There is nothing conclusive here either way. It was definitely a weak case for the death penalty. This is why I only support the death penalty in cases where the crime was egregious and where the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence was sorely lacking here.
But on the other hand, there are also problems with those who say he's innocent. Just because there were no fire accelerants found in the house doesn't mean that he didn't start the fire. He could still be found guilty of arson. I'm a little surprised they didn't do more conclusive chemical testing.
Also, the critics....the experts who are looking over the original report....didn't have the opportunity to actually examine the scene first hand or conduct a thorough separate investigation. Cases like this are very much hands on....and when there is doubt, a lot of weight has to go to those who were actually there.
But I have to say that the prosecutor is a little crazy.
This is one of those cases where the truth may never be known.
@ Tex: No offense, but if you think a march...ANY kind of march will curb the madness going on in your state with this death penalty nonsense, think again. This isn't a diss to your movement. I've just never been a believer in marches and rallies. They're so 1963.
But to address the post specifically: I can't believe the lame defense Judge Jackson offered for the verdict was virtually unchallenged. I have to believe the lawyers involved (and perhaps the folks over in the appellate court) were looking to score points with each other. Because there is NO WAY the judge's ruling could've avoided scrutiny the way it did unless people were in cohoots with one another.
"The two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a ‘gentleman's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote ... May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties." -- W.E.B. DuBois (1922)
2 comments:
There is nothing conclusive here either way. It was definitely a weak case for the death penalty. This is why I only support the death penalty in cases where the crime was egregious and where the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence was sorely lacking here.
But on the other hand, there are also problems with those who say he's innocent. Just because there were no fire accelerants found in the house doesn't mean that he didn't start the fire. He could still be found guilty of arson. I'm a little surprised they didn't do more conclusive chemical testing.
Also, the critics....the experts who are looking over the original report....didn't have the opportunity to actually examine the scene first hand or conduct a thorough separate investigation. Cases like this are very much hands on....and when there is doubt, a lot of weight has to go to those who were actually there.
But I have to say that the prosecutor is a little crazy.
This is one of those cases where the truth may never be known.
@ Tex: No offense, but if you think a march...ANY kind of march will curb the madness going on in your state with this death penalty nonsense, think again. This isn't a diss to your movement. I've just never been a believer in marches and rallies. They're so 1963.
But to address the post specifically: I can't believe the lame defense Judge Jackson offered for the verdict was virtually unchallenged. I have to believe the lawyers involved (and perhaps the folks over in the appellate court) were looking to score points with each other. Because there is NO WAY the judge's ruling could've avoided scrutiny the way it did unless people were in cohoots with one another.
The Texas judicial system. Hard at work.
Post a Comment