http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=lawreview

The modern law of federal habeas corpus is a labyrinth of

counterfactuals and arcane procedural hurdles that few state

petitioners manage to navigate-as Justice Blackmun once

wrote less charitably in dissent, "a Byzantine morass of

arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjustifiable impediments to the

vindication of federal rights."2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20051878)

After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed, and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.

Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."

Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.

Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20051871)

very good article on the flawed nature of arson evidence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20052039)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20052035)

Supporters and opponents disagreed on the appropriateness of the death penalty, his guilt, and whether he received a fair trial.[4][5][6] He was described as "perhaps the world's best known death-row inmate".[7] During his imprisonment he has published several books and other commentaries, notably Live from Death Row (1995).

In 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the murder conviction, but ordered a new capital sentencing hearing over concerns that the jury was improperly instructed.[8] Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court allowed his conviction to stand,[8] and ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision to rescind the death sentence.[9] In 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction as well as its decision to vacate the death sentence,[10] and the District Attorney of Philadelphia announced that prosecutors would no longer seek the death penalty.[11] He was removed from death row in January 2012.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20052059)

Eye for an eye, retribution mother fucker.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20052196)

hth!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#20058011)

Hi. I like the death penalty. It fulfills a basic need for society to cleanse itself through revenge.

I used to worry that the error rate was high. Guess what? it isn't.

"As a consequence of the sensitivity of the criminal justice system to the due-process rights of defendants sentenced to death, almost two-thirds of all death sentences are overturned. See ibid. “Virtually none” of these reversals, however, are attributable to a defendant’s “ ‘actual innocence.’ ” Ibid. Most are based on legal errors that have little or nothing to do with guilt. See id., at 519–520. The studies cited by the dissent demonstrate nothing more."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1170.ZC.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#21191437)

I used to worry that the error rate was high. Guess what? it isn't.

"As a consequence of the sensitivity of the criminal justice system to the due-process rights of defendants sentenced to death, almost two-thirds of all death sentences are overturned. See ibid. “Virtually none” of these reversals, however, are attributable to a defendant’s “ ‘actual innocence.’ ” Ibid. Most are based on legal errors that have little or nothing to do with guilt. See id., at 519–520. The studies cited by the dissent demonstrate nothing more."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1170.ZC.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#21191416)

the death penalty DOES deter crime. economists are morons who don't know how to do empirical research.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#21193360)

The goal should really be to remove dangerous people from society, and to help arrange a reasonable financial compensation when required. Helping the victims find 'closure' through the death penalty or whatever shouldn't be a part of a modern justice system.

Plus the state should restrict the amount of situations in which it finds itself having to enforce highly subjective and emotionally palatable decisions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1883155&forum_id=2#21194746)