This was well publicized long before anyone outside of Texas gave a dick about your bumpkin guv'ner.
So, you've now, in this thread, gone from "conclusive guilt" to the 'ol "the media is using this as slander" routine.
typical.
This person was investigated, charged, tried, and was found guilty. He then went through an exhaustive appeals procedure. The case slowly went through the justice system. He was executed. It's all very legal and is now over.
This is only getting news play because Mr. Perry is involved. If that was not the case this would all be moot. This is political. This has nothing to do with what is legal.
DNA evidence is not 100% definitive. DNA evidence only gives you a probability that a DNA sample matches a suspect. Granted you can have a very very high probability but its never 100% guaranteed. So just like our justice system, DNA evidence relies on conclusions that are not perfect.
This was well publicized long before anyone outside of Texas gave a dick about your bumpkin guv'ner.
So, you've now, in this thread, gone from "conclusive guilt" to the 'ol "the media is using this as slander" routine.
typical.
Sorry, you will have to pick another case for your battle against capital punishment.
The man was guilty. He's dead. The press is making it out to be more than it is only because Mr. Perry wants to be President and the MSM doesn't like that idea.
This. Given our system he was found guilty, so charges were rendered based on that. That is why we have an appeals process. If new evidence arises that clear him of charges he may be set free. No system is 100% perfect. Innocent people will die now and then..you just have to accept that and do the best you can do with the evidence at the time.
Now Zin, you and I both now you are better than this. If you are going to call someone out for being stupid or whatever, you are one of the few I would expect to back it up and not just simply post a .jpg. Especially given the subject matter at hand.
It seems as if not even you believe he was actually (as opposed to legally) guilty. Your defense of his execution is that it's one that fell through the cracks, so get over it. You're asking people to be okay with it.
That sort of attitude is truly deplorable.
It takes balls to execute an innocent man!"
:thumbsup:
It quite disgusts me that people can think this way and as I mentioned before, I've not heard of a single death penalty proponent--certainly in the legal/political field--that doesn't also agree that the killing of a single innocent directly challenges the entire institution of death row.
Of course, all it takes is for one to plug their ear holes and convince themselves that what they are seeing isn't true, and that guilt is certain (Perry).
Rather deplorable some of the people in this thread; though it doesn't surprise me based on past posting history.
I'm simply not going to spend my work week sequencing genomes, and then turn around and have to deal with someone that doesn't "get" DNA.
If, what he's talking about is from a legal standpoint--was the fact of an individual's DNA being found at the scene conclusive evidence of the individual being there during a crime--he has an argument.
....But, what I heard is, "DNA is not 100% conclusive," so a general distrust of biology.
No reason to bother with those kind of shenanigans.
Why are you so convinced?
You can read, can't you?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from a biology standpoint, he's right, isn't he? DNA is almost never 100% spot on. They give you a probability that the DNA is a match.
Remember what I just wrote about human laziness? You have made yourself a perfect example.
From the New Yorker article:
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann#ixzz1c24Zpv2Q
The inmate who claimed Willingham confessed was floridly mentally ill and later recanted his claim regarding the confession.
He was soon joined on the case by one of the states leading arson sleuths, a deputy fire marshal named Manuel Vasquez, who has since died. Short, with a paunch, Vasquez had investigated more than twelve hundred fires.
From your article.
I guess if someone who has only investigated twelve hundred fires, its reasonably certain he is incompetent.
You either didn't read the article or you're cherry picking to the detriment of your own point. Investigating even infinite numbers of fires is no substitute for actual scientific training and opinions based on science rather than mere tradition. I would guess (reinforcing my laziness point yet again) that you reached the page of the article you cited and stopped, skipping the rest of the 17 pages.From your article.
I guess if someone who has only investigated twelve hundred fires, its reasonably certain he is incompetent.
Again, even the experts hired by the State of Texas to evaluate this case concluded that Vasquez's investigation was incompetent and faulty by then-prevailing scientific standards (which were completely deficient relative to what we now know). The actual, credentialed experts who have reviewed this case (including state experts) have uniformly agreed that this was not arson, but an accidental fire.
I'm simply not going to spend my work week sequencing genomes, and then turn around and have to deal with someone that doesn't "get" DNA.
If, what he's talking about is from a legal standpoint--was the fact of an individual's DNA being found at the scene conclusive evidence of the individual being there during a crime--he has an argument.
....But, what I heard is, "DNA is not 100% conclusive," so a general distrust of biology.
No reason to bother with those kind of shenanigans.
The man was guilty. He's dead. The press is making it out to be more than it is only because Mr. Perry wants to be President and the MSM doesn't like that idea.
Maybe if you read more and assumed less you would find yourself in less sticky situations.