At the time when the Shrub was Governor, there was virtually nil funds available from either the state government or the county budgets for indigent defense.

As a result, there was an astonishingly high conviction rate in capital offenses involving indigent defendents.

After Bush moved up the Peter Principal Ladder to his level of total incompetence as our President, the State of Texas made reforms in funding for indigent defendents.

The State of Texas knew they had a problem, but a governor who had sat on his hands for six years (GWBush) had to leave office before reforms were instituted.

Perry is in a tough re-election fight with GOP Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Hence his likely strong resistance to allow any vetting of whether he approved the execution of an actual innocent man.

Geez, what a douche.

This is the same guy that wants to use our daughters as lab rats, making a new vaccine mandatory for all female school children….I’m sure that the fact that the drug manufacturer was a large contributor to his election campaign fund had nothing to do with that.

I live in Texas, it seems that Dallas County prosecutor Craig Watkins, mentioned several times on this site by Mr. Balko, is the only shining beacon we have in common sense in prosecution here.

Really? So Rick Perry thinks that HE is an arson expert, and is thus capable of pushing the execution through. Let me guess Rick, did GOD guide you in making this decision? Is it possible that Gov. Perry just wants to off this guy in the hopes that the media will go away?

If Texas ever does secede, look for it to become the Iran of the west rather quickly.

Money quote:
“You always want to give police officers the benefit of the doubt because they’re doing a hard job,” Gossom (family attorney) said. “But I’m having a difficult time — after having been out to the scene and talked to a few witnesses — to figure out why in the world this should have happened.”

A man who was in court for stealing a horse gets a continuance to hire a lawyer and watches another defendant who killed a man get probation. The first man asks to change his plea, thinking if the killer got probation, he should get off fairly lightly. Instead, he gets two years, and protests that all he did was steal a horse. The judge says: “Sir, there’s some men in this county that need killing; there’s absolutely no horses that need stealing.”

http://www.tba.org/Journal_TBArchives/200601/TBJ-200601-books.html

I guess Todd Willingham needed killing. Good ol’ fashioned Texas justice.

Two key consideration should rule in cases like this. First, why are we defending a guy who is no longer around to defend? I mean, the whole point behind execution is closure, so let’s close it for Christ’s sake. Secondly, if the guy is declared guilty, then the law is satisfied and it’s ok to fry his ass. It has nothing to do with whether he “did it”.

So what if he didn’t do it? We can’t throw out the death penalty, a way of life in America, just because of one stinkin’ mistake. The state fire inspectors made a good faith effort to pin these deaths on the guy who was executed. So, it turned out there was no evidence that he set the fire, but you have to remember, there’s no solid evidence that says he couldn’t have set the fire, either. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t but since we executed him, let’s just say he did and get on with life. M’kay?

Could he actually be culpable for negligent homicide? Could the state parole board or whatever group Bush used as his crutch (I relied on their work – paraphrasing)for his 137 executions is called?

I said in an earlier comment that nothing will change until this stuff starts happening in larger numbers to the people that vehemently support the “justice” system.

| SJE | October 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think we need to go to a lunch attended by Gov. Perry, get a half-eaten sandwich, and send it to Michael West to match to some murder investigation. Rick Perry might then have different opinions about the “justice” system.

OOOHHH! Likes it we does!

I’d rather see mandatory IQ tests for politicians. No one with an IQ below 30 is allowed to run. I realize this would eliminate most incumbents, but it’s a price that will have to be paid.

*(I know IQ tests are flawed, but so are governments.)