Execution of an Innocent Man

[talisyn]

I was happily playing on the green spot app in myspace when I saw a comment made by one of my fellow gardeners about a guy named Cameron Todd Willingham. Ordinarily I pay no attention to anything but feeding the bunnies or the dog or weeding or raking the leaves from the gardens (you get fake money for them ) but for some reason I decided to google him. And wow. Here it is Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker

My mind is just torn between sorrow and anger. I don't know what to think. This whole story is just Shakespearean tragedy. The New Yorker has never been one of my favorites but I give them credit for their researching.

I'm not saying the death penalty is a bad thing. There are more than a few people I can list that seem to deserve it. But, and it's a big one, shouldn't the people who decide these things do a little more than this

LaFayette Collins, who was a member of the board at the time, told me of the process, “You don’t vote guilt or innocence. You don’t retry the trial. You just make sure everything is in order and there are no glaring errors.” He noted that although the rules allowed for a hearing to consider important new evidence, “in my time there had never been one called.” When I asked him why Hurst’s report didn’t constitute evidence of “glaring errors,” he said, “We get all kinds of reports, but we don’t have the mechanisms to vet them.” Alvin Shaw, another board member at the time, said that the case didn’t “ring a bell,” adding, angrily, “Why would I want to talk about it?”

I hope there was a great reunion with the kids.

Edited August 31, 2009 by talisyn
bad sentence placement

[Maxel]

I don't have time to read the article now, but I am saddened whenever I hear that the justice system has erroneously given someone an injust sentence. Hopefully, the healing process has completed in his soul and he's been reunited with his children.

[talisyn]

Fair warning, it's 17 pages long. But you learn a lot about how fire spreads and how things that were accepted have been proven false

After the fire was extinguished, the investigators inspected the hallway and living room. On the floor were irregularly shaped burn patterns that perfectly resembled pour patterns and puddle configurations. It turned out that these classic signs of arson can also appear on their own, after flashover. With the naked eye, it is impossible to distinguish between the pour patterns and puddle configurations caused by an accelerant and those caused naturally by post-flashover. The only reliable way to tell the difference is to take samples from the burn patterns and test them in a laboratory for the presence of flammable or combustible liquids.

During the Lime Street experiment, other things happened that were supposed to occur only in a fire fuelled by liquid accelerant: charring along the base of the walls and doorways, and burning under furniture. There was also a V-shaped pattern by the living-room doorway, far from where the fire had started on the couch. In a small fire, a V-shaped burn mark may pinpoint where a fire began, but during post-flashover these patterns can occur repeatedly, when various objects ignite.

I also found this out

The notion that a flammable or combustible liquid caused flames to reach higher temperatures had been repeated in court by arson sleuths for decades. Yet the theory was nonsense: experiments have proved that wood and gasoline-fuelled fires burn at essentially the same temperature.

[Maxel]

So, it's safe to say that what was once accepted 'true' by science- true enough to send a man to his death death by a court of law- is now proven false by newer information?

[BenRaines]

Wow that is an interesting read. An imperfect solution.

Ben Raines

[Elphaba]

So, it's safe to say that what was once accepted 'true' by science- true enough to send a man to his death death by a court of law- is now proven false by newer information?

I don't want to look up the statistics, but I know the advent of dna testing has proved a number of people innocent. Some of them have spent decades behind bars--I can't even imagine what that would do to a person.

Elphaba

[BenRaines]

In the article it states that 138, I believe, who have been aquitted due to DNA evidence proof.

Ben Raines

[talisyn]

So, it's safe to say that what was once accepted 'true' by science- true enough to send a man to his death death by a court of law- is now proven false by newer information?

It is true, there is new info not available during the trial. However, there was much more during the appeals process. Most of the people in a position to help Mr. Willingham didn't even bother to read the info

[Gwen]

between the kids and everything else that took me forever to read lol.... i'm glad i did.... for awhile i couldn't decide what the article was really about... the man... opposition to the death penalty.... or the need to revamp who qualifies to investigate fires and speak as an expert witness. i guess a good article can hit more than one point.

[talisyn]

between the kids and everything else that took me forever to read lol.... i'm glad i did.... for awhile i couldn't decide what the article was really about... the man... opposition to the death penalty.... or the need to revamp who qualifies to investigate fires and speak as an expert witness. i guess a good article can hit more than one point.

I think it was more of an overview of how all this stuff happened with the end result of Mr. Willingham death. For years people have said there is no way an innocent man can be executed, but this article showed that it could happen at any time.

[talisyn]

I found a less than 17 page report on the report (lol) Barry Scheck: Innocent, but Executed

I think the New Yorker is superior, but you can get the gist from the Huff.

[bytebear]

It's sad, but at the same time it is wonderful that we have progressed technologically that we don't have to rely on human failings in such matters. I see it akin to current medical treatments, where we can lament the loss of life if only we had cures that are currently in the works, but we work with what we have at the time. This person was not jailed unfairly given the standards we had at the time. We cannot look back and say "what if" because we will always be depressed and sad. We must instead look forward and think of how many more lives will be saved, how much more justice will be blind because we now have advances that didn't exist before. I guess I am a glass half full type who is grateful that we live in a nation where we are constantly looking at ways to improve the systems we live within, even if it reveals the mistakes of the past.

[Guest]

Not to start an argument or anything. I just want to say that this is why I don't agree with capital punishment unless the judge and jury are no less than Bishops, preferably GAs (priesthood power of discernment). Nothing in my mind can justify the loss of an innocent man's life.

I can't, in good conscience, be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment (without priesthood authority).

[Moksha]

I don't agree with capital punishment unless the judge and jury are no less than Bishops, preferably GAs (priesthood power of discernment).

And I would add, residing in Israel at the time of judgment.

[Jamie123]

I've always been totally against capital punishment, for this very reason: The system can and does get it wrong, and takes horrendously long time to admit that it was wrong. Several examples spring to mind:

• The "New York Jogger" rape incident, when 5 men were convicted - and later cleared - of the crime. After another man had confessed to the crime, prosecuting authorities still fought tooth-and-nail against the acquittals, and again to prevent the cleared men from being removed from the Sex Offenders Register.

• Colin Stagg, cleared of murdering a model Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common, London in 1992. The acquittal was a major humiliation for the Metropolitan Police, and Stagg was subjected to years accusation in the tabloid press, fueled largely by police officers determined to justify themselves. More than a decade later, DNA evidence proved that the murderer was someone else entirely. (The real murderer was sentenced earlier this year.)

Of course, neither of these cases resulted in the execution of an innocent man. However...

• Timothy Evans, in 1950 was hanged for the murder of his wife and daughter, a crime which was almost certainly committed by his landlord John Christie (later discovered to be a serial killer). Despite the evidence of numerous womens' bodies walled-up in Christie's apartments, it took the British establishment over 16 years to accept the possibility that they might have hanged an innocent man. Evans was posthumously pardoned in 1966.

The startling fact is that Evans' guilt was supposed to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, but I've always doubted that juries really work on this principle. I think Frost was closer to the truth when he said "A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyers".

I know we need to have a system, and I'm not convinced that inquisitorial justice is necessarily better than the adversarial system we have in the USA and UK. But I wouldn't bet lives on its conclusions always being correct.

[Maxel]

The Nephite government included capital punishment among its punishments (for murdering someone or for refusing to take up the cause of liberty after having attempted to overthrow the government). Something to think about...

Edited September 2, 2009 by Maxel

[talisyn]

Like I said, I can think of times capital punishment is justified. But I hold to the saying 'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.

[FunkyTown]

People might be surprised that I, too, am against capital punishment.

Shock horror, that.

[beefche]

I'm for capital punishment, but do like the appeals process here in USA.

I've watched TV shows where the cameras are in the jury room with the jury to see how they deliberate. Of the 5 or so shows I've seen (each with a different jury), the people take their responsibility very, very seriously. And I can say that of the 12 people in that room only 1, maybe 2 at most, seem to be unconcerned they are deliberating a man's life. Most others are very aware that if they convict an innocent man, it is his life they are deciding.

[Mahone]

People might be surprised that I, too, am against capital punishment.

Shock horror, that.

Ditto - I could add to what jamie123 said, but I think the point has been made.

[boyando]

I am for the death penalty in certain cases, as soon as we figure out how to make the courts about justice and instead of may the best lawyer win.

[Traveler]

I have said this before but just again for the record. It is not good, or right, or just to make any errors in our (or any) judical system. But I also believe that it is better (safer) for society to execute on error an innocient man than it is to accidently (on error) let a guilty murder go free.

The Traveler

[Mahone]

I've researched a number of court cases in the past where so called "expert" testimonies in court are nothing more than hogwash - one of the more recent and well known ones was the case of Julie Amero of Connecticut. While her punishment was no-where near as severe as the one mentioned in the OP, she still faced up to 40 years in prison when found guilty in court. Her crime was apparently showing hardcore pornography to minors while teaching in school. The only reason her conviction was revoked is because the "expertise" (or lack thereof) of the "expert" witness was called into question by the internet community after the story was published in the news and eventually a letter was written to this effect, signed by 28 computer science professors. Not to mention the evidence in her support was extremely obvious.

There are many more cases that sound similar to this.

My faith in the justice system is really non-existant. This is why I do not believe in capital punishment and I'm so glad the UK do not practise it.

[talisyn]

I have said this before but just again for the record. It is not good, or right, or just to make any errors in our (or any) judical system. But I also believe that it is better (safer) for society to execute on error an innocient man than it is to accidently (on error) let a guilty murder go free.

The Traveler

Are we really the kind of people that would kill an innocent person?

[annewandering]

Some people need to be removed from the world because they just can never be completely trusted to not kill if given the slightest chance. Ted Bundy comes to mind.

Other than that how can we justify killing innocent people just to make sure murderers are killed? Not one innocent person is worth dying to kill others who are guilty. If there is any doubt at all, even the tiniest shred, then there should be no execution.

If its ok to kill innocents then pretend its you they accidently decide to kill. Are you willing to be the sacrifice for the 'greater' good? How about your spouse or mom or dad or child? Well everyone is a real person who deserves to be punished only for their own sins.

On the DNA issue there is a new report that DNA evidence can be falsified. It is not a very good fake but it can be done now. If it can be now it will be done much better as we go along. This is an issue that does worry me a lot. We have depended on it so much to correct mistakes made in the past.