5 ms·
I always find the phrasing of these posts weird, as if we have to pretend that Texas has not executed innocent people before and this would be a first. on edit
by bryanrasmussen 2y ago
I always find the phrasing of these posts weird, as if we have to pretend that Texas has not executed innocent people before and this would be a first.
on edit: not just the post, but the articles, we must pretend that of course this would be a first time event that would otherwise sully the fine nature of the criminal justice system with accidentally murdering someone.
- rossant 2y agoIt would be the first execution of someone accused of SBS, not the first execution of an innocent individual.
- philipov 2y agoThe phrasing takes pains to make it sound like the latter rather than the former, unless you're paying attention.
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoHow would you phrase it better. Sorry if it sounds confrontational to ask this question, but I can’t think of spot anything out of sorts with this phrasing.
- snthd 2y agoMaybe a semicolon? Not sure any of us know where those are on the keyboard.
- majormajor 2y ago>Texas may well execute soon an innocent man on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome". [1] He would be the first in US history. This is pretty clear to me. If you wanted to make it sound like you're claiming, you'd phrase it something like "Texas may well execute soon an innocent man, the first in US history, on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome."" As it is, the first sentence very specifically scopes down this case to "shaken baby syndrome."
- Retric 2y agoI disagree if you wanted the first to be clear: The disproven ‘shaken baby syndrome’ may for the first time result in a man’s execution in Texas. His innocence … The odd wording is specifically there to mislead someone.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoI don't think it's there to mislead someone on purpose, I just think people feel uncomfortable pointing out Texas is killing people that are innocent and thus end up not pointing it out or accidentally making things sound like "oh no, Texas is going to make a mistake they don't normally make!" It is clear that it is meant the shaken baby syndrome is what is the first here, but still it could be taken the other way, and it ends up downplaying how contemptible the State's actions are, even though the poster really wants to highlight that. I guess I would prefer something like - "Texas, continuing its tradition of executing innocent people, will for the first time use the dubious science of Shaken Baby Syndrome as its cause." It's not just the post, everybody does it whenever they say "Texas might execute an innocent person" they ignore that Texas has executed people that were extremely likely to be innocent (so likely that it is reasonable just to describe them that way - in case anyone has problems with my phrasing here)
- majormajor 2y agoThat's also clear but I don't think the original is odd wording at all... Like I said, two separate sentences. If you read the first one, not sure how you misread the second one as applying to only a portion of the first one. What is odd about the original wording? If anything, the one you present feels more formal/awkward compared to normal conversational English. Personally I think it's absolutely ludicrous to believe that anyone would be trying to suggest that only now, in the year 2024, has a possibly-innocent person been executed in either Texas or the US. Like, you'd need crazy strong evidence to make that claim, while the post in question seems very specific to shaken baby syndrome. It feels like an intentionally un-charitable, adversarial reading.
- Retric 2y ago
- rossant 2y agoSorry if my phrasing was unclear. I'm not a native English speaker. It seemed pretty clear in my head ha!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rustcleaner 2y ago[flagged]
- afthonos 2y agoI’m not sure what definition of “criminal” you’re using to make that assessment. All the ones I know are based on laws, which are enacted by states. You have to accept the very framing you’re decrying to call anything criminal.
- behringer 2y agoCriminals often have a series of codes or personal rules that guide them. It doesn't make them any less criminal.
- _heimdall 2y agoIt's only criminal because those in charge wrote criminal states declaring those acts as such. There's no universal, fundamental code that defines criminal or right and wrong.
- immibis 2y agoWe can start with "killing an innocent person is criminal"...
- manquer 2y agoWhat has innocent to do with it ? Innocent under whose eyes ? one man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist. what morality and code stands the test of time ? actions which was legal and moral say 200 years ago would be illegal and amoral now , who is to say how 200 years in future would see our framework for ethics from now ? Taking any sentient life is a crime against nature and humanity. Societies supporting death penalty are not civilized for the same reasons any cannibals are not. Killing is killing, what difference does it make if you were hungry or felt scared or vengeance or merely sadistic to justify it .
- dustfinger 2y ago> It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be associated with executing an innocent man based on a rush to judgment and bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. I believe that this statement is making specific reference to this particular case. (I miss-read this next part, but will leave my mistake here with this comment. See below conversation. Sorry for the confusion) Earlier in the article it is made very clear that this has not been the only execution of an innocent person wrongly accused of shaken baby syndrome: > According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been at least 32 exonerations of those wrongfully convicted under the shaken baby hypothesis.
- Thorrez 2y agoWere any of those 32 people executed?
- dustfinger 2y agoOh, I completly miss-read the word "Exonerations" as executions. Thank you for correcting me.
- RajT88 2y agoFrom what I understand, Texas executes possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity.
- _heimdall 2y agoThat seems likes a pretty bold statement to make without backing it up further. To say a state with the death penalty could sometimes get it wrong is one thing, but your phrasing makes it sound more like the state regularly commits murder.
- int_19h 2y agoI suggest taking a look at Radley Balko's writings, for starters.
- bugglebeetle 2y agoAbbot just pardoned an open white supremacist, who publicly expressed his desire to kill BLM protesters, before actually going out and doing it, so your shock at the questioning of how criminal justice is pursued in Texas seems a bit naive.
- Hnrobert42 2y agoThis is such an ad hoc argument.
- _heimdall 2y agoI wasn't questioning criminal justice in Texas broadly, the topic was innocent people being put to death. > From what I understand, Texas executes possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity. The GP comment seems to imply that Texas is intentionally putting innocent people to death regularly. That had nothing to do with the governor or pardons.
- bugglebeetle 2y ago[flagged]
- EasyMark 2y agoI think the point is in this case, it can indeed be stopped since executions, once done, can't be undone. It's not an academic topic, it's a life and death topic, a basic morality issue. The current Texas government is quite corrupt, particularly Ken Paxton, the attorney general, but I'm not sure that matters here other than as a tangential point of data.