Death gets second chance after lethal injection botched

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Notice here that it matters not to me what you do down in Australia. I have no interest in visiting or working there.
When that fellow..the animal guy ...Irwin...when I found out that he came to the USA for surgery rather than have it down down under.. ..that told me enough...that something was not quite right down there. But that is your buisness...not mine. I will however make note of it. I do not seek to change your form of government.

Since then I have been in contact with numerous folks in the UK on different boards. Many of them are fed up with what their government is doing to them. They just find great difficulty voicing their views on a rigged media. Outlets like this are one of the few places we hear about it. We actually hear very little through the major media here about conditions there. or in the UK. I do not think this is accidental.
I also hear about it from fellow Ham Radio operators in these countries...and others as well.

LOL How arrogant are you? Thinking that the USA is so bloody high and mighty compared to countries you admittedly know diddly squat about, except what you hear on Ham Radio and see on cable TV. That's the most arrogantly ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I'm not going to bother answering the rest of your arrogant post.

And his name was Steve Irwin by the way.




[edit on 21/9/2009 by Kryties]

reply to post by ts117



On September 29, 1981, Texas Public Safety Officer David Rucker was shot and killed along a stretch of highway a few miles north of Brownsville, Texas. Rucker's body was discovered by a passer-by, lying beside his patrol car. He had been shot in the head.

Around the same time, Los Fresnos Police Officer Carrisalez observed a speeding vehicle traveling on the same road away from where Rucker's body had been found. Carrisalez and his partner turned on the patrol car's flashing red lights and pursued the vehicle, which pulled over. Carrisalez took a flashlight and walked toward the car. The driver of the vehicle opened his door and exchanged words with Carrisalez before firing at least one shot at Carrisalez' chest. He died nine days later.

Leonel Torres Herrera was arrested a few days later and was charged with the capital murder of both Carrisalez and Rucker. In January 1982, Herrera was tried and found guilty of the capital murder of Carrisalez, for which he was sentenced to death. In his capital murder trial, Carrisalez' partner identified Herrera as the person who shot Carrisalez.

Later that year, Herrera pleaded guilty to the murder of Rucker. ALTHOUGH THEY COULD NOT ADMIT IT, THIS WAS THE CLINCHER FOR THE COURTS.

NOW I’M DUBIOUS OF THIS EVIDENCE. IT SOUNDS LIKE A PLANT TO ME.

Other evidence showed that Herrera's Social Security card had been found alongside Rucker's patrol car on the night he was killed. Splatters of blood on the car identified by Carrisalez' partner as the vehicle involved in the shootings were found to be type A blood, the same as Rucker's.

SOMETIMES COPS GO OVERBOARD AND OVERDO IT.

[In 1985] Herrera filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, claiming that new evidence demonstrated he was actually innocent of the murder of Carrisalez. Herrera included two affidavits with his petition from Hector Villarreal, an attorney who had represented Herrera's brother, Raul Herrera, Sr., and Juan Franco Palacious, Raul Herrera's former cellmate. Both affidavits claimed that Raul Herrera, who was murdered in 1984, had told them that he had killed Rucker and Carrisalez.

Leonel Herrera claimed that the new evidence showed that he was actually innocent, and that executing an innocent person would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Two questions were presented for the Supreme Court's review:

1) Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to execute an individual who is innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted and sentenced to death?

2) What post-conviction procedures are necessary to protect against the execution of an innocent person?

1994. Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s majority opinion held that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence did not state a ground for federal habeas relief.

Herrera claimed that because the new evidence demonstrated his innocence, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment which applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rehnquist’s opinion noted that “few rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual innocence.”

THE KEY WORD HERE IS “FREESTANDING” CLAIMS. Which means in this case the LACK of probative, credible evidence.

Rehnquist’s opinion, although not explicitly holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit executing an innocent person, emphasized that Herrera was not raising a constitutional violation.

Rehnquist’s opinion also held that Texas courts’ refusal to even consider Herrera’s newly discovered evidence did not violate due process and suggested that Herrera file a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles. THAT'S LIKE WRITING TO A DEAD LETTER BOX.

Justice Harry Blackmun, dissenting and was joined by Justices Stevens and Souter. Blackmun believed that "nothing could be more contrary to contemporary standards of decency or more shocking to the conscience than to execute a person who is actually innocent."

Blackmun would have remanded the case to the district court for a determination as to whether a hearing should be held and to resolve the merits of Herrera's claim of actual innocence.

Chastising the majority for its circumspection, Blackmun wrote, "We really are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless, can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence," and he took note of "the State of Texas' astonishing protestation to the contrary."

NOTHING BAD IN TEXAS SURPRISES ME.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote an opinion concurring with Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion. O'Connor concluded by asserting that the majority did not hold that the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent person.

THAT’S GOOD TO KNOW.

Herrera was executed four months after the ruling. In his final statement he said: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

[My opinions are in caps.]

[edit on 9/21/2009 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by silo13

 

Deny Emotion, Apply Logic.

Emotional blackmail will not change my opinion of this.

I would have to say that we should never deny emotion. Emotion is what makes us human. Logic applied without emotion leads to robots, super soldiers, and a hive mind with very few kings and queens at the top exploiting the worker bees.

I believe in the death penalty, but not because its the ultimate punishment to hand down to murderer. I see it as a fine. He chose to deny life to another human being and the fine for that is the death penalty. How much it costs 'The State' to imprison him for life against the cost of execution should have no bearing on it.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by ts117

 

OK, so how does all of that justify the use of the Death Penalty on innocent people? How would YOU explain, to the family of an innocent man or woman slaughtered by their government, why he or she was put to death? Why someone didn't realise that the system was about to execute an innocent person?

"Woops, sorry about that - we get it right MOST of the time" just doesn't cut it with me by the way.


[edit on 21/9/2009 by Kryties]

I would be more concerned about explaining to the thousands of surviving family and friends of the murder victims, that the guilty killers were not going to pay for their crimes with their lives, but instead sit on their arses, with three squares a day, a roof over their heads, and the intellectual freedom to explore their sick and twisted psyche ad nauseum.

Thats the much bigger crime here.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by sos37

 

LOL, and if you had have even read this page, let alone the entire thread, you would know I have a sister who was raped - that's pretty much the same thing as having a daughter who was raped wouldn't you say? No, she wasn't murdered but she still suffered a shocking and terrible ordeal the details of which I will not say here as I don't think my sister will appreciate it.

Got your foot in your mouth now? Shove it in real hard.

Dude, you are as ignorant as you are foolish. A sister??? A sister is NOWHERE in the same ballpark as a daughter. The love you feel for a daughter and a sister is so different that it cannot be described. And you even admitted that your sister wasn't killed so how would you even know that your feelings wouldn't change? Oh, right. You're most likely some punk kid that thinks they know everything there is to know about everything.

You just shot your own credibility all to hell with that response. Do yourself a favor - stay in school and pay attention to what the teachers have to say.

reply to post by Kryties


Hey you are entitled to your opinion as to why I take the length of time I do to respond. I could answer honestly and tell you I work a 12 hour swing shift and have a family (wife and son), but you would think I was trying to avoid the subject. So no matter, think what you will. My time here is a bit limited at times.


Regardless of why you tried to point out that indiscretion of the other poster you failed in the attempt. It showed exactly your true “logic” for this thread and just how “logical” you are. The guy that murdered and raped a 14 year old girl harmed a child he deserves a punishment one that is just as harsh. She on the other hand did nothing to deserve her rape and death.


As for my pointing to God and by beliefs I already said that is for me and Him to work out. I never claimed it was moral I just claimed it was for us to work out. Maybe you misread that or it was just not clear to you. After all I do get a bit off track at times after a full day of work and all; if it was too difficult for you I am sorry. I will make it more clear here though. My moral issues are for me and God to work out not for me and posters on ATS to work out. I stand by my original statement if it is not morally acceptable to God than I hope He is more forgiving than us humans. Humans are known to be emotional and a bit unforgiving at times. If you find that difficult to understand I am not sure what to tell you aside from read it until you do.

As for going back and looking at that post I recalled reading it but I did not remember where it was so I did not bother mentioning it until I found the actual quote. Clear enough? If not, so sorry.

Raist