by publius
Orwell once wrote, "[He] who controls the past, controls the future." Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently taken the lesson to heart. He's now removed a fourth member of the Texas commission responsible for investigating whether Texas (and Perry) executed an innocent man. It's whitewashing at its worst.
By now, you're probably familiar with the New Yorker article showing that Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly wrongly executed for arson and murder. In 2005, after the execution, Texas established a commission to investigate forensic errors, and the commission started reviewing the Willingham case. In the course of its review, the commission hired a nationally recognized fire expert who ultimately wrote a "scathing report" concluding that the arson investigation was a joke.
The expert was originally set to testify about his report on Friday, October 2. On Sept. 30, however, Perry suddenly replaced three members of the panel, including the chair, against their wishes. The new chair promptly canceled the hearing. More recently, Perry replaced a fourth member (he can only appoint four — other state officials appoint the remaining five members).
What's amazing is not so much that Perry replaced the panel members, but that he felt secure enough to be so brazenly corrupt about it. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
Of course, his motive is fairly clear. Perry contributed to the execution of an innocent person. And the formal recognition that Texas executed an innocent man would trigger a massive political earthquake — one that would clarify to an inattentive public the utter barbarity and immorality of Texas's criminal justice system.
So yes, I can understand Perry's motives. But it doesn't change the fact that he is acting in a profoundly immoral way. The whole thing reminds me of a banana republic dictator clumsily covering up his crimes.
But in addition to making me mad, I'm hopeful that this story will change some "hearts and minds." Specifically, I hope that social conservatives (particularly in Texas) take some time to reflect on the implications of the fact that Texas executed an innocent person — and that Rick Perry is trying to cover it up. It's hard to think of something that more directly contradicts the "culture of life."
For this reason, though, it's an area where a political coalition of social conservatives and secular progressives could do a lot of good, if the political will existed.
“And the formal recognition that Texas executed an innocent man would trigger a massive political earthquake..”
You’re kidding, right?
“But it doesn’t change the fact that he is acting in a profoundly immoral way.”
Agree.
Specifically, I hope that social conservatives (particularly in Texas) take some time to reflect on the implications of the fact that Texas executed an innocent person…
There you go again with that kidding stuff.
it’s an area where a political coalition of social conservatives and secular progressives could do a lot of good, if the political will existed
Surely the number of areas in which a coalition of social conservatives and secular progressives could do a lot of good, if only social conservatives cared about the things that secular progressives care about, is pretty much infinite.
to conservatives, the arbitrary and shady way people are executed is a feature, not a bug. It avoids absolute trust in human institutions and beuracracy, and lets god intervene to punish the wicked. besides, if you are too lazy to get rich and hired a good lawyer, you deserve it.
honestly, i think a lot of pro-death penalty folks do at some level think that people innocent of the specific crime that they’re convicted of do get executed from time to time. however, many of these folks (if they don’t just happen to think that cost is worth it anyway) manage to justify it to themselves with the thought that one generally has to be a pretty unsavory fella to get a death penalty charge to stick. with that in mind, even if the wrong guy is executed, they still can “safely” consider the result a net good for society. the principle of the whole concept is not necessarily that important to many as long as the pool of victims consistently remains in the group of people they consider to be the “no-goods”.
Just speculating, but is it possible that members are being “suddenly” replaced, “against their wishes”, at least in part because their terms are expiring? At any rate, this is facially as plausible as Democratic defenses of Clinton’s attorney firings.
Anyway, if you’re going to do any raging about this, shouldn’t you be directing some of this rage at the Texas Parole Board?
He could have reappointed them, Brett. He’d already agreed to extend the chairman’s term before he changed his mind.
Democratic defenses of Clinton’s attorney firings.
I think you mean “Republican defenses of Bush’s attorney firings”.
if you’re going to do any raging about this, shouldn’t you be directing some of this rage at the Texas Parole Board?
As far as I know, the parole board is not trying to cover up its role in Willingham’s death; Perry is. That’s what this story is about.
The difference, Ajay, is that the parole board’s role in that death looms somewhat larger: Perry can’t pardon anybody the parole board doesn’t recommend a pardon for. It was the parole board’s decision which was decisive. If the parole board isn’t trying to cover up it’s role, it’s primarily because Perry is taking almost all of the flack they deserve.
I agree Perry is engaging in damage control here, trying to prevent an executed man from being posthumously vindicated. But the complaints might be more accurately targeted if taking down Perry weren’t a political goal.
And Clinton could have reappointed the Attorneys who were investigating him when he got elected. Didn’t, though; Just the ones who weren’t.
I think when an innocent man is convicted, incarcerated for 14 years, and finally murdered by the state even though it is clear the evidence on which he was primarily convicted had been shown to be complete garbage, there is sufficient rage to go around without complaining that some of it is being directed at the Republican governor who is finally responsible for the execution of an innocent man.
The people who were fired on 30th September, had their terms expire on 1st September. Had Perry simply intended to replace them with his own appointees, presumably he would have done so earlier – and presumably, too, they would have been notified that Perry had appointees waiting in the wings to replace them. Instead, they are fired before they plan to hold a hearing about a case in which Governor Perry refused a stay of execution to allow time to examine the evidence which proved Cameron innocent.
Now to you, Brett, it may be appalling and infuriating that people are enraged at a Republican governor ensuring an innocent man is executed. After all, you’re a pro-lifer, and notoriously pro-lifers primarily care about fetal life, not about the lives of people after they’ve been born…
the other problem i have with your position here, brett, is that in almost all of your past postings, you have argued, many times quite convincingly, that the constitution is sacrosanct as written, and that all laws should be interpreted so that they best fit the guidelines of the founding fathers. here, the commission is seeking to do just that, and you are abandoning your own long stated beliefs. i dare say, you would be flipping out if the governer was a liberal democrat, and had done the exact same thing.
Jes, given the recently stated goal of fostering more comity in the comments, you may want to dial it back a bit. Rather than speculate why Brett is saying this, I think asking Brett if he is defending Perry’s decision because he agrees with the death penalty or because he believes that an elected official can rescind an appointment with no explanation or reason a month after the term begins. I would think that this would be one of those questions of rule following, which I thought that you previously excorciated people who are in the country illegally for being scofflaws.
Sorry, mixing up my addressees here. The last sentence is directed at Brett.
It wasn’t a month after the terms began. It was a month after the terms ended. My point was simply that their replacement wasn’t totally out of the blue, there was the matter of terms expiring. It’s not like he got rid of them in mid-term.
As for rule following, as a parole and pardons board, making compassionate exceptions to the rule is the board’s function. Perry, by contrast, has no power to pardon those the board thinks unworthy.
Blame where blame is due.
Perry, by contrast, has no power to pardon those the board thinks unworthy.
Perry did have the power to grant a stay of execution to allow time for examination of evidence.
He declined to do so, and Cameron was executed.
Had Perry simply wanted to change officials, he could already have done so when their term changed. He didn’t. How many of them were, just as in the firing of the US Attorneys, his own appointees?
In conservaworld the execution of an innocent man is simply so much collateral damage, and really not much to get excited about, especially if that person is poor and not white.
After all, if they are so innocent, why were they arrested in the first place?
I’ve read Brett over many years, and he’s reflected a very slow and steady decline into mindless repetition of right-wing talking points. I do think he earlier started out as actually sounding a lot more like a libertarian. I’ve seen it happen with a lot of middle aged men: those with a few conservative inclinations here and there fall off the conservative deep-end as they start socializing with those who encourage and reward mindless right-wing repetitions, in the same way that certain high school students might suddenly decide to wear wide-legged pants or become a goth.
Anyway, from Perry’s perspective, the most important thing is establishing trust in the system and trust in his governance. If the board made a mistake, it makes the whole death penalty system look bad, and if avoiding that means covering up the execution of an innocent man, it’s considered an acceptable cost of doing business. It reminds me a bit of the Catholic Church’s response to instances of child molestation by their priests: defending the system that placed them there was considered the most important priority.
Specifically, I hope that social conservatives (particularly in Texas) take some time to reflect on the implications of the fact that Texas executed an innocent person — and that Rick Perry is trying to cover it up. It’s hard to think of something that more directly contradicts the “culture of life.”
For this reason, though, it’s an area where a political coalition of social conservatives and secular progressives could do a lot of good, if the political will existed.
As a conservative, I agree completely. Although I am pro-life, I feel that there are certain crimes so heinous that those who commit them forfeit their right to life. So I support the death penalty in some abstract sense and in particular cases like Nuremberg. However, as a conservative, I’m inherently skeptical of government. I don’t think the same people who can’t deliver the mail on time should have the power to kill my fellow citizens. What Perry did is an outrage that all decent people should condemn.
After all, you’re a pro-lifer, and notoriously pro-lifers primarily care about fetal life, not about the lives of people after they’ve been born…
Jesurgislac, please believe I mean nothing personal by this statement, but it’s comments like that that make people think you’re a troll.
There are anti-abortion poeple who are also ant-death penalty. It is a significant subset of the wider anti-abortion movemment. As I understand it, the root of their objection to both abortion and the death penalty is that the individual (they see the fertilzed egg as an individual) has a soul and must have a chane to find Jesus and be redeemed. If killede, that soul loses ist’s chance.
I probably am explaining this clumsily since I’m not a Christian myself. I do know Christina who think this way and have had discussions with them. It is a point of view that I respect. I have a lot more trouble with the anti-abortion pro-death penalty folks since they can’t come up with explanation about why it is awful to kill a fiertilized egg but acceptable to kill an innocewnt p-erson who is conscious and can feel all of the strees and agony that precedes execution.
My husband, who is a Buddhist, is also opposed both to abortion, the death penalty and war on grounds similar to the Christiann view I tried to explain: every living thing is striving for personal growth toward enlightenment; to kill a living thing interrupts that growth.
ANyway, point is Perry is trying to defend the indefensible, but there are anti-abortion people who are opposed to violennce toward people in general and show their values with some consistancy. Perry isn’t one of them.
Perry is clearly over the line. Social conservatives in Texas would not, by and large, acquiesce in the execution of an innocent man. The rub lies in the phenomena that most Texans are in denial, out of a combination of ignorance and mindset, about the vagaries of the criminal justice system.
I am not convinced that Willingham is almost certainly innocent. Fire experts come to differing conclusions all the time, and what people say after the fact can be and often is as unreliable as what people say when under oath.
But that is a side issue: Perry’s canning of four members is patently a delay tactic. He will stack the deck and get the result he wants–that’s just the way he rolls. He is a disgrace.
I support the death penalty in theory and often times in practice, Timothy McVeigh being a good example of someone whose time of this earth had come to a well-needed end. That said, the procedure for resolving capital convictions is way outmoded. The concept of ‘finality of judgment’ badly needs a second look. The best I’ve been able to come up with, as an oversight mechanism, is something on the order of a post-conviction grand jury that takes a fresh look at the evidence. Citizens would be randomly drawn, evaluated for life experience, etc. and would review up to 6 cases before a new panel would be selected. The panel could commute or, for good cause shown, order a new trial.
Not every conservative in Texas buys into Perry’s program, not by a long shot. We’ll see how Kay Baily Hutchinson does in the primary–she has my money and my vote.
After all, if they are so innocent, why were they arrested in the first place?
bobbyp, you are thinking of the principle articulated by Edwin Meese during his tenure in the Reagan admin. It was stupid then, it is stupid now, but it indicates that the special cluelessness of Republicans on the way justice is administered goes back a ways.
I have a lot more trouble with the anti-abortion pro-death penalty folks since they can’t come up with explanation about why it is awful to kill a fiertilized egg but acceptable to kill an innocewnt p-erson who is conscious and can feel all of the strees and agony that precedes execution.
This is the strawest of straw men. Pro-death penalty people do not feel it is “acceptable to kill an innocent person.” The death penalty is a punishment for the crime of murder. Pro-death penalty people feel it is acceptable to kill people who are GUILTY of horrendous crimes.
This whole business about the “contradiction” between being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is beyond absurd. We are from being unable to explain the difference, wonkie. The difference is obvious: It’s OK to kill GUILTY people; it’s NOT OK to kill INNOCENT people. Fetuses generally do not commit homicide and thus do not become deserving of the death penalty.
If one wanted to be as obtuse as most liberals about, you could phrase the contradiction the other way: how can you think it’s OK to kill innocent babies when you’re too much of a bleeding heart to kill even the most ville criminals. Why is a fetus more deserving of death than someone who murders his whole family?
mckinneytexas –
Frankly, I think that anyone who votes for Perry in next year’s primary is a criminal co-conspirator in this murder. No, there is no real question about experts, certainly not here. The original investigation was not done by trained arson investigators.
Texas has managed to keep the executions running faster than any other state and made a big effort never to look back. There is no reason to think that Texas did a better job of justice in capital cases than Illinois uncovered in its research, so it is realistic to conclude that hundreds of Texans were killed by Texas for crimes they did not commit.
Too bad there is a majority of Texans who are willing to vote to kill people who don’t want to know if they have been responsible for murdering innocent men.
I really don’t see how a failsafe system can be devised to keep the innocent from being executed.
I, however, such a system was dievise I thnk that I would still be opposed to the death penalty sort of for Buddhist reasons: the person shuld stay alive in prison on the chance, howeveer slim, that he or shhe will be able to change into a better person.
People do make that change. It is pretty common, really. Inspite of how awful prison is most people who come out do on reoffened and many of the people inside do their best to get involved It seems more “pro-lefe” ( a term i do not like becasue it is so pretencious) to give people a chance to make something of their positive lives even if they ahve to do it in prison.
That was even more incoherent than usual. I might screw up letter order but usually i get word order right.
I hate pro-death penalty people who also oppose abortion. I’m pro-death, so to speak. Mostly because I’m anti-crime. The death penalty reduces crime. Abortion reduces crime. They tend to affect the same sort of people.
lj,
One of the observations made in the Illinois capital case review was that prosecutors and cops who were feeling the heat tended to go after losers whose protestations of innocence would fall on deaf ears because of their history. Their attitude could be summarized as “he may not have done this one, but he is slime, so no one cares if we execute him.” That seems to have been the case in Cameron Todd Willingham’s prosecution.
Noise,
States that execute people execute innocent people. If you don’t want to execute innocent people, you need to spend a lot more money (say the state needs to budget $1,000,000 for the defense for each case) giving a real legal defense to those accused of capital crimes or stop executing people. Right now, if you support capital punishment in the United States, you support the execution of innocent people.
The difference is obvious: It’s OK to kill GUILTY people; it’s NOT OK to kill INNOCENT people. Fetuses generally do not commit homicide and thus do not become deserving of the death penalty.
I’ll give you 10 guesses to figure out which steps you leaped past here, and the first 9 don’t count.
“But that is a side issue: Perry’s canning of four members is patently a delay tactic. He will stack the deck and get the result he wants–that’s just the way he rolls. He is a disgrace.”
I will, without reservation, stipulate that Texas has a policy on executions that ensures more innocent people will be executed than anywhere else and that is a bad thing.
Evil is not really a good word for it, I don’t know a single person anywhere (including Texas)who says it is good to execute an innocent person. There are those who defend the reality of it in any justice system where capital punishment exists, and that the deterrent effect saves more innocent lives than it costs.
I find their argument wrong but not evil.
However, I vigorously defend Perry’s right to seek the result he is looking for within the bounds of the law. Every Governor and the President, faced with an uncooperative agency, with the legal right to replace the members, would do the same thing to achieve their goals.
If you don’t like his goal, then that criticism is valid. His methods seem legal and typical of how the system works for all.
Being right (or rather, not being wrong) is the most important thing. When you can’t admit to a mistake, then this whole step-by-step descent happens. Perry is a foolish little man, but then so are so many governors, especially of Texas. Incidentally, I think Jesurgislac was quite correct, and just phrased it somewhat offensively (but no less accurately) – it is assumed that adults can take care of themselves where fetuses and children can’t, so there’s less concern in the ‘pro-life’ group for things like execution of possible (or in this case, almost certainly) innocent people. ‘Pro-life’ has been demonstrated to well beyond a shadow of a doubt to mean specifically ‘pro-very-young-life’, and almost certainly to mean ‘pro-very-young-our-kind-of-people-life’.
It might well also be a factor that it would be embarrasing and guilt-inducing to think that an innocent man was killed, so we must make sure that he stays guilty. Rationalizing our failures is one of the strong human drives.
Uh, on the pro-death penalty, anti-abortion dichotomy, in the former, the person takes another life under defined circumstances, is given a trial, the jury is charged that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is appellate review. In the latter, there is simply the termination of a pregnancy with the fetus/future human being innocent of any crime. In other words, there are distinctions that are more than valid.
I am no fan of current capital punishment practices, although the death penalty for truly capital crimes where guilt is well and truly established beyond a reasonable doubt is something I accept; neither am I ok with abortion as a means of birth control.
But the issue here is whitewashing a potential miscarriage of justice: whether Willingham was innocent of the specific charges against him is a matter that merits objective and neutral investigation.
Side note–I can’t tell if Irrumator is being childishly provocative or is just a dumbass. I will gladly take the posting hit for this foray into vulgarity.
Right now, if you support capital punishment in the United States, you support the execution of innocent people.
Thousands of people die each year because of medical mistakes. So if you support the practice of medicine in the United States, you support people dying of medical negligence. This is what passes for liberal “logic.” Pathetic.
“Perry contributed to the execution of an innocent person. And the formal recognition that Texas executed an innocent man would trigger a massive political earthquake — one that would clarify to an inattentive public the utter barbarity and immorality of Texas’s criminal justice system.”
And, IMO, this “massive political earthquake” simply won’t happen.
Side note–I can’t tell if Irrumator is being childishly provocative or is just a dumbass.
Neither. Abortion reduces crime. It’s a statistical fact. Read “The Impact of Legalized ABortion On Crime.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
Or just think about the kind of people who get abortions.
McKinney, I’m a fellow Texas and I have no problems with the death penalty in general. Also, most death penalty opponents offend me by their efforts to portray vile killers as nifty neato guys we’d all love to have a beer with. (Sr. Helen is the absolute worst here. I refuse to read or listen to that moron.)
Anyway, the standard of proof in any criminal case is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” In this case, the alleged murder weapon was the fire, and if the fire experts can’t agree that the fire was set intentionally, then there is a very big doubt that any crime committed at all, much less one justifying the death penalty. The arson investigators found evidence of accelerant — charcoal lighter fluid — on the porch, where the barbeque grill stood and therefore where lighter fluid could be expected, but failed to find similar evidence inside the house. This means they knew what to seek, where to seek it, and had the ability to perform accurate tests for accelerant. The only evidence supporting the conclusion that the fire was intentionally set was the testimony of the fire expert based on burn patters and ‘puddling,’ which has been demonstrated since then to be evidence of flashover and does not require accelerants. Consequently, I’m inclined to think Williams was actually innocent of this particular crime.
As for Perry, he failed to read or even have someone else read the clemency petition and failed to issue a stay of execution because insisting that the state kill undesirables only with good cause makes you a wimp in the contemporary Texas Republican party. Had he simply ordered a stay, he could have issued the following statement:
“Mr. Williams was convicted using the best evidence we had at the time. Now, thanks to the miracles of scientific advances since 1992, there is a reason to question that conviction. I know that our police and prosecutors did their absolute best with this case, but technology advances, and we are obligated to examine this new evidence. I still support the death penalty and our procedures in imposing it, but the severest penalty needs to be reserved for the worst criminals. If execute the wrong person, by definition we allow the guilty person to escape. Therefore, I am ordering a complete examination of the evidence in this case, and will proceed with the execution if the evidence supports it.”
Instead, because he is a lazy dimwit, Perry is now stuck with firing everyone who might question the wisdom of refusing that stay five years ago, and with a much bigger mess on his hands.
” ‘Pro-life’ has been demonstrated to well beyond a shadow of a doubt to mean specifically ‘pro-very-young-life’, and almost certainly to mean ‘pro-very-young-our-kind-of-people-life’.”
Well, we could quit using the euphemisms at all and just say pro-abortion and anti-abortion and then no one would be confused. But with every Pro-Choice there has to be a Pro-Life so we are always “for” something.
The difference is obvious: It’s OK to kill GUILTY people; it’s NOT OK to kill INNOCENT people. Fetuses generally do not commit homicide and thus do not become deserving of the death penalty.
So if a woman has an abortion, in your view, has she committed homicide? And thus should be executed? After all, she just killed an “innocent person”.
Thousands of people die each year because of medical mistakes. So if you support the practice of medicine in the United States, you support people dying of medical negligence. This is what passes for liberal “logic.”
You might have a point if doctors were going around pulling healthy people off the street and committing surgery on them. Or maybe if you weren’t also missing that medical procedures are committed with the consent of those who suffer from the mistake. In a reality where we only executed people who volunteered to be executed, you might make a lick of sense. But in this reality, this is just idiotic.
Biggie Smalls put it best:
“Crime after crime, from drugs to extortion / You know my mother wish she had a f*cking abortion.”
Noise,
Your analogy is flawed. These are not mistakes. These executions of the innocent are part of deliberate decisions on the part of the state. The main causes of the conviction of innocent people of capital crimes in the United States is that they are poor, often have a long record of run-ins with the police, and the prosecuting state makes a mockery of Gideon when it offers nothing more than an overworked public defender with no resources for a proper investigation as counsel to the defendant and is allowed to get away with it. If Texas or other states that practiced capital prosecutions took Gideon seriously and offered counsel with adequate time and resources and a budget to match what the prosecutors and police spend, they would lose a lot more cases, including a few they should have won, but they would be far less likely to have the execution of innocent people as a feature of the system.
For most of these people, the medical equivalent to this justice system would have been surgery by barbers two centuries ago. You may notice that we don’t allow such surgery any more.
“So if a woman has an abortion, in your view, has she committed homicide? And thus should be executed? After all, she just killed an “innocent person”.”
No, actually homicide is a legal definition and abortion has two actors exempt from the definition, the mother and the doctor. If you murder a pregnant woman, in all places I am familiar with, you get charged for two homicides, the mother and the fetus. So abortion is not homicide by legal definition.
These are not mistakes. These executions of the innocent are part of deliberate decisions on the part of the state.
This is beyond ridiculous. And Gideon didn’t establish the right to counsel in capital cases, so your con law skilz are fail.
So if a woman has an abortion, in your view, has she committed homicide? And thus should be executed? After all, she just killed an “innocent person”.
If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. And the abortionist as well.
My observation, a few weeks ago:
And Marty:
I am starting to somewhat enjoy Marty’s attempts at ho-humming it all to show off how jaded he is as a sign of his supposed political maturity.
Because you find their attitudes almost to banal to allow yourself to consider it “evil”?
Yeah McK — I didn’t see why that last sentence was necessary to your argument
Ok, Irrumator answered my question.
Karen, I am open to Willingham being innocent of the crime of murder. If so, Perry, the the Parole Board, the DA and many others have a lot to answer for. The point is: we need to know. And to know, we need an objective, neutral panel to investigate and get reliable answers. I don’t want a predetermined outcome either way. Both sides should insist on objectivity and neutrality and both sides should be prepared to give credence to whatever findings, assuming the threshold criteria of neutrality and objectivity are met, the panel makes. I should add ‘competence’ and ‘access to the full record’ as fundamental preconditions.
For example, I can easily envision a finding of ‘possibly or even probably guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ That is, when the evidence conflicts, there is often a gray area. We don’t convict, much less execute, if the evidence is merely indicative of guilt.
Publius–it wasn’t part of the argument, that was me making a mild effort at humor as a follow up to the earlier thread on civility. As often happens when I think I am being amusing, I actually turn out to be obtuse.
McKinney,
Did you actually read the article? Do you have any actual statistical evidence to the contrary? Or are you one of those christianists who believe every sperm is sacred and care more about zygotes than preventing murders of actual people with brains and personalities not microscopic organisms?
Well said, both mckinneytexas and Karen.
“Because you find their attitudes almost to banal to allow yourself to consider it “evil”? ”
I thought that this sentence (immediately following):
Explained why I didn’t think evil was applicable.
Not meaning to be annoying in that case.
Although , this:
would be more in line with our previous exchange.
That’s a pretty good summary of my opinion as well, McKinney. We do need to know.
Noise Machine,
No, Gideon didn’t establish the right to appointed counsel in capital cases; the Scottsboro Boys case in the 1930′ did that, some 30 years before Gideon.
@ wonkie:
I really don’t see how a failsafe system can be devised to keep the innocent from being executed.
Uhhh – just a suggestion: maybe doing away with the death penalty might help???
Irrumator, normally Troll feeding is unwise and unproductive, but let me make this point: I don’t run down every rabbit trail offered by people whose judgment and capacity for reason is so far removed from rational that I can only conclude a mild-to-moderate form of psychological imbalance is in play. Have a nice day!
McK,
I’m not trolling. The article was by professors at Yale and Chicago. It was published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics. You can make ad hominem attacks against me if you want, but it doesn’t change the facts. Anti-choicers are pro-crime.
Publius,
On the one hand you write,
It’s a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
On the other,
the formal recognition that Texas executed an innocent man would trigger a massive political earthquake
This doesn’t seem consistent to me. Either Texas voters really care about the execution of an innocent (“earthquake”) or they don’t (“sad reflection”).
So far I don’t see the evidence that that they do care. Two Texans, McKinney and Karen, have expressed their opinions on the matter. Maybe they’d be willing to comment on the general response in Texas.
Anti-choicers are not pro-crime. That’s a rude thing to say about those folks reading this thread who are opposed to access to abortion. It is also a thread jack since it is off the subject of discussion.
Wonkie,
Publius brought up the link between capital punishment and abortion in his original post with his “culture of life” comment. I’m responding to that, and to all the other posts in this thread discussing the intersection of abortion and capital punishment politics.
As for the specific statement: Free Lunch said that if you support the death penalty you necessarily support the execution of innocent people because that’s an inevitable consequence of the policy position. I was just applying the same logic and pointing out that an inevitable consequence of opposition to abortion is increased crime.
In the interests of comity: I am now officially sorry I brought up the link between the disrespect for human life entailed in opposing access to safe legal abortion, and that in supporting the state killings of people deemed unfit to live.
Irrumator is still a troll. DNFTT.
Jesurgislac, enough with the name calling. We’re on the same side here. I’m as pro-abortion as you, if not more. I just support it as an extraordinarily effective means of crime control.
Irrumator
Proving a “statistical fact” that factor A (e.g. abortion) causes factor B (e.g. less crime) requires a randomized controlled experiment which would be both impractical and unethicasl in this case. The study you posted is a correlation based on non-controlled observation, and correlation does NOT imply causation. (If ice cream sales is correlated with drowning- and I believe it is- does that mean that ice cream causes drowning, or that both are correlated with warmer weather?)
There are other candidates for the crime reduction your article refers to one of which is lead paint abatement. (Lead ingestion by children not only reduces IQ, but also interferes with impulse control.) Like abortion, lead paint abatement happened first in liberal states.
@bernard — i think it would trigger a national political earthquake. i also think one problem in TX is simply apathy and inattention. I do think a formal recognition would help even in TX, and even in the TX GOP
Anne, seriously: DNFTT.
The issue on this thread is not, in any case, the issue of disrespect for human life (we can discuss that on the thread about Perry’s feeling that it wasn’t worthwhile reading a report on the arson evidence before the execution). It’s about how far Perry is prepared to go to ensure that the board which is to analyse the decision made to kill a man after his conviction had been shown to be unsound, is rigged in his favor.
Firing four Board members who might just take the position that the governor’s obligation was to at least allow a stay of execution while the new report on the arson evidence was considered, seems pretty far in the direction of “We killed this guy, and you’d better not find me to blame for that!”
Proving a “statistical fact” that factor A (e.g. abortion) causes factor B (e.g. less crime) requires a randomized controlled experiment which would be both impractical and unethicasl in this case. The study you posted is a correlation based on non-controlled observation, and correlation does NOT imply causation. (If ice cream sales is correlated with drowning- and I believe it is- does that mean that ice cream causes drowning, or that both are correlated with warmer weather?)
Thanks for the middle school math lesson. (Can’t teachers think of any new examples, the ice cream and drowning gets tedious the thousandth time you’re heard it.) Yes, I am aware of the “correlation does not imply causation” mantra. Donohue and Levitt are aware as well.
As for this:
Proving a “statistical fact” that factor A (e.g. abortion) causes factor B (e.g. less crime) requires a randomized controlled experiment which would be both impractical and unethicasl in this case.
This vitiates the possibility of all social science. You can’t create a model society in a lab and compare it against a control society. You are just expressing a natural scientist’s prejudice against social sciences. (There are people who refuse to accept evidence of evolution because you can’t reproduce the whole history of evolution in a laboratory.)
There needs to be an “always” in between the “NOT” and “imply”.
Irrumator is implicitly claiming that easy access to abortion reduces crime, because you’re killing more of those kinds of people, without saying explicitly who those kinds of people are.
I tend to do some askance-looking at such results, particularly if they do one of: a) reinforce the opinions I already have, b) are used as some sweeping claim of truth (and, of course, proof of someone else’s utter lack of understanding) by a party to the discussion, or c) the kind of unverifiable claim that just tends to get people spun up.
In this case, I suspect that it’s c). The “pro-death” comment is kind of a dead (excuse the pun) giveaway.
Slartibartfast,
“Pro-death” was a joke. I’m not actually in favor of death. I just oppose the policies of those who call themselves “pro-life.”
There’s an extensive literature about the issue, reasonable people may come to different conclusions, but I think Levitt is right.
Good heavens. Does every thread have to be an abortion debate? Really?
If you want to defend the death penalty, you can do it in a straight-forward way (which frankly has majority support in the US) or using deception and distraction.
Perry has chosen option 2, which ultimately undermines the rule of law. He may have chosen option 2 because chosing option 1 would involve admitting a deriliction of duty–something which most politicians won’t admit.
The only good likely to come from this is the exposure of how bad some forensic ‘science’ is.
Good heavens. Does every thread have to be an abortion debate? Really?
My fault. I apologize.
Perry has chosen option 2, which ultimately undermines the rule of law. He may have chosen option 2 because chosing option 1 would involve admitting a deriliction of duty–something which most politicians won’t admit.
Perry has chosen option 3, which entails “Fix this verdict in my favor regardless of the facts”. It;’s not even “deception amd distraction” about the death penalty, though that does appear to be the favored route of defense.
I think irrumator has a brick oven in his back yard.
If he invites us all over for pizza, we’ll know for sure.
This vitiates the possibility of all social science. You can’t create a model society in a lab and compare it against a control society.
This is, very roughly, what multiple regression tries to do.
Willingham had Iron Maiden posters in his bedroom and an ugly skull tattoo on his upper arm.
Obviously he’s not innocent. QED.
Can you believe some people think mere technical guilt or innocence on specific charges is important? Those guys will always oppose the death penalty. Thank God they are a minority.
Don’t these people read the recent Supremem Court rulings? Specific guilt on specific charges IS NOT THE POINT. Good Christian church-going suburbanites don’t get executed. Why would a fine man like Gov. Perry waste time on trash?
I think this whole despicable affair indicates the long-standing need for reform of how institutions are structured at state level. Perry does this because he can. The key issue should be: how do we make it impossible for governors to abuse their status in this way? I might add that this type of case is not the only one to highlight how easily governors can stack the deck. Sarah Palin and ethics complaints also come to mind, but I am sure there are many more, on both sides of the politic gameshow. Basically, the American people can have as much judicial murder and crony capitalism as they want at state level. Are they willing to tolerate it indefinitely?
Whenever I read stories like this, I always remind myself that Texas is the only state (that I’m aware of) whose State Supreme Court has actually ruled that actual innocence of a crime is insufficient grounds for an appeal!
@Noise Machine:
Thousands of people die each year because of medical mistakes. So if you support the practice of medicine in the United States, you support people dying of medical negligence. This is what passes for liberal “logic.” Pathetic.
This analogy is not a good one.
Intent matters. In the case of medical mistakes, the doctors are not intending to kill the victims (to the contrary), and are not intending to be negligent. In the case of executing innocents, the criminal justice systems are intending to execute the victims, and intend them to be vetted for guilt.
In the former case, the intent is to competently treat them, just as in the latter case the intent is to competently judge their guilt. In both cases this is limited by the resources available, though as others pointed out, there is cause to suspect that lacks of resources arising in the latter case may arise from bad faith in addition to more mundane reasons.
However, while acknowledging that negligence may occur and may be unavoidable, the intent in carrying out medical treatment is still not to kill people; it is to improve or save their lives. If medical treatment is stopped wholesale, people will sick and/or die as a direct consequence. The intent of capital punishment is to kill people. If it is stopped wholesale, innocent people will not die as a direct consequence. I don’t feel like getting into an inherently inconclusive argument about the deterrent effect, and I’m assuming life imprisonment as the alternative, so let’s leave it at direct consequences.
In one case, the overall fallible process must necessarily include medical treatment (and thus possible unintended death), as it is the carrying out of the treatment that would cause the death. In the other case, the overall fallible process does not necessarily include death, as one can have a judgment of guilt and punishment thereof in “capital cases” without including an execution in the mix – the fallible portion of the process is not the portion that kills people. The killing in the judicial side of the analogy is intended and foreseen; the killing in the medical side is unintended and unforeseen.
The analogy does not hold, because there is no functionally equivalent alternative to dealing with medical problems outside of fallible medical treatment. There are functionally equivalent alternatives to capital punishment outside of fallible trials followed by execution. Unless you consider the point of capital punishment seeing someone judged guilty and die rather than simply removing dangerous elements from the public at large; in that case, there’s no substitute. But then we’re wandering off into the old justice-vs.-vengeance debate.
Rick Perry is the same governor who in 2003 signed a pardon for those wrongly convicted in the Tulia drug cases. At the time, he said:
However, it’s easier for liberal bloggers to just assume that Perry is trying to execute innocent people. He’s a Texan, he’s a conservative, therefore he wants to execute innocent people. QED. That seems to be the extent of the reasoning here from the reality-based community. Can we ask for a little more skepticism, please?
Kevin P., a number of people have cited Perry’s indifference to expert testimony, coupled with what is a patent attempt to ensure that the commission is packed with those favorable to him. Where in all of this do you find liberal assumptions about Perry? Aren’t the facts sufficiently damning? Isn’t it time for you to offer some evidence and argument, rather than repeating lazy talking-points about liberals?
However, while acknowledging that negligence may occur and may be unavoidable, the intent in carrying out medical treatment is still not to kill people.
Well, the intent of executioners is still not kill INNOCENT people–as was being alleged by Free Lunch–it’s to kill guilty murderers. A doctor makes a mistake and kills a person instead of saving him; an executioner makes a mistake and kills an innocent person instead of a guilty one. There both innocent mistakes, no pun intended. And we shouldn’t use either as a justification for abolishing the practice in question, be it medicine or capital punishment.
However, it’s easier for liberal bloggers to just assume that Perry is trying to execute innocent people. He’s a Texan, he’s a conservative, therefore he wants to execute innocent people. QED.
Exactly. That’s really the extent of the argument. Plus, the notion in the other thread that he should have halted the execution to read a last minute motion that wasn’t properly filed in the first place.
First of all, in Texas, the governor has the power to grant only a one-time 30-day reprieve. All other pardons have to come from the board.
Secondly, buried deep in the Houston Chronicle report:
Note that Mr. Willingham had already had his report reviewed by the concerned appeals court. No doubt that court will also be attacked as favoring the execution of innocent people. Or we can just reserve that charge for Perry. He’s a Texan and a conservative, so he wants to execute innocent people, isn’t it obvious?
Noise Machine, you do realize that justification by intent could lead you to justify anything and everything? By your logic, the serial killer didn’t intend to kill people – he wanted to remove the agents of Satan, etc etc. Indeed, alQaeda could argue that they weren’t killing innocent people, but evil imperialist oppressors. How far do you want to push this line?
.
More important, “innocent mistake” is hardly the right term for someone who ignores expert testimony, does not take time to review it adequately, and then proceeds to try and rig the inquiry. That’s more like (at best) negligence combined with a guilty conscience.
I am not convinced that Willingham is almost certainly innocent. Fire experts come to differing conclusions all the time, and what people say after the fact can be and often is as unreliable as what people say when under oath.
I’ve actually had the opportunity to talk with Gerald Hurst and read his work as a former member of the Innocence Project, and I can say safely that fire experts called upon by the prosecution routinely say things that are not even remotely true.
I’ve seen fire experts apply fire inspection theories that I know for a fact have been proven false. I’ve seen electrical inspectors say, under oath, that fuses “almost never” misfire or short, and therefore could not start a fire. And they get away with it and people are jailed or executed, because most people understandably don’t know a lot about these things and don’t believe that a prosecution’s expert witness could be either stupid or dishonest.
Mockturtle, the expert testimony was already reviewed by an appeals court. You are demanding that the Governor should ignore all the actions of the other actors in the justice system because he just knows that the last minute report contains the truth.
By your logic, the serial killer didn’t intend to kill people – he wanted to remove the agents of Satan, etc etc.
If that’s the case then he’s not guilty by reason of mental defect. So intent is determinative.
Kevin P, no, not really. I am demanding that he actually read the document in question, and take the work of a recognized expert seriously – as the court clearly did not. Taking time to do so, and allowing proper consideration of the available testimony is hardly a revolutionary idea – it simply speaks to justice and a willingness to admit that human error is possible. You may exaggerate as much as you wish – but your case at this point is simply rhetoric, rather than facing the facts: Texas executed an innocent man, and did so after ignoring expert testimony. Perry bears the final responsibility, and is desperately trying to hide that fact by rigging the commission. If you want to defend his actions, then explain his actions in replacing four members of the commission. Do you really think that this is the conduct of an honest or innocent man?
And they get away with it and people are jailed or executed, because most people understandably don’t know a lot about these things and don’t believe that a prosecution’s expert witness could be either stupid or dishonest.
Like a defense expert is never stupid or dishonest. I know that’s the position of the innocence project, but that doesn’t make it true. What you had was a battle of the experts. The jury sided with the prosecution, and the Fifth Circuit just dismissed the new defense opinion. So who’s more likely to have the junk science?
First
Answer
While I believe that all forensic science has progressed over the last 20 years, I am not sure that having a chat with Gerald proves the conclusions on the scene were incorrect.
That is really the issue, most arson investigation has been opinion. Someone 13 years removed from the crime scene is not always right, nor are the original investigators always right.
There isn’t a rule or maxim we can use to say what should have happened so everyone gets to pick a side. Delaying the execution might have been good, there is little evidence it would have been overturned.
MockTurtle:
This is your opinion, not a fact as you claim. I like how you breezily ignore the role of the appeals court. Maybe we should just dispense with all courts, since they don’t take your experts seriously.
Again, this is your opinion, although you seem to think it is an undisputed fact. In reality, the jury is very much out on this. I suspect that the end result of the Board’s process will result in an update to the forensics standards, an update that appears to be badly needed across the whole nation, if you read Radley Balko regularly. Unfortunately, you probably won’t be satisfied with that. It’s more satisfying to accuse Rick Perry of wanting to execute innocent people. He’s a Texan and a conservative, so he wants to execute innocent people, isn’t it obvious?
He’s a Texan, he’s a conservative, therefore he wants to execute innocent people.
Haven’t seen that claim made.
The strongest claim on the table is that he’s taking inappropriate actions in order to suppress a discussion of whether an innocent man was killed on his watch.
That’s actually a pretty strong accusation on its own terms.
Do you have an opinion on the claim that’s actually been made?
“The strongest claim on the table is that he’s taking inappropriate actions in order to suppress a discussion of whether an innocent man was killed on his watch.”
Russell,
That is the claim in this post, many more have been made in the comments.
That is really the issue, most arson investigation has been opinion.
This is where I become a death penalty opponent.
If it isn’t actually possible to demonstrate conclusively and without doubt that someone committed a capital crime, the death penalty should be excluded.
Killing someone based on which of two dueling experts you find more convincing, in a domain where the average person is not in a position to make a meaningful evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, means that sooner or later innocent people are executed.
It’s unavoidable.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
I realize that there are people arguing here that we are dealing with the view of one expert. They should know that this is not the case, and that their arguments rest on a falsehood. They should also understand that lazily equating “experts” is also factually inaccurate. The prosecution “expert” Vazquez simply does not have the necessary qualifications in science, or anything more than the dubious benefit of established (and mostly wrong) beliefs. These are not two “experts” duelling here- there is a real expert, who is a very distinguished scientist in this area, and a self-styled expert without any real knowledge.
.
Kevin P., I would suggest you start being a little more honest in the claims you make. I have not said that Perry wants to execute innocent people. This is your claim, and one that is demonstrably false. I have said, and repeat, that Perry has failed in his duty, and that his attempt to rig the commission is despicable. If you are going to argue a case, argue it honestly, please.
.
As for Radley Balko, yes, I have read his work, some of which is good. He seems to accurately represent his opponents and their positions. Perhaps you should reread him?
Kevin P., I would suggest you start being a little more honest in the claims you make. I have not said that Perry wants to execute innocent people.
Not you, turtle. Free Lunch said that.
Kevin P. accused me of saying it, Irrumator, as his comment at 2.21 pm addressed to me makes clear.
While I believe that all forensic science has progressed over the last 20 years, I am not sure that having a chat with Gerald proves the conclusions on the scene were incorrect.
It wasn’t a “chat” – it was correspondence in tandem with a lengthy report he submitted to us regarding the fire evidence in one of our cases. In the report, Hurst not only cited numerous points where the prosecution’s arson investigators contradicted the present methodologies considered to be proper and then offered up in court burn pattern theories which have been actively debunked and disproven, but also conducted careful simulations of the fires in question to see if an arson attempt would in fact generate the same burn patterns.
Hurst’s expertise is about as ironclad as it comes when you’re looking for arson experts and how fires burn. “Opinions vary” isn’t enough to argue that he’s wrong; he takes exceptional care in writing his reports to assess existing claims in both accepted arson theory and actual simulation.
Mightygodking,
The Innocence Project is hardly a neutral source. It’s an anti-death penalty extremist group. And it provides legal representation to death row inmates. So the argument you’re making just boils down to “a defense attorney said his client was innocent.” Do you have any objective, trustworthy sources for your opinions about the forensic examination of fires?
Kevin P. accused me of saying it, Irrumator, as his comment at 2.21 pm addressed to me makes clear.
Indeed. He seems to be confused.
“I’ve actually had the opportunity to talk with Gerald Hurst and read his work as a former member of the Innocence Project”
Sorry if i misinterpreted your initial comment. I would just point out that he did not have the opportunity to do similar due diligence in this case.
His, and many other peoples, work on the Innocence project is very important work, against a clock..
Could you, Irrumator, explain why you consider them “extremist”? Also, what would constitute a “neutral” source in this context?
Irrumator @3:28
The Innocence Project is hardly a neutral source. It’s an anti-death penalty extremist group.
Citation, please.
Their Mission Statement says
The precise substantive reforms they advocate are here. No mention there of banning the death penalty; it’s all about quality of evidence, forensic oversight and exoneration.
So, cite?
Here’s why it’s an extreme organization. If someone opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, that’s an extreme position because it admits of no exceptions. The Innocence Project is similarly extreme because it seeks to ban the death penalty in all situations.
We’re also talking about an organization whose founders–Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld–helped O.J. Simpson get away with murder.
MockTurtle, let me quote you directly:
I am not sure what crony capitalism has to do with this, but the key words that you used are judicial murder. You used this in the larger context of an attack on the governor. It is fairly reasonable to assume that you are accusing the governor of participating in judicial murder.
If you want to withdraw your incendiary words and accusations of Perry’s malicious and murderous intent, I will be happy to withdraw my accusation of your bad faith.
Note that this would only let you off the hook, not our host Publius, who I can quote as saying:
Here is another naked accusation of murderous and malicious intent. I live in Austin, Texas, the liberal Mecca where this kind of accusation is commonplace. It is a mindset that everything is self-evident.
The Innocence Project is hardly a neutral source. It’s an anti-death penalty extremist group. And it provides legal representation to death row inmates.
None of which is relevant to whether the reports issued by Hurst are accurate or not. What you’re doing here is actually the very definition of ad hominem — stating that we should ignore an argument because of who is making it rather than what it’s content is. Try again, and show your work this time.
Do you have any objective, trustworthy sources for your opinions about the forensic examination of fires?
Since when are we limited to “objective, trustworthy sources?” Certainly the prosecution isn’t limited to such sources. And who, besides you, is questioning Hurst’s objectiveness or trustworthiness? (Questioning, I would add, that appears to be based on nothing whatsoever aside from your personal politcs.)
We’re also talking about an organization whose founders–Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld–helped O.J. Simpson get away with murder.
That’s all I need to know. Why don’t you just cite Johnny Cochran?
The Innocence Project is similarly extreme because it seeks to ban the death penalty in all situations.
Cite, please.
Kevin P., tell me, what would you call it when an innocent man is killed, despite expert testimony which makes clear that he was telling the truth, when a governor ignores an appeal based on said testimony? I remind you that Willingham refused a deal that would have kept him free of the death penalty, because, as he always said, he was innocent. Perry is now trying to rig the commission on this (a point which you have never addressed or defended). Tell me, what part of this do you not consider to be “judicial murder”? I will also point out that accusing Perry of committing murder by proxy, and wanting to kill an innocent person are not the same claim. Do I have to spell this out for you? As for your discussion of self-evident matters, perhaps you should consider your failure to offer any actual evidence for your claims? I see a lot of assertion from you about liberals – and very few facts. I remind you that concern over the abuse of a governor’s powers (or similar abuse by any official) is hardly exclusively a liberal concern – it is a matter which concerns and should concern all good citizens.
Haha, now these two are apparently going to argue that defense attorneys have an obligation to tank cases if it appears that their clients are obviously guilty.
DNFTT, indeed.
Irrumator @3:45:
First off, extreme != extremist (“individuals or groups [who are] outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards”).
Secondly, assuming arguendo that your statement of their position is correct (vide infra), a more accurate term would be “absolutist”. Of course, that would also be less inflammatory.
Third, citation, please for where the Innocence project has put its official energies into banning the death penalty. All I see is advocacy for reforming the justice system to combat wrongful convictions (for capital and non-capital crimes).
What you’re doing here is actually the very definition of ad hominem — stating that we should ignore an argument because of who is making it rather than what it’s content is.
Phil, your post is not logically correct. Ad hominem is not a fallacy when the specific issue is the credibility of given person. You and others are asking people to accept something as true because this person said it. That’s an appeal to authority. When you make such an appeal the knowledge, veracity, and bias of the alleged authority is directly relevant.
The Republican party constantly spins that it supports “a culture of life” because it is a “pro-life” party. No they aren’t! They are a PRO-BIRTH BUT NOT A PRO-LIFE PARTY. They could not care less about the life of the person they force to be born; the fetus they pull out of the womb and, without hesitation, throw into the frying pan of this world without the slightest concern about its future; its life! The prove that fact every day with their support of the death penalty; their support of a medical delivery system that guarantees that 122 Americans die each day because they don’t have health insurance; their protection of the corporate terrorists who poison the water, air, soil and food–for another $ of profit–and causes the death of more Americans in a week than abortion kills in a decade; their centuries long notion of “property and profit over people”; their belief in war as a first alternative rather than a last resort!!!
Kevin P. you “breezily ignore” the role of the governor/executive as the “last line of defense” when it comes to reprieves, clemency, etc. Checks and balances and the like. An appellate court may be restricted in its ability to re-evaluate evidence, whereas the governor/executive is not.
Harley Spoon,
We’ve already covered the abortion angle. Not everyone who supports the death penalty opposes abortion. I, for example, support abortion because it’s been proven to lower crime.
MockTurtle, I have provided evidence for you above that the expert testimony was reviewed by the concerned Court of Appeals which rejected it. You ignored it. You persist in denigrating the role of the court and the other actors in the judicial process, so that you can persist in accusing Perry of judicial murder (your own words).
I also provided evidence way above about Perry’s role in the pardons for the wrongful Tulia drug convictions, not exactly consistent with your narrative that Perry doesn’t care about innocence. This weakens your narrative that he is stacking the Board of Pardons so that he can avoid blame (if any). But you ignore this evidence too.
You have made up your mind that Willingham was innocent and Perry murdered him. There is little left to discuss. You seem to be one of the tolerant, inclusive and progressive crowd that is always right. Be happy with it.
“and causes the death of more Americans in a week than abortion kills in a decade”
If I thought it was more than a rant, I might require an actual cite for this. Its a lot of abortions in a decade and a leap to measure how many those corporate polluters kill in a week.
If I thought it was more than a rant, I might require an actual cite for this. Its a lot of abortions in a decade and a leap to measure how many those corporate polluters kill in a week.
Marty, you’re not considering all the lives abortion saves by lowering the crime rate. When you take the crime reduction into account, pollution is MUCH worse than abortion.
Just as an aside for the posters or long time commenters, Did everyone hate Texas before Bush was President? Because we spend a lot of time talking about Texas as the central bastion of all things conservative (and bad).
I am ok with it, Texans are as proportionately conservative as those from Mass are proportionately liberal. I was just wondering what the historical record was?
You and others are asking people to accept something as true because this person said it.
I most certainly am not. Provide a cite for this, too, or retract it.
Now that Perry is talking about secession in a cynical bid to win Texas’ growing ranks of neo-Confederates in a primary, I don’t really have a problem of saying he has murderous intent. He is encouraging mob rule where the “law” is controlled by liberals, and ordering unquestioned authority where it is controlled by conservatives. He is sending more and more signals to our state’s rednecks that they must prepare the way for a revolution against the ni**er-loving, criminal-loving socialist conspiracy. I wonder how they will pitch in and help out? Shades of Faubus and Wallace, who knew damn well their words would get people killed.
And yes, the current American political system rewards politicians for executing as many people as they can. No other democracy that I know of does that, even the ones that have the death penalty.
And it should also be painfully obvious, once again, that the only person questioning Hurst’s veracity, objectivity and authority is Irrumerator, simply because it disagrees with Hurst’s politics and/or conclusions. It doesn’t appear to view the prosecution’s experts with the same skepticism, for what are probably obvious reasons.
Nonetheless, it is clearly a troll, as it keeps trying to distract people with its silly abortion/crime rate comments, therefore I’m going to ignore it from this point forward and would strongly recommend others do the same.
Kevin P., tell me, do you serve chicken to go with the weak sauce? I ask because you are factually confused about this case, and persist in trying to cover this with rhetoric.
1) The expert testimony was inadequately reviewed by the Court of Appeals. It is clear that the prosecution “expert” is no such thing, while the defence expert is highly qualified in his field. Perry has a responsibility to examine and weigh the evidence properly – and there is no sign that he did so. If you have hard evidence that he did – produce it, or withdraw your claims.
2) The Tulia case is not the Willingham case. If Perry acted well once, that doesn’t mean he acted well in all cases. Also, please stop constructing strawmen and attributing them to others. Radley Balko doesn’t – remember him?
3) Willingham was innocent. This is clearly established by the expert testimony of numerous scientists. On this point, there is indeed little to discuss. But again, you offer no reason to disregard their unanimous testimony.
4) You have never offered any adequate explanation of Perry’s attempts to rig the commission which is investigating forensic errors. By evading this point, you implicitly concede Perry’s guilt.
5) Do you understand that simply yelling “Evil libruls”, which is the substance of your arguments thus far, is not, in fact, evidence of anything except an impoverished capacity for analyzing or handling reality? Have you noticed that I have never said “conservatives are evil”. I simply find Perry’s abuse of power repellent. If you feel happy with a governor who abuses his powers and brings about the death of an innocent man, I don’t assume you are conservative, simply rather lacking in awareness of how to be a good citizen in a democratic society.
Marty @4:14:
My unsupported impression is that it’s more Texan exceptionalism than Texan conservativism per se that draws disapprobation. And that has a long history.
the only person questioning Hurst’s veracity, objectivity and authority is Irrumerator, simply because it disagrees with Hurst’s politics and/or conclusions.
So then you admit that his veracity, objectivity and authority are what’s at issue. If I point out that he’s biased because he works for the innocence project–an outfit founded by the OJ Simpson defense team–you can’t dismiss that by calling it ad hominem. Ad hominem means “to the man.” If you’re actually talking about a man–in this case Hurst–it’s not a fallacy.
And the link between abortion and crime is not silly. And I’m not trying to distract anyone. Jesurgislac brought up abortion, then Harley Spoon brought it up again. They’re the ones threadjacking, not me.
the only person questioning Hurst’s veracity, objectivity and authority is Irrumerator, simply because it disagrees with Hurst’s politics and/or conclusions.
So then you admit that his veracity, objectivity and authority are what’s at issue. If I point out that he’s biased because he works for the innocence project–an outfit founded by the OJ Simpson defense team–you can’t dismiss that by calling it ad hominem. Ad hominem means “to the man.” If you’re actually talking about a man–in this case Hurst–it’s not a fallacy.
And the link between abortion and crime is not silly. And I’m not trying to distract anyone. Jesurgislac brought up abortion, then Harley Spoon brought it up again. They’re the ones threadjacking, not me.
Still awaiting that cite about the Innocence Project and the death penalty, Irrumator.
The people of texas love killing. Period. They love guns, shooting, executions, murder, answering criticism with the end of a gun.
The governor is one of the most corrupt, evil members of a Purely immoral political party full of greedy, dishonest scum, harming innocent people everyday to accomplish their agenda.
“3) Willingham was innocent. This is clearly established by the expert testimony of numerous scientists. On this point, there is indeed little to discuss. But again, you offer no reason to disregard their unanimous testimony.”
This is an opinion, it was an opinion per the 5th circuit, it is still an opinion. You have a right to it, but it doesn’t make it fact.
The discussion here is whether the Governor should have given thirty days to allow someone to successfully argue that it was fact. I don’t believe they could have in thirty days, but it would have been ok with me if he had given them the time.
Irrumator, as the New Yorker article makes clear, the scientists who have investigated this case all agree with Hurst. I also have to point out that you are engaging in ad hominem – which refers to any argument based on personalizing an argument, rather than arguing on the merits. By dragging in OJ Simpson irrelevantly,you are, in fact, constructing an ad hominem.
“My unsupported impression is that it’s more Texan exceptionalism than Texan conservativism per se that draws disapprobation. And that has a long history.”
Oh, I will concede our exceptionalism as it is hard not to recognize we are exceptional, and all this time I thought it was a false claim that drove the disapprobation. Thanks, forest and the trees mistake on my part.
Marty @4:33:
You do know that exceptionalism (e.g.) doesn’t simply mean that you are exceptional, don’t you?
Many places are exceptional. Few proclaim loudly it as a reason to make the choices they make and do the things they do.
Did everyone hate Texas before Bush was President?
I don’t recall so. I think that Bush’s past as Govenor and his routine signing of death warrants (laughing as he signed one) brought the utter failure of the Texas judicial system into public view. There have been more than a few cases of EXTREMELY inept defense council (one attorney slept through a trial) which resulted in an execution.
—————————-
re OJ: The LAPD tried to frame a (probably) guilty man. The police are forbidden from framing anyone — they brought defeat upon themselves.
“The people of texas love killing. Period. They love guns, shooting, executions, murder, answering criticism with the end of a gun.
The governor is one of the most corrupt, evil members of a Purely immoral political party full of greedy, dishonest scum, harming innocent people everyday to accomplish their agenda.”
Now this seems unnecessary to me, but then it is describing me, inaccurately. I am a Texan, I don’t own a gun, I know guys who like to hunt that would never use a weeapon on a person. I find the most honest and forthright people I have ever known are from my home state (like, my family). This, see, doesn’t meet my definition of comity.
But I did ask for it so I will just move on.
“You do know that exceptionalism (e.g.) doesn’t simply mean that you are exceptional, don’t you?”
I understood the meaning of the word and the potential insult. Some things are just true.
I also have to point out that you are engaging in ad hominem – which refers to any argument based on personalizing an argument, rather than arguing on the merits. By dragging in OJ Simpson irrelevantly,you are, in fact, constructing an ad hominem.
I’ve addressed this before, and if you’re incapable of understanding it you probably shouldn’t use the term ad hominem.
If A says X is true because of reason Y, and B responds that X must be false because A is untrustworthy, that is a fallacious argument. B should instead respond to reason Y. A’s personal character is irrelevant.
However, if A says that X is true because expert C says X is true, then it is not a fallacy for B to respond that C is untrustworthy. C’s trusworthiness is relevant to the argument because it is the reason being offered for proposition X.
In this case, you are not putting forward independent forensic arguments in favor of Hurst’s conclusions. You are asking us to accept Hurst’s conclusions because of Hurst’s reputation. When you make that arguement–an appeal to authority–you put Hurst’s credibility at issue.
Marty @4:44:
Some things are just true.
I could not agree more, though I think we differ slightly on which things, precisely. You’re certainly being…illustrative.
Irrumator, got that citation yet?
Irrumator, got that citation yet?
I haven’t looked hard, but I admit I haven’t found anything that says that the Innocence Project as an organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. However, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufield do both oppose the death penalty. What’s worse is that they helped OJ Simpson get away with murder. The Innocence Project is an outfit founded by the OJ defense team, which should tell you all you need to know.
Irrumator –
I am happy to repeat that there is evidence that states that refuse to provide adequate counsel for defendants in capital cases (and adequate in this case means a big budget to give the defense lawyer comparable resources to the prosecutor’s office and the police, say a million dollars per case) will be knowingly killing a proportion of people who are falsely convicted even after the appeals process because there will not have been a proper search for evidence.
Texas has one of the worst track records in this regard, but refuses to investigate their own problems in a systematic way or fix their treatment of indigent defendants. That tells me that they have long known that they kill the innocent and have no intention to fix it.
“Some things are just true.
I could not agree more, though I think we differ slightly on which things, precisely. You’re certainly being…illustrative.”
ER,
I am sure it is illustrative to understand that most Texans are aware of our own exceptionalism. In fact, it is a point of pride. We are taught from birth that it is special to be born in Texas, and life there reinforces that feeling. Texas is amazingly diverse geographically and culturally. The love of this diversity is extolled in song, poetry and art. We don’t believe we are perfect, but exceptional is a given for most Texans. It is not a bad thing, although sometimes those who don’t understand it think so.
We are also aware enough to joke about the belief that we are exceptional, we make fun of ourselves quite easily. But underlying all that is intense pride in our history and present, despite our flaws.
What’s worse is that they helped OJ Simpson get away with murder.
No, at worst they stopped the LAPD from framing a suspect. that is against the law, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Per teh request for civility, I will regrain from estimating your IQ and/or reading comprehension.
In other words, you had no basis for calling the Innocence Project “an anti-death penalty extremist group.” You made that up, complete with inflammatory phrasing. Right.
So they were founded by people whose actions you don’t like. That discredits them entirely; “that’s all you need to know” about them. Nothing about the things they do, nothing about the other people involved, nothing about their goals, their achievements, or their cause matters.
That is, as a matter of fact, an ad hominem argument against the Innocence Project.
Charming, twice over.
Marty @5:03:
We are also aware enough to joke about the belief that we are exceptional, we make fun of ourselves quite easily. But underlying all that is intense pride in our history and present, despite our flaws.
Fair enough; thanks for that clarification. I didn’t see the tongue in your cheek in your previous comment.
Here is another naked accusation of murderous and malicious intent.
Very briefly, I’d just like to point out that the first two paragraphs do not, in fact, make the accusation that the third claims.
Just for the record.
Marty, yes, Texas takes a beating from liberals and has done so for as long as I’ve been paying attention to such things.
Everybody doesn’t like somebody.
Pretty much everyone who participates here has, at some point or other, made blanket negative statements about some other group of people in the abstract. hilzoy was scrupulous about not doing so, also Gary, but most everyone else is guilty. I am, and you are, for two.
Maybe we shouldn’t do that, in the spirit of comity, but my guess is that folks are likely to continue doing so.
I think we all need to try to just shrug those off, because most of us can and do put that aside when dealing with individual other people.
I’m talking about stuff like “liberals always…” or “conservatives never…” or “typical lefty bull…”.
I’m not talking about stuff directed specifically to another poster, to me that seems out of bounds.
But the broad-brush stuff, maybe we should just shrug it off and move on.
Just a thought. If it really bugs other folks and we all want to make a point of eschewing it, I’m fine with that also.
But underlying all that is intense pride in our history and present, despite our flaws.
Marty, pretty much everyone feels that way about where they come from.
By God we’re so darn proud to be from Texas – yahoo!
Even of our pride we’re proud and we’re proud of that pride, too
Our pride about our home state is the proudest pride indeed
And we’re proud to be Americans, until we can secede
One more stupid song about Texas
You’ve heard it all before so sing along
Biggest belt buckles and boasts, love that big old Texas toast
Let’s sing another stupid Texas song
Texas is amazingly diverse geographically and culturally.
Amateurs, rank amateurs. We have the tallest mountain and the deepest desert in the continental US. We have Hollywood and Bezerkly and the EXTREMELY conservative Central Valley (not to mention the Libertarians of Irvine). We have surfer doods and immigrant workers. We have everything from Eureka to Yreka! (We also have everything from A to Z in the USA: Azusa)
BTW, the Secretary of State posts votes by county after each initiative vote. It’s very interesting to see the splits: North / South, East / West, Cosmopolitan / Rural.
Maybe it should tell you all you need to know. I prefer to rely on what they’ve done, and what they’ve said, as an organization. Which is why I’ve given them (small amounts of) money – because they do something important that the state not only refuses to do, but too often actively impedes; and because I’ve never seen the Innocence Project behave disreputably.
Amateurs, rank amateurs.
OK, look.
Profanity with the appropriate squiqqly characters. Accusations of bad faith. Tu quoque tsunamis, an efflorescence of trolls, and guy who names himself after oral rape.
I’m willing tolerate all of that.
But rampant civic boosterism will not stand!
@Noise Machine:
A doctor makes a mistake and kills a person instead of saving him; an executioner makes a mistake and kills an innocent person instead of a guilty one. There both innocent mistakes, no pun intended. And we shouldn’t use either as a justification for abolishing the practice in question, be it medicine or capital punishment.
You quite studiously avoided my point. We do not have an alternative to dealing with medical problems outside of medical treatment. We do have alternatives to punishing those convicted of “capital” crimes outside of execution. Medical conditions cannot be treated without running some risk of the patient dying from negligent treatment. “Capital” crimes can be punished without any risk of an innocent being executed.
The analogy does not hold.
Irrumator, let me be clear on this: your latest ad hominem attack is on the Innocence Project. When you cite a very tangential connection to OJ Simpson as a reason for attacking their credibility, that is, indeed, a pure ad hominem. Please think through your own logic and use of terms before posting in such an aggressive way.
Marty, your argument breaks down completely because Hurst does NOT work for the Innocence Project. He became involved in the case when information about it was sent to him a reporter that had been interviewing Willingham. He became convinced of Willingham’s innocence because of the similarities to another Texas arson case in which Ernest Wills had been exonerated after receiving a death sentence.
He used evidence from that case, including the burning of a house with a virtually identical floorplan that had been remodeled to match flooring and furnishings of Will’s house.
That burn showed that everyone of the so-called indicators of arson that was used in both the Wills and Willingham cases also occurs in a post-flashover fire where the heat of the fire is sufficient to ignite an entire room and that the flashover point can be reached very quickly without the use of any accelerants.
His report was provided to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and later to Governor Perry, but it was not provided to the state or federal appeals courts which both ruled before he was brought in. In the report he specifically addressed every single one of the arson signs identified by the initial investigators and showed that none of them were reliable except the positive test for mineral oil, which was only found near where a barbecuse had been stored and not on any of the other samples sent for testing. Part of the current controversy is that there is no evidence either the Pardons Board or the Governor even read his report.
The Innoncence Project did not become involved until after an article was published by the Chicago Tribune several months after the execution. They commissioned a report by five of the nations top independent arson experts and sent their report to the Texas Forensics Review commission with a request for investigation. It is the commissions review of that report that Governor Perry is trying to derail.
So your attack on Gerald Hurst is not only an ad-hominem, it is both untrue and irrelevant.
I am sorry, it looks like my last post should have been addressed to Irruminator, not Marty.
Marty,
When you consider all the ways corporate terrorists cause the death of people via poisons in water, poisons in the air, poisons in the food, dangerous ingredients in food & drink–well, you get the picture–you could easily total up the number of legal abortions in a year in the USA and then compare it to the number of people who die from effects of the wanton greed and wanton carelessness of corporations whose job is not to save lives but to make money, you would see that my rant is correct…to even a degree I can’t imagine…
1) “Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty:
“Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?”, by David Grann
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown–the-death-penalty.aspx
As more reality comes to light, the more into disrepute run’s Grann’s article.
My article, above, was written and released prior to the Corsicana Fire Marshall’s report, below
2) EXCLUSIVE: City report on arson probe:
State panel asks for city response in Willingham case
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/news/local_story_276222736.html
3) No Doubts
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_250180658.html
For a collection of articles, go to:
Corsicana Daily Sun, The Willingham Files
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles
OTHER REPORTS: There is the potential for, at least, 3 more, official, reports on this case: the Texas Fire Marshall’s office, which will give an official and requested reply, the Corsicana Police Dept. and Navarro County District Attorney’s office, both of which, I speculate, may only contribute to the TFM report, but could issue their own reports.
There is an official “report” which, it appears, few have paid attention to – the trial transcript.
I find that rather important because, at least six persons, who were involved with the trial, two prosecutors, defense attorney, two surviving fire investigators and a juror have all voiced support for the verdict, still, in the light of the criticism of the arson forensics.
One of those original fire investigators is, now, an active certified arson expert.
The idea of a Perry cover-up in the Willingham case is idiotic.
Perry’s replacement of the 5 board members was guaranteed to bring more outrage, more suspicion, more attention and, even more, negative political and media fallout.
And Perry knew that, before he did it.
Furthermore, the reports, highly critical of the Willingham trial forensics have long been in the public domain.
There is zero opportunity for a cover up, but a 100% chance of negative political fallout, which is the last thing Perry needs.
The question, then, is “Why DID Perry do this?”
It’s a mystery. Maybe someone will try to solve it, instead of crying “cover up” when the case is, already, fully exposed.
The comparison of Perry’s actions to Richard Nixon’s firing of Archiblad Cox are idiotic. Nixon fired Cox before the release of the tapes. Predictably, that is Barry Sheck’s analogy – simply stupid.
When I first moved to Texas, I thought (even as a National Review-subscribing young Republican) that Texas toast just meant they were too stupid to cook the other side.
Probably unfair and untrue, but that’s age 22 for you.
So the prosecutors who described Willingham as a demon and a monster, the defense attorney who was convinced of his client’s guilt before the trial started and who called only 1 witness, the arson investigators whose findings determined whether there even was a case in the first place and 1 (only 1?) of the jurors all still think Willingham was guilty. Somehow I am neither surprised nor particularly impressed. None of these people can afford to admit, even or perhaps especially to themselves, that they were so tragically wrong.
I am more impressed by 6 different independent and nationally respected arson investigators who all determined that there was no arson. Who reportedly determined that every single one of the indicators that led the original investigators to conclude that this was arson are also found in flashover fires and that some of them are specifically less likely to appear in an arson.
As for Perry’s motive to replace the commission members and derail their investigation of the Willngham case, as long as no “official” body issues findings that Willingham was wrongly executed, then people like you and Irrudiator and others are free to dismiss the controversy as dueling experts and say who can really tell and continue to believe there is nothing fundamentally wrong with or death penalty system. If Willingham is presumed to have been guilty, then it doesn’t “really” matter if Governor Perry blew of his responsibility to carefully review the case and his interference with the Forensics review can be explained away.
It is only if someone, finally and officially, admits that an innocent man was executed, that a closer look will be taken at how it happened.
The debate on this is amazing. I’ll be upfront – I represented Todd Willingham, and was the one who presented the expert report to the governor prior to the execution. I was set to attend the commission meeting, and like everyone else was told Wedensday afternoon that it was being cancelled.
I have been concerned from the beginning that a discussion of his case will be taken over by the anti-death penalty movement. Those on the other side dismiss the attacks as an underhanded way of attacking the death penalty. It may well have that effect, but the real issue is the use of science in the criminal justice system. This case is a perfect examample of why we should not rely on scientists to determine a person’s guilt. Unfortunately, that debate is lost among all the political attacks, and those with other agendas.
And for those who are struggling with the belief that both the death penalty and abortion are wrong, its a fairly simple concept that Cathollic Social Justice has long championed – Life is sacred from conception to natural death. Pope John Paul years ago wrote about the effects of the “culture of death” and most of his predictions have come true. We treat life as something less than sacred; how else can a majority believe innocent people have been executed, but still believe in the death penalty?
Let’s not forget that in this particular case, the defendant’s Iron Maiden poster was cited as evidence that he might be a Satanist, thus providing him motive for the crime he allegedly happened. It’s not too much of a logical leap to wonder if the Iron Maiden = Satanist mindset of the prosecutors might have checkered the way they investigated and analyzed the forensic evidence?
Additionally, I think the “they’re bad people, so it’s irrelevent if they actually committed the crime” mentality certainly was demonstrated during the after the fact rationalizations for the Iraq War and the non-existent WMD.
its a fairly simple concept that Cathollic Social Justice has long championed – Life is sacred from conception to natural death.
A great consolation to the family of a nine-year-old girl whose “natural death” would have been from a burst uterus after the fetuses conceived when her stepfather raped her got too big for either her, or the fetuses, to survive. “Life is sacred” – too sacred to save, according to the Catholic Church.
I notice that while the Pope has no problem condemning access to abortion – even performed to save the life of a nine-year-old girl – he’s never yet excommunicated anyone for carrying out the death penalty. Odd, that, if “life is sacred”, hm?
Seventy thousand women die each year because of illegal abortions. Abortion rates have gone down globally – because of better access to contraception, something else the Catholic Church opposes.
Still waiting for Pope Ratzinger to come out with anything as strong about the death penalty as he’s come out with about abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or Islam.
Jesurgislac,
To be fair, how many Catholic governors are there in the US that have carried out executions?
To be fair, how many Catholic governors are there in the US that have carried out executions?
There have been 1,176 executions in the US since 1976. There are 3,316 prisoners on Death Row under threat of execution. cite
I have no idea how many Catholics have been directly involved in executing people since 1976 – from prison guards to medical technicians to doctors to judges. But the Catholic Church has never once suggested that a doctor who is responsible for injecting someone with a lethal cocktail of drugs that will kill them, or a technician who is responsible for running the current through a human body, or a judge who opts for the death sentence, or a prison guard who physically takes the prisoner from their cell to the execution chamber – that any or all of them should be excommunicated for doing so.
But a mother who wanted to save her nine-year-old daughter from a “natural death” from rape? She’s excommunicated.
To be fair, the Texas Catholic Conference has an extensive and very clear section on the death penalty (they’re against it). Sadly, they undercut their claims to respect human life by having an even longer section on denying women access to safe legal abortion and other healthcare services… but my issues with the Catholic Church are generally with its senior hierarchy, not with the grassroots Catholics doing the best they can with what they’ve got.
Jesurgislac,
My point was that unless its a Catholic governor signing off on the execution, then there’s no one for the Pope to excommunicate.
Considering the death penalty is mostly a Southern Protestant thing, I’m not entirely surprised that the Pope hasn’t chimed in. Hell, I think the last truly prominent Southern Catholic might have been Flannery O’Conner. (sarc)
My point was that unless its a Catholic governor signing off on the execution, then there’s no one for the Pope to excommunicate.
There’s the prosecution lawyer, if they call for the death penalty. The judge who decrees execution. The legislators who refuse to vote out the death penalty. The guards who lead the victim from his cell to the execution chamber. The doctor responsible for examining the victim before and after execution. The technicians responsible for setting the execution machinery in motion. None of them are excommunicated for taking part in an execution.
Do you know that the Pope threatened to excommunicate the Prime Minister of Canada for making same-sex marriage legal? No such threat has ever been applied to any legislator who made the death penalty legal. Lifting the ban on same-sex couples having access to civil marriage is apparently regarded as much worse than making it legal for the state to kill people.
Considering the death penalty is mostly a Southern Protestant thing, I’m not entirely surprised that the Pope hasn’t chimed in.
What, you’ve got inside information that everyone in the prison system who takes part in an execution is a “Southern Protestant”? No Catholics at all, ever?
To be fair, how many Catholic governors are there in the US that have carried out executions?
Bob Casey Sr. signed 21 death warrants while he was governor of Pennsylvania; his successor, Tom Ridge, signed over 200. (The effect of Casey’s stinginess in signing death warrants was that death row inmates got to spend an extra eight years in SCI Greene (where Charles Graner of Abu Ghraib fame learned his craft) and couldn’t file the federal appeals triggered by the signing of a death warrant.)
This case is a perfect example of why we should not rely on scientists to determine a person’s guilt.
Could you expand on this rather cryptic comment? If fire science is not key to this whole case, what is? If Willingham did not set the fire, which is what the vast majority of fire scientists are saying, then on what is the case against him based? How is he supposed to have committed the alleged murders?
This case is a perfect example of why we should not rely on scientists to determine a person’s guilt.
It worked well for O.J.
Irrumator, could you please contribute something relevant or insightful, just once? Pointless babbling about OJ (and your ignorance of ad hominem) are tedious and add nothing to the discussion. I’d like to hear what Walter Reaves has to say, not your glib non-response.
Pointless babbling about OJ (and your ignorance of ad hominem)
I can’t help it if you’re too dense to understand argumentum ad hominem. Try consulting any basic logic textbook. I’d recommed Hurley. Questioning the biases of an expert is never a fallacy, when discussing whether to take that expert’s word for something. I’ve explained that already. And while you’re at it: look up “appeal to authority” in the informal fallacy section. You’re not giving any ad rem arguments; you’re just saying trust Hurst’s opinion.
Irrumator, please review the posting rules (with attention to the civility and no-vilification points) and comply. Consider this an official warning.
Questioning the biases of an expert is never a fallacy
Well, it can be. Say if you’re asserting bias with no evidence other than guilt by very weak association? That there would be a fallacy.
Sorry. Consider it officially retracted.
Say if you’re asserting bias with no evidence other than guilt by very weak association?
That’s right, Hogan. If someone charges an expert on whom you’re relying with bias, it’s perfectly acceptable to respond by rebutting the accusation of bias. It’s patently illogical, however, to dismiss the accusation of bias as “ad hominem.”
Questioning the biases of an expert is never a fallacy, when discussing whether to take that expert’s word for something. […] It’s patently illogical, however, to dismiss the accusation of bias as “ad hominem.”
You make some valid points in re: argumentum ad hominem upthread from here. But they’re not relevant. Let’s examine some of your reasoning that supposedly lacks ad hominems, shall we?
This is a glorious, shining example. The founders of the organization (which you can find no evidence of being categorically opposed to capital punishment, but still insinuate must be) strip the organization of all credibility. Why? Because they helped OJ get away with murder! They were on his defense team! They’re Bad People, IOW, and because of this moral failing are not to be trusted. Rarely does one see so clear an example of argumentum ad hominem. Point, set, match.
Oh, and to forestall any “clever” rebuttal that their honesty is in question because they carried out such a nefarious deed: if they’re defense attorneys, they’re ethically obligated to try to do what they did. Their credibility would have been dealt more damage had they refused to seek meet their obligations to their client.
As patently illogical as repeating “OJ OJ OJ OJ”?
A bit belatedly on the medicine/death penalty comparision: If a doctor kills a patient through gross negligence (or in extreme cases deliberately*), then that doctor is legally responsible for the death of a human being and has to bear the consequences if found out.
As for the objetion to the term ‘judicial murder’, at least over here that is a proper legal term (Justizmord) and distinct from ‘judicial error’ (Justizirrtum). Btw, the term was introduced by Voltaire in 1777 and entered the German language in 1782 on occasion of the last European witch trial (outside the UK**).
*although that seems to be more common with nurses. I remember several cases in Germany with nurses killing a large number of patients in their care before being found out and charged with murder. I can’t remember any spectacular case with a murderous physician (apart from one more than 2 decades ago suspected of infecting patients with his own HIV. He later claimed that all cases were accidental and I can#t remember what came of it).
**where the act was used for a last time in WW2 to prosecute a fraudulent medium.
This case is a perfect examample of why we should not rely on scientists to determine a person’s guilt.
Huh? I thought the whole point of the review was that there were no no properly trained forensic scientists involved in the initial review.
This case is a perfect examample of why we should not rely on scientists to determine a person’s guilt.
As for the objetion to the term ‘judicial murder’, at least over here that is a proper legal term (Justizmord) and distinct from ‘judicial error’ (Justizirrtum).
Hartmut, I think Justizmord would be better translated as “judicial homicide” rather than “judicial murder.” Judicial homicide is a proper term here too. When a prisoner is executed, that’s what’s listed as on the death certificate as the cause of a death.
But there’s a major difference in connotation between “homicide” and “murder.” Homicide simply refers to killing a person. It does not imply any moral judgment. For example, if I kill someone in self-defense that’s justifiable homicide. If I accidentally kill someone that’s excusable homicide. “Murder,” on the other hand, always implies immorality or criminality. It exclusively refers to deliberately killing someone without justification.
In other words, judicial homicide is what happened to Cameron Willingham. Murder is what happened to Nicole Brown Simpson.
Irrumator, I can accept your apology, but not your clear misunderstanding of ad hominem. As I said earlier, and Nombrilisme Vide has now confirmed, your attack on the Innocence Project is a clear example. Might I suggest that you reread your textbook? I would also suggest that you read the work of Douglas Walton, which is helpfully entitled “Ad Hominem Arguments”. He offers a valuable historical discussion, going back to Aristotle, as well as an insightful typology of the varieties of ad hominem attacks. Hopefully it will resolve your confusion on this complex issue.
Hmmm, this is getting at least some national exposure since it’s on Hardball now.
The term Justizmord was originally coined as implicating active misdeeds by the court (i.e. provable perversion of justice) but is now generally considered to also include negligence and indifference, if they lead to the execution of an innocent person. The reason seems to be that not caring in a case of life and death, although that is someone’s job goes beyond mere Totschlag (homicide). A case of innocent error* would be likely categorized as lethal judicial error (tödlicher Justizirrtum).
The discussion is of course mostly academic over here, since Germany** dropped the death penalty in 1949.
*e.g. German police for years chased a serial criminal that turned out to be a phantom caused by Q-tips contaminated by the DNA of a (female) worker in the Q-tip factory. Iirc suspicion started only after the DNA also showed up in cases of rape (female rapists rarely leave semen stains 😉 )
**Western Germany to be precise. The GDR dropped it de facto in the 70ies and formally in 1987.
Irrumator, I can accept your apology, but not your clear misunderstanding of ad hominem
The most polite thing I can say, MockTurtle, is that either we’re not talking about the same thing, or that you’re just plain wrong. Forget the crap about OJ for a second–that was tangential BS on my part.
Do you agree that it is not a fallacy to question the bias or competence of a putative expert, when asked to accept that expert’s opinion because of his expertise?
@Irr — not sure if you saw my comment on the other thread. First, let me clarify that I think you’ve added a lot of substance to the comments past few days, even if I disagree on merits with many of them.
But that said, would it be possible to use a new handle? I’m not ordering or anything, just asking. It’s been disturbing a lot of people, and it would be a nice gesture. thanks
In response to publius’ request I’ve sufficiently Bowdlerized my handle. Since people routinely write “f*ck” here, I feel this is more than enough, as my handle only has the potential to offend those familiar with obscure terms in dead languages, while f*ck is instantly recognizable to everyone.
1) “Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty:
“Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?”, by David Grann, New Yorker
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown–the-death-penalty.aspx
As more reality comes to light, the more into disrepute run’s Grann’s article.
My article was written and released prior to the Corsicana Fire Marshall’s report, below
2) EXCLUSIVE: City report on arson probe:
State panel asks for city response in Willingham case
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/news/local_story_276222736.html
3) No Doubts
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_250180658.html
For a collection of articles, go to:
Corsicana Daily Sun, The Willingham Files
http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles
OTHER REPORTS: There is the potential for, at least, 3 more, official, reports on this case: the Texas Fire Marshall’s office, which will give an official and requested reply, the Corsicana Police Dept. and Navarro County District Attorney’s office, both of which, I speculate, may only contribute to the TFM report, but could issue their own reports.
There is an official “report” which, it appears, few have paid attention to – the trial transcript.
I find that rather important because, at least six persons, who were involved with the trial, two prosecutors, the defense attorney, two surviving fire investigators and a juror have all voiced support for the verdict, still, in the light of the criticism of the arson forensics.
One of those original fire investigators is, now, an active certified arson expert.