Via the Agitator we find this story about a guy who might have been wrongly executed.

He supposedly set a fire that killed his children. If you follow the links, the guy isn't a choir boy, he was a career criminal, but there are questions about whether the fire was really arson.
That sucks, a lot. If the allegations are true, the fire marshall whose testimony helped convict the guy should be severely punished. Like the same punishment as an equivalent murder.

So the Agitator wants to know, if the guy was innocent, would this change my mind on the death penalty?

Not really, there are instances where it's beyond doubt that the perpetrator is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt (Mumia for instance),

I would be in favor of making sure that it's beyond a shadow of a doubt, like you need witnesses (plural) or like in My Cousin Vinny if they had found the gun, without the gun, I wouldn't have thought that was a death penalty case.

If anybody asked, I would have guessed you need more than just circumstantial evidence to execute.

I am going to have to assume, since they think the fire wasn't set so he's innocent, the case was all circumstantial evidence, I would say you need direct evidence, witnesses, the murder weapon with the suspect's fingerprints or in his possession, fingerprints on the victims neck, stuff like that.

I know taking a person's life is a serious step, but there are certain people where it's worse to leave them alive. How do you control some guy who's in jail for life with no possibility for parole? He can kill in prison (prisoners, guards, visitors, lawyers) with impunity. What are you gonna do? Give him another life sentence?

Posted by: Veeshir at 11:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.