http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/texas.execution.probe/index.html

Quote :

"DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry has shaken up a state commission that is probing whether a man executed in 2004 belonged on death row. Perry's move forces the commission to delay a scheduled hearing on the case. Gov. Rick Perry's office said the moves were a routine replacement of members whose terms had expired. The governor acted two days before the commission was to hear from an expert who has cast doubt about the quality of the arson investigation that helped convict Cameron Todd Willingham of murder in the deaths of his three daughters in a fire at their home. Death-penalty opponents say a thorough review of the Willingham case may force Texas to admit that it executed an innocent man. The Texas governor and others, however, say they remain convinced of Willingham's guilt. Perry replaced the chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission and declined to reappoint two commission members. The commission was to hear testimony Friday from Craig Beyler, an arson investigation expert. He wrote the latest of three reports critical of the testimony that helped prosecutors convict Willingham of murder in 1992."

… And their Republican governor (the guy who was talking about secession) looks like he’s trying to cover it up.

It does raise an interesting question though. If you support the death penalty, how should you respond to cases where an innocent person is killed? Do you just say “it comes with the territory”? That innocent people must die to keep other innocent people safe? And how do you choose these human sacrifices? Or do you do you just keep it hush-hush?

10/1/2009 9:00:05 PM

...but, but....but....but., but....






































...abortion...
















....rabble, rabble, rabble.

10/1/2009 9:02:43 PM

^ many supporters of abortion just don’t feel that a fetus is a human life. It’s not really the same as the death penalty, where no one will dispute that mr. Willingham is in fact a human being. And even if someone acknowledged that a fetus was a human life, killing it doesn’t kill someone’s father or husband or mentor or role model like killing an innocent adult does, so the societal implications are drastically different (abortion is essentially a “victimless crime” in that scenario).

In any case, this issue is separate from abortion, and we don’t really need to have this devolve into a discussion of abortion.

10/1/2009 9:33:02 PM

Yeah I listened to the all things considered a few weeks back when they were first discussing this. At that time I was just mad. Then today then ran this as a followup and I nearly had to scream.

The only abortion discussion in this thread should be about the abortion of justice this guy got.

10/1/2009 9:43:34 PM

Perry's action here disgusts me.

10/1/2009 9:47:12 PM

Quote :

"moron: If you support the death penalty, how should you respond to cases where an innocent person is killed? Do you just say “it comes with the territory”? That innocent people must die to keep other innocent people safe? And how do you choose these human sacrifices? Or do you do you just keep it hush-hush?"

That's easy. I watched a Dateline about this case the other week (yeah, that's right...I watch primetime TV on Friday nights, and I don't have cable). Anyway, the DA and the arson investigator simply reasserted that they were right about his guilt and dismissed any evidence to the contrary...conscience cleared!

10/1/2009 9:48:14 PM

Quote :

"^ many supporters of abortion just don’t feel that a fetus is a human life. It’s not really the same as the death penalty, where no one will dispute that mr. Willingham is in fact a human being. And even if someone acknowledged that a fetus was a human life, killing it doesn’t kill someone’s father or husband or mentor or role model like killing an innocent adult does, so the societal implications are drastically different (abortion is essentially a “victimless crime” in that scenario). In any case, this issue is separate from abortion, and we don’t really need to have this devolve into a discussion of abortion."

yeah, i was being sarcastic with my post.

i was just trying to get the abortion vs. capital punishment argument out of the way before this thread got derailed into that discussion, which will probably happen, because i swear to god, it always happens.


although i guess my first post was somewhat unclear.



V fair enough

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 9:56:33 PM

^ i know you were being sarcastic, but I also know someone would read this thread, and latch on to the concepts you were mocking…

But this is a different enough issue from abortion, that abortion need not be discussed here.

I would have probably defined myself as a fence-sitter on the death penalty, but the more I think about it, I can’t really see how i could support the gov. being able to directly murder what everyone can agree can be defined as an innocent person.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 10:01:20 PM

Quote :

"Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, Illinois has exonerated more people on death row than it has executed."

- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/01/31/national/main155090.shtml

10/1/2009 10:17:42 PM

Why would they ever execute someone on "circumstantial" evidence.

If i walk into work with an AK47 and blow 10 people away; everyone saw me do it and there is no doubt i'm a murderer.
If on the other hand the only evidence is some hair samples and some casual observers vague description......

10/1/2009 10:24:22 PM

Because like the NPR segment said. Arson is the one of the only crimes you can be convicted of based purely on expert testimony. The problems in this case stem from some bad science that arson investigators in Texas use and continue to stand behind.

10/1/2009 10:29:39 PM

Because human beings aren’t perfectly rational, we make mistakes, or are prone to acting on emotion.

10/1/2009 10:35:41 PM

I used to be a death penalty supporter. I'm not sure I'd call myself an "opponent" now so much as an extreme skeptic. Cases like this have increasingly convinced me that the government cannot be trusted to administer capital punishment fairly, or more importantly, accurately.

The justice system is messy; it's made up of many people, and as a result, many ambitious people who are frequently willing to take shortcuts or be less-than-ethical in order to secure a conviction. Mistakes happen far too often.

It's hard to trust the government under those circumstances; especially when one sees the vast number of miscarriages of justices that occur in non-capital cases. There's no way I'd consider our system to be "robust" enough to confidently endorse capital punishment anymore. Maybe if it were perfect, or at least good enough where I could reasonably believe any innocent person would prevail upon appeal. But clearly it's not.

10/1/2009 11:35:14 PM

I saw this case on Dateline and a few others about murder they have been running lately. And in several of the cases, I don't see how a jury anywhere can find someone guilty. In many instances, its almost like we have been transported back to the 1800s and if a group of people just have a gut feeling someone did it, even if there isn't hard evidence to prove it, he still gets the conviction.

In one instance a wife was accused, found guilty of a murder, the judge ordered a new trial saying the make up of the jury wasn't of her peers, she came to the second trial with a new more eloquent and smarter lawyer, and this time they exonerated her. THE MURDER WEAPON WAS NEVER FOUND.

A persons life simply shouldn't be decided on how good the lawyer across from her is or how bad her own (possibly public defendant) lawyer is.

We just need to be resolved to the fact that some people might be smart enough to fool us such that that we won't falsely punish those that weren't trying to in the first place.

10/1/2009 11:47:25 PM

I recall reading something not long ago about how 2 innocent people were executed in UK in the 50's & how questions regarding the innocence of 2 executed are making some wonder whether they were guilty or not either

Can't remember where I came across it, but I'm sure google would be of service for anyone interested enough

10/1/2009 11:57:59 PM

Quote :

"If you support the death penalty, how should you respond to cases where an innocent person is killed?"

1) Supporting the death penalty in general does not mean supporting its every application. There are instances where I don't believe it is called for, either because of questionable practices or simply because the nature of the crime doesn't warrant it.

2) Mistakes are inevitable, but it goes both ways. People get released that shouldn't have, resulting in avoidable deaths of innocent people, just like people get executed that shouldn't be.

Everyone always crawls up the death penalty's ass as though it's the only way the justice system gets innocent people killed. There's a way to solve everybody's problem, and that's to make a justice system that does what it's supposed to more often. But that's real real hard, so they yell about the death penalty and sweep the rest under the rug.

Quote :

"I can’t really see how i could support the gov. being able to directly murder what everyone can agree can be defined as an innocent person."

I like this "directly" murder concept, as though it made the victim any more dead.

Every military action any country has ever undertaken has resulted in the death of innocent people. Which I guess based on your statements means that you should be a no-exceptions pacifist . . . except I guess your plan is to throw up the "directly murder" defense and ignore the question.

---

All this said, government cover-ups are no good and Rick Perry can lick my taint for trying it. If the guy was in fact innocent, let's make what compensation we can and try to use the case to motivate us to improve our justice system as a whole.

10/2/2009 12:57:33 AM

it's also worth hearing what the prosecutor in the case had to say:

Quote :

"That's not the most disturbing part of the story to me. You have to watch these videos of Judge John Jackson (he was prosecutor in the case, and is now a judge). He openly admits that the evidence for arson was weak, and that he looked at the circumstances to determine Willingham's guilt. Those circumstances? Willingham was a low-class ruffian with tattoos of skulls who like heavy metal music. Therefore, he was probably a satanist. Therefore, he probably killed his children. "

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/texas_has_state-sanctioned_mur.php


I'm kind of in the same boat as DrSteve on this one.... I'm not necessarily against the death penalty, at least not on a moral level. I honestly believe there are some people who deserve to be put to death and the world is better off for it.

And i'm also not necessarily against the death penalty being a judgement that may be handed down by the government, reserved for the most heinous crimes with only iron-clad proof. Of course, supposedly that's how the death penalty is dished out now, but obviously mistakes continue to be made, people are corrupted, and some people (judges, juries, lawyers) are just plain stupid, bigoted or biased. So therefore, my current stance is: just fucking stop it. It's not worth it. If it can't be "done right", which apparently it can't as long as normal people are involved, then it shouldn't be done at all.

maybe, maybe, a system could be set up with multiple levels of review and checks/balances so the most extreme cases could still go to that punishment, but it seems like there is always room for corruption and incompetence. So, seems to me like we just shouldn't bother, when it's literally a case of life or death for a person.

10/2/2009 1:03:59 AM

Quote :

"People get released that shouldn't have, resulting in avoidable deaths of innocent people, just like people get executed that shouldn't be."

There’s a meaningful difference there though… one has your gov. killing an innocent person, and the other has a psychotic criminal killing an innocent person.

And how many cases are there where someone gets released due to a loophole, prejudices, or an over-zealous legal system? I would bet the number is less than the innocents that have been released or executed on death row.

Quote :

"I like this "directly" murder concept, as though it made the victim any more dead. Every military action any country has ever undertaken has resulted in the death of innocent people. Which I guess based on your statements means that you should be a no-exceptions pacifist . . . except I guess your plan is to throw up the "directly murder" defense and ignore the question. "

You’re putting WAY too much stock in the “direct murder” concept. I was trying to keep things focused (and it worked…), because I don’t feel like typing out pages and pages discussing the nuances of killing, especially when I get nothing for it.

On an ethical level, I guess you could call me a pacifist in the sense that I would be against any military action that could result in the death of an innocent person. I believe too that it’s actually possible to conduct a military operation that wouldn’t kill any innocent person. However, I realize that in the “real world” there will never be a political leader of the US that could come close to using our military in this way (and the technology may not exist even, but it’s the direction we’re headed), so I rely on the fact that I live a very comfortable life in a first world country with iPods and broadband to dull my senses to the fact that what amount to atrocities are being committed in the name of a gov. I support. It’s far easier to end the atrocity that the death penalty appears to be than to end the atrocity of an innocent person dying in a war. It’s an apples-to-hand-grenades comparison.

10/2/2009 2:10:15 AM

Quote :

"I believe too that it’s actually possible to conduct a military operation that wouldn’t kill any innocent person."

You have gotta be fucking kidding me. That is one of the most goddamn ridiculous things I've ever seen posted in the soap box.

Yes, I just said that.

10/2/2009 3:10:14 AM

My views on capital punishment are consistent with my views on abortion. Both are immoral, however, abortion must remain legal in cases where it would save the mother's life. Captial punishment does not have a stipulation, it's playing God on earth.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 8:36 AM. Reason : -]

10/2/2009 8:35:20 AM

Quote :

"I believe too that it’s actually possible to conduct a military operation that wouldn’t kill any innocent person."

lol

Can I live in fantasy land too?

10/2/2009 8:43:45 AM

.Innocent people get convicted of crimes and get sent to prison, and then die in prison. Oh shit, guess we better give up prisons too.

Quote :

"There’s a meaningful difference there though… one has your gov. killing an innocent person, and the other has a psychotic criminal killing an innocent person."

In both cases it is an illustration of the government failing and the result is the loss of an innocent life. Why is it somehow worse if the actual killing is done by a needle or a gun?

I think the appropriate response to cases like this (note that it hasn't been proven that he's innocent) is to work on reforms of the litigation process and cause less innocent people from getting convicted of anything in the first place.

I still don't get why dying in prison is better than the death penalty anyway. Yes, I know if you're sentenced to life in prison there's always a chance you could be acquitted, but I'm talking about that one innocent person who did not get acquitted and led a long, miserable life and then died alone in a prison cell.

How can you live with yourself if our government lets just one person rot away in prison?


............
Stimwalt, saying that your views are consistent and then stating:

Quote :

"Both are immoral, however, abortion must remain legal in cases where it would save the mother's life. Captial punishment does not have a stipulation, it's playing God on earth. "

does not compute.
If they were consistent, then you would be fine with capital punishment if it's result was saving a person's life. And out of curiosity, how is saving a mother's life not playing God as well?

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2009 10:51:20 AM

both are problems. if there was no death penalty, this guy would most likely still be alive to get another day in court.

10/2/2009 10:53:21 AM

Quote :

" You have gotta be fucking kidding me. That is one of the most goddamn ridiculous things I've ever seen posted in the soap box. Yes, I just said that."

How about you and TKE-teg read the sentence that comes immediately after that?

10/2/2009 10:59:31 AM

^^Or, in the real world, his case wouldn't have gotten any attention since he wouldn't have been on death row or executed and whatever appeals he actually did try would have had the same result: failure. That's what needs to be fixed if the guy was innocent. Letting him die of a knife wound is no more humane than killing him with a needle.

^
Well, you're the one with the outlandish claim about some amazing military strategy where no innocent people get killed. Why don't you extrapolate that a bit so we don't think you're so crazy?

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2009 11:00:15 AM

Quote :

"In both cases it is an illustration of the government failing and the result is the loss of an innocent life. Why is it somehow worse if the actual killing is done by a needle or a gun?"

Because in one case you're asking your gov. to kill someone on your behalf, and in the other case that remains purely a hypothetical at this point, a mistake is made that results in someone being killed on no ones' behalf.

10/2/2009 11:02:18 AM

Quote :

"Well, you're the one with the outlandish claim about some amazing military strategy where no innocent people get killed. Why don't you extrapolate that a bit so we don't think you're so crazy?"

What extrapolation is necessary when I admitted it'll never happen in the real world? But it's amazing to me that you all can't see a hypothetical scenario, however pie-in-the-sky, where there's no collateral damage in a military operation.

10/2/2009 11:04:19 AM

Quote :

"If they were consistent, then you would be fine with capital punishment if it's result was saving a person's life."

Give me a realistic example of capital punishment saving a life, and we'll talk. Otherwise, my position is as consistent as reality allows.

10/2/2009 11:13:11 AM

How about every case where a repeat offender is executed?

10/2/2009 11:17:52 AM

But wouldn't a life in prison sentence be equally as effective?

And having someone in prison always allows for their case to be reviewed, and in the case of an innocent person, be set free. Killing someone doesn't allow for the innocent person to be free again, or to even fight for their freedom.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 11:25:16 AM

Is the process for proving innocent perfect? Is there any chance that a guilty person could be let free and then do something horrible?

There are some crimes where the appropriate punishment is death. This is the fundamental difference of opinion that people who are for and against the death penalty have.

10/2/2009 11:38:43 AM

Quote :

"I would bet the number is less than the innocents that have been released or executed on death row."

The number of people who got released and subsequently killed someone are demonstrably higher than the high-end estimates of the number of people who have been executed wrongly. I used to have a decent piece laying out those figures, but sadly it was lost with my last hard drive and I don't feel like replicating it now. So, ignore it if you want, one of these days I'll go through the stuff again.

I also love love love it when people include death row inmates who were not killed but were in fact released. How the fuck are they relevant?

Quote :

"There’s a meaningful difference there though… one has your gov. killing an innocent person, and the other has a psychotic criminal killing an innocent person."

How is it meaningful? The outcome in either case is a dead innocent person. My goal is to minimize the number of dead innocent people. Couldn't really care less about who kills them.

Quote :

"It’s an apples-to-hand-grenades comparison."

In what possible way? Both may end up with dead innocents, both have the goal of minimizing the number of dead innocents.

Quote :

"But wouldn't a life in prison sentence be equally as effective?"

Get us to a point where "life sentence" actually means something approaching "life sentence" and then we'll talk.

10/2/2009 12:34:39 PM

Quote :

"How about every case where a repeat offender is executed?"

Quote :

"But wouldn't a life in prison sentence be equally as effective?"

My thoughts exactly.

Quote :

"Get us to a point where "life sentence" actually means something approaching "life sentence" and then we'll talk."

This is hardly an impossible task and can be fixed. However, I'm fairly sure we haven't figured out how to raise the dead yet, now have we?

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : -]

10/2/2009 1:15:30 PM

Quote :

""But wouldn't a life in prison sentence be equally as effective?""

That works for http://www.odmp.org/officer/19433-correctional-officer-jose-rivera and any number of prison guards and other prisoners murdered by people who are in prison with life sentences.



[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : prisoners]

10/2/2009 1:41:43 PM

Quote :

"And even if someone acknowledged that a fetus was a human life, killing it doesn’t kill someone’s father or husband or mentor or role model like killing an innocent adult does"

Really? You mean that fetus had no way of ever having offspring had it lived? Think a little before you spout stupidity.

10/2/2009 10:11:15 PM

That is a fucking retarded counterpoint.

...to the extent that I use the term "counterpoint" quite loosely.



and I am against abortion except in cases very, VERY early in the pregnancy...like an RU-486 induced "miscarraige" at the couple-week mark.

10/3/2009 12:43:17 AM

Quote :

" The number of people who got released and subsequently killed someone are demonstrably higher than the high-end estimates of the number of people who have been executed wrongly."

Someone getting released that properly served their sentence is very much different than someone wrongly being put on death row.

We make the choice to take the chance that a criminal might re-commit a crime when we set a sentence that is less than life. If you are arguing that there should be nothing but life sentences or death for violent offenses, that’s one thing, but I doubt you’re making that argument.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:17 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 2:15:26 AM

ounds like the night the lights went out in Georgia

10/3/2009 4:19:29 AM

Quote :

"If you are arguing that there should be nothing but life sentences or death for violent offenses, that’s one thing, but I doubt you’re making that argument."

Not all violent offenses, no, but those in certain categories that are more likely to be recidivist.

10/3/2009 5:43:57 PM

Quote :

"That is a fucking retarded counterpoint."

Not really. He argues that abortion is victimless. There is clearly a victim. He argues abortion doesn't kill family members, when it very clearly does

10/3/2009 8:47:50 PM

may have

10/3/2009 9:48:24 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: You have gotta be fucking kidding me. That is one of the most goddamn ridiculous things I've ever seen posted in the soap box. Yes, I just said that."

I dunno.

You could attack somebody's technological infrastructure with computer viruses and shit. Take down their internet. Make their ATMs go crazy and start shooting out money--AHA. But seriously, you could probably fuck an enemy up without a drop of blood shed.

10/4/2009 12:41:22 PM

And you know, when we went after al Qaeda after 9/11, we thought really hard about attacking all of their ATM's and technological infrastructure. If only we'd crippled their internet earlier, all this bloodshed could have been avoided.

10/4/2009 2:05:44 PM

^I can't tell if you're joking.

But, yeah, terrorists use the internets. Attacking that aspect could fuck they shit up.

10/4/2009 2:31:51 PM

Do you seriously think that we don't attack/exploit them on all those technological fronts?

I've only been involved with and/or read-in to a small piece of that pie, most of it has been at the SECRET level and even what I know would absolutely make your brain explode (particularly the little bit of TS stuff I've done). I can't even imagine what all goes on at the TS level across the SIGINT world.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2009 2:35:11 PM

I know we exploit those things.

And I don't see why you won't acknowledge that they're military operations in which no one dies (like moron suggested).

And, no, my head wouldn't explode . I don't think the contents of a mind that can't wrap itself around birth control would be that amazing.

10/4/2009 2:50:34 PM

I don't think I can really explain things without spilling classified information, as I can't really go much more in depth than my previous post. Suffice to say that I am a relative expert in the field of attacking from a technological front (not so much the computer networking side, but I have a good knowledge of various other facets, and in some cases, have been an active participant).


Secondly, I won't acknowledge that they're military operations in which no one dies because that's not the case. I mean, the tech-attack itself isn't what kills them (well...most of the time ), but what do you think is the ultimate goal? I'll give you a hint: generally to either kill or capture them.


Finally, I'll leave the rest of your post, as it's laughable enough on its on merit (or lack thereof), and particularly in light of the fact that it's coming from someone who believes in war without killing.

10/4/2009 3:07:23 PM

Quote :

"1) Supporting the death penalty in general does not mean supporting its every application. There are instances where I don't believe it is called for, either because of questionable practices or simply because the nature of the crime doesn't warrant it."

even in the applications you do feel CP to be warranted, there's still a possibility of killing an innocent person. as long as it exists there is absolutely no way to completely eliminate the chance of someone getting the needle for a crime s/he didn't commit. something as permanent as the death penalty requires a level of proof WAY beyond "a reasonable doubt" that we as people just can't get to. something on the level of all bachelors are unmarried level of proof.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2009 3:18:18 PM

^^Dude, we have military operations all the time that don't result in innocent deaths or any death at all.

Building a school is the simplest example I can think of.

It's a blow to our enemy, and we often don't kill any civilians doing it. Right?

10/4/2009 4:47:06 PM

Building a school is not a military operation. That people believe it is is part of the reason we have such a huge fucking problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military's purpose is to kill people and break things.

10/4/2009 4:58:18 PM