Texas does it again

[Dazza]

Another day, another execution.

Another trial where inexperienced and unqualified lawyers are appointed by the court to defend a man's life - and fail.

Another set of questions about the evidence that the American system doesn't feel need to be answered. Another Governor who refuses to interfere.

Other countries execute people and other countries have unfair legal systems, but its particularly frustrating when a country that should know better refuses to apply the standards that the whole civilised world takes for granted.

When will the rest of the US realise and share the revulsion that civilised people feel when seeing what passes for justice in Texas?

Jackie Elliot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2726927.stm)

[hgc]

I share your revulsion. Texas and many other states don't supply capable defense in death penalty or any other cases with indigent defendents because they don't want to spend the money. It doesn't bother them because they're bloodthirsty.

[Tmy]

I'm not agianst the death penalty per se', I just find our system to be sooooo flawed and bias.

Case in point. That Susan Smith bizzatch in South Carolina who drowned her 2 kids. HOW DOES SHE GET OUT OF THE DEATH PENALTY?? Cuase she's a pretty young white girl.

There should be an extremely high standand of certainty for the death penalty to be invoked.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Dazza

Jackie Elliot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2726927.stm)

A little perspective:

Elliott was arrested while on probation for separate murder and burglary convictions.


I doubt, from most Texans' POV that this particular execution was any great tragedy. WTF was he doing out of jail anyway?

edited for spelling

[Aoidoi]

The murder victim, Joyce Munguia, was gang-raped and beaten to death with a motorcycle chain.
...
Elliott's legal team had argued new DNA tests could have proved that while Elliott was at the scene, he did not commit the crime - but these tests were not allowed.
New DNA tests? Meaning they'd already done DNA tests that showed him to be at the scene of a rape and murder? Assuming the usual fluids DNA testing is done on in rape cases does that mean his defense was that he raped her but didn't kill her? While on probabation for another murder?

You'll understand if I don't see this guy as the poster child for DP reform.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Aoidoi

You'll understand if I don't see this guy as the poster child for DP reform.


Good point.


It's interesting that our DP reform people can't seem to come up with a ' Barney Fife ' type, who was in another state attending church, when the murder they were convicted of, was committed.


( P.S. Beforeyou ask .. I'm not in favor of the death penalty... )

Originally posted by Aoidoi
New DNA tests? Meaning they'd already done DNA tests that showed him to be at the scene of a rape and murder? Assuming the usual fluids DNA testing is done on in rape cases does that mean his defense was that he raped her but didn't kill her? While on probabation for another murder?

You'll understand if I don't see this guy as the poster child for DP reform.

No point at all.

DNA tests have gotten very much more accurate in the last few years; many convictions have been overturned with the new tests. This may be what's meant. If so, there is no logical reason whatsoever to disallow the new tests. To do so is to say we don't care if he did it or not.

You ask several questions, all presumptive, answer none of them, and then pronounce that the case is valueless. Not very open minded in my book.

[Blue Monk]

As a citizen of Texas for 47 years I can tell you that I have seem individuals executed on evidence that I, in good conscience, could not have considered to convict them of shop-lifting.

Of course, one can no longer charge Texas with killing a disproportional number of minorities. In a uniquely Texas solution we simply kill more white people now.

Of course we still won't kill or even convict millionaires such as T. Cullen Davis. Even Texas is not that barbaric.

Of course in our defense I must remind you that Texas is a big state and values differ wildly from region to region. Central Texas where I reside is decidedly liberal and a far cry from the Northern Bible Belt area that supports the death penalty and elects Governors such George W.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Diogenes

It's interesting that our DP reform people can't seem to come up with a ' Barney Fife ' type, who was in aother state attending church, when the murder they were convicted of, was committed.
( P.S. Beforeyou ask .. I'm not in favor of the death penalty... )
I thought several factually innocent people had been put in Death Row in Illinois before the previous governor suspended executions.

In Texas, they rush the process so much and give such poor court representation to suspects that they might not have a chance to clear themselves.

I also do not oppose the death penalty in principle. but it has to be done right, and it appears in Texas that it isn't done right.

[Blue Monk]

There was a case here recently where a defendant filed an appeal based on the fact that during his closing arguments the D.A. offered the fact that the defendant was Hispanic and their supposed proclivity for violence as evidence to his guilt. Honest!

I don't know which is more disturbing…

That a D.A. would actually be allowed to put forth such an argument,

that a jury would actually consider that argument or

this revelation could even be debated as a legitimate reason for appeal.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to apologize for being late tonight but I was stopped by the police and charged with DWM, driving while Mexican. They said they would have let me go but I'm a repeat offender. - local comedian, I wish I could remember his name

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I thought several factually innocent people had been put in Death Row in Illinois before the previous governor suspended executions.

In Texas, they rush the process so much and give such poor court representation to suspects that they might not have a chance to clear themselves.

I also do not oppose the death penalty in principle. but it has to be done right, and it appears in Texas that it isn't done right.

I also support it in principle, but oppose it because it can't be done right..

I would go along with shooting perps caught in the act, on the spot.

Most other circumstances can be pretty hard to sort out..

[sorgoth]

Am I the only one who sees killing someone for a crime as a crime?

I mean, you are KILLING THE PERSON. How are you any better than the murderer? Yes, the murderer probably killed an innocent, and you are killing a murderer, but it's still murder.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Am I the only one who sees killing someone for a crime as a crime?

I mean, you are KILLING THE PERSON. How are you any better than the murderer? Yes, the murderer probably killed an innocent, and you are killing a murderer, but it's still murder.

How about imprisoning someone for the crime of kidnapping? How are you any better than the kidnapper?

[Skeptic]

How are you any better than the murderer? Yes, the murderer probably killed an innocent, and you are killing a murderer,

I think you just answered your own question.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
As a citizen of Texas for 47 years I can tell you that I have seem individuals executed on evidence that I, in good conscience, could not have considered to convict them of shop-lifting.

Of course, one can no longer charge Texas with killing a disproportional number of minorities. In a uniquely Texas solution we simply kill more white people now.

Of course we still won't kill or even convict millionaires such as T. Cullen Davis. Even Texas is not that barbaric.

Of course in our defense I must remind you that Texas is a big state and values differ wildly from region to region. Central Texas where I reside is decidedly liberal and a far cry from the Northern Bible Belt area that supports the death penalty and elects Governors such George W.

do is see a pattern here. possibly innocent people being killed in pursuit of a political agenda?

[hgc]

a_unique_person:

do is see a pattern here. possibly innocent people being killed in pursuit of a political agenda?
Yes. That's the pattern. The bloodthirsty among us do not care. They deny that it happens, but they know that it does.

It's not just the "possibly innocent" though. That refers to people who may not have actually committed the crime in reality. Our system of justice, theoretically, calls for all suspects to be considered innocent, in the eyes of the law, until convicted under all due process. Most people do not get, nor care to get, the distinction. Even people who did commit the crime in reality, but were denied due process (such as adequate consel, evidence withheld by prosecutors, prejudicial arguments, etc) in getting convicted should not have their sentences carried out until getting properly convicted in a new trial. The problem is that if you kill them, they can't get a new trial, can they? As a matter of fact, the bloodthirsty want to speed up the process from conviction to injection. They want to be less careful.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc

Our system of justice, theoretically, calls for all suspects to be considered innocent, in the eyes of the law, until convicted under all due process.

As you point out, the 'presumption of innocence' is part of procedural law and places
the burden of proof on the government.

It has little to do with how people feel toward various suspects in specific circumstances.

The victims blood on your shirt could create an atmosphere of doubt.

If the presumption of innocence were literal, no one would go to jail before they were convicted.

[hgc]

Diogenes:

As you point out, the 'presumption of innocence' is part of procedural law and places
the burden of proof on the government.

It has little to do with how people feel toward various suspects in specific circumstances.

The victims blood on your shirt could create an atmosphere of doubt.

If the presumption of innocence were literal, no one would go to jail before they were convicted.
Sure, the due process protections of our system have little to do with emotions. Or is it the other way around?

In any case, it's too damn bad for us that:

- the political atmosphere around the application of those protection is driven by the emotional need to kill and otherwise punish criminal suspects and convicts, not the logic of protecting us all from judicial overreach.

- appeals to emotion overrule the logic of those due process protections in the courtroom, in the jury room and in judges' chambers.

Also, people are held for trial sometimes because the evidence that they are a threat to flee or commit crimes is strong. That's similar to relying on evidence enough to bring an indictment in the first place. That's why the constitution calls for speedy justice, so that the time held in jail until a jury rules is relatively short -- not indefinite.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc .... snip...



Also, people are held for trial sometimes because the evidence that they are a threat to flee or commit crimes is strong. That's similar to relying on evidence enough to bring an indictment in the first place. That's why the constitution calls for speedy justice, so that the time held in jail until a jury rules is relatively short -- not indefinite.

Cuts both ways...

Defendants and their lawyers often use delaying tactics in the hope that evidence/witnesses will go away..


A speedy justice system might be the last thing, an innocent person convicted of murder,
would want to be faced with.

[hgc]

Diogenes:

Cuts both ways...

Defendants and their lawyers often use delaying tactics in the hope that evidence/witnesses will go away..


A speedy justice system might be the last thing, an innocent person convicted of murder,
would want to be faced with.
That may be true. Anecdotally speaking, I recall some recent high-profile cases where the judge forced trial date far in advance of when the defendent claimed he would be ready for trial -- John Walker Lindh, John Lee Malvo.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


do is see a pattern here. possibly innocent people being killed in pursuit of a political agenda?

Yes!

While politicians are partly to blame for offering quick and simple solutions to complex problems (and we are partly to blame for wanting quick and simple solutions to complex problems) it has been my experience that the simgle most bone-chilling aspect to this is the evil done by crooked DAs.

The fact is there are some in power who are so cold-blooded that they will actively block any attempt to overturn a conviction to prevent any blemishes on their conviction record.

And the 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' aspect only applies to those who have not been convicted. After you are convicted that no longer holds true.

Many states have enacted laws that limit the number of appeals you are allowed and that's that. This sets up the very real possibility that a person could use up all of their appeals and then have evidence turn up that would clear them without a doubt only to be executed anyway as there would be no legal way to stop it.

This has not happened to my knowledge but it has come damn close more than once in this state. We've had people on death row when new DNA evidence surfaces and then it is debated whether or not to consider it. I kid you not.

The absurdity of it would be comical if it were not so sickeningly real.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I thought several factually innocent people had been put in Death Row in Illinois before the previous governor suspended executions.

If its the case I'm thinking of, there were 6 people on death row who had their convictions overtuned by the govenor. However, I think in the majority of those cases, it wasn't that the people were found innocent, it was found that the original trial was flawed. (In some cases, the person confessed, but only under duress; however, they had lengthy criminal records and other evidence pointing to their guilt.)

Or am I thinking of a different case?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

If its the case I'm thinking of, there were 6 people on death row who had their convictions overtuned by the govenor. However, I think in the majority of those cases, it wasn't that the people were found innocent, it was found that the original trial was flawed. (In some cases, the person confessed, but only under duress; however, they had lengthy criminal records and other evidence pointing to their guilt.)

Or am I thinking of a different case?

being a 'criminal' is not reason to execute. if they are guilty of a crime, punish them for that. it is not a reason to also punish them for a murder they did not commit. the 'criminals' are also being used as a convenient patsy.

[Aoidoi]

Quoting Sundog from here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13380
Let me be the first to urge you to immediately, right now, go out and arrange the greatest, most spectacular death for yourself you can think of. I promise that I at least will not think it a tragedy for one moment.(I probably shouldn't even bring it up given the circumstances of that thread, but I almost posted about it then and the irony of this thread was too great to resist.)

From this thread:You ask several questions, all presumptive, answer none of them, and then pronounce that the case is valueless. Not very open minded in my book.I asked the questions as I was unsure of the meaning of the article. It appeared to me to imply that DNA testing was done at the time. You responded with a different interpretation, which is fine, then made a few presumptions of your own. Where did I say the case is valueless? It surely holds value to those directly involved, particularly the family and friends of Joyce Munguia. It held value to society, either to remove a murderer or to demonstrate the evils of the DP. I simply don't see this twice convicted murderer to be the best example (i.e. posterboy) for anti-DP.

Given a moment to research I found that his defense was that the sex was consensual and that he didn't beat her to death. The DNA test was to be on blood that splattered while she was being beaten to death. To me, a good DP example case would be one of mistaken identity or outright corruption... while it is possible that the wrong man was convicted in this case, Jackie Elliot was definately at the scene, definately had sex with the deceased shortly before her murder, and had apparently previously used a chain to beat someone. Personally I like my DP arguments with a hint of "The Fugitive" or "The Shawshank Redemption" rather than "I screwed her, but she wanted it! And then one of my buddies beat her to death."

But maybe I'm just being close minded. :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Quoting Sundog from here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13380
(I probably shouldn't even bring it up given the circumstances of that thread, but I almost posted about it then and the irony of this thread was too great to resist.)

From this thread:I asked the questions as I was unsure of the meaning of the article. It appeared to me to imply that DNA testing was done at the time. You responded with a different interpretation, which is fine, then made a few presumptions of your own. Where did I say the case is valueless? It surely holds value to those directly involved, particularly the family and friends of Joyce Munguia. It held value to society, either to remove a murderer or to demonstrate the evils of the DP. I simply don't see this twice convicted murderer to be the best example (i.e. posterboy) for anti-DP.

Given a moment to research I found that his defense was that the sex was consensual and that he didn't beat her to death. The DNA test was to be on blood that splattered while she was being beaten to death. To me, a good DP example case would be one of mistaken identity or outright corruption... while it is possible that the wrong man was convicted in this case, Jackie Elliot was definately at the scene, definately had sex with the deceased shortly before her murder, and had apparently previously used a chain to beat someone. Personally I like my DP arguments with a hint of "The Fugitive" or "The Shawshank Redemption" rather than "I screwed her, but she wanted it! And then one of my buddies beat her to death."

But maybe I'm just being close minded. :p

which is entirely the point. because he appears to be guilty of something, fry him. low grade politics, not a justice system. in fact it was the 'witness' who owned the chain and had used it before. the blood on his boots was never tested.

should jackie be in jail for rape? maybe. should he have been killed for the crime. given such unsure circumstances, and the fact that one of the witnesses may have been the perpetrator of the murder, no.

[Aoidoi]

Whoops, appears you are correct about the chain. It was an accomplice with the history with a chain. My mistake.

[Alaric]

The problem is, not many people give a damn whether he lives or dies. A rapist deserves the chair just as a murderer does. For him to have been executed in Texas, it requires two charges doesnt it? Would the other charge have been rape?

The point is, the guy was such an ass he never stood a chance. Many Texan men would find it a point of principle to execute him themselves. He never stood a fair chance of trial. His fault not ours. If you want to live-you need to be a bit more redeeming. I for one am against capital punishment<born and bred Canuck but I do see rape as big a crime as murder> but by god-PICK A BETTER EXAMPLE OF THIS ABUSIVE SYSTEM.

Those six guys that were let off- didnt it turn out to be a certain cop was there for all their "confessions" and that it turned out he beat it out of them? Admittedly...I got that info off an Oprah episode<ahem>

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Alaric
The problem is, not many people give a damn whether he lives or dies. A rapist deserves the chair just as a murderer does. For him to have been executed in Texas, it requires two charges doesnt it? Would the other charge have been rape?

The point is, the guy was such an ass he never stood a chance. Many Texan men would find it a point of principle to execute him themselves. He never stood a fair chance of trial. His fault not ours. If you want to live-you need to be a bit more redeeming. I for one am against capital punishment<born and bred Canuck but I do see rape as big a crime as murder> but by god-PICK A BETTER EXAMPLE OF THIS ABUSIVE SYSTEM.

Those six guys that were let off- didnt it turn out to be a certain cop was there for all their "confessions" and that it turned out he beat it out of them? Admittedly...I got that info off an Oprah episode<ahem>

i didn't know that personal opinions were supposed to have a bearing. justice is supposed to work on principles, not emotional responses.

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Quoting Sundog from here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13380
(I probably shouldn't even bring it up given the circumstances of that thread, but I almost posted about it then and the irony of this thread was too great to resist.)


You're going to have to explain the irony, I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to get it.

The original context was a response to someone who thought the Shuttle tragedy wasn't a tragedy, that it was a glorious death, and that he'd gladly ride the shuttle if guaranteed this glorious death. I think my response was appropriate, and I fail to see how it connects even tangentially with my position taken in this thread. Please explain, I love irony.

The only irony I can see so far is that someone showed you your assumptions were wrong, thus making my case very nicely. That one was delicious.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
i didn't know that personal opinions were supposed to have a bearing. justice is supposed to work on principles, not emotional responses.

Emotional responses such as, for instance, 'revulsion'?

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by sundog
You're going to have to explain the irony, I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to get it.Perhaps it is merely my own (admittedly odd) sense of humor. You're over here arguing that the DP is wrong while in another thread you were urging someone to commit suicide. An admitted simplification of your arguments, and really the main reason I brought it up was that I was tempted in the other thread to mention that urging someone to suicide is not in the best of taste, regardless of their views.

The irony seemed to be "Murderers shouldn't be executed but people who make tasteless comments deserve to die." I suspect I'm going to be in the minority opinion on the humor in this, though. Sadly a fairly common occurence for me. :)

It occurred to me after I posted that I'm not entirely sure of your position on the DP (I haven't actually stated mine in this thread for that matter) so perhaps my amusement was due merely to my misperception of your stance.

My apologies for any offense given.

Originally posted by Aoidoi


My apologies for any offense given.

Not at all!!! I'm a big boy, I can take it.

"Murderers shouldn't be executed but people who make tasteless comments deserve to die."

And your problem with this is... ?

:D

[gnome]

A couple of thoughts...

I heard an audiotape from a group called the Innocence Project where they explained the new DNA testing methods. Apparently the primary breakthrough was in the multiplication of a sample... which is to say, in a case where there was insufficient biological material to perform the DNA test, they found a way to make "more" so to speak from the sample, so that you wouldn't run out and have an inconclusive test.

This was applied to several cases and led to the overturn of many convictions... I believe many of the high-profile ones we have been hearing about are connected.

In most of the bad convictions, the problem could be tied into coerced or otherwise dubious confessions.

As far as burden of proof goes, I think a fair standard would be... you lose your presumption of innocence when you get convicted... which means if your appeals have run out, new evidence that introduces "reasonable doubt" would not be sufficient, but evidence of "actual innocence" should always be considered.

[a_unique_person]

It appears to me that there is something much worse than just a possibly innocent person being executed.

It is that the whole process runs on whether or not a prosecution is made. The idea that a guilty person is not being apprehended and punished, merely that someone has been, is a double disaster.

A guilty person gets off.
An innocent person is punished.

A prosecutor is only interested in statistics, and not at all in justice. Should the prosecutors be getting charged with murder?

[LucienVanImpe]

And the illustrious silver lining:

"While on death row, Elliott claimed to have conquered the drug and alcohol addictions which plagued him and has become a Christian."

Look, when you walk around with blood on your clothes from an 18-year-old mother, whom you just gang-raped, then I'm really not interested in your case.

Despite being skeptical of capital punishment.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe
And the illustrious silver lining:

"While on death row, Elliott claimed to have conquered the drug and alcohol addictions which plagued him and has become a Christian."

Look, when you walk around with blood on your clothes from an 18-year-old mother, whom you just gang-raped, then I'm really not interested in your case.

Despite being skeptical of capital punishment.

once again, the emotional aspect of the case. do you care that the probable murderer, because he did a deal with the police, has got off? the idea that because he is a bad person he is not entitled to due process of justice is wrong in itself.

[LucienVanImpe]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
once again, the emotional aspect of the case. do you care that the probable murderer, because he did a deal with the police, has got off? the idea that because he is a bad person he is not entitled to due process of justice is wrong in itself. I think they nailed the probable murderer from the evidence I have been presented so far. But I would have to go through the prosecution's material to give a fair assessment, rather than a BBC news article.

Maybe they should have executed all four of them.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


being a 'criminal' is not reason to execute. if they are guilty of a crime, punish them for that. it is not a reason to also punish them for a murder they did not commit. the 'criminals' are also being used as a convenient patsy.
Yes, people should only be punished for the crimes they commit.

But being a career criminal helps establish a pattern in a person's life, and that may be relevant to deciding whether a person who committed crime X may also be responsible for a similar crime.

[Smalso]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction and is as good a standard as anyone has come up with so far. The standard for imposition of the death penalty should be "beyond all doubt; and to this end a person sentenced to death should be allowed full access to the courts no matter how long it takes. Limiting the number of appeals is unmitigated ********. Why the big rush to execute? I wonder why the new DNA tests were not conducted. Indeed, I wonder why prosecutors oppose admission of any new evidence which, while not exonorating the convicted person, might mitigate against the death penalty.

As I have stated in other threads, I believe that the death penalty laws are bad laws; and bad laws simply cannot be applied fairly and impartially.

[Aoidoi]

Why the big rush to execute? The murder was in 1986. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 years from crime to executing the criminal. How long would be appropriate to wait?

It's generally impossible to remove all doubt... I mean, aliens could have used their evil Ray-O-Matic to kill Joyce Munguia and faked everything. It could have been an interdimensional murder spree by Elvis. The MIB are behind the whole thing. These are all doubts, but they aren't reasonable doubts, which is why that is the standard for conviction. Sentencing is done on the assumption that the criminal is guilty. If the convicted isn't guilty that's the problem right there... the DP is a seperate issue.

[Blue Monk]

While were on the subject I’d like to bring up a local conviction I have serious reservations about.

It concerns a very high-profile case known as ‘The Yogurt Shop Murders’ and you may have heard of it as it got lots of national attention.

It was a particularly heinous crime. Someone entered an “I Can’t Believe It’s Yogurt’ shop here in Austin where four teenage girls worked and after robbing the place they raped and killed the girls and then set fire to the shop to destroy evidence.

Needless to say this outraged and sickened our community and we all wanted to see the killers brought to justice.

The problem was there was virtually no physical evidence to work with. No murder weapon, no DNA and most anything relevant was destroyed by fire.

Months turned into years and everyone was frustrated. There was one very public misstep as some Mexican Nationals being held in Mexico ‘confessed’ to the crime but it was later determined that they were not the guilty parties and had only confessed because they were beaten by the police.

Finally after many years the police issued warrants and arrested four men who were teenagers at the time and charged them with the crime. Charges were soon dropped against one due to lack of evidence but most feel that the police had finally found those responsible and they had confessions.

Before they actually came to trial, however, a very disturbing photo appeared in the local paper. It was from an overhead camera in the interrogation room where one of the defendants was being questioned and it very clearly showed a detective holding a gun to the defendants head.

The police account of this stated that the gun was not loaded and that it had nothing to do with intimidation and that the detective was merely acting out a point in the defendant’s confession for clarification.

Nonetheless, the first defendant to stand trial, Robert Springsteen, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death based on his and another’s confession, even though there were serious doubts raised as to whether or not coercion was involved, there was no physical evidence linking any of the suspects to the crime and no murder weapon was ever recovered.

I would very much like to see those responsible held accountable but I am also very disturbed that this man should be sentenced to death on this evidence. I was not at the trial and in my heart I do believe that they have the right individuals yet I have a hard time believing this is enough evidence to qualify as ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and to justify a young man’s execution.

It is certainly not the first time I have had qualms about a death sentence in my home state.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
The murder was in 1986. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 years from crime to executing the criminal. How long would be appropriate to wait?

It's generally impossible to remove all doubt... I mean, aliens could have used their evil Ray-O-Matic to kill Joyce Munguia and faked everything. It could have been an interdimensional murder spree by Elvis. The MIB are behind the whole thing. These are all doubts, but they aren't reasonable doubts, which is why that is the standard for conviction. Sentencing is done on the assumption that the criminal is guilty. If the convicted isn't guilty that's the problem right there... the DP is a seperate issue.

there was no rush, until evidence was produced by independant researchers that the case was weak, then the rush was on.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
The murder was in 1986. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 years from crime to executing the criminal. How long would be appropriate to wait?

It's generally impossible to remove all doubt... I mean, aliens could have used their evil Ray-O-Matic to kill Joyce Munguia and faked everything. It could have been an interdimensional murder spree by Elvis. The MIB are behind the whole thing. These are all doubts, but they aren't reasonable doubts, which is why that is the standard for conviction. Sentencing is done on the assumption that the criminal is guilty. If the convicted isn't guilty that's the problem right there... the DP is a seperate issue.

An appropriate time to wait is forever, if there is doubt about the person's guilt; or, at least, his/her lifetime in prison. The fact that "It's generally impossible to remove all doubt," is a very good argument against the death penalty. All too often, people are convicted on circumstantial evidence or other evidence that the jury may interpret either way. Mexican police stations are not the only ones where confessions aretortured from people. All lawyers are not Perry Mason or Matlock. And all cops are not Adam Twelve or Columbo.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Emotional responses such as, for instance, 'revulsion'?

It's one of the unwritten rules of liberalism: only emotional reactions that sympathize with the criminal are allowed in polite society.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


It's one of the unwritten rules of liberalism: only emotional reactions that sympathize with the criminal are allowed in polite society.

strawman

apart from that, it appears that the only important thing is that someone gets fried.

doesn't matter if the actual guy that did it gets off. where is the sense in that?

[Skeptic]

strawman

Oh, I dunno, "A Unique Person".

On this board, at least, you consistently sympathize with murderers (from Arafat to Saddam Hussein to this guy), ignore or belittle their victims, and criticize anybody who fights against them.

There isn't any logical reason for such an attitude; I therefore conclude that it has to be emotional in nature.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
strawman

Oh, I dunno, "A Unique Person".

On this board, at least, you consistently sympathize with murderers (from Arafat to Saddam Hussein to this guy), ignore or belittle their victims, and criticize anybody who fights against them.



prove it.



There isn't any logical reason for such an attitude; I therefore conclude that it has to be emotional in nature.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


prove it.


(Shrug)

Well, we could start with your claims that the terrorist war of annihilation started by Arafat is not really his fault. Or your claim that he "chose peace" until the evil jews (I mean, *cough* israelies *cough*) angered him, ignoring the fact that he had repeatedly and publically stated the the so-called Oslo "peace" agreement are merely part of the "stage plan" for israel's destruction. Or your outrage at "innocent palestinians" killed by jews, even if unintentionally, while shrugging off suicide bombings of children, or the massacre of entire jewish neighborhoods, as merely part of the impersonal "circle of violence" that is really all the jews' (I mean, *cough* zionists *cough*) fault anyway.

As far as supporting Saddam, there is your constant criticisms of Bush's "warmongering", "evil secret motives" and "contempt for the international community", etc., while completely ignoring Saddam's obvious motive of staying in power as an all-powerful murderous dictator, or his little sojurns into Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s, let alone his massacre of hundreds of thousands of his own people. You don't care that Saddam is probably the greatest killer of innocent people alive today--as long as he is against the US, that's fine.

As for cuddling criminals, in your first post in this thread you started off by putting the word "criminal" used to described the executed person in quotes, clearly implying it's some sort of unfair designation, no doubt by the evil government. You then continued to post about how unfairly he was treated, why this is all a horrible disgrace, etc.--not once mentioning the victims of his crime (or the fact that perhaps his starting his crime spree again right after he was paroled the first time might tell us something about his "rehabilitation" chances.) As far as you're concerned, they're just an inconvenient detail in the fight to clear the name of this unfairly treated, wonderful person.

There's lots more I could look up, if you really want further proof...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


(Shrug)

Well, we could start with your claims that the terrorist war of annihilation started by Arafat is not really his fault. Or your claim that he "chose peace" until the evil jews (I mean, *cough* israelies *cough*) angered him, ignoring the fact that he had repeatedly and publically stated the the so-called Oslo "peace" agreement are merely part of the "stage plan" for israel's destruction. Or your outrage at "innocent palestinians" killed by jews, even if unintentionally, while shrugging off suicide bombings of children, or the massacre of entire jewish neighborhoods, as merely part of the impersonal "circle of violence" that is really all the jews' (I mean, *cough* zionists *cough*) fault anyway.

As far as supporting Saddam, there is your constant criticisms of Bush's "warmongering", "evil secret motives" and "contempt for the international community", etc., while completely ignoring Saddam's obvious motive of staying in power as an all-powerful murderous dictator, or his little sojurns into Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s, let alone his massacre of hundreds of thousands of his own people. You don't care that Saddam is probably the greatest killer of innocent people alive today--as long as he is against the US, that's fine.

As for cuddling criminals, in your first post in this thread you started off by putting the word "criminal" used to described the executed person in quotes, clearly implying it's some sort of unfair designation, no doubt by the evil government. You then continued to post about how unfairly he was treated, why this is all a horrible disgrace, etc.--not once mentioning the victims of his crime (or the fact that perhaps his starting his crime spree again right after he was paroled the first time might tell us something about his "rehabilitation" chances.) As far as you're concerned, they're just an inconvenient detail in the fight to clear the name of this unfairly treated, wonderful person.

There's lots more I could look up, if you really want further proof...

strawman.