Posted on 05/03/2006 8:33:25 AM PDT by Crackingham
Four of the nation's top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and on Tuesday they called for an official reinvestigation of the case. In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters were based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.
"The whole system has broken down," Barry Scheck, co-founder and director of the Innocence Project, said at a news conference at the state Capitol in Austin. "It's time to find out whether Texas has executed an innocent man."
The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence after an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by generations of arson investigators who relied on what they were told.
The report's conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, "Forensics Under the Microscope," which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions.
In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and "relied upon by fire investigators" was the type of evidence "routinely created by accidental fires."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
What great writing.
A person is not executed based on scientifically invalid evidence.
A person is wrongly convicted based on scientifically invalid evidence.
They are executed based on that conviction.
The prosecutor in the OJ case lost it. Never should have moved the case out of the Santa Monica area to downtown. A Santa monica jury would have convicted him. The downtown jury would have acquitted OJ even with a signed confession.
It's pretty damned meaningful to the innocent person killed by the guilty-but-released-anyway criminal.
No executed criminal has ever gone on to commit more crimes or to take another life.
Nevertheless, you propose a double standard. You say it is excusable when the justice system makes an error and a killer goes free to kill again, but it is inexcusable when the same system makes an error and executes an innocent. You cannot tolerate sloppiness that kills on the first, then demand perfection in the latter.
Humans will make mistakes, and innocents will occasionally suffer. But many more innocents will die at the hands of killers if the death penalty is eliminated. Lifetime incarceration does not stop them from killing again. The most recent CA execution is a prime example, where the perp hired a hitman from his jail cell to kill the people who testified against him. Three innocents died besides the other murder he was serving LWOP for.
To sum up your post:
Crackingham needs to get a life!
If this case doesn't prove that this notion that we hand out death sentences like lollipops is nothing but a bunch of liberal garbage, then I really don't know what does.
Every time you fail to convict a guilty person, you do the same. That happens FAR more often.
Humans are not perfect and it is insanity to demand perfection from human institutions such as the justice system. What can be demanded is for every reasonable doubt be addressed before conviction.
Do you have ... any opinions on this yourself Crackerjack? Any at all about anything...
*I* should be getting a life instead of dissecting his 'active' career...;) but Coop and others got me started.
Crackingham has got quite a ratio, TEN unique threads for every 'original' post. Probably a record for FR. Syncro was right, a posting bot.
Don't hold your breath too long while waiting....
With the number of people released from prison, and plea deals cut, it takes a great deal of effort to actually end up in prison in this country. And, one has to be a multiple-time offender to end up on death row in Texas. Will an anecdotal innocent be wrongly convicted from time to time? Sure. But the number is in single digits.
Review after review, appeal after appeal are afforded to these death row inmates, yet that's still not enough.
Only the abolition of the death penalty will satisfy some.
I find it unremarkable that prison officials, frustrated by having to deal with violent prisoners who, but for bleeding hearts, would be pushing up daisies, simply step back and allow prison justice to prevail in many circumstances.
If they would have just made a mockup hand and fit the glove on it, it would have shown OJ attempt to put the gloves on was just a phoney show. But the jury was looking for any reason to aquit, so they might have found another one anyways.
You'd have a different opinion if you or a loved one was the innocent person condemned to die for a crime they didn't commit.
Might want to read this recent USSC case about a state and judge which prevented a defendant from presenting a viable defense in his criminal trial.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-1327
Yes, up to a point. What our system requires is the existence of reasonable doubt of guilt. There are plenty on death row for whom there is absolutely NO doubt they did the deed; they are just arguing the heinousness of the particular circumstances and the jots and tittles of the conviction trial process.
The fallacy falls when people like Scheck distort this precept by demanding perfection from a non-perfect system at one end of the equation. It is "making perfection the enemy of the good", an all to common logical fallacy. Some examples: we can't deport all illegals, so we shouldn't deport any. Politician X doesn't pass every litmus test, so I won't vote for him. A small minority abuse gun ownership to commit crimes, so we cannot allow any gun ownership.
I am all for using DNA or any other modern or newly discovered methods to screen death row convicts before execution, if there is any chance of exoneration. But I am not willing to give up the death penalty as long as no reasonable doubt remains thereafter. It's that sort of stupidity that has allowed Sirhan Sirhan and Manson to escape their just fates.
No. Actually, just Christians.
My limit is 48 years. After that, wax 'em.
Seriously? I can make a exception for these guys.
That'll get you out of jury duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.