Texas does it again

[Blue Monk]

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

Yes!

While politicians are partly to blame for offering quick and simple solutions to complex problems (and we are partly to blame for wanting quick and simple solutions to complex problems) it has been my experience that the simgle most bone-chilling aspect to this is the evil done by crooked DAs.

The fact is there are some in power who are so cold-blooded that they will actively block any attempt to overturn a conviction to prevent any blemishes on their conviction record.

And the 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' aspect only applies to those who have not been convicted. After you are convicted that no longer holds true.

Many states have enacted laws that limit the number of appeals you are allowed and that's that. This sets up the very real possibility that a person could use up all of their appeals and then have evidence turn up that would clear them without a doubt only to be executed anyway as there would be no legal way to stop it.

This has not happened to my knowledge but it has come damn close more than once in this state. We've had people on death row when new DNA evidence surfaces and then it is debated whether or not to consider it. I kid you not.

The absurdity of it would be comical if it were not so sickeningly real.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

If its the case I'm thinking of, there were 6 people on death row who had their convictions overtuned by the govenor. However, I think in the majority of those cases, it wasn't that the people were found innocent, it was found that the original trial was flawed. (In some cases, the person confessed, but only under duress; however, they had lengthy criminal records and other evidence pointing to their guilt.)

Or am I thinking of a different case?

 

[a_unique_person]

If its the case I'm thinking of, there were 6 people on death row who had their convictions overtuned by the govenor. However, I think in the majority of those cases, it wasn't that the people were found innocent, it was found that the original trial was flawed. (In some cases, the person confessed, but only under duress; however, they had lengthy criminal records and other evidence pointing to their guilt.)

Or am I thinking of a different case?

being a 'criminal' is not reason to execute. if they are guilty of a crime, punish them for that. it is not a reason to also punish them for a murder they did not commit. the 'criminals' are also being used as a convenient patsy.

 

[Aoidoi]

Quoting Sundog from here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13380

Let me be the first to urge you to immediately, right now, go out and arrange the greatest, most spectacular death for yourself you can think of. I promise that I at least will not think it a tragedy for one moment.

(I probably shouldn't even bring it up given the circumstances of that thread, but I almost posted about it then and the irony of this thread was too great to resist.)

From this thread:

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.

I asked the questions as I was unsure of the meaning of the article. It appeared to me to imply that DNA testing was done at the time. You responded with a different interpretation, which is fine, then made a few presumptions of your own. Where did I say the case is valueless? It surely holds value to those directly involved, particularly the family and friends of Joyce Munguia. It held value to society, either to remove a murderer or to demonstrate the evils of the DP. I simply don't see this twice convicted murderer to be the best example (i.e. posterboy) for anti-DP.

Given a moment to research I found that his defense was that the sex was consensual and that he didn't beat her to death. The DNA test was to be on blood that splattered while she was being beaten to death. To me, a good DP example case would be one of mistaken identity or outright corruption... while it is possible that the wrong man was convicted in this case, Jackie Elliot was definately at the scene, definately had sex with the deceased shortly before her murder, and had apparently previously used a chain to beat someone. Personally I like my DP arguments with a hint of "The Fugitive" or "The Shawshank Redemption" rather than "I screwed her, but she wanted it! And then one of my buddies beat her to death."

But maybe I'm just being close minded.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quoting Sundog from here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13380
(I probably shouldn't even bring it up given the circumstances of that thread, but I almost posted about it then and the irony of this thread was too great to resist.)

From this thread:I asked the questions as I was unsure of the meaning of the article. It appeared to me to imply that DNA testing was done at the time. You responded with a different interpretation, which is fine, then made a few presumptions of your own. Where did I say the case is valueless? It surely holds value to those directly involved, particularly the family and friends of Joyce Munguia. It held value to society, either to remove a murderer or to demonstrate the evils of the DP. I simply don't see this twice convicted murderer to be the best example (i.e. posterboy) for anti-DP.

Given a moment to research I found that his defense was that the sex was consensual and that he didn't beat her to death. The DNA test was to be on blood that splattered while she was being beaten to death. To me, a good DP example case would be one of mistaken identity or outright corruption... while it is possible that the wrong man was convicted in this case, Jackie Elliot was definately at the scene, definately had sex with the deceased shortly before her murder, and had apparently previously used a chain to beat someone. Personally I like my DP arguments with a hint of "The Fugitive" or "The Shawshank Redemption" rather than "I screwed her, but she wanted it! And then one of my buddies beat her to death."

But maybe I'm just being close minded.

which is entirely the point. because he appears to be guilty of something, fry him. low grade politics, not a justice system. in fact it was the 'witness' who owned the chain and had used it before. the blood on his boots was never tested.

should jackie be in jail for rape? maybe. should he have been killed for the crime. given such unsure circumstances, and the fact that one of the witnesses may have been the perpetrator of the murder, no.

 

[Aoidoi]

Whoops, appears you are correct about the chain. It was an accomplice with the history with a chain. My mistake.

 

[Alaric]

The problem is, not many people give a damn whether he lives or dies. A rapist deserves the chair just as a murderer does. For him to have been executed in Texas, it requires two charges doesnt it? Would the other charge have been rape?

The point is, the guy was such an ass he never stood a chance. Many Texan men would find it a point of principle to execute him themselves. He never stood a fair chance of trial. His fault not ours. If you want to live-you need to be a bit more redeeming. I for one am against capital punishment<born and bred Canuck but I do see rape as big a crime as murder> but by god-PICK A BETTER EXAMPLE OF THIS ABUSIVE SYSTEM.

Those six guys that were let off- didnt it turn out to be a certain cop was there for all their "confessions" and that it turned out he beat it out of them? Admittedly...I got that info off an Oprah episode<ahem>

 

[a_unique_person]

The problem is, not many people give a damn whether he lives or dies. A rapist deserves the chair just as a murderer does. For him to have been executed in Texas, it requires two charges doesnt it? Would the other charge have been rape?

The point is, the guy was such an ass he never stood a chance. Many Texan men would find it a point of principle to execute him themselves. He never stood a fair chance of trial. His fault not ours. If you want to live-you need to be a bit more redeeming. I for one am against capital punishment<born and bred Canuck but I do see rape as big a crime as murder> but by god-PICK A BETTER EXAMPLE OF THIS ABUSIVE SYSTEM.

Those six guys that were let off- didnt it turn out to be a certain cop was there for all their "confessions" and that it turned out he beat it out of them? Admittedly...I got that info off an Oprah episode<ahem>

i didn't know that personal opinions were supposed to have a bearing. justice is supposed to work on principles, not emotional responses.

 

[Guest]

Quoting Sundog from here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13380
(I probably shouldn't even bring it up given the circumstances of that thread, but I almost posted about it then and the irony of this thread was too great to resist.)

You're going to have to explain the irony, I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to get it.

The original context was a response to someone who thought the Shuttle tragedy wasn't a tragedy, that it was a glorious death, and that he'd gladly ride the shuttle if guaranteed this glorious death. I think my response was appropriate, and I fail to see how it connects even tangentially with my position taken in this thread. Please explain, I love irony.

The only irony I can see so far is that someone showed you your assumptions were wrong, thus making my case very nicely. That one was delicious.

 

[aerocontrols]

i didn't know that personal opinions were supposed to have a bearing. justice is supposed to work on principles, not emotional responses.

Emotional responses such as, for instance, 'revulsion'?

 

[Aoidoi]

You're going to have to explain the irony, I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to get it.

Perhaps it is merely my own (admittedly odd) sense of humor. You're over here arguing that the DP is wrong while in another thread you were urging someone to commit suicide. An admitted simplification of your arguments, and really the main reason I brought it up was that I was tempted in the other thread to mention that urging someone to suicide is not in the best of taste, regardless of their views.

The irony seemed to be "Murderers shouldn't be executed but people who make tasteless comments deserve to die." I suspect I'm going to be in the minority opinion on the humor in this, though. Sadly a fairly common occurence for me.

It occurred to me after I posted that I'm not entirely sure of your position on the DP (I haven't actually stated mine in this thread for that matter) so perhaps my amusement was due merely to my misperception of your stance.

My apologies for any offense given.

 

[Guest]

My apologies for any offense given.

Not at all!!! I'm a big boy, I can take it.

"Murderers shouldn't be executed but people who make tasteless comments deserve to die."

And your problem with this is... ?

 

[gnome]

A couple of thoughts...

I heard an audiotape from a group called the Innocence Project where they explained the new DNA testing methods. Apparently the primary breakthrough was in the multiplication of a sample... which is to say, in a case where there was insufficient biological material to perform the DNA test, they found a way to make "more" so to speak from the sample, so that you wouldn't run out and have an inconclusive test.

This was applied to several cases and led to the overturn of many convictions... I believe many of the high-profile ones we have been hearing about are connected.

In most of the bad convictions, the problem could be tied into coerced or otherwise dubious confessions.

As far as burden of proof goes, I think a fair standard would be... you lose your presumption of innocence when you get convicted... which means if your appeals have run out, new evidence that introduces "reasonable doubt" would not be sufficient, but evidence of "actual innocence" should always be considered.

 

[a_unique_person]

It appears to me that there is something much worse than just a possibly innocent person being executed.

It is that the whole process runs on whether or not a prosecution is made. The idea that a guilty person is not being apprehended and punished, merely that someone has been, is a double disaster.

A guilty person gets off.
An innocent person is punished.

A prosecutor is only interested in statistics, and not at all in justice. Should the prosecutors be getting charged with murder?

 

[LucienVanImpe]

And the illustrious silver lining:

"While on death row, Elliott claimed to have conquered the drug and alcohol addictions which plagued him and has become a Christian."

Look, when you walk around with blood on your clothes from an 18-year-old mother, whom you just gang-raped, then I'm really not interested in your case.

Despite being skeptical of capital punishment.

 

[a_unique_person]

And the illustrious silver lining:

"While on death row, Elliott claimed to have conquered the drug and alcohol addictions which plagued him and has become a Christian."

Look, when you walk around with blood on your clothes from an 18-year-old mother, whom you just gang-raped, then I'm really not interested in your case.

Despite being skeptical of capital punishment.

once again, the emotional aspect of the case. do you care that the probable murderer, because he did a deal with the police, has got off? the idea that because he is a bad person he is not entitled to due process of justice is wrong in itself.

 

[LucienVanImpe]

once again, the emotional aspect of the case. do you care that the probable murderer, because he did a deal with the police, has got off? the idea that because he is a bad person he is not entitled to due process of justice is wrong in itself.

I think they nailed the probable murderer from the evidence I have been presented so far. But I would have to go through the prosecution's material to give a fair assessment, rather than a BBC news article.

Maybe they should have executed all four of them.

 

[Segnosaur]

being a 'criminal' is not reason to execute. if they are guilty of a crime, punish them for that. it is not a reason to also punish them for a murder they did not commit. the 'criminals' are also being used as a convenient patsy.

Yes, people should only be punished for the crimes they commit.

But being a career criminal helps establish a pattern in a person's life, and that may be relevant to deciding whether a person who committed crime X may also be responsible for a similar crime.

 

[Smalso]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction and is as good a standard as anyone has come up with so far. The standard for imposition of the death penalty should be "beyond all doubt; and to this end a person sentenced to death should be allowed full access to the courts no matter how long it takes. Limiting the number of appeals is unmitigated ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Why the big rush to execute? I wonder why the new DNA tests were not conducted. Indeed, I wonder why prosecutors oppose admission of any new evidence which, while not exonorating the convicted person, might mitigate against the death penalty.

As I have stated in other threads, I believe that the death penalty laws are bad laws; and bad laws simply cannot be applied fairly and impartially.

 

[Aoidoi]

Why the big rush to execute?

The murder was in 1986. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 years from crime to executing the criminal. How long would be appropriate to wait?

It's generally impossible to remove all doubt... I mean, aliens could have used their evil Ray-O-Matic to kill Joyce Munguia and faked everything. It could have been an interdimensional murder spree by Elvis. The MIB are behind the whole thing. These are all doubts, but they aren't reasonable doubts, which is why that is the standard for conviction. Sentencing is done on the assumption that the criminal is guilty. If the convicted isn't guilty that's the problem right there... the DP is a seperate issue.