srothstein wrote:chabouk wrote:
The jury and the courts examined "evidence" (in the form of testimony) that we now know to be seriously flawed. It was "fire science" that was not science at all, and has been refuted by actual scientists.
I strongly disagree. The jury examined all of the expert testimony presented to them. In the case of expert testimony, the jury is the sole determinant of which expert to believe.
We agree on this.
I contend that the testimony submitted to the jury was seriously flawed. And, in our current system, once a jury determines facts, those "facts" aren't subject to review, no matter how flawed they were, because only the original jury may determine the "facts" of a case.
There are numerous court rulings saying that proof of actual innocence is not enough to overturn a guilty verdict absent any procedural errors in the trial. That's insane:
Actual proof of innocence can't be introduced at appeals, so long as all the lawyers involved followed the rules.
The evidence examined by the current media frenzy and the innocence project is not being examined by unbiased scientists, just by experts selected for their point of view. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with saying the first evidence is now proven to be junk.
The Texas Forensic Commission's own independent expert
said there was no evidence of arson.
The experts who have examined the case haven't been selected for their points of view. They've been selected for their actual scientific expertise, something the "arson examiners" in the original case didn't have. Their expertise amounted to folklore, with no scientific basis.
That is the jury's decision to make and no one has sent the case back to a jury for a retrial.
The principal party is dead, having been executed, so it's a bit late for a retrial.
That is one of the issues when it comes to capital punishment: you can't undo the needle after killing an innocent person.
Isn't it interesting that the media is selecting cases that cannot be sent back to the jury for retrial and not presenting the side of the original expert? This is why I am against almost all cases of post-humous review of criminal cases. I have faith in the jury system and the appeal system.
See my comment immediately above. There are multiple cases of the Innocence Projects proving that people sentenced to death are actually innocent. Objecting to posthumous review is exactly what Perry has done: he's not only objected, he's fired those who might have revealed that Perry signed off on the execution of a man who was actually innocent.
There is no statute of limitations on being found innocent. Radio talk host Tom Joyner recently secured posthumous pardons for two of his ancestors, who were wrongfully convicted and executed in 1915.
I have no philosophical or moral objection to the death penalty as suitable punishment for certain crimes. I
do have a serious concern about the government being able to fairly dish out this punishment, so that no innocent person is ever executed.
