WWTBAM Bored

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... rentPage=1
Trial by Fire
Did Texas execute an innocent man?

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I did not do. From God’s dust I came and to dust I will return, so the Earth shall become my throne.”

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... rentPage=1
Trial by Fire
Did Texas execute an innocent man?

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I did not do. From God’s dust I came and to dust I will return, so the Earth shall become my throne.”

Interesting last name, at least back in Texas.

DevilKitty100 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... rentPage=1
Trial by Fire
Did Texas execute an innocent man?

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I did not do. From God’s dust I came and to dust I will return, so the Earth shall become my throne.”

Interesting last name, at least back in Texas.

No known relation, but a sad story. As far as I've read, there was no motive.

From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"The prosecution cited such evidence in asserting that Willingham fit the profile of a sociopath, and brought forth two medical experts to confirm the theory. Neither had met Willingham. One of them was Tim Gregory, a psychologist with a master’s degree in marriage and family issues, who had previously gone goose hunting with [prosecutor John] Jackson, and had not published any research in the field of sociopathic behavior. His practice was devoted to family counselling.
At one point, Jackson showed Gregory Exhibit No. 60—a photograph of an Iron Maiden poster that had hung in Willingham’s house—and asked the psychologist to interpret it. “This one is a picture of a skull, with a fist being punched through the skull,” Gregory said; the image displayed “violence” and “death.” Gregory looked at photographs of other music posters owned by Willingham. “There’s a hooded skull, with wings and a hatchet,” Gregory continued. “And all of these are in fire, depicting—it reminds me of something like Hell. And there’s a picture—a Led Zeppelin picture of a falling angel. . . . I see there’s an association many times with cultive-type of activities. A focus on death, dying. Many times individuals that have a lot of this type of art have interest in satanic-type activities.”"

Let's be honest and blunt.

Texas didn't kill him.

You did.

I did.

We all did.

Sin by omission can be as damning as sin by commission.

When will this farce end?

mrkelley23 wrote:Let's be honest and blunt.

Texas didn't kill him.

You did.

I did.

We all did.

Sin by omission can be as damning as sin by commission.

When will this farce end?

Mr. K. What do you mean? If one is against the death penalty then how would one be guilty of killing him? I'm assuming you're viewing it from that aspect.

I honestly don't know the details of the case, since I just haven't looked into it. I do know how difficult it is to be a juror on a murder trial. I do know, too, that innocent people are executed, for a variety of reasons, some totally heinous.

The discussion of dealth penalty versus no death penalty is a different discussion, I would think. As opposed to railroading, false prosecution, bad crime lab operation, future evidence, whatever was involved.

Just curious.

mrkelley23 wrote:Let's be honest and blunt.

Texas didn't kill him.

You did.

I did.

We all did.

Sin by omission can be as damning as sin by commission.

When will this farce end?

And we all killed Justin Wiles, of Tulsa.
And we all killed John and Donnelda Lyons, their 2-year-old son Christopher, and their teenaged niece, Theresa Tyson, in Yuma County
And we all murdered Pamela Brenda.
And we all murdered Mary Esther Williams.

The abover were all murdered by convicted murderers who were not executed, several got paroled, but some escaped. Their killers were all executed after the above murders. So far, no executed convict has ever murdered again.

Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit.

You make my point for me.

Fallibility is a human trait. As long as we are fallible, we should not be assuming that we can be 100% accurate in murder cases, no matter how many years worth of appeals are tried. We have failed in that we have allowed some murderers to go free and some to escape. You know what? That's going to happen with or without the death penalty, and probably at the same rate, although neither of us has any evidence to bolster our side of that argument.

One innocent person executed by me (with my government acting as surrogate, so I don't have to feel as guilty) is too many.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Let's be honest and blunt.

Texas didn't kill him.

You did.

I did.

We all did.

Sin by omission can be as damning as sin by commission.

When will this farce end?

And we all killed Justin Wiles, of Tulsa.
And we all killed John and Donnelda Lyons, their 2-year-old son Christopher, and their teenaged niece, Theresa Tyson, in Yuma County
And we all murdered Pamela Brenda.
And we all murdered Mary Esther Williams.

The abover were all murdered by convicted murderers who were not executed, several got paroled, but some escaped. Their killers were all executed after the above murders. So far, no executed convict has ever murdered again.

Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit.

Since when does the 6th commandment have a footnote?

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Let's be honest and blunt.

Texas didn't kill him.

You did.

I did.

We all did.

Sin by omission can be as damning as sin by commission.

When will this farce end?

And we all killed Justin Wiles, of Tulsa.
And we all killed John and Donnelda Lyons, their 2-year-old son Christopher, and their teenaged niece, Theresa Tyson, in Yuma County
And we all murdered Pamela Brenda.
And we all murdered Mary Esther Williams.

The abover were all murdered by convicted murderers who were not executed, several got paroled, but some escaped. Their killers were all executed after the above murders. So far, no executed convict has ever murdered again.

Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit.

Since when does the 6th commandment have a footnote?

Where was the 6th commandment mentioned in this thread? Why are you bringing it up? Are you a believer in the Bible? In its infallible truth? If not, why are you using it to support your positions?

"Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit."
"Since when does the 6th commandment have a footnote?"

Well, my pastor points out that the actual meaning of the commandment is not 'Thou shalt not kill,' but 'That shalt not do murder.' So there's some leeway for interpretation there.

Having said that, BiT sets up a false dichotomy by assuming that the only alternatives are execute him or let him loose. And the execution of even one innocent person is the best argument there is against the death penalty.

I have no significant moral qualms about execution in the abstract. But the idea that something like this case can happen scares the hell out of me, and seemsd kind of unanswerable. (And I don't think any of us has the omniscience to say that it happens 'very very very very very few' times.)

The other thing that bothers me about the death penalty is the fact that some people seem to get satisfaction out of executions. [This is not directed at anyone here, I hasten to add.] I can accept having to put somebody to death as a sad duty. I can't accept it as anything to feel gung ho about. ("Fry 'em! Yeah! Yeah!") I doubt that the people who have to do the actual executing necessarily feel that much enthusiasm for the job.

Would I feel differently if somebody I loved was murdered? No way of knowing. But that's irrelevant: I could still be wanting revenge on the wrong man. And there have also been plenty of instances of victims' relatives arguing against putting the perpetrator to death.

franktangredi wrote: Having said that, BiT sets up a false dichotomy by assuming that the only alternatives are execute him or let him loose. And the execution of even one innocent person is the best argument there is against the death penalty.

Where did I assume that? I specifially pointed out at least one intance where the murderer escaped to murder again.

There are plenty of cases where murderers have committed additional murders while in prison. Are you suggesting we keep them 24/7 in straight jackets and chains? That is pretty much the only way (other than executing them) to guarantee they won't take another innocent life. And that seems more cruel and unusual than lethal injection.

And I assume you think you are the judge of what the best argument is against the death penalty. I shot that one down. You're willing to save that one innocent man at the cost of many more innocent men dying. I'm not sure that is a very good argument.

BackInTex wrote:

franktangredi wrote: Having said that, BiT sets up a false dichotomy by assuming that the only alternatives are execute him or let him loose. And the execution of even one innocent person is the best argument there is against the death penalty.

Where did I assume that?

Maybe I misread what you meant when you said, "Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit." That seemed to be implying that those were the alternatives.

BackInTex wrote:There are plenty of cases where murderers have committed additional murders while in prison. Are you suggesting we keep them 24/7 in straight jackets and chains? That is pretty much the only way (other than executing them) to guarantee they won't take another innocent life. And that seems more cruel and unusual than lethal injection.

The examples you previously gave were all people who were killed by people who were out of prison. (... "several got paroled, but some escaped.") When you move to people who commit additional murders while in prison, you are shifting arguments. I don't mind expanding the discussion. But changing the terms of the discussion in order to prove that you didn't say what you were saying isn't kosher.

And I didn't say anything about execution being 'cruel and unusual.' In fact, didn't I explicitly state I had no moral qualms about execution? You dragged that in the same way you accused Bob of dragging in the Sixth Commandment. (Having said that, I'm glad to hear that you are against cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners.)

BackInTex wrote:And I assume you think you are the judge of what the best argument is against the death penalty. I shot that one down. You're willing to save that one innocent man at the cost of many more innocent men dying. I'm not sure that is a very good argument.

I am the best judge of what I find to be a convincing argument. I could have appended the words 'in my opinion' to every statement I made -- but didn't we have that discussion a few weeks ago?

I guess you have never expressed an opinion here so strongly that you seem to imply that everybody else is wrong. I guess "I shot that one down" was not meant to imply that your judgment was better than mine.

franktangredi wrote:(I guess you have never expressed an opinion here so strongly that you seem to imply that everybody else is wrong.)

I've never.

Only responding because of your claim further down that you " shot that one down." I know you haven't responded well to logic in the past, but I will try again:

"And we all killed Justin Wiles, of Tulsa.
And we all killed John and Donnelda Lyons, their 2-year-old son Christopher, and their teenaged niece, Theresa Tyson, in Yuma County
And we all murdered Pamela Brenda.
And we all murdered Mary Esther Williams."

Nope. they were killed by their killers, who will have to face final judgment for their crimes by one who is actually capable of judging.

"The abover were all murdered by convicted murderers who were not executed, several got paroled, but some escaped. Their killers were all executed after the above murders. So far, no executed convict has ever murdered again."

If they were paroled, then they should not have been eligible for the death penalty. Death penalty cases should be life sentences without eligibility for parole. If some escaped, would they not escape now, with the years and years of appeals they get to grind through? Seems to me that if you're going to plan an escape, you're going to do it in the time frame of your sentence, rather than after your supposed death date. If we screw up and let prisoners escape, or let future murderers out on parole, then that is just further evidence of the fallibility of humans. Again, as I said, you make my point for me.

"Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit."

Almost not worth responding to, but I can't help myself. If you can provide one single shred of evidence to back up such grandiose statements, I would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise, it has as much validity as the guy on my campus who used to claim that the world was going to end in 1992, and we were all damned to eternity.

For all I know, he was right. After all that was when Bill Clinton was elected, wasn't it?

mrkelley23 wrote:Only responding because of your claim further down that you " shot that one down." I know you haven't responded well to logic in the past, but I will try again:

Mike, I applaud you for your effort. Lotsa luck.

mrkelley23 wrote:"And we all killed Justin Wiles, of Tulsa.
And we all killed John and Donnelda Lyons, their 2-year-old son Christopher, and their teenaged niece, Theresa Tyson, in Yuma County
And we all murdered Pamela Brenda.
And we all murdered Mary Esther Williams."

Nope. they were killed by their killers, who will have to face final judgment for their crimes by one who is actually capable of judging.

"The abover were all murdered by convicted murderers who were not executed, several got paroled, but some escaped. Their killers were all executed after the above murders. So far, no executed convict has ever murdered again."

If they were paroled, then they should not have been eligible for the death penalty. Death penalty cases should be life sentences without eligibility for parole. If some escaped, would they not escape now, with the years and years of appeals they get to grind through? Seems to me that if you're going to plan an escape, you're going to do it in the time frame of your sentence, rather than after your supposed death date. If we screw up and let prisoners escape, or let future murderers out on parole, then that is just further evidence of the fallibility of humans. Again, as I said, you make my point for me.

"Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit."

Almost not worth responding to, but I can't help myself. If you can provide one single shred of evidence to back up such grandiose statements, I would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise, it has as much validity as the guy on my campus who used to claim that the world was going to end in 1992, and we were all damned to eternity.

For all I know, he was right. After all that was when Bill Clinton was elected, wasn't it?

mrkelley23 wrote:
"Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit."

Almost not worth responding to, but I can't help myself. If you can provide one single shred of evidence to back up such grandiose statements, I would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise, it has as much validity as the guy on my campus who used to claim that the world was going to end in 1992, and we were all damned to eternity.

How about a challenge? For every name you provide of an innocent person executed by any state since the death penalty I provide you with 5 names of people killed by a person after that person was convicted of murder. Nah, it will take some work, but I'll make it 10.

mrkelley23 wrote:Only responding because of your claim further down that you " shot that one down." I know you haven't responded well to logic in the past, but I will try again:

If they were paroled, then they should not have been eligible for the death penalty. Death penalty cases should be life sentences without eligibility for parole. For all I know, he was right. After all that was when Bill Clinton was elected, wasn't it?

I think it's a bit snarky to accuse others of not responding to logic, when this whole subject is quite rife with emotion. I think you're more reasoned than that.

People are paroled for a variety of reasons. Stupidity/ignorance on the part of the parole board, for one. There are situations, specifically the capital murder trial I served on, where the death penalty was waived for a sentence of 40 years with no parole. Depending on the age of the perpetrator, you do the math. Hell's bells, Squeaky Fromme got out. Bernadette Dorn was living a fine life until discovered (realize that wasn't a parole situation), who knows Charlie and Tex may get their perverted asses paroled at some point only because they live in California. The entire system, whereever you may be is a pile of crap, probably. But, one must deal with the law.
And, Sara Jane Olsen was actually the one from the Symbionese Liberation Army that I was trying to reference. Another fun fact.

The Bill Clinton remark was totally illogical.

Beebs52 wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Only responding because of your claim further down that you " shot that one down." I know you haven't responded well to logic in the past, but I will try again:

If they were paroled, then they should not have been eligible for the death penalty. Death penalty cases should be life sentences without eligibility for parole. For all I know, he was right. After all that was when Bill Clinton was elected, wasn't it?

I think it's a bit snarky to accuse others of not responding to logic, when this whole subject is quite rife with emotion. I think you're more reasoned than that.

People are paroled for a variety of reasons. Stupidity/ignorance on the part of the parole board, for one. There are situations, specifically the capital murder trial I served on, where the death penalty was waived for a sentence of 40 years with no parole. Depending on the age of the perpetrator, you do the math. Hell's bells, Squeaky Fromme got out. Bernadette Dorn was living a fine life until discovered (realize that wasn't a parole situation), who knows Charlie and Tex may get their perverted asses paroled at some point only because they live in California. The entire system, whereever you may be is a pile of crap, probably. But, one must deal with the law.
And, Sara Jane Olsen was actually the one from the Symbionese Liberation Army that I was trying to reference. Another fun fact.

The Bill Clinton remark was totally illogical.

What about Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. Convicted of the Pan-Am bombing that killed 270 people. He should have been executed, but Britain doesn't do that. But he was given life without parole. Uh,huh. Now you have this convicted terrorist, who is already dying, out free. I wonder how hard it would be to convince him to strap on som C-4 and blow up some innocent tourists somewhere. Probably not much, if he hasn't convinced himself.

The problem with life without parole is that over the years TPTB change and people forget the harshness of the crime, the murder begins to look old and frail. So they convince themselves it O.K. to let him go. And they do.

mrkelley23 wrote: I know you haven't responded well to logic in the past, but I will try again:

When you provide some I will respond.

Beebs52 wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Only responding because of your claim further down that you " shot that one down." I know you haven't responded well to logic in the past, but I will try again:

If they were paroled, then they should not have been eligible for the death penalty. Death penalty cases should be life sentences without eligibility for parole. For all I know, he was right. After all that was when Bill Clinton was elected, wasn't it?

I think it's a bit snarky to accuse others of not responding to logic, when this whole subject is quite rife with emotion. I think you're more reasoned than that.

BiT and I have a history, and it was that history to which I was referring. And yes, given some of the words which have been exchanged, snarkiness is quite possible, even likely.

People are paroled for a variety of reasons. Stupidity/ignorance on the part of the parole board, for one. There are situations, specifically the capital murder trial I served on, where the death penalty was waived for a sentence of 40 years with no parole. Depending on the age of the perpetrator, you do the math. Hell's bells, Squeaky Fromme got out. Bernadette Dorn was living a fine life until discovered (realize that wasn't a parole situation), who knows Charlie and Tex may get their perverted asses paroled at some point only because they live in California. The entire system, whereever you may be is a pile of crap, probably. But, one must deal with the law.
And, Sara Jane Olsen was actually the one from the Symbionese Liberation Army that I was trying to reference. Another fun fact.

People argue with me about the death penalty, and they want to say there are no reasonable alternatives. But there are. Life in prison without possibility of parole is one. Can that be screwed up by humans, too? Certainly. Look at Illinois. All those juries who thought they were sending people to die, all screwed up because the outgoing governor had an attack of conscience and suspended all the death penalty cases. Any sentence can be altered from its original intent. Some might even call that wisdom.

Sara Jane Olson was not convicted of a capital crime, and neither was Squeaky Fromme. Are you saying they deserved to die? I hope not. I guess Charlie refers to Manson, not sure who Tex is supposed to be, unless it's the poor schmoe whose death started this story. Once again, if you can offer a shred of evidence to support your claim other than a general disregard for California, then I will consider it.

The Bill Clinton remark was totally illogical.

Yes, it was. Attempts at humor are often illogical, even jarringly so.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:
"Far more innocent people are murdered by un-executed convicted murderers than the very very very very very few truly innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit."

Almost not worth responding to, but I can't help myself. If you can provide one single shred of evidence to back up such grandiose statements, I would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise, it has as much validity as the guy on my campus who used to claim that the world was going to end in 1992, and we were all damned to eternity.

How about a challenge? For every name you provide of an innocent person executed by any state since the death penalty I provide you with 5 names of people killed by a person after that person was convicted of murder. Nah, it will take some work, but I'll make it 10.

Why don't we just throw EVERYBODY in jail. That way there will be no more murders....

The price of having a constitution that protects the rights of all of us is that sometimes, the exercise of these rights results in those criminals avoiding punishment. The alternative is granting the police the power to put anyone away they think is "suspicious."

[quote="mrkelley23People argue with me about the death penalty, and they want to say there are no reasonable alternatives. But there are. Life in prison without possibility of parole is one. Can that be screwed up by humans, too? Certainly. Look at Illinois. All those juries who thought they were sending people to die, all screwed up because the outgoing governor had an attack of conscience and suspended all the death penalty cases. Any sentence can be altered from its original intent. Some might even call that wisdom.

Sara Jane Olson was not convicted of a capital crime, and neither was Squeaky Fromme. Are you saying they deserved to die? I hope not. I guess Charlie refers to Manson, not sure who Tex is supposed to be, unless it's the poor schmoe whose death started this story. Once again, if you can offer a shred of evidence to support your claim other than a general disregard for California, then I will consider it.

[/b][/quote]

I think my quote quoting will probably be all messed up. Anyway, believe it or not, I have conflicting thoughts about this whole issue. Whereas I used to be quite firmly ensconced on one side, now I'm in an ambiguous mode. Therefore, I should not use this thread to argue with myself and won't continue. I hope that made sense.

The Squeaky, Sara references were only to illustrate the incompetency, fallibility, etc. of the system in containing those who MAY have been involved in a capital crime. Obviously, if they haven't been convicted, etc.
Tex is Tex Watson, the Manson dude.

The main argument against capital punishment (at least in this thread) seems to be the possibility of executing someone who is actually innocent of the crime of which he has been convicted. Someone on death row gets automatic appeals; he has lawyers from anti-capital punishment groups working on his case, etc. Someone who gets life or life without parole may or may not be able to afford attorneys for appeals.

So which is more cruel: being executed for a crime you didn't commit after appeal after appeal has failed; or being sentenced to life without parole for a crime you didn't commit and spending years and years locked in a tiny cell and having no one listen or care to listen to your appeal, watching yourself grow old and wondering what life outside would have been like?

danielh41 wrote: So which is more cruel: being executed for a crime you didn't commit after appeal after appeal has failed; or being sentenced to life without parole for a crime you didn't commit and spending years and years locked in a tiny cell and having no one listen or care to listen to your appeal, watching yourself grow old and wondering what life outside would have been like?

While the quality of representation for death row inmates often (but not always) is better than for those serving life without parole (and death row inmates can argue that their punishment was too severe, an argument not available for those serving life), the laws that determine whether they are entitled to post-conviction relief are the same and highly slanted in favor of upholding convictions. Once the conviction is upheld on initial appeal, it is very difficult to get either a federal or state court to grant relief.

Those serving life without parole file just as many appeals as those on death row, and most of them wind up with the same result... Denied.