quote:

To enact your plan is simple. You state (as you have already many times) that you do not condone or support the death penalty. There. You're free and clear. Plan in place.

That way, you can be at peace that no one is killed in your name and I'll be at peace knowing the guy who murdered two record producers is going to die soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast

The evidence provided at the trial showed that on December 23, 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts.

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. One of Willingham’s neighbors testified that the morning following the house fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife were at the burned house going through the debris while playing music and laughing.

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

Dr. James Grigson testified for the state at punishment. According to his testimony, Willingham fits the profile of a sociopath whose conduct becomes more violent over time, and who lacks a conscience. Grigson explained that a person with this degree of sociopathy commonly has no regard for other people’s property or for other human beings. He expressed his opinion that an individual demonstrating this type of behavior can not be rehabilitated in any manner, and that such a person certainly poses a continuing threat to society.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus
If we are going to do away with the death penalty because it has no deterrent factor then we should bulldoze all of our prisons and turn the occupants free. People continue to break the law and continue to be sent to prison. Clearly prisons have no deterrent factor and using your logic...

Good point, I didn't think of that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
This man's blood is on the hands of everybody who supports the death penalty. Period. As long as you allow the government to murder people in your name you are guilty of those murders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Its not that easy, unfortunately. The judicial system works in the name of all the citizens, not just those that agree with its actions. Regardless of my professions of moral innocence, the responsibility for the judicial murder would still be equally mine. I am equally guilty as long as I allow it to continue to happen. My conscience would not be clear as long as people were being put to death in my name. I am fortunate that my country has not executed anybody since I was 2 years old, and therefore I can consider myself innocent of collective murder. However should the death penalty ever be reintroduced in Canada and actually used, then I would be guilty of murder, along with every other adult in Canada, regardless of how long or hard I had campaigned against it. It matters not where you stand, the murder is done in your name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
His guilt, or the horrendous nature of the crime are utterly irrelevant. Willingham was murdered, plain and simple, murdered just as surely as if some gang-banger had blown him away in a drive-by. He was murdered by the people of Texas. Every adult in Texas is guilty of his murder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
I am happy to see that nobody is arguing the deterrent factor of the death penalty.The argument I see advanced is that the world is a better and safer place without certain people in it, and that it prevents these people from committing further murders. I can sympathize with this idea, and even agree with the thought (I would put forward one Paul Bernardo as a prime candidate for removal). But even this idea is irrelevant. As much as I may think that somebody is a waste of oxygen I still have no right to kill him. I have no right as an individual, so how do I suddenly gain this right as part of a collective? Why is it OK to murder when it is done as a collective? Is murder not murder?

quote:

Not buying it, Arpig. Would you live somewhere with a death penalty? Have you? Then, isn't blood potentially on your hands too?
Davan

quote:

Sure it works that way. Just as people proclaimed Bush wasn't their president, just like people now proclaim the same for Obama. You can renounce that aspect of a state's views and free your concience.

quote:

Again, here we'll just agree to disagree. You be happy that where you live doesn't have the death penalty and I'll be happy that where I live does. Cool?

quote:

If we all agree that you can kill a murderer to protect yourself, why is it you feel we can't kill one to protect others? (That is what the death penalty does mainly. It assures that a man who has murdered will never murder again. The dead cannot kill again.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
It wouldn't work that way for me. My conscience would not be freed simply by stating my opposition to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
so I will continue to try and hope that the death penalty is stopped worldwide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
I guess it will have to be that way, but do not be surprised if I do what little I can to put an end to executions where you live. Cool?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
The difference is that in the first case the deed is done to prevent an act that is about to be carried out, in the second it is done to prevent an act that is only a potential one. You have no way of knowing that the person will kill again. In the case in the OP, even if the guy did light the fire, the chances of him killing anybody else is pretty damned slim,so killing him didn't really protect anybody.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast

The evidence provided at the trial showed that on December 23, 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts.

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. One of Willingham’s neighbors testified that the morning following the house fire, Christmas Eve, Willingham and his wife were at the burned house going through the debris while playing music and laughing.

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

Dr. James Grigson testified for the state at punishment. According to his testimony, Willingham fits the profile of a sociopath whose conduct becomes more violent over time, and who lacks a conscience. Grigson explained that a person with this degree of sociopathy commonly has no regard for other people’s property or for other human beings. He expressed his opinion that an individual demonstrating this type of behavior can not be rehabilitated in any manner, and that such a person certainly poses a continuing threat to society.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm

All of the forensic testimony in this case was wrong! If you read the article I linked to you would have known that independent outsde experts found this to be the case. The fire was accidental and started due to a faulty electrical appliance. Willingham was injured trying to save his children not while setting the fire.

That is the result of the investigation by the forensic experts hired by the state of Texas to review this case.