Texas does it again

[Dazza]

Another day, another execution.

Another trial where inexperienced and unqualified lawyers are appointed by the court to defend a man's life - and fail.

Another set of questions about the evidence that the American system doesn't feel need to be answered. Another Governor who refuses to interfere.

Other countries execute people and other countries have unfair legal systems, but its particularly frustrating when a country that should know better refuses to apply the standards that the whole civilised world takes for granted.

When will the rest of the US realise and share the revulsion that civilised people feel when seeing what passes for justice in Texas?

Jackie Elliot

 

[hgc]

I share your revulsion. Texas and many other states don't supply capable defense in death penalty or any other cases with indigent defendents because they don't want to spend the money. It doesn't bother them because they're bloodthirsty.

 

[Tmy]

I'm not agianst the death penalty per se', I just find our system to be sooooo flawed and bias.

Case in point. That Susan Smith bizzatch in South Carolina who drowned her 2 kids. HOW DOES SHE GET OUT OF THE DEATH PENALTY?? Cuase she's a pretty young white girl.

There should be an extremely high standand of certainty for the death penalty to be invoked.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

Jackie Elliot

A little perspective:

Elliott was arrested while on probation for separate murder and burglary convictions.

I doubt, from most Texans' POV that this particular execution was any great tragedy. WTF was he doing out of jail anyway?

edited for spelling

 

[Aoidoi]

The murder victim, Joyce Munguia, was gang-raped and beaten to death with a motorcycle chain.
...
Elliott's legal team had argued new DNA tests could have proved that while Elliott was at the scene, he did not commit the crime - but these tests were not allowed.

New DNA tests? Meaning they'd already done DNA tests that showed him to be at the scene of a rape and murder? Assuming the usual fluids DNA testing is done on in rape cases does that mean his defense was that he raped her but didn't kill her? While on probabation for another murder?

You'll understand if I don't see this guy as the poster child for DP reform.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You'll understand if I don't see this guy as the poster child for DP reform.

Good point.


It's interesting that our DP reform people can't seem to come up with a ' Barney Fife ' type, who was in another state attending church, when the murder they were convicted of, was committed.


( P.S. Beforeyou ask .. I'm not in favor of the death penalty... )

 

[Guest]

New DNA tests? Meaning they'd already done DNA tests that showed him to be at the scene of a rape and murder? Assuming the usual fluids DNA testing is done on in rape cases does that mean his defense was that he raped her but didn't kill her? While on probabation for another murder?

You'll understand if I don't see this guy as the poster child for DP reform.

No point at all.

DNA tests have gotten very much more accurate in the last few years; many convictions have been overturned with the new tests. This may be what's meant. If so, there is no logical reason whatsoever to disallow the new tests. To do so is to say we don't care if he did it or not.

You ask several questions, all presumptive, answer none of them, and then pronounce that the case is valueless. Not very open minded in my book.

 

[Blue Monk]

As a citizen of Texas for 47 years I can tell you that I have seem individuals executed on evidence that I, in good conscience, could not have considered to convict them of shop-lifting.

Of course, one can no longer charge Texas with killing a disproportional number of minorities. In a uniquely Texas solution we simply kill more white people now.

Of course we still won't kill or even convict millionaires such as T. Cullen Davis. Even Texas is not that barbaric.

Of course in our defense I must remind you that Texas is a big state and values differ wildly from region to region. Central Texas where I reside is decidedly liberal and a far cry from the Northern Bible Belt area that supports the death penalty and elects Governors such George W.

 

[arcticpenguin]

It's interesting that our DP reform people can't seem to come up with a ' Barney Fife ' type, who was in aother state attending church, when the murder they were convicted of, was committed.
( P.S. Beforeyou ask .. I'm not in favor of the death penalty... )

I thought several factually innocent people had been put in Death Row in Illinois before the previous governor suspended executions.

In Texas, they rush the process so much and give such poor court representation to suspects that they might not have a chance to clear themselves.

I also do not oppose the death penalty in principle. but it has to be done right, and it appears in Texas that it isn't done right.

 

[Blue Monk]

There was a case here recently where a defendant filed an appeal based on the fact that during his closing arguments the D.A. offered the fact that the defendant was Hispanic and their supposed proclivity for violence as evidence to his guilt. Honest!

I don't know which is more disturbing…

That a D.A. would actually be allowed to put forth such an argument,

that a jury would actually consider that argument or

this revelation could even be debated as a legitimate reason for appeal.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to apologize for being late tonight but I was stopped by the police and charged with DWM, driving while Mexican. They said they would have let me go but I'm a repeat offender. - local comedian, I wish I could remember his name

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I thought several factually innocent people had been put in Death Row in Illinois before the previous governor suspended executions.

In Texas, they rush the process so much and give such poor court representation to suspects that they might not have a chance to clear themselves.

I also do not oppose the death penalty in principle. but it has to be done right, and it appears in Texas that it isn't done right.

I also support it in principle, but oppose it because it can't be done right..

I would go along with shooting perps caught in the act, on the spot.

Most other circumstances can be pretty hard to sort out..

 

[sorgoth]

No death penalty

Am I the only one who sees killing someone for a crime as a crime?

I mean, you are KILLING THE PERSON. How are you any better than the murderer? Yes, the murderer probably killed an innocent, and you are killing a murderer, but it's still murder.

 

[aerocontrols]

Am I the only one who sees killing someone for a crime as a crime?

I mean, you are KILLING THE PERSON. How are you any better than the murderer? Yes, the murderer probably killed an innocent, and you are killing a murderer, but it's still murder.

How about imprisoning someone for the crime of kidnapping? How are you any better than the kidnapper?

 

[Skeptic]

Re: No death penalty

How are you any better than the murderer? Yes, the murderer probably killed an innocent, and you are killing a murderer,

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[a_unique_person]

As a citizen of Texas for 47 years I can tell you that I have seem individuals executed on evidence that I, in good conscience, could not have considered to convict them of shop-lifting.

Of course, one can no longer charge Texas with killing a disproportional number of minorities. In a uniquely Texas solution we simply kill more white people now.

Of course we still won't kill or even convict millionaires such as T. Cullen Davis. Even Texas is not that barbaric.

Of course in our defense I must remind you that Texas is a big state and values differ wildly from region to region. Central Texas where I reside is decidedly liberal and a far cry from the Northern Bible Belt area that supports the death penalty and elects Governors such George W.

do is see a pattern here. possibly innocent people being killed in pursuit of a political agenda?

 

[hgc]

a_unique_person:

do is see a pattern here. possibly innocent people being killed in pursuit of a political agenda?

Yes. That's the pattern. The bloodthirsty among us do not care. They deny that it happens, but they know that it does.

It's not just the "possibly innocent" though. That refers to people who may not have actually committed the crime in reality. Our system of justice, theoretically, calls for all suspects to be considered innocent, in the eyes of the law, until convicted under all due process. Most people do not get, nor care to get, the distinction. Even people who did commit the crime in reality, but were denied due process (such as adequate consel, evidence withheld by prosecutors, prejudicial arguments, etc) in getting convicted should not have their sentences carried out until getting properly convicted in a new trial. The problem is that if you kill them, they can't get a new trial, can they? As a matter of fact, the bloodthirsty want to speed up the process from conviction to injection. They want to be less careful.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Our system of justice, theoretically, calls for all suspects to be considered innocent, in the eyes of the law, until convicted under all due process.

As you point out, the 'presumption of innocence' is part of procedural law and places
the burden of proof on the government.

It has little to do with how people feel toward various suspects in specific circumstances.

The victims blood on your shirt could create an atmosphere of doubt.

If the presumption of innocence were literal, no one would go to jail before they were convicted.

 

[hgc]

Diogenes:

As you point out, the 'presumption of innocence' is part of procedural law and places
the burden of proof on the government.

It has little to do with how people feel toward various suspects in specific circumstances.

The victims blood on your shirt could create an atmosphere of doubt.

If the presumption of innocence were literal, no one would go to jail before they were convicted.

Sure, the due process protections of our system have little to do with emotions. Or is it the other way around?

In any case, it's too damn bad for us that:

- the political atmosphere around the application of those protection is driven by the emotional need to kill and otherwise punish criminal suspects and convicts, not the logic of protecting us all from judicial overreach.

- appeals to emotion overrule the logic of those due process protections in the courtroom, in the jury room and in judges' chambers.

Also, people are held for trial sometimes because the evidence that they are a threat to flee or commit crimes is strong. That's similar to relying on evidence enough to bring an indictment in the first place. That's why the constitution calls for speedy justice, so that the time held in jail until a jury rules is relatively short -- not indefinite.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc .... snip...



Also, people are held for trial sometimes because the evidence that they are a threat to flee or commit crimes is strong. That's similar to relying on evidence enough to bring an indictment in the first place. That's why the constitution calls for speedy justice, so that the time held in jail until a jury rules is relatively short -- not indefinite.

Cuts both ways...

Defendants and their lawyers often use delaying tactics in the hope that evidence/witnesses will go away..


A speedy justice system might be the last thing, an innocent person convicted of murder,
would want to be faced with.

 

[hgc]

Diogenes:

Cuts both ways...

Defendants and their lawyers often use delaying tactics in the hope that evidence/witnesses will go away..


A speedy justice system might be the last thing, an innocent person convicted of murder,
would want to be faced with.

That may be true. Anecdotally speaking, I recall some recent high-profile cases where the judge forced trial date far in advance of when the defendent claimed he would be ready for trial -- John Walker Lindh, John Lee Malvo.