The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The whole pulling the plug thing makes me think about another aspect of the death penalty that bothers me greatly. Like I said, I can understand the family's anger and I can understand them wanting the killer dead. I still don't agree with vigilante justice, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

But for me, if I'm sitting on a jury with 11 other people, and I'm sitting here listening to testimony from the prosecution and defense in a murder case, that's a whole other situation. I didn't know anything about the people involved until we found ourselves in the same courtroom. I don't know who's telling me the truth and who's lying, I don't know if one's memory is hazy, if the person sitting at the defense table is actually the one who committed the crime, I don't know any of that. I just have to trust that everyone involved is telling the truth. And that's not always the case.

And then I'm expected to sit there and make a decision about whether or not someone lives or dies based on a few days or weeks or months' worth of testimony? Yeah, who wouldn't want that job! If I find out I sentenced an innocent person to death row, hell, yeah, that's going to weigh on my conscience heavily.

I always throw this verse out when conversing with a fellow Christian about the death penalty:

VENGEANCE IS MINE; I WILL REPAY, SAITH THE LORD

The criminal justice system is in place to keep the innocent out of harm's way, not play God. Execution is never an appropriate sentence.

:up: Well said.

I'd also point out that one would think Christians would be against the death penalty because, you know, Jesus was put to death for no logical reason.
 
And then I'm expected to sit there and make a decision about whether or not someone lives or dies based on a few days or weeks or months' worth of testimony? Yeah, who wouldn't want that job! If I find out I sentenced an innocent person to death row, hell, yeah, that's going to weigh on my conscience heavily.

Even though we don't have the death penalty, I am very glad that I'm permanently precluded from serving on a jury.
 
Why is that, if I may ask?

I've only been summoned for jury duty once so far, but I wasn't able to do it because I was moving at the time. And I don't think the case was anything as serious as a murder trial.

But I never, ever want to find myself on that sort of a jury. Even if the death penalty isn't on the table in that sort of case, even if they're looking at life imprisonment, it'd still be really tough.
 
I'd also point out that one would think Christians would be against the death penalty because, you know, Jesus was put to death for no logical reason.

Jesus was put to death for a very logical reason, he challenged the political power structures of the Romans and the sanhedrin. But most logically his death fulfilled Bible prophecy. Or so some of us believe. :)
 
Jesus was guilty of the crime he was accused of and tried for, sedition, revolution. He was killed for political, criminal reasons, not religious reasons.

John Brown was more innocent than Jesus.
 
Lawyers can't serve on a jury.

Ah, okay. Didn't know that's what you did for a living (or maybe I saw mention of it once and blanked or something).

Jesus was put to death for a very logical reason, he challenged the political power structures of the Romans and the sanhedrin. But most logically his death fulfilled Bible prophecy. Or so some of us believe. :)

I know that's why he was killed. I meant that he didn't commit any crimes that people nowadays see as worthy of the death penalty.

As for the Bible prophecy stuff...*Shrugs*.
 
How would you feel if you pulled the plug on someone who was found guilty, and then found out afterwards that he was actually innocent of the crime you killed him for?

I say again......that can't happen today with today's DNA and forensic technology.

I'm a devout fan of real crime shows on TV (like "Crime stories", "Medical detectives" etc.) and the percentage of accuracy in convictions due to forensic technology is astounding. There is no way that a person can be convicted of a crime if he didn't do it.
 
Are you surprised that it's coming from her? I'm not.

I'm sorry that you think my opinions are fucked up just because they don't subscribe to your way of thinking (and others)..........but the beauty of this board is that I'm free to express them anyway - even though I may be criticized (and quite often I am....). I'm entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

:hug:
 
This is all kinds of fucked up

Hi Jive,

Did you not see the people I mentioned in my post?

Ted Bundy - who tortured, raped and murdered over 30 women - did he really deserve to live? was he innocent and wrongfully put to death?

John Gacy - one of the worst serial killers who disguised his cruelty under a clown's outfit and killed over 30 innocent boys? was he also innocent?

John Couey - the monster who kidnapped and raped little Jessica Lunsford and then put her in plastic bags and buried her alive, causing her to slowly suffocate to death - a truly innocent soul, right?

Adolph Eichman - one of the main architects and executors of the "final solution". Millions of Jews were herded like cattle onto railway cars and transported to death camps where they were either gassed on arrival or worked to death, slowly dying from malnutrition, disease, beatings, and ghastly experiments - all orchestrated by Adolph Eichman and his cohorts.
A true piller of the community, right?

I repeat - I would have GLADLY pulled the plug on any one of these loathsome creatures.......

If you think that's fucked up.....well, so be it.

......and here's a hug for you too.......:)
 
AchtungBono said:
I'm a devout fan of real crime shows on TV (like "Crime stories", "Medical detectives" etc.) and the percentage of accuracy in convictions due to forensic technology is astounding. There is no way that a person can be convicted of a crime if he didn't do it.

I've read many stupid things on this forum. This would be in the top percentile.
 
AchtungBono said:
Hi Jive,

Did you not see the people I mentioned in my post?

Ted Bundy - who tortured, raped and murdered over 30 women - did he really deserve to live? was he innocent and wrongfully put to death?

John Gacy - one of the worst serial killers who disguised his cruelty under a clown's outfit and killed over 30 innocent boys? was he also innocent?

John Couey - the monster who kidnapped and raped little Jessica Lunsford and then put her in plastic bags and buried her alive, causing her to slowly suffocate to death - a truly innocent soul, right?

Adolph Eichman - one of the main architects and executors of the "final solution". Millions of Jews were herded like cattle onto railway cars and transported to death camps where they were either gassed on arrival or worked to death, slowly dying from malnutrition, disease, beatings, and ghastly experiments - all orchestrated by Adolph Eichman and his cohorts.
A true piller of the community, right?

I repeat - I would have GLADLY pulled the plug on any one of these loathsome creatures.......

If you think that's fucked up.....well, so be it.

......and here's a hug for you too.......:)

I am interested to see the response to this though.
 
I say again......that can't happen today with today's DNA and forensic technology.

I'm a devout fan of real crime shows on TV (like "Crime stories", "Medical detectives" etc.) and the percentage of accuracy in convictions due to forensic technology is astounding. There is no way that a person can be convicted of a crime if he didn't do it.

I watch real crime shows, too.

And you're still flat out wrong.

I hope you're merely pulling people's legs here, 'cause if you're not, that's scary.
 
Hi Jive,

Did you not see the people I mentioned in my post?

I know who these people are, thanks. Who's arguing that they were innocent?

If you or someone you knew was personally affected by what these people did, then I could maybe see past what you're saying. I've thankfully never been in that position (though my family was before I was born), but I can sympathize with someone wanting revenge for the death of a family member (it still doesn't make it right - that's why family members don't get to decide what happens to the accused - but it's at least understandable). But for you to gleefully imagine yourself personally putting someone to death for actions that have no emotional impact on you speaks to a certain kind of imbalance. It goes far beyond the idea that a person has forfeited his life by heinously taking that of another and into some sort of sick blood lust.
 
I don't know, I can sorta see where AB is coming from there. There are some sick people on this earth who don't deserve to live.

That's arguable. But would you take pleasure in pulling the trap on the gallows?
 
Well the fact that you're not joyously proclaiming it on a message board is a good sign
 
I don't know, I can sorta see where AB is coming from there. There are some sick people on this earth who don't deserve to live.

Oh, absolutely. Nobody's denying there are some truly fucked up people out there whose deaths I won't mourn, who have done some deeply frightening, demented things.

But I frankly think the death penalty is too good for them. I'm not exactly expecting those sorts of people to have their conscience get to them, 'cause I don't think they have much, if any, of one to begin with, but I think there could be much better ways to really punish them for what they've done.

I've often heard about criminals who are in jail for life with no parole actually begging for the death penalty, which I think says something right there. And why would we want to give those people what they want?

For the record, I couldn't put someone to death, either. And I sure as hell wouldn't stick around to watch the execution. I think that's a seriously messed up, creepy thing to do. I don't take any joy in watching people die, and I worry about those who do.
 
No, because if they were innocent of the crime they wouldn't have been convicted and sentenced to death.


Wasn't the whole point of the thread that an innocent man was convicted and sentenced to death? I'm not going to argue with you on the philosophy of the death penalty because I am not necessarily against it philosophically. I am against it practically however since we don't always get it right. A few years back, several innocent people were released from death row in Illinois because of the manipulations of the evidence by a lab technician.

http://truthinjustice.org/inside-labs.htm
 
This is simply not true. Did you not read the article that started this thread?

Study: 2,000 convicted then exonerated in 23 years - CBS News

I'm sorry but you are grossly misinformed.

Hi BVS,

I read the article and the exerpt below proves my point:

half of the 873 exonerations studied in detail, the most common factor leading to false convictions was perjured testimony or false accusations. Forty-three percent of the cases involved mistaken eyewitness identification, and 24 percent of the cases involved false or misleading forensic evidence.

In two out of three homicides, perjury or false accusation was the most common factor leading to false conviction. In four out of five sexual assaults, mistaken eyewitness identification was the leading cause of false conviction.


DNA doesn't lie and physical evidence doesn't lie either - witnesses can be mistaken and evidence can be falsified, but a murderer's DNA on a victim is a slam-dunk - you cannot falsify DNA evidence.
 
Hi BVS,

I read the article and the exerpt below proves my point:

half of the 873 exonerations studied in detail, the most common factor leading to false convictions was perjured testimony or false accusations. Forty-three percent of the cases involved mistaken eyewitness identification, and 24 percent of the cases involved false or misleading forensic evidence.

In two out of three homicides, perjury or false accusation was the most common factor leading to false conviction. In four out of five sexual assaults, mistaken eyewitness identification was the leading cause of false conviction.


DNA doesn't lie and physical evidence doesn't lie either - witnesses can be mistaken and evidence can be falsified, but a murderer's DNA on a victim is a slam-dunk - you cannot falsify DNA evidence.

But that is NOT what you said. You said "if they were innocent they wouldn't have been convicted", and that is what the article proves is incorrect.

But to add to your story, DNA is still not 100%. It's not a slam dunk. A spouse can have a husband's or wife's DNA on them and still be innocent. Twins and even relatives have been wrongly convicted due to DNA evidence.

There is no absolute when it comes to a criminal system. Unless you are arrogant enough to believe that humans can infallible?
 
DNA doesn't lie and physical evidence doesn't lie either - witnesses can be mistaken and evidence can be falsified, but a murderer's DNA on a victim is a slam-dunk - you cannot falsify DNA evidence.

You do realize that (a) lab mistakes happen, and (b) not everyone who is convicted, whether they are sentenced to death or not, is convicted based on DNA evidence?

Here is a great example of a man who was probably innocent, and was executed, and DNA evidence played no role in his conviction:

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker
 
Hi BVS,

I read the article and the exerpt below proves my point:

half of the 873 exonerations studied in detail, the most common factor leading to false convictions was perjured testimony or false accusations. Forty-three percent of the cases involved mistaken eyewitness identification, and 24 percent of the cases involved false or misleading forensic evidence.

In two out of three homicides, perjury or false accusation was the most common factor leading to false conviction. In four out of five sexual assaults, mistaken eyewitness identification was the leading cause of false conviction.


DNA doesn't lie and physical evidence doesn't lie either - witnesses can be mistaken and evidence can be falsified, but a murderer's DNA on a victim is a slam-dunk - you cannot falsify DNA evidence.

You live in a fantasy world
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom