NEWS: Texas May Have Executed an Innocent Man

sad sad case...
probably was innocent...

here is another common false conviction horror story...
In the early parts of this century, womens makeup had arsenic in it...
when women would put too much on, they would die...
the husbands were all too often convicted of murder by poison...

it wasn't until a makeup industry insider disclosed that the makeup could be causing the problem, that they started looking at the situation... and found that several men had already been put to death, while others had spent years in jail...
for allowing their wives to wear makeup...

Originally posted by informatu

The offhand slaughter of an innocent after a completely unjust prosecution and conviction doesn't NEED to be "blown out of proportion." The case speaks for itself.

First of all, slaughter is hardly the appropriate word for a controlled execution.

slaughter

n 1: the killing of animals (as for food) 2: a sound defeat [syn: thrashing, walloping, debacle, drubbing, trouncing, whipping] 3: the savage and excessive killing of many people [syn: massacre, mass murder, carnage, butchery] v 1: kill (animals) usually for food consumption; "They slaughtered their only goat to survive the winter" [syn: butcher] 2: kill a large number of people indiscriminately; "The Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda" [syn: massacre, mow down]

verb
To kill savagely and indiscriminately.

Originally posted by informatu
Secondly, the article does not say that the youth was innocent. It says that he MAY have been innocent, and then points to several reasons why that appears likely.

The research done by the Chronicle concludes that the youth was probably innocent.

Originally posted by informatu
Thirdly, no it doesn't need to be blown out of proportion, but it is. Your post betrays your emotional involvement from its start.

I am neither for nor against capital punishment, and I was putting forth rhetorical questions. In contrast, you have made your position on the death penalty quite clear.

Originally posted by informatu
When a boy is drafted into the military only to be killed while in transport to the combat zone, is he not also an "innocent"? Yet his death is a direct result of procuring the freedom and justice that the citizens of the state require.

What is the connection here? I must be missing something. You seem to be discussing a different topic than I.

Originally posted by informatu

The two cases are incomparable, obviously. The state deliberated on the fate of this innocent young teenager and eventually decided to purposely kill him.

Obviously? The state also deliberates on whether to go to war, and sometimes purposely decide to send purposefully drafted youth to the front lines, where they may be killed, purposely.

I think you're applying the "false analogy" logical fallacy here.

Originally posted by informatu
However, if your argument is based on religious or just plain moral reprehensiveness of public execution, then that is your view, and I respect that.
...
I don't say that I agree with their view, I said that I respect it. It is a respectable statement to say that the death-penalty does not jibe with your religious or moral worldview.

Who, me? I am undecided about the issue, but that's why I brought it up, and that's why I'm discussing it.

Originally posted by informatu
My point is that using the ACCIDENTAL execution of an innocent as the argument for banning its practice is nonsense. Perhaps we should also ban air travel since planes crash occaisionally?

I don't see it as being "accidental."

From that state's view, I see it as being "unintended," but the prosecutor DID admit that they made a mistake in charging the young man with a capital offense, to begin with.

Zip

Originally posted by informatu
ShakyaHeir,

Your Saudi Arabian execution is a strawman argument. We do not execute "heretics" or "loose women" here in the US of A. The means of execution has little to do with the argument for or against capital punishment.

I think it has to do with retribution vs. justice. Many people think that taking an eye for an eye is just. I was just pointing out a system that is less shy of admitting that they're killing for the sake of retribution. As far as the means of execution, I think that public stoning, beheading, or burning at the stake shows us the roots of this savage practice. Only in recent times have we started executing by lethal injection or electrocution. We changed the method of execution because the process of taking a human life is uncomfortable and we want to seem like we're killing them in a "humane" way, much like stray dogs in the pound.

if it means that we are also allowed to rid society of its most horrible and violent criminals.

How are they a part of society when they are in prison for the rest of their life?

Is it civilized to lock people away for 30-40 years with no hope of ever living a decent life?

It's more civilized than killing them. In that 30-40 years they could write a book, they could educate themselves, they could think about the crime they commited and truly repent.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in asking mercy for those who give none?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in killing someone as punishment for killing? On one hand we're saying that killing is wrong, on the other we're saying that it's ok as long as they killed someone first.

As for the American war in Iraq, I think we can leave that discussion off of this thread. You may think you know what I would say about that matter, but you are probably wrong. You should know better than to try baiting poeple however.

I don't think it's baiting when:

When a boy is drafted into the military only to be killed while in transport to the combat zone, is he not also an "innocent"? Yet his death is a direct result of procuring the freedom and justice that the citizens of the state require.

This is what you think war is about. Right now we are at war, and there is a good possibility there will be a draft before this war is over. War isn't some Steven Speilburg movie where we are the good guys, fighting for "freedom and justice" against the bad guys. I'm sorry to say this, but war isn't the glorified ideal that you make it out to be.

[edit on 22-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

OK, look, when I said if "you" are against capital punishment, I didn't mean that in the sense of you Zipdot, I meant if "you" as in someone. Whatever your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the argument you are putting forth. Let me point out the error in your argument in a most stark way:

You must admit that there are ALSO innocent men and women who are doing 10 to 20 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Since this is intolerable, we should not allow anyone to be put into a prison.

That is the essence of your argument. It seems to me that your beef is with the penalty itself, not with whether or not innocents are occaisionally victims.

Originally posted by informatu
You must admit that there are ALSO innocent men and women who are doing 10 to 20 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Since this is intolerable, we should not allow anyone to be put into a prison.

That is the essence of your argument. It seems to me that your beef is with the penalty itself, not with whether or not innocents are occaisionally victims.

Ah, the old "missing the point" logical fallacy: "irrelevant conclusion."

I am bothered by all unfair convictions, certainly, but my focus in this thread is on the death penalty.

Originally posted by informatu
Since this is intolerable, we should not allow anyone to be put into a prison.

Let's think about this rationally, shall we? Abandoning the "death penalty" and abolishing prison sentences clearly have different results.

An innocent man in prison has the ability to attempt to prove his innocence, as you can see in one of my above links. According to the 2003 article, 111 men on death row were able to clear their names, and they wouldn't have had that opportunity if they were deceased. I would also like to point out that this number, 111, is one-tenth of the number of people executed since 1973 - a significant number by any measure.

Zip

Zipdot,
Upon further examination your original article's figures do not come even close to reality about the death penalty in the United States. The article itself clearly has an anti-death penalty agenda. Here is a link to actual data w/ regards to the death penalty in the United States between 1973 and 2000.

US death penalty stats 1973-2000

In this data you will find that 18 (0.2%of the 7,658 inmates that were on death row during that time frame) fall into the "Found not guilty in retrial" category, and that 53 (0.7%) fall into the "All charges on capital offense dropped" category. Even if we generously assume that the 53 who had charges dropped (not necessarily the same as innocent) were all wrongly accused, that brings the grand total to 71 out of 7,658 inmates, or less than 1% of all convicted death-row inmates exonerated. Your article purposefully uses the 900 executed figure as a basis to make it look like this is a significant percentage of the population. I think that the attorneys, judges, juries, and appelate courts involved all take the issue of death penalty cases seriously. That being said, the article you quoted(yes I went to the source site)has a definite agenda and has purposely distorted the data to support their argument.

Do I think that it is horrible that innocent people are put to death? Yes, it is abhorrent. Does that mean that the penalty itself is unjust when it is meted out to someone who IS guilty? That is a philosophical argument. It is one which you will find that most people are in favor of. If I can know, absolutely, (this is hypothetical here, just like frictionless surfaces in Physics courses) that I have in custody a serial child killer, give me a good reason to keep that person alive. As for me, I believe stray cats and dogs deserve a better treatment than that kind of an individual.

I believe I am beginning to lean towards a stance on this issue. There is no substantive (read: measurable or objective) value difference to the public in the execution of a criminal in comparison to the incarceration of a criminal.

Life in prison is difficult. There is no moral justification for state-mandated homicide. As you say, capital punishment is a popular idea due to the emotional investment and involvement that people experience when considering the issue. This is irrelevant to the societal gains and losses that actually exist. Capital punishment does not deter criminals from committing capital crimes any more than incarceration does.

As for your stance that executing a few innocent people is some kind of caveat emptor to the social contract, I think that is ridiculous and quite easily avoidable.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
There is no substantive (read: measurable or objective) value difference to the public in the execution of a criminal in comparison to the incarceration of a criminal.

Of course there isn't, how do you "measure" justice?

...capital punishment is a popular idea due to the emotional investment and involvement that people experience when considering the issue. This is irrelevant to the societal gains and losses that actually exist.

Perhaps the societal gains are immeasurable, that does not mean that they do not exist. Society itself certainly feels that it gains. If you mean financially, that is only because it is incredibly expensive to try, retry, hold for years, and finally execute someone under current practice. You give me a dead person and a living person, and I'll see if I can take care of the dead person for less $/yr.

Capital punishment does not deter criminals from committing capital crimes any more than incarceration does.

Source? I would like to see a study on whether or not more or less capital murder is commited in Texas per capita. Also, it was interesting that within your own links there was mention of someone who plea bargained in one of the states in order to get life instead of death. Seems to me that the prisoner did care about the punishment. It doesn't mention whether that played any role in his choice to commit the crime.

As for your stance that executing a few innocent people is some kind of caveat emptor to the social contract, I think that is ridiculous and quite easily avoidable.

And I think that keeping convicted killers alive indefinitely is ridiculous and quite easily avoidable.

While we're on the subject of social contracts, I was summoned to jury selection for a murder case in my state. I was relieved that I didn't have to try that case. The guy was eligible for the death penalty, but that didn't mean that the jury had to give that penalty and they didn't. The death penalty option, while it is available in many states, is not just tossed about willy-nilly. Also, juries in my state are able to recommend "life" instead based on any and all mitigating circumstances they want to consider. "Oh, hey, the defendant is a Raider's fan, I'm going to recommend life in prison!"

Originally posted by informatu
You must admit that there are ALSO innocent men and women who are doing 10 to 20 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Since this is intolerable, we should not allow anyone to be put into a prison.

That is the essence of your argument. It seems to me that your beef is with the penalty itself, not with whether or not innocents are occaisionally victims.

If you're wrongfully imprisoned you can be set free. If you're wrongfully executed you can't be brought back to life.

Considering I hang out online at the largest conspiricy site on the net, I think its pretty obvious what side i'm going to take.

I don't like having to trust the government with my tax dollars, i'm darn sure not going to trust them with my life, or your life either. This is the GOVERNMENT were talking about here people. The shape shifting reptoids who hunger for power at all costs. Who consider humans a waste of skin and are building virus after virus to bring the population into line with their evil plans.

Ban the death penalty, for those who support it are supporting the oppressors of all mankind.

Thats my two nickels,

Wupy

Pah!
Is this all, one ordinary person framed for murder and then executed? I am sure it happens all the time in America. Everyone knows of Rubin Hurricane for example.

Texas has done far worse than that!

It has framed an innocent nation by giving it a seond rate president who went on to terrorise an innocent world

It is well known that our judicial system is flawed. Whatever view you take on it, being the judges that are flawed, the political power structure that's flawed, or simply sly lawyers with a great sense of working through loopholes, the judicial system is flawed. This said, I still support the death penalty in certain cases, but only when it can truly be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the suspect is actually guilty. As has been stated previously, there are any number of forms of evidence that can be faked or misinterpreted. That said, technology isn't advanced far enough to really determine guilt.

Originally posted by informatu
My atheism leads me to a deep respect of the life that is here and now. However, preservation of any and all life, just for the sake of it, is nonsense.

Total blasphemy. How can you have deep respect for life when you deny the maker of all life exists?

Originally posted by informatu

Originally posted by Zipdot
There is no substantive (read: measurable or objective) value difference to the public in the execution of a criminal in comparison to the incarceration of a criminal.

Of course there isn't, how do you "measure" justice?

The keyword here is "difference," as in delta, as in change. How is this lack of difference discernable? By the articles I cite below.

Originally posted by informatu

...capital punishment is a popular idea due to the emotional investment and involvement that people experience when considering the issue. This is irrelevant to the societal gains and losses that actually exist.

Perhaps the societal gains are immeasurable, that does not mean that they do not exist. Society itself certainly feels that it gains.

Source?

Originally posted by informatu

Capital punishment does not deter criminals from committing capital crimes any more than incarceration does.

Source? I would like to see a study on whether or not more or less capital murder is commited in Texas per capita.

That wouldn't be an accurate assessment of the situation. There are several factors for criminal disparities between states without regard to capital punishment.

In light of the massive amount of evidence before us, I see no alternative but to conclude that capital punishment cannot be justified on the basis of its deterrent effect.
Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court,
Furman v. Georgia, 1972

This study is interesting. It compares homicide rates in pre- and post- periods of capital punishment abolition in South Africa:

South Africa abolished capital punishment in 1995 after its transition to democracy. This trend toward abolition has not been observed to cause increases in homicide. In Canada, the 1993 homicide rate was some 25% below the rate at the time of abolition. Other nations such as Great Britain have experienced increases in murder.
...
Some years ago this passage from a United Nations study summed
it up: "It is generally agreed that the data which now exist show no
correlation between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of
capital crime." The conclusion still holds.

Here is a large list of studies done on the subject, with links.

Originally posted by informatu
Also, it was interesting that within your own links there was mention of someone who plea bargained in one of the states in order to get life instead of death. Seems to me that the prisoner did care about the punishment.

This is irrelevant - as it occurs after the fact, it has no correlation with criminal deterrence. Furthermore, from a moral perspective, showing mercy to a man who has declared his will to live is superior to denying such mercy.

Originally posted by informatu

As for your stance that executing a few innocent people is some kind of caveat emptor to the social contract, I think that is ridiculous and quite easily avoidable.

And I think that keeping convicted killers alive indefinitely is ridiculous and quite easily avoidable.

Condemning a convict to a very difficult life of punishment is hardly ridiculous.

The "collatoral damage" of innocent deaths due to capital punishment practices is hardly comparable to the "ridiculous[ness]" of "keeping convicted killers alive indefinitely," as you put it.

Judging a man is very serious business, and to be honest, I don't think you're quite cut out for the job.

Originally posted by informatu
The death penalty option, while it is available in many states, is not just tossed about willy-nilly.

That being the case, mistakes are still made.

Killers are humans too, with parents, brothers, sisters, wives, and children, aren't they? There is no need to multiply the number of victims of a man's crimes just to appease the off-centered emotional processes of a few people who are out for blood.

Zip

[edit on 11/22/2005 by Zipdot]

Zipdot, I went to your source. This article was a bit long. I guess it had to be to put in all the information. By the way, I shortened the quote you used to show the pertinent parts, as I see them. I also highlighted a bit also.

Originally posted by Zipdot
www.chron.com
Cantu's long-silent co-defendant, David Garza, just 15 when the two boys allegedly committed a murder-robbery together, has signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be falsely accused, though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.

And the lone eyewitness, the man who survived the shooting, has recanted. He told the Chronicle he's sure that the person who shot him was not Cantu, but he felt pressured by police to identify the boy as the killer. Juan Moreno, an illegal immigrant at the time of the shooting, said his damning in-court identification was based on his fear of authorities and police interest in Cantu.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.