I was just going by the original linked article, which didn't seem to suggest that much about how important the errors in the testimony were. Knowing more about the case, the errors do seem pretty significant, especially considered with other factors.

I just think the language of "an innocent man" is pretty problematic once someone has been convicted, in the absence of a new trial or an exoneration.

We can wonder mainly if the charges ever would have been brought without the original determination of the fire investigator in this case, especially. Once that determination was made, all the other evidence seemed to fall into place. Witnesses saw his behavior differently; you had the jailhouse collaboration of what he had admitted to, etc.


This case isn't particularly a good example of the issue I'm going to mention, but I think there's a little bit of a problem with treating convictions as if they are still open cases long after the fact. Once twenty years have gone by, I think there's a tendency for almost everyone involved to kind of forget the victims of the original crime and solely have interest in believing in the innocence of the prisoner. Obviously, I'm not saying that I don't believe in appeals; simply that some skepticism about new evidence or new claims or recanted testimony might be a good thing in a lot of cases, assuming that our intention isn't just to make lasting conviction impossible.

If we didn't have the death penalty, obviously the stakes would be lower.

From my experiences with the criminal justice system and research I've done, I would have to strongly disagree with the bolded statement. It seems like you're taking a few highly-public cases, and assuming that it correlates to a high percentage of these types of appeals. Plus, it underestimates the presence of victim advocates services, etc.

A couple of other things with this:

1) I think you're vastly over-estimating the amount of post-conviction challenges that take place. Look at the numbers for convictions per state and nationwide, then look at the number taken on by organizations like the Innocence Project and similar state programs (which I think you're referencing when you talk about post-conviction investigations). When you look at the numbers, you see that lasting convictions are in fact possible.

2) It seems like you're advocating a neater, cleaner criminal process at the expense of defendant's post-conviction rights. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but no matter the freshness of the conviction (i.e. whether it was last year or 20 years ago), if there are problems with the investigation or proceedings, those should be investigated (if at all possible).

3) There are mechanisms in the system that make lasting convictions (if pursued in the correct manner) possible. Defendants aren't going to have a right to never-ending appeals - the higher courts aren't obligated to take certain appeals. At some point, the process ends.

Look, I get what it's like to be on the other side of the coin, being the victim while the defendant takes every available avenue in the process. Still, I'd rather see the process played out fully and fairly, in accordance with the Constitution, even if it means some negatives for the victims and their families.

A little bit, yes, but the stakes would still be high. For anyone who is curious, I would highly recommend taking the opportunity to visit a maximum security prison for violent offenders, etc. I think it can give a good idea of the stakes post-conviction, even if you're not talking about putting someone on death row.

As of now I don't even know WHERE I stand on the death penalty. I know I definitely no longer feel it is a deterrent. I think my feelings became less solid when the whole Tookie Williams situation came up.

You're right; I'm responding to the high profile cases. In these, it frequently seems that the general public and celebrities will jump in on behalf of prisoners while never really looking at the original case much at all.

As I said before, I'm not trying to limit appeals.


I just think the rest of us should avoid thinking questions being raised equals innocence.

ETA: I'm not talking about what burden of proof at trial should be required initially either. But the Tookies and Mumias of the world and their advocates shouldn't be taken purely at their word post conviction.

EATA: I was focusing the the death penalty because I do think there's a systematic effort to discredit it, maybe rightly so, and so even the smallest question about a case may get raised in the public mind to be "proof" of innocence. Maybe, maybe not, but we have a system in place to deal with it, unless, like we seem to have in this Texas case, the entire system fails. And when the entire system fails, maybe it doesn't make sense to lay the fault on early forensic testimony. The guy mention in the OP didn't die only because the prosecution fire expert wasn't really a fire expert.

Agreed to an extent - I think the death penalty is something like abortion, where people can easily jump in with highly-charged opinions without a whole lot of background knowledge on the subject.

As I've said on the board before, I generally hate it when celebrities jump in on ANY public policy issue. It bothers me that their opinions are given any additional validity than any other member of the public.

I think I'm coming at this from a different starting point - while I'll agree that to some people, these types of stories automatically equal innocence, I think there are also a good number of us who understand that's not the case. To us, the significance is that it shows that there may have been a shoddy process, and that's a problem.

I generally don't like the Monday morning quarterbacking on trials (criminal or civil). Those outside of the trial teams don't know the thought processes of the attorneys, and decisions that seem silly in hindsight may have made sense at the time of trial.

The forensic testimony shouldn't take the whole blame...but it seems to have been part of the problem. In that regard, it can't really be ignored.

Huh? How is it cheaper to keep them for life? What if a person is given the death penalty, and that death penalty that was given, is appealed through the courts for 30-40 years? Because that's what always seems to take place. Kevin, I'm not talking about "life" in prison, because that could possibly be 1/3 of the actual sentence as opposed to life in prison without parole. So, I'm talking about life in prison without parole. Kevin, you know more than I do, but I'm asking. How would that be cheaper? I'm guessing (depending on the state) it probably cost the tax payer about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars per year per inmate, so why not just use the death penalty for those who are not getting out of prison and assess the penalty of death at the time sentencing without appeal? It's just that I can't see how keeping them in prison could possibly be cheaper. I just think that doing it this way would just eliminate a bad person from society, and it would also save money that could be used somewhere else.

I think that people forget that sometimes what the public knows isn't what was presented to the jury, often times for compelling reasons. Generally, I think, this kind of evidence being excluded favors the accused, but when there's a everything-but-the-kitchen sink standard outside the courtroom, it's kind of no wonder that legal outcomes are different than what the public thinks should have happened, particularly when people fail to be convicted of crimes that the public seems to believe they committed.

Unrelated to anything in this thread particularly, I do wonder if we aren't moving toward finding that it's really hard to prove guilt if we look at conviction being indicative of guilt rather than the outcome of more compelling theater than the defense put on.

Forensic evidence is more frequently discredited, and eye witness testimony and identification are almost ridiculously faulty. I tend to think that a successful prosecution is going to involve elements of multiple forms of "proof" but if we can later revisit the case and regard the failure of any part to call the whole thing into question, which as KSigKid notes might be a good thing in terms of the rights of the accused, we're going to have to devote more resources to giving the state the ability to re-investigate, store and re-test evidence.
(I don't mean double-jeopardy stuff; but if it's still up for more review, it doesn't make a lot of sense to leave prosecutors in the position of trying only to re-try the original case if more evidence might now exist.)

It's the appeals process that kicks in with death sentences that make them that much more expensive, I'm pretty sure.

That and the initial expense of the trials is higher, I'm pretty sure as well.

Right. So why even have one?

Because a great many Americans are concerned about executing an innocent person or are concerned about executing someone without due process.

On a perverse level, I bet the deterrent effect of the death penalty might go way up if a lot more people were summarily executed immediately after conviction but you'd have to do it on a massive scale. You think it would be worth it, Cheerfulgreek?

That works great in China. Used to (still does?) work well in Russia. Completely stopped all of their crime.

-- no wait.. it didn't.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm

http://nwitimes.com/news/local/porte...8e2af87c0.html

Here are a couple of counter-examples to that. The idea that every death sentence appeal takes 30-40 years is a misconception.

So what would happen if the sentence is wrong? Does the increase in efficiency outweigh the problems with such an approach?

Did anyone say it would completely stop it?

And you may have actually made my point for me about Russia. Do you have the impression that crime is up or down under a less oppressive, or at least differently oppressive government?

ETA: actually this might be pretty hard to judge. But my impression is that criminal enterprise is up in Russia compared to when it was part of the USSR.

I'm not in favor of them, but I do think that completely oppressive governments have less street crime.

EATA: Actually, I have no idea. I had kind of forgotten about the large number of governments that manage to be that amazing combination of really oppressive and completely dysfunctional, unlike how I think of China and the former Soviet Union, which are/were oppressive and controlling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate


up to 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_rate_to_1999

That presents a comparison between a Soviet total and a Russian total, but who knows what part of the Soviet total was based on the geographic area limited to Russia.

Then I guess I don't get your point. Are you trying to argue in favor of immediate execution upon conviction?

Nope. I was just acknowledging that this kind of oppression might have an upside to Cheerfulgreek.

It's not one that would be worth it to me.

Kevin seemed to suggest that China and Russia previously had dabbled in similarly oppressive policies without seeing those results, and I think he's wrong about that.

ETA: I'm not a fan of China's policies, and I'm not sure if any reported crime rates from the governments have any foundation in reality at all. However, I suspect that their crime rates would be much higher without their oppressive judicial policies. Similarly, caning the bejesus out of people may help keep the graffiti down in Singapore.

I don't want to see similar policies in the US and condemn China, USSR, and Singapore for having them, but they may in fact affect crime rates.

ETA: Similarly, I bet you could bend speeding rates down to about zero if the officer just shot people at the side of the road. I'm not in favor, but I think it would "work".