Texas Death Penalty May Be Ruled UnConstitutional

[Bill of Rights]

I've read the article. I cannot agree with the removal of capital punishment from the "arsenal" the state has at its disposal.

If I was willing to do so, would I not at the same time have to contend that it is equally wrong for a citizen to take the life of a criminal in the process of committing a crime of violence against him/her? I can't logically go down that path.

I agree, given the points the article made, that some reform may be in order, however at the same time, the fact that the source and the "Innocence Project" together commissioned the results that were tested tells me that the "news" source is hardly unbiased. I therefore treat their conclusions as questionable and anything they present as fact to be suspect until proven by an independent, truly unbiased source.

 

[chraland51]

I would not have much of a problem if states would eliminate the death penalty. We all see the rich and famous getting off with slaps on the hand and reduced sentences where you and I and the other common folk would be sentenced to hard time. Just look at our a$$wipe elected officials in congress. Charlie Rangle commited what should be considered felonies and got off with a hand slap and a little embarassment. The creep should have been sent to jail. Several years ago Dan Rostenkowski from the great state of Illiniois got off pretty easy after committing fraud and writing bad checks. Did you know that his family and that of Hilary Rodham Clinton were in banking or something along those lines together and that her brother's law firm made billions from the big suit with the tobacco industry. The rich also can afford the best lawyers to play the game while overworked public defenders usually go for a plea bargain even though they may feel that their client may be innocent. Until things even out a little, the death penalty can be put on hold. However, I am not one to send any convict to a country club type of lockup facility with tennis courts and swimming pools and cable television like we see for the federal criminals. Maybe we can pay Mexico a few pesos a day to take care of many of our convicted felons.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

If no death penalty, then let's pay Mexico to incarcerate them. Seems a fair trade to me.

I would not have much of a problem if states would eliminate the death penalty. We all see the rich and famous getting off with slaps on the hand and reduced sentences where you and I and the other common folk would be sentenced to hard time. Just look at our a$ elected officials in congress. Charlie Rangle commited what should be considered felonies and got off with a hand slap and a little embarassment. The creep should have been sent to jail. Several years ago Dan Rostenkowski from the great state of Illiniois got off pretty easy after committing fraud and writing bad checks. Did you know that his family and that of Hilary Rodham Clinton were in banking or something along those lines together and that her brother's law firm made billions from the big suit with the tobacco industry. The rich also can afford the best lawyers to play the game while overworked public defenders usually go for a plea bargain even though they may feel that their client may be innocent. Until things even out a little, the death penalty can be put on hold. However, I am not one to send any convict to a country club type of lockup facility with tennis courts and swimming pools and cable television like we see for the federal criminals. Maybe we can pay Mexico a few pesos a day to take care of many of our convicted felons.

 

[machete]

I've read the article. I cannot agree with the removal of capital punishment from the "arsenal" the state has at its disposal.

If I was willing to do so, would I not at the same time have to contend that it is equally wrong for a citizen to take the life of a criminal in the process of committing a crime of violence against him/her? I can't logically go down that path.

???????????????????????

what???????

a citizen has to act--right now---in a matter of life and death...

a thug is locked in a cell...where we can keep and eye on him...and where he doesnt have a gun...

Not even close to the same thing...

 

[level.eleven]

???????????????????????

what???????

a citizen has to act--right now---in a matter of life and death...

a thug is locked in a cell...where we can keep and eye on him...and where he doesnt have a gun...

Not even close to the same thing...

I agree, although with less punctuation. A self defense scenario and a failed justice system aren't a fair comparison.

Check out the Corey May thread a few threads down. He was given the death penalty for a self defense shooting. The scenario has all the elements that make death penalty convictions a risky path to follow. Crooked prosecutors and judges, state experts that aren't even licensed in their field, confidential informants with agendas, a black population and a white police force...in the heart of Mississippi, no knock raids, the list goes on. These are the scenarios that make the finality of sentencing one to death a power that currently can't be trusted in the hands of the state. Maybe some day, but not now.

I also have never heard such vitriolic stances taken against non-for-profits dedicated to getting innocent men off of death row. I find it difficult to understand how these organizations have influenced people in this manner. Perhaps its takes someone you know, or yourself for that matter, to be railroaded by a state agency to understand just how helpless you can wind up. Especially, if you are poor. Shedding light on weak prosecution, corruption, and questionable scientific should be something welcomed by all Americans. Killer-huggers? Really? Bloodlust is contagious, apparently

 

[Bill of Rights]

???????????????????????

what???????

a citizen has to act--right now---in a matter of life and death...

a thug is locked in a cell...where we can keep and eye on him...and where he doesnt have a gun...

Not even close to the same thing...

If the crime committed is one for which a citizen defending his/her life or that of a loved one could lawfully shoot and in the process, kill the thug, then IMHO, that is put at risk if the state cannot execute that same criminal for the same crime. I'm not comparing an immediate threat to a prolonged set of multiple trials, only the crime that constitutes the first and could lead to the second.

 

[dross]

If you support the death penalty you must contain in your premeses one or both of the following:

1. The State has never and will never make a mistake.
2. Even if the State makes a mistake and executes an innocent, it is worth it.

If you believe the first, you are too naive for me to argue with. If you believe the second, I'd like to know what percentage of wrongfully executed people would you be willing to accept?

 

[dross]

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.

.

You can almost never prove that someone didn't do something. The state must prove the accused actually did do it. If they prove that through evidence that is later discovered to be wrong, that doesn't shift the burden of proof to the accused, it removes some or all of the reason the jury thought the accused was guilty.

Your logic is upside down.

 

[rambone]

If you support the death penalty you must contain in your premeses one or both of the following:

1. The State has never and will never make a mistake.
2. Even if the State makes a mistake and executes an innocent, it is worth it.

If you believe the first, you are too naive for me to argue with. If you believe the second, I'd like to know what percentage of wrongfully executed people would you be willing to accept?

+1

Can we extend these premises to, say, the assassination of suspected information leakers (or any other variety of non-violent enemies of the state)?

 

[dross]

+1

Can we extend these premises to, say, the assassination of suspected information leakers (or any other variety of non-violent enemies of the state)?

Absolutely not, though this argument belongs in another thread. Different standards must apply in war. To apply the standards of our legal system to war would render us unable to wage war.

 

[rambone]

Absolutely not, though this argument belongs in another thread. Different standards must apply in war. To apply the standards of our legal system to war would render us unable to wage war.

I think it stands to reason that the state may be fallible in the assassination business as well. The question remains, what percentage of the time will the assassination reach the correct suspect, will anyone else be harmed in the assassination attempt, is the suspect guilty to begin with, was the condemning evidence accurate, etc.

I tend to be way more in favor of due process. Anyways, yeah, this is kind of a threadjack.

 

[TRWXXA]

Your logic is upside down.

No, yours is.

You CAN prove someone DIDN'T do something. Just not with forensic evidence. A time-stamped ATM video can show that an accused person was somewhere else when a crime was allegedly committed (Duke University "rape" case). But DNA evidence (the primary tool of the Innocence Project) absolutely CANNOT prove innocence.

The IP relies on tricks, and manipulation of the system to get their "wrongly accused" clients off the hook. They are "true believers" that never met a criminal they didn't like. They are against executing ANYONE, not just the wrongly convicted. And they will stop at nothing to force their ideology on everyone.

And if you think that some judge's ruling validates them... Do you really think that some radical, left-wing judges haven't made it to the bench? Look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I've read the article. I cannot agree with the removal of capital punishment from the "arsenal" the state has at its disposal.

If I was willing to do so, would I not at the same time have to contend that it is equally wrong for a citizen to take the life of a criminal in the process of committing a crime of violence against him/her? I can't logically go down that path.

I agree, given the points the article made, that some reform may be in order, however at the same time, the fact that the source and the "Innocence Project" together commissioned the results that were tested tells me that the "news" source is hardly unbiased. I therefore treat their conclusions as questionable and anything they present as fact to be suspect until proven by an independent, truly unbiased source.

Absolutely not, though this argument belongs in another thread. Different standards must apply in war. To apply the standards of our legal system to war would render us unable to wage war.

Thou shalt not murder. I read this somewhere.

I am anti-death penalty. It is murdering criminals.
I am anti-abortion. It is murdering babies.
I am pro killing any enemy, foreign or domestic engaged in battle against us. It is protecting our country.
I am pro killing a threat to myself or my family. This is self defense.
I sleep very well at night.

 

[dross]

No, yours is.

You CAN prove someone DIDN'T do something. Just not with forensic evidence. A time-stamped ATM video can show that an accused person was somewhere else when a crime was allegedly committed (Duke University "rape" case). But DNA evidence (the primary tool of the Innocence Project) absolutely CANNOT prove innocence.

The IP relies on tricks, and manipulation of the system to get their "wrongly accused" clients off the hook. They are "true believers" that never met a criminal they didn't like. They are against executing ANYONE, not just the wrongly convicted. And they will stop at nothing to force their ideology on everyone.

And if you think that some judge's ruling validates them... Do you really think that some radical, left-wing judges haven't made it to the bench? Look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yes, SOMETIMES you can prove someone didn't do something. Are you really suggesting that a defendant should be required to prove his innocence?

If that forensic evidence was enough to convict a man, then calling it into serious question should be enough to acquit him. The mist from your smoked red herring can't change that.

 

[TRWXXA]

I grow wearisome of trying to explain logic and science to those who cannot percieve it.

The Innocence Project relies on DNA as proof that someone is innocent, which it cannot do. That is an absolute. They operate under the assumption that the jury convicted based on the DNA evidence alone. They also rely on the discrediting testimony given years before. Memories fade and even get mixed up with other memories, everyone knows that. They use recollections of witnesses that show "inconsistencies" from original testimony as "proof" that the witness was either lying or wrong many years prior.

It's a sham.

And, you know what? Even if they got "the wrong guy", the authorities didn't just happen upon some poopr slob minding his own business, and decide to charge him with a capital crime. The scum has some direct connection to the crime, and should probably be taking the eternal dirt nap anyway.

 

[mrjarrell]

I grow wearisome of trying to explain logic and science to those who cannot percieve it.

The Innocence Project relies on DNA as proof that someone is innocent, which it cannot do. That is an absolute. They operate under the assumption that the jury convicted based on the DNA evidence alone. They also rely on the discrediting testimony given years before. Memories fade and even get mixed up with other memories, everyone knows that. They use recollections of witnesses that show "inconsistencies" from original testimony as "proof" that the witness was either lying or wrong many years prior.

It's a sham.

And, you know what? Even if they got "the wrong guy", the authorities didn't just happen upon some poopr slob minding his own business, and decide to charge him with a capital crime. The scum has some direct connection to the crime, and should probably be taking the eternal dirt nap anyway.

Fortunately, the courts disagree with you and the Innocence Project can continue to free innocent people from their false imprisonment. If we followed your chain, there'd be a lot of innocent people still behind bars or executed for crimes they did not commit.

 

[Fargo]

And, you know what? Even if they got "the wrong guy", the authorities didn't just happen upon some poopr slob minding his own business, and decide to charge him with a capital crime. The scum has some direct connection to the crime, and should probably be taking the eternal dirt nap anyway.

Holy crap! You are awful free with giving away other's lives... Lets just hope you never attain a position of authority.

Joe

 

[dross]

I grow wearisome of trying to explain logic and science to those who cannot percieve it.

The Innocence Project relies on DNA as proof that someone is innocent, which it cannot do. That is an absolute. They operate under the assumption that the jury convicted based on the DNA evidence alone. They also rely on the discrediting testimony given years before. Memories fade and even get mixed up with other memories, everyone knows that. They use recollections of witnesses that show "inconsistencies" from original testimony as "proof" that the witness was either lying or wrong many years prior.

It's a sham.

And, you know what? Even if they got "the wrong guy", the authorities didn't just happen upon some poopr slob minding his own business, and decide to charge him with a capital crime. The scum has some direct connection to the crime, and should probably be taking the eternal dirt nap anyway.

We all appreciate your exhaustive forbearance for our inability to keep up with logic. I'll try hard to put myself in a logical place and not the emotional one I operate in as a matter of course. Just keep the smelling salts handy in case I get myself all a'twitter.

DNA doesn't automatically prove anything. If physical evidence were a strong piece of the puzzle, for instance blood type, and then DNA discredits that particular piece of evidence, shouldn't that person get another look.

Or putting all that aside, are you comfortable with an innocent person being executed, or do you think that never happens? Or, based on your implication, do you think they probably deserve to die anyway?