Texas execution - DNA evidence debunked 10 years on

[Cayvmann]

Arguing law with you is a little like arguing physics with someone who has never had a science class. My remark was intended to mean that giving you an entire legal education within this thread is impossible.

Are you a law expert, or have any significant education in the law? I'm just wondering at your implications that quadraginta has less of this information than you. I don't want to assume hubris, out of hand.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I find errors of this nature very disturbing reminders of how our system is not perfect and problems in the criminal justice system should not lead to irreversible consequences. That said, this case may not be a poster child for the anti-death penalty movement, even if it is enlightening.

Quite. If he was party to the robbery, and knew his accomplice was packing a loaded gun, he's guilty of murder, morally and legally. It seems to me that without the hiccups in the trial, the best he could hope for is life in prison instead of death, and even that depends on a lot of ifs and maybes.

 

[quadraginta]

That's very frightening. So in short, if you commit a robbery with other people, and one of them kills an innocent bystander without your knowledge or consent, you could be executed for that ? Sounds a bit weird.

It's weirder than you suspect. If you commit a robbery with other people, and an innocent bystander (or even a guilty one) kills someone you're with you can be charged with murder for that.

The basic principle is that a death which occurs as the result of the commission of a felony constitutes felony murder.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.

Quite. If he was party to the robbery, and knew his accomplice was packing a loaded gun, he's guilty of murder, morally and legally. It seems to me that without the hiccups in the trial, the best he could hope for is life in prison instead of death, and even that depends on a lot of ifs and maybes.

In some DP jurisdictions felony murder under this interpretation can be considered 1st degree murder, but some may not consider it a capital offense and may be punishable by LWOP instead, so the actual trigger man can get executed, but not a partner. I don't think Texas is one of those jurisdictions, though.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I read the linked article, and he is clearly guilty of murder under Texas law in this case, is he not?

He would be guilty of murder here in NC as well.

The evidence should have gotten him a new trial, but to say it shows that he is innocent of murder is quite the leap.

Most likely, he just gets the death penalty again in the new trial.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's weirder than you suspect. If you commit a robbery with other people, and an innocent bystander (or even a guilty one) kills someone you're with you can be charged with murder for that.

The basic principle is that a death which occurs as the result of the commission of a felony constitutes felony murder.





In some DP jurisdictions felony murder under this interpretation can be considered 1st degree murder, but some may not consider it a capital offense and may be punishable by LWOP instead, so the actual trigger man can get executed, but not a partner. I don't think Texas is one of those jurisdictions, though.

Yes, this is the law in many states.

Participating in a crime that results in a murder means you are guilty of the murder, too. Even if you never got within 100 yards of the actual murder, but stayed outside as a lookout.

Even if the victim shoots and kills your partner in crime. The victim won't be charged for killing your partner, but you will.

I learned during the Duke Lacrosse rape case that this applies to a rape as well. You will get the same penalty as the actual rapist, if you help the rapist in any way, before or after.

So, do not assist felons in the commission of their crimes. You can face the same punishment.

Rightly so in my opinion.

 

[LTC8K6]

"(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;" "(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense." (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy."

 

[chillzero]

Aren't you a veterinarian?

I'm curious as to why you think that's relevant?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You appear to be suggesting that civilization somehow provides a green light for violence which did not exist in its absence. This is an intriguing concept.

Government is a green light of violence that would otherwise be seen as immoral.

 

[quadraginta]

You are correct, the section you quoted was a response to John Jones, to which you responded as if it had been a response to you. Regardless, your response showed that you didn't udnerstand the post to which you responded, so the "reading" comment stands.

You made a assertion about "every ordinary American". I responded by taking issue with your assertion. Somehow, in your mind, this equates to my making a "broad generalization". Your thought processes are peculiar. I was not the one who chose the adjective "every".

Yes, you cut and pasted my words, you just don't seem to be able to understand them. I referred to the legal system having greater rpotections for the rights of the accused. You simply misstated it in your subsequent post/challenge as a claim about the legal system. Naturally, a system which does not execute would have fewer wrongful executions, but I didn't address a particular type of punishment - only the fairness of the legal system.

Even more peculiar. You say you "referred to the legal system", and in the following sentence say I misrepresented that as "a claim about the legal system." You don't even seem to be able to read and understand your own words. I don't see how you could be capable of analyzing anyone else's.

If you weren't addressing a particular type of punishment then why were you using it as a defense of your position concerning the death penalty. You are beginning to sound incoherent as well as ill-informed.

Arguing law with you is a little like arguing physics with someone who has never had a science class. My remark was intended to mean that giving you an entire legal education within this thread is impossible.

Your remark was intended as a disparaging slur as well as an (artless) evasion. If you have arguments, present them. If you don't, then transparent bluster won't make you sound more authoritative, only sillier.

Yes - they've proven it like Uri Geller has proven a person can bend spoons with mental powers. In other words...no. I can find people who have proven bigfoot is real, but that won't make it true, or even a claim endorsed by the more reasonable bigfooters.

What does Uri Geller have to do with anything? The number of people on death row is a matter of public record, as is the number of people who have been found to be actually innocent and removed from death row, and the number of people who have been executed. These are not dubious assertions which require extraordinary proof or endorsement, just facts which are quite easily verified with a little bit of research.

If you wish to take issue with those numbers then provide different statistics, and we shall review the respective sources. Waving your arms around and mumbling about psychics and mythical animals does nothing to advance your argument.

You may be proud of that - I would be ashamed.

This means about as much to me as would a Westboro Baptist who is ashamed I don't love Jesus. I feel ashamed that I have to make excuses for Americans like you when I'm discussing this subject with someone from a country with a civilized legal system.

 

[Belz...]

It's weirder than you suspect. If you commit a robbery with other people, and an innocent bystander (or even a guilty one) kills someone you're with you can be charged with murder for that.

The basic principle is that a death which occurs as the result of the commission of a felony constitutes felony murder.





In some DP jurisdictions felony murder under this interpretation can be considered 1st degree murder, but some may not consider it a capital offense and may be punishable by LWOP instead, so the actual trigger man can get executed, but not a partner. I don't think Texas is one of those jurisdictions, though.

So, it IS weirder than I suspected.

 

[dirtywick]

I'm curious as to why you think that's relevant?

He described the manner in which executions are done as horrific. Since vets routinely do the same thing on an animal, I'm wondering what about it is horrific since to me it doesn't seem that way at all.

 

[quadraginta]

You appear to be suggesting that civilization somehow provides a green light for violence which did not exist in its absence. This is an intriguing concept.

Government is a green light of violence that would otherwise be seen as immoral.

Government is one of a number of social constructs intended (among other tasks) to help determine when an act of violence may or may not be "immoral".

My point to Brenn is that "civilization" in some regards expresses the beginning of the idea that there was some manageable distinction between 'moral' and 'immoral', or more accurately, socially acceptable and unacceptable violence. Not, as he asserts, that "its most fundamental purpose is to use violence against people on behalf of the group". Packs of dogs and herds of cattle can act in concert with violence. I doubt that even Brenn would suggest that they are civilized as a consequence. But then, I might be mistaken. He seems to harbor even stranger beliefs.

 

[chillzero]

He described the manner in which executions are done as horrific. Since vets routinely do the same thing on an animal, I'm wondering what about it is horrific since to me it doesn't seem that way at all.

She belongs to a profession that put down animals that are too ill to live. Still not seeing the relevance.

 

[Suddenly]

The poster is not saying it is OK that the wrong person was executed.

The poster is saying that the person that was executed would have been executed regardless of the evidence at issue.

Hair match => murder => execution

Hair Doesn't Match => felony murder => execution

The DNA evidence was not pivotal in determining the punishment.

(snip)

This is not entirely accurate.

Capital punishment for someone of the periphery of a Felony Murder who never intended to kill was prohibited by Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). It isn't completely that simple, as Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) allows capital punishment for felony murder when the person is heavily involved in the underlying felony and exhibits severe recklessness as to human life.

If, as far as he knew, his accomplice was going to just commit a robbery rather than kill he is guilty of felony murder but giving him the death penalty would be illegal.

So the DNA issue is absolutely essential to life or death in this case.

 

[dirtywick]

She belongs to a profession that put down animals that are too ill to live. Still not seeing the relevance.

I'm sorry I thought that was a man's name.

The relevance is she is familiar with the process and I've read they use the same chemical in both human and animal executions. If something about the process is particularly horrific I'd defer to the person with experience in applying that chemical to a living thing. If you believe that's not relevant I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[bignickel]

I had a whole scenario typed up... and then Suddenly's post made it moot.

Thanks, Suddenly! bleh.

 

[Rolfe]

He described the manner in which executions are done as horrific. Since vets routinely do the same thing on an animal, I'm wondering what about it is horrific since to me it doesn't seem that way at all.

If a vet were to destroy an animal in the way the US uses for human executions, he or she would be struck off for "causing unnecessary suffering".

Humane destruction (including but not limited to slaughter of food animals) is a well-researched topic. It's a pity nobody in the USA thought to look at any of that literature when considering methods of execution. No vet would ever do to an animal what the US so-called "justice" system does to human beings. (I believe bodies such as the RSPCA use electrocution to destroy stray animals because they have too many, and insufficient people skilled in humane techniques, to do it right. That's still barbaric too.)

There is also the extra question of awareness. An animal doesn't know it's going to die. If I put an animal down, it has no idea what I'm up to, or that this is any different from the gadzillion times in the past it has been handled for some benign purpose. I handle it gently and speak soothingly. The animal loses consciousness immediately, with no idea that was going to happen, and no idea it's not going to wake up.

How is that even remotely similar to what we're talking about?

Rolfe.

 

[Suddenly]

I'm sorry I thought that was a man's name.

The relevance is she is familiar with the process and I've read they use the same chemical in both human and animal executions. If something about the process is particularly horrific I'd defer to the person with experience in applying that chemical to a living thing. If you believe that's not relevant I'm not sure what to tell you.

Actually, as I understand it the three drug protocol used in most lethal injections has been rejected by the veterinarian community as unreliable and unsafe.

A link I found about this.

 

[Rolfe]

Why on earth would vets even think about using such an insane protocol? We know what we're doing and it's called pentobarbitone (another link), and it works a treat. "It fell off the end of the needle", as we say when everything goes to plan. Which it does.

Some complete berk looked at human anaesthetic protocols that were devised for a completely different purpose and came up with a method of execution for the USA that could have been deliberately designed as a method of torture.

Rolfe.

 

[dirtywick]

If a vet were to destroy an animal in the way the US uses for human executions, he or she would be struck off for "causing unnecessary suffering".

Humane destruction (including but not limited to slaughter of food animals) is a well-researched topic. It's a pity nobody in the USA thought to look at any of that literature when considering methods of execution. No vet would ever do to an animal what the US so-called "justice" system does to human beings. (I believe bodies such as the RSPCA use electrocution to destroy stray animals because they have too many, and insufficient people skilled in humane techniques, to do it right. That's still barbaric too.)

There is also the extra question of awareness. An animal doesn't know it's going to die. If I put an animal down, it has no idea what I'm up to, or that this is any different from the gadzillion times in the past it has been handled for some benign purpose. I handle it gently and speak soothingly. The animal loses consciousness immediately, with no idea that was going to happen, and no idea it's not going to wake up.

How is that even remotely similar to what we're talking about?

Rolfe.

You kill animals as a part of your job, possibly using sodium thiopental which is one of the same chemcials in human executions as well as sodium pentobarbital, also the same in some cases as I have read. I don't know why asking you about your job would offend chillzero or why you'd pretend there aren't similiarities in the method itself. I'm not trying to play some gotcha game. It's possible you've used these chemicals to kill things and said it was horrific. I thought I could find out why.

But forget it, apparently your horror has little to do with the chemicals themselves.

Actually, as I understand it the three drug protocol used in most lethal injections has been rejected by the veterinarian community as unreliable and unsafe.

A link I found about this.

Thanks, I don't have time to read that now but I will try to.