View Story | 71 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
And again, I am not familiar with the facts of the case to say that this was the only evidence out there.
The question of whether there was enough evidence for the death penalty is somewhat different than the question of guilt or innocence, don't you agree?
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:31:10 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
And the application of the death penalty makes the question of guilt or innocennce a moot point now.
That's the problem.
Lying can never save us from another lie - Vaclav Havel
by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:34:46 AM PDT
innocence. And I am pointing out that yuo don't really have much support for that claim.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:39:46 AM PDT
If there is no crime, there is no guilt.
There is NO credible evidence of a crime.
by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:42:26 AM PDT
based on an opinion formed many years after the fact. that is not really bullet-proof evidence if you ask me.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:48:42 AM PDT
If the complete lack of evidence that there was a crime at all isn't good enough for you, what would be?
by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:50:13 AM PDT
enough. But an OPINION that there is lack of evidence is not enough.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:55:03 AM PDT
If it lets you sleep better at night to live in the fantasy that we never execute the innocent, fine, but that just isn't the real world we live in.
by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:03:30 PM PDT
hunting for a long time for a case where it could be shown that an innocent man has been executed. So far that has not happened. This MAY be that case, but so far the evidence that it is, is just not there.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:10:19 PM PDT
MAYBE. Even the people who compiled the report say MAYBE. But you are absolutely positively sure that there is NO EVIDENCE.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:58:55 AM PDT
and the article shows that guilt was not proved.
Therefore, by definition, the person is innocent, albeit maybe not exonerated.
When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.
by onanyes on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:12:40 PM PDT
Now there are questions about the reliability of the evidence. that does not mean that he is innocent.
Convictions are not set aside simply because someone throws doubts on the proof at trial. These doubts do not automatically mean that te evidence at trial must be disregarded.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:23:36 PM PDT
He would be found "innocent" because his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
That doesn't mean that the jury might not convict anyway.
by onanyes on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:05:45 PM PDT
to a new trial in the first place.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:28:21 PM PDT
If only the prosecuter had looked at the new evidence and had the courage to admit he was wrong and dropped the charges, rather than hanging on to an unjust conviction.
by Muwarr90 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:49:27 PM PDT
is in place, teh prosecution can't "drop the charges." It could choose not to oppose or even support a motion for a new trial, but even then there is no guarantee that it will be granted, because the standard for new trial must still be satisfied.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:54:15 PM PDT
is that, on moral grounds, this person was convicted and put to death even though, after the fact, there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
That to me, is unjust, even if it might be "legal" (I admit that I don't know law).
by onanyes on Tue May 02, 2006 at 02:12:39 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 71 comments