CE Week #2: “Innocent Until Executed” Sept. 13th
By Dahlia Lithwick | NEWSWEEK Published Sep 3, 2009
For years, death-penalty opponents and supporters have been working their way toward a moment in which each side would rethink things. They were seeking a case in which a clearly innocent defendant was wrongly put to death. In a 2005 Supreme Court case that actually had nothing to do with the execution of innocents, Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia tangled over the possibility that such a creature even existed. Souter fretted that “the period starting in 1989 has seen repeated exonerations of convicts under death sentences, in numbers never imagined before the development of DNA tests.” To which Scalia retorted: “The dissent makes much of the newfound capacity of DNA testing to establish innocence. But in every case of an executed defendant of which I am aware, that technology has confirmed guilt.” Scalia went on to blast “sanctimonious” death-penalty opponents and a 1987 study on innocent exonerations whose “obsolescence began at the moment of publication,” then concluded that there was not “a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.”
This suggested that if anyone found such a case, the Scalias of the world would rethink matters. As of today, the Innocence Project, a national organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted through DNA testing, claims there have been 241 postconviction DNA exonerations, of which 17 were former death-row inmates spared execution. The gap between their facts and Scalia’s widens every year. And now we may have found that case of an innocent put to death: Cameron Todd Willingham, executed by the state of Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a 1991 house fire that killed his three young daughters.
David Grann, who wrote a remarkable piece about the case in last week’s New Yorker, sifted through the evidence against Willingham to reveal that the entire prosecution was a train wreck. And at every step in his appeal, Willingham’s claims of innocence were met with the response that he’d already had more than enough due process for a baby killer.
But you needn’t take Grann’s word for it. In 2004 Gerald Hurst, an acclaimed scientist and fire investigator, conducted an independent investigation of the evidence in the Willingham case and came away with little doubt that it was an accidental fire—likely caused by a space heater or bad wiring. Hurst found no evidence of arson, and wrote a report to try to stay the execution. According to documents obtained by the Innocence Project, it appears nobody at the state Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Texas governor’s office even took note of Hurst’s conclusions. Just before Willingham was executed, he told the Associated Press, “[T]he most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn’t care they’re making a mistake.”
Since Willingham’s death, two other independent inquiries found no evidence of arson. In 2007 the state of Texas commissioned another renowned arson expert, Craig Beyler, to examine the Willingham evidence. Beyler’s report, issued two weeks ago, concluded that investigators had no scientific basis for claiming the fire was arson.
One might think that all this would give a boost to death-penalty opponents, who have long contended that conclusive proof of an innocent murdered by the state would fundamentally change the debate. But that was before the goalposts began to shift this summer. In June, by a 5–4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner did not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence in police files, even at his own expense. “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. And two months later, Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas went even further when the Supreme Court ordered a new hearing in Troy Davis’s murder case, after seven of nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. Justice Scalia, dissenting from that order, wrote for himself and Thomas, “[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
As a constitutional matter, Scalia’s assertion is not wrong. The court has never found a constitutional right for the actually innocent to be free from execution. When the court flirted with the question in 1993, a majority ruled against the accused, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist left open the possibility that it may be unconstitutional to execute someone with a “truly persuasive demonstration” of innocence. Now, in Scalia’s America, the Cameron Todd Willingham whose very existence was once in doubt is legally irrelevant. We may execute a man for an accidental house fire, while the Constitution itself stands silently by.
Lithwick also writes for slate.com.
Section A: What did I learn by reading this piece?
First of all, the only precursor I had to this article was a piece Mr. Kautzman posted earlier, thus I read this article with completely fresh and unbiased ears. That being said, I was appalled. How can the execution of a man proved innocent, regardless of when, be justifiable by the constitution? By the very framework of our country? In this particular case, I understand that this father’s innocence was questioned. What I’m having trouble accepting I why they wouldn’t delve further. If Gerald Hurst, “an acclaimed scientist and fire investigator”, found evidence to suggest the house fire was accidental, then why not take that notion seriously? The life of any one man is not something to throw away. What this article really taught me is our court system’s vulnerabilities. They were so caught up on the “when” and timeframe of the case, I feel as though they undermined much of the available evidence.
I also learned that I don’t agree with all of our Supreme Justices. This holds especially true in the case of Justice Scalia. The following statement stirs feelings of disgust so strong in me, I find myself scared of who is running our court system: “[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” In other words, if a man is convicted, then later proved innocent, it is still lawful by the Supreme Court to execute him. Bottom line, it is lawful to kill an innocent man. That, beyond all else, is what I took from this article.
Section B: What do I think about this article?
This article scares me. I touched on this subject lightly in Section A, but let’s dig deeper, shall we? What do I think? When it comes to wasting human life, I am more inclined to exercise my feelings than my logic. Is this a weakness? Possibly. But it’s what makes me most human and, in my opinion, better prepared to comment on the issue. The articles centers around one basic question: is the execution of an innocent man a question of lawful justice or moral responsibility? I have a personal answer to that question, but its not a solution that everyone agrees with. It is both unjust and morally inept for use to put to death any individual whose guiltiness is debatable, regardless of when it is put to question. That’s how I feel about this article, but what I think about the content varies slightly. To start, I’ll not deny that the author was bias towards the Supreme Court, which invariably may have led to my opinion being swayed. Having said that, the evidence presented cannot be denied. I think the author researched his topic and gave an educated representation of the conflict. He did make an effort in portraying the “Innocent Project’s” desperation to find the court, most specifically Justice Scalia, guilty of wrongly executing an individual. Regardless, their hunt in my opinion is justified and I point my finger towards the Courts. I think they are wrong and I think this article raises a fair argument.
Section C: What more do I want to know about this article?
This article really sparked a fire in me; an angry fire. I’m talking blue flames here people. And the hot inferno is burning in the direction of Justice Scalia. I want to know what makes this guy tick. I’m not only interested in his role as a Justice in our Supreme Court, but I want to know some “juicy deets”. Where did he grow up? Were his parents religious? What did he name his dog? Did he ever dress up and pretend he was Michael Jackson? Just kidding. But I really do want to know his history. Some specifics as to why he became a Justice and why he feels that innocent human lives shouldn’t be spared, despite their proven innocence being untimely, would be beneficial to me. I would also like to know the history of the Innocent Project and what his role has been in their initiation. How was he appointed a Justice and by who? Where does he stand on current affairs? I’m interested. Don’t keep me waiting.
A. Wow. I can’t believe that innocent people are being killed for things that they didn’t even do. After reading this I learned that our government is kind of ridiculous. I have never heard the story of Cameron Todd Willingham and I think that he should have at least been given a court hearing or something so he could prove that he was innocent. I also had no idea that there was an Innocence Project.
B. I feel very bad for Willingham because he was innocent. Just like Scalia said there is not “a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.” That is horrible I think. I think that it’s nice that some people out there want to make a difference though and protect the innocent people. The Innocence Project that is dedicated to helping the wrongfully convicted through DNA testing is a good thing I think for this world.
C. I would like to know what else is out there that is helping innocent people; or if there is anything at all. Are there different death penalties around the world?
A. To start, I learned that exoneration means free from guilt or blame. When sifting through the information in this article, I found that there are doubts as to whether all men who are executed are truly guilty. One thing I found especially interesting was Chief Justice John Roberts’ quote, “a criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.” It is frightening and fascinating that a practice which has been around so long still is not fool proof.
B. In my opinion, I think the death penalty is seldom necessary. However, if a person has surely taken another’s life and faces life in prison, what good are they to the society? Why should tax dollars go to a life which will never again contribute to the society? I saw in the Inlander a few months back that the average cost per day to house an inmate in the Spokane County jail is around $80. That is about the cost that most people pay for a motel room, give or take. However, all men should be innocent until completely proven guilty. There were 37 executions in the United States in 2008, and that doesn’t sound terribly high. I just believe that if someone is executed, they better be guilty, because it is obviously a permanent process.
C. One thing I would like to know is why some states have such higher rates of execution than others. Are the rates of crime and rates of execution proportionate?
A) More than anything, there was an ‘inside look’ as to the thought process of the people dealing with such things, such as Justices Scalia and Thomas. My point of view was that, Justice Scalia saw that a person in court is there because they have nothing proving that they’re innocent, for good or bad. Other than that this article seemed to prove that there’s a lack of safeguards to such executions of the ‘innocent’, meaning that there should be no doubt.
B) I think that if a person is accused, then there should be proof for both sides to the argument. As for the case of Troy Davis, well he might be innocent or there could be something else going on. Such as some group buying off the eyewitnesses, or doubt of the account due to constant questioning or a failing memory and some lawyer taking advantage of the fact. As for the death penalty, there’s no question of whether it should remain or not (because this question is going to come up). If the death penalty were to disappear, then all a criminal would have to face is time in jail (which are already crowded enough).
C) This just really stuck to my mind, who are the current Justices and is there a ratio of who is for or against the Death Penalty?
A. What I Know: If you are innocent you should be free, if DNA or further evidence proves you are innocent, you should be free, and Supreme Court justices are sneaky S.O.B.s.
B. Oh my God, this case is dumb. I feel annoyed that I even read that article. It seems obvious that if you are innocent, you should be free and one slight by the constitution should not surrender that freedom. What happened to the bill of rights, or natural rights in general? Yes, Scalia is right the Constitution does not specifically say if you haven’t done anything you shouldn’t be killed but maybe that was because our founding fathers didn’t think that we would be morons. This seems like the perfect situation for an informal change to the Constitution and that Davis’s case would be the trial to do it.
C. How do some of these people get appointed to the Supreme Court? Scalia was appointed by Reagan so how long do we have to put up with him? What is the protocol for justices and when can we retire Scalia and get someone who is a little more up to date with the times and not so… stupid?
A. I learned from this piece that we have not yet ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a person that has proved his innocence. I was unaware that this question had been visited numerous times by the Supreme Court. I also did not know about the Innocence Project with their DNA testing.
B. I think killing innocent people is a mistake that we cannot easily ignore. Cameron Todd Willingham’s life could have been spared if the Supreme Court had taken a close look at the evidence. Even if proof of a man’s innocence is found after his trial, it should still be taken into consideration before sentencing a man to death. I’m confused. Why would you continue to sentence an innocent person to death? I figured if you were wrongly accused of a crime, you should be freed if proven otherwise. I do think it is cool that the Innocence Project is trying to prevent these executions from happening by showing the courts some real results and statistics. Maybe we can eventually change the Supreme Courts minds.
C. What I would like to know is what specific “constitutional right” is the Supreme Court looking for? If you are innocent, shouldn’t you be spared from death row?
I did not know that people were given the death penalty even if they were not proven guilty! I think that if you have not been proven guilty then you SHOULDN’T be able to be given the death penalty; I think that is a little too harsh. I believe that the death penalty should be used but the person being given it should be proven guilty first. “[T]he most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn’t care they’re making a mistake.” Texas should recognize that if they don’t know if the person is guilty and they are executing them then they are doing a wrong thing and maybe they should do some more research on that person and actually find them guilty. Isn’t it wrong to execute a man for an accidental house fire? What were they thinking?
A. After already reading a death-penalty article from this summer’s assignment, I knew that people on death-row may be innocent. From this piece, I learned that there is an organization, the Innocence Project, that is fighting for these innocent people. It also surprised me to hear that Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia sound less than concerned that any of this is happening.
B. I think it’s horrible that innocent people are getting put to death for crimes they didn’t commit. After 3 independent investigations and one that was authorized by the sate, there was no evidence that Todd Willingham set his house on fire on purpose. I question why, if there was even one investigation saying he was innocent before he died, there was nothing done. It seems to me that the death penalty is being handed out too willingly in cases that are not being thoroughly reviewed.
C. I want to know why there hasn’t been anything done to make it unconstitutional to kill an innocent man? Why this isn’t a bigger deal than it is. Also, I don’t really know what crimes have to be committed to but put to death, so I would like to know more about that as well. Is it all up to the judges?
A. After reading “Innocent until Executed” I learned that a guy named Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for setting his house on fire and killing his three young daughters. But, in 2004, a scientist and a fire investigator, Gerald Hurst, discovered that the fire was without a doubt an accidental fire. The fire was most likely caused by improper wiring or a space heater. He also found that arson was not present at all. Hurst wrote a report on it trying to stay the execution. Nobody at the state Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Texas governor’s office even looked at it. Willingham was put to death.
B. I am appalled that the state would put someone to death without reviewing all the evidence. I am pro death penalty, but only when the evidence conclusively shows the person is guilty. The Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Texas governor should have looked at the report written by Hurst.
C. What I want to know about this topic is why the governor or the people in charge of the execution didn’t look at the report done by Hurst. Is there a reason more valid than knowing the truth? Was their personal relationship going on or was the governor willing to take the chance of executing an innocent man.
A. This article really made me think. I learned that some Supreme Court judges have a very skewed perspective compared to someone such as myself. A normal person would think that judged would be super just and try to be fair by the Constitution, but this shows that they may do what doesn’t seem just in my view. Such as put an innocent man to death for something he can prove he didn’t do. It was odd to me that the Constitution doesn’t give any exact outline as to how to deal with this. That’s rather surprising. I also learned about the Willingham arson case for the first time. I would think that that’d be a widely talked and debated case, but I’ve never heard of it in my life.
B. This topic seems as if it’s highly controversial, but in my opinion, I think that putting any man to death who can be proven to be completely innocent is horrible. I’m pretty positive that if someone asked, most Americans would agree with my thought. For some reason, it also seems that Scalia is trying to defend herself for something unsaid. She constantly puts forth complexly worded statements about how exoneration doesn’t really matter because the accused already had a fair trial, so the likely innocent person has be put to death.
C. Mostly what I’d like to see is the sections of the Constitution that allow this kind of thing. I know it doesn’t say, ” YOU CAN KILL INNOCENTS!” but I really would like to maybe see the part(s) about the death penalty and such. I would also like to know how long ago Davis’ case began, and how many times he almost got sent to be executed.
A. I learned a lot from reading this piece, actually. I didn’t know about the Supreme Court decision to prevent a convicted man from requesting DNA testing. I also learned for the first time about this specific case. However, Lithwick does make some innacuracies. I noticed that he says the innocence project found “proof”. However, first of all, if it was really proof he would have been exonherated, and secondly, all of the evidence that he lists (which is a very tiny amount) is inconclusive by its very nature. I’m not saying that Willingham was guilty, but Lithwick offers little to no proof, his entire argument appears based upon Pathos.
B. As you probably noticed, I feel pretty strongly about this topic. I agree that the innocent should not be punished, but I think that the guilty should be. I heard a quote once that was something along the lines of “The problem with a theory is that all evidence you gather goes into proving this theory, regardless of which direction it points. It becomes an unkillable thing that cannot be stopped by any form of fact or reason.” That is exactly what this Innocence commission is. They set about trying to prove that innocenty people died, so anyone who claimed innocence became, in their eyes, innocent. Lithwick conspicuously left out cases like Joseph Duncan, Charles Manson, Jeffery Dalmer, or David Berkowitz (better known as Son of Sam). I tend to go for an “eye for an eye” sort of thinking. An unrepentant murderer deserves death.
C. I would like information on the criteria for the death penalty, and historical cases that support both sides of the deasth penalty argument.
A. I remember the past article similar to this one about Troy Davis escaping death row. I found his story quite interesting and how someone could be so close to death but never put to death. This recent article intrigued me just the same. It was fascinating to learn about how there truly are other cases of people being put on death row for crimes they didn’t do. As stated in the article, “the Innocence Project claims there have been 241 post conviction DNA exonerations, of which 17 were former death-row inmates spared execution.” While 17/241 is not a great percentage, it makes me happy to think that 17 lives have been saved.
B. I think it is extremely important that justice be served in our country. If you do something bad, you should pay for your crimes. However, death cannot be reversed. I believe that if there is a question to whether a person is wrongly convicted or not and there is some evidence in their favor, they should not be put to death. It would be terrible to put someone to death only to find out 10 years later that all along they were innocent. But by all means, if they’re convicted for an awful crime they should be put on death row.
C. I think it’s great what the Innocence Project group does, but if they prove that someone was innocent after he or she died from the death penalty, what can they do? The person is already dead?
This article was a real eye opener. I learned that there is a DNA testing process that tests convicted murderers and others DNA to see if they are guilty or innocent. That is a pretty neat thing to do if it was actually put into affect for the person BEFORE they were put to death.
Grr… this article is a tough one because it not only uses pathos to get the point across but it also deals with a tough topic with both liberals and conservatives. I myself believe that there should be a consequence for those who have done harm to any person(s). I don’t know what to think about this article really… I think that there should be more researh on the person being convicted so something like putting an innocent person to death. But then again, isn’t that what the attorney is for as well as private investigators? Also, shouldn’t accidental instances be taken into consideration? Better yet, shouldn’t that kind of stuff be debunked at the scene of the crime?
My only question is what if this DNA testing process proves to be faulty and a guilty man gets off clean?
A. In this article Lithwick enlightened me on the execution of innocent prisoners, which seems like a topic that is rarely covered. The execution of innocent men and women I think would be a bit higher figure than they proclaim it to be, seeing as all the hasty decisions and emotions involved with such trials of these heinous crimes would lead people to the injection pretty quickly. It was also interesting to learn that there was an organization committed to investigating such trials, the Innocence Project. I also learned of the recent Supreme Court case that ruled that prisoners no longer have the right to ask for DNA tests of evidence that could possibly prove their innocence.
B. Cases involving death row inmates should be looked into with a lot more detail and more compound evidence should be found before the person is rushed off to be executed. I think it’s interesting that so few cases have been found where an executed prisoner actually turn out to be innocent.
C. Considering our justice system tends to favor the defendant why did the Supreme Court suddenly rule that prisoners can no longer request DNA testing to see if they can prove their innocence?
By reading this piece I learned about Cameron Todd Willingham’s case. I honestly was very shocked to read it and find out that he was executed when the investigators clearly had the proof that the fire was accidental and not arson. I can really believe that the state of Texas didn’t do something about it before they went and executed him. I mean I agree with the death penalty. If someone kills someone or commits a horrible crime of some sort, they do deserve to be put to their death, especially if they have the potential to do it again. I however was rather appalled that they would continue to kill this man that just lost his three daughters when there was clear evidence provided by David Grann and Gerald Hurst that he was innocent. I can’t really believe that the state Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas governor’s office didn’t take any notice to the conclusions of Hurst. I understand that the death penalty is a really big deal but why wouldn’t they at least look at it? I’m pretty sure through all this evidence that Willington was innocent, yet they still killed him. That doesn’t seem right. I think that it would be interesting and helpful to learn more about the death penalty. I want to know like what goes into deciding if someone will go to jail for life or be executed. Also what they would do if someone was proved innocent and they did something about it, would they be suddenly free then?
A. One of the articles that we read this summer went along with this topic and was one that I was particularly interested in. In short, this article is a summary of an investigation of a case where an innocent person was tried convicted and executed. It also deals with whether or not the Constitution has anything to say about a person who is tried and convicted and then proven innocent. The Constitution says that a person is innocent until proven guilty. But, what about when evidence of their innocence surfaces after they have already been convicted. Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “A criminal defendant proven guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.” Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote, “[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” These sources seem fairly cynical about the reality of the innocence of the people in these cases. According to the Constitution a person is innocent until proven guilty, but after they have a fair and full trial “guilty until proven innocent” is suspended, and they are simply guilty.
B. This article makes some interesting points. You would think that if a person was tried and convicted and before they were executed overwhelming evidence came in proving their innocence, they would be exonerated. Apparently not. Although these gentlemen believe that there is nothing in the Constitution that would back that up it seems, contrary to everything the Constitution was written for. However our judicial system isn’t perfect. With the advances in technology such as DNA testing, though, it seems like they should have a pretty good idea of who’s innocent and who’s guilty. I liked the statistics that the author included, about the 241 postconviction DNA exonerations. I don’t think Cameron Willingham’s case was a fair one, due to how many testimonies and investigations that screamed his innocence. But sometimes innocent people are convicted and executed and sometimes those who are guilty go free.
C. Why were the officials in Willingham’s case so unwilling to budge on their decision? How often do innocent people get convicted verses the number of times those who are guilty are exonerated? What is the comparison? And what could be done to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
well what can i say. It would really suck to have it be said that you killed your loved ones and then after your trial have i concluded that you were innocent. I mean to have to live in jail for years and live with the pain of knowing that your childeren are dead and that you are being blamed, that you can never visit their grave and that you couldnt attend their funnale i mean that you really suck. And what is this about the fack that you could be innocent but of a group of people belive you are guilty because they were deeply affected by “your” crime senticed you to dedath that you have no rught to try to prove your innocence. i meani get not haveing the same rights but you should at least be able to prove those people wrong.
NO CREDIT – Word Count 145; Conventions: Proof Read More Carefully
Section A. In this piece, I learned about how the Constitution does not defend the rights of an innocent accused of being guilty and set on death row. I learned, briefly, about the Innocence Project, “a national organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted through DNA testing.” I learned about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was falsely accused and executed for setting fire to a house and killing his three daughters.
Section B. I feel, on this particular topic, that there should be more done as far as thorough investigation is concerned before someone is set to death row. Obviously, Texas isn’t going to care who is next in line. They are usually put there for a reason, and it’s not the states’ job to find out about an innocent among the guilty preparing to die. I feel like something is always found in the aftermath, something that’s always staring investigators and courts right in the face and isn’t found until everything is all said and done. I just think it’s very sad.
Section C. I want to know about what’s being done to fix issues such as this. How is it the evidence that Wellington was not guilty can be overlooked then found in at least two cases after the fact? I want to know how the systems are being altered, if at all, to try and catch mistakes such as this. The Constitution isn’t met to set these innocents to death once convicted, but apparently nothing can be done about it at the present. It’s in the country’s best interests for this to change.
A.I learned that certain people are found guilty and executed, but later they are found innocent. I knew that certain people were given the death penalty for a crime, but I didn’t know that people got the death penalty for a crime they didn’t actually commit.
B.I think it’s bad because the person got killed and they didn’t do anything wrong, even though it may seem like they did. Sometimes when someone commits a crime, they frame someone else. It’s sad when a family loses someone else for and an idiot’s stupidity. I’m not 100% against the death penalty, because I read this book for school last year and the man, Ted Bundy, deserved the death penalty. He admitted to killing around thirty girls, and over 100 other cases went unknown. I know this would never happen, but I wish no one ever committed crimes like murder. It’s probably a big step to ask for that.
C.I would like to know how the judge felt when he found out that Willingham was really innocent.
A. Wow. A lot of people have died because of stupid people who are too lazy to have a DNA test done, or look at a report from a scientist and fire investigator that proves a man, Willingham, was innocent. How horrible to loose three children, and then be accused of doing the deed.
B. Maybe we need to do some rethinking on the whole supreme court not making much of a stand for the innocent evicted. Maybe the death penalty is a little too harsh. Is it really fair to put life and death in the hands of men? I’m kind of thinking after reading this article that a life sentence in prison might be enough. Just because the Innocence Project has proved 241 people wrongfully convicted doesn’t mean that’s all. There could be, and probably are, many more people that have died innocently because of a judge who didn’t really dig into a case. Not saying that everyone has a story as exciting as Harrison Ford in The Fugitive, but stuff like that definitely can happen. I have a much better understanding of this after reading this article.
C. Does the Constitution actually say anything about the death penalty?
A. I did not know much about the death penalty stance in America. I found this article actually really depressing. The fact that our Cheif Justice can say… “’A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,’ wrote Chief Justice John Roberts”, is totally uncalled for and unfair. I know that once a man is guilty, he’s done something wrong, but to say this even after it’s clearly proven that the state of Texas has killed a man for a crime he did not commit is horrible. The man was probably already heart broken his three kids had died. This article has a big effect and persuaded me to be anti-death penalty. Plus, wouldn’t it be worse to spend your life in prison than die on spot? So if you’re giving the death penalty under the worse possible crimes, I would say life in prison is worse.
B. As I’ve already stated, what I think about this article is that there should be more proof of someone being guilty. The state of Texas should really look more into the facts and live off the foundations we were built off, innocent until proven guilty. It seems much like Texas was seeing this man as guilty and not looking at the innocent facts.
C. My main question is why Texas didn’t look more into Hurst’s reports? I don’t see how they could have executed this man with knowing these facts.
A. There hasn’t been a single case when an innocent person was executed for a crime they didn’t commit… and sanctimonious means hypocritically pious. It was interesting to learn about Willingham but since his “very existence was once in doubt” I don’t feel that this instance is concrete evidence. The main thing I learned is that as technology advances new problems arise. The author says that the “Constitution itself stands silently by” as this is happening. I don’t agree. The constitution is malleable. That’s why it has “withstood the winds of time”. It is merely waiting patiently to be interpreted.
B. Rhetoric can twist things around. Chief Justice John Roberts said “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man”. He was referring to the fact that “the a prisoner did not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence in police files, even at his own expense”. This made sense until I stepped backed and thought about it. That DNA test could prove a man’s innocence and save his life. Executing someone is serious business. No amount of hassle is too great when it comes to the decision of life and death. I don’t know if DNA tests are hard or take a long time but they seem worth it. Better safe than sorry.
C. How are DNA tests carried out? And this is disturbing, but what are the different ways to be executed?
After reading the article, I found out for the first time in my life about Cameron Todd Willingham. He was executed, although was later found innocent. Thanks to DNA tests, 17 people were spared their lives. The Innocence Project makes that possible. However, once convicted of a crime worth of execution, but later found innocent, a person can, and probably will, still be executed. And that’s Constitutional…
The founding fathers probably never imagined it would get to this, or did they? Killing an innocent person. I think that it’s acceptable in a Monarchy, but not in a Republic, and that’s what America is. It’s interesting that the Constitution doesn’t say that an innocent person cannot be punished. What’s more strange is that a Supreme Court Justice Scalia said that an innocent person can be executed. That’s coming from a Justice! Is that just, or is it just wrong? Does Scalia think that bringing a person back from death row is too much hassle and paperwork? I believe that even if a single innocent person’s life is at stake, something should be done. Maybe a Constitutional amendment? Who’s with me? Let’s create a petition!
I want to know whether innocent people aren’t specifically protected from execution in the Constitution on purpose, or is it a serious omission? Did the founding fathers want to be able to silence their opposition when they needed to?
A: I didn’t know that someone had been given the death penalty and then been proven innocent as this article describes. I could have probably assumed though that in the past before we had the DNA testing and technology we do now that people were accused and given the death penalty while being innocent therefore it does not shock me out of my seat that such a case exists. As far as I know there are not a lot of cases like this and as a nation those deciding who is guilty or not are pretty good about finding evidence before giving a verdict, so this may have been just a one time thing.
B: I do believe in the death penalty when the victim is a murder and the courts have hard evidence before sentencing, in this case talked about however they did not have the proof so I think it was wrong to kill him when they did not know whether or not the fire was his fault or not. It seems like they just rushed through the trail and killed him, that’s at least how the article makes it sound. I feel bad for the guy he obviously should not have died but does that mean we should wipe out the whole death penalty option, I personally don’t believe so.
C: What kind of evidence do courts need to be able to hold them guilty of a murder? Is it just DNA testing or is there more that they need?
A. In the article “Innocent until Executed” I learned that there are two very different groups of people with two very different opinions on the death penalty. There is a group of people behind the Innocence Project, who look for any way to prove a person sentenced to the death penalty to be innocent. The people searching for innocence hope to debate the accuracy of using DNA testing in convicting a person of a felony. At this time there has been at least one reported case of an innocent man being executed and his death could have been avoided if more people had paid attention to the information provided by outside sources.
B. I had little knowledge of this topic before reading the article. At this point I was able to extend my knowledge, which was pretty easy since all I knew was that there was a division between the feelings of people on the death penalty. I now know how drastic those divisions are and how harmful they can be to different parts of the country.
C. What I want to know is if other than the case of Cameron Willingham are there any other reported cases of an innocent man being executed?
A. From this article, I learned that not one innocent defendant wrongfully put to death has been found. That surprises me. Especially after reading the article, I think that is probably more a mistake of the courts than it is a true fact. I didn’t know the courts were so stubborn and resistant to DNA testing, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
B. I think it’s ridiculous that the courts are so opposed to DNA testing for defendants on death row. When dealing with such a heavy matter as the death penalty, every precaution should be taken. The evidence against the accused should be thoroughly investigated, because killing a person isn’t a light, worry-free decision. I don’t see why a criminal shouldn’t be able to request a DNA test. The constitution says that a criminal shall not be deprived of life without due process of law. A DNA test might not necessarily have to be part of that due process, but it would surely improve it, so why is there so much opposition to an idea that could have only a positive effect? I would trust the hard facts of forensic science over the opinions of the court any day.
C. I would like to know what the reasons and motivating factors are for those opposed to DNA testing for the accused. What would the cost be for the taxpayer? Are there any other reasons to deny someone this test?
This is in response to Sarah Fullmer:
You asked if the Constitution actually said anything about the death penalty and when I looked it up I found a couple things. The Constitution itself does not have anything about the death penalty in it. However the eighth amendment forbids punishments that are “cruel and unusual.” I guess there is discussion about whether or not the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel is usually defined as painful or brutal, so that would be more along the line of torture. That is about all I found. I was actually a little surprised to find that there is nothing specific about the death penalty in the Constitution.
Good Connection – Kautzman
In response to: Kylie Tompkins
Well, yes, I’d have to agree that of course people do not know that others receive the death penalty for crimes they did not commit. I think this was the main point in this article.
You mentioned that you think this man got framed. I’d have to disagree because the evidence proves that the burning of the house was an accident. “In 2007 the state of Texas commissioned another renowned arson expert, Craig Beyler, to examine the Willingham evidence. Beyler’s report, issued two weeks ago, concluded that investigators had no scientific basis for claiming the fire was arson.” Because there was no arson, the investigators are claiming that the fire was an accident.
In response to Alex:
I agree with you that the statistics are likely misconstrued. However, I do not think that “unrepentant murderers” should be killed. If we are to kill them, are we not doing the same thing they did? Murder is wrong. I understand that. I do not understand how one wrong action can make someone an all around bad person. I really don’t think that we can really be the judge of whether they deserve to die – I doubt that we as a society are truly ready for that power. Furthermore, I don’t understand the eye for eye philosophy. I know it has Biblical foundations, but it seems like the Bible says to forgive and turn the other cheek.
In response to Kaylie Madsen- Though your question was probably meant more for ‘food for thought’, the question itself brings up many answers. My point of view being that, if a person is found innocent after death (via execution or natural causes) then the court, law enforcement, even the ‘eye’ witnesses would have a innocents death on their hands. As well as making the state look bad to the media or another who got involved.
In response to Sarah Fullmer- 241 people found innocent by the Innocence Project, but what if they weren’t innocent? What if some lawyer saw a mistype and was able to throw out a whole case. Who are men to judge who lives and dies you asked? Well, what gives someone the right to extinguish the life of a child, grandparent or parent forever, and then get away of it because their good at lying and saying ‘their innocent’? So no, the death penalty isn’t a little too harsh; in fact it’s a little too lenient.
In response to Jeremy Urann:
Justice Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey. He married Maureen McCarthy and had nine children. He became Justice of the Supreme Court on September 26, 1986. He is also a roman catholic. I found this information at http://usgovinfo.about.com if you want to learn more. One reason why I think he executed Willingham, not that I agree with it, but, Judge Scalia has nine children of his own. Maybe he loves his children so much and his foundation for the family unit is so strong that he couldn’t bear having a father that he thought killed his own children living among us on the streets. Possibly, he thought the evidence was overwhelmingly strong against Willingham, that it would just be a waste of time and taxpayers money to keep him alive.
Response to Sarah Fullmer
You mentioned that after reading this piece that you thought maybe “a life sentence in prison might be enough” well I disagree with that comment. If someone commits murder on numerous or even one person why should they be able to keep there lives when they ended someone else’s, it seems pretty fair to me that if they do the crime then they deserve that punishment. Please don’t mistake me by saying that though, I don’t want everyone who is suspected of murder to be killed but if there is solid evidence proving that they are guilty (which did not happen in this case and I think is awful) then it seems like the appropriate consequence. I wouldn’t want to see that there is even a chance of a proven murderer gaining freedom. I think because of this case the best change to be made is to make sure a full investigation takes place BEFORE a punishment is choose.
A. Sarah
Is lifelong imprisonment enough? People are sentenced with prison for life when they are convicted with sex crimes and when they are convicted of murder. While both are tragic I would have to say murder tops the crime scale. The murderer is ending someone’s life, their victim does not get to learn and grow as most people do because their experience has been cut short. Which crime merits the greater punishment? Murder is the obvious answer. So maybe the murderer shouldn’t be put to death, but he should experience more discomfort and have a harsher punishment than someone who has committed a lesser crime. Also part of the purpose for the death penalty is to make a punishment so extreme as to make a potential killer think twice about the crime he is going to commit. Personally death sounds scarier than prison for life.
In Response to Megan Sikes:
I went to the site; http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org and it gave me a lot of information on the requirements on death penalty. The requirements vary from state to state so I will tell you about Washington. There are 13 rules for Washington, which seems about the average number of requirements between the states. Here’s the list in my new age terms:
1.) The murder was committed by or near a motorized vehicle
2.) The defendant committed or tried to commit more than one murder
3.) The defendant continues to be a threat to society
4.) If the defendant hired/paid/planned to have someone else commit the murder
5.) The defendant was told he would receive something in return for murder (basically the other end of the stick from 4)
6.) The murder was part of gang activity
7.) The defendant is a future danger
8.) The act was committed by someone who escaped, is in, or is on probation from jail.
9.) The victim was killed because they knew information on a previous crime or was killed to conceal any information.
10. ) The victim was a news reporter and the murder was committed to stop reporting of a case or person. (This one is random to me)
11.) The defendant has committed treason
12.) If at the time of the murder the victim had a restraining order or any
paperwork that suggests they could not be in contact.
13.) If the victim is a ‘family or household’ member and there were a pattern of
crimes committed upon that person within the past 5 years.
There are the 13 rules to be considered for the death penalty in Washington. A lot of the states have similar rules just worded differently. It amazes me that those 13 rules can determine what crimes are punishable by death. To me number 10 seems a little odd because it seems very similar to number 9 but I guess it only covers the news reporters.
In response to Sarah Fullmer:
Nicole already covered the part of the Constitution that talks about “cruel and unusual punishment,” and I found that the 5th amendment could be interpreted as speaking on the death penalty too. It says, “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” which seems like it supports the argument for the death penalty as an acceptable punishment as long as there is due process of law. So it could be an issue of whether you consider DNA testing a part of the due process of law. Personally, I think it should be, but I’m not one of the judges who make that kind of decision.
In response to Sarah:
I disagree with your comment about life imprisonment. The system on death row is sometimes innaccurate and has cost some innocent people their lives. However, a mass murderer cannot have the same punishment as a thief or a drunk driver. If we don’t distinguish between crimes there is no reason to have a system of laws that bases punishment on types of crimes. The death penalty was put in place basically to scare people into not murdering. Whether that has proved true over the years or not I don’t know. Also the judicial system is so inefficient and criminals are allowed to appeal their case so many times for parole etc. that it becomes ineffective. Another key thing is that the money to keep criminals in jail comes from the taxpayers, us. If all the people who committed heinous crimes were sentenced to life imprisonment the economy would suffer immensely. I don’t want innocent people to die but I do feel like the guilty should pay, so maybe a whole new sytem needs to be instated, a cheaper and more effective one. But, I do agree that judges need to be more accurate and dig deeper into the evidence especially when dealing with life and death.
In response to Daniel Lipuzhin, Part C:
The Constitution doesn’t cover the rights of an innocent charged as guilty. It’s based on that all accusations are correct and have no need to be looked over twice. In an online overview of the Constitution (http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_2.html), the federal courts piece explains criminal cases at a national standard, and nothing is set in place for the innocent accused as guilty.
In response to Krystal Roach, Part B:
I strongly disagree in the case that Wellington’s trial was just rushed through, that they didn’t care whether or not it was definite that Wellington was the cause of arson and the death of the three girls. There had to be some kind of evidence pointing to Wellington, even though he was innocent and and evidence was found afterwards proving his innocence. With a punishment as heavy as the death penalty, they need to be as close to 100% sure as they possibly can, because unlike life sentences, the death penalty cannot be undone.
Commenting on Jenna Alaskar:
I agree that innocent people should not be executed or face the death penalty, but when we hear somebody say they are innocent are we going to listen to them and believe their position. I mean are we literally going to believe every person who claims to be innocent, or are we going to put them through a trial and see what the jury or judge has to say. I understand the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the death penalty but it does comment on trial by jury and a fair trial, if we just believe anyone who say’s they are innocent tehn what would be the use of a judicial system.
In response to Katie Bates= Well, I see where you are coming from on the whole “Liberty as a free man.” But I am sure that they do have to set standards you know? They may have put it in a harsh manner, but I am sure there is a justifiable reason onto why it is stated as so. (At least I think there is.) Murdering probably does not automatically grant them the same liberties as a free person, so in an opposite manner, I am going to have to disagree on how you say it is unfair. But yes, the article was definitely depressing.
In response to Krystal Roach=: What kind of evidence do courts need to be able to hold them guilty of a murder? Is it just DNA testing or is there more that they need?
As far as I know, Courts really need the DNA evidense, witness words, and most of all, for the actual story to match up against the person being put onto trial. But overall, if there really is the full-on DNA evidence, I am sure that is proof enough that the Murderer was “at the scene” of the crime with full contact in it you know?
In response to Megan Sikes
Here are some that weren’t covered by Valerie.
Treason (fighting against your own country) Federal and Military courts, AR, CA, CO, GA, LA
Aggravated Kidnapping CO, GA, ID, KY, SC
Willfully causing a Train Wreck CA
Perjury (lying under oath) which led to an execution CA, ID
Hijacking a Plane GA, MS
Sex Crimes against a victim younger than 14 by a repeat offender OK
Sex Crimes against a victim younger than 11 by a repeat offender SC
Sexual crimes without the victim’s consent (victim younger than 13) LA
Capital Sexual Battery FL
Murder during an act of Terrorism NJ
Capital Drug Trafficking FL, NJ