Texas execution - DNA evidence debunked 10 years on

[Rolfe]

As it wasn't deliberate and pre-planned, I don't think that killing could have been called a murder. I'd have liked to see a couple of people done for culpable homicide though.

Rolfe.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As it wasn't deliberate and pre-planned, I don't think that killing could have been called a murder. I'd have liked to see a couple of people done for culpable homicide though.

Rolfe.

I wasn't referring to that murder, I was referring to the murder done that lead to this thread.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, maybe in that case we can lose the derail. If I was criticising US cops for accidentally shooting innocent guys they mistook for terrorists, you might have a point. But since I wasn't, I don't entirely see the relevance.

Rolfe.

 

[LTC8K6]

But isn't that a prime example of the adversarial system working

Certainly not, imo. Had the system worked, the case would have lasted about 2 or 3 weeks, max.

Had Nifong been a little less blatant, he would have gotten those 3 to a sham trial, where anything could have happened.

In NC, DA's have an unbelievable amount of power over a citizen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, maybe in that case we can lose the derail. If I was criticising US cops for accidentally shooting innocent guys they mistook for terrorists, you might have a point. But since I wasn't, I don't entirely see the relevance.

Rolfe.

Barbarity abounds, is the relevance. Barbarity in committing murders, barbarity in executing murderers, and barbarity in killing people suspected of being about to murder. I don't know why you would expect more thought and trouble and concern to go into executing a murderer than went into the murder, or the other situation.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know why you would expect more thought and trouble and concern to go into executing a murderer than went into the murder.

In that case, I don't really think we have anything else to say to each other.

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

"When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite" - attributed to Winston Churchill, though he wasn't alluding to capital punishment. We have rules about what we can do in war to those who are attempting to kill us. Horrific deaths occur in conflict but we still attempt to maintain certain standards, because we're civilised; we're trying to improve our society. So why should things be different in peacetime?

 

[Beerina]

According to the article, Bush wasn't told by the attorneys in the governor's office that Jones wanted a DNA test. Had the Governor known, he likely would have stayed the execution for the test (Bush having previously stayed executions pending DNA tests).
So what's really infuriating is that the Governor is your last chance, and may not even be given the details to make an informed decision.

If you fake evidence that leads to an execution, that is also a capital crime. I would like to extend this to the people who didn't want to let Bush know the guy had asked for a DNA test.

Far from providing massive numbers of exonerations, when DNA testing became available, very few on death row asked for DNA testing -- because they knew it would probably seal their guilt because they knew they did it.

The rare guy who wants the DNA test should get it.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes, yes. Americans are evil for executing people convicted of murder after trials and appeals, and Brits are enlightened and just for putting--sorry, I forget, how many bullets it was it?--into the heads of innocent subway passengers. Was it twelve? I seem to recall reading twelve, though of course not all of those were likely in the head. I'm so fuzzy on details, you know how us barbarians are.

Thats probably not a good example to use in this case.

How many times was Amadou hit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting

 

[chillzero]

I don't know why asking you about your job would offend chillzero or why you'd pretend there aren't similiarities in the method itself.

<snip>

But forget it, apparently your horror has little to do with the chemicals themselves.

Perhaps you should read the posts with a little more attention. I was not offended - I asked a simple question. If you got from Rolfe's post that the chemicals were nothing to do with how she felt, then you need to read it again.

 

[dirtywick]

Perhaps you should read the posts with a little more attention. I was not offended - I asked a simple question. If you got from Rolfe's post that the chemicals were nothing to do with how she felt, then you need to read it again.

OK, thanks for the advice.

 

[Rolfe]

Having re-read my posts, I wonder if I assumed too much knowledge on the part of dirtywick.

I mentioned that if a vet were to use the US execution method to destroy an animal, they would be struck off for causing the animal unnecessary suffering. That was a direct reference to the use of pancuronium and potassium, which I assumed dirtywick knew about.

I was about to say that US execution methods are never used for the humane destruction of animals, when I remembered that the RSPCA (damn its eyes) has used electrocution in the past and may still do. I anticipated being called on the blanket statement as a result, which I why I added the part about electrocution. It's still appalling and the RSPCA should be ashamed of itself.

I realise from Dirtywick's later comments that he didn't know about the pancuronium and the potassium, and thought that a lethal injection execution was done using the same humane barbiturate method we use with animals.

Not so. Get educated. That paper that was linked to above is absolutely excellent by the way.

I also mentioned the "timor mortis perturbat me" part. That was an afterthought, but it's still relevant. Animals don't know they're going to die. They're not going to be terrified by the prospect of something they neither know nor understand. There is an extra layer of horror to a human execution that can never be present in a veterinary destruction.

Rolfe.

 

[brenn]

I also mentioned the "timor mortis perturbat me" part. That was an afterthought, but it's still relevant. Animals don't know they're going to die. They're not going to be terrified by the prospect of something they neither know nor understand. There is an extra layer of horror to a human execution that can never be present in a veterinary destruction.

The animals aren't being killed as punishment - I agree that they should not suffer. I absolutely do not agree that execution of prisoners should be either physically or mentally painless. I am pleased that our law does not expressly require it to be painless.

The worst thing I can say about our executions is that we have made them ineffective by making them as painless and non-public as possible. Ironically (well, intentionally, but still...), those who claim the death penalty is ineffective do so based on the results of years of fighting to make it less effective - much like they complain that it is too expensive while using every method possible to make it more expensive.

 

[commandlinegamer]

The worst thing I can say about our executions is that we have made them ineffective

Ineffective how ?

As a deterrent?

Here's the view of Britain's most prolific excutioner, Albert Pierrepoint:

'If death were a deterrent,' he wrote, 'I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them at the last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown.

'It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.'

Quoted from his obituary in the Telegraph; I think it was first published in his autobiography in the 1970s.

He took particular care in ensuring that despatching the condemned was as swift and therefore as painless as possible (his record was just over seven seconds), so you might just argue that capital punishment in the UK would not have been seen as a particularly gruesome way to go. But he shunned publicity, and the biography was not published until long after he had retired, so one cannot automatically assume that those who went out with the intention of killing would have felt more at peace in their mind knowing that if they were to die, at least it would be quick and pain-free.

 

[Architect]

I absolutely do not agree that execution of prisoners should be either physically or mentally painless. I am pleased that our law does not expressly require it to be painless.

FFS. Why not just suggest that we hang, draw, & quarter them then?

 

[Belz...]

The animals aren't being killed as punishment - I agree that they should not suffer. I absolutely do not agree that execution of prisoners should be either physically or mentally painless. I am pleased that our law does not expressly require it to be painless.

Interesting. Do you think it should be painful ? And if so, why ? They're going to die anyway.

And why do executions have to be punishments ? The idea of punishment is that the person learns a lesson of some kind. Killed people are killed. They can't learn.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to the article, Bush wasn't told by the attorneys in the governor's office that Jones wanted a DNA test. Had the Governor known, he likely would have stayed the execution for the test (Bush having previously stayed executions pending DNA tests).
So what's really infuriating is that the Governor is your last chance, and may not even be given the details to make an informed decision.

Got any names or links of executions Bush stayed? I'm just curious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting. Do you think it should be painful ? And if so, why ? They're going to die anyway.

And why do executions have to be punishments ? The idea of punishment is that the person learns a lesson of some kind. Killed people are killed. They can't learn.

The idea is other people learn if you murder you may be killed.

For the record, I am of the belief that too many convicted people have been proved innocent by DNA. Our justice system is too flawed currently and a death penalty moratorium is needed until the system is fixed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you fake evidence that leads to an execution, that is also a capital crime. I would like to extend this to the people who didn't want to let Bush know the guy had asked for a DNA test.

Far from providing massive numbers of exonerations, when DNA testing became available, very few on death row asked for DNA testing -- because they knew it would probably seal their guilt because they knew they did it.

The rare guy who wants the DNA test should get it.

Where did you see/hear this information? I would think one cannot ask for DNA to be tested if none was collected as evidence.

Of the cases where there is DNA to test, do you know how many of those were not requested? If one was on Death Row, wouldn't you ask for the testing even if you were guilty on the off chance a mistake might set you free?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She belongs to a profession that put down animals that are too ill to live. Still not seeing the relevance.

Well, to be fair, some vets put down unwanted pets. Not saying it is Rolfe's position this is OK or anything like that, but let's not cherry pick an argument here.