Texas might have executed an innocent man

[djheater]

Originally posted by: 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.

dnugget your premise is fvcked.
The lawyer defended him to the best of his ability and he was convicted. The lawyer continued to defend him and went so far as to discover that the theories on arson that were the primary source for his conviction had been disproved.
To me that shows a belief in his innocence, regardless of the fact that the guy was convicted and the lawyer could have just abandoned him.

 

[Vinney]

Originally posted by: 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.

It most certainly does not have unquestionable proof. The problem is it's impossible to say how many people have been executed who were actually innocent because post-mortem cases are rarely investigated. A lot of people will say "look at all the people who been exonerated that were on death row - proof that the system is working". Hardly. Look at why they were exonerated - probably because there were lucky enough that DNA was preserved and the prosecution was willing to hand it over or the judge forced them to. That does not happen in a lot of cases. It's almost always because they got good appellate attorneys. That also does not happen in most cases. The reasons why people are exonerated is because there is a group of extremely hard working defense lawyers who put a lot of time and effort and money into these cases. That does not happen for everyone and many many people of questionable guilt are killed.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Nebor
First off, it's more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. Second, you can't justify killing someone to save money. It's someone's LIFE. And you'd take it away, forever. You'd kill them.

I hear that all the time, but no one ever explains WHY it's more expensive. I'd like to see a breakdown of the costs.

 

[Phokus]

Willingham's last words:

"The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return so the Earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, Road Dog." He expressed love to someone named Gabby and then addressed his ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, who was watching about 8 feet away through a window and said several times, "I hope you rot in Hell, bitch." He then attempted to maneuver his hand, strapped at the wrist, into an obscene gesture. His former wife showed no reaction to the outburst.

Quite possibly the greatest last words of any man.

 

[StageLeft]

It's happened before, and will again. Capital Punishment is a barbaric, antiquated penalty more suited to the savage justice systems of places like China or the Middle East. It's a tribute to humanitarianism that so many countries have evolved past it already.

 

[Toasthead]

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.

haha exactly. Everyone MIGHT be innocent. That doesnt mean they ARE

 

[CChaos]

I'm sure plenty of innocent men have been excuted in Texas and elsewhere. It's an imperfect system we have and probability supports that a certain percentage of people in prison and even on death row are innocent.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Nebor
First off, it's more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. Second, you can't justify killing someone to save money. It's someone's LIFE. And you'd take it away, forever. You'd kill them.

I hear that all the time, but no one ever explains WHY it's more expensive. I'd like to see a breakdown of the costs.

IIRC, most of that money is for the court/lawyer costs for all of the appeals that the accused receives.

It would be interesting to see that breakdown between actual housing/feeding costs versus legal fee costs though...