Now, this is a crock

[Boxlicker101]

http://news.yahoo.com/top-court-stays-texas-death-row-inmate-execution-005533544.html

Especially since it was a Defense witness who said the offending words, which are probably true, although not PC. There is no doubt about the prisoner's guilt.

 

[Stella_Omega]

oh, Box...

You didn't just say that.

HOly fuck.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

http://news.yahoo.com/top-court-stays-texas-death-row-inmate-execution-005533544.html

Especially since it was a Defense witness who said the offending words, which are probably true, although not PC. There is no doubt about the prisoner's guilt.

You might notice from the story that he made this statement in response to a question from the prosecutor. Would this be, I assume, the same Texas that says it's entirely fine for people on trial in capital cases to represented by a sleeping or drunk lawyer?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You might notice from the story that he made this statement in response to a question from the prosecutor. Would this be, I assume, the same Texas that says it's entirely fine for people on trial in capital cases to represented by a sleeping or drunk lawyer?

Oddly enough, here is another news article that tells a slightly different story:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-set-execute-man-racially-charged-houston-murders-125743776.html

Do you have any documentation of drunk or sleeping lawyers? I remember reading something about it, but I don't know how true it was.

 

[Stella_Omega]

has any lawyer ever argued against the death penalty by saying that the perp is white and therefore not as likely to commit another crime once he gets out of jail?

 

[TE999]

Do you have any documentation of drunk or sleeping lawyers? I remember reading something about it, but I don't know how true it was.

Heh! I've read about judges asleep, drunk, playing with themselves, reading a novel or playing Nintendo during court proceedings, not to mention using suggestive or abusive language or outright profanity to court recorders, bailiffs, spectators, witnesses and both defense and prosecution lawyers. When you wear the black robe, you can do that shit.

I can't imagine any judge worth his salt would allow those sorts of things to be done by lawyers in his court, unless he was occupied himself.

 

[Boxlicker101]

has any lawyer ever argued against the death penalty by saying that the perp is white and therefore not as likely to commit another crime once he gets out of jail?

I've never heard of anybody doing such a thing but, if one did, it would be a defense attorney arguing on behalf of a convicted killer during the penalty phase of a trial. In this case, it was a psychiatrist hired by the defense who made the offending statement.

Consider this: If a defense attorney wants to plant a "poison pill" he or she can ask a psychiatrist the question asked in this case, and argue for a new penalty trial if the convicted person gets the death penalty.

ETA: If you read the other link, you'll see the shrink offered the opinion Buck would not kill again if he was released some day.

 

[R. Richard]

I'm kind of confused here.

From what I read in the news stories, there's no doubt at all that the accused shot and killed at least two people, apparently unarmed people. He also wounded another person.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but Texas law defines the killing of people as a capital crime, punishable by execution. The killer may be Negro, Caucasian or whatever and it has no bearing on the matter.

The accused had a public trial, with a lawyer. There was no realistic defense that he didn't do the killings. Apparently, the argument for not executing the amateur, is that he's a Negro. So what? Please explain, I'm confused.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm kind of confused here.

From what I read in the news stories, there's no doubt at all that the accused shot and killed at least two people, apparently unarmed people. He also wounded another person.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but Texas law defines the killing of people as a capital crime, punishable by execution. The killer may be Negro, Caucasian or whatever and it has no bearing on the matter.

The accused had a public trial, with a lawyer. There was no realistic defense that he didn't do the killings. Apparently, the argument for not executing the amateur, is that he's a Negro. So what? Please explain, I'm confused.

Yeah, that's why I describe it as a crock. The overall testimony by the shrink, who was testifying for the defense, was the defendant would peobably not kill again. The jury apparently ignored his comments, so why wouls the SCOTUS think they were relevant?

 

[sr71plt]

What is it that you think the Supreme Court has done, Box? You apparently think they've overturned something. They haven't. They've suspended execution on the possibility that the guy was given an incompetent defense. You can't do a recheck that means anything after the guy is dead (although the court apparently tried, as he was 90 minutes past his execution time).

If the Supreme Court dealt with this as they received it, it quite possibily isn't their fault it came so late in the execution schedule process.

I trust the recheck will reveal that the testimony didn't mean enough in the legal process to change anything, he'll be executed, and you can go on to Chicken Little about something else.

Yes, I think this is an overboard application of the process. I hope that if I'm ever in that spot, they'll do an overboard version for me too. (And in reality terms, I actually think that the process going on like this is much more punishment for the guy than simply executing him a couple of days ago.)

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I'm kind of confused here.

From what I read in the news stories, there's no doubt at all that the accused shot and killed at least two people, apparently unarmed people. He also wounded another person.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but Texas law defines the killing of people as a capital crime, punishable by execution. The killer may be Negro, Caucasian or whatever and it has no bearing on the matter.

The accused had a public trial, with a lawyer. There was no realistic defense that he didn't do the killings. Apparently, the argument for not executing the amateur, is that he's a Negro. So what? Please explain, I'm confused.

Yeah, that's why I describe it as a crock. The overall testimony by the shrink, who was testifying for the defense, was the defendant would peobably not kill again. The jury apparently ignored his comments, so why wouls the SCOTUS think they were relevant?

Richard, you have it completely backwards.

No one is arguing that he should not be executed because he is black. Rather, the argument is that he cannot be executed just because he is black.

Can we all agree on this statement: No one should be executed because of their race?

If you cannot agree with that statement, then proceed no further. It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you regarding this issue.

The issue before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the Defendant. There seems to be no question as to his guilt. The issue is the appropriate penalty to applied to this particular Defendant for these particular crimes.

I'm not an expert on Texas law, but I am confident that death is not a mandatory penalty in the case of a double homicide. If I am wrong, then someone please correct me.

That being the case, death is the maximum penalty that may be applied on the recommendation of the jury after a penalty phase proceeding. There are a number of factors that may be considered by the jury. The race of the Defendant is not one of them.

The prosecution improperly introduced race into the proceeding when it asked the Defense expert about his findings re: race and recidivism. At that point, the proceeding was tainted and there should have been a new trial (as to penalty). It is not permissible for the prosecution to introduce testimony alleging that African-Americans are more likely be repeat criminals while arguing for the death penalty. It is an argument justifying the sentence of death in all capital cases where African-Americans are defendants.

The expert's testimony that the Defendant was not likely to commit a similar crime again was too little, too late. The damage was already done. Once the jury heard the testimony that African-Americans were more likely to be repeat offenders, race was improperly injected into the trial and the proceeding was hopelessly corrupted.

So what's the remedy? The most he can get is another penalty phase trial, hopefully before a jury that is not tainted by improper testimony.

 

[R. Richard]

No one should be executed bacuase of their race, religion, national origin and probably a couple of other things that I forgot.

I race was improperly introduced into the trail procedings. then the attorney(s) who allowed the imporper introduction should be disbarred permanently. However, it is puzzling to me that a simple statement, by a prosecution witness should be cause for a new trial.

The killings happened in 1997. Why are trials still ongoing? There's, from what I read, no question as to the accused's guilt. The only 'defense' seems to be, "Me pour bhoy had a difficult childhood and should be let off because he niver had him a GI Joe action figure to play with."

 

[sr71plt]

then the attorney(s) who allowed the imporper introduction should be disbarred permanently. However, it is puzzling to me that a simple statement, by a prosecution witness should be cause for a new trial.

It's this sort of taking everything to the extreme that frequently undermines your argumentation, RR.

I think the very fact that there are a whole shitload of folks roaming around who run to the extremes on everything with a "string 'em up yesterday" mentality justifies going slow and looking at every angle.

This was a defense witness, by the way, not a prosecution witness. And it wasn't any of the lawyers who made the statement; it was the witness. Even if you ask leading questions, you can't control what the witness answers.

I started out pretty much agreeing with Box, but as the two of you continued to wave your pitchforks at this and foaming at the mouth, I've increasingly seen why a deliberate "step back and take another look" is the wisest path. Thanks for clarifying the issue for me.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

I'm kind of confused here.

From what I read in the news stories, there's no doubt at all that the accused shot and killed at least two people, apparently unarmed people. He also wounded another person.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but Texas law defines the killing of people as a capital crime, punishable by execution. The killer may be Negro, Caucasian or whatever and it has no bearing on the matter.

The accused had a public trial, with a lawyer. There was no realistic defense that he didn't do the killings. Apparently, the argument for not executing the amateur, is that he's a Negro. So what? Please explain, I'm confused.

The issue for most people who are conversant and informed on this subject is really not the particulars of any case. It is whether the death penalty should exist at all in a first world nation like the US. Do we want to be like Germany, England, Canada, etc, or do we want to be like communist China, North Korea, Iran, etc?

Issues with the lack of ability of the death penalty to influence behavior are important (The US - with a death penalty - has far higher rates of violent crime than England or Canada with no death penalty. New York City - the state of New York just reestablished a death penalty recently and has not used it - has a lower murder rate than Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio - in Texas that has a death penalty and uses it frequently).

Leaving aside issues of the fairness of its application, the immense issues with its functioning are what most trouble informed people. Prosecutorial (and even judicial) misconduct is rampant in the system and goes unpunished, tainted evidence, police-planted evidence, coerced "confessions", the complete unreliability of eyewitness testimony (even though eyewitness testimony is commonly admitted into evidence with no caveats to the jury about its proven unreliability). The list of difficulties with the capital justice system go on and on.

Of course this guy is supposedly "definitely" guilty. That's not the issue. All of the dozens (I think it may be over a hundred by now) of people released from death rows across the country because they are innocent were "definitely" guilty too. As it turns out they weren't, and thank God that fact was established for them before they were killed by the government. But how many hundreds of other innocent people have been killed by the death penalty because they were "definitely" guilty.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course this guy is supposedly "definitely" guilty. That's not the issue. All of the dozens (I think it may be over a hundred by now) of people released from death rows across the country because they are innocent were "definitely" guilty too. As it turns out they weren't, and thank God that fact was established for them before they were killed by the government. But how many hundreds of other innocent people have been killed by the death penalty because they were "definitely" guilty.

Well, now, I'll swing a bit to the other side. You can't generalize a specific case like this. The point of law here isn't on the man's guilt. It's on the sentencing. I think this indeed is a case where he's definitely guilty. You can't put the "there are innocent people on death row" blanket over simply every time a declaration of guilt is involved. His guilt isn't any part of the issue here.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The issue for most people who are conversant and informed on this subject is really not the particulars of any case. It is whether the death penalty should exist at all in a first world nation like the US. Do we want to be like Germany, England, Canada, etc, or do we want to be like communist China, North Korea, Iran, etc?

I would not like the US to be exactly like any of the six countries you mention.

Issues with the lack of ability of the death penalty to influence behavior are important (The US - with a death penalty - has far higher rates of violent crime than England or Canada with no death penalty. New York City - the state of New York just reestablished a death penalty recently and has not used it - has a lower murder rate than Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio - in Texas that has a death penalty and uses it frequently).

I believe if you studied the future actions of every person who has been put to death in the US, you would find not one of them has committed another crime. This proves capital punishment does deter crime.

Leaving aside issues of the fairness of its application, the immense issues with its functioning are what most trouble informed people. Prosecutorial (and even judicial) misconduct is rampant in the system and goes unpunished, tainted evidence, police-planted evidence, coerced "confessions", the complete unreliability of eyewitness testimony (even though eyewitness testimony is commonly admitted into evidence with no caveats to the jury about its proven unreliability). The list of difficulties with the capital justice system go on and on.

Eye witnesses can be very reliable, especially if the witness knows the accused, and does not have a grudge against him or her. I agree some evidence, especially testimony of snitches, should be eliminated if the snitch has a stake in the outcome, such as a reduced sentence for himself or herself.

Of course this guy is supposedly "definitely" guilty. That's not the issue. All of the dozens (I think it may be over a hundred by now) of people released from death rows across the country because they are innocent were "definitely" guilty too. As it turns out they weren't, and thank God that fact was established for them before they were killed by the government. But how many hundreds of other innocent people have been killed by the death penalty because they were "definitely" guilty.

This guy is "smoking gun" guilty. There is no question as to his guilt. The only question being raised is testimony during the penalty phase of the trial by a shrink hired by the defense. What was said, in context, would tend to make the jury rule against the death penalty, it it had any effect at all.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

I would not like the US to be exactly like any of the six countries you mention.

I would not like the US to be exactly like any of those countries either. But that's not what I said. I pointed out that countries that have no death penalty ALSO have lower rates of violent crime. Consequently, death penalties do not deter murder or other violent crimes.

I believe if you studied the future actions of every person who has been put to death in the US, you would find not one of them has committed another crime. This proves capital punishment does deter crime.

The theory of the death penalty is that having it will deter people from committing whatever offenses are defined by law as capital offenses. That theory is clearly invalid. What your hypothetical person will not do in the future is irrelevent. In the context of the theory of capital punishment the fact is that that person DID committ their capital offense (we're assuming here your hypothetical person was put to death AND really did commit a crime) in spite of the existence of a death penalty for that action that was theoretically supposed to deter their action. Second, you can be sure that the innocent people who have been murdered by the government through capital punishment are not out committing crimes either - and neither are they making love with their spouse, playing with their children, learning, or working or doing anything else.

Eye witnesses can be very reliable, especially if the witness knows the accused, and does not have a grudge against him or her. I agree some evidence, especially testimony of snitches, should be eliminated if the snitch has a stake in the outcome, such as a reduced sentence for himself or herself.

The studies involve eyewitness testimony by strangers (which is what most eyewitness testimony involves). These studies have found consistently that the closer a person is to a crime the more likely they are to wrongly identify a stranger who supposedly committed the crime. This is actually an interesting finding, and I suppose for most people is counter-intuitive. The assumption (and it's proven wrong by these studies) is that the victim of a crime (obviously not a murder, but say a sexual assault) will unerringly identify their stranger/attacker - their attacker's face is seared indelibly into their frontal lobe or some such nonsense. Just the opposite is the case. The victim is MOST likely to misidentify their supposed attacker. A person close to the crime (say a person immediately with the victim, or someone who maybe came close enough to try to stop the attack) will do a little better. Someone close but on the periphery of the event will do a little better still. The best stranger eyewitness identifications come from people who might have witnessed the event from a great enough distance to not be in jeopardy - a fairly disinterested onlooker. However, in controlled studies even those 'best', disinterested onlookers identify a stranger correctly less than fifty percent of the time. (Victims are in the less than 10% correct identification range). And of course this doesn't even get into the myriad tricks police investigators have (and use often) to steer a witness during an investigation to identify a particular person. No, real life police work is not like a TV show or a movie. And evidentiary standards in all 50 states specifically prohibit the defense from providing this factual information to juries, as shocking and prejudicial as that is.

This guy is "smoking gun" guilty. There is no question as to his guilt. The only question being raised is testimony during the penalty phase of the trial by a shrink hired by the defense. What was said, in context, would tend to make the jury rule against the death penalty, it it had any effect at all.

As I've mentioned earlier: the particulars of a specific case are not at issue. The issue of whether we should be like Iran and North Korea and have a death penalty is not dependent on a particular case. If this individual in the article (who supposedly "really" did it) is proof that death penalties should exist, then the fact of well over a hundred innocent people being freed from death rows is equal proof that death penalties should not exist.

But all that is really irrelevent. Death penalties should not exist because of the myriad, exhausively and voluminously documented, flaws with the death penalty systems that make it impossible to tell wether a person being executed is truly guilty or innoncent.

I hope the information is helpful. Not to be provocative - but all this information is easily available and can be studied and learned by anyone. That being the case, those who support death penalties demonstrate a shocking and disgusting disregard for the value of innocent human life.

 

[R. Richard]

It's this sort of taking everything to the extreme that frequently undermines your argumentation, RR.

I think the very fact that there are a whole shitload of folks roaming around who run to the extremes on everything with a "string 'em up yesterday" mentality justifies going slow and looking at every angle.

This was a defense witness, by the way, not a prosecution witness. And it wasn't any of the lawyers who made the statement; it was the witness. Even if you ask leading questions, you can't control what the witness answers.

I started out pretty much agreeing with Box, but as the two of you continued to wave your pitchforks at this and foaming at the mouth, I've increasingly seen why a deliberate "step back and take another look" is the wisest path. Thanks for clarifying the issue for me.

In this case, 'string 'em up yesterday' is actually 15 years of pleas. If 15 years of pleas is extreme, what length of time would not be extreme? (Please provide detailed justification.)

The guy who made the 'racial' statement also made the same kind of racial statement in several other cases. Said other cases were retried, at great expense to the taxpayer, with no change in the death sentence.

How many years do you want to 'step back and take another look?' Obviously 15 years isn't enough in you mind. How much is enough?

 

[R. Richard]

Many of the responders to this thread are adamantly anti-death penalty.

Okay, what is the alternative? Life in prison, without the possiblity of parole?
(One Charles Manson [not actually his real name] was given a death sentence. A CA judge them decided that the death penalty was unconstitutional. Thus Manson is now serving, 'life in prison, without the possiblity of parole.' However, the state of CA has decided, in its infinite wisdom, that Manson and others like him can have parole hearings, despite 'life in prison, without the possiblity of parole.' Manson is up for parole in 2012. Do you want Manson paroled, so that he can make love to his WIVES [note the plural,] play with his children, go back to work recruiting another 'family?')

There was a guy, in CA, many, many years back, who was convicted of murder. The state convicted him after a well prepared trial. (They even had a back up kangaroo.) Appellate courts eventually got the kangarooed boy released. After some years in the slammer, he had become a violent criminal and was put back in the slammer. (I have no idea hwat happened to the kangaroo.)

Have any of you actually lived in Texas? I have [Houston area and Dallas area.] The people there tend to be a bit on the violent side, often settling disputes with a gun. I myself have been threatened and managed to convince gun boy that he was wrong. Gun boy then felt so bad that he commited suicide by fatally shooting himself in the head three times. No long, expensive trial was necessary.

Now, let us get to the matter of scumbags. Some person who lives a violent life (I do,) gets involved in a murder. The amateur punk who actually comitted the murder gets his little friends to swear that bystander actually did the deed. The enforcement scumbags and the legal scumbags want a conviction and they will do damn near anything to get one. Thus, many stupid, innocent people are convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. I was accused of shooting a person, by an amateur punk. I immediately tried to sue the amateur punk for my fee. I don't go around shooting people for free, unless it's self defense, it's bad for business. My lawyer then pointed out to the scumbags that I'm known to use a .475 Wildey and the bullets used in the shooting were .38 caliber. Charges against me were dismissed. The amateur punk's little friends then decided that amateur punk was actually the shooter. I then tried to sue amateur punk for deffamation of character. Both of my attempted lawsuits were dismissed, becuse amateur punk had not funds. This last despite the fact that amateur punk had dynamite 12-year-old blonde pussy at home. (I'm not a nice person.)

Now, as to prosecutorial misconduct. Most of the problems you cite with innocents being convicted are due to incompetent defense. When a prosecutor steps over the line, my competent lawyer makes a simple phone call, to the Governor, "Uncle Jim, they are denying my client his rights under the law." The problem goes away.

What pisses me off is that I have to pay taxes to support ass holes who are put in prison and then wait 15 years or so, before they are put to death or freed because of prosecutorial misconduct. (By the way, prosecutorial misconduct doesn't mean that the prosecutor(s) have to pay the cost of their misconduct. Make 'em pay and a lot of your false convictions go away. No money? Not a problem, let the scumbags pimp for the prosecutor(s)' family along with the scumbag's mama.)

(Just for the record, I don't like scumbags very well.)

 

[sr71plt]

In this case, 'string 'em up yesterday' is actually 15 years of pleas. If 15 years of pleas is extreme, what length of time would not be extreme? (Please provide detailed justification.)

It was the lawyer you were stringing up in the post I referenced.

I suggest anger management courses.

 

[R. Richard]

It was the lawyer you were stringing up in the post I referenced.

I suggest anger management courses.

The lawyers are the ones who dragged out the case for 15 years. Of course , I don't want the lawyers, 'strung up.' What I would like is for the lawyers to pay for the room, board and supervision of the convicted criminal that they're using to inflict heavy charges on taxpayers.

It's normal in death penalty cases for lawyers to drag the cases out for as long as possible, challenging everything, including things like a misplaced comma or a spelling error. If the lawyer(s) want to run up casts, then, IMNTHO, the lawyers should pay the costs. (I'm not talking about legitimate concerns with matters of guilt or innocence, that's the right of the lawyers and the accused. What I'm talking about is pettifoggery.)

You have no idea of the business that I run. I use anger, actually rage, as a very useful tool in my business. Without the rage, I might well not survive. As usual, you assume that you know what you're talking about, when you frequently don't.

 

[sr71plt]

As usual, you assume that you know what you're talking about, when you frequently don't.

Like when I respond to your "string the lawyer up" and you come back with discussion on the criminal instead?

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is an interesteing observation;

I use anger, actually rage, as a very useful tool in my business. Without the rage, I might well not survive.

Every business that I can think of that uses "rage" as a useful tool is one that caters to and preys on the penniless and downtrodden. Big money doesn't need rage. it just needs narcissism.

Repo?

Bail bonds?

Check-cashing shop?

Pawn shop?

Bounty hunter?

You surely are not a hair dresser, or medical guy of any sort, or a chef, or veterinarian, nor do you work in retail. Nothing that has to do with service or co-identity.

That's interesting. And yucky.

 

[rgraham666]

He's admitted he's an addict. Now he just has to admit he has a problem.

 

[R. Richard]

He's admitted he's an addict. Now he just has to admit he has a problem.

Actually, I have a business, several businesses, as a matter of fact. If operating a business makes me an addict, so be it. However, I solve problems for my customers and I earn my pay. Now, some of those that I deal with, they do have a problem(s).