• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversy Builds in Texas Over an Execution

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The following paragraph says it all:

Three weeks ago Mr. Perry replaced the chairman and two other members of the State Forensic Science Commission, which was about to hold hearings on the evidence in the case. The new chairman, a close ally of the governor, promptly canceled a hearing at which a second, independent arson expert was to testify. The commission’s expert, Craig L. Beyler of Baltimore, had concluded in a lengthy report that the evidence did not prove that Mr. Willingham set the fire that killed his three daughters in 1991.

Of course, Mr. Willingham was executed, and the shutting down of the investigation has all the earmarks of another Rick Perry cover up. Said Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is running against Perry in the Republican primary:

The only thing Rick Perry’s actions have accomplished is giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty. We should never do anything to create a cloud of controversy over it with actions that look like a cover-up."

What Perry did was unconscionable, and I sincerely hope that Hutchinson wins in a landslide. Perry needs to go. His Socialist agenda has hurt Texas, and his cover up here is only the final straw.

Article is here.
 
Questions about whether Gov. Rick Perry allowed the execution of a man some arson experts say may have been innocent, and then hindered an investigation into the evidence, continue to reverberate across Texas, where issues surrounding capital punishment have rarely stirred such controversy.

I really do wonder sometimes how many innocent people have been killed via death penalty in US.

What a odious little man
 
I really do wonder sometimes how many innocent people have been killed via death penalty in US.

What a odious little man

There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.
 
There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.

And? One innocent person executed is one person too many.
 
And? One innocent person executed is one person too many.

It's too bad, but not nearly as bad as allowing an admitted murderer to walk on a technicality.
 
There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.

That is how the system is supposed to work. When you look at our justice system, it is clear the idea is that it is better to let some one guilty go free than to punish some one innocent.
 
It's too bad, but not nearly as bad as allowing an admitted murderer to walk on a technicality.

So you are saying, rather execute an innocent man than let an admitted murder go free because of a technicallity.. I see..:shock:
 
It's too bad, but not nearly as bad as allowing an admitted murderer to walk on a technicality.

So, if you should get into a situation where you are prosecuted for something you didn't do, and are sentenced to die, you are OK with that?
 
So, if you should get into a situation where you are prosecuted for something you didn't do, and are sentenced to die, you are OK with that?

He must be.
 
That is how the system is supposed to work. When you look at our justice system, it is clear the idea is that it is better to let some one guilty go free than to punish some one innocent.

I'm not sure if that's how it's supposed to work, but it certainly evolved into that. But, when the dust clears, innocent people still get convicted. By your logic, we should stop trying people for crimes, so we can avoid convicting innocent people.


So, if you should get into a situation where you are prosecuted for something you didn't do, and are sentenced to die, you are OK with that?


If someone rapes your kids, chops them up into little pieces, admits to it, then walks on some BS technicality, are you OK with that. See the clap-trap'ness of your question?
 
I'm not sure if that's how it's supposed to work, but it certainly evolved into that. But, when the dust clears, innocent people still get convicted. By your logic, we should stop trying people for crimes, so we can avoid convicting innocent people.





If someone rapes your kids, chops them up into little pieces, admits to it, then walks on some BS technicality, are you OK with that. See the clap-trap'ness of your question?

Nice red herring there, but this is not about some theoretical and non-existent rapist serial killer chopping up kids, who got off on a technicality. Please try to keep up. This is about someone who was convicted of an arson, in which his kids died, who claimed innocence, and which Perry's own Forensic Science Commission admitted that there was no proof that the man did it, before Perry replaced the head of that commission with a political appointee, who shut down the investigation.

Now about that clap-trap'ness straw man of yours?
 
Last edited:
Nice red herring there, but this is not about some theoretical and non-existent rapist serial killer chopping up kids, who got off on a technicality. Please try to keep up. This is about someone who was convicted of an arson, in which his kids died, who claimed innocence, and which Perry's own Forensic Science Commission admitted that there was no proof that the man did it.

Now about that clap-trap'ness straw man of yours?

Where did Perry's own commission say that wasn't any evidence that the guy did it? I don't think they ever admitted that, did they?
 
Where did Perry's own commission say that wasn't any evidence that the guy did it? I don't think they ever admitted that, did they?

Their expert did, and Perry shut down the investigation, replacing the head of the commission. who was going to put him on the stand, with a political ally, before the expert could testify. His report still exists, though.

The commission’s expert, Craig L. Beyler of Baltimore, had concluded in a lengthy report that the evidence did not prove that Mr. Willingham set the fire that killed his three daughters in 1991.

Let me also add that this was the second expert who was about to testify.
 
Last edited:
Their expert did, and Perry shut down the investigation, replacing the head of the commission. who was going to put him on the stand, with a political ally, before the expert could testify. His report still exists, though.



Let me also add that this was the second expert who was about to testify.

The State Forensics Commission was created in '05, by the state legislature. The article makes it sound as if Beyer was saying all this back in '91. This is all after the fact.
 
So you don't think that could ever happen, you being wrongly convicted and executed?


Sure it could. A justice system where that's impossible doesn't exist, nor will it ever. That's no reason not to punish a criminal.
 
There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.

I'd rather guilty people walk on technicalities than innocent people be executed.
 
It's too bad, but not nearly as bad as allowing an admitted murderer to walk on a technicality.

Yeah it is. Because of what you'd have to do to the system to make it that the murderer wouldn't "walk" ona technicality. You'd make it horribly oppressive and dangerous. The system was designed to err on the side of the individual, not the State. And I believe that is where we should keep it.
 
I'd rather guilty people walk on technicalities than innocent people be executed.

I would rather that neither happen. While the latter can only be prevented to an extent, the fore can be fixed quite easily.
 
The State Forensics Commission was created in '05, by the state legislature. The article makes it sound as if Beyer was saying all this back in '91. This is all after the fact.

No it doesn't say that at all. The article clearly states that Beyer was about to testify, when Perry shut down the investigation.

But there is more. From the itinerary of the Forensics commission itself.

WILLIS/WILLINGHAM INVESTIGATION, Case # 0901 (Bassett, et.al.)

Review and discussion of final report received from Dr. Beyler
Dr. Beyler – Q. and A. Session with Commission Members
Draft specific language on type of response requested from Fire Marshall
Other agency/office responses to solicit, if any
Decisions regarding next steps in case
Public Information Act Issues
Assignment of duties for development of Commission’s case report

This hearing had been scheduled for October 2, 2009. This was the hearing that Perry interfered with and shut down.
 
If someone rapes your kids, chops them up into little pieces, admits to it, then walks on some BS technicality, are you OK with that. See the clap-trap'ness of your question?

Yes, I would be ok with it. That situation to work out would be low probability. If it worked out that way, something had to be very wrong with the trial, especially if you had a confession. As a parent i wouldn't be ok with it, but as far as the justice system is concerned I'd rather that case then indiscriminate jailing and killing by the State.
 
Yeah it is. Because of what you'd have to do to the system to make it that the murderer wouldn't "walk" ona technicality. You'd make it horribly oppressive and dangerous. The system was designed to err on the side of the individual, not the State. And I believe that is where we should keep it.


That's nice and neat and idealistically cute, but what about the rights of the victim when that admitted murderer re-offends?

How many people lose their lives to criminals who re-offend, compared to people who have been wrongfully convicted and executed?
 
That's nice and neat and idealistically cute, but what about the rights of the victim when that admitted murderer re-offends?

How many people lose their lives to criminals who re-offend, compared to people who have been wrongfully convicted and executed?

On the other hand, we must have rules governing our justice system, and those rules must be followed.
 
No it doesn't say that at all. The article clearly states that Beyer was about to testify, when Perry shut down the investigation.

But there is more. From the itinerary of the Forensics commission itself.



This hearing had been scheduled for October 2, 2009. This was the hearing that Perry interfered with and shut down.

That's my point. The article makes it sound as if the testimony was to be heard in '91, prior to Willingham's execution.
 
Back
Top Bottom