Texas execution - DNA evidence debunked 10 years on

[boooeee]

Oh that's okay then, eh???

And you call yourselves civicilised.

I realize you're probably trolling, but...

Common Purpose

The doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions which imputes criminal liability on the participants to a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise. A common incidence of the application of the rule is to impute criminal liability for assaulting a person with a knife, on all the participants to a riot who knew, or were reckless as to knowing, that one of their number had a knife and might use it. Even when the imputed participants did not actually have knives themselves.

 

[I Am The Scum]

No problem:


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.

And this sets up an odd legal paradox, from what I can see.

The article states that for a murder conviction to stick, something more than accomplice testimony is required. What if Jones was convicted of the robbery using only such testimony? Could he be convicted of felony murder at that point?

On one hand, conspiracy in a crime is sufficient to warrant a felony murder conviction.
On the other hand, the absence of physical evidence denotes insufficiency of a murder conviction.

So what happens then?

 

[quadraginta]

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.

So Americans (perhaps of above average intelligence) who choose not to support the death penalty can accept that a result of not having a death penalty will be that innocent people are not executed. Why is that foolish?

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.

Why should we accept that fatal, irreversible mistakes must be made?

Can you demonstrate, beyond your asserting it as fact, that we have eliminated irreversible, fatal mistakes to a greater extent than other systems with no death penalty, since that is the subject you are addressing?

For that matter, can you even demonstrate that "Europeans don't approach our level of protection for the rights of defendants."? Considering the rather stark and substantial difference in rates of conviction and incarceration compared to the U.S., which puts a far higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any country in Europe (or most of the world), this claim seems to lack merit.

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.

That is a remarkably childish attempt at analogy. Maybe you should be comparing the fuel efficiency of a Model T Ford with a new Mini-Cooper or Volkswagen.

Would you be willing to state, as a percentage of the total, how many innocent people you believe it is okay to murder through the imperfect application of our laws in an effort to insure the execution of the guilty? Is 1% okay? How about 10%? Is 25% too many?

What's your cut-off limit?

Remember. We don't need to kill any innocent people with our justice system. It is only a choice we have made as a society. It is a choice which reflects on our values and sincerity as a society supposedly championing freedom and human rights.

 

[Architect]

I realize you're probably trolling, but...

Common Purpose

Even though my own country doesn't employ Common Purpose in the way you suggest, I'm familiar with the concept. What I'm frankly amazed at is the poster using it to say its "okay" that the wrong person was executed.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Even though my own country doesn't employ Common Purpose in the way you suggest, I'm familiar with the concept. What I'm frankly amazed at is the poster using it to say its "okay" that the wrong person was executed.

The poster is not saying it is OK that the wrong person was executed.

The poster is saying that the person that was executed would have been executed regardless of the evidence at issue.

Hair match => murder => execution

Hair Doesn't Match => felony murder => execution

The DNA evidence was not pivotal in determining the punishment.

As a Texan I find errors of this nature very disturbing reminders of how our system is not perfect and problems in the criminal justice system should not lead to irreversible consequences. That said, this case may not be a poster child for the anti-death penalty movement, even if it is enlightening.

 

[Delscottio]

The poster is not saying it is OK that the wrong person was executed.

The poster is saying that the person that was executed would have been executed regardless of the evidence at issue.

Hair match => murder => execution

Hair Doesn't Match => felony murder => execution

The DNA evidence was not pivotal in determining the punishment.

The big problem with that argument is the assumption of a guilty verdict for the "2nd" trial. I haven't looked into the details much ,so I could be wrong, but it appears to be one witness (not the greatest witness either)placing him at the scene?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Even though my own country doesn't employ Common Purpose in the way you suggest, I'm familiar with the concept. What I'm frankly amazed at is the poster using it to say its "okay" that the wrong person was executed.

If their position was that all the robbers should have been executed, which is how I read the invocation of the doctrine, it's less amazing.

eta:Apparently, I hadn't refreshed this window in a couple of hours. Intent of the poster has been clarified, but I'll leave this because I think it's a logical extension of the argument.

 

[brenn]

So Americans (perhaps of above average intelligence) who choose not to support the death penalty can accept that a result of not having a death penalty will be that innocent people are not executed. Why is that foolish?

I never said that was foolish - I said your broad generalization was foolish, which is very clear in the comment you quoted. Reading is fundamental.

Why should we accept that fatal, irreversible mistakes must be made?

Because we know there is no perfect legal system. That seems pretty simple. It is only practical to require 100% accuracy if a perfect system is possible.

Can you demonstrate, beyond your asserting it as fact, that we have eliminated irreversible, fatal mistakes to a greater extent than other systems with no death penalty, since that is the subject you are addressing?

I didn't make that claim.

For that matter, can you even demonstrate that "Europeans don't approach our level of protection for the rights of defendants."?

Yes, easily, if I had the time to type a small law library in here. If you are curious, however, I'd suggest law school, where you can take course that address international and foreign law. Can I answetr it in a comment here? No. I satisifed my curiosity in law school.

Considering the rather stark and substantial difference in rates of conviction and incarceration compared to the U.S., which puts a far higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any country in Europe (or most of the world), this claim seems to lack merit.

Your claim seems to be that a higher percentage of citizens in prison means less protection for the accused. It does not. Briefly, longer sentences and more serious treatment of crimes, as well as a more extensive law enforcement "industry" easily explain that difference here.

That is a remarkably childish attempt at analogy. Maybe you should be comparing the fuel efficiency of a Model T Ford with a new Mini-Cooper or Volkswagen.

Fior a childish analogy, it seems to have gone over your head. Ay least far enough so that this response, like others above, doesn't even address the comment you quoted.

Would you be willing to state, as a percentage of the total, how many innocent people you believe it is okay to murder through the imperfect application of our laws in an effort to insure the execution of the guilty? Is 1% okay? How about 10%? Is 25% too many?

How is that relevant to the argument? Even the harshest critics of our legal system and government in general can't make a serious claim that anything close to even 1% of criminals are wrongfully convicted. Those percentages are, therefore, not even remotely relevant to my comments.
What's your cut-off limit?

 

[brenn]

Oh that's okay then, eh???

And you call yourselves civicilised.

Yes to both.

Regarding civilization, its most fundamental purpose is to use violence against people on behalf of the group. We are, at the most basic level, living together in "civilized" (or "civicilised") groups in order to defend our group against outsider with violence and to defend our group against internal noncomformists with violence. So punishment, including execution, is the most "civilized" thing we do.

 

[dirtywick]

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.

Aren't you a veterinarian?

 

[Architect]

If their position was that all the robbers should have been executed, which is how I read the invocation of the doctrine, it's less amazing.

eta:Apparently, I hadn't refreshed this window in a couple of hours. Intent of the poster has been clarified, but I'll leave this because I think it's a logical extension of the argument.

Yes, I follow their basic premise. What concerns me is that (a) they consider the application of the common purpose doctrine to be reasonable and (b) therefore don't give a monkey's about whether the dead chap is guilty or not.

In a way I think it's symptomatic of a particularly American (by which I mean the US) mindset when it comes to crime, see by way of example the posts on the "This Kid has no Conscience" thread. And the irony is, of course, that there's no evidence that this "Ballbuster" approach to punishment reduces crime figures.

 

[quadraginta]

So Americans (perhaps of above average intelligence) who choose not to support the death penalty can accept that a result of not having a death penalty will be that innocent people are not executed. Why is that foolish?

I never said that was foolish - I said your broad generalization was foolish, which is very clear in the comment you quoted. Reading is fundamental.

I made no broad generalization. In fact, I made no generalization at all. I had not made any other comment in this thread.

Reading is fundamental.

Why should we accept that fatal, irreversible mistakes must be made?

Because we know there is no perfect legal system. That seems pretty simple. It is only practical to require 100% accuracy if a perfect system is possible.

We do not have to have a perfect system to refrain from employing a patently imperfect one. All that is needful is to choose one which is less imperfect.

Can you demonstrate, beyond your asserting it as fact, that we have eliminated irreversible, fatal mistakes to a greater extent than other systems with no death penalty, since that is the subject you are addressing?

I didn't make that claim.

Of course you did. I cut and pasted your very own words. Are you going to attempt a semantic escape from the intent of your statement?

For that matter, can you even demonstrate that "Europeans don't approach our level of protection for the rights of defendants."?

Yes, easily, if I had the time to type a small law library in here. If you are curious, however, I'd suggest law school, where you can take course that address international and foreign law. Can I answetr it in a comment here? No. I satisifed my curiosity in law school.

You sure use a lot of words to admit you mean "no" while you're pretending to say "yes".

Considering the rather stark and substantial difference in rates of conviction and incarceration compared to the U.S., which puts a far higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any country in Europe (or most of the world), this claim seems to lack merit.

Your claim seems to be that a higher percentage of citizens in prison means less protection for the accused. It does not. Briefly, longer sentences and more serious treatment of crimes, as well as a more extensive law enforcement "industry" easily explain that difference here.

Less protection for the accused could also easily explain such a result. How would you propose to establish one explanation as more likely. Would you suggest that we have that many more actually guilty people in the U.S.?

That is a remarkably childish attempt at analogy. Maybe you should be comparing the fuel efficiency of a Model T Ford with a new Mini-Cooper or Volkswagen.

Fior a childish analogy, it seems to have gone over your head. Ay least far enough so that this response, like others above, doesn't even address the comment you quoted.

You explain why total perfection is the only possible alternative to a single particular imperfection and perhaps we can find some merit in your attempt at analogy.

Would you be willing to state, as a percentage of the total, how many innocent people you believe it is okay to murder through the imperfect application of our laws in an effort to insure the execution of the guilty? Is 1% okay? How about 10%? Is 25% too many?

How is that relevant to the argument? Even the harshest critics of our legal system and government in general can't make a serious claim that anything close to even 1% of criminals are wrongfully convicted. Those percentages are, therefore, not even remotely relevant to my comments.

The harshest critics of the system we use to find people deserving of capital punishment have clearly proven that the the percentage of wrongful convictions resulting in a death sentence is well in excess of 1%. Around ten times that much. It is no great reach to wonder if the ones which have not been proven might be equally flawed, since the difficulty of effecting an exoneration is as great as it is.

What's your cut-off limit?

Mine is zero. No capital punishment means that no one will be executed by the state for a crime they didn't commit.

Any concession to error beyond that demands an explanation of why it is beneficial to our society to permit such mistakes.

The peak homicide rate in the U.S. in the last twenty years was ~1 per 10,000 or 0.001%, Recently it has been around half that. For us to be less guilty as a society of murdering the innocent than the people we would punish with death for such a transgression our rate of erroneous execution would have to be less than that.

Otherwise we, as a society, are as guilty as the people we execute.

From a less statistical perspective, any at all would make us as guilty.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes to both.

Regarding civilization, its most fundamental purpose is to use violence against people on behalf of the group. We are, at the most basic level, living together in "civilized" (or "civicilised") groups in order to defend our group against outsider with violence and to defend our group against internal noncomformists with violence. So punishment, including execution, is the most "civilized" thing we do.

What an odd perspective. I'd be more prone to suggest that a "most fundamental purpose" of civilization is to minimize the use of violence as a problem solving tool, not merely to sanction it. As a species we have demonstrated no discernible reticence towards violent behavior. It is civilization which has offered social solutions which are alternatives.

You appear to be suggesting that civilization somehow provides a green light for violence which did not exist in its absence. This is an intriguing concept.

 

[brenn]

What an odd perspective. I'd be more prone to suggest that a "most fundamental purpose" of civilization is to minimize the use of violence as a problem solving tool, not merely to sanction it. As a species we have demonstrated no discernible reticence towards violent behavior. It is civilization which has offered social solutions which are alternatives.

You appear to be suggesting that civilization somehow provides a green light for violence which did not exist in its absence. This is an intriguing concept.

If you think that is my suggestion, you didn't think about what I wrote, or civilization, very much. We didn't come together in groups to minimize violence - there is simply no basis for that statement. We came together for protection from violence - that protection is achieved by using the greater power of the group to defend against violence from outsiders and control violence within...using violence. I can't imagine how you could think that's an odd perspective.

 

[brenn]

I made no broad generalization. In fact, I made no generalization at all. I had not made any other comment in this thread.

Reading is fundamental.

You are correct, the section you quoted was a response to John Jones, to which you responded as if it had been a response to you. Regardless, your response showed that you didn't udnerstand the post to which you responded, so the "reading" comment stands.

Of course you did. I cut and pasted your very own words. Are you going to attempt a semantic escape from the intent of your statement?

Yes, you cut and pasted my words, you just don't seem to be able to understand them. I referred to the legal system having greater rpotections for the rights of the accused. You simply misstated it in your subsequent post/challenge as a claim about the legal system. Naturally, a system which does not execute would have fewer wrongful executions, but I didn't address a particular type of punishment - only the fairness of the legal system.

You sure use a lot of words to admit you mean "no" while you're pretending to say "yes".

Less protection for the accused could also easily explain such a result. How would you propose to establish one explanation as more likely. Would you suggest that we have that many more actually guilty people in the U.S.?

Arguing law with you is a little like arguing physics with someone who has never had a science class. My remark was intended to mean that giving you an entire legal education within this thread is impossible.

The harshest critics of the system we use to find people deserving of capital punishment have clearly proven that the the percentage of wrongful convictions resulting in a death sentence is well in excess of 1%. Around ten times that much. It is no great reach to wonder if the ones which have not been proven might be equally flawed, since the difficulty of effecting an exoneration is as great as it is.

Yes - they've proven it like Uri Geller has proven a person can bend spoons with mental powers. In other words...no. I can find people who have proven bigfoot is real, but that won't make it true, or even a claim endorsed by the more reasonable bigfooters.

Mine is zero. No capital punishment means that no one will be executed by the state for a crime they didn't commit.

You may be proud of that - I would be ashamed.

 

[Belz...]

It is acceptable to me to execute the perfectly inniocent by mistake on occcasion

I hope you're never on a jury if I'm the accused.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I'm sorry, but that post is just downright evil. Wishing pain on another person ?

 

[Belz...]

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

That's very frightening. So in short, if you commit a robbery with other people, and one of them kills an innocent bystander without your knowledge or consent, you could be executed for that ? Sounds a bit weird.

 

[Belz...]

Because we know there is no perfect legal system. That seems pretty simple. It is only practical to require 100% accuracy if a perfect system is possible.

Except that without executions, your imperfect system's bad decisions are reversible, or at least compensat...compensatable.

 

[Belz...]

You may be proud of that - I would be ashamed.

If YOU were on death row for a crime you didn't commit and you were currently participating in this thread, would you still say that ?