Dear Editor,
Brant Bingamon's story was so good (and nauseating) ["
Texas Continues Sending People to the Execution Chamber, Innocent or Not," News, Jan. 10].
If individuals with the power to approve/deny executions would be charged for, e.g., premeditated murder, for refusing a trial of new evidence, then, personal cost might override political bloodthirst.
Presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) is the alleged fundamental principle of the U.S. justice system. In America, doesn't any reasonable piece of new evidence legally indicate a new presumption of innocence (until proven guilty)?