NEWS: Texas May Have Executed an Innocent Man

Originally posted by Dr Love
Some of you can post on here about how bad the death penalty is, but let see what your opinion is when a member of your own family is hacked or bludgeoned or shot to death by some whacko. You would start backpedaling so fast that you'd probably break your legs.

If we were to base our justice system strictly on the prudence of public emotion, then we'd be in serious trouble.

If someone in my family was victimized by somebody, in my fury I might change my stance on the death penalty (or I might not, I don't know), but that wouldn't make it right. Appealing to emotion has no impact on the appropriateness of an issue.

Again, I think that, in the wake of a crime, if we can avoid extra killing and more victimization, then we should.

Zip

Okay Zip,

Since you're obviously not content to just insult my intelligence, but also my integrity this will be my last post to this thread. I suggest that when you say there is no "value" difference to society you mean that there is no "utility" difference, since the criminal is removed from society. Utility is not the sole determinant of value. Take two cars with equal utility and equal cost. If seven out of ten consumers consistently choose car A over car B, then car A has more value to consumers, period. This is what I mean when I say that society believes that it benefits. The fact that given the choice, voters consistently ask for the death penalty option, shows that the intrinsic value, (whether that value is based on emotional arguments or not), is there.

As for my ability or inability to judge a man. I can think rationally, I do not pretend to be unopinionated on emotionally charged issues, but neither do I allow my view on penalty to affect my judgement when it comes to a burden of proof. The state I live in would not allow, however, someone who will not consider the possibility of capital punishment, to be in the jury on a capital murder case. That does not prevent rational, emotional people from giving life in prison as an alternative. Perhaps your "superior" moral view on this subject doesn't allow you to concieve of the possibility that us "knuckle-draggers" are sympathetic and caring people, we just like to have all options available to us.

In this particular case it is striking that the defense attorney could not dismantle the eyewitness' story during cross examination.

Originally posted by informatu
Okay Zip,

Since you're obviously not content to just insult my intelligence, but also my integrity this will be my last post to this thread.

I used a bad source, I did not intend to misrepresent the facts. I apologize for the judgement comment, but seriously, you seem like you're out for blood.

Let's take it easy.

Originally posted by informatu
Utility is not the sole determinant of value.

That's why I used the word "value" rather than "utility." Heh.

Originally posted by informatu
The fact that given the choice, voters consistently ask for the death penalty option, shows that the intrinsic value, (whether that value is based on emotional arguments or not), is there.

If you look at the numbers, I think you'll find that your statement ("voters consistently ask for the death penalty option") is incorrect. You are dismissing the issue as if it is not controversial, and I assure you that it is, and voters reflect this fact at the polls.

Originally posted by informatu
Perhaps your "superior" moral view on this subject doesn't allow you to concieve of the possibility that us "knuckle-draggers" are sympathetic and caring people, we just like to have all options available to us.

Oh, come on! That's unfair. I didn't say that capital punishment abolishionists are better people than capital punishment supporters, and I don't think that, either.

Jury disqualification due to discounting the possibility of capital punishment is not an issue in states that do not provide the opportunity for capital punishment sentencing.

Originally posted by informatu
In this particular case it is striking that the defense attorney could not dismantle the eyewitness' story during cross examination.

Not entirely. Ruben was an illegal immigrant couldn't afford a good lawyer.

Zip

I dont know if this has been brought up yet but since the newest state laws went into effect (Texas changes or adds laws every two years), support for the death penalty has gone down.

You see now jurors have a choice between 'death' and the new 'life without parole' option. Before, 'life' in a multiple murder case for instance would have ment possible parole after 40 years. This would be highly unlikely but in the back of a jurors mind too when handing out punishment if they knew the law as written at the time. Prosecutors fought this option for years here.

Maybe with the new life without parole option jurors will stop sending so many questionable cases to death row. It's a shame it took so many years for this to happen in my state.

As far as the kid who was executed goes, that was IMO murder for him hurting the cop. Most likely he was set up because they couldn't pin that on him. San Antonio had alot of bad apples on the force in the 80s.

The attorney asigned to the kids defence couldn't afford a private investigator to interview possible witnesses because she was only given 700 dollars to handle the murder case as was the amount given all public defenders back then. I think they make a little more now but not by much. This had alot to do with it as well.

Welcome to Texas is all I have to say.

Where the political game is as bad as the prison systems here.

The sad part about this is it happens alot in all states but in Texas it happens more frequantly because we are the second highest state to put people to death. So sad.......so sad.

Originally posted by Dr Love
I share no guilt. I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Some of you can post on here about how bad the death penalty is, but let see what your opinion is when a member of your own family is hacked or bludgeoned or shot to death by some whacko. You would start backpedaling so fast that you'd probably break your legs.

I don't think anyone else made clear their position on the hypothetical case of having someone in their family murdered, but I did:

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
I'll give you that. If any of my family members were murdered or raped I would want to kill the person who did it, anyone would. But should we as a society allow individuals to seek retribution by asking an eye for an eye? If you think that their retribution is justified, do you think that we should allow the victim's family members to personally carry out the execution?

I for one don't beleive that there's any justice in personal retribution. If you're going to bring God into this, how can you expect God to forgive you if you demand retribution for others transgressions?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.