Did Texas execute an innocent man?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

For people who want to learn more about the story, I believe The New Yorker published an extensive article on the subject. It goes into a lot of detail on how the expert came to his opinion, and why the process may have been flawed.

But that's the point - if the reliability of the evidence creates a greater doubt as to the defendant's guilt, that's a big deal. Remember too, it's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's the prosecution's burden to prove that (not the defendant's burden to refute it). If the scientific evidence was faulty, then that's a big problem....big enough to throw the whole result into question.
.

Sure if we knew that the jury relied heavily on the forensic evidence in reaching their decision, it would be a big deal. I've only read the linked article, and it doesn't say much. ETA: and, assuming that we just going on the original article here: wouldn't you say that the burden of proof shifts quite a bit post conviction? At that point, a jury has decided guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the convicted person has to establish that the new evidence would have yielded a different outcome, right?

Sometimes the forensic evidence is just one component of a much larger case. Problems with it alone doesn't really "prove innocence" unless that was all there was to the case or if what was faulty about it actually makes it impossible for the crime to have been committed as prosecuted.

The linked article in this thread doesn't really get it there.

ETA: the New Yorker article outlines a whole lot more wrong with this case and points to the validity of the title of the tread, but it says a whole lot more than just the original forensics being wrong: incompetent original defense, lying jailhouse snitches, indifferent/incompetent/negligent appeals and clemency board, etc.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sure if we knew that the jury relied heavily on the forensic evidence in reaching their decision, it would be a big deal. I've only read the linked article, and it doesn't say much. ETA: and, assuming that we just going on the original article here: wouldn't you say that the burden of proof shifts quite a bit post conviction? At that point, a jury has decided guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the convicted person has to establish that the new evidence would have yielded a different outcome, right?

Sometimes the forensic evidence is just one component of a much larger case. Problems with it alone doesn't really "prove innocence" unless that was all there was to the case or if what was faulty about it actually makes it impossible for the crime to have been committed as prosecuted.

The linked article in this thread doesn't really get it there.

ETA: the New Yorker article outlines a whole lot more wrong with this case and points to the validity of the title of the tread, but it says a whole lot more than just the original forensics being wrong: incompetent original defense, lying jailhouse snitches, indifferent/incompetent/negligent appeals and clemency board, etc.

Well, the standard for post-conviction relief is still less than it is for the original conviction...it's either a "preponderance of the evidence" standard (which is essentially greater than 50% chance that it's true) or "clear and convincing" standard (that it's substantially more likely than not that it's true). Both of those are lower standards than the "reasonable doubt" one utilitzed in the original conviction.

So, either way, the defendant doesn't have to show as much for post-conviction relief as the prosecution does in the original case.

The thing is, though, I think you're minimizing the importance of the scientific evidence. I've learned quite a bit about burn pattern analysis in my current job, and from what I understand in reading the article, the expert essentially said that the burn patterns were similar to those one would find in an arson case.

Practically speaking, the jury is going to put a lot of stock in an expert, especially in a case as emotionally-charged as this one. You're correct in that (as the New Yorker story points out) there were a ton of issues with the original defense. However, that should not minimize the effect of the scientific testimony on its own.

[dreamseeker]

"Despite what the state decides, justice has already been carried out."

i really dislike this statement. if he's innocent, then what justice? and does anyone know what would happen if it does turn out that the state did use faulty evidence?

[KSig RC]

Here's a little anecdote that might help with some of the "deterrent" stuff, because it is kind of counterintuitive at first blush . . .

My research indicates that about 80% of people think they are better than average at determining when a person is lying. About 75% of people think they are less likely than average to be taken advantage of by an insurance company during a claims experience.

People think they are better at, well, everything than they really are. This is a pernicious and consistent effect. Criminals expect they are smarter than the 'average' criminal, and thus less likely to be caught - and that's when they're even examining the risk/reward axis, which generally doesn't happen. Now, combine this with a social science phenomenon known as the "Fundamental Attribution Error," which says that people are unfortunately driven to ascribe actions of an individual to some internal characteristic of that person, rather than to temporal or situational effects, and it's easy to paint a criminal with a broad brush and say "they simply don't fear the punishments enough - let's put the fear of God into them, and they'll get it!" Sometimes, it's even simpler.

[Kevin]

DNA does not close the case though. There have been cases where DNA evidence was later shown to be planted. In fact, a savvy criminal can use DNA of a patsy to gift wrap a case for the police. We don't close the case at DNA. The state still has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state failed to do that in the Simpson case, the defense team did what good defense lawyers do -- they pointed out that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you actually had an inkling as to how pro-prosecution most of our criminal laws and 4th Amendment law have become, you might be singing a different tune.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

DNA does not close the case though. There have been cases where DNA evidence was later shown to be planted. In fact, a savvy criminal can use DNA of a patsy to gift wrap a case for the police. We don't close the case at DNA. The state still has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state failed to do that in the Simpson case, the defense team did what good defense lawyers do -- they pointed out that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you actually had an inkling as to how pro-prosecution most of our criminal laws and 4th Amendment law have become, you might be singing a different tune.

Kevin, I'm not saying to close a case based on DNA alone, because DNA is only an additonal recent tool available to the courts in determining a person's guilt or innocence. I was only speaking of all things being equal, meaning all the facts are in place to convict a person of murder. Once everything is in place and it's known that this person is 100% guilty of committing the crime, why the appeal? It's a waste of time and money. You're throwing in your assessment of the committed crime vs. my assessment of the committed crime. My argument is the person being 100% guilty of committing the crime of murder. Once that is established, there should be no appeal, no prison time, no bond, just a sentence being imposed and carried out that same day. That's all I'm saying. Let the sentence be carried out at the time it's imposed.

Not to bring the Manson Murders up again, but to my knowledge, that was the longest trial in U.S. history up to that point. It was a fact that they committed the crimes and even laughed about it, so why did the trial even need to continue, Kevin? And why are they still receiving the assets of everyday life without having to pay their debt to society? Susan Atkins even received a college degree at the tax payers expense without any hope of ever contributing anything positive to society. That education she received could have been allocated to a worthy student external to prison. This is the same disgusting monster who murdered Sharon Tate, tasted her blood, cut out her 8 month old fetus, called her a bitch and told her she doesn't care about her or her baby, dismembered the fetus and placed it front of the fire place, and then wrote "PIGS" on the door in Sharon Tate's blood. And she deserves due process???? Seriously??? Gimmie a break!

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Kevin, I'm not saying to close a case based on DNA alone, because DNA is only an additonal recent tool available to the courts in determining a person's guilt or innocence. I was only speaking of all things being equal, meaning all the facts are in place to convict a person of murder. Once everything is in place and it's known that this person is 100% guilty of committing the crime, why the appeal? It's a waste of time and money. You're throwing in your assessment of the committed crime vs. my assessment of the committed crime. My argument is the person being 100% guilty of committing the crime of murder. Once that is established, there should be no appeal, no prison time, no bond, just a sentence being imposed and carried out that same day. That's all I'm saying. Let the sentence be carried out at the time it's imposed.

Part of the problem is, we are 100+ years away from dispensing 'frontier justice' and we still have organizations in the US that still see simply putting a man to death as barbaric. Think about human rights groups.

Just look at this board. Some people are for the death penalty if it truly sticks while some are against it and would rather let a guilty criminal live.

Trust me, I feel the same way you do, but in some cases, death is just too 'easy'.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

And she deserves due process???? Seriously???

Yes.

I agree with you (giving her life as opposed to death is a waste of time and money), but her rights are still protected.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Yes.

I agree with you (giving her life as opposed to death is a waste of time and money), but her rights are still protected.

One reason why I'm opposed to the death penalty is that current evidence shows it simply is not cheaper than life in prison.

That sounds counter-intuitive, but it's true - it's not just the appeals process, either, it's the separate facilities, the additional bureaucracy and support staff needed, and so on. Combine that with the non-zero chance of wrongfully killing someone, and I can't get on board.

Indeed, my first thought upon reading the thread title was "I'm nearly 100% sure Texas has executed multiple innocent men."

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Indeed, my first thought upon reading the thread title was "I'm nearly 100% sure Texas has executed multiple innocent men."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ase/index.html

To continue my trend in this thread of posting kind of random crap: Salon article about a guy sentenced to death by a judge who was having a long term affair with the prosecutor IN TEXAS.

[cheerfulgreek]

You know what you guys? I don't want to talk about it anymore.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

You know what you guys? I don't want to talk about it anymore.

Haha, fine...I didn't think anyone was forcing you to debate the subject.

[cheerfulgreek]

Huh? I never said anyone was forcing me to debate the subject, that was my choice.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Also isn't part of the appeals process to see if a convicted felon is actually remorseful and reformed.

No. The purpose of the appeals process is to make sure that the defendant received due process -- a fair trial without prejudicial error. Remorse is irrelevant. You may be thinking of the parole process.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

And she deserves due process???? Seriously??? Gimmie a break!

Ah, the glory of the American constitutional system and the Bill of Rights, where every citizen is entitled to due process whether he or she deserves it or not.

[SWTXBelle]

My favorite quote from Hamlet - "Treat every man according to his deserts, and who shall 'scape whipping?"