Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson

Originally posted by MysterE
It is a shame that this happened, if indeed he was innocent. However the death penalty is not always a bad thing.
Our prisions are overcrowded and it is expensive to keep them alive. In Florida it costs $55.09/day on average to keep an inmate in prision

It is a shame that this case went wrong, and if the man was innocent, then what a terrible mistake. BUT the dealth penalty is a necessity.

Well then...have we reached an acceptable price for human life? You know...if you could lower the cost to...say...$4.50 a day, should they be maintained?

And those who were complicit in his wrongful death...are they to be executed for first degree murder?

Just wondering...cuz to echo the Brit, he would still be alive in Canada. Further, we are discovering that an alarming number of lifers up here are being proven innocent upon new investigation.

But, you know...killing the innocent ones really is such a shame.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I certianly do not want innocent people to die. I want the proven murderers to die, I have stated this several times. The cost of keeping a murderer alive is just an insult to the injury they have caused, so actually no price is low enough for me to keep a proven murderer alive.

-E-

[edit on 25-8-2009 by MysterE]

reply to post by MysterE


I hope that if you ever get wrongly convicted of a crime, that the cost of feeding you doesn't lead to your death, or maybe that's just tempting fate? not until it happens close to home would someone like you ever understand.

You are part of the problem the world faces, not the solution, but then again I feel you couldn't care less huh?

***********

reply to post by azzllin


I do have compassion for the wrongly convicted. As I said earlier it is an absolute shame for an innocent person to be put to death. I even stated that our current system could use reform. But I think you are mis-understanding what I am saying so let me put it as simple as I can.

I think PROVEN murderers deserve to die

-E-

[edit on 25-8-2009 by MysterE]

reply to post by MysterE


Nobody knows how they're going to react to a situation like this until they're in it. And nobody, not even his neighbors know what it's going to look like when they attempt to accurately recall the details of the events. Especially when recalling the events in response to directed questioning by the prosecution.

The jailhouse snitch doesn't even deserve a response.

Regardless of whether or not he hit his wife, or children, he was put to death for setting a fire. A fire which has been declared 9 times now, not arson.

He was the victim of a witch hunt, he didn't even get a trial.

investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams' house in the small Texas town of Corsicana, did not consider other potential causes for the fire, came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene, and wrongly concluded Willingham's injuries could not have been caused as he said they were...

The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had "limited understanding" of fire science. The fire marshal "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created," he wrote.

The marshal's findings, he added, "are nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation."

Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists -- first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the commission. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.

reply to post by Unit541


I will repeat

It is a shame that this happened, if indeed he was innocent.

It is a shame that this case went wrong, and if the man was innocent, then what a terrible mistake.

-E-

It's beginning to look like he didn't set the fire but saw fit to use this accident to his advantage. He didn't do anything to rectify the situation and in fact used it to further some foolish notion to rid himself of his responsibility to his family! If anything, he is a scoundrel with real behavioral issues and complicit in his family members deaths. I'm personally not going to shed tears for him but the court case was botched to a very high degree!
Zindo

What happens when you murder a convicted killer with the death penalty? (And yes I will refer to it as murder)

Do you bring back the person who has been killed? Nope
Do you stop other people from killing? Nope
Do you save some money? Yes
Do you get some revenge for the family of the deceased? Yes
Do you give the murderer the easy way out? Yes
Do you yourself murder someone? Yes


Maybe it's just me, but I don't mind paying some money to help other people. Regardless of who they are; maybe thats because I wouldn't be in the state of health I am now if people didn't. (Via the NHS)

The problem with the death penalty is that there is the chance of miscarriage. This chance should be the reason for its abolition.

It is unfortunate that the US is only one of a very small handful of advanced nations to sanction the killing of another man by the state. But hey, look on the bright side - at least the US has a decent judicial system so mistakes are rare. Can you imagine the number of "mistakes" by less advanced nations like Iran and China whose judicial systems are not exactly transparent.

The US needs to work this problem out themselves and I do think that they will take a more enlightened position in the fullness of time.

Amnesty International
Death Penalty Info

Regards

edit to correct spelling

[edit on 25/8/2009 by paraphi]

Originally posted by Sestias
Texas has the highest execution rate in the country. It was apparently in such a hurry to execute Cameron Todd Willingham they couldn't wait until a proper investigation was conducted.

The fire was in 1991, he was executed in 2004. I think there was plenty of time for a proper investigation. The question is why wasn't there a proper investigation done for so long??

I cannot even imagine what this poor man went through for all those years after the fire.

I believe in the death penalty, but I don't believe it should be used when there is only circumstantial evidence. It should be used when they catch the smoking gun, but only if proven by other substantial evidence.

Laws and judges are poorly made and trained. Judge Judy is better than 95% of the judges I have encountered in the so-called justice system concerning children. Child protection judges don't know when to throw out a case of false accusation by social workers. There is a big problem nationwide by the states splitting up poor families---literally putting their kids up for adoption against their will after terminating their parental rights under false statements. The social workers are allowed, apparently encouraged, to do this without oversight by county supervisors. Then they are protected from lawsuit. It is a runaway family destruction system.

Who's surprised about the screwups in death penalties, when they can't get even little laws and judgments correct? Where are the citizen oversight committees?

Clearly the death penalty isn't stopping folks from raping and murdering children or torturing people to death for giggles.

So, that being said.. what may the point be?

War on your soul perhaps? Could be.

Here is a good article about this. It addresses many of the arguments given by the death-penalty supporters in this thread. The testimony used in the case (that was quoted by MysterE) was faulty on many levels. People who were originally defending Willingham suddenly changed their stories when they were told he was likely a murderer. (Which is likely false.) Even the jailhouse informant retracted his testimony at one point and said he was drugged up and could be wrong. You really have to read this article to understand. Also, it says that giving someone the death penalty costs four times as much as keeping them alive in prison for forty years.

www.newyorker.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by theyreadmymind]