More evidence emerges suggesting Texan executed for murder was innocent

Todd Willingham was executed in 2004

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) The Innocence Project argued Friday that newly discovered documents undermine the credibility of a key witness against a Texas man executed for the deaths of his three children based in part on arson evidence that has since been deemed faulty.

The New York-based nonprofit said it has discovered a handwritten note that suggests a prosecutor gave a lesser charge to jailhouse informant Johnny Webb, who testified that Cameron Todd Willingham told Webb he killed his daughters in 1991.

That would contradict claims made at trial by Webb and prosecutor John Jackson that Webb did not receive consideration for his testimony.

"It's astonishing that 10 years after Todd Willingham was executed we are still uncovering evidence showing what a grave injustice this case represents," Barry Scheck, the Innocence Project's co-director, said in a statement.

Willingham's case has been scrutinized by advocates who argue the state may have executed a wrongfully convicted man. Fire science experts already have refuted much of the methodology used in his case.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/11224922

 

LOOKS like the State of Texas may be paying a compensation of $$$ a couple of million $$$ plus interest to this man's family in the next couple of years ?

HOW MANY times have Texas and Florida - and several points in-between - managed these "stuff ups" over the years !

AND one of the main reasons that the parliaments in some 100+ countries, including Oz, NZ, Canada and the UK ~ are so loath to ever consider re-introducing capital punishment any time soon...

Beekeeper wrote: 

LOOKS like the State of Texas may be paying a compensation of $$$ a couple of million $$$ plus interest to this man's family in the next couple of years ?

HOW MANY times have Texas and Florida - and several points in-between - managed these "stuff ups" over the years !

AND one of the main reasons that the parliaments in some 100+ countries, including Oz, NZ, Canada and the UK ~ are so loath to ever consider re-introducing capital punishment any time soon...

It's barbaric, and we have to put an end to it. It turns me and my fellow citizens into accomplices to murder, whether we want to be or not, but I doubt the bloodthirsty advocates of the death penalty have ever considered that aspect of the issue.

this is why I am against the death penalty , those that administer the lethal injection or whatever method they use to execute someone are also murderers , where does it stop , an for an eye everyone would be blind .

Maine coon lover wrote:this is why I am against the death penalty , those that administer the lethal injection or whatever method they use to execute someone are also murderers , where does it stop , an for an eye everyone would be blind .

i do not believe in the death penalty either, but fail to see how it makes someone a murderer, as much as a soldier defending his nation by having to kill in combat. The Bible also commands executions Maine in regards to breaking your deities law as written and claimed to be the word of god, so would that mean God is also a murderer within the works and thus contradicts one of his own commandments?

  IN the Ten Commandments, it doesn't say that you should not "kill" ~ but rather that you shall not "murder" someone...

AN "out" is provided in there for 'righteous killings' ~ that means in self defence, defending one's family/friends/community/country; or when taking a life when ordered or authorised by a higher authority (e.g. military and police actions..).

THAT also means that in those places that follow Judaeo-Christian-Islamist moral codes according to the Old Testament, the responsibility for these "state ordered" executions will rest on the state authorities that ordered the executions ~ and not the executioner him/herself..    

PhilDidge wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:this is why I am against the death penalty , those that administer the lethal injection or whatever method they use to execute someone are also murderers , where does it stop , an for an eye everyone would be blind .

i do not believe in the death penalty either, but fail to see how it makes someone a murderer, as much as a soldier defending his nation by having to kill in combat. The Bible also commands executions Maine in regards to breaking your deities law as written and claimed to be the word of god, so would that mean God is also a murderer within the works and thus contradicts one of his own commandments?

its simple isn't it, if someone executes another person for murder they then become a murderer

PhilDidge wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:this is why I am against the death penalty , those that administer the lethal injection or whatever method they use to execute someone are also murderers , where does it stop , an for an eye everyone would be blind .

i do not believe in the death penalty either, but fail to see how it makes someone a murderer, as much as a soldier defending his nation by having to kill in combat. The Bible also commands executions Maine in regards to breaking your deities law as written and claimed to be the word of god, so would that mean God is also a murderer within the works and thus contradicts one of his own commandments?

That is debatable, sure, but what I meant was when the state of Texas executes an innocent person. When it does that, it's acting as the representative of me and my fellow Texans, and it's killing an innocent person, which to me is unambiguously murder.

It's difficult to avoid the murderer tag, didge. And for me, to rely on the book of a man who claims to live upon clouds is really unpersuasive.

More apt is your point about war as murder. Significant that the same people who want legalized murder also so often champion wars, innit?

regardless of religion , executing a murderer is murder .

Original Quill wrote:It's difficult to avoid the murderer tag, didge.  And for me, to rely on the book of a man who claims to live upon clouds is really unpersuasive.

More apt is your point about war as murder.  Significant that the same people who want legalized murder also so often champion wars, innit?

Hi Quill

Again agree on the religious aspect but on the moral ground of soldiers having to kill, it can be justifiable, but it would be for only one reason as I am well aware of the philosophy behind killing being deemed morally wrong because a victim loses his or her life. Now we can argue over all the reasons behind war and many will be wrong but not when you are fighting to survive for example from the Nazi's who took away rights and systematically murdered people.


So we have a justification for defending not only your own right to live but others, so if I allow someone to die, I do not save them, but I do let them die or in the case of war by my inaction cost many more to die or as you call it murder. So is it okay to kill someone trying to kill you, of course yes because they are trying to take away your right to live . So if the need to wage war is from a justifiable position, the need to defend and protect the people and people, then I propose the following:
Killing and letting people be killed have the same consequences the victim ends up dead and so, if rightness is determined by consequences, killing and letting people be killed, should be morally equivalent. A solderer, who has become a family within his unit as many soldiers do are faced with a moral dilemma, not just the fact if they do not act or run away or surrender, is that may not be morally wrong for not killing someone, but they would certainly be as morally wrong for allowing others to be killed. We take this point further and also the actions needed are required to also prevent the killings of far more in helping end the conflict quicker or further needs, people all the people of that nation, you are trying to protect and thus the need of the many would out weigh the need of the one or few you have to kill.

So I do see where soldiers are justified to fight to defend freedoms and protecting  others from being killed, as morally right, because the the rightness to kill to save others being killed outweighs this. So you are not only as a soldier defending yourself but all the men you are fighting with and for some of them to do nothing thinking they are being morally right could well in fact be completely morally wrong because they could have allowed their own men  to be killed and a worse case scenario lost a battle that affects the whole outcome of the war, which would also affect the people of your nation.


So I am not championing war or as you claim legalizing killing, because we have a right to defend our own right to life, but even morally bigger is to act and do what is normally seen as a morally wrong, because morally again the sanctity of  life of the many, will outweigh the individual having to kill the few. As I say killing and letting people be killed, should be morally equivalent and in war, you also account for many people to help prevent many from being killed.. No doubt you will disagree and you will know the law way better than I, but am approaching this from a reasonable moral view point and do not think killing in this instance is murder, with also the others are also being the aggressors like with Nazi Germany and a greater danger of. morally allowing many others to be killed .

Ben_Reilly wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


i do not believe in the death penalty either, but fail to see how it makes someone a murderer, as much as a soldier defending his nation by having to kill in combat. The Bible also commands executions Maine in regards to breaking your deities law as written and claimed to be the word of god, so would that mean God is also a murderer within the works and thus contradicts one of his own commandments?

That is debatable, sure, but what I meant was when the state of Texas executes an innocent person. When it does that, it's acting as the representative of me and my fellow Texans, and it's killing an innocent person, which to me is unambiguously murder.

Hi Ben

I agree that the death penalty is wrong and even an executioner could have little moral argument to defend taking that life.

PhilDidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's difficult to avoid the murderer tag, didge.  And for me, to rely on the book of a man who claims to live upon clouds is really unpersuasive.

More apt is your point about war as murder.  Significant that the same people who want legalized murder also so often champion wars, innit?

Hi Quill

Again agree on the religious aspect but on the moral ground of soldiers having to kill, it can be justifiable, but it would be for only one reason as I am well aware of the philosophy behind killing being deemed morally wrong because a victim loses his or her life. Now we can argue over all the reasons behind war and many will be wrong but not when you are fighting to survive for example from the Nazi's who took away rights and systematically murdered people.


So we have a justification for defending not only your own right to live but others, so if I allow someone to die, I do not save them, but I do let them die or in the case of war by my inaction cost many more to die or as you call it murder. So is it okay to kill someone trying to kill you, of course yes because they are trying to take away your right to live . So if the need to wage war is from a justifiable position, the need to defend and protect the people and people, then I propose the following:
Killing and letting people be killed have the same consequences the victim ends up dead and so, if rightness is determined by consequences, killing and letting people be killed, should be morally equivalent. A solderer, who has become a family within his unit as many soldiers do are faced with a moral dilemma, not just the fact if they do not act or run away or surrender, is that may not be morally wrong for not killing someone, but they would certainly be as morally wrong for allowing others to be killed. We take this point further and also the actions needed are required to also prevent the killings of far more in helping end the conflict quicker or further needs, people all the people of that nation, you are trying to protect and thus the need of the many would out weigh the need of the one or few you have to kill.

So I do see where soldiers are justified to fight to defend freedoms and protecting  others from being killed, as morally right, because the the rightness to kill to save others being killed outweighs this. So you are not only as a soldier defending yourself but all the men you are fighting with and for some of them to do nothing thinking they are being morally right could well in fact be completely morally wrong because they could have allowed their own men  to be killed and a worse case scenario lost a battle that affects the whole outcome of the war, which would also affect the people of your nation.


So I am not championing war or as you claim legalizing killing, because we have a right to defend our own right to life, but even morally bigger is to act and do what is normally seen as a morally wrong, because morally again the sanctity of  life of the many, will outweigh the individual having to kill the few. As I say killing and letting people be killed, should be morally equivalent and in war, you also account for many people to help prevent many from being killed.. No doubt you will disagree and you will know the law way better than I, but am approaching this from a reasonable moral view point and do not think killing in this instance is murder, with also the others are also being the aggressors like with Nazi Germany and a greater danger of. morally allowing many others to be killed .

Hi Didge,

I haven't really stated my position.  I think there are selfish reasons and pragmatic reasons for killing of another.  Murder of another and its reciprocal, capital punishment, are selfish reasons: plain murder is inevitably selfish, and capital punishment is revenge--clearly a selfish motive.  

Warfare killing is mostly pragmatic, as you point out...but that hardly relieves the moral burden.  There are just wars and their are unjust wars.  We must look to the underlying motives for the war.  Are they selfish?  Do they violate timeless principles, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom for personal pursuits during our stay here...the fundamental principles of humanism.  For example, the Nazi motive of Lebensraum was clearly selfish; the American Civil War, viewed as necessary to end slavery, was clearly moral: it was done to secure the lot of others--quite the opposite of selfishness.  One was a simple selfish grab, while the other was to pursue liberty and freedom for some aspect of humanity.

The difficulty is that there is no law or morality on the international level.  There are no practical standards.  Everything is subject to sentiment and persuasion, as Hitler proved.  Oh, we the greater nations, can beat up on the smaller--Charles Taylor comes to mind--but face it, that is just power, not morality.  Former Vice-President Richard Cheney, I remind you, is still free and walking around; yet he is every bit a war criminal.  

The major problem is that motives for war have gone abstract; a secondary problem is that the victor always gets to define (or redefine) the issue in retrospect.  Look at how America contorts the language: we no longer have a war department, we have a defense department; we have "peacekeepers" who "keep the peace" with implements of destruction, i.e., guns and war planes; actions like Korea and Vietnam are not wars, but police actions; we guarantee freedom by locking down airports and suspending constitutional provisions.  Is it any wonder that motives and morals become increasingly confused when detached from factual circumstances?

The Greeks used to have an interesting practice.  At the end of the term of a political office holder he would be put on trial as a matter of course.  The sole focus would be on whether his actions in office were conducted morally, or immorally.  It might be time to reintroduce that idea.

Original Quill wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hi Quill

Again agree on the religious aspect but on the moral ground of soldiers having to kill, it can be justifiable, but it would be for only one reason as I am well aware of the philosophy behind killing being deemed morally wrong because a victim loses his or her life. Now we can argue over all the reasons behind war and many will be wrong but not when you are fighting to survive for example from the Nazi's who took away rights and systematically murdered people.


So we have a justification for defending not only your own right to live but others, so if I allow someone to die, I do not save them, but I do let them die or in the case of war by my inaction cost many more to die or as you call it murder. So is it okay to kill someone trying to kill you, of course yes because they are trying to take away your right to live . So if the need to wage war is from a justifiable position, the need to defend and protect the people and people, then I propose the following:
Killing and letting people be killed have the same consequences the victim ends up dead and so, if rightness is determined by consequences, killing and letting people be killed, should be morally equivalent. A solderer, who has become a family within his unit as many soldiers do are faced with a moral dilemma, not just the fact if they do not act or run away or surrender, is that may not be morally wrong for not killing someone, but they would certainly be as morally wrong for allowing others to be killed. We take this point further and also the actions needed are required to also prevent the killings of far more in helping end the conflict quicker or further needs, people all the people of that nation, you are trying to protect and thus the need of the many would out weigh the need of the one or few you have to kill.

So I do see where soldiers are justified to fight to defend freedoms and protecting  others from being killed, as morally right, because the the rightness to kill to save others being killed outweighs this. So you are not only as a soldier defending yourself but all the men you are fighting with and for some of them to do nothing thinking they are being morally right could well in fact be completely morally wrong because they could have allowed their own men  to be killed and a worse case scenario lost a battle that affects the whole outcome of the war, which would also affect the people of your nation.


So I am not championing war or as you claim legalizing killing, because we have a right to defend our own right to life, but even morally bigger is to act and do what is normally seen as a morally wrong, because morally again the sanctity of  life of the many, will outweigh the individual having to kill the few. As I say killing and letting people be killed, should be morally equivalent and in war, you also account for many people to help prevent many from being killed.. No doubt you will disagree and you will know the law way better than I, but am approaching this from a reasonable moral view point and do not think killing in this instance is murder, with also the others are also being the aggressors like with Nazi Germany and a greater danger of. morally allowing many others to be killed .

Hi Didge,

I haven't really stated my position.  I think their are selfish reasons and pragmatic reasons for killing of another.  Murder of another and its reciprocal, capital punishment, are selfish reasons: plain murder is inevitably selfish, and capital punishment is revenge--clearly a selfish motive.  

Warfare killing is mostly pragmatic, as you point out...but that hardly relieves the moral burden.  There are just wars and their are unjust wars.  We must look to the underlying motives for the war.  Are they selfish?  Do they violate timeless principles, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom for personal pursuits during our stay here...the fundamental principles of humanism.  For example, the Nazi motive of Lebensraum was clearly selfish; the American Civil War, viewed as necessary to end slavery, was clearly moral: it was done to secure the lot of others--quite the opposite of selfishness.  One was a simple selfish grab, while the other was to pursue liberty and freedom for some aspect of humanity.

The difficulty is that there is no law or morality on the international level.  There are no practical standards.  Everything is subject to sentiment and persuasion, as Hitler proved.  Oh, we the greater nations, can beat up on the smaller--Charles Taylor comes to mind--but face it, that is just power, not morality.  Former Vice-President Richard Cheney, I remind you, is still free and walking around; yet he is every bit a war criminal.  

The major problem is that motives for war have gone abstract; a secondary problem is that the victor always gets to define (or redefine) the issue in retrospect.  Look at how America contorts the language: we no longer have a war department, we have a defense department; we have "peacekeepers" who "keep the peace" with implements of destruction, i.e., guns and war planes; actions like Korea and Vietnam are not wars, but police actions; we guarantee freedom by locking down airports and suspending constitutional provisions.  Is it any wonder that motives and morals become increasingly confused when detached from factual circumstances?

The Greeks used to have an interesting practice.  At the end of the term of a political office holder he would be put on trial as a matter of course.  The sole focus would be on whether his actions in office were conducted morally, or immorally.  It might be time to reintroduce that idea.

Hi Quill


Very interesting and would like to expand further, but just not in the mood tonight so maybe tomorrow, the remedy thread has made me lose all taste for debate tonight..

The Athenians were a tad harsh with placing many on trial, even the hero Themistocles was, after being instrumental in saving their City state from annihilation. Though the point has merits

I take your points in regards to war, though my view will be those placed within that theater of war

As I say is interesting and will reply more I hope tomorrow, as need to ponder your points

Thanks

Hello Didge,

I understand. I look forward to our talks, anytime.

Til tomorrow.