FACT: Innocent man executed by Texas

[Two Thumbs]

So do people support a policy that kills innoncent people?

I'm against abortion.

are you?

 

[Ariux]

It's a shame if an innocent man was executed, but not executing criminals results in more innocent people dying. But, I don't see the proof that an innocent man was killed. Liberals are always making up wild shit about miscarriages of justice, while they themselves are always pushing for miscarriages of justice (e.g. the Zimmerman lynch mob).

It takes more than looking like a suspect to get convicted. And, most of that Yahoo! article is blatant bullshit. Everyone knew who did it, from the start, except the police, and the court, and the jury, and the appeals judges, whatever.

 

[Liability]

I don't think an innocent person should even be convicted, much less get sentenced to prison and much much less get sentenced to death and FAR FAR FAR less get executed.

I want all trials to be PERFECT.

However .. here in the real world, they aren't.

So. Do we draw the line at the death penalty only?

Or do we abandon the system of trial by jury?

Perfection is perfection, after all. And ditto that for imperfection.

My objection to the death penalty has less to do with wrongfully executing people or the long delays and huge expense, and more to do with the moral issue involved. I just think it is wrong for the state to execute people, regardless how horrible their crime might have been. LWOP? Of course. Just not death.

That sums it up. I don't trust the state to tell me what's good for me, I certainly can't trust them to kill the right people.

The State figured out that tobacco is bad for you. Just because it's the State saying it doesn't make it wrong. The State had Osama bin Laden terminated with extreme prejudice. Iced. Snuffed. De-brainified. Deader than Kelsey's nuts. Just because it was the State that made the call and authorized the sanction doesn't mean the right person wasn't the one exterminated.

 

[starcraftzzz]

So do people support a policy that kills innoncent people?

I'm against abortion.

are you?

I did not realize that clump of cells with out a brain was a human. so come back retard

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

DeLuna said he ran from police because he was on parole and had been drinking.

Well there you go. That's the one fact that will make it easy for death penalty supporters to sleep at night. He WAS up to no good, wasn't he? So he had it coming to him.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So do people support a policy that kills innoncent people?

A lot of people here support the death penalty. There are those here who (believe it or not) aren't all that sympathetic when they learn that an innocent person has been executed. Todays conservatives are a tough crowd.

Well he was out drinking when he wasn't supposed to, wasn't he? Was probably an anchor baby thug.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So. Do we draw the line at the death penalty only?

Considering its irreversibility - yes, that make logical sense.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It pays to look it up because it isn't at all a FACT that an innocent man was executed. All reports say that it is only POSSIBLE that an innocent man was executed. It is also possible that he was guilty as hell.

I didn't know the standard of proof for executing people in this country was "its possible he did it!"

 

[Katzndogz]

It pays to look it up because it isn't at all a FACT that an innocent man was executed. All reports say that it is only POSSIBLE that an innocent man was executed. It is also possible that he was guilty as hell.

I didn't know the standard of proof for executing people in this country was "its possible he did it!"

Did a trial find him guilty beyond a reasonabld doubt?

 

[Liability]

It pays to look it up because it isn't at all a FACT that an innocent man was executed. All reports say that it is only POSSIBLE that an innocent man was executed. It is also possible that he was guilty as hell.

I didn't know the standard of proof for executing people in this country was "its possible he did it!"

It's not. He was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is almost certain that his "explanation" was bullshit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It pays to look it up because it isn't at all a FACT that an innocent man was executed. All reports say that it is only POSSIBLE that an innocent man was executed. It is also possible that he was guilty as hell.

I didn't know the standard of proof for executing people in this country was "its possible he did it!"

Did a trial find him guilty beyond a reasonabld doubt?

You're the one who just said it was "possible" he was guilty.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It pays to look it up because it isn't at all a FACT that an innocent man was executed. All reports say that it is only POSSIBLE that an innocent man was executed. It is also possible that he was guilty as hell.

I didn't know the standard of proof for executing people in this country was "its possible he did it!"

It's not. He was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is almost certain that his "explanation" was bullshit.

Nevermind that the man he claims did the crime actually admitted to doing it.

 

[Liability]

I didn't know the standard of proof for executing people in this country was "its possible he did it!"

It's not. He was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is almost certain that his "explanation" was bullshit.

Nevermind that the man he claims did the crime actually admitted to doing it.

Yeah. Because nobody has ever falsely confessed to a crime before to help the other guy out.

And what are they gonna do? Prosecute the "new" suspect on the basis of an uncorroborated "confession" AFTER they had someone ELSE convicted and executed for the same crime?

Yeah. The claim that HE really did it and not the dead guy sure puts him "at risk."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's not. He was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is almost certain that his "explanation" was bullshit.

Nevermind that the man he claims did the crime actually admitted to doing it.

Yeah. Because nobody has ever falsely confessed to a crime before to help the other guy out.

And nobody has ever been wrongfully convicted by a jury, either.

And what are they gonna do?

Nothing. Hernandez died in prison. Convicted of murder. Using the same knife as was used in the crime DeLuna was convicted of. Read the article?

Prosecute the "new" suspect on the basis of an uncorroborated "confession" AFTER they had someone ELSE convicted and executed for the same crime?

So if we convict and execute person A for a murder and later find out person B did the crime, person B should get to walk free?

 

[Immanuel]

It's a report by a college professor and five students. Hardly proof.

Read most of the article and that was the conclusion I came to as well.

I do support the death penalty for the most heineous crimes... Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies by now, but under circumstances such as this, I do not support the death penalty.

Too many innocent people have been executed to be exonerated at a later date based on other i.e. DNA evidence.

Immie

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's a report by a college professor and five students. Hardly proof.

Read most of the article and that was the conclusion I came to as well.

I do support the death penalty for the most heineous crimes... Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies by now, but under circumstances such as this, I do not support the death penalty.

Too many innocent people have been executed to be exonerated at a later date based on other i.e. DNA evidence.

Immie

I don't lose sleep when GUILTY men are put to death for a murder, but considering that the penalty is a) irreversible and b) applied unequitably (racial minorities and men tend to get executed for the same crimes that whites and women get prison for, and the poor have far less ability to defend themselves against it in court), I'm against it on practical grounds. Yes, murderers deserve the death penalty, but giving the guilty what they deserve should not be more important than protecting those falsely accused and wrongully convicted from being killed for a crime they did not commit.

 

[Immanuel]

It's a report by a college professor and five students. Hardly proof.

Read most of the article and that was the conclusion I came to as well.

I do support the death penalty for the most heineous crimes... Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies by now, but under circumstances such as this, I do not support the death penalty.

Too many innocent people have been executed to be exonerated at a later date based on other i.e. DNA evidence.

Immie

I don't lose sleep when GUILTY men are put to death for a murder, but considering that the penalty is a) irreversible and b) applied unequitably (blacks and men tend to get executed for the same crimes that whites and women get prison for), I'm against it on practical grounds. Yes, murderers deserve the death penalty, but giving the guilty what they deserve should not be more important than protecting those falsely accused and wrongully convicted from being killed for a crime they did not commit.

You and I don't agree all that often, but this case is one of those exceptions to the rule.

Immie

 

[Liability]

Nevermind that the man he claims did the crime actually admitted to doing it.

Yeah. Because nobody has ever falsely confessed to a crime before to help the other guy out.

And nobody has ever been wrongfully convicted by a jury, either.

Of course they have. I already said the system is imperfect. This is news?

And what are they gonna do?

Nothing. Hernandez died in prison. Convicted of murder. Using the same knife as was used in the crime DeLuna was convicted of. Read the article?

WTF does that have to do with anything? The question was rhetorical for the reason provided in the next question I proceeded to ask.

Prosecute the "new" suspect on the basis of an uncorroborated "confession" AFTER they had someone ELSE convicted and executed for the same crime?

So if we convict and execute person A for a murder and later find out person B did the crime, person B should get to walk free?

You studiously miss the point or perhaps you are intentionally trying to evade it.

It's not a question of "should." It is a question or practicality. IT is VERY much like some of the final words in Presumed Innocent.

It is a practical impossibility to try two people for the same crime.

Seriously, shake the rust off your brain. Consider the defense summation in anticipation of the prosecutors summation:

"The government is about to stand up here and ask you to CONVICT my client by CLAIMING that their evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. The trouble is, they said that once before about a different guy. And they used some of the very same evidence to persuade a jury much like you to convict that other guy. He's been put to death. But NOW, say the prosecutors, you should put that aside. Oops. 'We wuz wrong,' they NOW maintain. But THIS TIME we got it right. Yesseirreebob! You can trust OUR judgment on a matter of THIS gravity, urgency and importance.

But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, consider: The very evidence that proved to another jury BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that another man committed the murder is evidence that the same prosecutors asked the jury to rely on THEN. NOW -- after the guy who did it -- is dead, they have the unmitigated NERVE to tell YOU that the last jury was wrong to buy what THEY were peddling? What are they asking you to do? 'Accept us when we tell you what evidence is worth?' 'We have a solid history of credibility in offering such advice to a jury?' Well, except perhaps in THIS very case involving the very same murder ....

Isn't it at least a reasonable doubt to consider that MAYBE the last jury got it right? Doesn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt leading to a conviction and an execution in the PRIOR prosecution leave you WITH a reasonable doubt of THIS man's guilt?

Hurry back with your verdict of NOT GUILTY."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah. Because nobody has ever falsely confessed to a crime before to help the other guy out.

And nobody has ever been wrongfully convicted by a jury, either.

Of course they have. I already said the system is imperfect. This is news?



WTF does that have to do with anything? The question was rhetorical for the reason provided in the next question I proceeded to ask.

So if we convict and execute person A for a murder and later find out person B did the crime, person B should get to walk free?

You studiously miss the point or perhaps you are intentionally trying to evade it.

It's not a question of "should." It is a question or practicality. IT is VERY much like some of the final words in Presumed Innocent.

It is a practical impossibility to try two people for the same crime.

Seriously, shake the rust off your brain. Consider the defense summation in anticipation of the prosecutors summation:

"The government is about to stand up here and ask you to CONVICT my client by CLAIMING that their evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. The trouble is, they said that once before about a different guy. And they used some of the very same evidence to persuade a jury much like you to convict that other guy. He's been put to death. But NOW, say the prosecutors, you should put that aside. Oops. 'We wuz wrong,' they NOW maintain. But THIS TIME we got it right. Yesseirreebob! You can trust OUR judgment on a matter of THIS gravity, urgency and importance.

But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, consider: The very evidence that proved to another jury BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that another man committed the murder is evidence that the same prosecutors asked the jury to rely on THEN. NOW -- after the guy who did it -- is dead, they have the unmitigated NERVE to tell YOU that the last jury was wrong to buy what THEY were peddling? What are they asking you to do? 'Accept us when we tell you what evidence is worth?' 'We have a solid history of credibility in offering such advice to a jury?' Well, except perhaps in THIS very case involving the very same murder ....

Isn't it at least a reasonable doubt to consider that MAYBE the last jury got it right? Doesn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt leading to a conviction and an execution in the PRIOR prosecution leave you WITH a reasonable doubt of THIS man's guilt?

Hurry back with your verdict of NOT GUILTY."

I like how your scenario includings a competent defense attorney with time to make an argument. 90% of accused criminals get the public defender, you think a DA has a problem making any argument he likes against a public defender?


Court says two can be tried for one crime / Prosecutions legal, but 'deplorable'

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My objection to the death penalty has less to do with wrongfully executing people or the long delays and huge expense, and more to do with the moral issue involved. I just think it is wrong for the state to execute people, regardless how horrible their crime might have been. LWOP? Of course. Just not death.

That sums it up. I don't trust the state to tell me what's good for me, I certainly can't trust them to kill the right people.

The State figured out that tobacco is bad for you. Just because it's the State saying it doesn't make it wrong. The State had Osama bin Laden terminated with extreme prejudice. Iced. Snuffed. De-brainified. Deader than Kelsey's nuts. Just because it was the State that made the call and authorized the sanction doesn't mean the right person wasn't the one exterminated.

The state didn't figure that out, medical science did. Me not trusting the state has nothing to do with them being right or wrong, it is a matter of a fundamental difference in philosophy. I do not trust the state, period. You can point out everything the state gets right, I will admit to every single instance, and I still won't trust them.