Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#131

Post by _gohp »

This is why the corporate punishment zealots should be kept in check by sane laws. Giving the state the power to execute people can, did and will go wrong and is too abusable. For example, soon after the Iranian government was overthrown by the UK puppet "shah", within a year butchers who were regarded as brutes suddenly have been delegated to positions of executioners, killing previous government officials.

Death is irreversible and what would be the correct punishment for the judge or prosecutor here?

If you ever think judges, state attorney's and prosecutors are humans of elevated morals, then I know where you can buy bridges for a good price.

To use the state apparatus when sending someone to death row after interpreting "beyond reasonable suspicion" in such a liberal, reckless way is pretty much first degree murder. Monetary fine will not reanimate the dead and is footed by taxpayer money. The death penalty is a ridiculous and archaic concept, it is no better than blood feuds between families or gangs, just applied by the state instead. It should have no place in a civil legal system.

Someone said Stalin and Hitler barely avoided execution. Sure thing, they were some monsters, but who elevated them to power? People with the same mentality who welcome the death penalty. Neither Hitler nor Stalin would have ever happened if they did not have wide support from coward and dumb citizens along with whatever financed them. Stupidity and cowardice are not fixed via death penalty.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#132

Post by s1artibartfast »

hedora wrote: post #122
s1artibartfast wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part do you think is absurd? That eye witness data can be considered or that the DNA evidence is irrelevant? I don't support the death penalty but I see the judge's point. Most DNA evidence isn't very useful and rarely as damning or exculpatory as people think.

You asked for absurd, so: Eye witness testimony is only slightly more reliable as waving purple LEDs around while chanting long words and rambling off conspiracy theories. (Which is apparently now an acceptable form of criminal investigation in the US).

Is this in reference to something?

I did not ask for absurd. I asked what they thought was absurd.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#133

Post by beerandt »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #123
GavinMcG wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they need an argument? Politics isn't about who has the better argument. It's just that no one in those states has (so far) had the skill, energy, and resources to organize political change on the issue.

the legal argument in the U.S for not giving compensation (as I recall) tends to be you should only be compensated if there was legal irregularities (cough, cough) that resulted in your incarceration - for example falsification of evidence, withholding evidence by the police, forced confessions etc. So if things were fair and followed correctly and you were by mistake locked up that's too bad, regrettable but not the…

Or put another way: a legal conviction is still legally correct even if it ends up being factually wrong.

Compensation would generally require the accused (the State, or it's agents in this case) to do something illegal, or at least legally incorrect, to be held legally responsible, and therefore financially responsible.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#134

Post by s1artibartfast »

pixl97 wrote: post #14
s1artibartfast wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the rationale was that there is no DNA evidence that would outweigh the eye witness testimony.

Heh, I love how courts still accept eye witness testimony as reliable in the first place.

Every court system in the world accepts eye witnesses testimony. Reliability is evaluated on a case by case basis.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#135

Post by beerandt »

mikeryan wrote: post #108
awb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, here’s the other evidence the judge is referring to: > Asked about the new DNA evidence, Rutledge repeatedly insisted Lee was "lawfully executed" and pointed to the testimony of an eyewitness who purportedly saw Lee enter Reese's home that day and then leave, "erratically," 20 minutes later. There’s also more context here for anyone interested in the case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledell_Lee As fo…

Any attorney or judge who justifies their conviction on eyewitness testimony has to know, at this point, its bullshit. Every criminal attorney at this point knows the infallibility of an eye witness has been proven over and over to be false.

This wasn't an eye witnesses glance, or false memory.

It was a witness who literally chased/followed the suspect from the crime scene to a place where people knew who he was.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#136

Post by swiley »

beerandt wrote: post #115
seer wrote: post #59

I’ve recently had the privilege of watching “12 angry men” for the first time. It’s a masterpiece in showing how a legal “sure thing” can be so wrong. Legal cases are often constructed with testimony, unreliable evidence, and chance. Its an effort to increase likelihood of certainty using very unreliable data. And human intuition really sucks when it comes to probability calculations. I think that film as no other re…

I recently watched the films "Hannibal," and "Silence of the Lambs," which convinced me that killers who aren't executed will continue to orchestrate murders from inside prison by psychologically manipulating people. I think those films really capture what happens when we only imprison killers, even if we feel certain that there would be no public harm from handing down a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

Sure but lets not add the state to the list of things that can end people's lives.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#137

Post by MomoXenosaga »

seer wrote: post #59

I’ve recently had the privilege of watching “12 angry men” for the first time. It’s a masterpiece in showing how a legal “sure thing” can be so wrong. Legal cases are often constructed with testimony, unreliable evidence, and chance. Its an effort to increase likelihood of certainty using very unreliable data. And human intuition really sucks when it comes to probability calculations. I think that film as no other re…

I think every country has baffling and shocking miscarriages of justice were someone was thrown in jail for something they didn't do.

But you can release someone, even after 20 years. "Oops it wasn't you who raped and strangled that child sorry". The death penalty is final however.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#138

Post by beerandt »

mikeryan wrote: post #110
GavinMcG wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that kind of depends on the actual testimony, doesn't it? Here, the defendant was neighbors with the victim, and the witnesses were other neighbors . So there's not much reason to doubt their identification, at least.

the witnesses were other neighbors. So there's not much reason to doubt their identification, at least. Sure there is, if you seem someone leaving a house that resembles another neighbor you’re going to assume its the neighbor and not a stranger. Context is huge.

The neighbor witness followed the suspect to a place where he was known/recognized.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#139

Post by ta988 »

bsanr2 wrote: post #129
ta988 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen part of police training in a big city and was impressed. They have a good portion of their training already on all the different methods of deescalation. With simulators (I tried them it is pretty impressive and immersive), role-play and so on. My guess is that the problem is after training.

I ran a simulator system for a couple of years for a military law course. The idea was to give those in the course first-hand experience with ROE/RUF concerns through the eyes of the people they'd be writing ROE/RUF for. The scenarios presented were laughable, badly-acted and completely unrealistic. Worse, every single one ended, by default, with the suspect pulling out a gun and shooting at the user. All of them. Th…

No these were interactive scenarios, with a human behind the controls. So it really depends on the human of course. But you can select where the situation goes, raise the tone of voice or aggressiveness of the actor (real actor videos smoothly integrated) of course the operator can make it shoot and you also need to simulate that. The subject in the simulator has a prop taser and gun that work pretty realisticly (blank bullets and no voltage of course). I don't know how common this kind of training is across US probably not that much.

Re: Four years after a man was executed, someone else’s DNA found on murder weapon

#140

Post by beerandt »

Buttons840 wrote: post #101
newacct583 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow. Like, I completely fail to comprehend how it's legal in the US judiciary system to ignore any piece of available hard evidence in a case that is punishable by execution? It wasn't "completely ignored". It was presented to the court and the test was requested, and the request was denied. Evidentiary rules are complicated and subject to abuse, yes, but they protect all of us. It's not like we'd be better off if…

> It's not like we'd be better off if discovery was unlimited. Why not? Why shouldn't the defense be able to present all evidence in their possession?

"Defendant requests discovery for defense's exhibit "A": the entire contents of the Library of Congress.

Since the defense has not received the subpoenaed material, the case can not go to trial and the defendant should be released."

Post reply on HN