Executed child found to be innocent

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

It is a total waste of time to do so before you tell us what your minimum standard for “factually innocent” is in the first place, otherwise we spend the next few pages playing your game of “No, that doesn’t qualify.” “No, that doesn’t qualify.” “No, that doesn’t qualify either.” “No, I’m not going to tell you what does qualify, but keep 'em coming-I can do this all day.”

Why don’t we ask the person who made the claim in the first place how he cares to define it?

@Frylock

How do you support this contention in light of the numerous very recent cases in which we know innocent people were executed?

[j666]

@Czarcasm

Here’s the story of 14 year old George Stinney Jr., convicted of beating two white girls to death in 1944, and posthumously exonerated just this morning. I guess you could say “justice” was swift for the 95 lb. boy-although there were no witnesses to the crime itself, and his family said he was with them that day, the trial only lasted three hours, the all-white jury only deliberated 10 minutes, and he was put in the electric chair only three months later. I wonder if that’s what people are wanting when they say the problem with the death penalty is that it takes too long to go through with it?

I suspect so.

But, hey, at least he got a trial, … sort of.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Smapti writes:

> . . . You admit that there’s no evidence . . .

I said no such thing. I said that there’s no case this century where a person was executed in the United States although it was absolutely, definitely, completely clear that they were innocent. The Willingham case is an example where there was (at best) very weak evidence that he was guilty and much better evidence that he was innocent. The rule is that a person can only be found guilty if there is no reasonable doubt about the guilt of that person. In the Willingham case, there was not just reasonable doubt about his guilt - there was a whole lot of doubt. More specifically, the evidence that Willingham started the fire has now been shown to be very dubious. There was a supposed fire expert testifying at the trial that the pattern of the burn showed that the fire was set by a person. Now it’s generally accepted among fire experts that the pattern of the burn at that fire shows nothing about how the fire was set. It now appears likely that the fire wasn’t set at all. It appears that the fire was simply an accident. So there was no murder at all, just three children unfortunately dying in an accidental fire. If the jury had been told that there was no evidence that the fire was set at all, they very likely would have found Willingham innocent.

[Shodan]

@eschereal

In a case such as the one in the OP, somebody brutally murdered two girls: we now know that it was not John Coffey, but we may never discover who it actually was and serve that person with justice (how convenient it is, the way novels tie things up).

Were you under the impression that the OP’s title was true? He has already corrected himself, and made it clear that it is not.

Regards,
Shodan

[bup]

@Hamlet

My problem with your comments is the rhetoric that the system (again, ignoring the appellate courts as part of the criminal justice system, which is baloney) is broken because innocent people get convicted is absolutely useless. Of course innocent people get convicted, which is a horrible thing and should be avoided if at all possible, but it is impossible to have a system without that failure.

No, the *rate *of false convictions means it’s broken. I thought I made that pretty clear.

And I’m aware the appellate system exists.

The problem is that the advent of DNA matching just showed us the tip of the iceberg. DNA evidence has exonerated 324 people after conviction. The appellate system would not have freed them but for the advancement in technology.

So everything’s cool now, right? No, because DNA evidence only exists in about 10% of violent crimes (source, again, False Justice).

All that DNA has shown us is that we had convicted a lot of people that were innocent (yes, I know that a SDMB-style pedantry throwdown has already occurred in this thread about ‘innocent’/‘not guilty.’ Can we agree DNA exculpation proves innocence in common parlance?). It was just a peek behind the curtain, but the curtain is still there for most crimes, and continues. It doesn’t provide the magic fix, just shows us that our sense of security in the system was misplaced.

So when will I get your recommendations on lowering that percentage? Because a vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people who are wrongfully convicted are not subject to the death penalty.

Now, if you want. Video tape every cop interrogation. Videotape lineup picks and similar (which of these photos was the perpetrator?) Don’t accept testimony of snitches. Downgrade eyewitness testimony. Get serious about prosecuting cops who create bullshit evidence, and disbar prosecuting attorneys who withhold exculpatory evidence or engage in other unethical practices.

[Lucas_Jackson]

This guy was very probably innocent: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Were you under the impression that the OP’s title was true? He has already corrected himself, and made it clear that it is not.

Regards,
Shodan

What a wonderfully vivid imagination you have! Although courts do not make a finding of “innocent”, people still do. If a person is innocent until found guilty by a preponderance of evidence, then in my mind that poor child was obviously innocent.

[Czarcasm]

@White SIFL

This guy was very probably innocent: Trial by Fire | The New Yorker

Nope-according to Shodan, once the courts get ahold of the case nobody is innocent, ever again.

[eschereal]

@Shodan

Were you under the impression that the OP’s title was true? He has already corrected himself, and made it clear that it is not.

If you want to be pedantic, as seems to be the case, the title of the thread is not at all incorrect: it says “found to be innocent”, which is slightly different from “found innocent” (a legal finding).

@Shodan

@Czarcasm

Shodan, is the fact that courts do not actually find people “innocent” a point you plan on bringing up?

I don’t have to; you’re making the point for me. You assert as a fact that the courts do not actually find people “innocent”. Therefore the title of your OP is demonstrably false.

Courts do find people innocent. It is a very important fact that is addressed specifically in the bill of rights: a person who is found innocent is therewith protected from further prosecution, a verdict of “not guilty” (which is the same as “innocent”) ends the question for the particular suspect. Your assertion is doubly flawed.

[Shodan]

You are incorrect - courts do not find people “innocent”. Czarcasm already admitted that, although he is now trying to weasel. He is also making statements wildly at odds with anything I ever said -

Nope-according to Shodan, once the courts get ahold of the case nobody is innocent, ever again.

but that also is to be expected.

The court also did not find the person in the OP “not guilty”.

So, your and Czarcasm’s post are completely and blatantly wrong.

Of course, if you were to produce cites for the numerous, very recent cases in which we know that innocent people have been executed, we could continue the discussion of things that are not blatantly wrong, but probably not otherwise.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

What a wonderfully vivid imagination you have! Although courts do not make a finding of “innocent”, people still do. If a person is innocent until found guilty by a preponderance of evidence, then in my mind that poor child was obviously innocent.

You need to recalibrate your mind. A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a preponderance of the evidence. That’s civl court, where the DP is not incurred.

Your imagination is much inferior to mine - yours only comes up with boringly false misstatements.

Regards,
Shodan

[eschereal]

Holy crap, are we going to go back and forth on this? A jury is a body of the court, which may return no decision (“hung jury”), a verdict of “guilty”, or a verdict of “not guilty”. Please explain, in what practical way is a verdict of “not guilty” different from “innocent”?

[Shodan]

@eschereal

Courts do find people innocent.

@Czarcasm

…courts do not make a finding of “innocent”…

And you’re both trying to argue with me.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

You need to recalibrate your mind. A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a preponderance of the evidence. That’s civl court, where the DP is not incurred.

Your imagination is much inferior to mine - yours only comes up with boringly false misstatements.

Regards,
Shodan

O.k. then- “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If a person is innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then in my mind that person is innocent.
Now, what about this link that White SIFL provided? Would you say that that executed man was probably innocent?

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

Now, what about this link that White SIFL provided? Would you say that that executed man was probably innocent?

Is this meant to be a cite for one of the recent, very numerous cases in which we know an innocent man was executed? Is that what you are suggesting?

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Is this meant to be a cite for one of the recent, very numerous cases in which we know an innocent man was executed? Is that what you are suggesting?

Regards,
Shodan

I was asking you a direct question. Pleaser note that the SDMB is not a court of law and that you are free to set your own standards as to what it takes to judge whether there is enough evidence to say whether a person is guilty or innocent of the crime they were convicted of-I am asking if you think that this man is innocent of the crime he was executed for.

[lissener]

@Bryan_Ekers

Heck, the DP itself is an appeal to emotion. Its practical value, especially considering the costs of implementation, is tenuous at best.

Tenuous? You misspelled nonexistent.

[DrDeth]

" Executed child found to be innocent"

Not actually true. The conviction was vacated. It was a writ of error coram nobis.

And- 1944? :dubious:

But I agree with Wendell Wagner in that in 2004 an innocent man was executed- Cameron Todd Willingham . Not only was he innocent, but there was no murder int he first place, just a tragic accident.

Evidence against him was his skull & serpent tattoo and his Iron Maiden poster. No- seriously. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

But in 2004 an innocent man was executed- Cameron Todd Willingham . Not only was he innocent, but there was no murder int he first place, just a tragic accident.

Evidence against him was his skull & serpent tattoo and his Iron Maiden poster. No- seriously. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Definitely a much better case that has been brought up more than once in this thread.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

Definitely a much better case that has been brought up more than once in this thread.

Yes. But the fact that they took seriously such “evidence” as a tattoo and a Rock Poster makes it even crazier. :eek: Of course we can just say “Forget it Jake, it’s Texas”.

As to “found innocent” your Op case comes close, but I think we’d have to say in America “Not Guilty”= “innocent”. A writ of error* coram nobis* is not quite the same thing.