Looking for 100% rock solid cases of people being executed and then found innocent.
Since 1960…don’t need to go back too far.
-Tcat
Look here: Executed Innocents
I am personally opposed to the death penalty in all cases, even for Saddam. As an opponent let me say this. There are NO conclusively proven cases in the USA. Not post 1960, anyway.
There have been a few that were guilty of a lesser crime, who should not have been executed but were fitted up for capital charges. Most famously, Caryl Chessman was executed for kidnapping. The specific charge for which he was convicted was artificial. No actual kidnapping took place. So he was innocent of the specific charge for which he was executed, but not actually innocent per se.
There have been a few close calls. People who were innocent, and saved through the work of groups such as The innocence project. It should be noted that these groups concentrate on the living. They are overworked with cases as it is, and don’t have time to re-examine any cases where the execution has already happened.
I believe it was **Bricker *** who pointed out that there never has been, and probably never will be, because after execution, there is no legal framework to officially prove 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the executed was in fact innocent. There may be evidence that would cause the reasonable man to conclude the execution was wrongly imposed, but there is simply no legal mechanism to overturn a conviction once the accused has been executed.
*If it wasn’t Bricker, I mean no harm by attributing this to him.
Yep, after the execution, why would anyone go to the trouble of proving someone innocent? THere are guys on death row that need help after all.
Totally off topic, but I just have to post how funny this struck me: “No need to go back too far; just 47 years.” Back on-topic: As others have said, there is no legal mechanism to find someone innocent (or guilty for that matter) once they’re dead. So if you are looking for cases in which the evidence strongly indicates an innocent man died, there are unfortunately many, but if you are looking for a legal “finding” of innocence post-mortem, I don’t believe there are any.
Several people have mentioned there not being a reason or procedure for finding somebody innocent after execution, I’m wondering if that is really true–both in the since of proving a fact and judgement. If I’m executed for killing somebody and then there’s proof later that somebody else did it and they are convicted in court, wouldn’t that be proof? Seems like this could have happened. If so, would I then in ab sentia 
be found innocent? Seems like my family, if they could be so bothered to care, might have an interest in the court officially stating I’m not a murderer. Might it not have some bizarre implications for my estate even? (Grasping here, granted, but seems like it could happen.)
No, because two people can be found guilty for the same murder. Even if the circumstances are different, there is still no legal mechanism to overturn the first conviction.
Proof in what sense? There are already cases in which circumstances make it pretty clear an innocent man was executed for a crime he didn’t commit. But the OP is asking for cases in which a person was executed and then “found innocent.” Even if someone else was convicted of the same crime for which you were executed, that would only be a finding that he or she is guilty – not that you are innocent. Is that the obvious implication? Sure. But there will never be a “finding” to that effect.
Actually, it might. If you were in a state where, for example, you were prohibited by law from writing a book that profited from your crime, and you were later determined to be innocent, your family might have an interest in having you judicially declared innocent so they could have the proceeds from your book. I’m not aware of any such case, however. I can’t even think of a mechanism by which you’d bring the issue to the court’s attention.
Sorry, I’ll take “Beyond a reasonable doubt” of innocence too.
I know 1960 was half-a-century ago…I also know that pre-60’s justice and post-60’s justice have some glaring discrepencies.
Thanks for the links and info so far.
-Tcat
But, commiting said crime, being found not guilty, and then writing a book about how you would have done it is perfectly acceptable. :smack:
cite? in USA post 1960? As I said, I’m opposed to the death penalty, but I’ve not seen any ‘pretty clear’ evidence of that happening.
Here are seven cases of executions between 1993 and 2004 where evidence or testimony indicates the executed was probably innocent. The weight of the evidence for innocence varies, but some are very convincing:
There are no 100% rock solid cases, but there are a few possibles, and one I know of down here that’s even probable: the Cantu case that heads Fear Itself’s link. The Houston Chronicle dropped a bombshell in 2005 with a series of stories on Ruben Cantu, executed in 1993. He was convicted on the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Juan Moreno, who has since recanted and said he was pressured by police into misidentifying Cantu as the killer.
Did Texas execute an innocent man?
It almost happened to Anthony Porter in Illinois. Porter was hours away from the death chamber when the real killer was found - by undergrad journalism students.
None. Some dudes families have chased “innocent” after the execution but so far none. That Doctor executed for killing his wife?
The case that I think shows “innocent man executed” most is the Texas father executed for killing his family during a home fire. Scientists and arson experts have now shown the science was bad, the fire simply was not started at the States “expert” testified. Here we have a normal everyday dude- no real criminal record- executed only as the “expert” claimed the fire was arson, but science now says otherwise. If it wasn’t arson, there was no murder, thus they executed an innocent man. And, it wasn’t arson.
In other cases, we have* bad* dudes, *criminal dudes, in whose cases the evidence for guilt for that murder was weak. That’s different from the State executing an innocent *man, it’s just a man who was possibly guilty but in hindsight, the States case wasn’t really watertight. Most appear to be in Texas where they seem too damn eager to execute dudes.
We also sometimes have remorse in the case of a witness, who after decades comes forth and sez his testimony really wasn’t good. Cantu was one of those cases. But I don’t. There was other evidence other that the witnesses, and after 30 years memories are pretty damn unrelaible. Maybe in 1984 the witness was 100% sure, but now after 30 years his memory is playing tricks on him. However, I certainly agree there was no real need to execute Cantu, Life w/o Parole would have been fine in his case. Texas again. :rolleyes:
**
Fear Itself**- that cite is pretty biased. And only one paragraph each? :dubious:
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/20/exonerated/index1.html This is when I found out who Bush really was. He said Texas has never executed an innicent man. It was a matter of fact statement when Illinois had quit executing because they had discovered how many had been killed wrongly.
But factually correct.
Anything as complex as this issue can not be factually correct with only one paragraph per case. In cases like those, it’d take many pages to go over the various truths.
Well, I don’t know if you can be found 100% innocent, but I’m fairly sure that if you get executed for murder and your victim shows up alive afterwards that this person would be a living, breathing, walking 99% proof that you were innocent.
and of course I meant to ask: Has this ever happened?