So, it appears this man Texas executed was innocent

[ShawnD1]

While I am 100% for the death penalty in theory (some people just flat out deserve it) the reality is we are simply incapable of getting it right every time.

The alternative to putting innocent people on death row is not to free those people. The alternative is that they rot in jail for the rest of their life, which could be as much as 50 years. This is why a lot of inmates kill themselves - death is better than the alternative.

 

[CitizenKain]

Good riddance.

Why speaking people without any integrity, its Sinsear.

 

[sandorski]

The alternative to putting innocent people on death row is not to free those people. The alternative is that they rot in jail for the rest of their life, which could be as much as 50 years. This is why a lot of inmates kill themselves - death is better than the alternative.

Ridiculous conclusion.

 

[zinfamous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from a biology standpoint, he's right, isn't he? DNA is almost never 100% spot on. They give you a probability that the DNA is a match.

99.9% is not good enough?

:hmm:

fact is, you can do so much with a single drop of blood these days: full genome, for example, that it's now more like 99.999999999979%

actually, it's higher.


That wasn't really possible for OJ. Confidence, then, was a mere 99.8% :\

(EDIT: and you probably needed a lot more blood to get a good sample back in those days)

 

[zinfamous]

From your article.



I guess if someone who has only investigated twelve hundred fires, its reasonably certain he is incompetent.

it's a 17 page article.

Your incompetence at engaging in this discussion is profound.


...why do you even bother?

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe if you read more and assumed less you would find yourself in less sticky situations. I have worked in a DNA related field for the past 12 years. I know what DNA forensic analysis can and cannot tell you. Thanks for playing.

I extract DNA, RNA, Chromatin and make genome, transcriptome, ChIP libraries for whole genome sequencing on a daily basis. With teeny eeny bits of tissue and even smaller samples (50ng of somewhat dirty DNA is good enough). RNA can be grabbed from even less, ChIP is much more difficult--but neither of those are relevant for forensics.


anyway: yes--I know exactly what DNA can tell you, and how profoundly easy it is to remove contamination from your data, even after sequencing.

 

[MagickMan]

Ridiculous conclusion.

When's the last time you were in a state pen? I went to visit an old HS friend a month ago, he's doing a nickle for fraud, and that's some scary, nasty shit. If I were being put away for life, without a chance for parole, I'd rather someone shoot me behind the ear and get it over with.

 

[zinfamous]

When's the last time you were in a state pen? I went to visit an old HS friend a month ago, he's doing a nickle for fraud, and that's some scary, nasty shit. If I were being put away for life, without a chance for parole, I'd rather someone shoot me behind the ear and get it over with.

I think he was referring to the part about the alternative being putting innocent people away for life--rather than on death row. ...not so much the suicide part

 

[OutHouse]

While I am 100% for the death penalty in theory (some people just flat out deserve it) the reality is we are simply incapable of getting it right every time.

I'm not willing to accept the possibility of even one wrongful execution, I'd rather see a jail full of horrible people serving life sentences than kill one innocent.

Death row exonerations from Texas alone should be sufficient evidence for any rational person to see that our system is not perfect enough to be killing people. Frankly anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusion scares me.

Viper GTS <-- Formerly 100% pro death penalty, now 100% against

viper? holy crap i haven't seen you post in like years.

 

[zinfamous]

viper? holy crap i haven't seen you post in like years.

you're right! Wasn't Viper the other half of "pwnage of the year" nominations and awards?

 

[Mursilis]

I disagree, in no small part because the bubble which was Perry's relevance as a candidate is all but burst.

Have you read the New Yorker article? I urge you to do so.

I have acted as a prosecutor (where I sent one man to prison for life) and as a defense attorney (where my one first-degree murder client was found not guilty by reason of mental illness). I have had the good fortune to practice in jurisdictions (the Air Force and the State of Minnesota) which take justice and fairness seriously. That said, the process is a human enterprise and subject to the sorts of mistakes, laziness, arrogance, and inertia that inform all human behavior. I find it hard to understand how anyone, in light of the manifest imperfection of the justice system, can support the death penalty categorically.

In this case in particular, it appears all but certain (as found by, among others, the forensic experts hired by the state to evaluate Willingham's conviction) that he was convicted of a "crime" which never occurred, and executed for it. If you don't have a problem with that, or don't think it's a big deal, I don't think much of you as a human being.

Quoted because this post is so correct, from someone with experience in the legal system.

 

[Anarchist420]

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.

This is the only objective reason to oppose the death penalty and it is why I oppose the death penalty, even if some people deserve to die (all alive ex-Presidents and the current one for starters). If you take away the power of the state (any government) to execute, then there will be no innocent killed so that's enough for me to want it abolished.

Another reason (although subjective) I oppose the death penalty is because it's carried out by the state rather than the friends or family of the victim.

 

[alphatarget1]

I hope the American people execute the political career of Rick Perry next year. Rick Perry is the biggest douchebag politician I have seen in a long time and he clearly has no interest in justice.

 

[ichy]

This is the only objective reason to oppose the death penalty and it is why I oppose the death penalty, even if some people deserve to die (all alive ex-Presidents and the current one for starters).

I wish we could execute people for making retarded posts on the internet.

 

[ShawnD1]

I think he was referring to the part about the alternative being putting innocent people away for life--rather than on death row. ...not so much the suicide part

That's the way she goes.

Serious question to people against the death penalty. Do you think that eliminating the death penalty will reduce the number of false convictions to 0?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That's the way she goes.

Serious question to people against the death penalty. Do you think that eliminating the death penalty will reduce the number of false convictions to 0?

Your "serious question" is seriously pointless. Eliminating the death penalty will presumably have no effect on the number of false convictions, but it will certainly reduce the number of innocent people executed to zero. This concern was why George Ryan (previously a death penalty advocate) suspended executions as governor of IL. As long as a person is alive there is a chance of reversing a wrongful conviction in the interest of justice. Once he's dead, there is no longer any such possibility.

 

[dank69]

Why are you so convinced?

You can read, can't you?

He's one of those lawful evil types. Man found guilty in a court of law? He is guilty whether he did it or not.

 

[Murloc]

yeah republicans are really huge hypocrits. It's not okay to kill undeveloped fetuses who can't even form articulate thoughts, but it's okay to make a man wait for his death 20 years and kill him in a horrible way.

Also the fact that justice isn't infallible should be enough to warrant an immediate stop of executions.

 

[ichy]

yeah republicans are really huge hypocrits. It's not okay to kill undeveloped fetuses who can't even form articulate thoughts, but it's okay to make a man wait for his death 20 years and kill him in a horrible way.

There's nothing "horrible" about death by lethal injection. It's as painless and clean as you could possibly make death.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I extract DNA, RNA, Chromatin and make genome, transcriptome, ChIP libraries for whole genome sequencing on a daily basis. With teeny eeny bits of tissue and even smaller samples (50ng of somewhat dirty DNA is good enough). RNA can be grabbed from even less, ChIP is much more difficult--but neither of those are relevant for forensics.


anyway: yes--I know exactly what DNA can tell you, and how profoundly easy it is to remove contamination from your data, even after sequencing.

Kool.

The point being that DNA is as good as evidence can be.

You find blood, skin or semen at the scene of the crime in a manner that matches what was done (such as blood on the knife handle and a cut on the suspects hand) then it is MUCH better than fingerprints, fabric samples, or Colombo observations.

If you have it where you bring it WAY out of its field of operation, such as what was seen in the Amanda Knox scene, it is like saying someones personal handgun, which was not directly linked to the bullet found in the victim, had the suspects fingerprints on it and therefore they shot the victim.

Evidence needs to FIT. Decrying its accuracy is not a valid contestation.




Bottom line is this. We have already proven that, despite all the cost and time of the legal process, that innocents still get killed.

So, removing these additional costs is not an option, as doing so would send MORE innocents to jail and to death.

But, we do not want to spend all this money.... So... It's cheaper to put them in storage than on ice. It costs the system less money, and you always have the "oops" factor later when new evidence comes to light, new means of investigation (such as DNA) come into existence, or even, in some bad cases, where the political landscape changes while the inmate is in jail (looking for the scapegoat who was convicted on hate and suspicion, not fact).

You cannot reduce the cost of the current death penalty because it will kill more innocents. You save money by not sentencing to death (on average) AND you have the ability to rectify injustices later if they come to light.

WTH is everyone's problem with that?

 

[xBiffx]

99.9&#37; is not good enough?

:hmm:

fact is, you can do so much with a single drop of blood these days: full genome, for example, that it's now more like 99.999999999979%

actually, it's higher.


That wasn't really possible for OJ. Confidence, then, was a mere 99.8% :\

(EDIT: and you probably needed a lot more blood to get a good sample back in those days)

Forensic DNA analysis gives you odds that a certain sample matches a suspect's sample. From that you can deduce probability. The issue I was trying to bring to light is that the odds a DNA sample matches are much less than 1 in 6.75 billion. Since there are roughly 6.75 billion people on the planet, no DNA analysis can tell you that a certain DNA is a match. It is still possible for that sample to indicate more than one person in the world given the probabilities.

EDIT: As soon as forensic labs move to sequencing the whole genome from a sample, then you can be 100% sure but we are still a few years off from this being affordable enough for forensic work.

 

[Ninjahedge]

There's nothing "horrible" about death by lethal injection. It's as painless and clean as you could possibly make death.

We are comparing torture to being put to sleep.

Sitting on Death Row for 20 years?

Hell, for the last 20 minutes is torture enough. I remember how stressed I was about my licensing exams, nevermind what I would feel if I was waiting for my "humane" execution (an oxymoron at its best).

 

[ShawnD1]

We are comparing torture to being put to sleep.

Sitting on Death Row for 20 years?

Hell, for the last 20 minutes is torture enough. I remember how stressed I was about my licensing exams, nevermind what I would feel if I was waiting for my "humane" execution (an oxymoron at its best).

I don't like that 5 minutes before giving presentations. It's fine once I start the presentation but my balls are all crunched up and painful before I start.

Eliminating the death penalty will presumably have no effect on the number of false convictions, but it will certainly reduce the number of innocent people executed to zero

I can't remember who said this, but it still applies. If you're going to kill me, then kill me. If you're going to let me go, then let me go. Keeping someone in jail for 40+ years does neither. It's needlessly cruel.

Are you also one of those people against euthanasia? Death is wrong but letting people suffer = perfectly cool?

 

[Blackjack200]

That's the way she goes.

Serious question to people against the death penalty. Do you think that eliminating the death penalty will reduce the number of false convictions to 0?

The elimination of the death penalty needs to be part of a broader reform of the criminal justice system that includes that decriminalization of drugs and improved conditions in prisons (creating an environment for rehabilitation).

But if you want one practical benefit of elimiating the death penalty, other than you will not kill an innocent person, look no further than the Amanda Knox thread we had. Someone posted a link to another Frontline about 4 US Navy sailors that confessed to a murder they didn't commit. Why? They were interrogated for up to 24 hours, given lie detector tests, told that they failed the LD tests (when in fact they had passed) told that the state had plenty of physical evidence to tie them to the crime (they had none), and finally, told that they would get the death penalty if convicted. They confessed because they were afraid to die. As long as death is off the table, an innocent man can confidently fight false charges, once his life is threatened, he will typically do what he can to save it, and that give prosecutors way too much leverage.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't like that 5 minutes before giving presentations. It's fine once I start the presentation but my balls are all crunched up and painful before I start.


I can't remember who said this, but it still applies. If you're going to kill me, then kill me. If you're going to let me go, then let me go. Keeping someone in jail for 40+ years does neither. It's needlessly cruel.

Are you also one of those people against euthanasia? Death is wrong but letting people suffer = perfectly cool?

I don't see the nexus between euthanasia and the death penalty. In cases of euthanasia (at least the ones I would support), the decedent is terminally ill and wants to die. Ask people on death row whether they'd rather live or die - nearly all of them prefer to cling to life. Cameron Willingham certainly didn't want to die.

I find your position remarkably cynical - you seem to be saying, OK, a certain number of people are going to be wrongfully convicted, and it's better to put them to death rather than leave them in prison alive, hoping that a successful appeal will spring them.

Ernest Willis was another man convicted of arson (in a very similar type of fire) in Texas, and sent to death row. A large, wealthy New York law firm took his case pro bono and showed (using expert reports all but identical to the ones in Willingham's case) that the fire was not arson. Willis was freed from death row after 17 years. Obviously that couldn't have happened had he been executed first (as Willingham was). Do you think his fate is crueler than Willingham's? He spent longer in prison than Willingham, after all.