13 ms·

Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder?

78 points by fmihaila 8y ago

vortico 8y ago
Could we get a less clickbait title please? EDIT: Thanks!
- jmcgough 8y ago
  HN requires that the actual article title be used, so complaining here isn't really going to do anything but add noise.
  - vortico 8y ago
    The title is "Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder?" The <title> text "One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It?" is a subtitle / article description.
    - fmihaila 8y ago
      For what it’s worth, I used the HN submit bookmarklet. I didn’t deliberately choose the title.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    That's simply not true.
- antisocial 8y ago
  Honestly, I don't see anything click-baity in it, the title actually aligned with the content.
docker_up 8y ago
People seem to think that EITHER Republicans OR Democrats are terrible. They forget that it's politicians regardless of political leanings that are corrupt and disgusting. Very prominent Democrats could easily order those advanced DNA tests that could offer justice, but they don't care about justice, they care about personal convenience. I have no doubt Republicans in exactly the same situation would behave exactly the same. It's horrible that this is occurring and there is nothing we can do about this except vote out these politicians.
- saghm 8y ago
  > People seem to think that EITHER Republicans OR Democrats are terrible OT, but I've always found it interesting that in English, "or" is often (and maybe even usually) implied to be "xor". Sometimes I joke that we should just call "xor" "or" and then rename the old "or" to "inclusive or".
  - taeric 8y ago
    I think that is only the case when it is for something where you also have to be in one of the categories. For many people, it isn't A OR B. It is their group, or the other group. That is significant. Even many of the people that point out it can be both, typically identify as a third option. It isn't "my group can also be bad." It is "both of those groups could be bad." Where the talker is pointing from the outside.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >I think that is only the case when it is for something where you also have to be in one of the categories. For many people, it isn't A OR B. It is their group, or the other group. That is significant. You want coffee or tea?
      - taeric 8y ago
        Isn't that similar in that you join with one of the groups? I mean, yes, the language construct is clearly often used as an exclusive, but it is a language construct where context supplies a large part is the meaning.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Isn't that similar in that you join with one of the groups? The argument above was about emotional attachment to one's group though (that they can't fathom to identify as possibly also bad) -- here it's merely a preference or even just a casual order (just because when asked "X or Y" you ordered X over Y food for dessert this time doesn't mean you're an "X person").
mannykannot 8y ago
If Cooper is innocent then, in my view, those who obstructed his exoneration are as guilty as those who framed him - and if he is executed, then what they are all guilty of is the moral equivalent of murder.
blackoil 8y ago
Why is this story `33 points by fmihaila 2 hours ago` below at 27th position, compared to `29 points by jeffbarr 3 hours ago` (9th pos) and `18 points by westoncb 3 hours ago` (13th pos).
natecavanaugh 8y ago
FTA: > Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the fate of one man on death row doesn’t seem so important; I completely disagree, though the author points this out. But while I am in the favor of the death penalty in certain cases (until we have a way to rehabilitate even the most degenerate murderers), the death of even one innocent should stop us from using it unless there is incontrovertible evidence and proof of both guilt and the inability to rehabilitate. This article points out obvious reasonable doubt, and I seriously am baffled as to why the California Democrats won't even consider it or even justify their position. Maybe there's more to the story, but this all seemed incredibly persuasive to me.
- cup 8y ago
  Sounds like you're in favour of something that can never be done in a fashion that you demand. So how can you be in favour of it?
  - natecavanaugh 8y ago
    Having incontrovertible evidence and proof that there's no hope of rehabilitation? I think there are obvious cases where someone is beyond help, but I think it comes down to setting defined standards (some of which we have, but I think we should be more explicit on those standards and slower to execute), even though it costs the tax payers more. I have known and lived with a former hitman who was truly rehabilitated and redeemed, but I have seen cases where to me, that's so unlikely to happen that until we have some way to guarantee that they cannot hurt another, they should probably be executed. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve. Solitary confinement may be the only way to protect others from being killed, but then you can debate how torturous that is compared to death. And some would argue that torture is what they deserve, but I don't think that way. I guess I'm in favor of the ideal, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that we should aim for the goal of favoring life while we may have to make gradual steps in getting there. When I was younger I was far more staunchly of a death penalty advocate, but the older I get, the more I value life in general and the hope of redemption. Unfortunately, I think like with animals (I hate saying it this way), but currently there are times you have to put them down, either to end their suffering or the suffering of others. But like I said, this is a view I'm constantly re-evaluating, as when it comes to a person's life, I don't think we should ever take that lightly. Especially if it's baked into the legal system and administered by the government.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Why won't Jerry Brown allow for DNA testing? The guess as to the reason in the article doesn't seem very satisfactory to me, because CA has already pardoned 5+ people from death row, so Brown must know that not all people on death row are guilty.
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  I agree. What I find more disturbing is why Brown won't even answer the question. Or Harris. There has to be reasons, but there seems to be enough inconsistencies to at least warrant a statement, even a BS political statement would be preferable to silence.
- hospes 8y ago
  They know that the guy is innocent, they know that DNA test will confirm that. What they are concerned about is what will happen after he is found not guilty. Who framed him? How, When, Why? In the end of the day many influential people can end up in jail. Plus he will probably get millions from the state for wrongful convocation. They are just covering "their" asses and saving money, for them it is a win win if he stays guilty and is executed.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Why would Jerry Brown protect these people? The event happened 35 years ago.
stuaxo 8y ago
Variations of this story are repeated again and again, and that's just the ones we know about. Institutional racism doesn't quite cover it, institutionalised murder does.
- gargravarr 8y ago
  For this reason I am glad the UK eliminated the death penalty back into the 50s. Many times, after serious crimes, media figures will call for it to be reinstated, but it just isn't worth the risk. One of the final people executed in the UK, Timothy Evans, was convicted on flimsy evidence and was later exonerated. Admitting someone was innocent of a crime is pretty meaningless after they have been executed for it. Might as well just put your hands up and say 'whoops'. And here the court could hand down a death sentence for such inconsistent and inconclusive (from Cooper's perspective) evidence? The criteria for capital punishment should be so tight as to practically require the perpetrator to be caught standing over the victim holding the stained knife. At the same time, the underpinnings of racism here are appalling, as they often are in these repeating stories. Anyone blocking new examination of evidence knows for certain the conviction is unsound and that the conclusions could be decisive. Reading through this story, yes of course the author is biased, but it's plainly black and white, quite literally. Why else would all witness testimony point towards white criminals, they're literally handed the necessary evidence to convict a white criminal and yet the authorities pursue a single black man for the crime. Hideous. The most disturbing thing is, if asked how they sleep at night, I would have no doubt the sheriff's officers would have no hesitation in saying 'perfectly fine, thank you'.
  - hospes 8y ago
    >> The most disturbing thing is, if asked how they sleep at night, I would have no doubt the sheriff's officers would have no hesitation in saying 'perfectly fine, thank you'. What amazes me is that these officers and their families live in the same city/county or even in the same neighborhood with these alleged criminals, and yet they feel perfectly OK to let them walk away and instead catch some random black guy and send him to be executed. How much you should not care about your own family, yourself, friends,... to do that? How much hate one should have toward other race(s), to be able to send someone innocent from that race to be executed, solely based on the skin color?
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Kristioff wrote aabout this last year too, name-dropping Kamala Harris as one of the officials refusing to pursue justice, a name people have been mentioning as a Democratic Presidential contender in 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.ht...

78 points by fmihaila 8y ago

vortico 8y ago

Could we get a less clickbait title please? EDIT: Thanks!

jmcgough 8y ago
HN requires that the actual article title be used, so complaining here isn't really going to do anything but add noise.
- vortico 8y ago
  The title is "Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder?" The <title> text "One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It?" is a subtitle / article description.
  - fmihaila 8y ago
    For what it’s worth, I used the HN submit bookmarklet. I didn’t deliberately choose the title.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That's simply not true.
antisocial 8y ago
Honestly, I don't see anything click-baity in it, the title actually aligned with the content.

docker_up 8y ago

People seem to think that EITHER Republicans OR Democrats are terrible. They forget that it's politicians regardless of political leanings that are corrupt and disgusting. Very prominent Democrats could easily order those advanced DNA tests that could offer justice, but they don't care about justice, they care about personal convenience. I have no doubt Republicans in exactly the same situation would behave exactly the same. It's horrible that this is occurring and there is nothing we can do about this except vote out these politicians.

saghm 8y ago
> People seem to think that EITHER Republicans OR Democrats are terrible OT, but I've always found it interesting that in English, "or" is often (and maybe even usually) implied to be "xor". Sometimes I joke that we should just call "xor" "or" and then rename the old "or" to "inclusive or".
- taeric 8y ago
  I think that is only the case when it is for something where you also have to be in one of the categories. For many people, it isn't A OR B. It is their group, or the other group. That is significant. Even many of the people that point out it can be both, typically identify as a third option. It isn't "my group can also be bad." It is "both of those groups could be bad." Where the talker is pointing from the outside.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I think that is only the case when it is for something where you also have to be in one of the categories. For many people, it isn't A OR B. It is their group, or the other group. That is significant. You want coffee or tea?
    - taeric 8y ago
      Isn't that similar in that you join with one of the groups? I mean, yes, the language construct is clearly often used as an exclusive, but it is a language construct where context supplies a large part is the meaning.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >Isn't that similar in that you join with one of the groups? The argument above was about emotional attachment to one's group though (that they can't fathom to identify as possibly also bad) -- here it's merely a preference or even just a casual order (just because when asked "X or Y" you ordered X over Y food for dessert this time doesn't mean you're an "X person").

mannykannot 8y ago

If Cooper is innocent then, in my view, those who obstructed his exoneration are as guilty as those who framed him - and if he is executed, then what they are all guilty of is the moral equivalent of murder.

blackoil 8y ago

Why is this story `33 points by fmihaila 2 hours ago` below at 27th position, compared to `29 points by jeffbarr 3 hours ago` (9th pos) and `18 points by westoncb 3 hours ago` (13th pos).

natecavanaugh 8y ago

FTA: > Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the fate of one man on death row doesn’t seem so important; I completely disagree, though the author points this out. But while I am in the favor of the death penalty in certain cases (until we have a way to rehabilitate even the most degenerate murderers), the death of even one innocent should stop us from using it unless there is incontrovertible evidence and proof of both guilt and the inability to rehabilitate. This article points out obvious reasonable doubt, and I seriously am baffled as to why the California Democrats won't even consider it or even justify their position. Maybe there's more to the story, but this all seemed incredibly persuasive to me.

cup 8y ago
Sounds like you're in favour of something that can never be done in a fashion that you demand. So how can you be in favour of it?
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  Having incontrovertible evidence and proof that there's no hope of rehabilitation? I think there are obvious cases where someone is beyond help, but I think it comes down to setting defined standards (some of which we have, but I think we should be more explicit on those standards and slower to execute), even though it costs the tax payers more. I have known and lived with a former hitman who was truly rehabilitated and redeemed, but I have seen cases where to me, that's so unlikely to happen that until we have some way to guarantee that they cannot hurt another, they should probably be executed. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve. Solitary confinement may be the only way to protect others from being killed, but then you can debate how torturous that is compared to death. And some would argue that torture is what they deserve, but I don't think that way. I guess I'm in favor of the ideal, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that we should aim for the goal of favoring life while we may have to make gradual steps in getting there. When I was younger I was far more staunchly of a death penalty advocate, but the older I get, the more I value life in general and the hope of redemption. Unfortunately, I think like with animals (I hate saying it this way), but currently there are times you have to put them down, either to end their suffering or the suffering of others. But like I said, this is a view I'm constantly re-evaluating, as when it comes to a person's life, I don't think we should ever take that lightly. Especially if it's baked into the legal system and administered by the government.

oh_sigh 8y ago

Why won't Jerry Brown allow for DNA testing? The guess as to the reason in the article doesn't seem very satisfactory to me, because CA has already pardoned 5+ people from death row, so Brown must know that not all people on death row are guilty.

natecavanaugh 8y ago
I agree. What I find more disturbing is why Brown won't even answer the question. Or Harris. There has to be reasons, but there seems to be enough inconsistencies to at least warrant a statement, even a BS political statement would be preferable to silence.
hospes 8y ago
They know that the guy is innocent, they know that DNA test will confirm that. What they are concerned about is what will happen after he is found not guilty. Who framed him? How, When, Why? In the end of the day many influential people can end up in jail. Plus he will probably get millions from the state for wrongful convocation. They are just covering "their" asses and saving money, for them it is a win win if he stays guilty and is executed.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Why would Jerry Brown protect these people? The event happened 35 years ago.

stuaxo 8y ago

Variations of this story are repeated again and again, and that's just the ones we know about. Institutional racism doesn't quite cover it, institutionalised murder does.

gargravarr 8y ago
For this reason I am glad the UK eliminated the death penalty back into the 50s. Many times, after serious crimes, media figures will call for it to be reinstated, but it just isn't worth the risk. One of the final people executed in the UK, Timothy Evans, was convicted on flimsy evidence and was later exonerated. Admitting someone was innocent of a crime is pretty meaningless after they have been executed for it. Might as well just put your hands up and say 'whoops'. And here the court could hand down a death sentence for such inconsistent and inconclusive (from Cooper's perspective) evidence? The criteria for capital punishment should be so tight as to practically require the perpetrator to be caught standing over the victim holding the stained knife. At the same time, the underpinnings of racism here are appalling, as they often are in these repeating stories. Anyone blocking new examination of evidence knows for certain the conviction is unsound and that the conclusions could be decisive. Reading through this story, yes of course the author is biased, but it's plainly black and white, quite literally. Why else would all witness testimony point towards white criminals, they're literally handed the necessary evidence to convict a white criminal and yet the authorities pursue a single black man for the crime. Hideous. The most disturbing thing is, if asked how they sleep at night, I would have no doubt the sheriff's officers would have no hesitation in saying 'perfectly fine, thank you'.
- hospes 8y ago
  >> The most disturbing thing is, if asked how they sleep at night, I would have no doubt the sheriff's officers would have no hesitation in saying 'perfectly fine, thank you'. What amazes me is that these officers and their families live in the same city/county or even in the same neighborhood with these alleged criminals, and yet they feel perfectly OK to let them walk away and instead catch some random black guy and send him to be executed. How much you should not care about your own family, yourself, friends,... to do that? How much hate one should have toward other race(s), to be able to send someone innocent from that race to be executed, solely based on the skin color?

fjsolwmv 8y ago

Kristioff wrote aabout this last year too, name-dropping Kamala Harris as one of the officials refusing to pursue justice, a name people have been mentioning as a Democratic Presidential contender in 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.ht...