Innocent Man was Executed in TX

[Slim]

That's who you act like, and you deserve to be treated with no more respect than him.

oh yeah....well...my kung fu is better than yours. So there.

[Superscribe]

... and yet here you are while Obama leads this country towards socialist totalitarianism.

You seem to lack the courage of your convictions young man.

Here i am talking about revolting if dictatorship threatens your life, which is what i was ridiculing "too stupid to argue" about, and you bring this unrelated problem as a means of undermining me.

Revolt not when a dictatorship occurs. Revolt when you're happy with how things are going. Would i start taking drastic measures if i was being forced to die on the whim of my government, like thewrong4 is suggesting? I like to think so. Am i going to revolt if something is changing and i'm not sure if i like it, but my life isn't in danger? Probably not.

Your perception seems to be leaving you, old man.

[Superscribe]

Don't even try it.....that's my schtick. Oh, and it's spelled "argument", and unless you meant to call me an inslut or unless you are suggesting that you would like to inslut me, (ewwwwww) it's "insult". It happens to the best AND worst of us. Spellcheck is your friend.

P.S. You might want to check out my page and do some research. K babe?

ooo yeah, get me with my spelling on an internet forum. that's a worthwhile use of your time and energy.

i don't want to check out your page. why don't you try and simplify it into a smiley for me.

[I_luv_saber]

We must be reading different news sources, because I do see one side willing to have a rational discussion and one side not willing to - as demonstrated by leadership on both sides of the aisle.

I disagree. The two sides have each just taken a different tactic. The Republicans are trying to discredit the Democrats by making wild statements (which I wish they could see is just making them lose credibility), while the Democrats simply wave a dismissive hand over the legitimate concerns which are actually being raised as being part of the rantings and myths from the bunch of kooks (which the radical Republicans have brought down on the rest). Basically throwing everyone in the same lot.

One is not better than the other, IMO.

Do all Dems do that? Of course not. I have indeed heard intelligent debate from the left. But I have also heard, believe it or not, intelligent debate from the right. Both sides do have legitimate points and concerns amongst the din of wild accusations and rhetoric.

I don't know what you're talking about with the IRS, and in any case I don't view them as the devil. shrug.

I have no idea which one(s) have it, but at least one of the bills put forth call for putting the IRS in charge of policing and making sure everyone has insurance. I would be firmly against this, for reasons stated in Peter's HC Reform thread. There's simply far too much room for abuse.

[pigeonmeister]

BTW, if Scotland had capital punishment, you know, a certain Mr. Megrahi would not have lived long enough to be receive a "compassionate release", and many of the repercussions of said release would have been avoided...

Or, as many of the British relatives and even the UN observer at the trial think, they would have executed an innocent man in a polically motivated trial. Although, according to your view he had probably done something else to deserve death.

But that's another thread...

[thereom4]

Would i start taking drastic measures if i was being forced to die on the whim of my government, like thewrong4 is suggesting? I like to think so.

thewrong4? Clever. Like I'm suggesting? Hunh......what exactly is it that you say that I'm suggesting?

why don't you try and simplify it into a smiley for me.

[Inquartata]

Or, as many of the British relatives and even the UN observer at the trial think, they would have executed an innocent man in a polically motivated trial. Although, according to your view he had probably done something else to deserve death.

But that's another thread...

Well... a court convicted him, did it not?

And I presume that there's a long and fair appeals process in a country like Scotland, which is enlightened enough to have dropped capital punishment. That didn't release him, either. So, are you saying that a handful of laymen and a "UN observer" MUST know more than the courts?

For every person convicted of a crime, there are usually some people who refuse to believe his guilt. But we don't default to their view. We accept that conviction by our process is the valid outcome. Sometimes we're wrong, but that's not a reason to substitute lay skepticism for the justice system...

[pigeonmeister]

Well... a court convicted him, did it not?

And I presume that there's a long and fair appeals process in a country like Scotland, which is enlightened enough to have dropped capital punishment. That didn't release him, either. So, are you saying that a handful of laymen and a "UN observer" MUST know more than the courts?

For every person convicted of a crime, there are usually some people who refuse to believe his guilt. But we don't default to their view. We accept that conviction by our process is the valid outcome. Sometimes we're wrong, but that's not a reason to substitute lay skepticism for the justice system...

1. The man was appealing. A condition of his 'compassionate' release was that he drop this appeal. Many believe that a deal was done with Libya involving oil contracts. There very likely was- and the British govt have as good as admitted that trade was a big factor in their recommendations to the Scottish justice minister.

I think that the British govt were as keen to avoid another very public appeal, which could have cast further doubts on the original trial. His release was politically difficult (esp with US-UK relations), however, the political damage of a successful appeal would be much worse.

2. I'm not making a legal case for his innocence because I have not heard the evidence. I'm simply saying that people who were in court every single day of the trial, have subsequently dedicated much of their lives to surveying every aspect of the case, and have every reason to want the closure and sense of justice fulfilled by Meghari's conviction, believe the man is innocent.

The fact that he was served up by the Libyans at a politically expedient time, the political need to have someone charged, the questionable job the British police did during its investigations, combined with the views of the UN...all of this convinces me of enough doubt to be thankful we don't risk the execution of innocent men in Europe.

I'd invite you to submit some indicators to suggest we are worse off than America for having done so.

[Inquartata]

1. The man was appealing.

I didn't realize you swung that way.

But seriously, folks...yes, he had yet to reach the end of the appeal process. In the UK, does this mean that he was innocent? Once you're convicted, are you still not considered guilty until the court of last resort so affirms?

Out of curiosity, how long does it take to exhaust all possible appeals in the UK? Or can one just appeal ad infinitum?

A condition of his 'compassionate' release was that he drop this appeal. Many believe that a deal was done with Libya involving oil contracts. There very likely was- and the British govt have as good as admitted that trade was a big factor in their recommendations to the Scottish justice minister.

Gee, I thought that only the US was to be suspected of doing things for oil. ( And then only during Republican administrations. )

I think that the British govt were as keen to avoid another very public appeal, which could have cast further doubts on the original trial. His release was politically difficult (esp with US-UK relations), however, the political damage of a successful appeal would be much worse.

Do you think he'd have lived that long?

If the government thought that he might, Scotland either has a very streamlined trial system or someone suspected that he wasn't really at death's door after all. No?

2. I'm not making a legal case for his innocence because I have not heard the evidence. I'm simply saying that people who were in court every single day of the trial, have subsequently dedicated much of their lives to surveying every aspect of the case, and have every reason to want the closure and sense of justice fulfilled by Meghari's conviction, believe the man is innocent.

OK. We have the same phenomenon here. Some women even want to marry convicts.

I'd invite you to submit some indicators to suggest we are worse off than America for having done so.

I am not sure what you're asking. We haven't released any convicted mass murderers recently; where is the appropriate comparison?

[Inquartata]

I just don't see that at all, not with the "Gang of Six" negotiations (3 Dem, 3 Rep), who are making statements that they'll take the time to "get it right" and not be pushed (we'll see).

You know, the old bromide about the way to tell when a lawyer is lying applies even more to politicians.

BTW, how long is it going to take before some federal gang task force takes those six down?

Considering that they're discussing the "no public option" option, which is infuriating the more liberal Dems, it's obvious to me that the administration is sincere in this regard. Their behavior does indeed follow the words.

Do you really believe that this is a sign that they are listening to objections and changing details of their plan because they've been convinced that their initial position was wrong?

I hereby crown you King of the Optimists.

An equally strong case can be made that they are simply doing damage control, not compromising. Giving up on something which it has become clear is unlikely to be possible is not my definition of "compromise".

IMO it's a bit like acknowledging a one-light touch...

The opposition isn't interested in doing constructive work on the issue.

I agree, but must add: Why should they? If you disagre with the basic premise, why should you "do constructive work" on getting it accomplished anyway?

What you seem to be saying is that Republicans should become collaborators in the creation of a system to which they are philosophically opposed...

Obama is doing the opposite, saying "you guys work out a solution", so the bills in question have been created and argued in the legislative branch. That may not work out either, but it's clearly been his attempt to not try to pose his answer and push it onto Congress.

Again, I am not sure but what that's more apparent than real. At the least he seems to be speaking on the subject an awful lot...

We must be reading different news sources, because I do see one side willing to have a rational discussion and one side not willing to

Oh, yes. It's the definition of "rational discussion" that I find a bit eccentric, though. It seems to exclude anything which is not in line with what the one side wants...

I also don't see the Dem equivalent of the fearmongering and "tea bagging" (irony of malapropism aside) as in the Republican camp. It's not correct to say "both sides are doing it" when in fact predominantly it's one side that's behaving that way.

Right, because in this case the Democrats are in the driver's seat. When situations are reversed, so are the roles. ( Remember things like "Iraq is another Vietnam!" No "fear-mongering there, no, no. )

This is what passes for normal in politics. Since so many voters are either naive on the issues or disinterested in them, it's more profitable to try to frighten or anger them than to convince or inform them. Why do you think the tactic seems to be working? Because whether we like it or not or think it's right or not, it's effective...

[Inquartata]

Nice job taking a quote completely out of context, and ignoring the point being made.

Whatever floats your boat...

The fact that you cannot see the relevance does not mean it isn't there.

Quite simply, you were complaining about one "outrageous" behavior, and I mentioned another "outrageous" behavior. I realize that you'd probably prefer to concentrate on the first to the exclusion of all else, but if you wish to trade characterizations instead of arguments there is plenty of ammunition for both of us...

[Inquartata]

If you can afford to fence at NACs and fly to big sabre events then you can afford a lawyer better than a public defender.

Are you saying that "decent chunk" and "some" are synonymous? Then you're probably right. But if by "decent chunk" you mean "decent chunk", then...not.

I said no such thing! Lawyers who've been censured deserve second chances, of course.

Well, then I'm confused as to why you brought it up. I interpreted it to be an assertion that their clients were somehow unreasonably or unfairly disadvantaged by having had lawyers of this sort...

What WERE you trying to say?

Ideally (for me, anyway), those facing the harshest of sentences (death) would have the best lawyers. "Adequate" representation takes on a new meaning when death's on the line.

OK.

Actually, I would be willing to trade furnishing defendants in capital cases with top-flight lawyers for a much shorter and more limited appellate process.

I suspect that neither of us is going to get what we want on this point, alas.

I have a feeling that, were you charged with a capital offense, you'd suddenly want the pick of the litter!

Speculation about unlikely scenarios is fun.

However, solitary confinement is often used as a punitive measure for when an inmate spites the guards.

Are you sure you haven't just watched too many old prison movies? I may be wrong, but I think that these days it's more often a protective measure than a punitive one. ( Admittedly, I do not know a lot about penal methods. )

If you don't have the time or inclination to read the piece, what it boils down to is that psychologists (and interrogators/torturers, and those who've been put in solitary) find that solitary confinement is more damaging to the human psyche than physical torture.

To some, I'm sure. I suspect that it would leave guys like the Unabomber blithely unperturbed. Some people actually prefer solitude to company.

The article quotes from John McCain's book - remember, this is a man who can't lift his arms above his head because he's had them broken so many times, who's had sharpened bamboo shoved under his fingernails, etc etc - that the worst thing his captors did to him in Vietnam was put him in solitary confinement. Based on these sort of anecdotes and psychological evidence, solitary is cruel and unusual punishment.

Under our system, it isn't until Congress says it is and the Supreme Court doesn't disagree. "Anecdotes and psychological evidence" do not make policy, thank goodness! Neither is really very trustworthy IMO.

Most murders are crimes of passion for which the perpetrator feels genuine remorse.

Your evidence of this?

The system is fundamentally broken.

Perhaps, perhaps. Certainly some parts of it are.

Where does the realization get us? There is none better on the horizon. "Kinder, gentler" systems have been tried and did not return better results. Inmates are able to game rehabilitation-based systems even better than punitive ones. SOMEthing has to be done with miscreants, no?

[Inquartata]

This survey is sent out to a selected population and measures crime in the past year and is a much better indicator of how much crime really occurs than the UCR.

Not trying to be confrontational, but I have to ask, politely: According to whom?

biological psychopaths are, as far as we know, almost impossible to reform. Our current court system rarely differentiates between these people and people who are candidates for rehabilitation during capital cases. That needs to change.

I agree with your premises there, but I am not sure they lead inescapably to your conclusion. It may very well be that the reason it does not so distinguish is that it cannot---that psychological assessments and so forth are simply not up to the task and result in too many wrong judgements. It's hard to "change" the system's responses if that is the case...

eliminating extreme poverty helps.

Well, if you know how to do that, there's probably a whole shelf-full of Nobel prizes and public building naming rights waiting for you!

AFAIK no one has yet been able to accomplish the feat...

Consider - some of the countries with the highest rates of poverty don't have the muder rate that we do.

Or maybe they just don't have the reporting rates and recording accuracy rates we do?

I mean, even here we have seen over and over that it's possible to murder large numbers of members of "underclasses" like street prostitutes or the homeless before one even comes to the attention of the authorities. In poor countries, which are also likely to have poorly trained and budgeted police forces, and likely corrupt ones as well, how probable is it that anything like most disappearances are even noticed by anyone other than their immediate circles of aquaintances, much less investigated, much less recorded in official statistics?

My issues with how we handle sex offenders aside, the two aren't quite the same. Hauptman posited that we could sentence an individual, THEN lengthen his sentence after a period of time. The laws for sex offenses are already set up, and an offender knows (or has the opportunity to learn) what his or her maximum sentence will be if convicted.

No, no---this is just what I meant. Some sex offenders reach the end of their sentences and are then kept incarcerated anyway, often for indefinite periods. Often, but not always, this is done under the guise of committment to medical confinement. The practice is controversial but growing ( or was the last time I heard anything about it ).

[pigeonmeister]

I didn't realize you swung that way.

There's a lot you don't know about me!

But seriously, folks...yes, he had yet to reach the end of the appeal process. In the UK, does this mean that he was innocent? Once you're convicted, are you still not considered guilty until the court of last resort so affirms?

I don't know if he is innocent- but clearly he is not legally. My point is that courts are very far from infallible arbiters of guilt. That's not a reason to abandon the system of trial by jury or judge- but it's a good reason to abandon the death penalty. Which, as we all know, renders the emergence of new evidence brutally irrelevant.

To further illustrate my point, the court of appeal is still overturning guilty verdicts on some of the last people hanged in this country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/ju...me.owenbowcott

Out of curiosity, how long does it take to exhaust all possible appeals in the UK? Or can one just appeal ad infinitum?

I'm not an expert. In Scotland, the highest appeal court is The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. I believe that even after they have ruled further appeals are possible if new and compelling evidence is succesfully submitted. As this article indicates, the Megrahi case was extremely complex and the length of appeal was closely linked to the govt's reluctance to release documents it argued (unsurprisingly) would compromise national security.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/7725030.stm

Obviously most cases do not involve these issues.

Gee, I thought that only the US was to be suspected of doing things for oil. ( And then only during Republican administrations. )

A conservative pointing out the hypocracy of a liberal is as happy as a pig in mud. However, true liberals remain convinced that any govt will always put political and ecomomic interest above moral rectitude

No different to when Tony Blair ordered an end to any investigation into Saudi-BAE bribery/corruption (which was blatent and gross).

I don't think anyone ever felt the US had a monopoly on this kind of practise.

Do you think he'd have lived that long?

His lawyers might. The point was that the British govt didn't want him to die in prison in the UK- as leaked documents confirm. They covered their bases.

OK. We have the same phenomenon here. Some women even want to marry convicts.

Rare for large groups of relatives- including fathers and mothers.

I am not sure what you're asking. We haven't released any convicted mass murderers recently; where is the appropriate comparison?

It is extremely rare for us (which is why it is so clear a deal was done). Seriel killers will 99% of the time die in prison. Maybe if they have weeks to live, but I'm still not sure of any.

But I'm also unsure of your position. I understand that you don't believe in the deterrence effect. Your whole argument rests on the fact that the DP is the only way of preventing re-offending.

Are you saying there is a chance that Meghari will re-offend? Or dieing people in general?

[Gav]

I'm not an expert. In Scotland, the highest appeal court is The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. I believe that even after they have ruled further appeals are possible if new and compelling evidence is succesfully submitted. As this article indicates, the Megrahi case was extremely complex and the length of appeal was closely linked to the govt's reluctance to release documents it argued (unsurprisingly) would compromise national security.

It's funny you mention them but it seems that their report into the Megrahi case could well be released after all. And it's widely acknowledged now that that reports is going to state there's been a miscarriage of justice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8241336.stm

That would have given his case strength on appeal.

This entire story has been one murky episode after another.

[Gav]

Do you think he'd have lived that long?

As I understand it, it doesn't matter. The appeal would have continued after his death.

There's an emerging appearance of a miscarriage of justice. If that's the case then if he had died in prison how bad were things going to look? How unhappy were the relatives of the dead going to be then? If it turns out that the wrong man was banged up then how truly unhappy are the relatives going to be?

I'd say no one is going to look good if the true facts ever emerge.

[downunder]

A list of Death row inmates who have been exonerated is below.

I'm sure a few of these are due to new DNA evidence. What if in 10 years time we have newer technology to prove or disprove someone guilt. The death penalty removes their right to due process in clearing their name.


1973

* 1. David Keaton Florida (Keaton v. State, 273 So.2d 385 (1973)). Convicted 1971.

1974

* 2. Samuel A. Poole North Carolina (State v. Poole, 203 S.E.2d 786 (N.C. 1974)). Convicted 1973.

1975

* 3. Wilbert Lee Florida (Pitts v. State 247 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1971), overturned and released by pardon in 1975). Convicted 1963.
* 4. Freddie Pitts Florida (Pitts v. State 247 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1971), overturned and released by pardon in 1975). Convicted 1965.
* 5. James Creamer Georgia (Emmett v. Ricketts, 397 F. Supp 1025 (N.D. Ga. 1975)). Convicted 1973.
* 6. Christopher Spicer North Carolina (State v. Spicer, 204 SE 2d 641 (1974)). Convicted 1973.

1976

* 7. Thomas Gladish New Mexico. Convicted 1974.
* 8. Richard Greer New Mexico. Convicted 1974.
* 9. Ronald Keine New Mexico. Convicted 1974.
* 10. Clarence Smith New Mexico. Convicted 1974.

1977

* 11. Delbert Tibbs Florida. Convicted 1974.

1978

* 12. Earl Charles Georgia. Convicted 1975.
* 13. Jonathan Treadway Arizona. Convicted 1975.

1979

* 14. Gary Beeman Ohio. Convicted 1976.

[edit] 1980-1989

1980

* 15. Jerry Banks
* 16. Larry Hicks

1981

* 17. Charles Ray Giddens
* 18. Michael Linder
* 19. Johnny Ross
* 20. Ernest (Shuhaa) Graham

1982

* 21. Annibal Jaramillo
* 22. Lawyer Johnson Massachusetts (Commonwealth v. Johnson, 429 N.E.2d 726 (1982)). Convicted 1971.

1985

* 23. Larry Fisher

1986

* 24. Anthony Brown (currently serving 33 years on other charges)
* 25. Neil Ferber
* 26. Clifford Henry Bowen

1987

* 27. Joseph Green Brown
* 28. Perry Cobb
* 29. Darby (Williams) Tillis
* 30. Vernon McManus
* 31. Anthony Ray Peek (Currently serving a life sentence for Sexual Battery(rape))
* 32. Juan Ramos
* 33. Robert Wallace

1988

* 34. Richard Neal Jones
* 35. Willie Brown (currently serving life for crimes including bank robbery and battery)
* 36. Larry Troy

1989

* 37. Randall Dale Adams Texas (Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim App. 1989). Convicted 1977.[2][3]
* 38. Robert Cox (currently serving a life sentence for armed robbery as a repeat offender after serving an 18 year sentence for kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon)
* 39. Timothy Hennis (In 2006, the US Military filed capital charges for the same crime after previously unavailable DNA evidence became available. Because he was on death row under state law, there is no double jeopardy.)
* 40. James Richardson

[edit] 1990-1999

1990

* 41. Clarence Brandley Texas (Ex Parte Brandley, 781 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim App. 1989). Convicted 1981.
* 42. John C. Skelton
* 43. Dale Johnston
* 44. Jimmy Lee Mathers

1991

* 45. Gary Nelson
* 46. Bradley P. Scott
* 47. Charles Smith

1992

* 48. Jay C. Smith Pennsylvania. Convicted 1986.

1993

* 49. Kirk Bloodsworth Maryland. Convicted 1984. Exonerated 1993; first prisoner to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Serving life in prison when exonerated, as earlier death sentence was overturned.
* 50. Federico M. Macias
* 51. Walter McMillan
* 52. Gregory R. Wilhoit
* 53. James Robison (later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, his target was a witness against him in his murder trial.)
* 54. Muneer Deeb

1994

* 55. Andrew Golden (currently serving a sentence for child molestation)

1995

* 56. Adolph Munson
* 57. Robert Charles Cruz
* 58. Rolando Cruz
* 59. Alejandro Hernandez
* 60. Sabrina Butler

1996

* 61. Joseph Burrows
* 62. Verneal Jimerson
* 63. Dennis Williams
* 64. Roberto Miranda
* 65. Gary Gauger
* 66. Troy Lee Jones
* 67. Carl Lawson
* 68. David Wayne Grannis

1997

* 69. Ricardo Aldape Guerra
* 70. Benjamin Harris
* 71. Robert Hayes (In 2004 Robert Hayes plead guilty to manslaughter and arson in a 1987 rape and murder in New York. He is now serving 15 to 45 years. [4])
* 72. Christopher McCrimmon
* 73. Randall Padgett
* 74. James Bo Cochran

1998

* 75. Robert Lee Miller, Jr.
* 76. Curtis Kyles

1999

* 77. Shareef Cousin Louisiana (Louisiana v. Cousin, 710 So. 2d 1065 (1998)). Convicted 1996. Served and was paroled from a 20 year sentence for a series of armed robberies. Currently incarcerated for grand theft and identity theft.
* 78. Anthony Porter Illinois. Convicted 1983.
* 79. Steven Smith
* 80. Ronald Williamson Oklahoma. Convicted 1988. Williamson later became the inspiration for and subject of John Grisham's 2006 non-fiction book The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town. [5]
* 81. Ronald Jones
* 82. Clarence Dexter, Jr.
* 83. Warren Douglas Manning
* 84. Alfred Rivera

[edit] 2000-2009

2000

* 85. Steve Manning
* 86. Eric Clemmons
* 87. Joseph Nahume Green
* 88. Earl Washington Virginia (pardoned). Convicted 1994 (1984, without life sentence). After pardon served consecutive 15 year sentences for attempted rape, burglary and malicious wounding in unrelated case.
* 89. William Nieves
* 90. Frank Lee Smith (died prior to exoneration)
* 91. Michael Graham
* 92. Albert Burrell
* 93. Oscar Lee Morris

2001

* 94. Peter Limone
* 95. Gary Drinkard
* 96. Joachin Jose Martinez
* 97. Jeremy Sheets
* 98. Charles Fain

2002

* 99. Juan Roberto Melendez-Colon Florida. Convicted 1984.
* 100. Ray Krone Arizona (State v. Krone, 897 P.2d 621 (Ariz. 1995) (en banc)). Convicted 1992.
* 101. Thomas Kimbell, Jr.
* 102. Larry Osborne

2003

* 103. Aaron Patterson (Now serving unrelated 30 year sentence in federal prison for firearms violations and drug trafficking.)
* 104. Madison Hobley
* 105. Leroy Orange
* 106. Stanley Howard (Now serving 50 years for unrelated kidnapping and rape of two women and the rape of an elderly woman in her home.)
* 107. Rudolph Holton
* 108. Lemuel Prion
* 109. Wesley Quick
* 110. John Thompson
* 112. Gary Lamar James
* 113. Joseph Amrine
* 114. Nicholas Yarris Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania v. Yarris, No 690-OF1982, Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, September 3, 2003. Order vacating conviction). Convicted 1982.

Illinois moratorium

* On January 11, 2003, Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of all 167 death row inmates in the state of Illinois following a legal moratorium.

See also

* State of Illinois (January 31, 2000). Governor Ryan Declares Moratorium On Executions, Will Appoint Commission To Review Capital Punishment System. Press Release.
* Armstrong, Ken and Parsons, Christi (January 22, 2000). Half of state's death-penalty cases reversed: A variety of errors found in 130 trials. Chicago Tribune, online.

2004

* 115. Alan Gell
* 116. Gordon Steidl
* 117. Laurence Adams
* 118. Dan L. Bright
* 119. Ryan Matthews
* 120. Ernest Ray Willis

2005

* 121. Derrick Jamison
* 122. Harold Wilson

2006

* 123. John Ballard

2007

* 124. Curtis McCarty
* 125. Michael McCormick
* 126. Jonathon Hoffman

2008

* 127. Kennedy Brewer Mississippi. Convicted 1995.
* 128. Glen Edward Chapman North Carolina. Convicted 1995.
* 129. Levon "Bo" Jones [6] North Carolina. Convicted 1993.
* 130. Michael Blair Texas. Currently in prison for the sexual assault of three young girls.

2009

* 131. Nathson Fields Illinois. Convicted 1986.
* 132. Paul House Tennessee. Convicted 1986.
* 133. Daniel Wade Moore Alabama. Convicted 2002.
* 134. Ronald Kitchen Illinois. Convicted 1988.
* 135. Herman Lindsey Florida. Convicted 2006

[Hauptman]

The fact that you cannot see the relevance does not mean it isn't there.

Quite simply, you were complaining about one "outrageous" behavior, and I mentioned another "outrageous" behavior. I realize that you'd probably prefer to concentrate on the first to the exclusion of all else, but if you wish to trade characterizations instead of arguments there is plenty of ammunition for both of us...

Again you got it wrong; I was not complaining about outrageous behaviour, I was pointing out the hypocricy of another complaint about outrageous behaviour.

Not even close, Inq.