Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

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.

But that has nothing to do with why capital punishment is wrong. And that is the first thing that must be pointed out to such people. If we play their game, we only further the nonsensical idea that it's okay to kill other people so long as you're pretty dern sure they deserve it.

Not in any of the instances you've cited. So your statement is accurate. But there are hearings where evidence actual innocence is required.Here is an example ruling from a Georgia district court.
Page not found – LLRXIn 2009, a capital defendant in Georgia, Troy Anthony Davis, filed an original writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Supreme Court in which he raised an actual innocence claim. The majority of the Justices decided to transfer the matter to a federal court in Georgia for an evidentiary hearing.9 After reviewing the matter and ultimately rejecting petitioner's claim,10 the District Court judge nonetheless declared: "[E]xecuting an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[/qs]And of course Gov. Perry's review required an even higher standard than actual innocence.

First, let me state that I'm not sure myself whether capital punishment, in principle, is wrong. However, I'm willing to assume for present purposes that it is. Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, I would want to convince people that my position is the right one. However, if I am unable to do that, the next best thing is to convince them that it cannot be administered fairly. If I can do that, capital punishment will end.Is it the best solution? Perhaps not. But do you really think it makes any difference to people sitting on death row? I know it wouldn't to me if I were there. And, if they were somehow able to fix all the problems, we'd then have a fairer criminal justice system. Surely that would be good, yes?

You are. And I feel no need to respond to speculation with anything other than my own speculation. Yes, I saw that.It wasn't him saying that he couldn't tell if the fire was started by a person or not unless there was a chromatographic analysis done. That was him saying that the previous investigator was wrong to conclude that there was an accelerant just based on visual inspection. It certainly never says he can't determine the cause of the fire without a chromatographic test. Yes, indeed. Much, if not all, of the report was simply a debunking of various claims the state made during trial. But nothing in the report ever said he couldn't determine a cause for the fire, and nothing is inconsistent with his statement that "It was just a fire." I'm quite interested in the evidence, that's why I asked you to direct me to what you were referring to. I disagree with your spin on it. Nothing changes the fact that he said, "It was just a fire."It was just a fire. It wasn't arson. Texas convicted an innocent man.

You're a pretty sly one, mister. But I think we all know that just because evidence is consistent with a conclusion does not mean that said evidence supports that conclusion. He can say a lot of things. And he's allowed to come to any conclusion he wants. But that doesn't mean that just because he did the investigation that any conclusion he comes to must necessarily be supported by the evidence he found.He could have very well written the entire report as is only to conclude that the whole fire was the result of the malicious activities of magical children-hating fairies who burn their bodies to collect the ash for use as magical fairy dust.But I wouldn't give much weight to that conclusion just 'cause he said it and claimed that it was based on the evidence in his report.Jon

Your characterization of Hurst's report is not correct.Hurst's exact words were "The presence of an accelerant can only be established by chromatographic analysis in the laboratory."Hurst does not perform any such test and by his own words he cannot say whether or not there was an accelerant. In fact, Hurst's report does not say that an accelerant was not used. Instead, Hurst says things like this regarding trailers, pour patterns and puddle configurations:"Full scale testing, as reported in reference 6 above, showed that post-flashover burning, even of short duration, makes it impossible to identify accelerant burns visually. This it becomes impossible to visually identify accelerant patterns under these conditions."

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.)

He wasn't executed.An execution requires that a person be in custody of the state, convected and sentenced to die.Bin Laden was killed in a military incursion; it was far closer to assassination.I would have rather seen him put on trial for crimes against humanity and then (if convicted) left in the Hague.I realize I'm in a tiny minority here, and I really don't care: I don't support the death penalty for absolutely any reason, ever, including cases like bin Laden or Hitler. The potential for innocent persons to be wrongly executed would be enough, but even that isn't my reason.I believe that the willful taking of a human life except in the last defense of other lives is immoral. If a cop shoots a person in self-defense or in the defense of another, that's regrettable but acceptable. War can be acceptable for limited reasons, such as intervention in genocide, or to defend a nation or its allies from an aggressor. The taking of human life is always terrible and awful and disgusting and repulsive, and it only becomes the "right" course of action when it is the least wrong out of all available solutions.It is never right to take a human life merely to make things easier, or to sate a thirst for vengeance. What's horrifying is the amount of cheering and expressions of joy at the death of a human being. It made me feel ill. I condemn genocide and abuse and murder and rape and all of the other ills of humanity wherever they occur, Oni, whenever I'm made aware of them. As an individual person with limited financial means, I'm not able to actually do much more than condemn (and occasionally I get to vote), but my condemnation is not at all selective. And you're utterly, completely wrong about my moral compass being selective. It's rather dishonest of you to presume to know where the moral compass of others points. I have heard no compelling argument from you that this is so. I would rather a hundred murderers go free than kill one innocent man. Well, clearly you don't, and you're certainly joined by a great many people in this country.But you're not joined by me.It's always both interesting and horrifying to me that so many people can agree that human life is great and wonderful and has such high value...but then find so many reasons to stop identifying specific individuals as people such that all of those good and wonderful things no longer apply. Reasons like "they're the enemy," or "he's a criminal," where individuals are dehumanized until it's okay or even an obligation to end their lives.Everyone who has hopes and dreams and fears and thoughts is a person. Every person has value. The ending of a person is terrible and horrible, and should only be done on purpose in the last defense of other people, when other options no longer exist.The death penalty doesn't stand up to such scrutiny. It's just disgusting state-sanctioned murder, made all the more horrible by its ceremonial trappings and methodical application. And I am filled with every bit as much revulsion when people, including the families of victims, feel happy or satisfied or relieved at the death of a human being, as I am at the actions of the murderer himself."Execution" is just another word we use when we don't really want to say "letting ourselves be just as bad as that guy was."

Justice depends to a great extent on risk. Where there is a significant chance of being wrong, it is decidedly unjust to invoke an irreversible penalty.

Not that tiny, I suspect, and possibly not a minority.I would diverge a little from your earlier post, suggesting that criminals who would in some states receive a death penalty for their crime, should serve prison terms with the possibility of parole/early release if they no longer pose a threat to society. I am more comfortable, personally, with a prison term which deprives murderers of their freedom for their lives, as fair punishment for having (in a premediated fashion) deprived someone of their life. I agree with your assessment of many prisons as being cesspools, but I would view that more as an argument for reform of the prisons, than as an argument for early parole. And in addition, imprisoning a murder for what is genuinely the rest of their life, I think gives a stronger argument against capital punishment.On every other element of what you have very eloquently written, I am with you 100%.

Did he? Seems to me a trail should always take place regardless. Many INNOCENT lives have been forced to admit guilt only to find out the confession was bogus. How do you know for sure he was guilty? Just trying to show that there is an overall inconsistency. Relax with your herrings... Well he did confess to his guilt, multiple times. That was kind of an indicator. But ok, you're not in favor of killing Bin Laden. But are you in favor of military lead assassinations in general? Can you see any case where they would be beneficial? There is an overall inconsistency when it comes to one person being killed in cold blood and the concern that goes with it.For example, here in the US police officers carry guns. More officers, trying to protect the innocent, or themselves from what they thought was a danger, kill more innocent people than the death penalty even comes close to being accused of killing.Yet there is no cry for police officers to go unarmed, but merely a plea to them to be more careful. Well, then, when it comes to capital punishment we should be more careful. And usually that is the case.Either ALL forms of capital punishment (and the euphemism's used to describe it) are wrong, or none are wrong and simply need to be done more carefully. Because while there may be the occasional mistake, it is still a good thing to have in place. But if it is perfectly normal in military matters to assassinate someone who is deemed guilty of certain crimes, why is it not normal to execute someone who has also commited certain extremely violent crimes and been convicted of them?If your only reason is maybe an innocent person dies, then the former should concern you a lot more than the latter. Oh, you've misunderstood. I actually do care.- Oni

I differ because I don;t really buy into the "punishment" aspect of justice at all.I prefer systems where the focus is on rehabilitation and maximizing the chances of those convicted of crimes to turn into productive, law-abiding citizens. I don't particularly care about what's "fair" in terms of "an eye for an eye;" when we talk about "justice for the victims and their families," what we're really talking about is being inhuman to a human being to satisfy our own vindictive urges - there is no actual purpose beyond a sense of emotional satisfaction, and I find that such things carry a moral value orders of magnitude less than the harm required to feel them.I support a maximum term in prison of something like 20 years, as much of Europe uses, with the option of continued confinement if the prisoner is established to be a reasonable threat to himself or others on release. I support monitored limited-time release from prison, something like a weekend out in the world, monitored, to be spent with family and friends every 90 days or so to keep the person connected with the positive influences in their life, rather than restricting those influences to a hostile institution and the other inmates. I support a full range of medical and (more importantly) psychiatric services for all inmates (which I would also like to see for everyone else), as well as educational opportunities focused on gaining meaningful employment upon release - former convicts need to have a way to make a living on the outside, or they'll have no choice but to return to crime.I absolutely abhor the current US attitude toward former inmates, where it is virtually impossible to get a job if you've ever been convicted of a violent misdemeanor or any sort of felony, leaving most former inmates no choice but to resort to lying on applications or theft and other illicit enterprise. Similarly, I strongly disapprove of the current system of sex offender registration, whereby a guy who walked past his own window naked after taking a shower and happened to be seen by a pedestrian on the street is placed on the same "you'll never get a job and your neighbors will always be there with torches and pitchforks" list as violent rapists; I also disapprove of the fact that the list is a de facto life sentence, even if you're put on it for consensual sex that was also statutory rape when both parties were 14 (many states have idiotic loopholes like this, where if two minors engage in consensual sex they are both guilty of raping each other), you'll always be placed in the same group as serial rapists. I agree - earlier release is based on an entirely different argument, that being rehabilitation and a transition of an inmate into a productive member of society is far better for the inmate and society as a whole than keeping him locked up, even if the prison were renovated into something that would actually qualify as humane. I think that there is no moral argument in favor of capital punishment from the start. But yes, the existence of options other than state-sanctioned murder certainly shows that the death penalty is not in fact being used as an action of last resort by any stretch of the imagination, and is therefore no better than murder itself.

Well that depends on who is telling the story. You've stated the US supported story. If you talk to his supporters however, they would call it an execution. Hell just ask Michael Moore. He called it an execution too.In fact one of the definitions is simply: the infliction of capital punishment But whatever euphemism you want to use is fine, it all means the same shit. Some form of authority convicted you and sentenced you to death. And they carried it out. Well then I applaude you for at least staying consistent. Many who calim they don't support the death penalty DO however support military lead assassinations (executions) so long as their government told them it's the right thing to do.However, I don't agree. Well now here there seems to be an inconsistency.I believe both you and I have argued many times for the carelessness often shown by police officers, and the mistakes they have made, that has resulted in them taking many innocent lives that they felt were putting them in danger.Wouldn't you agree that more innocent lives have been taken by police officers who made a mistake then by state executions?In any case, to protect innocent lives better, shouldn't police officers NOT carry guns? And yet, you see it fit for a police officer to carry out capital punishment if they feel they are acting in self defense, knowing full well how many innocent lives have been lost due to that very thing.It is a selective moral compass, as is everyone's. You can see how utterly contradicting that is, right? In your quest to seem totally passive you allow murderers to roam free in society, killing as they please, to protect one innocent man from being falsely convicted? I think that's a bit naive.Relax, you don't need to hug every tree. Your self-righteous rants are beautiful, until we get to the fact that YOU yourself support an armed police force who make that very determination on the streets every day. And not very well mnd you.If need be, I can show you endless cases of police officers killing innocent people because they thought the person was holding a gun. Ooops, it was just his wallet.Yet you claim to support them but not capital punishment because innocent lives may be lost?Your position remains inconsistent.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Traditionally, you have to catch the guy first. Trying someone in their absence kinda buggers up the defence. WTF!? Is this your argument in favour of the death penalty? That occasionally innocent people are fitted up? Are you sure that's the best way to make your case?Anyway, I thought you didn't want to talk about corruption? I thought you wanted to ignore the fact that your argument involves handing the power of life and death over every single citizen to a bunch of racist, venal, evil corrupt goons.I am still perplexed as to why you would trust these people with your life. The notion of police, prosecutors, DAs or judiciary framing someone is not imaginary. It can and does happen. Why give them the opportunity to take their corruption to lethal extremes? Not by governments, no. I don't think that governemnts should have the power of life and death over their citizens. I think that citizens should have the power of life and death over their governments. Arguably in the death penalty can be supported in the case of dictators. there is no doubt over their guilt and there is a clear benefit to society in drawing a line under their regimes. I might support assassinations under similar circumstances, it would depend upon a lot of factors.But anyway, none of that matters. Assassinations, deaths that occur whilst resisting arrest, deaths in warfare... None of these are valid comparisons to the death penalty. You're not comparing like with like. All of these examples are uncontrolled situations, where the outcome is in question and violence is used, not so much as an end in itself, but a means of achieving a goal.With the death penalty it's very different. The death penalty is only an option when the criminal is already caught and at the mercy of his captors in a jail cell. this situation is under total control. The fate of the prisoner is not subject to fate or chance or happenstance. It is under the complete control of his captors. There is no goal to be achieved, other than to make people feel better about the,selves because someone they hated died. that is how psychopaths behave. It is not how a government should behave. This is what makes this such a cold blooded and cruel form of homicide, in my opinion. There damn well is from me! We don't routinely arm our police over here and astonishingly few Brit's would tolerate such a notion. It's simply anathema to us.Again though, you're not comparing like with like. You're trying to draw a parallel between an uncontrolled situation and one where the state has total control. It's just not valid. At least when some gun-toting cop shoots an innocent person we can hope that they were honestly trying to protect innocent lives or uphold the law. There is a reason behind it, an arguable benefit (of sorts) to society. With the death penalty there is no such benefit other than to please ghouls. If a cop shoots someone in an attempt to protect innocent lives, that is not by any stretch of the imagination an example of capital punishment. Homicide yes, capital punishment no.On the other hand, if a cop shoots someone for nothing more than running away, that is arguably a form of capital punishment. But I would find that absolutely as abhorrent as the death penalty. I've explained why above. Besides, this conversation is not about military matters, despite your best efforts to make it so. It's about the death penalty. did you consider that perhaps it does concern me more? I believe most extra-judicial assassinations to be a greater evil than the death penalty. But this thread is about the death penalty. And you still haven't answered my question? What if the innocent who died as a result of capital punishment was you? Or your kid? Would you still think it worth the cost then? Would you be willing to hang for a crime you did not commit?It's an important question. I accept the fact that some people will be falsely imprisoned. I accept the fact that it might be me some day. That is the price I willingly pay for a society of laws, where the weak are protected. The death penalty is too high a price. At least if I am wrongly imprisoned I can hope to gather new evidence and appeal. At least my family (who presumably did nothing wrong - did you ever stop to consider the cost of the death penalty to the perpetrator's family?) could still visit me. There is no appeal from the grave. It's too high a price. Yet the death penalty turns people, those who perform the executions, into state-sanctioned hired killers. That is a whole separate concern. Dude, I know you do. That's why I'm trying to appeal to your better nature, as opposed to telling you to go fuck yourself. Mutate and Survive