alabama denies dna test to potentially innocent man

[girzwald]

This is OT but. So lemmie get this straight. If I linked a news story from fox news as a source. Id be laughed and shunned off these forums. But a link from "thinkprogress" is cool? /shrug

Theres a perfectly valid reason for that. Fox "News" are not considered a credible news source. By anyone. Ever. In fact, Lois Griffin put it best.


On Topic: Its fucking Alabama... Can't expect justice in hill billy ass Alabama. They probably think a DNA test is some sorta voodoo curse.
So let this be a lesson to folks. If you want a real trial you have to get it done in a state where your own sister is not considered fair game.

Which only proves that none of you even watch fox news. All you are a bunch of sheep going along with the "lol fox news lies" bandwagon. And get your "fox news lies" from other people telling you they lie. But please, like I said to someone else, produce a story where fox news lied. A news story where fox INTENTIONALLY misrepresented facts.

Just so you know, things that are not lies. Typos, mistakes, being wrong, opinions, difference of opinion of what facts are between networks.

 

[Saltyk]

This sort of case is why the death penalty, which may be theoretically a good idea in some extreme cases, doesn't really work in practice. No justice system is perfect and in a system where death is an option, inevitably someone innocent will get executed. Is this guy innocent? Maybe, maybe not. I'd sure rather pay for his and a mostly despicable crowd of people to live on safely separated from society than risk a mistake that's can't be fixed.

Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life? Seriously, think about it. Prison is about as close to Hell on earth as you can get without entering an active war zone. Would you want to spend the rest of your natural life with some of the scummiest people on the planet? Would you really be okay with them denying this DNA test despite the belief that he was possibly innocent if the prison sentence was Life instead of Death? How would that be better? How are you or anyone else better than the people denying this test? The outrage should be about an innocent man spending 30 years in prison as much as being executed. Both are travesties!

That being said, I don't care to comment on this particular case.

 

[Saltyk]

I said, why didn't they ask to do one SOONER, as in ANY time been that 30 years ago. Why now with proverbial seconds left on the clock? Like I said, to delay the execution.

What makes you assume it's their first request to revisit the evidence? The case has been revisited numerous times, each time the judges dismissing everything based solely on the false testimony of a convicted murderess with a motive to lie.

Besides, it was 2008 that the real killer confessed he did it. That's add all the more weight to the request for DNA testing, because they know now that a wig used as a disguise may carry the actual killer's DNA.

Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life?

Because there's a chance the verdict will be revisited eventually, and he can be released. Besides, conditions are less barbaric than on death row.

Wait a minute. I think I know you from a previous thread. Didn't you think a woman who shot an intruder in her home after calling the police (who took 20 minutes to get there) when he broke into a bathroom was guilty of murder. This woman also had a young child in there with her. Oh, and her husband had recently died of cancer if memory serves.

You are! Yeah, your opinion is worthless to me. Nice try, though.

Can someone who knows the difference between right and wrong reply to my original post?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I said, why didn't they ask to do one SOONER, as in ANY time been that 30 years ago. Why now with proverbial seconds left on the clock? Like I said, to delay the execution.

What makes you assume it's their first request to revisit the evidence? The case has been revisited numerous times, each time the judges dismissing everything based solely on the false testimony of a convicted murderess with a motive to lie.

Besides, it was 2008 that the real killer confessed he did it. That's add all the more weight to the request for DNA testing, because they know now that a wig used as a disguise may carry the actual killer's DNA.

Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life?

Because there's a chance the verdict will be revisited eventually, and he can be released. Besides, conditions are less barbaric than on death row.

Wait a minute. I think I know you from a previous thread. Didn't you think a woman who shot an intruder in her home after calling the police (who took 20 minutes to get there) when he broke into a bathroom was guilty of murder. This woman also had a young child in there with her. Oh, and her husband had recently died of cancer if memory serves.

You are! Yeah, your opinion is worthless to me. Nice try, though.

Can someone who knows the difference between right and wrong reply to my original post?

I'll try

Simply put, the idea is that if someone is wrongfully convicted, they can be released at some point in the future, should new evidence arise. That option goes away, however, when you involve capital punishment. You can give a person their freedom back, but we can't yet give someone their life back.

Also, the state has put to death quite a few people which later evidence reveals might have been a mistake, even when they thought they had an airtight case.

 

[Maze1125]

This is OT but. So lemmie get this straight. If I linked a news story from fox news as a source. Id be laughed and shunned off these forums. But a link from "thinkprogress" is cool? /shrug

Fox "News" has bee proven over and over to do nothing but lie, and have openly admitted that all they care to do is mislead people. They brag about only parroting Republican talking points, and their focus is demeaning the President.

Yeah. When some other news organization so openly flaunts their assholicness and willingness to deliberately lie to people who stupidly trust them for profit, we'll start ragging on them like we do Fox. Until then....

No fox news has not been proven over and over that they lie. I've asked on this very board for examples of lies and I have never gotten one. Oh ya, people have tried, but never has a lie been presented. Would you like to take the challenge? Its still open and my hat is yet uneaten.

The challenge is provide a news story where fox news lied. A news story where fox INTENTIONALLY misrepresented facts.

Just so you know, things that are not lies. Typos, mistakes, being wrong, opinions, difference of opinion of what facts are between networks.

Have at it.

Are you stupid, or intentionally posing an impossible challenge?

The only way to prove what you're asking is for Fox to admit they lied.
If they don't, which they won't, any outright misrepresentation of facts can just be put down to, as you say, a "difference of opinion of what facts are".

By putting that line in, you're giving yourself a get-out clause for any scenario outside of an explicit confession from Fox News.

 

[Saltyk]

I said, why didn't they ask to do one SOONER, as in ANY time been that 30 years ago. Why now with proverbial seconds left on the clock? Like I said, to delay the execution.

What makes you assume it's their first request to revisit the evidence? The case has been revisited numerous times, each time the judges dismissing everything based solely on the false testimony of a convicted murderess with a motive to lie.

Besides, it was 2008 that the real killer confessed he did it. That's add all the more weight to the request for DNA testing, because they know now that a wig used as a disguise may carry the actual killer's DNA.

Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life?

Because there's a chance the verdict will be revisited eventually, and he can be released. Besides, conditions are less barbaric than on death row.

Wait a minute. I think I know you from a previous thread. Didn't you think a woman who shot an intruder in her home after calling the police (who took 20 minutes to get there) when he broke into a bathroom was guilty of murder. This woman also had a young child in there with her. Oh, and her husband had recently died of cancer if memory serves.

You are! Yeah, your opinion is worthless to me. Nice try, though.

Can someone who knows the difference between right and wrong reply to my original post?

I'll try

Simply put, the idea is that if someone is wrongfully convicted, they can be released at some point in the future, should new evidence arise. That option goes away, however, when you involve capital punishment. You can give a person their freedom back, but we can't yet give someone their life back.

But the implication of statements like the post I originally quoted is that they wouldn't care about this potentially innocent man being left to rot in prison for the rest of their life. Which, to me, is just as bad, if not worse. Think about it. This man has spent 30 years in prison for a crime. If he is truly innocent, just spending so much of his life in prison would be terrible. You can't give someone back 30 years. No amount of money will make up for that. And we're talking about 30 years with actual murderers, rapist, and serial criminals.

In fact, the way the original post read, it would almost be okay to send a man to jail for the rest of their life, because at least you didn't kill him. That is not okay. The point I am trying to make is that spending your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit is just as bad as being sentenced to Death.

I could and will happily continue this further, but I really need to leave for work.

 

[SmegInThePants]

don't worry, they can run the dna test after they kill him.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I said, why didn't they ask to do one SOONER, as in ANY time been that 30 years ago. Why now with proverbial seconds left on the clock? Like I said, to delay the execution.

What makes you assume it's their first request to revisit the evidence? The case has been revisited numerous times, each time the judges dismissing everything based solely on the false testimony of a convicted murderess with a motive to lie.

Besides, it was 2008 that the real killer confessed he did it. That's add all the more weight to the request for DNA testing, because they know now that a wig used as a disguise may carry the actual killer's DNA.

Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life?

Because there's a chance the verdict will be revisited eventually, and he can be released. Besides, conditions are less barbaric than on death row.

Wait a minute. I think I know you from a previous thread. Didn't you think a woman who shot an intruder in her home after calling the police (who took 20 minutes to get there) when he broke into a bathroom was guilty of murder. This woman also had a young child in there with her. Oh, and her husband had recently died of cancer if memory serves.

You are! Yeah, your opinion is worthless to me. Nice try, though.

Can someone who knows the difference between right and wrong reply to my original post?

I'll try

Simply put, the idea is that if someone is wrongfully convicted, they can be released at some point in the future, should new evidence arise. That option goes away, however, when you involve capital punishment. You can give a person their freedom back, but we can't yet give someone their life back.

But the implication of statements like the post I originally quoted is that they wouldn't care about this potentially innocent man being left to rot in prison for the rest of their life. Which, to me, is just as bad, if not worse. Think about it. This man has spent 30 years in prison for a crime. If he is truly innocent, just spending so much of his life in prison would be terrible. You can't give someone back 30 years. No amount of money will make up for that. And we're talking about 30 years with actual murderers, rapist, and serial criminals.

In fact, the way the original post read, it would almost be okay to send a man to jail for the rest of their life, because at least you didn't kill him. That is not okay. The point I am trying to make is that spending your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit is just as bad as being sentenced to Death.

I could and will happily continue this further, but I really need to leave for work.

Really? That's not quite what I got the sense from reading it. Then again, I am rather tired, so it could be that.

I think the point was that people have often been put to death who were later found innocent. Better to give them some freedom after realizing one made a mistake, rather than none at all. And that's what capital punishment does.

 

[JoJo]

This sort of case is why the death penalty, which may be theoretically a good idea in some extreme cases, doesn't really work in practice. No justice system is perfect and in a system where death is an option, inevitably someone innocent will get executed. Is this guy innocent? Maybe, maybe not. I'd sure rather pay for his and a mostly despicable crowd of people to live on safely separated from society than risk a mistake that's can't be fixed.

Okay, here's something I don't understand. Why would it be any better to leave an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life? Seriously, think about it. Prison is about as close to Hell on earth as you can get without entering an active war zone. Would you want to spend the rest of your natural life with some of the scummiest people on the planet? Would you really be okay with them denying this DNA test despite the belief that he was possibly innocent if the prison sentence was Life instead of Death? How would that be better? How are you or anyone else better than the people denying this test? The outrage should be about an innocent man spending 30 years in prison as much as being executed. Both are travesties!

That being said, I don't care to comment on this particular case.

Leaving an innocent man in prison isn't any better than unjust execution, except that there's the chance that if new evidence arises showing that the conviction was false for whatever reason, they can be released and compensated. You can't "unkill" someone who's been executed if they turn out to be innocent.

Edit: I've just read some of the discussion above between you and some other posters and I believe you misinterpreted my post. I don't think it's okay to imprison an innocent man, just preferable to death. I won't lie, there are definitely people out there I wouldn't mind executing myself but the right of the possibly innocent to one day be proven not guilty out-weighs the benefits of such a system. There's no such thing as a clear-cut case: witnesses can lie or forget, evidence can be forged, experts can be wrong.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

This is OT but. So lemmie get this straight. If I linked a news story from fox news as a source. Id be laughed and shunned off these forums. But a link from "thinkprogress" is cool? /shrug

Back on topic. Well first the DNA wouldn't cost the court nothing. Because regardless of the results, it would cost some sort of court time, extra jail time, etc. But that's not the point. And I doubt that money is why they are denying the DNA test. This person has had 30 years to reprove their innocence and has failed to do so. But now, suddenly they want a DNA test that would extend this case even longer. Why not sooner? Sounds like a last ditch effort to stall the execution. Which is pretty much what people are sick of, people on death row who are often guilty as sin, using every legal trick in the book to extend their life or to get released on some legal technicality.

Second. You specifically neglected to mention WHY he was denied this DNA test. That's like saying "a nun was arrested!" But neglecting to mention that said nun robbed a liquor store. All you mention is that the judges are conservative. A dirty and underhanded tactic. In an attempt to divide people on political lines and to say "they're conservative so CLEARLY they are denying him a DNA test for BS reasons because they just want to kill someone because they are EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLL"

You sir, are the one that is disgusting.

Yea I tried looking for an article that sounded a little less biased, but I failed.
Something just seems off about it. Even if they refused the DNA test if they just did it themselves then channeled the results through the local media it would be enough to save him. I don't think they can refuse the DNA test, just refuse it being used in the court.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's the only thing I can think of other than "Well... we have to kill SOMEONE might as well be him."

This seems to be the mentality a lot of the time. SOMEONE has to pay, so why not the guy in custody?

 

[cswurt]

 

[VoidWanderer]

Death Penalty should be applicable for people who confess to murder, or apprehended with enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Statements should not be the damning evidence, unless they are a survivor.

 

[DkLnBr]

No fox news has not been proven over and over that they lie. I've asked on this very board for examples of lies and I have never gotten one. Oh ya, people have tried, but never has a lie been presented. Would you like to take the challenge? Its still open and my hat is yet uneaten.

The challenge is provide a news story where fox news lied. A news story where fox INTENTIONALLY misrepresented facts.

Just so you know, things that are not lies. Typos, mistakes, being wrong, opinions, difference of opinion of what facts are between networks.

Have at it.

The "intentionally misrepresented facts" issue is hard, mostly because it would take either a thorough investigation or by an admission by FOX itself. Much like how i know you've lied before, but i cannot prove it.
The thing people people dont like though is FOX's extremely biased slant, creating infotainment rather than news. Broadcasting "Videogames turn our children into sociopaths", or "the Muppets and the Lorax demonize the Oil & Gas and Lumber industry" or similar stories, while only using speculation or shaky "facts" to support their claims (see Carole Lieberman [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107628-Fox-News-Says-Bulletstorm-Could-Make-You-a-Rapist]). While I will acknowledge its is impossible to remove 100% of bias, Fox seems to make very little effort in doing so. FOX also has a long list of controversies behind them (quick Wiki list for a general idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies ) So there may not be any concrete evidence of FOX lying, but they are far from a reputable news broadcaster

TLR= even if they haven't outright lied, they still aren't very truthful


EDIT: waaaaay off topic, sorry... anyways! disallowing evidence that may protect an innocent man is appalling, especially when:
(A) recent evidence seems to point to his innocence
(B) he's on death row, so his life is literally on the line
Whatever happened to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[direkiller]

It's bad when satire happen in real life. but twice in a year WHY

 

[DkLnBr]

(B) he's on death row, so his life is literally on the line.
Whatever happened to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

While I agree the test should be allowed, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is only at point of conviction. They don't have to reprove it or retry the case just because a bit of doubt creeps in.

oops sorry. when i read it the first time, i interpreted it as if he was getting convicted, and this was a new development in the trial (and the prosecution were aiming for the death penalty), not that its already happened. Im in college and yet i still dont know the difference between past and present tense I should really read articles more thoroughy before posting

 

[JToyunda]

Perhaps I have been watching too much Law and Order, but no one has mentioned this angle, so here goes...

Alabama might be denying the DNA test because they are afraid that every convicted inmate will demand one, in which case, the justice system could grind to a halt.

Except that it seems to me that convicted inmates could demand further DNA testing anyway. (Now THAT would be a more interesting news story: "Alabama admits to denying 470 requests for DNA testing in the last month...")