Cite?
Yeah, “just” some higher standard than every single witness at the scene stating that Cantu was not there. Don’t ask much, do you? What higher standard, eh? What’s the meaning of “under oath” in an unofficial context? You want them to say “no, honest guv, it’s really really true”? Cross their hearts and hope to die? What’s this “contemporary” shit? Is there a statute of limitations on admitting you lied? There is no official avenue for what you suggest. Your diversion about wrongful death lawsuits has been shown to be bullshit. There is nothing more than what we have. And it’s not enough for you. Well fine; then by your standards, the Death Penalty will never make a mistake. I hope this makes you happy, because it would be entirely possible for the capital system to execute only innocent people and still maintain a zero error rate by your standards. I’m fucked if I’m signing up to that, though, and I’ll be buggered if I’m ever going to trust your estimation of the error rates, I’ll tell you that for free.
Now, there’s a cite. Do you contend there WAS other evidence? What was it?
And why would you ask this? Did you not investigate this issue yourself? Did you believe I was lying? Was this just a cheap delaying tactic? Why would you possibly ask for a citation for such a basic fact about the issue under discussion?
Circumstantial 
Uh, wow. :eek:
Okay, one more try, for the sake of other people who might think you’re somewhere on the same planet as the rest of humanity: They were exonerated *despite * the System, not because of it. The System did *not * work, as the facts demonstrate to most of us.
Wellll- because you’re wrong. Your cite says you’re wrong. Part of the evidence was that Cantu shot a off-duty policeman “Then in the punishment phase of the trial, prosecutors presented another star witness — De La Luz, the officer shot by Cantu three months after the Gomez murder. Without that bar shooting, prosecutors would have been left to try to argue for death based on street rumors about Cantu’s gang activities and a pending marijuana-possession charge.
But De La Luz testified that Cantu had shot him without provocation. It was all that the jurors really needed to convince them that Cantu, though still a teenager, was so dangerous that he should be put to death.”
The testimony by Moreno did not get Cantu the DP- the testimony by Det. DeLaCruz is what got Cantu the needle. And, the defense did not attempt to contradict that testimony. Cantu wasn’t executed because he killed Gomez- he was executed because he shot a police officer 4 times in a “completely unprovoked attack”. And even Cantu admited the attack.
And, there is no more reason to believe Moreno now than then. I agree that the testimony of one barely adequate eyewitness maybe shouldn’t be enough to convict a man. But we weren’t there in that Courtroom, and all you have is a rather biased Newspaper account, not a Trial Transcript. Even Moreneo sez he wasn’t threatened or coerced “Moreno said police never threatened him but influenced him in subtle ways.”.
Sorry- memories that old are worthless. I beleive that Moreno *now * believes that it wasn’t Cantu- but I also beleive that Moreno thought the opposite 20 years ago. You’re a lawyer Bricker- you know damn well that the mind plays tricks, and that after 20 years memories easily warp- especially if one is feeling guilty. And of course Moreneo felt guilty, even if he WAS sure at that time it was Cantu, as Moreno was the primary witness. Too bad Moreno didn’t say anything earlier…
Listen carefully.
My cite does not say I’m wrong.
The evidence of Cantu’s GUILT in the initial crime was ONLY the testimony of the recanting witness.
It’s true that in the sentencing phase, the jury can consider a wide range of information unrelated to the original crime - did he have a terrible childhood, did he wet the bed, did he shoot a cop in an unrelated incident. But all that goes to the decision about the death penalty.
None of it is relevant to the question of guilt on the initial crime, which is what we’re discussing now, and what the recantation affects.
The fact that Cantu shot a policeman in another crime is absolutely, by law, irrelevant to the question of whether he committed the crime under discussion here. THE ONLY EVIDENCE FOR THAT CRIME WAS THE WITNESS WHO HAS NOW RECANTED.
No. He was executed because he was convicted of another crime AND he shot a police officer. He was found guilty, THEN, to get the death penalty, the shooting evidence came in. He was never even charged with the police officer shooting.
So - do you now understand and agree that the only evidence of Cantu’s GUILT was an eyewitness who has changed his story?
And – again – WHAT DO YOU WANT? What evidence would you accept to show that a factually innocent man has been executed?
And by the way, DrDeth… I’m not going to waste a new Pit thread to make this point, although you richly deserve it.
You’re dishonest.
You’re a dishonest prick.
You’re a dishonest asshole of the worst variety.
Plenty of arguments can be made in good faith for the death penalty; plenty of reasonable people support it for reasons which, though I don’t share, I acknowledge and respect. Arguments in favor of the practice can be made with honor and candor.
But you wouldn’t know anything about that, because to you, honor and candor are mere sounds, strange concepts that people talk about. And you hear them talk about these things, and you nod, and mouth the words yourself, and play along, all the while secretly smiling to yourself at these savages with their quaint notions.
You are a waste. An absolute waste. A nothing.
His behavior in this thread is no worse than Shodan’s, and possibly better.
I disagree.
Shodan has been careful to frame his argument. While I reject his conclusions, his approach is not dishonest. He acknowledges the likelihood – indeed, the near certainty – that continued application of the death penalty will result in the execution of a factually innocent person. He does not dispute that. Instead, he says, in essence, “I’m OK with that,” and points out how this is an acceptable price to pay for ensuring the safety of potential victims that may die if the murderers in question are not killed.
Now, we may disagree that this conclusion is valid. I certainly reject it. But there is nothing dishonest about it: he says, in effect, the price of executing a group of murderers where a tiny fraction of them are innocent justifies the lives saved by doing so. That’s a value judgement; he and I disagree on the outcome, but neither of us are lying.
DrDeth, in contrast, dodges and weaves. He refuses to so much as acknowledge the spectre of innocent men executed. It has not happened; it cannot happen. He lies, exaggerates, minimizes, spins, bobs, and ducks. He disdains the truth; his only interest is in advancing his position.
Shodan puts a very quantifying value on human life. I disagree, but I respect his honesty and good faith in coming to his conclusions.
DrDeth offers neither honesty nor good faith. The two could not be farther apart than if one were plopped on Neptune.
And, frankly, if DrDeth were the one, the whole Board would be better off.
Note my own words, back several posts ago- “I am neither Pro nor Con on the DP incidentally. Morally I am against it, but Logically I am for it.” This case just happens to be a piss-poor argument against the DP. It is a good argument that maybe Texas needs to look into how it prosecutes some capital crimes. You’re allowing your strong bias against the DP to blind your usually good judgement here. 
You also appear angry that I called you on your statement “In the past, there have people on this board that staunchly insisted the death penalty has NEVER been applied against an innocent man, and that it never would.”. This was a gross exaggeration.
You’re right- arguments *both ways * can be made with “honor and candor”. I myself listed some good arguments against the DP right here. However- this case is not one of them, nor do your arguments meet the “honor and candor” standard. And calling me names like in kindergarten doesn’t make them any better.
But you see- that is NOT what we are discussing now. Cantu- if he had simply been convicted of killing Gomez would not have been executed. Likely, by now he’d be out on parole, if not finished with his sentance. He was ONLY executed because he shot a police officer four times without provocation. And we are not debating Cantu’s prison sentence- we’re debating his **EXECUTION- ** which wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t savagely shot that Detective. Thus, the fact that he shot the police officer is very important evidence- which was *admitted as evidence * during the sentencing portion of the trial. If Cantu had just been convicted of killing Gomez we wouldn’t have this thread
Nonsense. I don’t care whther you’re for it or against it, whether you’ve just done your 100th candlelight vigil or whether you pull the switch at Sing Sing. I care that your arguments in this thread are not made in good faith.
I’m not angry, and it wasn’t a gross exaggeration. I’ve since made clear that the context was post-1976, post-Gregg era executions.
That’s why I separated the posts. Post 308 is the rebuttal to your arguments. Post 309, in which I inveigh against your lack of good faith and surfeit of intellectual dishonesty, is not intended to substitute for argument, nor advance my position. It was intended to insult, belittle, and ridicule you, because you were a deserving target of such insult and ridicule. It has no probative value as to the arguments herein, and I didn’t offer it for that purpose.
Evidence of WHAT? That he committed the crime for which he was executed?
What was Cantu’s shooting of the police officer evidence of?
Do you even understand the difference between the guilt and the sentencing phases of trial?
His arguments have included crooked numbers. When called on the numbers, he fudges them, lies, distorts, and then calls his opponents dishonest. He asked why his plan was immoral. When I answered, he deliberately misread (or is an idiot) my argument. When called on that, he claimed his misreading was based on things I said after his distortion. He then stomped off in a huff, though he did come back to make kissy faces at you, then stomped off again before you could ask him any hard questions.
DrDeth hasn’t flounced from the discussion while calling everyone names. That in itself is a sign of more honesty and integrity than Shodan has mustered.
There is no such commandment. The correct translation from the Hebrew tells you not to commit murder.
Say, humpy, now that you’re posting in the Pit and all do you want to come back to your driveby thread?
Maybe pop in and add an “Oops, I was wrong and kneejerking, again?”
Maybe defend your position even though it’s been solidly debunked?
Maybe?
No, you thick fuck, we’re discussing his INNOCENCE.
Shooting that cop had abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the crime for which he was executed.
In fact, he was never even convicted of shooting that officer in the first place.
If you’re wrongly convicted of beastiality, and the prosecution introduces evidence that you’re also a copraphage during the sentancing phase in order to get a stiffer penalty, does your (supposed) guilt of the latter have anything to do with your innocence of the former?
Here’s a hint: the answer has two letters. One is “n.” The other is “o.”
No, we’re not. If he had not been executed, we’d never have had this thread- and you know it (and so does Bricker). The whole point of this thread is: “**executed ** man found innocent”. Not “convicted man found innocent”. And the argument is- that if we have made a mistake- then once we executed someone, we can’t undo it. Which is a pretty darn good argument.
True, he wasn’t convicted of it- but he admitted it. Generally, if you’re already sentenced to death, there is no reason for a prosecutor to try you agian for ADW or Attempted Murder.
I agree that the risk of executing an innocent man is a sound argument against the DP. However, this is a very weak case to use as an example of it.