Texas Death Penalty on Trial

[BlueJackalope]

Coincidentally I just read this story (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann) in the latest Best American Crime Reporting (http://www.amazon.com/Best-American-Crime-Reporting-2010/dp/0061490865/ref=pd_sim_b_2) anthology (fantastic series of books btw) when I noticed that this case is being reviewed. (http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/10/15/D9IS7EFO0_us_texas_execution_arson/index.html)


To make a long story short - Cameron Willingham was home alone with his three daughters and the house caught on fire and killed the children.

Texas arson investigators determined it was arson due to how hot and low the fire burned, burn marks that indicated "pooling" of accelerants and a positive test for mineral spirits (that are a part of lighter fluid) on the front porch.

His trial results in the death penalty. Before he is executed, an Arson Expert, Dr. Gerald Hurst, reviews the case and comes up with completely different conclusions than the original investigators (who Hurst and others have accused of using "junk science"). He writes a report and sends it to Gov. Rick Perry's Death Penalty Review Panel, who ignores, if they even read, the report and Willingham is put to death.

Now the case is under review and Willingham could posthumously be declared innocent.


I feel about the death penalty about the same as I do about Nuclear energy. It sounds great, I would be fully behind it if I trusted that they were administered with the utmost care. I do not believe that is the case in the former (especially in Texas), I'm still hopeful on the latter. Hopefully this case may force Texas to slow its roll a bit and rethink its approach to the death penalty - but it wont.


EDIT: Here's a nice Blog Post with some links to a bit of the back and forth on this. (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/08/cameron-todd-willingham-debating-his.html)

[Bluto]

A free state has no business killing it's citizens.

[salwon]

Texas does like its death penalty. I think there are more people on Death Row in California, but I guess they, I don't know, review the cases before pushing the plunger? Seems very west-coast elitist to me.

[Jason McCullough]

I could have sworn we talked about this previously but I can't find the thread.

[Tortilla]

I could have sworn we talked about this previously but I can't find the thread.

It got mentioned here:

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=15563

[BlueJackalope]

It got mentioned here:

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=15563

Whoa, I click on that and a banner ad for a Frontline special about the case (the Texas case) comes up. The internet is so smart!

EDIT: Also - look at the memory on you.

[Tortilla]

Whoa, I click on that and a banner ad for a Frontline special about the case (the Texas case) comes up. The internet is so smart!

EDIT: Also - look at the memory on you.

I wish I had a memory that good! All I really did was run through a few simple google fu techniques to turn up the link :)

[Lorini]

A free state has no business killing it's citizens.

Exactly. I will never support the death penalty. Death is too good for some of these people anyway.

[Ben Sones]

There is simply no rational justification for capital punishment in a civilized society. Especially in ours, where it is actually cheaper to simply imprison someone for life. This effectively removes any threat to society they might pose, and if you later find out that they are innocent, you can at least then set them free. Most of the arguments in favor of the death penalty boil down to revenge: some criminals have it coming, they don't deserve to live, whatever. But that sort of barbaric urge is something that a civilized society can't afford to indulge, IMHO.

[gameoverman]

We have a system in this country where we know for a fact there are innocent people in prison AND that there is evidence that can clear them- if they can pay to have their cases reexamined(hard to do when you're in prison) or an organization like the Innocence Project helps them.

There is absolutely no way I'd trust a system like that to execute people.

[markbevi]

this is absurd. the death penalty is a dinosaur

[RepoMan]

Let's execute the death penalty!!!

Oh, wait.

[Robert Sharp]

There is simply no rational justification for capital punishment in a civilized society. Especially in ours, where it is actually cheaper to simply imprison someone for life. This effectively removes any threat to society they might pose, and if you later find out that they are innocent, you can at least then set them free. Most of the arguments in favor of the death penalty boil down to revenge: some criminals have it coming, they don't deserve to live, whatever. But that sort of barbaric urge is something that a civilized society can't afford to indulge, IMHO.

It's not revenge. It's retribution. Now you can disagree about whether it's justified, if you want. But don't confuse revenge and retribution. Revenge is paying back any harm with harm. Retribution is about justice. Many of the people who support the death penalty believe that the brutal taking of a life should be punished by taking the life of the person who committed the crime. To present that as revenge is misleading at best. People are seeking a sense of closure, or a sense of balance in the world, or something of that sort. They aren't just looking to inflict pain.

Also, it's not clear that life in prison is more humane than death in every case. Many people would rather die than be locked up for life, and we can see this in action in many shoot out situations or cases where a criminal kills him/herself in order to avoid going to prison.

I think the arguments from innocence and cost work much better than the 'but it's barbaric!' approach. Our prison system isn't exactly civilized either.

[Lizard_King]

It doesn't matter whether it's being done for revenge or retribution in terms of rhetoric; the conflation of the two certainly didn't arise thanks to death penalty opponents, it comes from the inability to ignore what the system is actually doing versus what it purports to do.

There are certainly interesting discussions to be had about what the proper purpose of a penal system is, because when the American one is analyzed on a cultural and practical level it keeps coming back to revenge (look at the American view of prison rape) and political expediency.

My answer to your point is that if imprisoning people can be reasonably regarded as less humane than killing them, we need to radically reconsider how we do the former. We can start with overcrowding largely as a result of imprisoning at a rate that far outstrips any other developed nation that is comparable to the US, and work from there to the offensive cultural view of rape and prison suffering across our culture, to the finer details of prison contracting and who that actually benefits. James Webb attempted to target at least that one in the middle, but there isn't much money to be made in that since there is no broader American outrage to latch onto. It's almost like we need another Upton Sinclair to engender the necessary change, but I'm not sure what form that would take since we have countless anecdotal and statistical data that could support the point I'm making.

[Anders Hallin]

It's not revenge. It's retribution. Now you can disagree about whether it's justified, if you want. But don't confuse revenge and retribution. Revenge is paying back any harm with harm. Retribution is about justice. Many of the people who support the death penalty believe that the brutal taking of a life should be punished by taking the life of the person who committed the crime. To present that as revenge is misleading at best. People are seeking a sense of closure, or a sense of balance in the world, or something of that sort. They aren't just looking to inflict pain.
I think Nils Christie has a good argument against the "balance in the world" idea.
If we accept that killing person x must be equalled out by the killing of person y, are we not saying that person x = person y? In other words, if we reach some kind of justness equilibrium if we kill a murderer, isn't that to say that the death of the victim and the death of the murderer is equal in value?
What about mass murderers? x+z+a+b = y?
No, the punishment can never be equal to the crime, so there is no point in trying to achieve it. In his words, "punishment must represent the totality of our values". (from A Reasonable Amount of Crime)

[Anders Hallin]

I think the arguments from innocence and cost work much better than the 'but it's barbaric!' approach. Our prison system isn't exactly civilized either.
That's why I prefer the "it's barbaric" approach, because it also serves as an argument against the rape and torture camps we call prisons. If only so-called "innocent" people deserve human rights, then that's already an intolerable society.

[Ben Sones]

It's not revenge. It's retribution. Now you can disagree about whether it's justified, if you want. But don't confuse revenge and retribution. Revenge is paying back any harm with harm. Retribution is about justice.

"An eye for an eye"--aka harm for harm--is the very definition of retributive justice. And yes, I think it's barbaric, and essentially motivated by the desire for revenge (even if you can argue that retributive justice is impartial in a way that revenge is not), and that a more pragmatic/utilitarian approach is better suited to civilized society.

[BlueJackalope]

More Texas Death Penalty doubts (http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/dna-test-casts-doubt-on-executed-texan-claude-jones-guilt/19713854)

[Stelios]

The death penalty goes against what a system of justice is fundamentally about. Its just the state stepping in and taking over vendetta duties on behalf of the victim's family. It's expensive and irrevocable. It presumes a perfect system. There is literally no logical reason for its existence.

[Lynch]

Capital punishment spawns murderers and clones murder.

[MatthewF]

What the fuck does that even mean? I can't decipher it in any meaningful way.

[BobJustBob]

Man is the real monster!

[BlueJackalope]

Its a cook book!

http://www.starbase21ok.com/TwilightZone3.jpg

[Lynch]

What the fuck does that even mean? I can't decipher it in any meaningful way.
Murdering murderers clones the original murder. In case the delinquent is murdered based on non murderous crimes, a mutant murder clone is born. The cloned or cloned and mutated original felony, now being either a cloned murder or a mutated cloned murder generates murderers.

Hope that helps.

[russellmz00]

Murdering murderers clones the original murder. In case the delinquent is murdered based on non murderous crimes, a mutant murder clone is born. The cloned or cloned and mutated original felony, now being either a cloned murder or a mutated cloned murder generates murderers.

Hope that helps.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

[Raife]

Are the capitalized buffalo the leaders?

[BlueJackalope]

Resurrecting (heh) this thread to move the particulars of the Willingham case out the the GOP Debate thread.

In Recent News Remember when Perry halted his own Texas Forensics Commission's review of the expert they hired? (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-01/justice/texas.execution.probe_1_willingham-case-cameron-todd-willingham-execution?_s=PM:CRIME)


The Forensic Science Commission began investigating the Willingham case in 2008, hiring Maryland fire investigation expert Craig Beyler to examine the evidence used to convince a jury the fire that killed Willingham's three daughters was deliberately set. Levy said Thursday he told the governor's office "that it would be disruptive to make the new appointments right now."

"The commission was at a crucial point in the investigation," he said. Asked about the future of the Willingham investigation, he said, "I don't know if it will ever be heard."

Levy, a top prosecutor in Fort Worth, Texas, said he had asked to remain on the commission, but received no response from the governor's office. Sam Bassett, the panel's former chairman, said he also asked to remain.

Beyler's report is the latest of three to conclude that arson was not the likely cause of the 1991 fire, and the first commissioned by a state agency. Death penalty opponents say an impartial review of the Willingham case could lead to an unprecedented admission that the state executed an innocent man.
Well it turns out that the Commission isn't going to review Willingham's case at all! Shocker. (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-09/politics/texas.execution.probe_1_texas-forensic-science-commission-cameron-todd-willingham-arson-investigation?_s=PM:POLITICS)



An attorney general's opinion effectively halts a Texas state commission's investigation into allegations that flawed science led to a man's 2004 execution, according to a draft report released Friday.
The opinion prevents the Texas Forensic Science Commission "from proceeding with further investigation" into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham or issuing any conclusions about the conduct of arson investigators in the case, the draft states.

...
But July's opinion by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott states that the commission can investigate only cases that involve evidence tested in state-accredited crime labs since September 2005, when it was created. Nizam Peerwani, the Fort Worth medical examiner who is the commission's chairman, says that makes it impossible to proceed.

....
Willingham was put to death for setting a fire that killed his three young daughters in 1991. But the case drew national attention in 2009, when a fire-science expert hired by the Forensic Science Commission challenged the finding of arson at the heart of Willingham's conviction.
A subsequent shakeup of the commission by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, now a Republican presidential candidate, led to accusations that the governor was trying to derail the investigation. Perry allowed Willingham's execution to go forward, and he has called Willingham a "monster" whose conviction withstood every appeal.

[Destarius]

The death penalty goes against what a system of justice is fundamentally about. Its just the state stepping in and taking over vendetta duties on behalf of the victim's family. It's expensive and irrevocable. It presumes a perfect system. There is literally no logical reason for its existence.

That's just your view.

[Lorini]

That's just your view.

Otherwise known as the truth.

[notatiger]

That's just your view.

What a compelling point. I'm sure Stelios has been rocked to his or her very core. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c)

[BlueJackalope]

There has been further discussion of the flaws in the type of arson investigation that convicted Willingham - here. (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_86bf8be2-8138-11e0-af5f-001cc4c002e0.html)


He cited a 2005 test designed by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in which fire investigators were asked to identify the general area where two test fires were started in separate rooms. The fires were extinguished less than three minutes after achieving "flashover" — the point when, Lentini says, "a fire in a room becomes a room on fire."

Each time, just three of the 53 investigators got the area of origin right, and it was a different three each time, Lentini said. Subsequent tests have produced similar results.

Another series of test burns in 2008 called into question the widely held belief that V-shaped burn patterns on walls — like the one cited in the arson case against J.J.'s Pub owner Joseph "Joey" Awe —indicate where a fire started. In fact, the markings "bore no relationship to either of the fires' origins, which were approximately six feet from the apex of each ‘V,'" the bureau reported.

Unlike improvements in DNA technology, which have helped police solve more crimes, advances in fire investigation may have had the opposite effect: As knowledge about fire grows, uncertainty about the origin of fires has increased and the number of fires declared intentional has plummeted.
Since 1980, the number of intentionally set fires has been on "a long-term downward trend," currently accounting for about 8 percent of all structure fires, down from about 20 percent 30 years ago, the National Fire Protection Association reported last year. Roughly half a million buildings in the United States are damaged or destroyed by fire each year, the NFPA estimates.



This article is placed into context of the Willingham case a bit more here. (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/05/confluence-of-interests-supporting.html)

[Timex]

That's kind of interesting... so, they're basically calling into question the abilities of all fire investigation experts.

[BlueJackalope]

That's kind of interesting... so, they're basically calling into question the abilities of all fire investigation experts.

At least specifically investigations that rely on "negative corpus" to prove arson.


Perhaps most important, Siehelr used a form of reasoning known as "negative corpus" in determining the blaze was an arson. Siehelr testified he and the experts paid by Awe's insurance company ruled out all accidental causes in their area of origin, "which leaves no other possible conclusion than for this to be incendiary."


The National Fire Protection Association's Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations is considered the gold standard in the field. It has been revised for 2011 to add strong language saying such reasoning never should be used.


"It is improper to opine a specific ignition source that has no evidence to support it even though all other hypothesized sources were eliminated," the guide states. In those cases, it says, the investigator must label the fire as undetermined.


Denny Smith of Kodiak Fire and Safety Consulting of Fort Wayne, Ind., a national expert in using the process of elimination in fire investigation, said it's "pretty clear" Siehelr's reasoning "meets the criteria of what shouldn't be done."


Until fire investigation improves, Lentini said, "Errors will be made and defendants will be brought to court charged with serious offenses by people who simply do not know any better."

[Timex]

But even beyond that, the testing mentioned above seemed to show that the vast majority of all fire experts were incapable of doing things like figuring out where a fire started.

Although, I suppose it's possible that the testing conditions didn't accurately reflect actual fire conditions, and thus they were measuring some capability that didn't match real world skills.

[Jason Townsend]

How would you feel about a "we couldn't determine that it was anything else specifically, so we assume it was arson" burden of proof if you were the one suspected of murdering your family?

[BlueJackalope]

But even beyond that, the testing mentioned above seemed to show that the vast majority of all fire experts were incapable of doing things like figuring out where a fire started.

Although, I suppose it's possible that the testing conditions didn't accurately reflect actual fire conditions, and thus they were measuring some capability that didn't match real world skills.

I don't think it is as broad as you are saying. The study mentioned specifically was about fires where "flashover" had occurred.

But it does point out many common flaws and myths in arson investigation


http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/e/8d/a57/e8da57c0-80f3-11e0-b938-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4dd32a858e85a.image.png

[Timex]

How would you feel about a "we couldn't determine that it was anything else specifically, so we assume it was arson" burden of proof if you were the one suspected of murdering your family?

I wouldn't support that type of reasoning, even if I wasn't the person accused.

[Hans Lauring]

It doesn't matter whether it's being done for revenge or retribution in terms of rhetoric; the conflation of the two certainly didn't arise thanks to death penalty opponents, it comes from the inability to ignore what the system is actually doing versus what it purports to do.

There are certainly interesting discussions to be had about what the proper purpose of a penal system is, because when the American one is analyzed on a cultural and practical level it keeps coming back to revenge (look at the American view of prison rape) and political expediency.

My answer to your point is that if imprisoning people can be reasonably regarded as less humane than killing them, we need to radically reconsider how we do the former. We can start with overcrowding largely as a result of imprisoning at a rate that far outstrips any other developed nation that is comparable to the US, and work from there to the offensive cultural view of rape and prison suffering across our culture, to the finer details of prison contracting and who that actually benefits. James Webb attempted to target at least that one in the middle, but there isn't much money to be made in that since there is no broader American outrage to latch onto. It's almost like we need another Upton Sinclair to engender the necessary change, but I'm not sure what form that would take since we have countless anecdotal and statistical data that could support the point I'm making.

Where the hell were you in the prison thread, where we had a DA arguing that US prisons are no worse than in the rest of the western world?

[Jason Townsend]

But this is because you are merely disregarding things you don't want to see.
When presented with a case where you feel the criminal has merely a chance of being innocent (despite the system being guided specifically by the notion that if anyone thinks there is a chance, the man goes free), you accept this as enough reason to oppose the death penalty.

And yet, when presented with a case in which a man who was serving a life sentence for murder, went and killed another inmate, you do not accept this as a reason to support capital punishment over life imprisonment. In that particular case, would it have not been better if the criminal had been executed? Thus preserving the life of the other inmate?

Again, the death penalty is neither a moral nor a cost-effective expedient for preventing prison murder by a small number of potential death penalty candidates, nor prison murder by anyone else, nor yet murder by escaped death penalty candidates, if such a thing statistically exists. Besides being barbaric it's a useless waste of taxpayer resources going through the necessary rigmarole, resources which could be committed to prison violence prevention.

[ShivaX]

I wouldn't support that type of reasoning, even if I wasn't the person accused.

But thats exactly what they did.

[Timex]

What exactly did I write that you interpret to mean that, Shiva?

[sinfony]

That's just your view.

Say it with me now! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c).

[ShivaX]

What exactly did I write that you interpret to mean that, Shiva?

Huh?

I was referring to the case, not anything you said.

Basically the case was:

Fire experts couldn't determine the source of the fire.
Therefore they determined it was arson.
Dude was convicted of arson and sentenced to death.

I was just saying the reasoning you don't agree with is exactly the reasoning that was used to go after the guy.

[Timex]

Oh, my bad, I thought you said me, rather than they.
I would point out that it was one aspect of their forensic analysis though, not the entirety.

[AlanQ]

I would point out that it was one aspect of their forensic analysis though, not the entirety.
How sure are you that the jury would still have convicted if they had known that part of the analysis was faulty? How sure do you think we should be before we send that person to the chair?

[lesslucid]

I don't think Timex has anywhere in this thread indicated his support for the death penalty. Unless I missed something?

My own view is that the death penalty in a modern society is outdated and barbaric - but I can understand why some people might support it for... somewhat legitimate reasons. What I cannot see any legitimate reason for whatever is halting the posthumous investigation into a death penalty case where it appears that the person may well have been innocent. To wield such terrible power, one must be ready to carry the full responsibility of knowing when one has used it unjustly. One should be ready to fearlessly and publicly carry the burden of having needlessly killed an innocent man. While it may not be practicable or possible for it to carry the same legal penalties, it is surely morally no different to negligent manslaughter. That Perry would, apparently for reasons of political expediency - or perhaps mere self-deception and moral cowardice - prevent such an investigation from being carried out ought to mark him in the eyes of any decent person, regardless of their opinion on the death penalty, as permanently, utterly unsuitable for political office. That he's actually the front runner for the GOP is a disgrace.

[BlueJackalope]

I don't think Timex has anywhere in this thread indicated his support for the death penalty. Unless I missed something?

There was a lot of Death Penalty talk, with Timex taking the pro stance, in this thread. (The Death Penalty stuff starts around page 3.) (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=66399)


My own view is that the death penalty in a modern society is outdated and barbaric - but I can understand why some people might support it for... somewhat legitimate reasons. What I cannot see any legitimate reason for whatever is halting the posthumous investigation into a death penalty case where it appears that the person may well have been innocent. To wield such terrible power, one must be ready to carry the full responsibility of knowing when one has used it unjustly. One should be ready to fearlessly and publicly carry the burden of having needlessly killed an innocent man. While it may not be practicable or possible for it to carry the same legal penalties, it is surely morally no different to negligent manslaughter. That Perry would, apparently for reasons of political expediency - or perhaps mere self-deception and moral cowardice - prevent such an investigation from being carried out ought to mark him in the eyes of any decent person, regardless of their opinion on the death penalty, as permanently, utterly unsuitable for political office. That he's actually the front runner for the GOP is a disgrace.

Very well said.

I do not think this will hurt Perry, certainly not in the primaries, and I doubt Obama will do anything with it in the General, but it has been shamefully handled.

[BlueJackalope]

Oh, my bad, I thought you said me, rather than they.
I would point out that it was one aspect of their forensic analysis though, not the entirety.

What? There have been multiple experts, scientific studies and re-examinations that show the original finding of arson to be based on flawed science. Including an expert paid for by the State of Texas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham)


A report prepared by Craig Beyler for the Texas Forensic Science Commission said that investigators ignored the scientific method for analyzing fires described in NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations and relied on "folklore" and "myths".

Even if you would like to be charitable to the State's case, the best you can do is claim the origin of the fire was inconclusive. That shouldn't be enough to put a man to death.

What part of the original forensic investigation do you think still stands up?

[ReptileHouse]

This seems as good a place as any for this:
http://thisishistorictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/editorial_20110914.jpg

[Lynch]

In that particular case, would it have not been better if the criminal had been executed? Thus preserving the life of the other inmate?
It has not been the fault of the murdering criminal but rather the fault of the prison and its staff. There is a duty of supervision if you take most of the rights off individuals and put them into cages.

Quite obvious, isn't it.

[Destarius]

Otherwise known as the truth.

Whether the death penalty is an appropriate penalty really determines on the cultural, political and legal systems and values of the country.

I think it's naive to think that it's 'the truth', without examining every aspect of implementation, including when the crime is so abhorrent to a particular society that its use appears justified, notwithstanding the risk of error. It's a balancing act, and yours is just... one view.

That said, I agree with Timex on the issue of stopping a posthumous investigation - not something to be taken lightly under any circumstance, but we have to remember that some people will never be satisfied no matter how much they dig, and these processes cost money.

[Timex]

Hrm, I don't think I suggested that I agreed with stopping the investigation, did I?

I mean, your points are valid in that it may be a waste of money, but at the same time I would be wary of the government just stopping an investigation to hide its own error.

[Destarius]

My apologies if I wasn't clear - I meant your take on stopping an investigation, not that you agreed with it.

[Jason Levine]

This discussion just reaffirms the conclusion that former Illinois Governor George Ryan came to several years ago. He placed a moratorium on executions in his state because he concluded that you simply cannot have the death penalty without eventually executing innocent persons. That conclusion was wisely written into the Illinois statutes by the legislature in its last session. Whatever the truth is in this particular case, it's a safe bet that the number of innocent persons who have been executed in Texas is staggering no matter how much Perry (and Bush before him) deny it.

[Tankero]

In legal terms, the men who are executed in Texas are guilty, if only because they were found guilty through the usual processes. Whether or not they actually committed the crime is a separate matter.

[Dawn Falcon]

Yea, fuck the truth, as long as the law says they're guilty (regardless of what actually happened) let's kill em.
...
As far as I'm concerned, that's advocating killing innocent people - which is murder.

[Destarius]

Whatever the truth is in this particular case, it's a safe bet that the number of innocent persons who have been executed in Texas is staggering no matter how much Perry (and Bush before him) deny it.

If you mean staggering as in greater than zero, I guess so, otherwise this is just so much hyperbole.

[Jason Levine]

In legal terms, the men who are executed in Texas are guilty, if only because they were found guilty through the usual processes. Whether or not they actually committed the crime is a separate matter.

What's your point? I used the term "innocent," which is a factual and moral term, not a legal one. I didn't say they were "not guilty."

[Jason Levine]

If you mean staggering as in greater than zero, I guess so, otherwise this is just so much hyperbole.
Yes, I would say any number greater than zero is staggering when discussing executions. If I measure the value of one innocent life against whatever is gained by capital punishment, then "staggering" is probably an understatement.

In any case, when George Ryan kicked over the apple cart in Illinois, he commuted the sentences of four men that he specifically found had been wrongly convicted. He followed it by halting executions altogether. Do you think Texas, with its <ahem> great respect for due process is any better than Illinois in this regard? Illinois was a piker compared to Texas in handing out death sentences and executions. So, yeah, any way you slice it, "staggering" very probably fits Texas without hyperbole.

[Tankero]

What's your point? I used the term "innocent," which is a factual and moral term, not a legal one. I didn't say they were "not guilty."

My point is that Bush, Perry, et al can unironically say that no "innocent persons" have been executed in Texas by referring to the legal definition of the term.

[Lorini]

My point is that Bush, Perry, et al can unironically say that no "innocent persons" have been executed in Texas by referring to the legal definition of the term.

Um but that's not what you said in your previous message.

[Tankero]

The giggling schoolgirl routine? Seriously? And what sort of context does the phrase "In legal terms" place the statement I made?

[Lorini]

It hasn't occurred to you that they could be innocent and still found guilty? I don't understand this fixation on the legal term of guilt.

[Tankero]

IN LEGAL TERMS, the innocent can be found guilty and be LEGALLY guilty. FACTUALLY guilty is something related, but still separate -- if not, do you think that if a man who FACTUALLY committed a crime is actually made FACTUALLY innocent if the prosecution fails to make its case?

[Timex]

In our system of justice, I would suspect that a lot more guilty folks are found innocent than the other way around.

[Hans Lauring]

... and I would rather see 9 innocent people fry than risk a guilty man going free.

[Destarius]

It's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - not ALL doubt.

[Destarius]

In any case, when George Ryan kicked over the apple cart in Illinois, he commuted the sentences of four men that he specifically found had been wrongly convicted.

Do not mistake wrongly convicted with innocent, I say.

[Lizard_King]

If I am elected messiah, I promise to execute one additional innocent man for every ten guilty just to make sure no one slips through the cracks. We can't afford a punishment gap with our rival nations.

[Destarius]

If I am elected messiah, I promise to execute one additional innocent man for every ten guilty just to make sure no one slips through the cracks. We can't afford a punishment gap with our rival nations.

Blood for the Blood God!

Also, when is the Messianic election? Are there primaries?

[Scuzz]

... and I would rather see 9 innocent people fry than risk a guilty man going free.



is there humor there that I am missing?

[Aeon221]

If I am elected messiah, I promise to execute one additional innocent man for every ten guilty just to make sure no one slips through the cracks. We can't afford a punishment gap with our rival nations.

As my new messiah, I pray that you will begin your term in office by slaying everyone who continues to post in this thread.

[Tankero]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgx8vez2371qf1sv0o1_500.gif

[Aeon221]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgx8vez2371qf1sv0o1_500.gif

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTl-pS63weRPQ-U97qPDGKg3idSSzmbn64b9HHSpDh0W9Z11313UBfL0A2M

[Lizard_King]

Blood for the Blood God!

Also, when is the Messianic election? Are there primaries?

I've got Floro and Michael777 working on it around the clock. All signs point to the coming reed year being the most opportune time, assuming the successful completion of the altar of shitbonerz.

No, you can't see the altar until it's done.


As my new messiah, I pray that you will begin your term in office by slaying everyone who continues to post in this thread.
You know how this works. Your blessing comes in the form of being consumed first.