-life atheists. I encourage you to educate yourself.

 

[ichy]

Under America's legal system (the best system the planet has ever seen) he committed the crime.

Is this a joke? (BTW, I mostly think our system is flawed because it devalues victims and is too lenient on criminals, however it is absurdly difficult to get a conviction overturned due to factual evidence of innocence whereas criminals who are clearly guilty often get off because of technicalities.)

 

[Texashiker]

Forget the legal protections in place for defendants, the appeals process, the Governor's (Rick Perry and his commission's) power to commute, none of it worked.

As much as I regret hearing that an innocent man might have been put to death, I still have faith in our legal system.

If anyone is to blame, I think its the jury. A lot of times the jury has the mindset that if there was enough evidence to bring someone to trial, then he "must" be guilty.

If there was "any" doubt in the mind of the jury, and that means "any" doubt, they have to find the person not guilty. But people seem to forget that. A jury is not there to provide a rubber stamp for the state, they are there to weigh the evidence.

I think another issue is the quality of the people willing to due their civic duty. When most of use get a jury summons, we look for ways to get out of it. It is the duty to every citizen to not only determine the guilt or innocence, but also determine if the law is valid.

The next time you get a jury summons, think about the innocent man that was put to death. If you want to help prevent this kind of stuff from happening, then serve on a jury and do your duty.

 

[ichy]

The Cameron Todd Willingham case is troubling, but anyone who claims that it's some sort of proven fact that he was innocent is clearly not interested in having a serious debate on the topic.

 

[ichy]

If anyone is to blame, I think its the jury. A lot of times the jury has the mindset that if there was enough evidence to bring someone to trial, then he "must" be guilty.

The real problem is the amount of junk science that has been allowed as "forensic evidence" in the past. DNA fingerprinting is close to infallible, however a lot of other so-called forensic science is extremely questionable.

 

[Ausm]

As much as I regret hearing that an innocent man was put to death, I still have faith in our legal system.

You must be an exception on the Right because most of opposed prosecuting Gitmo prisoners in our legal system.

 

[Texashiker]

The real problem is the amount of junk science that has been allowed as "forensic evidence" in the past. DNA fingerprinting is close to infallible, however a lot of other so-called forensic science is extremely questionable.

The jury can act independent of the judges instructions and disregard the evidence. Whether the evidence is sound or fake, the jury does not have to accept it as fact.

Part of the problem with the modern jury, they do exactly as they are told, and I disagree with that. The jury is not there to be a messenger for the state. If I have a question about the quality of the evidence, then I would reject it if I were on a jury.

You must be an exception on the Right because most of opposed prosecuting Gitmo prisoners in our legal system.

Personally, I would like to see Gitmo prisoners brought into our legal system and the evidence presented in an open court.

 

[Mursilis]

The jury can act independent of the judges instructions and disregard the evidence. Whether the evidence is sound or fake, the jury does not have to accept it as fact.

Part of the problem with the modern jury, they do exactly as they are told, and I disagree with that. The jury is not there to be a messenger for the state. If I have a question about the quality of the evidence, then I would reject it if I were on a jury.

I'm sure you would, but I'd guess the remainder of the jury probably isn't exceptionally bright. When the guy in the lab coat with all the fancy initials behind his name gets on the stand, uses a bunch of long, complicated words, and claims various "facts", your average layperson isn't going to disagree with him (or her).

 

[dmcowen674]

I don't think there is an execution the Rabid Right wouldn't get behind.

In Regard to humanity,What I don't understand is how the GOP seems to care more about the unborn then the people who are living.

Exactly, I don't think Republicans are human, they are a bizarre species.

 

[piasabird]

When they say that firemen are not scientifically trained, I would say that that is bullshit. When you see a gas can where the fire started, the evidence does not take much science. I think even if I was a volunteer, after putting out a few fires, you begin to understand how fire works unless you let the fire burn you up every time. At our Community College we teach fire science, and Firemen are trained in classes by professionals.

 

[PottedMeat]

When they say that firemen are not scientifically trained, I would say that that is bullshit. When you see a gas can where the fire started, the evidence does not take much science.

i thought they had a point saying firemen think of the best way to put fires out safely, not figure out how the blaze started afterwards.

the guy was a wife beating scumbag but it really looks like he didn't set the fire.

where did the prosecutor get the 'lighter fluid in a pentagram pattern' from? that was a blob if anything. and the only place they found accelerant was at the front door - next to a bbq?

 

[Texashiker]

1) Killing the unborn centers around Religious beliefs

No it does not.

No person shall be devoid of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

If there is a heart beat and brain function, then the person is alive. The same rules that apply to the hospital should apply to inside the womb.