• 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:


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."
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

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

What a odious little man
Click to expand...

There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.
 
apdst said:
There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.
Click to expand...

And? One innocent person executed is one person too many.
 
PeteEU said:
And? One innocent person executed is one person too many.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
apdst said:
It's too bad, but not nearly as bad as allowing an admitted murderer to walk on a technicality.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
danarhea said:
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?
Click to expand...

He must be.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


danarhea said:
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?
Click to expand...


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:

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?
 
apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
the makeout hobo said:
So you don't think that could ever happen, you being wrongly convicted and executed?
Click to expand...


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.
 
apdst said:
There are more guilty people who walk on technicalities than there are innocent people executed.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Ikari said:
I'd rather guilty people walk on technicalities than innocent people be executed.
Click to expand...

I would rather that neither happen. While the latter can only be prevented to an extent, the fore can be fixed quite easily.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 


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.
 

That's my point. The article makes it sound as if the testimony was to be heard in '91, prior to Willingham's execution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…