The Five Drops of Blood

This post is in response to the article, State is using baby's blood samples for....?? published on the Waterloo Political Blog on December 5, 2009. According to the article's author, “Texas state laws mandates that five drops of blood be collected from babies before they leave the hospital. The blood drops are then put on blood cards and submitted to the Department of Health as part of the newborn screening program.” The author complains about the use of the two blood drops because they are being used without parents authorization. The author stands for government asking parents for authorization in order to use the two left over drops. I agree that government should ask for parents' authorization and also should explain the purpose of the two drops left over. But I disagree with the reasons provided by the author to argue that newborn screening program is very wrong and unethical.

Before criticizing the purpose of government take the two left over drops of blood, I want to mention some of the benefits that DNA has brought to our society. The decoding of DNA has been one of the best advances in modern science. Besides the benefits of DNA in medical arena, DNA has also brought benefits in other areas such as criminal justice. According to the website DNA Paternity Tests, DNA tests have served to find criminals. “The guilty are found and convicted and the innocent are exonerated, all on the basis of microscopic evidence that nevertheless is more unique than a fingerprint.” Many criminal cases in the U.S. and around the world has been solved with DNA tests. Today, developed societies are safer than in the past because they have less criminals on the streets. It has also served as a relief for those innocent people who were convicted. Another benefit of DNA Tests is the ability to clarify parental relationships. One of the most common uses of DNA test is when women are looking economical support for their children. Today, irresponsible fathers who deny their children will not have more excuse to face their responsibilities because the DNA can confirm or exclude their parental responsibilities. According the DNA Paternity Test website, DNA test is also used to establish children's custody. For those people who have been adopted, this test offer them the possibility to find their biological families. DNA test is being used in other less known cases such as “to establish grandparentage and to inform decisions on inheritance rights, insurance claims or Social Security benefits. U.S. immigration officials have begun accessing the benefits of DNA testing for proving various biological relationship in foreign immigration cases.”

With this benefits of DNA in mind, it is time to come back to the article published on Waterloo Political Blog. According to the author, just few blood drops are used for medical use. “The tests only require one or two drops of the baby's blood. The leftover blood has been being used by the government since 2002 without parents consent.” The specific purpose of the left over drops is unknown. “When questioned about the reason for taking and storing these blood samples, the state has responded by saying they have used the blood samples for "research".” According to Austin News, Government taking newborn DNA samples, “two weeks later, their pediatrician collects another five drops of blood. The blood cards are submitted to the Texas Department of State Health Services as part of the Newborn Screening program. One or two drops are used to screen for a list of serious medical conditions.” These two drops have been the motivitation for Andrea Beleno and other parents complained against the state. "Jim Harrington, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, who is representing Beleno and the other families in the federal lawsuit, said it violates the 4h and 14th Amendments of the U. S. Constitution.” I think it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, the U.S. Constitution should be modified in order to clarify all the issues related to the technological advances that have emerged after it was written. Beleno and other partents' lawsuit got some changes in the Texas Constitution under the House Bill 1672. According to Austin News, " House Bill 1672 allows the State to keep and use the samples for research, but requires parents be informed and given the option of having their children’s leftover blood samples destroyed after screening. The state has 60 days to destroy the blood cards after receiving the official notification form from parents. The bill mandates to destroy the card containing the dried blood spots, but does not require that the information gathered be deleted.” However, the author of the Waterloo Political Blog considerate it as “still very wrong and unethical.” “this program is so unethical is that the government has done nothing to find out what research is being done with the blood.” But I disagree with this statement. I think people fought to get informed when their baby's blood will be used and for the government asking them for authorization. Well, in my opinion, they got what they want it. They are being informed and the blood example can be destroyed. They did not fight for the information obtained from the example. Finally, the author stands for stopping the screening program. But thinking in all the good benefits mentioned above, I think this program should not be terminated. Whatever research that government is doing I believe is with the purpose to improve society, and offer these babies a better world.

Brackenrdige Tract to be re-developed

The Brackenridge Tract is a land donated in 1910 to the University of Texas by Colonel George Brackenridge for “advancing and promoting university education” as stated in the donor's original deed. This information was taken from the article "Year in review: condos, Brackenridge Tract, air qulity," published on the Community Impact Newspaper on Dec.4, 2009 (Ref. 1). The Tract is located few miles west from Austin downtown, and with the recent urban development it has gained economic value tremendously in the last years. Currently, the land is being used mainly for UT graduate students housing, a municipal golf course and a biological laboratory. The University is now considering to re-develop the land and change its use. For that purpose, a New York-based firm was hired to propose redeveloping plans for a more appropriate use of it. The proposed plan, which is being reviewed by the University Board of Regents, calls for relocating the student housing apartment complexes, tear down the golf course and the research lab, and build a dense residential neighbourhood. According to Wagal (Reference 2), “the two proposals, called the “Brackenridge Park” and “Brackenridge Village” concept plans, segment the tract into five walkable neighborhoods, each containing an assortment of housing units, restaurants, grocery stores and retail outlets.” This plan has been controversial among the affected community. The question is: is the current use not what Col. Brackenridge intended in his deed or in benefit of the Univieristy's interests? In my opinion, the current use is appropriate and the tract should be preserved.
A recent survey (Reference 3) among the potentially affected graduate students is overwhelming: none of the proposed plans would improve the quality of life of the graduate students. The ultimate essence of the University are the students, so it should use its resources for their benefit. Furthermore, if the University wants to be competitive, it should be concerned of offering to its students affordable housing. The top major Universities in the US have similar programs for graduate students in order to attract good students. According to the cited survey, 41% the current residents think that housing influenced their decision to come to UT. They also claim that the apartment complexes offer a family friendly environment, affordability and green space. The plan proposes to relocate all current residents into a new complex with more than 800 apartments in a land where currently there are less than 200 apartments. I think this option would not add quality life to the graduate students. It would be too over-crowed, and it would lose the family environment that currently has.
The biological research laboratory is also aligned with the university goals: to provide means for research. Biology is a science that deals with natural life, therefore in order to study it, a natural area is required. The biological lab is fulfilling that purpose. Faculty member of the biology department have expressed their concern about this redeveloping plan. As in the case of students, the University should attract good professors to be competitive. If it does not offer resources for research, the great scientists would not like to come to work for UT.
The only part of the land that is not being used for “advancing and promoting education” is the golf course and some land rented for commercial businesses, which is the proposed usage for the rest of the land. I agree that this part should be re-distributed, but planned in accordance with educational or research purposes rather than more commercial use. The driving force for the redeveloping plan is clearly the eager for making more money from that property. The city of Austin should also intervene in order to “keep Austin beautiful,” as the city slogan says. A dense population near downtown would increase the traffic and would be devastating for the green spaces that make the city attractive.
In conclusion, the current use of the Tract is aligned with the educational and research purposes of the University and should be maintained or improved, not reduced. The Board of Regents should keep in mind the mission of the University instead of economical drivers.

References
1.Community Impact Newspaper, Dec 4, 2009- Jan 14, 2010, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 19.
2.Wagal, N. “Students voice concerns over affordable housing”, article published in The Daily Texan on Sept 9, 2009.
3.Survey of University Apartments Residents' Opinions on the Proposed Redevelopment of Graduate Student Housing. www.utgraduatestudentassembly.org/download_doc.php?id=347

Should Texans have health care?

The article, “Ron tackles heath care,” published on the Ron's Texas Politics and Gov'ment Stuff blog on November 23, 2009, talks about a health care bill. The author has chosen one of the most controversial issues in the country, heath care, and one of the most affected states is Texas. According to the article, “Texans trying to survive without health insurance,” published on the Austin American Statesman, “5.7 million: About 25 percent of the population of Texas is uninsured, a higher percentage than any other state.” Furthermore, the book “Texas Politics and Government,” says that 22% of Texan children are uninsured. These numbers place Texas as the state with the highest number of insured people in the United States without mentioning that Texas has the largest percentage of population living below the poverty level. According the author of "Ron tackles heath care" article, “The substance of the plan, as I see it, being pushed by some congressional democrats is to greatly expand the number of people medically covered by the government by requiring people to have coverage and then offering a government subsidized “Public Option” (insurance) in lieu of obtaining private coverage.” Through this comment, the author shows his discontent with the idea of giving Texans public health care. However, I stand for this idea. In my opinion, governments should provides free or low-cost insurance to their people.

First of all, having heath insurance is a right that every citizen should have. However, the author does not stand for this idea. He says, “health care is not a right.” I found this statement very strong. People have the right to live, to be educated, to work, to pay taxes, but they do not have the right to have a health care. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its Article 25, clearly states that “(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.” Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands for the right of having medical care, the U.S. government does not provide it to its people. In addition, the author mentions some words from the Declaration of Independence, “I don't believe that whole “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” entitlement involves me paying for someone else's health care.” It is curious that the authors mentions the words “life” and “pursuit of happiness.” Are these two words unattainable for the 5.7 uninsured million people in Texas? What about “pursuit the happiness” Can a sick person who is suffering from pain 24 hours be happy? Government should fulfill each requirement written in the constitution, and it is obvious that these 5.7 million Texans cannot pursuit their happiness.

Another of the author's comments is “I believe that most people who don't have coverage aren't interested in paying for it...” However the article “Texans trying to survive without health insurance” mentions several reasons for which Texans do not have insurance different from lacking interest. It says that “Most are employed. Two-thirds of uninsured Texas adults younger than 65 have jobs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.” "For many folks, it is simply just completely unaffordable." Then why does Texas have a higher percentage of uninsured people than other states? According to the article, “Workers here are less likely than those in other states to get insurance from their jobs.” “Families USA attributes the growing number of uninsured Americans to rising health insurance premiums, changes in the labor market and underfunded government programs.” In other words, millions Texas are uninsured because their employers do not pay for it, or because the money they make is not enough to pay it or others who work and are insured, but not their families. Being without insurance is directly related to the poverty level. As it was mentioned above, Texas has the largest percentage of population living below the poverty level. Then it can explain why people cannot afford to pay for health insurance. The only hope that these people have is in the legislators' hands. It should exist a law that forces all employers to provide health care to their employees.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)

Television has shown recently several cases of illegal immigrant women claiming for their children who were given in adoption while their mothers were imprisoned or deported. After women finishing their sentences they try to recover their children, but they realized that they have lost the parental rights under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which requires states to terminate parental rights if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Is that situation right? Should be the children taken away from their mothers? In my opinion, this is a dramatic situation that should not occur because it affects the biological and adoptive mothers, but at the end, the most affected is the child.
First of all, it is important to mention that every year hundreds of women cross the U.S.-Mexico border looking for a better live for them and for their children. They leave their countries most of the time due to extreme poverty. They are able to arrive to the American territory thanks to coyotes. Once they enter into the U.S., these women and their families must pay large amount of money to these human dealers. In the case that they do not pay, their lives and their relatives’ lives are jeopardized. In order to pay that money, undocumented woman have to work intense hours without mentioning that they have to live with constant fear of being caught by the immigration authorities and being deported. There is a high probability that these ladies be caught by the authorities, and when it occur, they will be send to the prison or deported or both. When the children are separated from their mothers, they are sent to the foster care waiting for their parents to pick them up. However, according to the ASFA, parental rights can be terminated if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. After that time, the children can be given in adoption. Once undocumented mother are deported or incarcerated, they realize that after few months, they lose their children and start the process to recover them. This dramatic situation can be demonstrated through three cases: Encarnacion Bail Romero, Maria Luis and Lucia Leon. All of these are undocumented mothers who have lost their children in raids. These mothers lost their parental rights over their children while they were imprisoned and deported. The first case is the Guatemalan mother, Encarnacion Bail Romero. According to an article named, "After Losing Freedom, Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their Children," published on the New York Times, she was arrested in a raided in the poultry processing plant where she was working. She was sent to the prison. “A year and a half after she went to jail, a county court terminated Ms. Bail’s rights to her child on grounds of abandonment. Carlos, now 2, was adopted by a local couple.” The judge said, “The only certainties in the biological mother’s future,” he wrote, “is that she will remain incarcerated until next year, and that she will be deported thereafter.” Ms. Bail’s case is unfair because she did not abandon her son. Her son was carried away by the authorities. At the same as Encarnacion, Maria Luis and Lucia Leon also lost their parental rights over their children while they were imprisoned. Even though that these women are undocumented, poor and imprisoned, they should not lose their parental rights because they are mothers, and the fact that they are separated from their children is painful. Their children should be sent to the fore care homes until their mothers finish their jail sentences.
Besides the severe punishments that undocumented mothers face such as jail, deportation, losing their children, their children and adoptive families also suffer. It is not easy for adoptive families follow all the adoption process, adopt a child for a while and after lose him or her. When families adopt children, they do not expect that their children will be claimed by their biological parents. When they adopt a child, it is expected that they love and protect him or her and offering him or her basic needs such as food, housing, education, clothing among other needs. Once biological mothers begin the process to recover their children, their adoptive parents also begin a process to avoid lose them. Both families suffer because of the custody, and of course, who most suffer is the child, when he or she is separated from their parents whatever they be biological or adoptive. This process on children it also related to the age. If they are in age that they still remember their biological mother, it will be really painful for them to adapt to their adoptive families, and it will be pleasant for them to be with their biological parents again. Another scenario is when children are too little to remember their biological mothers. If they win the custody, it will be painful for the children. It is like begin the process of adaptation again which will be traumatic. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) just focuses on the physical or material needs that children have, but it does not focus on the emotional aspects of the children and families. Also, none one says how these kids will react when they grow up and understand that their biological parents did not give them away that it was the government that forced their parents to be away from their own children. Could it cause a unpatriotic feeling? Due to The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) is relatively recent (1997) it is still soon to observe the social impact of the act. In brief, in order to avoid the children’s, and biological and adoptive mothers’ suffering, governments should not give in adoption kids while their parents are incarcerate or deported. The decision of giving a child in adoption should be the parents’ will.

Standing for Women!

It was very disappointing and unpleasant to find the article called, “The Incredibly Shrinking Women,” published on November 9, 2009 on the blog “In The Pink Texas.” This article, or better this poor note, talks in favor on men and against women involved in politics. The author supports his or her ideas by showing a video of a debate related to the “Unruly Republicans Disrupt Health Care debate.” In this video, Democratic women are trying to be heard, but Republicans do not allow them to talk by repeating all the time, “I object” “I object.” It is evident from the video that men are disrespecting women, but according to the author, the debate “was perfectly balanced.” In my opinion, this note does not deserve be read for several reasons related to respect for women and political contend.
First of all the article fosters the male chauvinism. The author clearly shows displeasure against women by saying, “Whenever I see a woman talking, I tune her out until a man starts speaking because I don’t want to hear about “boyfriends” and “cramps” and “does this make my butt look big.”” In addition, the authors says, “before you get all feminazi on me, I’m not saying that all women are stupid. I’m just saying that men are smarter.” After reading the article, it was really interesting for me to realize that the author of the article is a WOMAN!! Her name is Eileen Smith. Now I ask myself, how this woman can stand for men? Even worst, this lady’s pink blog has been the winner of the Austin Chronicle’s best political blog awards in 2007 and 2008. I just wish somebody tells me that I misunderstood the article because I cannot believe that this beautiful, journalist WOMAN stands against her gender.
A second reason for not reading the article is that it is poor in content. The author just states horrible feelings against women, but nothing else. What was the message? What was her purpose? It is not clear. It just stands for men’s positions. But the truth is that women are underrepresented in the political arena in the United States. Women are the largest population in the country. According to the article, “US Population Data by Age and Sex Released,” the U.S. population is conformed by 50.73%. Then, women should have a stronger political representation, and they should be respected by others, especially by men. As it is shown in the video, Republican men are very rude with women by interrupting them at all times.
In brief, the article should not be read because it fosters male chauvinism and is poor in content. The author could make the article stronger by making a deeper focus on her point of view.

Texas The Same-Sex Marriage

The United States, a country that proclaims itself as a free country and that stands for individual's freedom, is denying the right of getting married and divorced to a specific group of citizens, homosexuals. To understand the issue, it is necessary to start from the marriage definition. “The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman.” In other words, marriages of gays and lesbians are not legal. However, the process to change this definition has already begun. Today, the same -sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Recently, in Dallas, Texas a judge divorced a gay couple admitting that it was unconstitutional to deny them the right to get divorced. To many, this case opens the door for the legal recognition of homosexual couples in Texas. Although this can be considered as advancement for the gay community, there are many people who continue opposing to the issue. This opposition can be seen in the article, “One gay marriage, empathy is a two-way street” by Rood Drecher. This article was published on November 6, 2009 in the editorial section of the Dallas Morning News. It can be inferred from the article that the author opposes to the legal recognition of homosexual marriages. Should the same-sex marriage be banned in Texas? In my opinion, it should be legally recognized.

First of all, gay marriage should not be banned because it violates the Texans' equal rights and freedom. Everyone is free to choose the person with whom he or she wants to share his or her life. If a person chooses somebody of the same sex, Texas government should not interfere with this important, personal decision, and government should not deny the right to get married or divorced to this person. Mr. Dreher, in his article, “One gay marriage, empathy is a two-way street,” mentions some of the negative consequences of recognizing of gay marriage. For example, he writes, “And thoughtful traditionalists understand that legalizing same-sex marriage almost certainly would bring about serious restrictions on freedom of speech and association, particularly for churches and religious organizations. Nobody is going to force pastors to marry same-sex couples.” He points out the church's restrictions, but what about the restrictions of people's decisions? It is a direct violation of individual's freedom. Moreover, Mr. Dreher says, “Gay marriage opponents are not crazy to fear what may be done to them should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. In California, supporters of Proposition 8, which repealed same-sex marriage, have suffered vandalism, job and business loss, intimidation and harassment by activists.” Once again, the author just worries about the opponents' situation. From his statement, it can be understood that it is good to keep illegal the homosexual marriage in order of protecting opponents' integrity. Mr. Dreher mentions the potential problems that these people could face, ignoring the discrimination and abuses that homosexuals facing everyday. Although Texas is a very traditional, conservative state, fortunately significant changes are occurring that narrowed the gap of the same-sex marriage legalization. The article called, “Judge: Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional,” published in the DFW News, on October 2, 2009 talks about a judge who divorced a gay couple in Texas. The Judge Tena Callahan conceded the divorce to a homosexual couple who had gotten married in Massachusetts. According to the article, Judge Callahan said, "the state's bans on same-sex marriages violate the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law." This is a clear evidence of advancement in favor of legalization the gay marriage.

In addition, the same-sex marriages should not be banned because it ignores the rights of people as a couple. Texas law opposes to legalize homosexual marriages. However, gay couples are stable couples that live in the same as heterogeneous couple live, sharing their lives, their place and their money. Therefore gays should have the same rights as heterogeneous have. Stable homosexual couples in Texas just dream when their relationship will be socially and legally accepted, and when they will have the same rights than the rest of the tax payers. According to the article, "Legal and economic benefits of marriage" published on the Religious & Tolerance Organization, “on the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits.” In heterogeneous marriages, the partner have some legal rights such as: joint insurance policies for home, auto and health, dissolution and divorce protections such as community property, immigration and residency for partners from other countries, inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare. These are just few of the legal rights that heterogeneous spouses have. However, NONE of these rights applies to homosexual partners in Texas even though they fulfill spouses' roles. It is very embarrassing that Texas law support homophobia, but it is even ore embarrassing that governor supports this discrimination. According to an article called, “Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question,” published on The Dallas Morning News on October 2, 2009, Governor Rick Perry supports the constitutional prohibition on gay marriage saying, “"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," he said in a prepared statement. "I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed."” But the truth is that gay partners have the same function in a relationship as the heterogeneous spouses have; however, the Texas constitution denies all of the rights to them, which is considered as discrimination. The Texan constitution should legally protect all partners in a relationship regardless their sexual inclination.

In conclusion, the same-sex marriages and divorces should be legally recognized in Texas because there are not reasons to ban them. The only reason could be homophobia. People, especially men do not like homosexuals and they cannot accept seeing them as legal couple. As it was said before homosexuals should have the same rights to get married and get divorced as the same as heterogeneous have. Denying this right is a violation of their freedom. Also, they should have the same legal rights that heterogeneous spouses derive from their partners such as joint to insurance policies, pension plans and immigration residence for partners and property among other legal rights.

Texas Capital Punishment

Texas is the state with the highest number of people executed. Many people including citizens and organizations have tried in vain to make Texas government abolish the capital punishment. To understand this issue better, it is necessary to know what is the capital felony, in what cases it is applied and what are the methods of execution. According to the "Tarlton Law Library: Jamail Center for Legal Research," capital felony is defined as, “is one in which an individual "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual under special circumstances.” For example, “murder of a public safety officer or firefighter in the line of duty, murder during the commission of specified felonies (kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, arson), murder for remuneration, multiple murders, murder during prison escape, murder of a correctional officer, murder of a judge, murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; [or] murder of an individual under six years of age.” Among the methods used for execution are: hanging, electric chair and lethal injection. Is the death penalty a fair punishment? Well, in my opinion, the capital punishment should not exist because it has been questioned that many of the executed are innocent people.
Death penalty in Texas should be abolished to avoid executing innocent people. Few weeks ago, Texas was the center of the national news due to the execution of Cameron Todd Willinfgham. The article called “Trial by Fire,” published by The New Yorker on September 7, 2009, talks about Cameron Todd Willinfgham who was accused of set fire to his home causing the death of his three children (one baby and one toddler). The facts occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. The article gives a touching description of the events occurred on that day. It describes how desperate Mr. Willinfgham was trying to save his children, but more importantly, the article describes the process of the original investigation of the fire. The investigation was leaded by a certified arson investigator, Douglas Fogg who had more than 20 years of experience and by a deputy marshal named Manuel Vasquez, who had investigated more than 1200 fires. Base on Fogg and Vasquez's investigation, Cameron Todd Willinfgham, was executed by lethal injection on 2004. As it is explained in the next paragraph, this investigation was found to be wrong. There is no evidence that proves Mr. Willinfgham’s responsibility.
Besides of the investigations that show that Cameron Todd Willinfgham was innocent, also there are governmental actions that make people to question the execution of Mr. Willinfgham. AccTexas Capital Punishmentording to an article called, “Capital punishment: From Arson to Politics” published on October 22, 2009, the Texas governor decision of substitute the commissioner that was investigating the fire was replace. Is that a coincidence or was intentionally? To many people, the governor is trying to cover a mistake. According to the article, “investigators testified that based on the burn patterns in the house, the fire had been arson. Mr Willingham was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.” The article also mentions that Governor Rick Perry was informed by that “the 1991 investigation was based on bad science and that there was no proof of arson.” Moreover than six other investigators got the same conclusion including Craig Beyler, who had been hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC), whttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannho said that the original investigation concluded, “nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation.” In the article, it is also mentioned that Governor Perry replaced the whole body of commissioners just few days before the hiring which generated suspicion about if Mr. Perry wanted to hide something. To many people, Texas governor wanted to avoid a scandal about the state of Texas executing an innocent.
In conclusion, Texas death penalty should not exist because it has been demonstrated that innocent people can be executed such as Cameron Todd Willinfgham. This case is a clear evidence to abolish the capital punishment. Now, it is late for Mr. Willinfgham, who said before dying, “The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man—convicted of a crime I did not commit.”