@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I acknowledge that there is a small chance (very small) that he is guilty. But the actions of the government in blocking testing justifies a freestanding assumption that he is innocent until such time that the evidence is allowed to be tested.
The legal basis for such an assumption is?
He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. In the eyes of the law he is guilty, and, in the end, it is only the perspective of the law that matters.
I agree that the State of Texas should test the DNA evidence and at the very least grant him a new trial if the tests prove negative; however the State of Texas is not bound by morality, only legality.
I also oppose the death penalty, if for no other reason than we should not grant the State the right and power to kill any of us for any reason, but I don't think it benefits the discourse on this topic or this specific case to insist that Texas is going to execute an innocent man.
This happens to be a death penalty case and so the stakes are as high as they come, but Texas is not alone in having prosecutors who resist any possibility of giving up a victory.
I think it's a bit unfair, as well, to assume that the individuals involved don't care whether the man is innocent, or that a victory is so important to them that they will watch a man they believe to be innocent put to death.
It's an unnecessary, and I believe, twisted effort to cast prosecutors as the villains and criminals as the good guys.
I'm relative sure that the prosecutors in this case were and are convinced this man is guilty.
Of course a problem could arise if he is not guilty of the crime for which he was charged. It goes without saying that it is not within the prosecution's power to judge the defendant guilty of being a vicious criminal based on his past and therefore working to convict him for his life of crime rather than the specific alleged crime at hand. I think they do it though and while they shouldn't I also think I understand why they do.
Over their careers I suspect that they see far more defendants that they know are guilty set free than those they believe may be innocent of the crime at hand for which they are convicted.
Again, it's perfectly clear that they are not empowered to prosecute someone based on anything other than the evidence relating to the alleged crime at hand, but as we all know (or at least should know) we're all capable of imposing our personal moral code over that of the law.
Casting Texas prosecutors or prosecutors in general, (as some are inclined to do) as cold hearted SOBs who are hell bent on convictions at all costs is unfair and unhelpful.
As you know, ours is an adversarial system, and so if there are cases of defend at all costs, there are bound to be cases of prosecute at all costs.
Just another reason not to allow the State to kill any of us.
