>I respectfully submit that you are treading on thin ice if you expect this to be considered an example of how the death penalty is bad. Reading to the end of the article, it seems this fellow DID commit two other murders, even if it has turned up that he didn't do this particular one. If you want to play that out, then if he had been executed for the first one, the second one would never have happened.

Are you in any way whatsoever arguing that he should have been executed for the others? He didn't do this one, but surely he deserved to die for something else?

Simply, this man was tried and convicted in our legal system for a crime he did not commit. Had he survived cancer and DNA testing did not yet exist, he would have been executed for a crime he did not commit. If this does sent a chill up your spine, that we will sooner or later execute an innocent man, what will?

And what, all the people executed before DNA testing were really guilty? And what about the 9 people on death row who have been exonerated because of DNA testing, as mentioned in the article. Let me guess, before DNA testing, everyone on death row was really guilty.

> I would also say that perhaps this is not a good topic, unless we truly wish to get into something even more heated than the previous election thread.
>A tougher test of our civility, for sure. So long as we can avoid blatant personal attacks and stick to supported opinion, all is good.

Anyone who does not want to participate in this thread can either turn on the thread filter, choose not to read a post, or choose not to respond. There won't be any personal attacks coming from me. Too many Texas rednecks with guns (I guess rednecks with guns is being redundant) for me to poke fun at anyone < g >.