A 17 page article done by David Grann about an unemployed mechanic, Cameron Todd Willingham, who lost three children, two of them twins, to a house fire around Christmas (1991). After an investigation by the fire inspector it was later deemed that Cameron was the arson who allegedly started the fire. He was later put to death by lethal injection in 2004. Recently however, this conclusion was overturned by forensics. Some specialists even go as far as saying "They were 99% sure that Cameron was innocent". The title of the article is called "Trial By Fire" and the subheading is "Did Texas execute an innocent man?".

I'm under the impression that David brought the whole story to light as he kept up with the whole story, maybe wrong though (I haven't read the whole article). The article in the link is very descriptive and honestly I just feel that Cameron was wronged on so many occasions. He had no real motive, his actions spoke louder then words, the appeal process was often overlooked and updated appeal reports were not even fully reviewed (how can you not even have the time of day to look at an appeal when a MAN'S LIFE IS ON THE LINE?). Texas is one of the few states that actually pay up to $80,000 dollars a year for any person wrongfully excused for timed served and $20,000 dollars for the rest of the victim's life. With that aside, I think it's definitely not enough! Why? Because people who are dead cannot claim any money and most certainly cannot ressurected...

Honestly, even being wrongfully imprisoned for 20 years is too much and money will NEVER make up for lost time. Death sentences however is MUCH worst. Especially when some fucking slapnut is not even taking appeals seriously. Imagine being prosecuted for murdering your own 3 children... His wife also cursed him to death.

Well here is the article and here is a quick video I found.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=1

Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOSh9wpCkI

Lethal injection is a bad way to go. It's like having a heart attack (literally, they stop your heart while you are fully awake).

One of the big problems with the death penalty is that it is entirely dependent on human error. Human error runs rampant even in the DNA forensics labs, where certain pieces of evidence are overlooked, mistreated, or thrown away before the appeals case. In fact, in Texas there was a huge problem with DNA lab misconduct in 2006, as well as in other states. It stands to truth that even the most absolute indicator of crime -- DNA testing -- is flawed, and ill-suited to using the death penalty.

Not to mention that the costs necessary to maintain the death penalty often bankrupt the immediate area. In California, one of our districts underwent a series of death penalty cases which, in the end, cost the district upwards of 50 million dollars. The state pays a portion of it, yes, but this is the 50 million dollars -left over- to the city. Trial and appellate proceedings cost lots of money -- and some argue that maintaining a facility for lifers is cheaper than having the death penalty. What better way to invest that 50 million on the things that might actually help prevent crime? Public parks, for instance. A library. More police officers. Things that make a community better.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that it's the best way for a country to tell its citizens that if you do this, you will DIE. However, this 'deterrence factor' of the death penalty only goes as far as the murderer is sane (which isn't very far). Most murders are committed in crimes of passion where the murderer is not thinking "hey, if I do this, I might get the death penalty." And the serial killers obviously aren't deterred because they get a kick out of it. The only demographic the death penalty deters is the common person who would not ordinarily kill anyone in the first place!

The only reason people want the death penalty is because of a deep anger towards the people who kill our loved ones. We don't want to subject our mode of justice to the blind ideals of the lynch mob. Nor do we want to tout absolutism in the face of the blind inadequacies and injustices of the bureaucratic system. There are no absolutes.

But...suffice it to say, if guilt is proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt -- like if we find a murderer in the red-hot act of killing someone -- where human interpretation of the evidence is at its basal minimum (to the point where human error can be minimized as if you can SEE the act), then I've always been a fan of solitary confinement for life without parole. I'm aware that there's a major equity flaw here (OMG JON LOOK YOU AREn'T TREATING ALL CRIMINALS THE SAME), but let's face it, sometimes you need to do something extra special for all the David Westerfields and DC snipers of the world. And at least that can be taken back (and psychologically repaired).

Real cases are hardly ever that black and white, but if that ever happened my advocacy of life solitary without parole still stands. Every once in awhile some fucker gets caught bad so this actually allows society to slake its bloodthirst without spilling blood. My advocacy stands as an outlet for social structural violence without the obvious irrevocability of the death penalty. Note furthermore that this is only for people who beyond the shadow of a doubt committed these crimes (ie posting videos of themselves doing it). There will be cases of people who committed worse crimes being simply incarcerated, but at the very least the retributive sense of justice is fulfilled in that subjective manner somewhere in the world!

That's right, I'm calling out your premise of vigilantism and aff-turning it to my advo. You have the choice of attacking the previous statement, but in doing so you are forced to drop the argument for vigilante-style 'throw the fukr to the sharks' justice. Otherwise you contradict the idea of subjective (felt) justice.

You seem to be a life for a life guy yet you point out that he killed a thousand kids. Are you saying that his one life is going to cosmically equate the thousand kids he's killed? See, even something as basal as an eye for an eye is proven inadequate. Again though, we can mitigate the passion behind this sentiment through a totally nonviolent course of action.