I came across this very compelling story this morning inÂ The New Yorker online, and even though it is quite long, I couldn’t stop reading until I was finished. It’s a story that details the events that sent a man to Death Row in Texas, the circumstances of his incarceration, what took place with his case while he was behind bars, and eventually what ultimately happened to him.
As I read, I was struck by the fact that every aspect of this story triggered my critical thinking skills.Â As an observer of the events through the narrative, I was not only interested in the details of the story, but I wasÂ exercising skepticism the whole way through. Not only that, but the story itself contains wonderful elements of skepticism and demonstrations of the differences between good investigation and sloppy investigation, as well as good science versus no science.
I enjoyed thisÂ item on so many levels, I thought I’d share the link with you, and urge you to read it as well. As I mentioned, the story is fairly long, so you may have to carve out some time to get all the way through it, but it is well worth it. And afterward,Â share your thoughts about itÂ in the comments here. Tell us if it stimulated your critical thinking. What did you think of the investigations? Were you cycling through the possibilities yourself as you read, like I was?
In the meantime, we need a question for the AI.
Now, we’ve discussed punishment for crimes before, but to keep with the theme of this article, I’ll ask you this for today’s Inquisition:
Is capital punishment a reasonableÂ sentence for those convicted of certain crimes?
The Afternoon Inquisition (or AI) is a question posed to you, the Skepchick community. Look for it to appear daily at 3pm ET.