Proving innocence?

Posted Friday, Jun. 20, 2014  comments  Print Reprints

Have more to add? News tip? Tell us

Proving innocence?

According to the quote in the article about Lester Bower (see: “Former Arlington man closer to execution”), Judge James Fallon of Grayson County, indicated he was willing to let Bower be put to death even though he recognized new evidence that has emerged since Bower’s trial “could conceivably have produced a different result at trial” although “it does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is actually innocent.”

What kind of state do we live in where the obligation under the law is that defendants must prove their innocence as opposed to the state having the obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., a doubt based on reason?

If the judge admits in writing that there is doubt of guilt based on the reason of new evidence, how in the world can the state legally carry out a death sentence?

Have we all fallen down a rabbit hole into a strange new world where up is down?

Is it not true that proving innocence is not the practice under any state law for the simple reason it puts any individual at risk of being overwhelmed by the power of the state to bring an indictment?

— Bill Lanford, Haltom City

Looking for comments?

We welcome your comments on this story, but please be civil. Do not use profanity, hate speech, threats, personal abuse or any device to draw undue attention. Our policy requires those wishing to post here to use their real identity.

Our commenting policy | Facebook commenting FAQ | Why Facebook?