6 ms·

> In an exceptional move by the notoriously conservative panel, the BPP agreed that Cacy should be paroled, just six years after she was convicted. She served

by mabbo 10y ago

> In an exceptional move by the notoriously conservative panel, the BPP agreed that Cacy should be paroled, just six years after she was convicted. She served 6 years before parole, not 25 years behind bars I'm far more concerned with Cameron Todd Willingham. Governor Perry had this evidence, that much of the state evidence being used was junk science, and did nothing while an innocent man was put to death. Shameful.

nostromo 10y ago
The amount of junk science we allow in American court rooms is truly alarming. I wish more people knew about the case you're reference. Here's an excellent article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire And here's a good description about how it's quite common for a "fire expert" (which may simply be a normal firefighter) to misclassify an accidental fire as arson, implicating innocent survivors as murderers: https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-investigation/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-i...
- mc32 10y ago
  There was another one in TX where a father was jailed for arson/murder? thinking he intentionally set the fire which killed his sons, I think, eventually new science cast doubts on the conviction. In the second revisit of the case it seemed the children had been playing with incendiary devices and accidentally set fire to a shed they were playing in. Most of the evidence against the father was circumstantial and inferential (divorce? time he arrived home, etc.) Not sure if he was set free, but scary anyway.
  - thechao 10y ago
    He was innocent & executed.
    - wnevets 10y ago
      sounds like texas alright
    - mc32 10y ago
      Do you recall the case? I think it's one of the seminal cases that cast grave doubts on the accuracy of fire science as then and currently understood.
      - forgetsusername 10y ago
        >Do you recall the case? PBS to the rescue: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/death-by-fire/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/death-by-fire/
        mc32 10y ago
        Similar, but the case I recall was this one about mr Graf: https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/08/20/modern-forensics-vs-good-old-fashioned-texas-justice-the-trials-of-ed-graf/ https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/08/20/modern-forens... He's not the most sympathetic guy, given his peccadilloes, but the case was mostly circumstantial with some junk science thrown in for good measure. However, the overturning of his conviction was due to the injustice carried out on mr Willingham and the exposition of the junk science behind it. The overturning of mr Graf's conviction was the first one based on what was learned from the Willingham case.
        finid 10y ago
        I was aware of that case when it was unfolding, but did not follow it until the end. Surprised that they convicted and executed the guy. Sad case, but how many of those have taken place in Texas, or in the US as a whole?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - zaroth 10y ago
        It's actually discussed in TFA.
- yuhong 10y ago
  I also have been thinking of other examples. Imagine someone sued a vaccine manufacturer claiming that the vaccine cause autism. Imagine also that years later it turns out that vaccines can "cause" autism, but only in case of things like leaky gut. Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this?
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this? Yes. There's even a law that sets up a specific court with special expertise and powers in vaccine cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
    - yuhong 10y ago
      Vaccines was used just as an example.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        And it got an answering example.
        yuhong 10y ago
        The point is that the problem is likely more general.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Yeah, I got that you meant to be saying that. But you gave a specific instance, and in that specific instance, the problem didn't exist. So: Could you give, say, ten more instances, and see in how many of them the problem exists? That way, we can all get some idea of how general the problem is. But if you merely claim that "the problem is likely more general", with nothing behind that but your belief that your statement is probably true, well, don't expect to persuade many people that way...
- wahsd 10y ago
  The amount of junk science we all in all facets of our lives is truly alarming. I know this will sounds like heresy, but this also applies to the whole "global warming" alarmism. I am not saying it's not happening, it's just that there are also serious questions not only about the actual underling scientific methods and results, but also the larger issue of whether the outcomes are conclusive in their interpretation. The whole conversation of global warming, along with so many other conversations, is so besmirched and defiled and polluted with junk science and feelings and emotions that it makes your head buzz as someone that is reasonable and level headed. As much as I want to believe in science as much as the next person, the fact act we don't properly practice it and by qualified and authoritative people, but instead rely on a kind of quantitive science of low quality just makes things worse in the end. It's almost as if we simply have too much "science" that any good science just gets drowned out and never recognize in the pile of junk science.
- pjc50 10y ago
  See also https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hai... One woman falsified 34,000 drug tests: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-state http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scand...
sctb 10y ago
We updated the submission title from “How junk science put a woman behind bars for 25 years”, which breaks the rules by being editorialized.
finid 10y ago
The shame is on the whole system, not just on former Gov. Perry. You see, here in the US, being "tough on crime" improves your odds of getting elected, or of keeping your position, if you're already elected.
zeveb 10y ago
> Governor Perry had this evidence, that much of the state evidence being used was junk science, and did nothing while an innocent man was put to death. Shameful. In his defence, how can Gov. Perry distinguish between the case of the state investigator utilising junk science and the case of the someone who uses junk science to allege that the investigator used junk science? And of course there are plenty of other calls on a governor's time: his job was not to spend his entire term reviewing that one sentence. So of course he has to have panels of people he trusts are experts to review things for him. And they too have multiple items to consider. Going by what I've read, I would not have made his decision. But I wasn't in his situation, and I don't have access to the experiences he's had. Perhaps he had good reason to distrust those who urged him to distrust the investigator.
- joering2 10y ago
  > And of course there are plenty of other calls on a governor's time: his job was not to spend his entire term reviewing that one sentence. Gosh, this sound in my eyes makes you sound like a monster. You know that a living human being (innocent) life was forcibly stopped, correct? If this doesn't speak to you then imagine this could as well be your child, or parent, or spouse? I mean -- is there anything more important to anyone - whether politician or not - that live of another person, especially if you're in charge of keeping this human alive or putting stop to it. Or maybe I'm simply being too soft. It might be - I know - I've been living in the USA for too long...
  - jpt4 10y ago
    This reply takes advantage of the opportunity of a dialectical opponent, represented by your comment, to address abstract issues alluded to by your words of choice. It is not intended to argue or refute your worldview directly. > is there anything more important to anyone ... [than the life] of another person Behind the veil of ignorance which equates all persons, things which might reasonably be considered more important include: -the lives of more than one other person -severe changes in the quality of life for many people -significant environmental degradation, and other systemic alterations of sufficient scale Allowing for the criteria to include the differences between individuals, the most immediate additions to the above list becomes: -the life of oneself -the preservation of the lives and quality of life of one's family members Further, although our current legal system precludes it, the framework of thought exists for very fine grain gradations in the differing values considered inherent in different people, as expressed by e.g. the German weregild system [0]; under such precepts, allocations of attention would be prioritized following the accepted worth of each object of attention. > maybe I'm simply being too soft The perspective assuming a position of ignorance is often considered "soft" and idealistic, in contrast to the "hard", realistic, non-egalitarian stance here epitomized by the system of man-price. I propose that this is the common interpretation. However, I counter that the former is only effectively realizable by a juridical system of great strength and resources, before which all men can be operationally equated because the marginal burden any one case places on the faculties of the law is negligible. Therefore, perhaps you voice your position not from reasoning aligned with softness, but rather that aligned with awesome and as-yet-non-extant might. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
StillBored 10y ago
Yes, and the number of death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence (frequently after having fought a long battle to be able to use it) should convince anyone that the death penalty is putting innocent people to death. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-d...
- wtbob 10y ago
  Only an idiot thinks that the justice system never convicts and punishes the innocent. Only an idiot thinks any justice system which convicts and punishes anyone will never make mistakes (the only process to never punish the innocent is to refuse to punish at all, which has its own downsides). Innocent folks are executed. Innocent folks breathe their last breaths as life prisoners. Innocent folks die of hear attacks a year into their sentences. Innocent folks spend decades in prison. Innocent folks are forced to register as sex offenders. Innocent folks go into bankruptcy due to fines. You can't get your life back whether you're executed or die in prison. You can't get your years back. You can't take back public humiliation. You can't restore lost opportunities. That innocents suffer is not an argument against a justice system, because having no justice system at all is yet more unjust. As an aside, I agree with you that it's despicable that inmates have to fight so hard to use exculpatory evidence, particularly when that evidence simply didn't exist when they were convicted. This is indeed a great problem.

by mabbo 10y ago

nostromo 10y ago

The amount of junk science we allow in American court rooms is truly alarming. I wish more people knew about the case you're reference. Here's an excellent article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire And here's a good description about how it's quite common for a "fire expert" (which may simply be a normal firefighter) to misclassify an accidental fire as arson, implicating innocent survivors as murderers: https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-investigation/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-i...

mc32 10y ago
There was another one in TX where a father was jailed for arson/murder? thinking he intentionally set the fire which killed his sons, I think, eventually new science cast doubts on the conviction. In the second revisit of the case it seemed the children had been playing with incendiary devices and accidentally set fire to a shed they were playing in. Most of the evidence against the father was circumstantial and inferential (divorce? time he arrived home, etc.) Not sure if he was set free, but scary anyway.
- thechao 10y ago
  He was innocent & executed.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    sounds like texas alright
  - mc32 10y ago
    Do you recall the case? I think it's one of the seminal cases that cast grave doubts on the accuracy of fire science as then and currently understood.
    - forgetsusername 10y ago
      >Do you recall the case? PBS to the rescue: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/death-by-fire/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/death-by-fire/
      - mc32 10y ago
        Similar, but the case I recall was this one about mr Graf: https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/08/20/modern-forensics-vs-good-old-fashioned-texas-justice-the-trials-of-ed-graf/ https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/08/20/modern-forens... He's not the most sympathetic guy, given his peccadilloes, but the case was mostly circumstantial with some junk science thrown in for good measure. However, the overturning of his conviction was due to the injustice carried out on mr Willingham and the exposition of the junk science behind it. The overturning of mr Graf's conviction was the first one based on what was learned from the Willingham case.
      - finid 10y ago
        I was aware of that case when it was unfolding, but did not follow it until the end. Surprised that they convicted and executed the guy. Sad case, but how many of those have taken place in Texas, or in the US as a whole?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - zaroth 10y ago
      It's actually discussed in TFA.
yuhong 10y ago
I also have been thinking of other examples. Imagine someone sued a vaccine manufacturer claiming that the vaccine cause autism. Imagine also that years later it turns out that vaccines can "cause" autism, but only in case of things like leaky gut. Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this? Yes. There's even a law that sets up a specific court with special expertise and powers in vaccine cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
  - yuhong 10y ago
    Vaccines was used just as an example.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      And it got an answering example.
      - yuhong 10y ago
        The point is that the problem is likely more general.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Yeah, I got that you meant to be saying that. But you gave a specific instance, and in that specific instance, the problem didn't exist. So: Could you give, say, ten more instances, and see in how many of them the problem exists? That way, we can all get some idea of how general the problem is. But if you merely claim that "the problem is likely more general", with nothing behind that but your belief that your statement is probably true, well, don't expect to persuade many people that way...
wahsd 10y ago
The amount of junk science we all in all facets of our lives is truly alarming. I know this will sounds like heresy, but this also applies to the whole "global warming" alarmism. I am not saying it's not happening, it's just that there are also serious questions not only about the actual underling scientific methods and results, but also the larger issue of whether the outcomes are conclusive in their interpretation. The whole conversation of global warming, along with so many other conversations, is so besmirched and defiled and polluted with junk science and feelings and emotions that it makes your head buzz as someone that is reasonable and level headed. As much as I want to believe in science as much as the next person, the fact act we don't properly practice it and by qualified and authoritative people, but instead rely on a kind of quantitive science of low quality just makes things worse in the end. It's almost as if we simply have too much "science" that any good science just gets drowned out and never recognize in the pile of junk science.
pjc50 10y ago
See also https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hai... One woman falsified 34,000 drug tests: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-state http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scand...

sctb 10y ago

We updated the submission title from “How junk science put a woman behind bars for 25 years”, which breaks the rules by being editorialized.

finid 10y ago

The shame is on the whole system, not just on former Gov. Perry. You see, here in the US, being "tough on crime" improves your odds of getting elected, or of keeping your position, if you're already elected.

zeveb 10y ago

> Governor Perry had this evidence, that much of the state evidence being used was junk science, and did nothing while an innocent man was put to death. Shameful. In his defence, how can Gov. Perry distinguish between the case of the state investigator utilising junk science and the case of the someone who uses junk science to allege that the investigator used junk science? And of course there are plenty of other calls on a governor's time: his job was not to spend his entire term reviewing that one sentence. So of course he has to have panels of people he trusts are experts to review things for him. And they too have multiple items to consider. Going by what I've read, I would not have made his decision. But I wasn't in his situation, and I don't have access to the experiences he's had. Perhaps he had good reason to distrust those who urged him to distrust the investigator.

joering2 10y ago
> And of course there are plenty of other calls on a governor's time: his job was not to spend his entire term reviewing that one sentence. Gosh, this sound in my eyes makes you sound like a monster. You know that a living human being (innocent) life was forcibly stopped, correct? If this doesn't speak to you then imagine this could as well be your child, or parent, or spouse? I mean -- is there anything more important to anyone - whether politician or not - that live of another person, especially if you're in charge of keeping this human alive or putting stop to it. Or maybe I'm simply being too soft. It might be - I know - I've been living in the USA for too long...
- jpt4 10y ago
  This reply takes advantage of the opportunity of a dialectical opponent, represented by your comment, to address abstract issues alluded to by your words of choice. It is not intended to argue or refute your worldview directly. > is there anything more important to anyone ... [than the life] of another person Behind the veil of ignorance which equates all persons, things which might reasonably be considered more important include: -the lives of more than one other person -severe changes in the quality of life for many people -significant environmental degradation, and other systemic alterations of sufficient scale Allowing for the criteria to include the differences between individuals, the most immediate additions to the above list becomes: -the life of oneself -the preservation of the lives and quality of life of one's family members Further, although our current legal system precludes it, the framework of thought exists for very fine grain gradations in the differing values considered inherent in different people, as expressed by e.g. the German weregild system [0]; under such precepts, allocations of attention would be prioritized following the accepted worth of each object of attention. > maybe I'm simply being too soft The perspective assuming a position of ignorance is often considered "soft" and idealistic, in contrast to the "hard", realistic, non-egalitarian stance here epitomized by the system of man-price. I propose that this is the common interpretation. However, I counter that the former is only effectively realizable by a juridical system of great strength and resources, before which all men can be operationally equated because the marginal burden any one case places on the faculties of the law is negligible. Therefore, perhaps you voice your position not from reasoning aligned with softness, but rather that aligned with awesome and as-yet-non-extant might. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

StillBored 10y ago

Yes, and the number of death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence (frequently after having fought a long battle to be able to use it) should convince anyone that the death penalty is putting innocent people to death. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-d...

wtbob 10y ago
Only an idiot thinks that the justice system never convicts and punishes the innocent. Only an idiot thinks any justice system which convicts and punishes anyone will never make mistakes (the only process to never punish the innocent is to refuse to punish at all, which has its own downsides). Innocent folks are executed. Innocent folks breathe their last breaths as life prisoners. Innocent folks die of hear attacks a year into their sentences. Innocent folks spend decades in prison. Innocent folks are forced to register as sex offenders. Innocent folks go into bankruptcy due to fines. You can't get your life back whether you're executed or die in prison. You can't get your years back. You can't take back public humiliation. You can't restore lost opportunities. That innocents suffer is not an argument against a justice system, because having no justice system at all is yet more unjust. As an aside, I agree with you that it's despicable that inmates have to fight so hard to use exculpatory evidence, particularly when that evidence simply didn't exist when they were convicted. This is indeed a great problem.