PDA

View Full Version : What Will Perry Say?



Gayle in MD
09-22-2011, 12:35 PM
One hundred and thirty-nine countries worldwide have abolished the Death Penalty.

Camron Todd Willingham was convicted of killing his own children, in Texas, and was put on governor Perry's watch, before he was executed.

This was an arsen case, alledgedly, and the arsen science used was deemed faulty, thus consensus developed, by numerous forensic experts, who then came to the conclusion, that Willingham was innocent.

Perry refused to extend the man's life, long enough to revisit the case, just as this Georgia governor has done.

In texas, due to this latest execution in Georgia, of Troy Davis, and after a huge consensus of outrage over the impending execution of the Georgia man, there may be an adjudication, where the legal system says, that willingham, of Texas, was innocent, and then, Perry will have to answer for it.

I hope Perry is questioned tonight, about extending a person's life, long enough to revisit the facts, the forensics and presentation of a murder case, when the Death Penalty, is at hand, and when there exists a consensus of opinion among the legal community, and a number of Penal officials within the legal community, of innocence.

There can be only one reason to deny a possibly innocent person, an extention, when there is a consensus of innocence, IMO, and that would be a refusal to admit to mistakes, or to corruption, on the part of those involved in the legal community.

And what could possibly be justification for the Robert's Supreme Court, to deny an extension?

Isn't saving innocnet lives, part of the so called, pro life, philosophy?

G.

cushioncrawler
09-22-2011, 03:44 PM
Willingham might hav been innocent, but the court case woz badly flawed. Probly likewize Davis.

I beleev in the death penalty, in fakt i would extend the death penalty. The death penalty shood be applyd to publik officials who do very bad things.

But the main trouble iz that police etc sometimes lie. Forensic experts sometimes lie, or make errors. And u karnt trust eyewitness identifycations of suspects. And confessions shood not be trusted.
mac.

Sid_Vicious
09-22-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Willingham might hav been innocent, but the court case woz badly flawed. Probly likewize Davis.

I beleev in the death penalty, in fakt i would extend the death penalty. The death penalty shood be applyd to publik officials who do very bad things.

But the main trouble iz that police etc sometimes lie. Forensic experts sometimes lie, or make errors. And u karnt trust eyewitness identifycations of suspects. And confessions shood not be trusted.
mac. </div></div>

"The death penalty shood be applyd to publik officials who do very bad things."

Exactly...like Bush for treason. I am not FN joking at all...sid

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 05:32 PM
According to "The Effective Death Penalty Act," signed into law by Bill Clinton, it is far more important to shorten the due process into a set number of allowable habeas corpus appeals than to prevent the execution of even a provably innocent condemned man.

Sad but true.

Gayle in MD
09-23-2011, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to "The Effective Death Penalty Act," signed into law by Bill Clinton, it is far more important to shorten the due process into a set number of allowable habeas corpus appeals than to prevent the execution of even a provably innocent condemned man.

Sad but true. </div></div>

It's worse than sad, IMO, it's totally wrong.

IMO, every opportunity should be allowed, when there is a consensus, among experts, in the forensic and legal community, and among jurors, that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

G.

Gayle in MD
09-23-2011, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Willingham might hav been innocent, but the court case woz badly flawed. Probly likewize Davis.

I beleev in the death penalty, in fakt i would extend the death penalty. The death penalty shood be applyd to publik officials who do very bad things.

But the main trouble iz that police etc sometimes lie. Forensic experts sometimes lie, or make errors. And u karnt trust eyewitness identifycations of suspects. And confessions shood not be trusted.
mac. </div></div>

I agree, Mack, I just think that in a death penalty case, when there is no DNA, the standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, should be tremendous!

G.

Soflasnapper
09-23-2011, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to "The Effective Death Penalty Act," signed into law by Bill Clinton, it is far more important to shorten the due process into a set number of allowable habeas corpus appeals than to prevent the execution of even a provably innocent condemned man.

Sad but true. </div></div>

It's worse than sad, IMO, it's totally wrong.

IMO, every opportunity should be allowed, when there is a consensus, among experts, in the forensic and legal community, and among jurors, that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

G.</div></div>

I agree completely.

What we have is a punishment and execution system, not so much a justice system. What could be more unjust than executing a provably innocent person, just because the proof shows up late in the game?

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to "The Effective Death Penalty Act," signed into law by Bill Clinton, it is far more important to shorten the due process into a set number of allowable habeas corpus appeals than to prevent the execution of even a provably innocent condemned man.

Sad but true. </div></div>

It's worse than sad, IMO, it's totally wrong.

IMO, every opportunity should be allowed, when there is a consensus, among experts, in the forensic and legal community, and among jurors, that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

G.</div></div>

I agree completely.

What we have is a punishment and execution system, not so much a justice system. What could be more unjust than executing a provably innocent person, just because the proof shows up late in the game? </div></div>

If our legal system does not encompass the principles of High Intention, then what good is it?

Justice should be blind, in terms of fairness, but not deaf and "dumb"...

G.

cushioncrawler
09-24-2011, 03:48 PM
Justice shood be blind. What if the reddacted fakts of a case were given jurors and a (new) judge etc. Names remooved. Film footage (of witnesses etc) remooved, praps even sound.
Then u kood truely say that justice iz blind. All u hav iz the fakts of the evidence, ie transcripts of what woz sayd at the "trial".
No names, no occupation, no address, no race, no age, no sex, no nothing. Then u kood truely say that justice iz blind.
mac.

Qtec
09-25-2011, 02:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Will Perry Say? </div></div>


" Well in Texas ".........blah...blah.blah...........

Q