Texas might have executed an innocent man

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Yet another listen to Phokus bash Texas thread.

Oh yeah...wasn't he also the one who posted the "Texas flag is a retarded dumbed-down version of the US flag"?

I remember now. :roll:

Yeah, and there are others to...

Plus he can't face the fact that the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990's are better than any New England Patroits team.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Yet another listen to Phokus bash Texas thread.

The state may have killed several innocent people. Is that not a big deal to you?

He's basically pissed that i posted a news item that doesn't make texas look very good, i doubt he cares very much that an someone who might've been innocent was executed.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Yet another listen to Phokus bash Texas thread.

The state may have killed several innocent people. Is that not a big deal to you?

I'm not questioning that, just how Phokus seems to bash on Texas every opportunity he gets.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Yet another listen to Phokus bash Texas thread.

Oh yeah...wasn't he also the one who posted the "Texas flag is a retarded dumbed-down version of the US flag"?

I remember now. :roll:

Yeah, and there are others to...

Plus he can't face the fact that the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990's are better than any New England Patroits team.

Haha, you're deluded

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Yet another listen to Phokus bash Texas thread.

The state may have killed several innocent people. Is that not a big deal to you?

I'm not questioning that, just how Phokus seems to bash on Texas every opportunity he gets.

Please show me where i bashed texas in this thread (you're really digging a deep hole for yourself here) :disgust:

 

[tfinch2]

And before the flames really flair up, I only believe in the death penalty if the defendant is proven guilty beyond doubt.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
And before the flames really flair up, I only believe in the death penalty if the defendant is proven guilty beyond doubt.

Still waiting for you to show how i bashed texas in this thread. :disgust:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Yeah, and there are others to...

Plus he can't face the fact that the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990's are better than any New England Patroits team.

Grr, I hate the stupid Pats :|

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: frodrick

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Willingham's lawyer told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004.

Surprise, surprise the defense lawyer is a schmuck. He says he believes his client MIGHT be innocent? WELL WHO REPRESENTED HIM WHEN HE PLEAD NOT GUILTY? So he kew he might have been guilty, agreed to the plea of not guilty and represented him anyway? This tool has no ethical boundaries.

even guilty people have the right to be represented by a lawyer. it doesn't matter what the lawyer feels about the case, it is still his responsibility to defend his client to the best of his ability.

You act like the tool is a public defender with the case on his plate. Do some research and try again.. this lawyer did not have to take the case.

 

[cerebusPu]

this man lost three of his daughters in the fire, gets blamed for the fire and is put to death by the justice system. if there was any shred of innocence...i would stay his execution until there was evidence to indicate otherwise.
how many times have we read about folks who were wrongfully jailed for dozens of years and found innocent thru DNA testing? what if you were in jail for a crime you did not commit? anyone watch shawshank redemption?

in other news, did you guys hear about robert blake? you guys think he did it?

 

[SKORPI0]

Sad thing is, it will happen again.... :disgust:

 

[SuperSix]

If you're gonna make an omelet....

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: cerebusPu
anyone watch shawshank redemption?

the guy in Shawshank Redemption was totally guilty, though

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
There was a Boston Legal episode which detailed the way death row appeals are handled. It's scary, I mean scary. They can dismiss arguments in an appeal if the topic was not raised in the first trial, which means if you have an idiot lawyer in the first trial you're f%$#ed.

Texas High Court judges must get some perverse pleasure out of killing people.

i was thinking of that episode too. its a shame texas justices are so thick-headed

 

[FoBoT]

no one is innocent, especially criminals

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: Nebor
Gah, the death penalty is repugnant. To allow the state, the government, to take such permanent action is inexcusably reckless.

If you live in the US, do you want billions of your tax dollars to go towards keeping convicted criminals (more emphasis on murderers) locked up, and fed? Not to mention the overcrowding of existing facilities, more money will be needed to build more.

Kill more, pay les.

That was another thing that I used to say when I was pro- death penalty. It turns out that it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to execute them.

 

[Ryan]

Any margin of error when executing people is not acceptable - especially in a situation that is as irrevokable as the dealth penalty.

I'd rather see people rot in jail - it's worse IMHO, and will prevent any innocent from being executed.

 

[Biggerhammer]

IIRC, even the pro-death-penalty folks admitted that 95% of the people they executed were guilty. Sucks to be in that 5%.

The State is never going to have enough of my confidence that I would trust them with this power.

 

[Bumrush99]

Hey guys, but Texans and their bigwig politicians like Delay and Bush like to "err on the side of life".. I mean Terry Schiavo was a prime example of their wonderful compassion, spending millions of dollars and making a political issue out of brain dead woman while not erring on the side of life for potentially innocent felons.
Texans love to "err on the side of life", thats why they excute the most people

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: geno
I wouldn't doubt innocent people have been executed a number of times

You can only be executed once. :roll:

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: Row1and

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Texas might have executed an innocent man

I wouldn't be surprised....

neither of you are from texas I suspect. it takes forever, and unquestionable proof, checks and balances before the death sentance is carried out, otherwise the person on death row sits in a high security cell for life.

 

[huesmann]

"Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy!"

 

[Vinney]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Surprise, surprise the defense lawyer is a schmuck. He says he believes his client MIGHT be innocent? WELL WHO REPRESENTED HIM WHEN HE PLEAD NOT GUILTY? So he kew he might have been guilty, agreed to the plea of not guilty and represented him anyway? This tool has no ethical boundaries.

Um, do you realize that the lawyers who handle your trial case are usually not the same ones that handle your post-conviction case? So likely this "schmuck" is not the same person who who represented him at trial when the defendant would have plead guilty or not guilty.
And the article says that there is new scientific evidence that has come to light since the trial which proves he might be innocent - the case needs to be re-evaluated under the new information, that's why it's MIGHT and not IS.
I'm actually not sure what your point is at all.

 

[arcas]

The fact that there is evidence suggesting that this man may have been innocent is no doubt the reason why the Texas committee doing the investigation has NOT been given power of subpoena. Imagine the legal (and economic) fallout if the governor's own committee determines that this man may very well have been executed in error. Ain't going to happen. Especially not in Texas...

 

[Vinney]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: yukichigai
They can dismiss arguments in an appeal if the topic was not raised in the first trial, which means if you have an idiot lawyer in the first trial you're f%$#ed.

how do you think any appeal works?

Okay, in a normal, working court system, if your idiot lawyer overlooks something, and then you appeal because X proves you innocent, the judge doesn't throw out your argument because your idiot lawyer didn't bring up X the first time around.

Actually that happens all the time. You lose your right to appeal an issue if trial counsel doesn't preserve that issue for appeal. The cases where you're going to be able to get someone to listen are the egregious cases where either new evidence has come to light (that the prosecutor may or may not have known about) and that new evidence has a reasonable probability of undermining the outcome of the trial case or if you can get a court to say you had inaffective assistance of counsel in your trial case (which is only possible if his errors are really egregious because all he has to say is that his decisions were "strategic"). The problem is you're also assuming that your appellate counsel won't be ineffective - and the sad state of the criminal defense system is that defense lawyers are extremely underfunded, overworked, and there are no standards in many states - so a judge could appoint a real estate attorney to work on a capital trial.
Usually the prosecution is the side in possession of the evidence - witnesses, DNA, etc. that they may choose to withhold (illegally) because they know it significantly weakens their case and so you may not even know sometimes that there is evidence that proves you innocent. The defense lawyers have to petition the court to get funding for experts to search independently for information (private investigators, etc. - which they are often denied) but when it comes to possession of material evidence at the crime scene, etc. that is taken by the cops and the handed over to the prosecution. There have been numerous times where the prosecution has refused to hand over DNA evidence that could exonerate people. They will fight to the end to not have be proven that they convicted an innocent man. Why? because it's politically not beneficial for them - prosecutors succeed based on number of convictions, not based on number of cases that got justice.
I agree in a working court system things should happen as you've said. I disagree that we have a working court system - especially in capital cases.