5 ms·

As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the

As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the execution if they think there is even a slim chance of innocence.

rob74 2y ago
If you read the article, the "evidence of guilt" is equally flimsy. And if we take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously, that means he not only should not have been executed, but should never have gone to jail in the first place...
- sparrish 2y ago
  A jury of his peers thought there was enough evidence to convict him and they did. At that point, he's "guilty until proven innocent".
  - formerly_proven 2y ago
    This seems like an exceedingly bad hill to die on. Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death six times for the same murder by juries of his peers, yet he's a free man today.
    - concordDance 2y ago
      We don't have a better system at the moment, accepting its judgements is reasonable in light of that. And backseating when we're probably missing 90% of the evidence presented at court is unlikely to be any more accurate.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    It's a bit circular when people say "This court decision is wrong" to argue "But this is the decision that was made."
krisoft 2y ago
> the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy “Evidence of innocence” is a very problematic concept. Have you thought through what is your evidence of your innocence? (Not just regarding to this case, but regarding all cases involving dead or missing people.) Should we execute you if you ever come up short?
- DoughnutHole 2y ago
  The problem is there are two different standards of proof at different points of the legal process. Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — all the onus is on the prosecution to prove that you indisputably committed that crime. In this case unreliable evidence was used without which this standard likely would not have been met. Once you’ve been convicted (in this case on shoddy evidence) the onus is on you to offer evidence that you’re actually innocent - a reasonable doubt is no longer sufficient, you need to offer strong, new evidence that disproves the already decided “fact” that you committed the crime.
  - EForEndeavour 2y ago
    So conviction is a "trap door" of evidence weight? If someone is convicted based on evidence that is later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction, this new information does nothing to overturn the conviction?
    - soerxpso 2y ago
      Can you elaborate on what you mean by "later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction"? The sufficience of evidence doesn't randomly change. If you mean that they were convicted based on evidence that shouldn't have been shown to the jury, you can win an appeal on that. The standard before your convicted is that the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard after you've been convicted is that you must have found substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the verdict, or you must show that the original trial was mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not a valid appeal.
throw_evidence 2y ago
Posting as a throwaway for obvious reasons... "evidence of innocence"... I was once accused of a financial crime, around taking money from an account. I was, admittedly, guilty, however, the amount claimed was nearly triple the amount that I had taken (there were multiple shenanigans happening). When my attorney and I said "Actually, we think the amount is $X, not $3X, because x y and z", we had an extraordinarily difficult time with the Prosecutor, who wanted US to justify why we thought the amount was only $X. Apropos of any plea or deal or whatever, no... the onus is on the Prosecution to verifiably demonstrate the loss. Not for me to justify why I think the amount is different. Ironically, the justification we did provide came from the Prosecution. "You said the loss was $Z, including $Y in checks which were diverted. Witness statements and other testimony showed that these checks were NOT diverted, by their own words. Ergo, the loss is $Z-$Y." Prosecutor was still "you need to show me the math for what that equates to". "No, that amounts to incriminating self, and is, bluntly, not my responsibility. You need to assert how you came to the number you are claiming in the charge."
alistairSH 2y ago
Our justice system isn’t supposed to require evidence of innocence.

rob74 2y ago

If you read the article, the "evidence of guilt" is equally flimsy. And if we take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously, that means he not only should not have been executed, but should never have gone to jail in the first place...

sparrish 2y ago
A jury of his peers thought there was enough evidence to convict him and they did. At that point, he's "guilty until proven innocent".
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  This seems like an exceedingly bad hill to die on. Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death six times for the same murder by juries of his peers, yet he's a free man today.
  - concordDance 2y ago
    We don't have a better system at the moment, accepting its judgements is reasonable in light of that. And backseating when we're probably missing 90% of the evidence presented at court is unlikely to be any more accurate.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  It's a bit circular when people say "This court decision is wrong" to argue "But this is the decision that was made."

krisoft 2y ago

> the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy “Evidence of innocence” is a very problematic concept. Have you thought through what is your evidence of your innocence? (Not just regarding to this case, but regarding all cases involving dead or missing people.) Should we execute you if you ever come up short?

DoughnutHole 2y ago
The problem is there are two different standards of proof at different points of the legal process. Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — all the onus is on the prosecution to prove that you indisputably committed that crime. In this case unreliable evidence was used without which this standard likely would not have been met. Once you’ve been convicted (in this case on shoddy evidence) the onus is on you to offer evidence that you’re actually innocent - a reasonable doubt is no longer sufficient, you need to offer strong, new evidence that disproves the already decided “fact” that you committed the crime.
- EForEndeavour 2y ago
  So conviction is a "trap door" of evidence weight? If someone is convicted based on evidence that is later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction, this new information does nothing to overturn the conviction?
  - soerxpso 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by "later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction"? The sufficience of evidence doesn't randomly change. If you mean that they were convicted based on evidence that shouldn't have been shown to the jury, you can win an appeal on that. The standard before your convicted is that the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard after you've been convicted is that you must have found substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the verdict, or you must show that the original trial was mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not a valid appeal.

throw_evidence 2y ago

Posting as a throwaway for obvious reasons... "evidence of innocence"... I was once accused of a financial crime, around taking money from an account. I was, admittedly, guilty, however, the amount claimed was nearly triple the amount that I had taken (there were multiple shenanigans happening). When my attorney and I said "Actually, we think the amount is $X, not $3X, because x y and z", we had an extraordinarily difficult time with the Prosecutor, who wanted US to justify why we thought the amount was only $X. Apropos of any plea or deal or whatever, no... the onus is on the Prosecution to verifiably demonstrate the loss. Not for me to justify why I think the amount is different. Ironically, the justification we did provide came from the Prosecution. "You said the loss was $Z, including $Y in checks which were diverted. Witness statements and other testimony showed that these checks were NOT diverted, by their own words. Ergo, the loss is $Z-$Y." Prosecutor was still "you need to show me the math for what that equates to". "No, that amounts to incriminating self, and is, bluntly, not my responsibility. You need to assert how you came to the number you are claiming in the charge."

alistairSH 2y ago

Our justice system isn’t supposed to require evidence of innocence.