• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

DNA test casts doubt on executed Texas man's guilt

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DALLAS – A DNA test on a single hair has cast doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was put to death 10 years ago for a liquor-store murder — an execution that went forward after then-Gov. George W. Bush's staff failed to tell him the condemned man was asking for genetic analysis of the strand.


The hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the recently completed DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.
Here we go again. Another day, and another innocent man found to have been murdered by the State of Texas, and another day that my stance against the death penalty is affirmed.

I know, I know, I created a thread in which I expressed my pleasure that the home invader in Connecticut was given the death penalty for torturing and murdering a mother and her two kids, and so this thread makes me seem hypocritical, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. I can be happy that a monster is going to be toasted, and still be against the death penalty. Monsters deserve death, but innocent people do not. It is pretty plain and simple. Given a choice, I would much rather see the Connecticut monster spend life in prison instead of seeing innocent people murdered by the State of Texas. It is an issue of morality with me, and it is not moral to murder innocent people, even if the State sanctions it.

In regard to Bush, he was not given the information he needed that could have pardoned this innocent man. This is in stark contrast to Rick Perry, who put an innocent man to death for arson, when he knew that there was a possibility he could have been innocent, and then fired every member of the State Forensics Board and replaced them with political cronies, who then quashed the investigation, in order to cover it up. But, you know, it doesn't matter. If you support the death penalty, and are the man at the top, who oversees it's implementation, then you have blood on your hands. And so does every citizen who supports the death penalty. They have blood on their hands too. Since so many people argue the Biblical idea of "an eye for an eye" in their support of the death penalty, then they stand convicted of murder by their own words, and if you believe in an afterlife, there will be hell to pay for those who stood by and supported the State when it murdered innocent people. Why is that? Because the Bible says so. You just can't have it both ways. Murder is murder, whether done by an atheist slimeball with a gun, or a Christian slimeball who aids and abets throwing the switch on an innocent man. Again, the Bible says so. Murder is murder, and there will be consequences in the afterlife.

I will now put on my flameproof suit, and get ready for the flames that are about to come my way. No problem. Let the flames ensue. I stand by what I have posted, and I am sure that God backs what I have written too.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think the death penalty should be used only when there is definitive proof and no gray area what so ever if even used at all. I am not a fan of the death penalty, I think a life of hard labor would be a better sentence. But I do think for states that do have the death penalty that the convicted must have certain proof of their crime.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,340
Reaction score
12,161
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here we go again. Another day, and another innocent man found to have been murdered by the State of Texas, and another day that my stance against the death penalty is affirmed.

I know, I know, I created a thread in which I expressed my pleasure that the home invader in Connecticut was given the death penalty for torturing and murdering a mother and her two kids, and so this thread makes me seem hypocritical, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. I can be happy that a monster is going to be toasted, and still be against the death penalty. Monsters deserve death, but innocent people do not. It is pretty plain and simple. Given a choice, I would much rather see the Connecticut monster spend life in prison instead of seeing innocent people murdered by the State of Texas. It is an issue of morality with me, and it is not moral to murder innocent people, even if the State sanctions it.

In regard to Bush, he was not given the information he needed that could have pardoned this innocent man. This is in stark contrast to Rick Perry, who put an innocent man to death for arson, when he knew that there was a possibility he could have been innocent, and then fired every member of the State Forensics Board and replaced them with political cronies, who then quashed the investigation, in order to cover it up. But, you know, it doesn't matter. If you support the death penalty, and are the man at the top, who oversees it's implementation, then you have blood on your hands. And so does every citizen who supports the death penalty. They have blood on their hands too. Since so many people argue the Biblical idea of "an eye for an eye" in their support of the death penalty, then they stand convicted of murder by their own words, and if you believe in an afterlife, there will be hell to pay for those who stood by and supported the State when it murdered innocent people. Why is that? Because the Bible says so. You just can't have it both ways. Murder is murder, whether done by an atheist slimeball with a gun, or a Christian slimeball who aids and abets throwing the switch on an innocent man. Again, the Bible says so. Murder is murder, and there will be consequences in the afterlife.

I will now put on my flameproof suit, and get ready for the flames that are about to come my way. No problem. Let the flames ensue. I stand by what I have posted, and I am sure that God backs what I have written too.

Article is here.
But but we all know that Texas is so freaking perfect .... never ever breaks basic human rights or the law in its never ending goal of executing as many people as possible..








yes that was ironic.

Just another case of many I suspect that are out there. No one tries to help the already executed after all..
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,405
Reaction score
4,811
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As long as there is a possibility that even ONE innocent person could be wrongly executed, I will remain firmly against the death penalty. You can always compensate someone for wrongful imprisonment, but you can't bring them back to life when the justice system ****ed up again.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
119,167
Reaction score
34,711
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm against the death penalty because it sets a bad example. It justifies the rationalization of murder.

That's all. Just a poor example of how people should behave. If the government can target a demonstratably harmless (locked up, alone if necessary) and helpless (housed, fed and controlled by the state directly) person for a good enough reason, I believe it inclines the citizenry to such.

Counter to popular claim, capital punishment actually encourages murder via practical demonstration of targetting the harmless and helpless.
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,405
Reaction score
4,811
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm against the death penalty because it sets a bad example. It justifies the rationalization of murder.

That's all. Just a poor example of how people should behave. If the government can target a demonstratably harmless (locked up, alone if necessary) and helpless (housed, fed and controlled by the state directly) person for a good enough reason, I believe it inclines the citizenry to such.

Counter to popular claim, capital punishment actually encourages murder via practical demonstration of targetting the harmless and helpless.
I've often had similar thoughts. It always strikes me how societies where the death penalty is still legal seem to be more violent and have more violent crime in general than those where it's been abolished.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
119,167
Reaction score
34,711
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last I checked, those stats don't hold up (given different context, actual raw numbers in some cases, etc); however, the logic does.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Everyone's guilty of something.

Set stricter proof requirements and move on.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,560
Reaction score
4,869
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've often had similar thoughts. It always strikes me how societies where the death penalty is still legal seem to be more violent and have more violent crime in general than those where it's been abolished.
Using such simplistic logic as that, we can find that since Canada abolished the death penalty in 76, their violent crime rates have increased. Obviously, abolishing the death penalty results in more violence.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here we go again. Another day, and another innocent man found to have been murdered by the State of Texas, and another day that my stance against the death penalty is affirmed.

I know, I know, I created a thread in which I expressed my pleasure that the home invader in Connecticut was given the death penalty for torturing and murdering a mother and her two kids, and so this thread makes me seem hypocritical, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. I can be happy that a monster is going to be toasted, and still be against the death penalty. Monsters deserve death, but innocent people do not. It is pretty plain and simple. Given a choice, I would much rather see the Connecticut monster spend life in prison instead of seeing innocent people murdered by the State of Texas. It is an issue of morality with me, and it is not moral to murder innocent people, even if the State sanctions it. I will now put on my flameproof suit, and get ready for the flames that are about to come my way. No problem. Let the flames ensue. I stand by what I have posted, and I am sure that God backs what I have written too.
You can't have it both ways just because you say so. You either support the death penalty or you don't. "I only support it if you're guilty" is full-on support. Why can't you just say, "This case makes me rethink my position on the death penalty?" That would be honest. Your post is hypocritical.

If you're correct that God has special punishments awaiting those who support the death penalty, then you do need that flameproof suit just as surely as the rest.
 

Sadie

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
145
Reaction score
48
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here we go again. Another day, and another innocent man found to have been murdered by the State of Texas, and another day that my stance against the death penalty is affirmed.

Hold on. Barry Scheke, of the Innocence Project, has stated that the hair evidence does not prove that this man was innocent; it only proves that the evidence was insufficient for this crime and for this instance of the death penalty being imposed.

Big difference.

While I agree that the evidence and the total handling of this case MAY have lead to the unmerited execution of an innocent man, you also have to remember that even the guilty of the most heinous of crimes will do anything to avoid conviction, let alone the death penalty, and claim innocence. Guilty people have been known to roll the dice on DNA evidence. We have to stand by those results, but those results do not always guarantee that the person was innocent.

It's an irreversible sentence; we all know that. Nor do I support the death penalty, in case one may ask.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,228
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here we go again. Another day, and another innocent man found to have been murdered by the State of Texas, and another day that my stance against the death penalty is affirmed.

I know, I know, I created a thread in which I expressed my pleasure that the home invader in Connecticut was given the death penalty for torturing and murdering a mother and her two kids, and so this thread makes me seem hypocritical, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. I can be happy that a monster is going to be toasted, and still be against the death penalty. Monsters deserve death, but innocent people do not. It is pretty plain and simple. Given a choice, I would much rather see the Connecticut monster spend life in prison instead of seeing innocent people murdered by the State of Texas. It is an issue of morality with me, and it is not moral to murder innocent people, even if the State sanctions it.

In regard to Bush, he was not given the information he needed that could have pardoned this innocent man. This is in stark contrast to Rick Perry, who put an innocent man to death for arson, when he knew that there was a possibility he could have been innocent, and then fired every member of the State Forensics Board and replaced them with political cronies, who then quashed the investigation, in order to cover it up. But, you know, it doesn't matter. If you support the death penalty, and are the man at the top, who oversees it's implementation, then you have blood on your hands. And so does every citizen who supports the death penalty. They have blood on their hands too. Since so many people argue the Biblical idea of "an eye for an eye" in their support of the death penalty, then they stand convicted of murder by their own words, and if you believe in an afterlife, there will be hell to pay for those who stood by and supported the State when it murdered innocent people. Why is that? Because the Bible says so. You just can't have it both ways. Murder is murder, whether done by an atheist slimeball with a gun, or a Christian slimeball who aids and abets throwing the switch on an innocent man. Again, the Bible says so. Murder is murder, and there will be consequences in the afterlife.

I will now put on my flameproof suit, and get ready for the flames that are about to come my way. No problem. Let the flames ensue. I stand by what I have posted, and I am sure that God backs what I have written too.

Article is here.
Just finished reading a book by the law professor in charge of death-row inmate appeals in Texas. Oddly enough, it seems that the Texas governor cannot issue a stay of execution unless it is initially recommended by the Prisoner Review Board. In Texas, this board never recommends leniency for a capital crime. It appears to be a political quid-pro-quo system. The governor appoints the PRB members, who in turn insulate him from any political/legal fallout concerning stays of execution.
 

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
1,460
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here we go again. Another day, and another innocent man found to have been murdered by the State of Texas, and another day that my stance against the death penalty is affirmed.

I know, I know, I created a thread in which I expressed my pleasure that the home invader in Connecticut was given the death penalty for torturing and murdering a mother and her two kids, and so this thread makes me seem hypocritical, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. I can be happy that a monster is going to be toasted, and still be against the death penalty. Monsters deserve death, but innocent people do not. It is pretty plain and simple. Given a choice, I would much rather see the Connecticut monster spend life in prison instead of seeing innocent people murdered by the State of Texas. It is an issue of morality with me, and it is not moral to murder innocent people, even if the State sanctions it.

In regard to Bush, he was not given the information he needed that could have pardoned this innocent man. This is in stark contrast to Rick Perry, who put an innocent man to death for arson, when he knew that there was a possibility he could have been innocent, and then fired every member of the State Forensics Board and replaced them with political cronies, who then quashed the investigation, in order to cover it up. But, you know, it doesn't matter. If you support the death penalty, and are the man at the top, who oversees it's implementation, then you have blood on your hands. And so does every citizen who supports the death penalty. They have blood on their hands too. Since so many people argue the Biblical idea of "an eye for an eye" in their support of the death penalty, then they stand convicted of murder by their own words, and if you believe in an afterlife, there will be hell to pay for those who stood by and supported the State when it murdered innocent people. Why is that? Because the Bible says so. You just can't have it both ways. Murder is murder, whether done by an atheist slimeball with a gun, or a Christian slimeball who aids and abets throwing the switch on an innocent man. Again, the Bible says so. Murder is murder, and there will be consequences in the afterlife.

I will now put on my flameproof suit, and get ready for the flames that are about to come my way. No problem. Let the flames ensue. I stand by what I have posted, and I am sure that God backs what I have written too.

Article is here.
I have to agree with dana. In theory, I have no problem with the death penalty. Someone like John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer should be put down like the mad dog that they are as quickly as possible. It's not barbaric. It's not cruel. It's justice. The only thing society owes monsters like that is a swift death.

The problem I have with the death penalty is how we practice it. Not every death row inmate is an unquestionably guilty serial killer who had the bodies of his victims in his home. In a system with falible humans as the lawyers, judges, and juries, its quite possible, perhaps even inevitable that an innocent man will be executed. As another poster said, that is a wrong we can never right. You can compensate someone for being wrongfully jailed. You can't dig up a corpse and say "Ooops, our bad."

Plus, studies have shown the death penalty has no deterent affect over life without parole and its more costly to exhaust an condemned convict's appeals in order to execute them than it is to simply imprison them for life. So the death penalty has no practical or monetary benefits to us.

For the record, I used to be an avid supporter of the death penalty, but when half the death row inmates in my state (Illinois) were later exonerated, I began to rethink my position and realized just how possible it is to execute an innocent man.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As noted above, this test only calls into question one part of the prosecution's case. It doesn't mean the guy isn't guilty as ****.

There's also this:

Jones' criminal record dated back to 1959. While serving a 21-year prison sentence in Kansas, he poured a flammable liquid on his cellmate and set him on fire, killing him. Three days after the Texas shooting, he was identified as the robber of a suburban Houston bank. He was arrested nearly three weeks later in Fort Myers, Fla., where he was charged with robbery and bank robbery there.

From the death chamber gurney, he did not acknowledge guilt but told relatives of the liquor store owner he was sorry for their loss.
This guy killed AT LEAST one person. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As noted above, this test only calls into question one part of the prosecution's case. It doesn't mean the guy isn't guilty as ****.

There's also this:



This guy killed AT LEAST one person. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Excellent point. Throwing the innocent word around could not be a bigger miscarage of justice.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So India, South Korea, the Philipines and Japan are somehow savage countries Deuce?
According to the map the Philippines have no death penalty. Although saying America is equal to Sudan or the KSA is also false. Certain states have outlawed the death penalty. It's also not a very frequent punishment (frequency must also be taken into account along with method).
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,340
Reaction score
12,161
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So India, South Korea, the Philipines and Japan are somehow savage countries Deuce?
The Philippines has no death penalty.

South Korea has it on the books but not been carried out since 1997 (so the map is wrong). There is a debate going on about removing it from the books, but there has sadly been a set back since the constitutional court has basically ruled that the constitution would have to be changed to accommodate the change.

India rarely uses the death penalty since the Indian supreme court has said it should be only used in extreme rare cases. Also from what I can read, there has not been a carrying out of a death penalty case for a long time (map is wrong.. should be light blue)

Japan does have it and uses it, but in no way the same amount as the US. The amount of executions a year can be counted on two hands, and normally even on one. This law is in part a left over from the old Japanese Imperial rule and the remake of Japan by the US.

In fact if you add the amount of people actually executed together from all the mentioned countries in 2009, then it would not even come close to that of the US number of 52 executions.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,286
Reaction score
4,889
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have no problem with the idea of the death penalty, I just think we need to be a lot more cautious about handing it out.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,267
Reaction score
12,253
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have no problem with the idea of the death penalty, I just think we need to be a lot more cautious about handing it out.
What???

The judicial system incorporated in the US is not good enough?
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is the best!.. it is never wrong!.. it works fast, and is 100% colour and money blind!
Can you point to anyone who has ever said its never wrong or are these nonsensical claims just going to repeat themselves? Not every country can vote for the candidate Al Qeada wants in power under the threat of an attack.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,267
Reaction score
12,253
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It is the best!.. it is never wrong!.. it works fast, and is 100% colour and money blind!
Sure it's not foolproof and can be quite tedious, but the American justice system is one of the best. But even with such a fair judicial system in place, mistakes are still made. This is one of the reasons why I am against the death penalty.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure it's not foolproof and can be quite tedious, but the American justice system is one of the best. But even with such a fair judicial system in place, mistakes are still made. This is one of the reasons why I am against the death penalty.
Did you read my mind before you posted? :mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom