# Executed man found innocent. Just wonderful. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 22, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/executed-man-found-innocent-just-wonderful/332310 "2005-11-22T20:04:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/executed-man-found-innocent-just-wonderful/332310/421 "2005-12-03T03:49:47Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Luckily I don’t think the only way to exonerate someone is by DNA. How else may someone be exonerated? When the only witness tying him to the murder recants, and his supposed partner admits the accused wasn’t there, and when you find out that there were people who could give alibis for that time period for the accused that were ignored by the cops? Seriously, what other way can you exonerate somebody besides DNA or witnesses recanting? What avenues could we try to show that some executed people have been innocent? Have people tried other ways? > [@Hamlet](#): > > Consider your mind boggled. I tend to deal with facts, evidence and proof, not random sampling and odds. Oh, bull. Not if you were a prosecutor - you know that random sampling and odds are often considered as proof that puts something beyond a reasonable doubt, or is considered ‘certainty’. DNA evidence is based on overwhelming odds. Cases of racial discrimination have been proven by statistical sampling and odds. You sound like the people on the OJ jury who got out at the end and said, “that could have been anybody’s blood” - willingly ignoring an uncomfortable truth. We’ve killed innocent people - it’s a virtual certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/executed-man-found-innocent-just-wonderful/332310/422 "2005-12-03T05:11:41Z")
> [@bup](#): > > How else may someone be exonerated? No one was ever exonerated before DNA? > [@bup](#): > > When the only witness tying him to the murder recants, and his supposed partner admits the accused wasn’t there, and when you find out that there were people who could give alibis for that time period for the accused that were ignored by the cops? If you believe Cantu is innocent, fine. There is evidence to support your position. I haven’t heard enough from Moreno to determine what he’s saying, and Garza, who supposedly let his best friend die without telling the truth, is unbelievable. Heck, get me more information and I just may agree with you. > [@bup](#): > > Oh, bull. Not if you were a prosecutor - you know that random sampling and odds are often considered as proof that puts something beyond a reasonable doubt, or is considered ‘certainty’. DNA evidence is based on overwhelming odds. Sure, when they’re based on valid random sampling and scientific evidence. Drug testing and DNA are two good examples. > [@bup](#): > > You sound like the people on the OJ jury who got out at the end and said, “that could have been anybody’s blood” - willingly ignoring an uncomfortable truth. Next time I’m in front of a jury, I’ll try your argument. “Ladies and gentlemen, the last 20 cases I’ve handled, the defendant has been guilty, so this one must be guilty too.” Let’s see how far that gets me. > [@bup](#): > > We’ve killed innocent people - it’s a virtual certainty. Until you show me a case where it happened, it remains a possiblity. A very real possibility. But not a certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/executed-man-found-innocent-just-wonderful/332310/423 "2005-12-03T07:10:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Umm, I didn’t start the die rolling analogy, dude… Umm, I realize that. But your first attempt at using it was flawed, as I pointed out. You then moved the goal posts, which I subsequently pointed out. Perhaps you should shy away from analogizing. Just a suggestion…no ill will or malice intended. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/executed-man-found-innocent-just-wonderful/332310/424 "2005-12-04T16:13:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > No one was ever exonerated before DNA? After they were executed? I really am asking - has anybody been legally exonerated, or at least shown innocent to an extent that would satisfy you, after they were executed? > [@](#): > > Sure, when they’re based on valid random sampling and scientific evidence. If I only used those cases where every appeal was already lost, would you consider that a valid random sample? What do you mean by ‘scientific evidence’ besides some vague attempt to discredit my math without knowing why? Let me re-ask, more clearly - by what means, given that DNA right now can’t be tested after an execution, could somebody prove somebody in that 1,000 was innocent? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/executed-man-found-innocent-just-wonderful/332310.md?page=21)