Rick Perry executes another innocent man

[Prometheus]

Plenty of reasons not to vote for Perry.

I'm not going to waste my time looking into this.

He is a big government, woman hating, global warming nut job. Those three things alone make him a triple crown douchebag.

 

[NYFelon]

I think thats an argument just for the sake of arguing.

That doesn't mean everyone outside of the group of already found guilty convics are trust worthy.....Sorry I don't trust criminals.

It isn't arguing just to argue. It is a legitimate and understood legal distinction. The fact that you don't trust "criminals" is immaterial. In our justice system, there are felonies. Some felonies are "crimes of moral turpitude" and some are not. Bribery, embezzling, any intent to defraud, robbery, and rape are examples of crimes of moral turpitude. Drunk Driving, simple assault or battery, or many other "minor" felonies are not crimes of moral turpitude. The legal system in these United States recognizes a difference between them. Can you spot the difference and make the distinction, or should we just "fry 'em all and fuhgeddabotit?"

 

[rambone]

"Until now, I had thought it would be recognized by every law- abiding person, to say nothing of a prosecutor and a court, that helping the investigation of a murder was a good thing and that "omerta" was the ethic of organized crime. I would reverse the sentence of death and remand the case for another hearing on punishment ."

-Judge Womack, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (12/15/04)



"Mr. Rhodes turned himself into police days after the slayings, confessed, and implicated Mr. Woods. His attorneys have said he was at the scene of the crime but did not participate in the killings.

Mr. Rhodes took the stand earlier in the week but refused to testify on the grounds his statements might be self-incriminating."

-[Source: Dallas Morning News]



"The killer is Marcus Rhodes, not Mr. Woods. Its Marcus' gun. It was found in his room, under his bed.

If he were here in this courtroom, I would be pointing at him, telling you that over and over, but I dont have that opportunity."

-Denton County Judge Jerry Parr

 

[redneckmedic]

It isn't arguing just to argue. It is a legitimate and understood legal distinction. ...snip...... Can you spot the difference and make the distinction, or should we just "fry 'em all and fuhgeddabotit?"

Sure it is, you can't quote anyone or anything to justify my feelings being wrong. I don't trust certain groups of people, and they have proving to do to me otherwise.... its a short list, criminals, lairs, cheats, thieves, womanizers, and vegetarians.

Who said anything about frying someone? I only said I don't trust criminals. Sorry you disagree.

 

[level.eleven]

Texas politics are like any other state's (except moreso, if you ask a Texan!). It's pretty easy to find pros and cons for any gubernatorial position, and death penalty cases are more likely than most to be argued over after-the-fact. In point of fact, once a person has been convicted and sentenced in a death penalty case, not much other than positive/negative ID DNA evidence is going to keep that person from execution.

Except that's not exactly what we have here. When presented with the fact that the science used to convict Wiiligham was junk, Perry fired the head of the Texas Forensic Commission and replaced him with one of his lap dogs in an attempt to brush the conviction under the rug - a guy who "restructured" the process to keep it secret. The Texas AG was even on board with the investigation. Independent investigators found the science used was junk and didn't even meet the current standards in place. Perry wanted a dead man, and he got it.

As pointed out by Balko, the coverup is always worse than the crime.

 

[Rob377]

An unsourced copy-paste from an anti death penalty website? One that conveniently edits out that Woods' claimed to have information about another murder and offered it for leniency? I'm totally convinced now! Free Steven Woods!!!

 

[bingley]

On a related, but somewhat separate issue, I was appalled when the audience at the GOP debate cheered at the mention of the number of prisoners Perry executed. Whichever way you look at it, that means we live in such a messed up society that we have to or we choose to kill so many people. Think about the people who suffered from the crimes. Their lives will never be restored. How dire this situation is. At best this is the least of all evils, but it is still an evil. It is absolutely not something we should cheer like we are at some spectator event. Let's all act like civilized men and women, rather than desensitized hooligans at gladiatorial games. Execution statistics should be met with a somber, solemn air. The audience at the debated behaved poorly because they were not very good human beings.

One final point: if the number of people we execute every year is something to be proud of, then we are losing to China, which executed 10,000 people in 2005. Are we planning to "catch up" to China?

Da Bing

 

[lrahm]

I have significant issues with Rick Perry (those are perhaps left to another thread) and will not vote for him, and, if somehow he gets the nomination, would likely work for any 3rd party presidential candidate.

But, on the capital punishment issue, each state can do it how they want (within certain parameters). Texas' death penalties are commonly reviewed by the US Supreme Court, so if there was a constitutional problem, these would have been stopped.

That's the system we have. Best one in the world, so far.

Now, in terms of the one guy getting life and the other getting executed, it isn't hard for me to morally resolve at all. The guy who got life, either by luck or design, is getting off easy.

Keep in mind, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where the friend who beat the death sentence decides to try to help his buddy by admitting to be the shooter, when he cannot be re-sentenced. Inmates never lie.

Good post.

A couple of other questions. When he came forward days after the murder, whey didn't he have an attorney representing him to work out a deal? Whey did he stand back and watch someone get murdered without doing something?

 

[NYFelon]

fear for his own life perhaps?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ram, do you just have a problem with Felony Murder or do you think Woods was there to borrow a cup of flour or to bum a cigarette and think he was innocent? Big difference.

 

[Dogman]

+1 for Texas. One less POS out commiting crimes.

 

[lrahm]

Ram, do you just have a problem with Felony Murder or do you think Woods was there to borrow a cup of flour or to bum a cigarette and think he was innocent? Big difference.

No problem with conviction of a felony murder at all. I have seen plenty and know that it is not up for me to decide whether or not the prosecutor takes up the crusade. I also know that it is a "crap shoot" when the jury gets the case. I'm just saying that if he was such an innocent man (as portrayed) then he should have showed up with legal representation asking for a deal. He probably knew what was going to happen long before.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This law states that if 2 (or more) people witness a murder, all of the people there can be charged, tried, and convicted for the murder.

The law in Texas does not state that. You cannot be prosecuted for witnessing a murder. You are prosecuted under Felony Murder.

 

[lrahm]

Ram, do you just have a problem with Felony Murder or do you think Woods was there to borrow a cup of flour or to bum a cigarette and think he was innocent? Big difference.

No problem with conviction of a felony murder at all. I have seen plenty and know that it is not up for me to decide whether or not the prosecutor takes up the crusade. I also know that it is a "crap shoot" when the jury gets the case. I'm just saying that if he was such an innocent man (as portrayed) then he should have showed up with legal representation asking for a deal. He probably knew what was going to happen long before.

 

[lrahm]

The law in Texas does not state that. You cannot be prosecuted for witnessing a murder. You are prosecuted under Felony Murder.

Obviously they jury fely he was a willing participant.

 

[CarmelHP]

No problem with conviction of a felony murder at all. I have seen plenty and know that it is not up for me to decide whether or not the prosecutor takes up the crusade. I also know that it is a "crap shoot" when the jury gets the case. I'm just saying that if he was such an innocent man (as portrayed) then he should have showed up with legal representation asking for a deal. He probably knew what was going to happen long before.

I think he was asking Rambone, the OP.

 

[rambone]

I'm just saying that if he was such an innocent man (as portrayed) then he should have showed up with legal representation asking for a deal. He probably knew what was going to happen long before.

Innocent people shouldn't have to make deals.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, you think he is actually innocent? You disagree with Texas's version of Felony Murder?

 

[bobzilla]

Obviously they jury fely he was a willing participant.

+1. He was convicted by a jury of his peers. Doesn't exactly sound like an innocent man to me.

 

[rambone]

Ram, do you just have a problem with Felony Murder or do you think Woods was there to borrow a cup of flour or to bum a cigarette and think he was innocent? Big difference.

Its not what you think, its what you can prove.