Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

You don't think Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent? I don't see what other conclusion is possible based on the scientific conclusion that the fire that killed his children was not arson.By definition, he cannot be guilty of a crime that did not even occur.

Sure it does. That's the scientific conclusion that no arson occurred. "A finding of arson could not be sustained." Ergo, the fire was not an arson. Ergo, the crime of arson did not occur. Ergo, the three deaths that occurred during the fire were not murders for which Willingham was responsible. Ergo, he was innocent of the crime of murder. Ergo, Texas executed an objectively innocent person.There's no room for any other conclusion. The fire was scientifically determined not to be the result of arson. You don't have to be. You simply have to accept the abundant scientific evidence that the fire was not the result of arson. Willingham can't be guilty of a crime that did not occur, by definition.

No, they specifically ruled out the supportability of a conclusion of arson. That language was quoted by Modulous.Thus, scientifically, the fire was not the result of arson. it could have been an arson that looked exactly like a non-arson, but it couldn't scientifically be an arson that looked exactly like a non-arson.What I said was completely accurate. There's no need to pretend, here, that there's even a possibility that Willingham committed a crime that did not actually occur. No, what we can say is that Texas executed an innocent person by both the dictionary and legal definitions of "innocent." It's certainly ontologically possible that Willingham was guilty in some kind of metaphysical way, but scientifically he was innocent by virtue of the scientific nonexistence of the crime, and legally he was innocent by the prosecution's inability to produce evidence of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Willingham was innocent. There's no basis on which that can be contested.

This is just turning the burden of evidence on its head.The legal state of "innocence" is the state of being not guilty of the crime. Willingham is perforce not guilty of the crime because no crime occurred.By the standard you employ, here, nobody can properly be considered "innocent."

Why would anyone have to provide evidence that the fire was not arson?What would be the difference between evidence that the fire was not arson and evidence that the fire was an arson made to look like not an arson?

Far be it from me to argue with a blog post, but "not guilty" is the only form of innocence recognized under American law.But the distinction is irrelevant, because by definition you can't be guilty of a crime that did not occur; because the arson Willingham was executed for did not happen, we know that he was innocent of it.I mean, you're right - maybe he was guilty of a completely different arson, or a completely different crime altogether. Maybe Texas got it right by accident and justly executed Jack the Ripper when they killed Willingham. But by that definition of "guilty" no one can be said to be innocent. Justice is sophistry if the presumption is guilt, as it seems to be with you and NoNukes.But I don't need to show "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that a crime didn't happen, because a crime can't be on "trial"; I only need to show that it's the reasonable conclusion. And that's been done. Willingham can't logically be guilty of a crime that never occurred.

But he didn't do that. In fact he's never done that, to anyone's knowledge, which actually cuts against your argument that he could have done that.If the best case you have is that the report could have said something that no report ever has, that Cameron Todd Willingham could be guilty of a completely different kind of arson unknown to the annals of forensic science, and that therefore he could actually be guilty of a completely different crime than the putative one he was executed for, then your own case has amply demonstrated that the State of Texas falsely executed an innocent man. You've proved it.Willingham was executed for a crime that couldn't have happened. Certainly it's possible, however unlikely, that the fire was the result of arson under a totally different theory of the crime than that under which he was convicted but that would be a completely different crime, and therefore you and NoNukes have proven, for me, that Texas executed a man for a crime of which he was demonstrably innocent (by virtue of the crime not actually having occurred.)

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I'm in favor of assassination. Killing someone like bin Laden saves lives, lives that wouldn't be saved merely by his incarceration. I don't see it as state-sanctioned murder but as warfare on an incredibly limited scale. I don't feel that it always is. I feel like the system we have frequently frees murderers and kills innocent people.

I don't believe that people should be assassinated because they're guilty - I'm not in favor of it as punishment. I believe that they should be assassinated when doing so would save lives.Well, I take that back. I was entirely in favor of the series of assassinations carried out by Mossad in response to the murder of Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics. Hard to argue that those weren't punitive.