NPR talking now about how Texas murdered (executed) a Rubin Cantu

[Mr_Spock]

Witnesses who fingered this fellow in 1993 for a murder, now say they were lying. So Texas executed (murdered) an innocent man based on new information. Maybe we can exhume him and clone him to bring him back to life :mad:

[benburch]

1. In Texas new evidence does not "count" after conviction.

The appeals courts are not triers of fact, and no amount of witness perjury matters as long as the legal issues were all handled within the letter of the law during the trial. So, for example, you have to have a lawyer, but he doesn't need to be sober as the law does not require that...

[acmavm]

2. Hey, even Scalia has said the factual innocence is not enough of a

reason to stop and execution or grant a new hearing. Why would you be so silly to think that this is something we should be worrying about? <heavy heavy sarcasm>

[Mr_Spock]

3. In this case even the prosecutor is having second thoughts...

It sounds like a real travesty - all cynicism aside...

[TahitiNut]

4. Yep. Quite literally, innocence is not a recognized defense.

As a "systems person," I recognize this syndrome all too well. People ignore outcome (the predominant legitimate goal of any system) in favor of a vested interest in the system as an end in itself.

[hlthe2b]

5. Travesty...what does it take for we, the people to rise up?

(I ask on a daily basis)

BTW, benburch, I've been meaning to ask about your avatar... Who is that? The pic looks familiar, but is small, so if I should know, I don't.

[Union Thug]

6. Yeah, the death penalty is a great idea...

Maybe this guy can return from the grave like a Romero zombie and eat the bastards that convicted him. Now THAT would be tit-for-tat justice!

[Mr_Spock]

7. A thread a day on the guy in Calif., but the first false killing in years

This is it people - the first case where an innocent man was killed since capital punishment was reinstated - and little interest here?

Who'd a thunk...

[nemo137]

8. I think I remember hearing about this a few years ago

and being totally outraged, and then never hearing about it again. When did they decide that he was innocent?

[Mr_Spock]

9. When the sole eyewitness said they were lying along with another

person who was involved. Basically there is not a sole out there who has any evidence that he was involved. No physical evidence and now the sole eyewitness said they are lying along with a codefendant. There is no evidence left of his involvement.