
Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder? - fmihaila
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html
======
mannykannot
If Cooper is innocent then, in my view, those who obstructed his exoneration
are as guilty as those who framed him - and if he is executed, then what they
are all guilty of is the moral equivalent of murder.

------
stuaxo
Variations of this story are repeated again and again, and that's just the
ones we know about. Institutional racism doesn't quite cover it,
institutionalised murder does.

~~~
gargravarr
For this reason I am glad the UK eliminated the death penalty back into the
50s. Many times, after serious crimes, media figures will call for it to be
reinstated, but it just isn't worth the risk. One of the final people executed
in the UK, Timothy Evans, was convicted on flimsy evidence and was later
exonerated. Admitting someone was innocent of a crime is pretty meaningless
after they have been executed for it. Might as well just put your hands up and
say 'whoops'. And here the court could hand down a death sentence for such
inconsistent and inconclusive (from Cooper's perspective) evidence? The
criteria for capital punishment should be so tight as to practically require
the perpetrator to be caught standing over the victim holding the stained
knife.

At the same time, the underpinnings of racism here are appalling, as they
often are in these repeating stories. Anyone blocking new examination of
evidence _knows_ for certain the conviction is unsound and that the
conclusions could be decisive. Reading through this story, yes of course the
author is biased, but it's plainly black and white, quite literally. Why else
would all witness testimony point towards white criminals, they're literally
handed the necessary evidence to convict a white criminal and yet the
authorities pursue a single black man for the crime. Hideous. The most
disturbing thing is, if asked how they sleep at night, I would have no doubt
the sheriff's officers would have no hesitation in saying 'perfectly fine,
thank you'.

~~~
hospes
>> The most disturbing thing is, if asked how they sleep at night, I would
have no doubt the sheriff's officers would have no hesitation in saying
'perfectly fine, thank you'.

What amazes me is that these officers and their families live in the same
city/county or even in the same neighborhood with these alleged criminals, and
yet they feel perfectly OK to let them walk away and instead catch some random
black guy and send him to be executed. How much you should not care about your
own family, yourself, friends,... to do that? How much hate one should have
toward other race(s), to be able to send someone innocent from that race to be
executed, solely based on the skin color?

~~~
gargravarr
I didn't think about it from that angle. You're absolutely right. That really
does make it worse.

I think I'll defer to Depeche Mode on this one:

    
    
      People are people so why should it be    
      You and I should get along so awfully    
      
      So we're different colours  
      And we're different creeds  
      And different people have different needs  
      It's obvious you hate me  
      Though I've done nothing wrong  
      I never even met you  
      So what could I have done
      
      I can't understand  
      What makes a man  
      Hate another man  
      Help me understand

------
docker_up
People seem to think that EITHER Republicans OR Democrats are terrible. They
forget that it's _politicians_ regardless of political leanings that are
corrupt and disgusting.

Very prominent Democrats could easily order those advanced DNA tests that
could offer justice, but they don't care about justice, they care about
personal convenience. I have no doubt Republicans in exactly the same
situation would behave exactly the same.

It's horrible that this is occurring and there is nothing we can do about this
except vote out these politicians.

~~~
saghm
> People seem to think that EITHER Republicans OR Democrats are terrible

OT, but I've always found it interesting that in English, "or" is often (and
maybe even usually) implied to be "xor". Sometimes I joke that we should just
call "xor" "or" and then rename the old "or" to "inclusive or".

~~~
taeric
I think that is only the case when it is for something where you also have to
be in one of the categories. For many people, it isn't A OR B. It is their
group, or the other group. That is significant.

Even many of the people that point out it can be both, typically identify as a
third option. It isn't "my group can also be bad." It is "both of those groups
could be bad." Where the talker is pointing from the outside.

~~~
coldtea
> _I think that is only the case when it is for something where you also have
> to be in one of the categories. For many people, it isn 't A OR B. It is
> their group, or the other group. That is significant._

You want coffee or tea?

~~~
taeric
Isn't that similar in that you join with one of the groups?

I mean, yes, the language construct is clearly often used as an exclusive, but
it is a language construct where context supplies a large part is the meaning.

~~~
coldtea
> _Isn 't that similar in that you join with one of the groups?_

The argument above was about emotional attachment to one's group though (that
they can't fathom to identify as possibly also bad) -- here it's merely a
preference or even just a casual order (just because when asked "X or Y" you
ordered X over Y food for dessert this time doesn't mean you're an "X
person").

~~~
taeric
Ah, I see what you mean. I wasn't necessarily trying to index only on the
emotional aspect of it. Though, I think I see how that is required for the way
I framed it.

So, to reframe. For the cases where it is completely "XOR", I think the
emotional attachment matters a lot. For the others, I suspect it is more of a
short circuiting behavior. "Coffee, tea, or soda?" I've often answered that
with "Coffee and soda water, please." That or just stopped listening when they
listed what I wanted anyway. :)

~~~
saghm
> That or just stopped listening when they listed what I wanted anyway. :)

I guess you'll never know if they actually said "XOR" or not then :)

------
oh_sigh
Why won't Jerry Brown allow for DNA testing? The guess as to the reason in the
article doesn't seem very satisfactory to me, because CA has already pardoned
5+ people from death row, so Brown must know that not _all_ people on death
row are guilty.

~~~
hospes
They know that the guy is innocent, they know that DNA test will confirm that.
What they are concerned about is what will happen after he is found not
guilty. Who framed him? How, When, Why? In the end of the day many influential
people can end up in jail. Plus he will probably get millions from the state
for wrongful convocation. They are just covering "their" asses and saving
money, for them it is a win win if he stays guilty and is executed.

~~~
oh_sigh
Why would Jerry Brown protect these people? The event happened 35 years ago.

------
natecavanaugh
FTA: > Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the fate of one man on death row
doesn’t seem so important;

I completely disagree, though the author points this out. But while I am in
the favor of the death penalty in certain cases (until we have a way to
rehabilitate even the most degenerate murderers), the death of even one
innocent should stop us from using it unless there is incontrovertible
evidence and proof of both guilt and the inability to rehabilitate. This
article points out obvious reasonable doubt, and I seriously am baffled as to
why _the California Democrats_ won't even consider it or even justify their
position.

Maybe there's more to the story, but this all seemed incredibly persuasive to
me.

~~~
GuiA
_> I am in the favor of the death penalty in certain cases

> the death of even one innocent should stop us from using it_

In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible.

~~~
coldtea
> _In the real world, "0% false positives" isn't really feasible._

Executing 0% of those false positives is absolutely feasible though, and all
civilized countries have already adopted it for decades...

~~~
b6
I wasn't aware we'd enjoyed a split second of civilization in the entire
history of the earth. Could you list the civilized countries for me?

~~~
coldtea
Those that don't legally murder their citizens, for one.

It might not be the litmus test of civilization, but it would be a good start
(assuming the abolition of slavery, human sacrifice, and such as already
surpassed as a bar).

~~~
natecavanaugh
1\. Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another.
Unless you believe cases of self-defense also count as murder, but the right
language, pedantically speaking would be, legally kill.

2\. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to
kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly.

~~~
coldtea
> _Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another._

That's the pedantic definition though -- not the one that goes beyond what
"the books" say. By that metric, the killings of their own people by Nazi's,
Communist, and right-wing regimes, where also lawful (the state dictated that
those people were to be killed).

And not only people have been calling government/law approved executions
"murder" for ages, academics have as well. E.g:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide)

> _2\. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state
> to kill a human being? I 'm just curious, honestly._

"Justifiable" is a pretty low bar. A false-sense of increased security, or a
request for revenge can also be used as justifications for capital punishment.

But why exactly do you find this difficult to believe?

Dozens of European countries have already decided that "there is never a
justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being" \-- and voted so.

Those countries still have had e.g. pedophile serial killers, and other such
creeps, in the half a century or so without capital punishment, and are
totally fine with just keeping them in jail.

Not only it is less hypocritical ("murder is bad, unless we do it judicially")
and cheaper, it also prevents killing innocents, and allows for the
possibility for exonerating evidence to clear them at a later date.

~~~
natecavanaugh
It's not that I find it hard to believe, but just trying to understand. Would
an actor of the state be justified in killing someone who was threatening
their lives or the lives of others?

------
fjsolwmv
Kristioff wrote aabout this last year too, name-dropping Kamala Harris as one
of the officials refusing to pursue justice, a name people have been
mentioning as a Democratic Presidential contender in 2020:
[https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.ht...](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html)

------
vortico
Could we get a less clickbait title please? EDIT: Thanks!

~~~
jmcgough
HN requires that the actual article title be used, so complaining here isn't
really going to do anything but add noise.

~~~
vortico
The title is "Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder?" The <title> text "One Test
Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It?" is a subtitle / article
description.

~~~
fmihaila
For what it’s worth, I used the HN submit bookmarklet. I didn’t deliberately
choose the title.

------
blackoil
Why is this story `33 points by fmihaila 2 hours ago` below at 27th position,
compared to `29 points by jeffbarr 3 hours ago` (9th pos) and `18 points by
westoncb 3 hours ago` (13th pos).

