Not that hard to predict considering that the name of Cameron Willingham gets tossed around all the time in these circles as the best example of an “innocent” man who was executed, despite his being blatantly and obviously guilty.
Repeated assertion does not make something true, however insistent the adjectives applied to it.
Then you would be violating the judge’s instructions because possible and beyond reasonable aren’t equivalent.
That does seem to tilt things towards a guilty verdict.
There’s been so much doubt cast on the prosecution’s case, from the debunked expert witness to the jailhouse informant who has admitted he was pressured, that I can’t see how you can say this, even without the insistent adjectives. He almost certainly wasn’t guilty. The most likely explanation for what happened was an electrical fire.
But I’m not going to debate this with you. What would be the point? I don’t think anything, even divine revelation, would convince you that your beloved state could possibly make a mistake, let alone act maliciously.
The forensic witness and the jailhouse confession aren’t relevant. The preponderance of evidence indicates that he wanted his twins dead for financial reasons, started the fire outside their room after pouring flammable cologne on the floor and blocking the back door with debris, and his older daughter became an accidental victim when the fire burned hotter than he expected.
If I saw hard evidence that the US had executed an innocent person in recent history, I wouldn’t dismiss it. I haven’t seen any - the best arguments that the anti-DP people bring up are often little more than people who they insist must be innocent because they said they were innocent, or cases like this one where they cherry-pick at one weak part of the prosecution’s case and blow it out of context as if it were the smoking gun that every single court that heard the case used to rule against the accused.
Two things, and then I’ll drop this hijack. First This article pretty much destroys the prosecutions case. I note that you have offered nothing but repeated assertions.
Second, “preponderance of evidence” (My bold) is the standard for civil suits. It isn’t the standard for criminal cases and certainly shouldn’t be the standard for death penalty cases. In any event, you haven’t even shown a preponderance of evidence. I urge you to read the New Yorker article. It’s pretty even handed. After the first half I was inclined to believe Willingham guilty.
I’m not sure why you’d say that. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof recognized by any court.
I’ve read it. After the second half, I was inclined to believe Willingham guilty.
Of course you were.
The argument applies because the law for “yep, we’re convinced enough this guy is guilty” and “holy shit, fry the fucker now” guy is the same. It wouldn’t if that were not the case, but it’s like we’ve already said, “Oh, and by the way, whatever we decide on this argument, it also applies to this group, too.” In purely argumentative terms, you’re correct, but practically speaking, the law doesn’t specify like that.
I sense some untapped possibilities there. Are you including those who weren’t convicted in the first place? Or those who were convicted only after multiple, separate kills? I’d really need to see the data, to be honest. And life without parole is at least partially “fixable”. Death isn’t.
In a purely utilitarian test - yes, I agree.
Why not simply fix that part of things? Extend sentencing, deny parole for longer or completely? The answer doesn’t seem to have to be “we kill them, or eventually they will get off because the system is broken”. Ok, so fix the system, no?
This is one of those threads where I wonder who works in the legal profession. 
Yes, we should fix the system by executing more people. Read the cite I gave.
How does extending his sentence help?
How does denying his parole help?
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve read it. I know the author (Wesley Lowe) from another forum. I’ve found him to be a dishonest, childish, stupid troll. His “lists” are full of deliberately misleading drivel.
linkto my previous comments on the list
As for the two examples you gave, there’s a pretty big flaw in your logic. The victims of these crimes were criminals who you would have wanted executed anyway. Applying your wish to execute more would have resulted in both of these people dying sooner. Hardly evidence that executions save lives.
Your cite is entitled “A SHORT LIST OF MURDERERS RELEASED TO MURDER AGAIN”. I have to admit, I didn’t think that it would include people who murdered again without being released.
Now that I run down that list, I note that it is a fairly inaccurate title. Including the two examples you give from it, I count something like 30 murders/attempted murders by current inmates in prison (either of other inmates or guards), and 9 examples given of prisoners who murdered after… escaping.
Of course these are all still murders. But given a rather important inaccuracy I think I’d want to see some more official, or at least cited, sources. I can’t give the benefit of the doubt that the compiler has done so without that same inaccuracy.
To address your point, though; you’re right, those two things don’t help in those cases. How about solitary confinement?
How does denying parole help? By taking away any hope, however dim, the prisoner might have harbored of ever being released. It doesn’t take much hope to keep on living, but without it, life takes on a different flavor.
Imposing solitary for an extended or even indefinite period means imposing insanity. It isn’t at all obvious that that’s appropriate punishment, although it may be.
They are alternatives to executing a fellow on the admittedly small possibility that he is innocent.
The standard is unreasonable, not small.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death on 6 counts.
I think all evidence indicates that Willingham was completely innocent. The Frontline documentary was very compelling. But Tsarnaev is a piece of crap who deserves to drop dead. He’s clearly guilty of murder and terrorizing thousands of people. When even the liberals of Massachusetts agree . . .