Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[Malthus]

Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.

That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that.  It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."

Seems to me the proper response these days would be a Daubert challenge. Though I have no idea if this procedure is available under Texas criminal law.

[Caliga]

It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.

When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.

Exactly.

[Caliga]

That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that.  It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."

IMO the Willingham case is a resounding example of why we need to abolish capital punishment in the United States.

[Berkut]

It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.

When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.

Exactly.

Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.

The problem is identical. As long as it is the case that some people will never be vindicated, then there is no difference because some individual has a *chance* of being vindicated, since we know that some people will not.

[Berkut]

That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that.  It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."

IMO the Willingham case is a resounding example of why we need to abolish capital punishment in the United States.

And imprisonment in general.

[Caliga]

And imprisonment in general.

Dude, I actually was not joking.

[Berkut]

And imprisonment in general.

Dude, I actually was not joking.

I know - neither am I. If the fact that some people will be executed who should not be means that we should get rid of execution, then the fact that some people will be put into prison and never be vindicated should then follow by that same logic, that we should abolish imprisonment.

Why is it unacceptable to every once in a great while execute an innocent man, but it is acceptable that much more often we put someone into prison who will never be vindicated or compenstated who was innocent as well?

Why the double standard?

[DontSayBanana]

Voir dire in the case is starting to look shaky...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/willingham.juror/index.html

Every sample voir dire questionnaire I've come across phrases questions as "have you, any member of your immediate family, or a close friend."  I realize Fogg may not have qualified as a close friend, but her father being a fire marshal and bringing conclusions home with him definitely would have had me exercising a peremptory challenge.

[Malthus]

Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.

The problem is identical. As long as it is the case that some people will never be vindicated, then there is no difference because some individual has a *chance* of being vindicated, since we know that some people will not.

It's a question of timing. You cannot know that there will be no justice in the future; you can know that there will be no justice after the guy is dead. So naturally the latter attracts more attention, since the injustice is made permanent at the moment of execution rather than in some indefinite future.

[Caliga]

Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.

But if someone is executed then there is *zero chance* of them being vindicated, and there is a world of difference in my mind between zero chance of vindication and even a vanishingly small chance of vindication.  I think alot of people think this same way, too, or else nobody would ever play the lottery.

I also have a philosophical problem with the DP because I am uncomfortable with a state executing its own citizens in a controlled situation like this (as opposed to cops shooting someone who is themselves trying to shoot them or some other innocent person), but I guess that's beside this particular point.

[DontSayBanana]

I've got an open question, considering the response to death penalty challenges: do you guys believe the death penalty should be held to a higher standard of certainty than "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[Berkut]

No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.

If we accept that there is a set of people who are in prison who ought not to be, then it is absolutely true that some subset of those people will NEVER be released. So for those people (granted, we don't know exactly which of them) there is a ZERO percent chance that they will be released, just like the guy who is put to death.

We all agree with this - we agree that out of n innocents in jail, the number who will be exonnerated is y, where y<n. Therefore, for some people it is certainly the case that there is no chance they will be released.

So the problem is the same. The only difference is that once we execute some particular person, THAT person can never be exonerated - but it doesn't change the fact that we know there are people who should not be in prison and will never be exonerated. We don't know which of them this is true for, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is certainly the case that for some they are not going to be set free.

[Berkut]

Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.

The problem is identical. As long as it is the case that some people will never be vindicated, then there is no difference because some individual has a *chance* of being vindicated, since we know that some people will not.

It's a question of timing. You cannot know that there will be no justice in the future; you can know that there will be no justice after the guy is dead. So naturally the latter attracts more attention, since the injustice is made permanent at the moment of execution rather than in some indefinite future.

Right- this is the problem of looking at the issue from the particular rather than the general. I think looking at it from the general case is much more useful. DP is not unique in the problem of the innocent being unjustly convicted and punished without there ever being any exoneration.

[DontSayBanana]

Personally, agreed.  Which is why I'm against the death penalty.  No matter where you shift the burden of proof, there's a chance an innocent man will be left with zero chance of exoneration.

[Berkut]

Personally, agreed.  Which is why I'm against the death penalty.  No matter where you shift the burden of proof, there's a chance an innocent man will be left with zero chance of exoneration.

So are you opposed to imprisonment on that same basis?