Ccc §2267

[Ender]

Untrue. The most they’ve been able to show is that there was no reason for him to have ever gone to trial, let alone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s huge. I’d like you to stop dancing around this and address it directly please.

They have not “shown” anything of the sort. Willingham himself said he was sleeping in the house with his three little children when the fire started. How is it he could get out of the house without a mark on him yet wasn’t able to save even one of his children? An investigation revealed that the fire had been intentionally set. Other than simply asserting that he should never have been tried what have you shown to support that claim? His conviction alone should be sufficient evidence that a trial was warranted even if you dispute the verdict. How can I address the “fact” that he should not have been tried with that isn’t a fact, it is simply someone’s opinion?

You keep saying that things have been “shown” in this case but I don’t think you make a distinction between what has been alleged and what has been proved. But let’s take the next step: let’s assume that Willingham was in fact innocent. What are we to conclude? I have already asserted that a few such cases could actually occur, maybe this is one of them, but that still leaves the problem of what happens if capital punishment is not used. Remember, each year 120-140 innocent people are murdered by recidivist killers. Which statistic should concern us more: the one innocent person that may be wrongfully executed every five or so years or the 130ish we know are murdered every year?

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

They have not “shown” anything of the sort.

They have shown quite clearly that there was not enough evidence for this case to go to trial.

Willingham himself said he was sleeping in the house with his three little children when the fire started.How is it he could get out of the house without a mark on him yet wasn’t able to save even one of his children?

You’re desperately grasping t straws here. The above question is enough reason for investigation. It is not enough reason for a case to go to trial, certainly not enough to merit a conviction, and CERTAINLY not enough of a reason to kill him. And yet that’s what happened. Because that’s how the system works here.

His conviction alone should be sufficient evidence that a trial was warranted even if you dispute the verdict.

My argument is that we have a system in which a man can go to trial, be convicted, and sentenced to die on extremely flimsy evidence. You’re responding to that by saying his conviction proves the evidence isn’t extremely flimsy. That’s possibly the most radiant example of circular reasoning I’ve ever encountered in years of online debate.

But let’s take the next step: let’s assume that Willingham was in fact innocent. What are we to conclude? I have already asserted that a few such cases could actually occur, maybe this is one of them, but that still leaves the problem of what happens if capital punishment is not used. Remember, each year 120-140 innocent people are murdered by recidivist killers. Which statistic should concern us more: the one innocent person that may be wrongfully executed every five or so years or the 130ish we know are murdered every year?

Ender

This is you trying to change the subject (again) and tapdance around the point I keep trying to get you to stick to because you know you haven’t got a leg to stand on there. This conversation is getting profoundly stupid. I’m going to let you waste someone else’s time now.

 

[Ender]

They have shown quite clearly that there was not enough evidence for this case to go to trial.

Employing the same logic you display here: you’re wrong.

You’re desperately grasping t straws here. The above question is enough reason for investigation. It is not enough reason for a case to go to trial, certainly not enough to merit a conviction, and CERTAINLY not enough of a reason to kill him. And yet that’s what happened. Because that’s how the system works here.

Did you seriously expect me to wade through the trial documents to try and justify to you that the evidence was sufficient to go to trial? They had a fire investigator’s report that it was arson and an inmate’s testimony that he admitted setting it.

My argument is that we have a system in which a man can go to trial, be convicted, and sentenced to die on extremely flimsy evidence.

You make this assertion with nothing whatever to support it other than your belief that what was said in a newspaper article was true. Why do you suppose your opinion constitutes evidence of anything?

You’re responding to that by saying his conviction proves the evidence isn’t extremely flimsy. That’s possibly the most radiant example of circular reasoning I’ve ever encountered in years of online debate.

If the evidence was as flimsy as you suggest, the only way he could have been convicted was with the collusion of the jury. If this had been a racial trial held back in the 50’s I might buy that, but there is no particular reason to believe the entire jury was biased in this case. So, if the evidence presented was enough to unanimously convince twelve people of his guilt, I take that as a very strong indicator that the evidence was not nearly as flimsy as you believe.

This is you trying to change the subject (again) and tapdance around the point I keep trying to get you to stick to because you know you haven’t got a leg to stand on there.

I’m trying to get back to a meaningful topic because I don’t consider this one of any significance to what was being discussed. As I said, even if you proved your point in this case, what conclusion are we supposed to draw? What difference does it make* to the particular point under discussion*?

Ender