If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Texas: puts an innocent man in jail for 18 years. He gets out, so they refuse to pay him the $1.44 million state law says they owe him. Then they attach his wages for child support he owes. Why does he owe it? Texas: puts an innocent man in jail   (dallasnews.com) divider line 315
    More: Asinine, IOU  
•       •       •

26296 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2011 at 9:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-04 11:06:12 PM
I am convinced that all proud residents of Texas suffer from some sort of collective state-induced Stockholm syndrome.

All too often it is impossible to explain why anyone would stick up for the state.

/proud resident of Texas
 
2011-05-04 11:07:16 PM
I'm sure a bill from the state of Texas for his food and housing is being sent to him as we speak


/lived in Texas for 3 years
//3 years too many
 
2011-05-04 11:08:09 PM

TheWhoppah:
The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.


And how do you know who is "actually innocent"? God tells you?

Do you even know what "reasonable doubt" means?
 
2011-05-04 11:08:12 PM

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Why does this even exist?

It's just like saying, "Just because those kids admitted they were brainwashed by their mother to say you raped them, and just because you were in Berlin while they were in America when you raped them, doesn't mean you're innocent! It just means we can't prove your guilt!"

In fact, it's the exact same thing.

If you imprison someone and the evidence used to convict you turns out to be false, you should get paid. End of story. It's not a common event by any means, but it certainly isn't unheard of.

This is basically telling people they have to prove their innocence (pretty much impossible) if they don't want to get raped with no recourse by the legal system.
 
2011-05-04 11:08:41 PM

LeafyGreens: One of the best parts of living in Texas, aside from the taquerias, was listening to the Huntsville prison show on Saturday nights. Inmates would call in, often those on death row, and talk to loved ones.

It was really stirring; guilty or not, everyone deserves a voice.


That's really one of the best parts? Really? You do realizing that you are just confirming the "Texas sucks" sentiment, right?
 
2011-05-04 11:09:14 PM
This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

/many of y'all are probably familiar with the case
//I literally shook with anger the first time I read it
 
2011-05-04 11:09:48 PM
Casey: It's a vicious circle.
Dan: It is.
Casey: It's a neverending circle.
Dan: Just keeps going round and round.
Casey: Never ends.
Dan: That's what makes it vicious.
Casey: And a circle.
 
2011-05-04 11:10:51 PM
Other than the wrongly convicted, 18 years-in-prison, now-free victim, are there any adults involved in all of this?
 
2011-05-04 11:10:56 PM

lightrunner: Hmm...


That's a MAN baby, yeah!
 
2011-05-04 11:12:36 PM

Inibrius: Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty.


Here in the real world people who are factually guilty are often NOT convicted because the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Just today Chris Simms was found not guilty of driving while stoned.... look at his booking photo and let us know what you think. If the jury has reasonable doubt there can't be a conviction. Remember O.J. Simpson?
 
2011-05-04 11:13:17 PM

Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.


Huh? Some people are found not guilty due to lack of evidence and that is the same as being found guilty?

I am going to need some more information here.
 
2011-05-04 11:13:56 PM

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


That is some of the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen. Sorry, but "we know you did it but can't prove it" is not remotely a legally justifiable position.
 
2011-05-04 11:15:14 PM

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....
 
2011-05-04 11:16:34 PM

Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.


Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...
 
2011-05-04 11:17:50 PM

MrPenny: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....


Really? You found his explanation sensible and reasonable?
 
2011-05-04 11:18:51 PM

veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.


That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.
 
2011-05-04 11:20:33 PM

jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...


Not convicted is not convicted. When does a judge ever find someone innocent?
 
2011-05-04 11:20:58 PM

jst3p: sip111: Shouldn't he sue his defense attorneys?

I gotta hear this one....

On what grounds should he sue his defense attorney?


now, let me preface this by saying all I know about the case is what I heard from the radioman, but his lawyers that got him out screwed up by not paying attention to the legalese the prosecutors used when they declared him *innocent* and turned him loose. that's why he can't get his cash even though there is a statute that says he is owed 1.8 million or whatever. that looks like a negligent error, and there was obviously significant harm.

from what I gathered from the radioman, this wrongly convicted man is about the sweetest man alive, and this is probably the innocence project or some such that got him out, so he won't be suing them.

he'll get his money eventually someday though.
 
2011-05-04 11:23:19 PM

TheWhoppah: veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

That man murdered his own three young children in a fire. Twin infants and a two year old. There were four empty bottles of charcoal starter fluid right outside the front door, a fact the biased New Yorker article failed to mention. Contrary to what you were led to believe, even the "expert" quoted for that story did not conclude that the fire was not arson. Not even close. He concluded that four of the 12 clues of arson could have alternate explanations. Anti-death penalty zealots hand picked certain sentences from the report and jumped up and down claiming that man was innocent. He wasn't.


I haven't read it, but do you not see the big enormous gaping legal problem you just laid out there yourself? Alternate explanations often mean reasonable doubt. It's probably a bad idea to execute people who might not have done it.
 
2011-05-04 11:26:33 PM

Hrist: There are three levels of guilt. Guilty, not guilty due to lack of evidence, and not guilty. Not guilty due to lack of evidence means that you're still guilty but that they couldn't meet the minimum standards for guilt for a crime.

Why does this even exist?

It's just like saying, "Just because those kids admitted they were brainwashed by their mother to say you raped them, and just because you were in Berlin while they were in America when you raped them, doesn't mean you're innocent! It just means we can't prove your guilt!"

In fact, it's the exact same thing.

If you imprison someone and the evidence used to convict you turns out to be false, you should get paid. End of story. It's not a common event by any means, but it certainly isn't unheard of.

This is basically telling people they have to prove their innocence (pretty much impossible) if they don't want to get raped with no recourse by the legal system.


Good post.
 
2011-05-04 11:26:57 PM
they all agreed in fact that this man was actually innocent and was owed the money, the defense lawyers f*cked up and didn't notice one little word was out of place or some such. I know they are good people and all, but ultimately it was their responsibility to make sure it was there.
 
2011-05-04 11:28:09 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2011-05-04 11:28:29 PM
"I'm willing to testify to the fact that we believe he's innocent," says Kelly Siegler, the special prosecutor in the case. "I've signed an affidavit. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to make it happen."
 
2011-05-04 11:29:17 PM

TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.


What is this... I don't even....


/You do realize you are a complete douchebag right?
 
2011-05-04 11:30:33 PM
That is seriously farked up.
 
2011-05-04 11:31:35 PM

Schlock: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Not convicted is not convicted. When does a judge ever find someone innocent?


Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.
 
2011-05-04 11:31:37 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The best argument against the death penalty. Not only do courts fark things up by accident, they are ready and willing to intentionally make shiat up and send innocent people to prison.


Anybody involved with it ought to be tried and prosecuted for attempted murder.
 
2011-05-04 11:31:55 PM

jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...


Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.
 
2011-05-04 11:34:44 PM

SinPiEqualsZero: Someone give him a pair of bootstraps.

/our system can majorly suck sometimes


I'm thinking about opening a bootstrap factory, should be really profitable!
 
2011-05-04 11:36:40 PM

MrPenny: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....


What he's said is completely nonsensical. ALL "not guilty" decisions are due to not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on the state, the defense's sole job is to poke holes in the prosecutions case, and they aren't obligated to provide any proof of their own.

You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2011-05-04 11:36:45 PM

sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with his handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.


der fixeds dim it spelling errors.
 
2011-05-04 11:39:02 PM

sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.


Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.
 
2011-05-04 11:40:24 PM
Look, I didnt say it was right or good. The Comptroller is the guardian of the state treasury. We can't have her just deciding on her own that some law is terrible and she is gonna just pay the guy anyway. It is a slippery slope. If we allow elected officials to break the law as they see fit then eventually the law won't apply to them.

The congress is gonna have to fix the law and then Rick Perry will sign it. Democracy takes time. A dictatorship can do this sort of thing quickly but frankly I don't want Rick Perry as a dictator, do you?
 
2011-05-04 11:43:42 PM

jadedlee: Actual innocence is a post-conviction finding overturning a wrongful conviction. Think of it this way, at the first trial you're innocent until proven guilty - therefore guilty or not guilty. After conviction you're guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof shifts from state to defense.


Alright, now I get you. But then how do you have a conviction overturned without the person being considered innocent by default, as in this case? The fact that it was overturned should mean de facto innocence, regardless of how it was worded on the paperwork
 
2011-05-04 11:44:10 PM
The Washington/Burleson County D.A. is

William E. Parham,
110 S. Park Street,
Brenham, Texas 77833-3645,
phone 979-277-6247,
w­parha­m[nospam-﹫-backwards]ytn­uoc­aw*com
 
2011-05-04 11:44:54 PM

TheWhoppah: If we allow elected officials to break the law as they see fit then eventually the law won't apply to them.


I'm sorry, but you stretched it juuust a bit too far with that one.
 
2011-05-04 11:46:25 PM

Schlock: MrPenny: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Damn.....this thread was going all crazy like and this guy decides to drop a huge steaming load of sensible, reasonable, and straight shiat on it....

Good way to harsh the buzz man.....

What he's said is completely nonsensical. ALL "not guilty" decisions are due to not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on the state, the defense's sole job is to poke holes in the prosecutions case, and they aren't obligated to provide any proof of their own.

You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


Again, after the conviction the burden shifts from the state to the defense. New evidence deemed by the Court to show actual innocence (like hey, we caught the real killer and it wasn't this guy) is used to grant reviews which overturn convictions.
 
2011-05-04 11:47:31 PM

jadedlee: New evidence deemed by the Court to show actual innocence (like hey, we caught the real killer and it wasn't this guy) is used to grant reviews which overturn convictions.


You mean, like the real killer saying "hey, this guy who you convicted, solely based on my testimony? Yeah, he's innocent..." more than once?
 
2011-05-04 11:47:41 PM

Schlock: You can't PROVE innocence, all you can do is disrupt the prosecution's attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt


The law in Texas is that you only get paid if you were in prison while actually innocent. If you are released on a technicallity that doesn't count. You only get paid if you can prove you were innocent. Lots of states have this exact same rule and some states don't offer ANYTHING AT ALL to wrongfully convicted prisoners.
 
2011-05-04 11:48:54 PM

TheWhoppah: If you are released on a technicallity that doesn't count.


So the expert witness recanting his testimony, on multiple occasions, is a technicality. Got it.
 
2011-05-04 11:48:59 PM

veryunoriginal: This is Texas, the same state that executed this man for murdering his family in a fire.

/many of y'all are probably familiar with the case
//I literally shook with anger the first time I read it


I hope that in my lifetime Texas is forced to admit to this. I'm sure they won't, but I'm with you, this is the best example of our flawed system.
 
2011-05-04 11:49:43 PM

apoptotic: And people wonder why I flip out on them when they refer to Alberta as Texas North.


Here here! We're nothing like Texas. The average Alberta politician is at his very worst a pushy jerk. They aren't evil or malicious, they don't really have much in the way of a core defining political, philosophical or religious guiding principal, they are typically personally uninspired and bland people. The only thing that unites the two versions of our continental Right wing conservatives together is the steadfast notion that most of their constituents is a solipsist who doesn't like to hear anybody else's opinion on any topic whatsoever.

Albertans are more like Nebraskans, Dakotans, maybe Minnesotans, Wisconsinites, or perhaps Ohioans than anybody from the West. On our very darkest day, we never even beat "Colorado" for socially repugnant abuse of power.
 
2011-05-04 11:50:18 PM
Expert = "only," my mistake.
 
2011-05-04 11:50:20 PM
Texas: a whole state of examples of what NOT to do.
 
2011-05-04 11:51:24 PM

TheWhoppah: Genta: "so if he's let out because it cant be proven that he was guilty... then he's actually innocent. theres no half innocent in american law as far as i know."

Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. A judge or jury never finds a defendant "innocent" rather the finding is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think he is guilty but they have a reasonable doubt, he is legally "not guilty" even though he might be factually guilty of the crime.


So we should use a cattle-brand on their forehead "P/G" = partial guilty? Possibly we could add another "/M" for = maybe on top of that. You can never be sure! Think of the children! Convict or don't Convict. Anything else is UnAmerican according to your brainwashing? In my 1975's schooling while I was pledging allegence to the USA flag, being brainwashed about how we were the shining light of the entire world to be looked to by the entire world, maybe I think a bit differently. Yeesh, people like you are scary.
 
2011-05-04 11:53:00 PM

jadedlee: sip111: jadedlee: Inibrius: TheWhoppah: Repeat.

This exact story has been posted to Fark.com at least twice before so all y'all with short memories must think this sort of thing happens all the time in Texas.

The law is pretty clear. We don't give payouts to people who were merely legally not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... you only get paid if you were actually innocent. That makes sense if you think about it. If you really did do it but he cops can't prove it or maybe they can prove it but they used illegal evidence and the conviction was overturned... you don't get paid.

The law says we only pay people who were released because they are actually innocent. The court order does not say he was actually innocent. The Comptroller is an accountant. She is not qualified to determine if a person is actually innocent. How would you like it if the perosn elected to be your state accountant just decided to bend the rules and pay somebody a million dollars of your tax money?


The reason this story is in the news again now is that the state legislature is currently in session considering new bills and there are proposed laws to fix this sort of error.

Bullshiat. In the eyes of the law, innocent = not guilty. She's just being a coont because it doesn't SAY 'innocent' on the paperwork.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, innocent and not guilty are not the same thing, just as nolo contendere is not the same as a guilty plea.

That said, this person is lacking common farking sense and even the smallest drop of human decency. Really, if Rick Perry can see that this is morally wrong...

Rick Perry doesn't know what morality is, he thinks that normative ethics is something that involves list making and Santa Clause. The man is retarded, and is reelected simply because he has nice hair and is a republican. The highest point in his life so far was shooting some wolfs with is handgun while jogging. Also there's a little known state tenet that holds, any one qualified to be Governor of Texas should never, under any circumstances, be aloud to do the job. Zaphod Beeblebrox was Governor before Bush Jr.

Um, I'm pretty sure we're of the same opinion on Rick Perry. Maybe you just missed this in the article? "Despite criticism from Gov. Rick Perry - and pretty much everyone else - the comptroller has stood by this decision, which has prompted a lawsuit."

My point was Rick Perry, who barely qualifies as a human being, can see that this is an injustice. That makes this comptroller less human than Rick Perry, which is almost an accomplishment.


*Rereads, dammit, puts down beer.* Very true. The comptrollers in Texas are also historically incompetent, uncultured-and proud of it-dontcha' know (they see Mexico from their houses in Austin), baboons. The one before her, who could at least count higher than Ricky, that is all the way to ham, tried to tell people what were and weren't "real" religionsTM, and went about revoking tax exempt status from those she deemed "not real religions."

Seriously, you can't make this sort of stuff up.
 
2011-05-04 11:53:13 PM
fark Susan Combs, dumb farking biatch. That man should get his payout doubled for the trouble (to put it mildly) he had to go through. He was totally farked by the system.

I'd write if her if it wasn't futile.
 
2011-05-04 11:53:44 PM
ahem

GIVE THAT INNOCENT MAN THE MONEY YOU CHEAP BASTARDS!

that is all.
 
2011-05-04 11:54:02 PM
I think Florida should sue Drew to make him add a Texas tag. If we've got one they should have one too. What a farked up place.
 
2011-05-04 11:55:52 PM
Next time Texas threatens to secede can we just call their bluff?

/please
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report