Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

The deterrence argument has always been mere smoke and mirrors. Capital punishment has always been justified on the basis of appeals to more base instincts of humans. It is about revenge, and a distorted, barbaric notion of what constitutes fairness. And only a few countries, most of whom we would not chose to emulate in any other way, engage in he practice.

Point taken. I think we can exclude those states that don't actually use the death penalty from the count. The overwhelming majority of states don't execute people. And how many of those countries are ones we would consider models to follow in other respects.

That's not quite right crashfrog. What the review says is that it is impossible to determine that a fire was arson using the methods employed by the investigators. The fire could have been arson, or it might not have been. What is known is that the investigation was bungled, badly.What we can say is that Texas executed a person who should never have been found guilty at trial.

I'm with you regarding the wording of the reports, but how can you conclude that there is missing evidence that supports arson? If an investigatory technique does not get used, then we cannot conclude that the technique would have supported a conclusion of arson even if, in fact, the fire was deliberately set. Yes, and Onifre's point is a red herring. There are a number of cases where executed people have been pardoned after execution, and in fact one such case occurred in Connecticut. We don't really have to debate about the close or dubious cases.

Hurst reviewed only documents. I can appreciate that Hurst does not believe that the fire was arson, but that is only his opinion, and it is not an opinion based on a completely independent investigation.We simply do not have a justice system that is designed to establish actual innocence. In many cases, proving innocence requires proving a negative using non-exhaustive methods. Is it possible to set a house fire in a way that won't leave any evidence of arson? I believe that it is possible to do so.Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tags. I'll let the grammar errors stay put.

I don't disbelieve it. I agree that Hurst found evidence of actual innocence. But Hurst does not go as far as you and crashfrog claim.Hurst's official conclusion is that he found no evidence of arson, and that the original conclusion is not justified. Period. Hurst is not claiming to say how the fire started. A finding no evidence of arson, and refuting the evidence supplied by the state is not the same as demonstrating that there was no arson.I've included a link to Hurst's report. You can judge for yourself exactly how far Hurst goes in addressing the so-called evidence. Page not found - Innocence Project I personally believe that Texas executed an innocent man, and I have zero respect for Governor Perry's action in this case. I'm afraid you are going to have to take a side if you want me to argue. The actual question is much simpler. Is it possible that there could have been arson that wouldn't have been evident in whatever video tape and testimony Hurst was able to review? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add some ABEEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I understand. But I'm afraid that's not good enough.Let me provide some examples from Hurst's actual report.1. Apparently the original investigators concluded that some brown rings found on the cement porch were evidence of the use of an accelerant. Hurst gives an alternate explanation for the rings and indicates that the correct way to perform the analysis requires a chromatographic analysis. But no such analysis is available.2. The original investigation reported that kerosene was detected in a sample of wood. Hurst finds that only "mineral spirits of kerosene" were found, and that the finding was consistent with lighter fluid rather than kerosene. There was an innocent explanation for lighter fluid being present.In both cases, what the original investigators presented as iron clad evidence is shown not to be iron clad. But while Hurst has attacked the evidentiary value of the original evidence, his refutations don't quite prove innocence. I understand that. So what? Is that really evidence? I do find it persuasive, but it ain't proof. I understand your point, but I don't believe I am indulging in the kind of unwarranted speculation you illustrate with your 'Hurst did it' story. Hurst is stuck with the available testimony, evidence, and whatever he managed to see on the videotape. Hurst has taken his best shot, and so have a number of other investigators. But Hurst's report gives a pretty good indication of what he could and did could not conclude. And at best his report supports the fact that the conviction is not supported by the available evidence. We don't have to assume that Hurst or the other investigators are lying or incompetent in order to acknowledge that there is a possibility that an undetected arson occurred.

Jon, that's a pretty silly statement. Surely there are some valid things to discuss that do revolve around guilt/non-quilt/innocence.

Yes. Hurst said that to the newspaper. But the quality of testimony he provided in his actual report is of a completely different character. Hurst official report is only that the evidence against Hurst elicited by the state is insufficient to conclude arson. But I haven't seen any evidence other than the defendant's testimony that proves or even strongly suggests that the fire was not arson. Actually, in court we restrict experts from giving ultimate conclusions of law. They aren't allowed to make decisions that substitute for jury conclusions. I understand that you are a lawyer. As best as I can tell, Hurst's statement "It's just a fire" was never offered in any circumstance in which it would be subject to impeachment. He certainly did not provide any evidence allowing us to say how the fire started.Again, in the report, Hurst goes through the evidence and tells us exactly what he thinks of it. We don't have to guess about what his official opinion encompasses. That statement is flat out false on its face. Willingham, is likely innocent despite the evidence suggesting otherwise.

Unfortunately for Mr. Willingham, such is not the case. A verdict of not guilty merely requires that the state provide insufficient evidence on a single element of the charged crime. It ought to be obvious that proving someone to be not guilty is a lot easier than establishing innocence.And post conviction, at least in some forums, evidence of actual innocence is required just to get a hearing. The difference is not just rhetoric, but is of legal consequence. That's of course wrong. By the standard I describe here, actual innocence, at least prior to conviction, is simply not at issue in a judicial proceeding, although on occasion actual innocence might be established. I have no qualms with identifying OJ as being not guilty, and yet almost certainly complicit and not innocent with respect to the death of Nicole Simpson. If you want to argue that OJ is actually innocent, go for it. I don't think anyone is saying the Willingham covered up a fire. I don't even believe he set the fire. I don't see the point of your question. Throw me a bone.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Such evidence is never required.What should have happened at trial is that the state should have provided evidence that the fire was, beyond reasonable doubt arson. The defense can rebut the evidence to the degree necessary to establish reasonable doubt.Post conviction, the standard for getting a convict's verdict overturned is quite a bit different. In some cases actual evidence of innocence is legally required. Even then, it would not have been absolutely necessary to prove that the fire was not arson, but apparently that is the route that the defense chose. It also seems to be the basis for the position announced by some of the posters here.

I think it means he can't testify that the fire was not arson. But in any event, Hurst report does not provide support for making a statement about how the fire was caused. Perhaps that's why he did not say that in his official report. I'm not disputing that Willingham was treated unfairly, but nobody interfered with Hurst's report and the report simply does not support the conclusion that the fire was definitely not arson. Hurst could not do analyses that he himself said were needed. I'm also sure that Hurst knew that he was not held to any of that when he spoke to the newspaper. You haven't even responded to the portions of Hurst's report that I've cited so far. Hurst's report is only a few pages long, and I did link to it.

Yes. All true. But the defendant has the burden of establishing each of those things. He cannot force the state to prove them during an appeal.What do you expect the standard was when Perry was considering the case?

What if we are discussing whether the person actually is innocent or was wrongly convicted?ABE:Jon, I just noticed you completely changed the question under consideration.From Message 67: You initially said that guilt/non-guilt/innocence were irrelevant. Now you are pretending that you said something about justice/morality/barbarism being irrelevant if we are talking about the innocent.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I thought I was the one speculating? For example, on page 5 where Hurst about the need to do a chromatographic analysis to determine whether an accelerant was used. There was no available material to conduct the analysis on at the time Hurst did his report. No subbie. I did not say anything like that. I think the statement was sincere.Hurst gave the newspaper a statement. He was free to give his opinion regardless of whether it was required by the evidence. His statement to the newspaper is not proof that the fire was not arson. And the statement was not supported by Hurst's report. Given that the report does discuss the evidence used to convict in some detail, and that the report contains Hurst's actually findings, I find it unfathom that you find the report irrelevant.Let me cite another snippet from the report.From page 4.Hurst acknowledges that multiple fire origins is good evidence that a fire was arson. He disputes the fire marshall's finding that there is clear evidence of multiple origins because the putative sites were not isolated from each other.Note that an arsonist could light multiple spots in the same room, so Hurst finding in this regard merely indicates that the actual evidence in neutral with respect to arson. Many if not all of Hurst's rebuttals are of this type.If you really aren't interested in the evidence, perhaps there really isn't much for us to discuss. We seem to agree that Willingham was wrongfully executed.