Amazing the certainty you guys have about House, given the evidence against him.
 

Well, I trust the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judges more than I trust your opinion, whoever you are anonymous.
 

Ike, the opinions do not foreclose House's guilt, they merely state that the evidence, as presented to the jury and as supplemented to date, no longer supports a conviction. That does not mean that House is innocent. It means that the state can retry him. There is a good deal of evidence that implicates this guy. But hey, what difference does it make, there's a cause to support. Your certainty reminds me of those who state that a conviction equals certainty of guilt, which we know is silly. Given all of the procedural protections for criminals in our justice system, sometimes people actually get away with murder. House could very well be one of those guys.
 

for any anonymous comments that may leave others nonplussed, here ya go- a criminal justice major and law school bound individual here simply has this to say: often times the judicial process is MORE CONCERNED WITH PROCEDURE THAN FAIRNESS!!

and, i'd like to add that i support every aspect TCASK stands for since the sentence of the death penalty in TN is both arbitrary and capricious.

FREE PAUL HOUSE!!!!
 

Anonymous,

"But hey, what difference does it make, there's a cause to support."

Yes, a very good cause because the evidence in support of his innocence is massive and creates a sizeable amount of reasonable doubt, enough to exonerate him off of death row. We use the word innocence because it is attention grabbing, but House, along with the other 126 exonerated individuals, will never be declared innocent. They are exonerated in a system that has realized that the evidence creates enough substantial doubt.

"Your certainty reminds me of those who state that a conviction equals certainty of guilt."

Yes, we are certain that the state has little evidence to win in a retrial. I think our chief complaint is why that trial has not occurred. Whatever our certainty makes you think of I could care less, your opinion is useless because you hide behind anonymous.

Regardless of whether or not House did it, which in my opinion, he did not, this is a clear example of those in power delaying justice in order to avoid admitting being wrong.
 

You know, Ike, take a look at Timothy Hennis, one of the "innocent" people "exonerated". When people have to be retried after years, sometimes they get away with murder. Funny how you guys pretend to be interested in truth, yet use deliberately obfuscatory words like "innocent". And you even admit that you do it to grab attention. "Innocent" means to the average layment "didn't do it", i.e., someone like Kirk Bloodworth; it's hardly an adjective I'd use to describe someone like Jeremy Sheets.
 

I'll admit or tell the truth about any of our tactics. We have nothing to hide. Sorry that the argument of "innocence" bothers you, but it is a compelling argument in favor of abolition.

Let me ask you this, are you a District Attorney? Has any action you've taken resulted in the execution of an inmate? I highly doubt it anonymous.

Sam Milsap, the former Bexar County DA prosecuted many death penalty cases. All that received a death sentence from him are dead. He also prosecuted Reuben Cantu, a man that was very likely innocent and executed. Milsap now feels strongly against the death penalty. This new sentiment is founded on his concerns of the risk placed on innocent individuals and he has to live every day of his life wondering if Cantu was innocent. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

The next time you spout off about how we use "obfuscatory" words like "innocent," think of Milsap. He's the real deal, you are not. You are anonymous.
 

Let me start off by saying that the possibility of an innocent man being executed is a valid argument about the death penalty. I have never argued that it is not. So your apology for bothering me with arguments of "innocent" is sheer nonsense. I can be accused of many things, but I don't think that rejecting as invalid valid arguments because something "bothers" me is a fair accusation.

What does bother me, and I think that if you read carefully what I've written you'll see it, is the misleading use of the term "innocent". Given my clear use of the example of Kirk Bloodworth, a demonstrably innocent man sentenced to death, I obviously understand that innocent people have received death sentences. (This, of course, makes your assumption that the argument that the death penalty is wrong because of the possibility of executing the innocent "bothers" me somewhat silly.)

What "bothers" me about the use of the term "innocent" is that it is deliberately obfuscatory. When someone is "innocent" of a crime, that means that they didn't do it. It does not pick up people who merely got away with the crime. Well, guess what, it is highly likely that a significant portion of those 126 actually got away with it. But you are telling the world that they all didn't do it. That is fundamentally dishonest, and that it is done for "attention" makes it more so. Ike, if your cause is so just, why be misleading? I guess accuracy doesn't matter if your idealism is based on "truth and justice".

In any event, I am not a prosecutor. I have heard of Cantu's case. Not sure if Milsap's right or wrong about it. It's something that, at the end of the day, is unknowable.