So, it appears this man Texas executed was innocent

[infoiltrator]

When you save a life you are responsible for it.
If the powers that be set aside a judgement they weaken their possition and conviction, and belief in "for the encouragement of others".
The powers that be do not ever feel these situations will apply to them or theirs, therefore it is "acceptable", even "right and just".

The most amazing hypocracy I find is supporting "prolife" while finding funding prenatal and parentage in and among respectable communities is denied.

One or the other people.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

Or maybe it was because he was well on his way to the pokey, himself? :hmm:

 

[blackangst1]

We'll see how this shakes out, but I for one oppose the death penalty.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

no doubt. I'm curious: what is the overall cost of current standard DNA analysis for forensics investigation? Whole genome is becoming so preposterously cheap these days--month by month, actually. less than a year ago, a single library would run, roughly $70 to prepare, then depending on the sequencing method you choose, from $1000-2500. Still, all being equal, that only takes about 1 week to complete. (You could probably just do RT-PCR for forensic purposes....even cheaper, and much, much faster).

Now, with multiplexing, you can essentially run 8-12 genomes on one lane x 12 lanes for the entire flowcell = 96 or so genomes at the same time. the cost is for each lane; so, now, we're getting 8-12 genomes for the cost of one genome, 5 months ago.

awesome.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have some serious issues with the death penalty but neither the OP nor anyone else has shown the premise of this thread is valid. Show where it says that he was innocent.

 

[Theb]

This. Given our system he was found guilty, so charges were rendered based on that. That is why we have an appeals process. If new evidence arises that clear him of charges he may be set free. No system is 100% perfect. Innocent people will die now and then..you just have to accept that and do the best you can do with the evidence at the time.

Sorry, you will have to pick another case for your battle against capital punishment.

Congratulations to both of you. You have achieved what no one else has been able to. You have convinced me that the death penalty needs to be abolished. People are simply too lazy, stupid and horrible to wield that kind of power.

It's unfortunate that I had to lose even more of my faith in humanity, but I do enjoy learning so I guess that's the upside.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Under America's legal system he was found guilty which is most definitely not the same thing as "he committed the crime" or he was in fact guilty of the crime.

Even our founders who came up with our legal system understood that innocent people can and sometimes do get wrongly convicted.

 

[Blackjack200]

They might say that "the killing of a single innocent directly challenges the entire institution of death row", but that's nothing more than an intellectual concession if they set an impossible standard of evidence to test if such an event has occurred.

I have some serious issues with the death penalty but neither the OP nor anyone else has shown the premise of this thread is valid. Show where it says that he was innocent.

sigh

innocent of what? there was no crime.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I have some serious issues with the death penalty but neither the OP nor anyone else has shown the premise of this thread is valid. Show where it says that he was innocent.

You really need to read the New Yorker article. Every forensically-trained fire expert who has reviewed the case (including those hired by the State of Texas) has agreed this was not arson, and thus there was no crime for him to be guilty or innocent of. Is it possible he was in fact guilty? I suppose so, but all credible evidence which exists suggests otherwise.

 

[zinfamous]

I have some serious issues with the death penalty but neither the OP nor anyone else has shown the premise of this thread is valid. Show where it says that he was innocent.

sigh....

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

and here is the thread started by that lovable scamp, ManyBeers, when the article was first published.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=321175&highlight=

(hint: you actually have to read the article, unlike many of the lazy illiterates in this thread, cherry picking certain points to make themselves look foolish)

 

[woolfe9999]

I didn't follow the thread that closely, or read the New Yorker article until just now. I have to say, I have been reading true crime books and articles for years now, and of all the cases of heavily disputed convictions, I have never seen one where the facts were more persuasive of the defendant's innocence than this one. I say this as someone who usually comes out on the side of guilt even in controversial cases. But this one is a sad, sad story. Not only is there reasonable doubt here, there's almost no doubt of this man's innocence whatsoever.

Those of you arguing a point here because you have a pro death penalty stance and ignoring the facts of the case are making total fools of yourselves. Stop now. Just stop. Reading your posts is like watching an intellectual train wreck in slow motion. It's fascinating to a point, but ultimately naseating.

- wolf

 

[sunzt]

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.

OJ was innocent, it was proven in the a court of law. No doubt about it.

 

[Ninjahedge]

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.

TMI.

TY for Playing.

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.

Ask anybody ON death row whether they would prefer life in jail or death. And not stipulations like "If you go with Life, then you can't ever contest it, etc etc".

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

Nope. there is a difference between choosing your own death and having someone choose it for you.


(BTW, save your response "They made their choice when....." as it falls flat with the OT, an erroneous conviction.)

 

[ElFenix]

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.

so the fact that the death penalty costs much more than life without parole is not objective?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You really need to read the New Yorker article. Every forensically-trained fire expert who has reviewed the case (including those hired by the State of Texas) has agreed this was not arson, and thus there was no crime for him to be guilty or innocent of. Is it possible he was in fact guilty? I suppose so, but all credible evidence which exists suggests otherwise.

I've just finished the article and although it seems to be more of an emotional appeal than an attempt to lay out the specifics of the facts (meaning I'd like to have heard less about his personal conversations and more about the specifics in the reports which called into question the conviction) it does cast considerable doubt on both the verdict and the entire process of "justice" in this case.

I can't say based on what I've read if he did it or not because of the lack of specifics however that does not nullify my concerns as to how this case was conducted.

The problems are as you have said earlier, in that there is an inherent inertia which takes hold and a higher than reasonable doubt in the verdict seems necessary to reopen a case. Considering the reports countering the testimony of the "expert" who gave damning testimony the execution should have been stayed and the evidence revisited. This man should not have been put to death.

The real issue is that the death penalty has no recall. Once done it's done for good. A person can sit in jail for 10 years and have a chance of being found innocent. He's been screwed for all that time, but if he's dead there is no remainder of his life to live, and a that is a great disincentive to continue to press for exoneration.

If it were up to me I would not have concluded from the New Yorker that this man did not do the crime, however I WOULD have pressed for a retrial where other testimony could be introduced. I have a reasonable doubt.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So just like our justice system, DNA evidence relies on conclusions that are not perfect.

I don't know what you know about physics, but there is a non zero probability that you and the entire universe just popped up in its current configuration with your "memories" already in place and coinciding with those of everyone else. Shall we operate under that principle and qualify history with "assuming that spontaneous creation did not just occur"?

That there might be one person who has DNA which cannot be distinguished from one other someone else on the planet using current techniques doesn't really call into question the word "proof" unless one insists on absolutes, in which case the universe might have just changed rendering your point invalid. You can't prove otherwise.

Now while you are technically correct to say that in this reality 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is not the same as 100% to even bring up the justice system and it's reliability as being comparable to DNA testing is more than stretching it.

 

[KlokWyze]

The death penalty is backward. Obvious as fuck to anyone with a brain cell.

I'm not even against it personally, but as a system you can't support it because there will always be mistakes. Executing innocent people..... WTF

 

[LunarRay]

In criminal law the 'finder of fact' determines the accused to be guilty, not guilty or they can't determine.
The word 'innocent' has a few meanings pretty closely related. Among which "Free of moral wrong" is one. So it is possible for an accused to be FOUND guilty and be innocent...
When in the mind of the 'finder of fact' the argument passes the threshold of 'Reasonable Doubt' it becomes 100% true regardless of what ever the truth might be. This condition is affected by a myriad of factors.

So.... What does it mean to have a fair trial? Are the resources to obtain favorable evidence and refute negative evidence in all cases equal and therefore, fair? Most importantly - as I see it - are the folks who bring the accused to trial trying to be fair or are they advocates simply trying to prove their 'case' regardless of what may not fit their hypothesis of the crime circumstance?

When we are called to jury duty do we go? Do we bring any bias to the court while under oath stating we will follow the instructions given? Does the movie "12 angry men" play out in the jury deliberations?

Although I find the 'Death Penalty' is Constitutional, I find the Constitution to be dynamic.... a living document and I think we as a people have evolved to the point where State sanctioned killing of another is pointless and barbaric and not only should our government abandon the notion but the court should never allow the death penalty if there is ANY possibility of 'innocence'.

 

[Craig234]

In criminal law the 'finder of fact' determines the accused to be guilty, not guilty or they can't determine.
The word 'innocent' has a few meanings pretty closely related. Among which "Free of moral wrong" is one. So it is possible for an accused to be FOUND guilty and be innocent...
When in the mind of the 'finder of fact' the argument passes the threshold of 'Reasonable Doubt' it becomes 100% true regardless of what ever the truth might be. This condition is affected by a myriad of factors.

So.... What does it mean to have a fair trial? Are the resources to obtain favorable evidence and refute negative evidence in all cases equal and therefore, fair? Most importantly - as I see it - are the folks who bring the accused to trial trying to be fair or are they advocates simply trying to prove their 'case' regardless of what may not fit their hypothesis of the crime circumstance?

When we are called to jury duty do we go? Do we bring any bias to the court while under oath stating we will follow the instructions given? Does the movie "12 angry men" play out in the jury deliberations?

Although I find the 'Death Penalty' is Constitutional, I find the Constitution to be dynamic.... a living document and I think we as a people have evolved to the point where State sanctioned killing of another is pointless and barbaric and not only should our government abandon the notion but the court should never allow the death penalty if there is ANY possibility of 'innocence'.

I think capital punishment is constitutional. I oppose it, but not on constitutional grounds.

One could argue about 'cruel' and I think that's right, but that would actually be pretty close to an example of 'legislating from the bench' so often falsely accused.

Some seem to want to have some higher standard for capital punishment over the normal 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I don't see that.

The sentence is severe enough for prison that that's not really the solution.

 

[LunarRay]

I think capital punishment is constitutional. I oppose it, but not on constitutional grounds.

One could argue about 'cruel' and I think that's right, but that would actually be pretty close to an example of 'legislating from the bench' so often falsely accused.

Some seem to want to have some higher standard for capital punishment over the normal 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I don't see that.

The sentence is severe enough for prison that that's not really the solution.

At the present time SCOTUS does not legislate from the bench at all regarding the death penalty and that is not the direction I'd support either... My issue is to do with factors other than Constitutional Rights as it applies to the Judicial Process.
What I would like to see is the courts insure fairness especially when evidence is brought that points in some way toward innocence. How can they 'sanction' the killing of a person because they didn't raise an issue or bring evidence in the appropriate time frame or venue. In the vast majority of death penalty cases the deck is stacked against the accused... Money affords fairness. Talent of the advocates is important too. Many factors suggest that the final authority must insure the accused is afforded fairness when their existence is at stake.

Life in prison seems to be quite enough penalty for any crime. But then we as a people seem to care little about the killing of innocents when the objective is pursued.... What ever that objective might be.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have some serious issues with the death penalty but neither the OP nor anyone else has shown the premise of this thread is valid. Show where it says that he was innocent.

Please think about that very, very carefully- recognize that the burden of proof is always, always on the prosecution rather than the accused.

If you can't recognize that burden is frightfully low in Texas death penalty cases, that prosecutorial grandstanding and malfeasance are rampant, then you're an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Please think about that very, very carefully- recognize that the burden of proof is always, always on the prosecution rather than the accused.

If you can't recognize that burden is frightfully low in Texas death penalty cases, that prosecutorial grandstanding and malfeasance are rampant, then you're an intellectual lightweight.

Read my later post.

 

[Jhhnn]

Read my later post.

That's a lot more reasonable.

 

[Wreckem]

Its Texas though.

Theres another case, with the convicted sentenced to die this week. Texas has been fighting against post conviction DNA testing in the 1993 case for more than a decade. Hes even "won" on the issue of post conviction DNA testing before SCotUS this year, but Texas courts denied testing late last week with no explantation on why they denied it. Theres a pending appeal before CoCA and a pending case in the federal courts. But his execution is scheduled for Wednesday I believe.

Test it, it either will clear him or not. Theres no reason not to test it. Theres no legitimate reason not to.

 

[Craig234]

Its Texas though.

Theres another case, with the convicted sentenced to die this week. Texas has been fighting against post conviction DNA testing in the 1993 case for more than a decade. Hes even "won" on the issue of post conviction DNA testing before SCotUS this year, but Texas courts denied testing late last week with no explantation on why they denied it. Theres a pending appeal before CoCA and a pending case in the federal courts. But his execution is scheduled for Wednesday I believe.

Test it, it either will clear him or not. Theres no reason not to test it. Theres no legitimate reason not to.

That guy might well be guilty. It appear it's between him and his uncle, with various evidence pointing to him.

The evidence of cuts on his hands matching the knife is very strong evidence of his guilt.

But they should do it. They're caught up in legalese and ignoring the issue of the truth and justice either way it goes.

I note they just changed a law that had limited DNA testing with a 'no fault' provision that if the guy's lawyers picked the wrong trial strategy, it banned later testing.

I think the public might not appreciate that while they're concerned with 'executing an innocent', for judges they deal with many, many guilty who will use any issue they can.

So while the public is thinking 'why not use all the information available and test this', the officials are probably thinking about 'massive increases in delays and testing'.

I suspect the officials often have to be jaded by dealing with thousands of guilty people often lying, to be as concerned about the one who falls through the cracks.

Unfortunately, I suspect that there are quite a few innocent people caught up in the 'justice machine'. It's almost unavoidable, because as you make it harder and harder to convict an innocent, you can't help but let more and more guilty people go free as well - your only choice is to draw a line somewhere that some innocents are caught up in order to not have a huge likelihood of letting the guilty go unpunished.

There's an old saying about 'better to let 10 guilty go free than convict one innocent'. But how realistic is that standard? First, imagine you are the victim of a crime, and you watch as the justice system fails to convict the person who it correctly identifies did it, in order to have such loose rules that '10 guilty go free'. There'd be a whole lot of public outrage over the lack of convictions of the guilty.l Second, with 2 million prisoners, you just put 200,000 of them in jail who are innocent - 1 in 10.

Even if you had '100 go free for every innocent convicted', that's 20,000 innocents in jail. These are just the hard choices because criminal conviction are uncertain.

Nearly every trial has some strong evidence of guilt, and a defendant denying he did it. The fact is, it often happens that innocent people often have strong evidence against them. The case in the post above this might be an example - when a crime could have been one of two people, it's not that hard for one who is innocent to be convicted. If a spouse takes out a new insurance policy on their spouse, they better hope their spouse doesn't get killed by an accident at home anytime soon.

Unfortunately, adding to all this are the politics, where 'convicting an innocent' or freeing someone later proven guilty or who commits another crime are damaging.

Prosecutors and judges in Texas probably face little political price for erring on the side of being 'too hard on crime'. So we see a situation like this. For them, if the person is executed and that ends the issue, any chance of his innocence is likely not to be proven, if I understand how that works, while testing has the risk of 'yet another Texas convicting an innocent' story that poses a lot of political risk. That's not supposed to influence their pursuit of justice. Doesn't seem likely it doesn't.

So what do we do? It's largely a political issue how the public views where to draw the line. If they draw it towards conviction, they convict more innocents. The public has to be willing to put up with an amount of guilty going free, and often committing more crimes, to avoid the errors.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/06/justice/texas-execution/?hpt=us_c2