[dead]
Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
71–80 of 255 posts
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#72The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should st…
That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a belief that deep down bad guys are rational actors and will choose not to do commit capital murder based on punishment.
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#73Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who…
While I was at a coffee shop recently I overheard a young lady telling her friend that she was switching her major from nursing (I think) to psychology, "because the nursing major is hard", and instead she wants to become a forensic or criminal psychologist, which she believes will be easier. I am concerned about the quality of evidence such a person might present if they ever were called as an expert witness at someone's trial...
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
That could all be true, but folks also testified they personally witnessed him violently shaking at least one kid. You can be against junk science, but entertain the likely possibility he also did it.
You can also entertain the possibility that he did it, while still wanting a justice system that insists on absolute proof of guilt before killing someone.
* The daughter was sick from birth with breathing apnea,
with bouts causing her to collapse and stop breathing.
* Had severe undiagnosed pneumonia.
* Was prescribed an opioid medication that is no longer deemed safe for children.
* Had diarrhea and a fever of 104F for 5 days prior to her death.
How can you not entertain the possibility that her death had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that someone claims a dude shook a child one time?
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#75Here is an uncomfortable truth. This man is in prison because of ableism. This is why body language “experts” are grifters and charlatans. This is why you shouldn’t convict people on a hunch, and why as a professional you don’t say shit you are unqualified to say. Ableism kills.
Sexism and agism may have come into play too. “Creepy man, probably a peado” type thinking.
And that is why trials should be blind... The characteristics of perpetrator should not be shown or told to jury.
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse It's not. Maybe you're thinking of libertarianism? The conservative ethos is to preserve and promote a social hierarchy. This requires both winners and losers.
> It's not. Limiting the power of government is a central idea in conservative thought, especially in America[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_Sta...
Well, no.
Conservatives have no problem stripping authority from cities and towns so that they maintain absolute power at the state government level. That's what Florida, Texas etc have all done, accelerating especially recently. It's always couched in specific terms and frameworks designed to make sure they're the haves and everyone else is the have not.
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#77I'm always bothered by how doctor's word is always taken as gospel. Anyone who's gone through the medical merry-go-round knows that doctors opinions on the same set of symptoms can be all over the place, some even outright idiotic.
Always remember.
What do you call a med school graduate who had a straight-A average? "Doctor".
What do you call a med school graduate who had a C-minus average? "Doctor".
I've had to weed through a couple dunce doctors in my time.
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's often very, very, very hard to introduce new evidence of your innocence after trial. Trial is the point that you show all available evidence to the jury. In Illinois you can attempt to present your evidence only after you have exhausted all of your regular appeal routes (appellate court, state supreme court, SCOTUS, state habeas corpus, fed habeas -- there are 11 levels here first) which can take a decade.…
I'm completely shocked that the "defund the police" movement was where the progressive activists chose to dedicate their attention. Whereas issues like you mention above, and trial reform in general, and prison system reform in general, would have wide bipartisan support. It really makes me suspicious why activists and the media are not advocating for the things 90% of people would agree with. Is the other stuff just…
The police is where you can get obvious, overwhelming evidence of abuse. It literally takes a man being murdered on video to move the needle, and even then you get a ton of pushback.
There are many prison reform movements, but none of them get any traction without such visceral, concrete, and shocking symbols. You hear about defunding the police because it's the only one with even a shred of a chance to accomplish anything at all.
People might agree with other improvements if a pollster asked them, but only because it's abstract. If they got any serious traction there would be an equivalent objection using the same tactics to defame and harass the people who were trying. And since it doesn't involve a death it will get chalked up to "both sides are bad" and dropped.
I'd love to see politics work on something more coherent and beneficial but we're way, way past that.
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#79The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should st…
That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a belief that deep down bad guys are rational actors and will choose not to do commit capital murder based on punishment.
Um, no?
It’s to achieve vengeance. This doesn’t seem that complicated.
Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so frustrating because in the twisted universe where Thomas lives the ruling makes sense. To him justice is an algorithm that produces an outcome and only needs some minimum threshold of "overall the justice system locks up roughly the people we think it ought to" and all the appeals and after-the-fact proving your innocence gets in the way of the efficiency and to him, the effectiveness, of that algorithm. And…
It's called "just"ice, not "systemish". Getting the right outcome is meant to be a core goal of the system. Besides, there are many legal reasonings that would allow the process to give the right answer - that innocent people should not be killed. Thomas chose to find a different reasoning instead.
All nine of them, and practically every lawyer of all persuasions, will tell you that the only justice is the equal application of the written law. And sense of "justice" to mean "fairness" is a job for the legislature.
The fact that legislation is always vague and they can interpret it to mean whatever their ideology wants it to mean is just waiting for more legislation to fix it. If there is an obvious miscarriage of justice, all you need to do is get a majority of the House, 60% of the Senate, and the President to all agree within a two year window. There, justice done.