Texas execution - DNA evidence debunked 10 years on

[John Jones]

And you can point to the clear-cut advantages to this system, which occasionally kills the "absolutely innocent" in a horrific manner, in contrast to pretty much every other first world country which doesn't do that?

Rolfe.

Don't you believe him.

The USA still has - in principle if not in practice - a criminal justice system that believes that no innocent person shall be punished for a crime s/he didn't commit.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

The USA still has - in principle if not in practice - a criminal justice system that believes that no innocent person shall be punished for a crime s/he didn't commit.

Unless it's to sate the bloodlust of the average American moron voter.

 

[John Jones]

Unless it's to sate the bloodlust of the average American moron voter.

I said "in principle, if not in practice"

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As I understand it, we know that he DID commit the crime. The only debate was whether he was the actual trigger-puller, but all parties to the crime can be convicted of the same offenses and given the same sentence, so the DNA evidence doesn't even make him ineligible for the death penalty.

This.

 

[elgarak]

Exactly. Except that he was...ummm...proven guilty.

You were commenting on his other crimes. I was referring to this comment.

 

[brenn]

Look what you wrote.

Edit to add: Folks, no True Amerkins(tm) feel this way.

Certainly they do. Every American of ordinary intelligence, who supports the death penalty (which seems to be the majority) knows, and therefore accepts, that innocent people can be convicted and sentenced to death. Your broad generalization is foolish.

 

[brenn]

The USA still has - in principle if not in practice - a criminal justice system that believes that no innocent person shall be punished for a crime s/he didn't commit.

No, we don't. We have a system that believes that "no innocent person should be punished for a crime s/he didn't commit." However, like every country with a legal system, even yours, we know and accept that mistakes can be made. We have eliminated them to a far greater extent than other system and even the Europeans don't approach our level of protection for the rights of defendants.

However, any intelligent person understands that the system cannot be perfect, simply because it relies on people to work. To claim it should be perfect is simply to display ignorance of the system - it's as dumb as arguing that the motor in my car should be 100% efficient in turning fuel into motion.

 

[timhau]

It boggles the mind how people cling to the idea that Capital Punishment is acceptable.

I think it's perfectly acceptable, if the justice system that distributes punishments is worthy of that kind of power. I know of no justice system that is, but in principle I find no problem with Capital Punishment itself.

 

[3point14]

The incident, and the subsequent 'It doesn't matter, he was guilty anyway/guilty of something else' type comments on here, certainly don't do anything to quash the (possibly false) assumption that large parts of the rest of the world have that the US is a little bloodthirsty when chasing after criminals and has a serious hard-on for executing people.
I suspect that the US (inasmuch as one can subscibe a single attitude to about 300m people) doesn't really care what the rest of the world thinks.

 

[Cainkane1]

Americas justice system isn't perfect but we try. You can't just execute a person even if its been proven they are guilty. The appeals process takes years. Here in Georgia a woman wanted a light skinned baby so she made friends with a white woman pregnant with her black husbands child. They lured the white lady to a secluded house and cut the baby ou of her.

The evidence against them was overwhelming. The baby was recovered at the murderers house and there was mountains of other evidence including people who had heard her say what she planned to do.

She was sentenced to die 15 years ago but she hasn't been executed yet.

 

[I Am The Scum]

As I understand it, we know that he DID commit the crime. The only debate was whether he was the actual trigger-puller, but all parties to the crime can be convicted of the same offenses and given the same sentence, so the DNA evidence doesn't even make him ineligible for the death penalty.

Are you saying that Jones was complicit in the robbery, and thus guilty of felony murder? I didn't see anything in the article indicating that this was the case. Could you point it out to me?

Good riddance to him. Hopefully him knowing that he was being executed for a crime that he didn't commit (Well, he did, but he just didn't pull the trigger) made his death that much more painful.

What's the point of this? Is there something good that can be achieved by causing others to suffer? If so, please point it out for me. Thanks.

 

[commandlinegamer]

I've been looking for more sources regarding this. There's some information here which has one source which states he was identified by a witness but doesn't really give any more detail beyond that; possibly one would have to look at the court transcripts.

Of the execution itself, it reports him as apologizing to the victims family whilst elsewhere it says he said "I'm sorry for your loss" which is not necessarily an admission of guilt or an apology.

 

[I Ratant]

Unless it's to sate the bloodlust of the average American moron voter.

.
Many of the miscarriages (this one is only a detour) in American (any country) judicial system are due to the political ambitions of the prosecutor, who do withhold or manufacture evidence for a conviction.
In this case, the trash was taken out.

 

[3point14]

The general attitude seems to be that it doesn't matter that the process was broken/corrupted/subverted/whatever, because the result was the right one.

Personally, I don't think that's a great idea. If people are going to be killed by the state, then, for me, the crossing of t's and the dotting of i's is as important as the result.

 

[brenn]

Are you saying that Jones was complicit in the robbery, and thus guilty of felony murder? I didn't see anything in the article indicating that this was the case. Could you point it out to me?

No problem:

Claude Jones always claimed that he wasn’t the man who walked into an East Texas liquor store in 1989 and shot the owner.
***
Jones and an accomplice named Kerry Daniel Dixon pulled into Zell’s liquor store in the East Texas town of Point Blank, about 80 miles northeast of Houston. They had a .357 magnum revolver given to them by a third man, Timothy Jordan.

Either Jones or Dixon remained in the pickup truck, while the other went inside and shot the store’s owner, 44-year-old Allen Hilzendager, three times and made off with several hundred dollars from the cash register.

The question is, which of them committed the shooting?

The article indicates they were both guilty of robbery and murder - as a participant in the robbery, Jones didn't even have to know the murder would be committed.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Good riddance to him. Hopefully him knowing that he was being executed for a crime that he didn't commit (Well, he did, but he just didn't pull the trigger) made his death that much more painful.

Do you object to subjecting them to the most painful death possible? Like being hung drawn and quartered?

 

[Rolfe]

Many of the miscarriages (this one is only a detour) in American (any country) judicial system are due to the political ambitions of the prosecutor, who do withhold or manufacture evidence for a conviction.

Any country? I understand this odd American system where people are elected as judges or whatever, but I don't know anywhere else it applies.

I think police and law enforcement do manufacture evidence for convictions. They certainly did in England in the 1970s. I couldn't say if it still goes on quite so blatantly, but the more subtle processes of pressing questionable findings way beyond what they really support and employing experts to back up the prosecution's take on the facts certainly still happens.

It's not about political ambitions as such though. It's about desire to "solve the case" and be successful at the job and get good reports and good crime clear-up statistics.

I'm not sure how much difference it makes though.

Rolfe.

 

[I Ratant]

Do you object to subjecting them to the most painful death possible? Like being hung drawn and quartered?

.
Being hanged, drawn and quartered is a terrible thing for the executioner to have to do, with all the blood and screaming and writhing.
Must be painful to the psyche.
A proper hanging is over in seconds.
Saddam's for instance.

 

[Architect]

.... Jones didn't even have to know the murder would be committed.

Oh that's okay then, eh???

And you call yourselves civicilised.

 

[I Ratant]

Any country? I understand this odd American system where people are elected as judges or whatever, but I don't know anywhere else it applies.

I think police and law enforcement do manufacture evidence for convictions. They certainly did in England in the 1970s. I couldn't say if it still goes on quite so blatantly, but the more subtle processes of pressing questionable findings way beyond what they really support and employing experts to back up the prosecution's take on the facts certainly still happens.

It's not about political ambitions as such though. It's about desire to "solve the case" and be successful at the job and get good reports and good crime clear-up statistics.

I'm not sure how much difference it makes though.

Rolfe.

.
I would expect the number of miscarriages in a country that follows Sharia would be disproportionate to the usual number in countries with established judicial and forensic proceeding.
"Good reports and good crime clear up statistics" look good during the campaign for the next office.
The Leo Frank case in Georgia for one, where the prosecutor took the conviction (and subsequent lynching, in the presence of a Georgia Superior Court justice) to the governorship.