Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
Save $$$, kill death row?
Message
General information
Forum:
Politics
Category:
Other
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01515239
Message ID:
01515347
Views:
30
>>http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/20/news/economy/california_death_penalty/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
>>
>>$4 billion since 1978 on California's capital punishment system + only 13 executions =t $308 million per execution. Wow.
>
>Not to hijack the thread, but it is topical considering that Texas Gov. Rick Perry looks to be getting into the race.
>
>From http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020402.php
>
>Gov. Rick Perry replaced the chairman and two members of the state's Forensic Science Commission, two days before the commission was to hear evidence that Texas executed an innocent man. The new chairman canceled the hearing, at which an arson expert was to present a report critical of the arson analysis that led to the conviction of the man, Cameron T. Willingham. Mr. Willingham, above, was executed in 2004 after being convicted of setting a 1991 fire in which his three children died. Governor Perry, who was in office at the time of the execution, has expressed confidence in Mr. Willingham's guilt.
>
>From the linked-to New Yorker piece:
>
>In December, 2004, questions about the scientific evidence in the Willingham case began to surface. Maurice Possley and Steve Mills, of the Chicago Tribune, had published an investigative series on flaws in forensic science; upon learning of Hurst’s report, Possley and Mills asked three fire experts, including John Lentini, to examine the original investigation. The experts concurred with Hurst’s report. Nearly two years later, the Innocence Project commissioned Lentini and three other top fire investigators to conduct an independent review of the arson evidence in the Willingham case. The panel concluded that “each and every one” of the indicators of arson had been “scientifically proven to be invalid.”
>
>In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.” The commission is reviewing his findings, and plans to release its own report next year. Some legal scholars believe that the commission may narrowly assess the reliability of the scientific evidence. There is a chance, however, that Texas could become the first state to acknowledge officially that, since the advent of the modern judicial system, it had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”
>
>Just before Willingham received the lethal injection, he was asked if he had any last words. He said, “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 twelve 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.”


The Willingham case is one I've followed...and I agree the guy MIGHT be innocent - but there are a lot of other cases that are far more convincing that this one. What it boils down to is there is no way the state of TX is going to allow it to be proven they've killed an innocent person - the truth is not that important I guess.
ICQ 10556 (ya), 254117
Previous
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform