Death of an Innocent Man?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EXECUTION_DNA?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
from JoeUser Forums

With the media ghoulish death watch for the 1000 person to be executed, and then the execution of Tookie Williams (Sidebar: personally, I thought the 1000th person had more right to live than Tookie), we have had a lot of blogs on the death penalty.  Most people expressed strong opinions, but with compassion.  Then there was the errant troll that chanted "Burn baby Burn" or "The Night they Killed an Innocent man".  You always get kooks on both sides of the issue (Tookie was NOT innocent).

Now comes a very disturbing revelation.  Since the Death penalty was re-instated, a lot of advancement has occurred in the area of forensics, and many people once condemned to prison, have been saved by these advances.  Indeed, the original 1000th person was spared due to a clerical (for want of a better term) error.  Just because they could not retest the samples. (He is probably guilty of it, but that nagging doubt).  But 13 years ago, a man was executed that only now the technology exists to determine if he was really guilty!

And the outgoing Governor has the chance to find out.

Bombshell?  Hell yes!  If they do not test, then the endless debate rages on.  Was he really guilty or not.  And only he will ever know the truth (he and his victim, both since departed).  If the do test, then the world will know. 

There are of course 2 possible outcomes.  The test proves he was guilty.  This is the preferred outcome of most people (who wants to find out we put an innocent man to death?), as the death penalty advocates will say "see!  I told you so", and the opponents will then go on to the next person to try to get them off on a technicality, or start trying to change the hearts and minds of a nation.  Basically status quo.

The other outcome tho, is feared by most people!  By death penalty proponents as it will be a severe blow to their way, and perhaps be the catalyst to abolish the death penalty.  And that scares them a lot!

It will be a tragedy for the compassionate opponents of the death penalty as they will not be whooping and dancing and shouting "see!  I told you so", but mourning the fact that We, as a society, killed an innocent man.  And it will be a bunch of Whooping and Hollering for the extreme fringe of the anti death penalty movement that take a ghoulish delight in the fact that the Government was WRONG! (and in that bunch, I lump the press). (BTW:  This is not in Politics, so don't go there, cause you will be WRONG).

I am really hoping he (Mark Warner) will order the test.  Why?  I will be one mourning the fact we killed an innocent man.  But, I have an insatiable need to know the truth.  No matter how bad the truth is.

2,207 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
with no proof at all I have already accepted that we have killed an innocent in the name of state sanctioned murder.

this is why I no longer support the death penality.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

with no proof at all I have already accepted that we have killed an innocent in the name of state sanctioned murder.

this is why I no longer support the death penality.

I will not go that far.  I crave proof for truth sake.  But I already oppose the death penalty.  I will not be one of the mindless Hollywood crowd that actually thinks Tookie was innocent or even reformed.  But death is not ours to decide.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the biggest mistakes a society can make is judging the past based on the standards of the present. Nowadays we have forensic technology that allows us to be more certain about a lot of things. That technology is so important that we should make sure that no one convicted of a capital crime should be executed without it. We also do ourselves a disservice if we use that technology as a time machine, second guessing our present, because of the ignorance of the past.

How many cases should we reopen, just to satisfy either ghoulish facination or self loathing. If all we are going to do with our future is judge our past, we might as well not bother with a future at all.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a supporter of the death penalty and thankfully, Australia does not use it. However, I wonder what the use of finding out now, after 13 years, if the person in question was innocent is of any real use to anyone. Sure the anti-supporters will have a martyr, but it is really going to change anything for the innocent man or his family? All this does is open old wounds and cause a lot of grief for a lot of folk who have probably already seen more than their fair share.

Just my two cents worth.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

How many cases should we reopen, just to satisfy either ghoulish facination or self loathing. If all we are going to do with our future is judge our past, we might as well not bother with a future at all.

I am not advocating opening any cases.  I think I made myself clear that I wanted to know for Truth's sake, and nothing more.  I dont like that innocents are sometimes convicted.  But I dont think the truth should be held hostage to any political agenda.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

However, I wonder what the use of finding out now, after 13 years, if the person in question was innocent is of any real use to anyone

The zealots on both sides will use it one way or the other.  But the truth should never be a victim of political expediency.  Knowing it will not change a thing, or my opinion (it will some peoples).  But subverting it leads us to 1984.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, I wonder what the use of finding out now, after 13 years, if the person in question was innocent is of any real use to anyone. Sure the anti-supporters will have a martyr, but it is really going to change anything for the innocent man or his family? All this does is open old wounds and cause a lot of grief for a lot of folk who have probably already seen more than their fair share.


I think that if I had been killed by the death penalty and there was evidence out there that if tested would prove that I was innocent--I would want it tested. Sure, I'm already dead, but don't my living family and friends have a right to know that I didn't commit the crimes that I was charged with.

Also, if this guy is innocent--that means someone else, whose roaming the streets, is not.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Doc, I see your point. I was trying to think as a member of the person's family. If it were me, I don't think I'd care to know. But then, as Shadesofgrey points out, the guilty person is still out there. Thinking of it like this, you know, I think I'd like the authorities to find out whether evidence will point at the guilty party. If so, then I'd say go for it. If not, then I would be saying leave it alone and let it rest. Either way, it raises some very interesting questions.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

think that if I had been killed by the death penalty and there was evidence out there that if tested would prove that I was innocent--I would want it tested. Sure, I'm already dead, but don't my living family and friends have a right to know that I didn't commit the crimes that I was charged with.

Forget the non-quoted statement (as it was so long ago, as to be irrelevant), but this is perfect!  I fight you on one issue and then give you a cookie on this one!  Thank you for stating it as I knew it but had a brain fart!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

But then, as Shadesofgrey points out, the guilty person is still out there.

Shades raises an excellent point.  And I do agree with her.  But I am a seeker of truth, and I want to know for truth's sake.  This is history.  Let us paint it accurately.  Not in the eyes of political correctness!

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like you, I would rather know the truth than some sanitised fabrication built strictly to protect the general public. Good points all round.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Like you, I would rather know the truth than some sanitised fabrication built strictly to protect the general public. Good points all round.

We will have our Wish.  The governor decided to go ahead with the test: http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128769133313

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Funny how I do not begin to believe that if he was innocent that they would admit they killed an innocent man.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wanted to follow-up on this issue as well, and am glad that Dr. Guy had the report on the test results.

MM, for as suspicious as I can be of some things that our government does, I don't think they would lie about the results of this test. Virginia, through it's governor and others involved, were ready to accept the results no matter what they might have been.

I'm glad that the results didn't come through showing possible innocence of the man that was given the death penalty. I don't want to think of the uproar that would have come about if he had been shown as most likely innocent. Every anti-death penalty advocate would have been using the death of a man believed and apparently proven as innocent to cry for the abolishment of the death penalty.

If there's a bit of doubt, then I really don't believe the death penalty should be applied, but that is what the job of the jury is. Decide if a man or woman that is believed to have commited a heinous crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After that, typically the same jury decides if the penalty should be death. They normally weigh those decisions quite heavily and will not typically vote for the death penalty unless the crime rises to the occassion.

Some crimes really do warrant the death penalty, and some criminals are guilty way beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'd rather see those people face the punishments they deserve, and having a national furor over potential innocent individuals having suffered the death penalty would not be good for anyone.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
change anything for the innocent man or his family?
Yes, they would want the dignity of the family name restored.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Funny how I do not begin to believe that if he was innocent that they would admit they killed an innocent man.

People down here say it was all political, positioning Warner for the 08 presidential run.  It may have been.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm glad that the results didn't come through showing possible innocence of the man that was given the death penalty.

Even if he was innocent of this crime, others said he was an evil man.  That would not make his execution right (actually nothing would), but it clearly showed he was not a good person, even before this crime.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes, they would want the dignity of the family name restored.

yes.  Nothing could bring him back, but now at least his family knows he was evil, and not an innocent victim.

My point all along, and you stated it in one sentence! Thank you.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
but now at least his family knows he was evil