State Kills Innocent Person
by KevinMay 4th, 2006
A man executed in Texas for deaths related to arson was innocent: the fire was not arson:
Four of the nation’s top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and on Tuesday they called for an official reinvestigation of the case.
In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters were based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.
… The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence after an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by generations of arson investigators who relied on what they were told.
The report’s conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, “Forensics Under the Microscope,” which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions.
In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and “relied upon by fire investigators” was the type of evidence “routinely created by accidental fires.”
… The arson report singled out the testimony at Willingham’s trial of Manuel Vasquez, a deputy state fire marshal, who said he found numerous indicators in the debris that he interpreted as evidence that Willingham intentionally set the fire.
“Each and every one of the `indicators’ listed by Mr. Vasquez means absolutely nothing,” the report states.
This was inevitable. There is no way to be one hundred percent sure that one hundred percent of the people who are executed are guilty. Knowing that, the country still continues to put people to death. It is as if Ford built a car knowing that some small percentage of them would spontaneously combust at highway speeds and went ahead and sold them anyway. We would call the executive who green-lighted the sales a murderer and probably put him in jail. Yet when public servants devise a justice in which they know some small percentage of people executed will be innocent, they are a law and order candidate. Some of them with clever campaign managers even manage to become President.
Categories: Legal Issues |
Kevin:
I’m so glad you posted this. I read an article yesterday regard the Willingham execution and found it chilling. There are capital punishment apologists who acknowledge that a small percentage innocents will be put to death, but dismiss it as a necessary part of the system. Clearly I think that is unacceptable.
It’s ironic that many of our friends on the right who decrie big government have no problem with government becoming involved in areas they shoud stay out of ie. life and death decisions, family planning, and what people do in their bedrooms.
The experts did not find that the fire was not arson, they found that it couldn’t be proved to be arson. There’s a big difference between the two.
There is a common error amoung anti-death penalty activists of conflating a insufficient proof of guilt with proof of innocence. The former is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but confusing the two isn’t going to help matters.
Putting an innocent person in a cage for life is also very harsh. Although, it is true that when a live person’s innocence is discovered he can be released, a percentage of innocent people will not have their innocence confirmed. Therefore, life sentences should not be imposed. Right? As long as they plan to kill a family member in their bedrooms, the government should stay out of it.
I used to be a supporter of capital punishment, but I no longer am. Irreversibility is one reason why I changed my mind.
I don’t think the automobile manufacturer comparison lends credence to your argument. A significant number of people are killed each year by mechanical malfunctions and/or design flaws. This happens every year. Automobile manufacturers know this and still build and sell cars. They do their best, but they and the purchasing public know that engineering decisions will claim lives every year.
Stormy Dragon wrote “There is a common error amoung anti-death penalty activists of conflating a insufficient proof of guilt with proof of innocence.”
While not being able to prove a person is guilty may not necessarily mean he is innocent, the state presumes he is innocent. That is the basis of our system. Willingham was convicted based on evidence that the fire was arson; that evidence was faulty. The state has to presume he was innocent. To do otherwise, particularly in a capital trial, undermines our system.
As Ted wrote, irreversibility is a key factor in capital cases. I maintain that executing someone who may have not committed a crime is unacceptable.
Fred:
Although, it is true that when a live person’s innocence is discovered he can be released, a percentage of innocent people will not have their innocence confirmed. Therefore, life sentences should not be imposed. Right?
Nice try, but the logic doesn’t hold. If you imprison someone and they’re found to be innocent, it’s at least possible to engage in some attempt to right the wrong that was committed. Execution, on the other hand, is final.
Stormy:
There is a common error amoung anti-death penalty activists of conflating a insufficient proof of guilt with proof of innocence.
A distinction without a difference. If someone hasn’t been sufficiently proven guilty, we’ve got no business executing them.
>A distinction without a difference. If someone hasn’t
>been sufficiently proven guilty, we’ve got no business
>executing them.
I agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s not automatically innocent.
As for the irreversability argument, I think it’s a red herring. Locking an innocent person up in jail for life is nearly as heinous as executing them. The possibility of exoneration is not the same as actual exoneration, and merely getting rid of the death penalty does nothing to actually clear the names of innocent prisoners.
We’d be better off fixing the underlying problems with the justice system rather than satisfying ourselves with cosmetic changes.
Kevin, my response was to the statement from Janusz where he said, “There are capital punishment apologists who acknowledge that a small percentage innocents will be put to death, but dismiss it as a necessary part of the system.”
I don’t know of anyone who is dismissive of an innocent person being put to death and basically saying, “Oops.” I don’t think anyone wants a small percentage of innocent people to be put to death or spend 40 years in a cage.
Stormy Dragon wrote: “I agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s not automatically innocent.”
That is irrelevant. You shouldn’t execute people who haven’t been proved guilty. In Willingham’s case the evidence was apparently so shoddy that it’s most probable the fire wasn’t arson at all.
“Locking an innocent person up in jail for life is nearly as heinous as executing them.”
Agreed, but if Willingham were alive today he could be freed and go on with his life if the courts determined it was justified.
It is as if Ford built a car knowing that some small percentage of them would spontaneously combust at highway speeds and went ahead and sold them anyway. We would call the executive who green-lighted the sales a murderer and probably put him in jail.
This is some kind of subtle irony, right?
Because of course Ford did exactly that. The infamous Ford Pinto of the 1970s was rushed into production after Ford’s own tests showed that it almost invariably burst into flames in even relatively low-speed rear-end collisions, and in spite of the fact that Ford had numerous technologies available that would have prevented the problem, some costing as low as $5 per car, that it refused to use. They knew exactly what they were doing; they not only did it, they lied about it, lobbied Congress to prevent changes in safety standards that would have ended it, and blamed their own victims in court for the accidents caused by their design - all of it knowingly. The sordid tale here.
The executive personally responsible for the car design parameters, the deliberate decision to begin production with known safety flaws, the subsequent coverup, and the 500 - 1,000 deaths that resulted, was Lee Iacocca. He has never been held accountable in the slightest way. He became CEO of Chrysler at the time of the government bailout, amassed a personal fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and was seriously touted as a Republican presidential candidate (murder not being a disqualifying factor for Republicans). He briefly sparked a weird fashion craze for contrasting-collar dress shirts, his autobiography became a best-seller (how dreary is that: millions of people shelling out to read the life story of . . . a corporate executive?), and he has been credited as the first example of the “star CEO” delusion that has destroyed the economy over the last two decades.
He is literally a cold-blooded murderer. He is a pristine, living example of the “funny men” Woody Guthrie recalled, who would “rob you . . . with a fountain pen” - although he should have said “kill” in this case. Iacocca deserves to be prosecuted as the head of an organized crime enterprise engaged in serial murder. He has been hailed from every corner and rewarded with the most extreme of luxury, privileges, and admiration. He is a puling shit of a human being, and he killed amost 1,000 people for $5 a head. Nothing was done about it.
KTK, I certainly agree that Ford made a mistake with the Pinto gas tank. However, your comment has included some urban legend. The Mother Jones article you cite is infamous for overestimating the number of Pinto gas tank fatalities. The NHTSA estimates the total number of fatalities attributable to gas tank fires at 27. Which is a far cry from 500 to 1000.
Subcompacts were all fairly dangerous cars in the days before high strength plastics, air bags, and other design advances that have since improved crash viability in little, lightweight cars. On a per vehicle basis, for the years 1975 and 1976 (before which NHTSA data is not available), the Pinto had fewer fatalities than its competitors. Of course this doesn’t make for as effective a rant as you posted, but them’s the facts.
Stormy:
It disturbs me that you don’t agree that some possibility at rectifying a mistaken conviction, however small, is vastly superior to no possibility whatsoever.
As long as there’s any reasonable chance that someone could be wrongly executed, I don’t see how we have any business executing anyone. It’s not as if it serves justice anyway — executing a murderer doesn’t bring back those he murdered.
Fred:
I don’t know of anyone who is dismissive of an innocent person being put to death and basically saying, “Oops.”
You obviously haven’t encountered Xrlq, who essentially argues that because (based on some BS statistics from a deeply flawed study) each execution “prevents” on average eighteen murders, the occasional wrongful execution is still okay.
Never heard of Xriq. If executions prevent other murders, that is only a side benefit. Execution is the ultimate statement by society as to the great value of life. Execution is about punishment and justice, not prevention.
Fred wrote: “Execution is the ultimate statement by society as to the great value of life.”
Actually Fred, capital punishment send exactly the opposite message. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their own kind.”
I have to say, “Execution is the ultimate statement by society as to the great value of life.” belongs right up there with “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Yogi Berra must be turning in his not yet dug grave.
I guess I had better change my opinion if it doesn’t agree with George Bernard Shaw.
We have varying sentences for criminals depending on the crime. A thief who enters an unoccupied home and steals possessions is not given the same sentence as an armed bank robber who threatens the lives of the employees and the customers of the bank. Why? The answer is obvious.
Of course, I don’t expect people who believe it is okay to kill unborn precious babies to highly value the lives of innocent victims.
Once again, Ted shows his dishonesty in comparing my views with someone who wants to destroy a village. Your lack of intellectual depth and integrity is appalling.
Fred wrote: “I guess I had better change my opinion if it doesn’t agree with George Bernard Shaw.”
No, you don’t have to agree with Shaw. I just thought his quote was appropriate to this thread, and I happen to agree with him.
“We have varying sentences for criminals depending on the crime. A thief who enters an unoccupied home and steals possessions is not given the same sentence as an armed bank robber who threatens the lives of the employees and the customers of the bank.”
Of course we do. No one would argue otherwise. And as stated in this thread and others, life imprisonment is a harsh sentence appropriate to horrific crimes. I don’t see this as a justification for capital punishment, particularly since it is applied so arbitrarily.
“Of course, I don’t expect people who believe it is okay to kill unborn precious babies to highly value the lives of innocent victims.”
Of course I value the lives of innocent victims. As stated before, there are other harsh sentences that are just as appropriate to these crimes.
“Once again, Ted shows his dishonesty in comparing my views with someone who wants to destroy a village. Your lack of intellectual depth and integrity is appalling.”
Hey Fred, is it possible for you to present your ideas without resorting to ad hominem attacks? It might make you seem a little more credible.
Fred:
Execution is the ultimate statement by society as to the great value of life.
That explains why Jesus was such an enthusiastic supporter. I especially liked the part where he himself, being without sin, cast the first stone, thus allowing the others to bludgeon the woman to death.
I must have missed the passage where he condemned execution for murder. I’m sure you will be glad to point it out to me.
After all, the sixth commandment reads: Thou shalt not kill, unless it is sanctioned by the state.
>It disturbs me that you don’t agree that some
>possibility at rectifying a mistaken conviction,
>however small, is vastly superior to no possibility
>whatsoever.
If we had infinite resources, then yes it would be. But that’s not the case, and political activism that would be much more effectively spent fixing the problems that got them convicted to begin with.
Half a loaf may be better than none, but not if the pursuit of that half loaf is what cost you the full loaf.
Janusz;
If Shaw is right, doesn’t that mean we are teaching people to kidnap every time the state puts a person in jail? Or teaching them to extort every time it collects taxes? It’s the deed that teaches, right?
Fred, sorry my post mislead you. I was not comparing your view to anything. I was comparing the irony of your statement to the My Lai quote, which is renowned for its irony. Hence the Yogi Berra reference. Duh.
To be clear, I find it ironical that you see the destruction of something (a human life) as a statement of its value.
Annoying Old Guy wrote: “If Shaw is right, doesn’t that mean we are teaching people to kidnap every time the state puts a person in jail?”
Not at all. Shaw is not saying that criminals shouldn’t be punished. Capital punishment is not the only suitable punishment for horrific crimes, as stated in this thread and others. Having the state kill someone does not give life value, it cheapens it.
Janusz;
You completely missed my point. Shaw says “If the State does X, then it justifies citizens doing X” where X is “kill a person”. My question is, why can’t X be “lock people in a room”? Or “take money by force”? Doesn’t the state set as much of an example in those cases? Or is X magically limited to capital punishment for because it’s politically convenient?
Shaw never said “If the State does X, then it justifies citizens doing X”.
In fact, he was saying just the opposite, that because a person kills, it doesn’t justify the state to do the same. And killing, regardless of who does it, only perpetuates violence.
Janusz said: And killing, regardless of who does it, only perpetuates violence.
Fred: Does that include the violence against innocent unborn babies or is that okay? Fifty million dead babies would like to know.
The NHTSA estimates the total number of fatalities attributable to gas tank fires at 27.
At the time of the NHTSA’s recall order in 1978 (aggressively delayed by Ford until after it had already changed the Pinto model design, thus requiring no substantive changes by Ford), 27 deaths had been officially investigated by the NHTSA. That says little about the total number that actually occurred. But the real issue is not how many occurred - it is that Ford knew about the problem ahead of time and deliberately chose not to address it. When you get to the point that the only defense of the company executive is how many people they killed at $5 a head, it’s time to rethink how defensible they are.
Fred: If the life of the mother is endangered by her pregnancy, would you insist she follow the pregnancy to full term?
There is a great deal of controversy as to when life actually begins. I do know that belief in the sanctity of life has to include all who walk and breathe, including those who commit crimes, and hey Fred, including the lives of American troops who have been sent to Iraq for a lie.
KTK, you have the facts wrong again. 27 represents the total number of deaths related to gas tank fires thru 1977 that NHTSA was aware of. From 1975 to mid 1977, when official stats were collected by NHTSA, via FARS database, 19 deaths were recorded.
These numbers are the only credible stats that exist on the subject. I agree with you that Ford was in the wrong, but when you claim “When you get to the point that the only defense of the company executive is how many people they killed…” (and I am not defending them), I counter with: when you get to the point that your prosecution relies on inflating numbers by 1800% to 3300%…
Janz: including the lives of American troops who have been sent to Iraq for a lie.
Fred: What lie?