Texas Death Penalty May Be Ruled UnConstitutional

[mrjarrell]

A Texas judge is set to rule on the Constitutionality of their death penalty and it may just get get struck down. This is not a bad thing, since they've had an inordinate amount of death row exoneration's over the years and even some innocent people executed. Maybe now they'll get to shut down their express lane death row service and start to fix their broken system.

Judge to Rule on Death Penalty Constitutionality — Death Penalty | The Texas Tribune

 

[CombatVet]

I didn't read the article of course, but am very much for the death penalty. I may be primitive (my words) in that thinking, but I feel we need something for "higher" crimes. As for the constitutionality of it I would think your rights go out the window with certain crimes. You no longer have the right to pursue happiness etc?

 

[mrjarrell]

I didn't read the article of course, but am very much for the death penalty. I may be primitive (my words) in that thinking, but I feel we need something for "higher" crimes. As for the constitutionality of it I would think your rights go out the window with certain crimes. You no longer have the right to pursue happiness etc?

The problem here, CV, is that Texas has an unacceptably high death row exoneration rate. The probability that they've executed innocent people is high. It's not worth it to allow the state that kind of power, especially when prosecutors go out of their way to exclude evidence that would free the innocent. The system is rigged against the people there. Better to take the death penalty off the table entirely, it's too much power in the states hands. And you should really read the article.

 

[CombatVet]

The problem here, CV, is that Texas has an unacceptably high death row exoneration rate. The probability that they've executed innocent people is high. It's not worth it to allow the state that kind of power, especially when prosecutors go out of their way to exclude evidence that would free the innocent. The system is rigged against the people there. Better to take the death penalty off the table entirely, it's too much power in the states hands. And you should really read the article.

Therein lies the problem then? Correct? The system needs fixed. I still don't see how the death penalty would be unconstitutional. Do you see it as unconstitutional? If yes, how so?

It's an interesting case none the less. I think I'll be bringing this up in class today.

 

[Que]

I used to think most people would have no problem with the punishment of death, resulting from certain heinous crimes; however, I am not sure that's the case. I am not of that opinion in the face of infallible evidence and and absolutely no mitigating circumstances. The problem is, our judicial system has a history of corruption and has put many innocent people to death, sometimes even after discovering the person was innocent. Another problem in certain states/districts is that defense attorneys are not provided with adequate resources necessary to develop an adequate defense. Because of this and other reasons, I am for re-evaluating the system in order to find solutions to these problems.

 

[CombatVet]

I am for re-evaluating the system in order to find solutions to these problems.

As am I, however, for certain crimes if it is beyond a shadow of a doubt the criminal is guilty then I am still for the death penalty. I think it is more of the "primitive" (my words) nature of some of my thinking however. I think it should be made harder to receive the death penalty, but like I stated earlier it should still remain under certain conditions.

 

[BigMatt]

I am for the death penalty, but I also think we should be sure before we kill off a bad guy.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

We should be sure before anyone is convicted of anything. Consideration of sentence should be irrelevent to wether someone is convicted of anything or not.

 

[rambone]

We should be sure before anyone is convicted of anything. Consideration of sentence should be irrelevent to wether someone is convicted of anything or not.

What does that even mean? How are sentencing and conviction irrelevant to one another?

 

[Bondhead88]

The problem here, CV, is that Texas has an unacceptably high death row exoneration rate. The probability that they've executed innocent people is high. It's not worth it to allow the state that kind of power, especially when prosecutors go out of their way to exclude evidence that would free the innocent. The system is rigged against the people there. Better to take the death penalty off the table entirely, it's too much power in the states hands. And you should really read the article.

Who is not going to allow the state the right to execute prisoners? The federal government, the courts?

Neither have the right (although they do it anyway) to over rule the state in this matter.

I do not believe that forensic evidence alone should be used to convict and then condemn someone to death. I believe that multiple co-berating eye witnesses testimony should have to be available otherwise the person may only be sentenced to prison terms.

 

[mrjarrell]

Who is not going to allow the state the right to execute prisoners? The federal government, the courts?

Neither have the right (although they do it anyway) to over rule the state in this matter.

I do not believe that forensic evidence alone should be used to convict and then condemn someone to death. I believe that multiple co-berating eye witnesses testimony should have to be available otherwise the person may only be sentenced to prison terms.

Did you not read the article? A judge in Texas is set to rule on it. A Texan judge. And, yes, judges at all levels can, and should have the ability to rule on the legitimacy of laws and sentencing. It's how our system is set up. Maybe it's different in Canada, but it's not that way here. Shoot, in this country even the jurors can over rule state laws. It's our right. Please go back and read the article.

 

[TRWXXA]

Before you start listening to the dope-smokin', Kum Ba Ya-singin' hippies at the Innocence Project, you should be aware of this HARD FACT...

Forensic evidence IS NOT excuplatory evidence.

This means that forensic evidence (fingerprints, shoe prints, and yes... even DNA) can't prove somebody didn't do something. The criminal-lovin' nuts at the Innocence Project would love you to believe otherwise.

I have had the pleasure of discussing this very topic with both Innocence Project lawyers and forensics (including DNA) experts at the Indiana State Police Laboratory, and believe me, the science wins out over the IP's broken logic hands down.

Here is an example of the way the killer-huggers think, even beyond DNA evidence (and this is exactly what the IP folks were saying to me):

"A lot of people on death row were put there by the testimony of a person facing similar charges of their own. So they were probably lying to help save themselves."

"There are people on death row for crimes that prisoners convicted of other crimes have confessed to."

So the Innocence Project just assumes a criminal witness is lying in court. But then they are all too willing to hang onto every word when a convict suddenly starts singing like a canary from his prison cell.

It usually turns out that the confessors have some connection to the death row inmates, and they are serving life-without-parole or death sentences of their own, so they have nothing to lose. It turns out that there is honor among thieves... Sort of.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's a rather odd asserion, considering that the Innocence Project has used DNA evidence to get a number of peoples sentences overturned. Those "dope-smokin' hippies" have a rather impressive record of getting innocent people out of jail. Put there by prosecutors who relied on shoddy forensic evidence in many cases.

 

[machete]

Therein lies the problem then? Correct? The system needs fixed.

but you cant fix a system in which 12 angry people just want to f*&%g kill someone...and dont care about evidence...or law...

plus judges are so proprosecution and proindictment that its pretty easy to convict anyone of anything,,,especially when you get 12 angry people who want to take out their anger at the world,,,on someone...

in a jury,,,the angry person is likely to be dominant,,,and angry people like to hurt others,,,so he ends up peer pressuring the jury into doing what he wants...hurting someone...

 

[CombatVet]

but you cant fix a system in which 12 angry people just want to f*&%g kill someone...and dont care about evidence...or law...

plus judges are so proprosecution and proindictment that its pretty easy to convict anyone of anything,,,especially when you get 12 angry people who want to take out their anger at the world,,,on someone...

in a jury,,,the angry person is likely to be dominant,,,and angry people like to hurt others,,,so he ends up peer pressuring the jury into doing what he wants...hurting someone...

Good point!

 

[BtownBlaster]

What does that even mean? How are sentencing and conviction irrelevant to one another?

What I took from that was that we shouldn't merely be concerned about a person's actual guilt or innocence if their life is in jeopardy. A person's freedoms and liberty are just as important as their life. "Give me liberty, or give me death," or something like that.

 

[christman]

It would be a good start to retry all death row cases nationwide to include the use of DNA testing if said cases predated the mandatory testing of such. Would it cost money? Sure....But it would also eliminate doubt and speed up those who truly deserve their punishments.

 

[TRWXXA]

That's a rather odd asserion, considering that the Innocence Project has used DNA evidence to get a number of peoples sentences overturned. Those "dope-smokin' hippies" have a rather impressive record of getting "innocent" people out of jail. Put there by prosecutors who relied on shoddy forensic evidence in many cases.

There! Fixed your post for you.

Since you must have missed it the first time, let me state the scientific FACT for you one more time: DNA evidence IS NOT exculpatory. Fingerprint evidence IS NOT exculpatory.

Let me give you an example: A woman is raped by a dirtbag. They get a rape kit on her, and they get a DNA sample that matches, not the dirtbag, but the woman's boyfriend. Finding his DNA doesn't mean the boyfriend raped her -- a point that the woman would surely bring up when she mentions that she did have consentual sex with him earlier that day. The boyfriend's DNA DOES NOT show that the dirtbag didn't do it. It ONLY shows that they didn't get the dirtbag's DNA, even though HE STILL RAPED HER. Perhaps he used a condom. Perhaps he is unable to complete the act, or didn't leave much of a sample.

Evidence techs could dust YOUR car for fingerprints, and it is possible that they may not find one useable fingerprint of yours. I'm pretty damn sure that you have been in your own car a time or two, but the lack of a readable print does not prove otherwise.

You want us to believe that the prosecutors used shoddy forensic evidence to put creeps on death row. It's odd that we are to expected to just accept that same type of evidence when it come to letting the creeps out. And what's shoddier than taking old evidence that has been stored in cardboard boxes in some dank storage room for decades, testing it and claiming that the lack of a useable sample is proof of a scum's innocence? What's shoddier asking the courts to disregard witness testimony because their recollections today don't match exactly what they were 20 years ago (that's if they can even find the witnesses years later)?

Give my regards to whatever death row inmate you're exchanging love letters with.

 

[millfire517]

I didn't read the article of course, but am very much for the death penalty. I may be primitive (my words) in that thinking, but I feel we need something for "higher" crimes. As for the constitutionality of it I would think your rights go out the window with certain crimes. You no longer have the right to pursue [strike]happiness[/strike]your next breath etc?

fixed it

 

[garlic_b]

Living here in China has given me a lot of time to think about this subject with a different perspective. I think a higher percentage of people here (in China) support the DP than do in the US. That said when my students ask me my view on the subject I say the following, "In a legal system devoid of mistakes or biases I am in complete support of the death penalty. That said no such system currently or ever will exist."

I am by no means a convict loving hippy. But I think even the risk of executing an innocent person (which is in itself, murder) let alone actually executing one. Being against the death penalty and wanting to release convicted criminals onto the street is not even remotely similar. Life imprisonment.

I think from a punishment perspective, life imprisonment is a much worse option. I know if I were guilt and convicted and sentenced, I would actually want to choose execution over living in a cell the rest of my life.