Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

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.

Which means Hurst can't testify that it wasn't murder. That would be the conclusion of law. But it is well within his expertise to conclude that a fire was not started by a person, but "just a fire." Except for Hurst's statement that "It was just a fire." Why was that particular statement not included in the report that he wrote? I don't know. Ask him, or ask whomever he wrote the report for. None of that changes the fact that he made the statement.I'm quite confident that Hurst understands that there are three different conclusions he could have come to; a person started the fire, the origin of the fire cannot be determined, or a person did not start the fire. To simply assume that he didn't mean what he said when he said, "It was just a fire" is to refuse to accept the evidence that we have. Because the criminally unjust court system of Texas never provided an opportunity for him to testify. Again, that does not change the fact that he said, "It was just a fire." Other than character assassination and unsupported speculation based on a rock poster he had on his wall, what evidence is there that Hurst didn't completely debunk? It's been a while since I read in depth about this, but that's all that I recall them having. If you have more, please present it.

Curious. I'd be very interested in seeing where that is. My understanding is that most post conviction petitions raise issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel, jury misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, trial court error or newly discovered evidence. Other than a post conviction claim of actual innocence (which I suppose would have to be raised in the context of newly discovered evidence), I've never heard of a requirement that a defendant even suggest innocence in order to get a post conviction hearing.

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.

Absolutely not.That an innocent person might face a certain penalty as a result of a wrongful conviction has nothing to do with whether that penalty is just or unjust, right or wrong, moral or immoral, civil or barbaric.

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.

There's a difference between your so-called 'legal state of "innocence"' and the 'state of being not guilty of the crime'. Innocent v. Not GuiltyIf by 'properly' you mean 'legally', then you are correct: innocence isn't something that a court decides.Again: 'Innocent' and 'Not Guilty' are two different things.

Whether the death penalty represents a just, civil, and non-cruel punishment has nothing to do with whether or not the punished party has been wrongly convicted or not.Even when guilt is 100% certain, the questions are still the same along with the answers:Is capital punishment just?No.Is capital punishment civil?No.Is capital punishment non-cruel?No.Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. If murder is the most heinous crime, then execution is the most cruel punishment. It simply cannot stand; and we must not stand for it.

Or perhaps he wasn't asked to. Can you tell me where, because I didn't see that. And so you think he would just make shit up? I didn't see anything in it of relevance to the instant discussion. I did agree that his report doesn't say Willingham didn't start the fire. What else do you want me to say about it?

Yes, the defendant has the burden of proof. But guilt or innocence isn't even a relevant issues for most of those claims. In fact, strictly speaking, guilt or innocence isn't even a necessary element in a claim regarding sufficiency of the evidence or a request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. So while the defendant has the burden of proof, it isn't a burden to prove innocence.

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.

You are correct insofar as those questions can all be asked in the abstract about capital punishment without any discussion of the real world implications. But you are wrong to suggest that real world experience is not relevant to those questions.There are many who disagree with your conclusions about the justice, civility and cruelty of capital punishment. Showing them that in practice the death penalty results in more blacks and poor people getting killed than whites and rich people might convince them to abandon the practice. In addition, showing them that innocent people have been killed because of imperfections in our criminal justice system might make a difference to them as well.

Oops... Looks like we've pushed Crash too far. Now he's resorting to his typical backed-in-a-corner nonsensical misrepresentation of his opponents.Good grief.Come back when you've got your head out of your ass and have washed the shit off your face.