Flawed Texas Death Penalty System & Bush

Great Debates
81

The problem, Daniel, is how to guarantee that the death penalty would stay that way.

What you describe is exactly what many of us thought we were getting, when the DP was reinstated back in the late 1970s. As one of those people who had no problem with the DP in principle, reinstatement didn’t bother me for that very reason. I thought we’d have a relatively small number of cases, with more than sufficient oversight to make sure that there would be essentially no doubt about the guilt of those executed - unlike the way it was during the first half of the century.

Twenty-some years later, we’ve got this slipshod moral monstrosity of a system, where defendants are represented by incompetents, where the right to present exonerating evidence can be denied on a technicality, where prosecutors falsify evidence or hide potentially exonerating evidence from defense counsel and pay no price for it when discovered, and on and on.

If we in this country, over the past quarter-century, had administered the death penalty with a modicum of caution and restraint, giving adequate resources for defense to those on trial for their lives, and considering potentially exculpatory evidence when it’s found, regardless of artificial deadlines, then I’d probably agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, we’ve treated the ultimate sanction with all the gravity and respect of a traffic ticket. That’s the part that gives me the willies about the death penalty. And if we adopted your system, I see no reason why, in twenty years’ time, we wouldn’t be right back where we are.

In what sense hasn’t the past 25 years been a fair trial of us, and our ability to administer the death penalty as it should be administered? To me, it’s obvious that we’ve failed that trial, overwhelmingly and spectacularly. Why do we deserve another chance to do it right, when men’s lives are in the balance? I can’t think of a single good reason.

The death penalty may be the ‘right’ penalty in some situation, but society isn’t substantially harmed by substituting life without parole. However, my belief is that we are harmed, all of us American citizens, by our association with the way the death penalty is administered in this nation today.

82

Hey mr. z. It seems pretty obvious what made the jury convict. If you notice most of the evidence was discovered by his appelate lawyers. While I don’t know the exact facts they seemed to convict him based on the testimony of three people. False testimony from the police and DA. Presuring a witness to testify untruthfully. Not to mention that he had the gun and a bullet was in his car. Remeber none of the exonerating evidence came forth until later. Why? Cause he had shitty attorneys. Also I meant to include this quote in my reply to Chaim, but I’ll have to include it here.

Chaim was so caught up in the maybe and might quotes of the jurors he forgot this one.

83

Bush is at fault for executing 130 people, some one-sixth of all executions since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, in just five years. The man is clearly not interested in justice or seeing that the due process of law is fulfilled. Hell, how serious can a man be about justice if he makes fun of a death row inmate pleading for clemency?
This week alone he’s due to execute three inmates.

With a rate of executions like that, and a severe limitation on the time allowed for an appeal to be filed, Bush has greatly increased the chances of executing innocent people in the state of Texas. Good God, Chaim, if Gov. Ryan in Illinois had to let 13 people off Death Row, with another 10 cases under question because of confessions procured under torture, d’you think Texas could have any less?!

You can praise the jury system all you want; you’re overlooking the fact that it’s a human institution, not some impartial mechanism. People can be misled and lied to; surely you haven’t lived your life without finding that people you know intentionally misled you for one purpose or another? What makes a jury immune to that, or lawyers/attorneys above having an agenda that furthers their careers? (NB: I am not attacking all lawyers by this, but it is clear that in many capital cases the prosecuting attorneys took these cases to make a name for themselves at any cost.)

Bush is a murderer of innocents precisely because he issues a blanket confirmation that justice has been served in every capital case and that he is powerless to change the course of a court’s decision. The state parole board in Texas is just a shield he uses to distance himself from the real responsibility he shoulders.

84

That was a most eloquent and persuasive argument against the Death Penalty. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Very nice.
:slight_smile:

85

Hey Scratch, when you start a sentence with “it seems” then state “I don’t know the exact facts” the conclusion is not obbvious, it is conjecture.

I am not going to argue that a specific case is or isn’t justified if all I know is what some anti-death penalty reporter chooses to tell me about the case.

THe point is, no one here knows much about these cases except what we are getting from the papers. And I would point out that the reporters bringing up these cases include not only Texans against the death penalty, but people who don’t want Bush elected President.

Sorry, we need more info and more than one side of the story before we call Bush a murderer.

Besides, doesn’t the appeal process last something like 13 years? Seems to me if we are going to protect the innocent, we should rely on an expanded appeals process and not on the political leaning on the Governor.

86

I agree with CMK (and Mr.Z)on this. When we hear about the problems with the cases, we are hearing only one side of everything. Out here in Ca there was a case some 5 years ago, and there were quite a few irregularities, which led a LOT of newspapers to call for a pardon or clemency. Nobody pointed out that the man had been convicted of about 6 violent felonies before, including murder, rape, and sex crimes. Before we can decide that any of those cases were flawed to the point of the justice system being wrong, we need to see ALL the evidence. If you just listen to the supporters of that “Muamar” guy, or whoever, it seems like there is doubt. Hear the other side, and it is about as open&shut as a case could possibly be*. I will give Bush some of the overall responsoblity, tho, based on the “buck stops here” theory.

and, RTF, you are right, there is no way for my method to be guarenteed to continue. But I still defend it as the fair & morl solution.

  • however, in my system, he would still not be up for execution.
87

Pepperlandgirl said

The governor of Texas ranks 50th in the nation in terms of real power. In other words Bush is just a glorified cheerleader. The only power of substance he has is the line item veto. The State Legislature has most of the power in Texas. So how is he going to pass “certain bills?”

Bev “not a fan of George Dub-Yah but don’t attribute to him more power than he has” Hamilton

88

I am not going to come on one side or the other of this. I believe the death penalty has been abolished everywhere in Europe but obviously the US is a much more violent country and European solutions may not be adequate for the US. (I would say the same thing about having so many guns around).

I think being for or against the death penalty is a very personal matter of belief and (like abortion etc) it really cannot be reasoned.

I just want to address a matter of logic: If the death penalty is murder by the state then prison is kidnapping by the state, fines and taxes are robbery by the state. It makes no sense. You can argue for or against the death penalty but to call it murder is just not accurate.

89

I gotta side with oldscratch on his praise for RTFirefly’s defense of abolition. If he’s actively working towards this goal as well, so much the better.

90

Great reply Sailor! (Hey that sounds cool). I was thinking along the same lines. However, then it hit me. Perhaps all of this “murder” by the state and “kidnapping” by the state IS truly evil. As several posters have insinuated quite eloquently, most, perhaps all “convicted felons” in prison are actually innocent. After all, the human spirit is composed of 3 parts goodness, 1 part compassion. Given that, it would have been impossible for these men and women to have really committed these crimes. Perhaps we can tolerate a little “robbery by state” and divert a greater portion of those funds to providing world class legal counsel to all people convicted of capital crimes. Given enough time (2 or 3 decades) and money (5 - 20 million dollars), I think that we can finally set these upstanding citizens prowl the nights of our best neighborhoods once again.

91

Ok, just want to clear something up so we are all on the same page…

Killing somebody who is innocent, whether it be by the state or by a citizen, is somehow the same as taxing them? Or putting them in jail? I’m sorry you hold such a low regard for life. To me, it’s a little bit more precious than money or being locked up for awhile. I would rather be wrongly accused and wrongly imprisoned for awhile, rather than wrongly murdered. And I’m sure of the people agree with me, perhaps especially those people who have died or are going to die due to a shoddy system. I bet they would give anything for the chance to be just imprisoned. Even if they are guilty, the State still shouldn’t have the right to *take away their life *. Maybe some of you don’t like having to pay a tax on almost every little thing, but at least you are still alive!

92

mavpace:

Perhaps you could point out just one instance where a single poster stated the above. I sorta doubt it, though. Y’know, hyperbole doesn’t help your argument at all.

I’ll jump in here as someone who feels that there are certain crimes that are fully deserving of the death penalty. And that Shrub really shoulda spoken to his speechwriters before he said, (paraphrasing) “All people who have been executed were guilty.” Or poked fun at Karla Faye Tucker.

And as B. Hamilton pointed out, Shrub is a weak governor. But he also appointed the clemency board that he uses as an excuse for his inaction on capital cases.

Waste
Flick Lives!

93

>> Killing somebody who is innocent, whether it be by the state or by a citizen, is somehow the same as taxing them? Or putting them in jail?

Hmmm… I somehow have a feeling pepperlandgirl is referring to my earlier post:

>> If the death penalty is murder by the state then prison is kidnapping by the state, fines and taxes are robbery by the state. It makes no sense. You can argue for or against the death penalty but to call it murder is just not accurate.

… and yet I fail to see the connection or the logic. First off, the state does not knowingly execute innocent people any more than it fines innocent people. The proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and I think that is a reasonable standard. If the state had to have god-like certainty for it’s actions it could not exist. Human societies are subject to human errors.

As I said, I have not made up my mind one way or another on this issue but people who use twisted rhetoric ratehr than substance turn me totally off.

You have a right to your view and to try to explain it but don’t come bluffing rhetoric to make something sound bad. If you want to play with words to make the other side sound bad you lose many points with me.

Murder is, by definition, an unlawful taking of human life. A death sentence after due process is NOT murder. You may think the law should be changed but it is NOT murder.

I can think I should not be obligated to pay taxes to support some welfare program. I can argue as much as I like against that tax but I CANNOT call it highway robbery (at least without departing from the truth). It is not highway robbery however much I may dislike it.

My logic stands: If the death penalty is murder by the state then prison is kidnapping by the state, fines and taxes are robbery by the state. If you want to talk like that the language becomes meaningless. The guy who mugs you on the street can say it is a “tax”.

94

From sailor:

No, of course the state doesn’t knowingly execute innocent people. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY’RE NOT INNOCENT.

The whole point of this debate is that there are any number of capital cases where due process was demonstrably not served. And the accused in those cases have been executed. With Bush in Texas, as I’ve said elsewhere either on this or another death penalty thread, the number and rate of executions indicates he’s not interested in serving justice, just appearing tough on crime.

Besides, your argument is a double standard. The state can do what it likes with them criminal monsters, but by God it better keep its grimy hands outta my wallet. Kill them criminals but to hell with forcing me to pay taxes for welfare programs. :rolleyes:

95

Olent said

Where on earth did that come from?

But I guess i see the logic a bit: criminals and people who don’t work should have heaps of money given to them for defense, cable, food, etc. and the innocent working people should have their money taken from them.

Rob from the hard working and innocent Give to the criminals and lazy…That puts the “Hood” back into Robin Hood.

96

OK, let me try this one again.

**

Serious disagreement here, but for the sake of the argument let’s take it as read.

**

Doesn’t this mean that, knowingly or not, the state COULD execute or HAS executed innocent people? A state is a way of organizing human society; hence it also must be subject to human error.

**

What defines unlawful?

A premeditated killing is murder. If you are innocent but the state believes you are guilty and must pay with your life, then your execution at the hands of the state is a premeditated killing, hence murder. I myself would argue that any execution, given the amount of planning that goes into it, is premeditated and therefore murder. It’s that much worse because the potential of executing an innocent person is built into it.

Lumping taxes, fines, and imprisonment together with the application of the death penalty and calling them all crimes is really ducking the argument.

97

Some of the posts here make it sound like they march the guilty from the court room to the gas chamber. Anyone knwo how long the appeals process takes and how many people look at the case before the actual execution?

I would also like to know what the cost of life imprisonment is relative to the cost of the appeals process on death cases.

98

Cost of the Death Penalty

[quote]
David Erickson’s study of Los Angeles County breaks down the cost of a capital trial and compares it with the costs of a murder trial where the death penalty is not sought. …

Capital trial: US$1,898,323
Regular trial: US$627,322
[ul][li]If the cost of incarceration on death row and the cost for the mandated appeal to the State Supreme Court were added to the above capital trial expenses, the cost would increase to an estimated 2.5 to 3 million dollars per execution…[/li][li]If the cost of incarceration of an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) were added to the above non-capital trial expenses, which is less expensive than confinement of an individual on death row, the cost of LWOP would increase to an estimated 1 to 1.5 million dollars.[/ul][/li][/quote]

99

When I said “fundamental” human right, I meant that it is primary, the one that serves as the foundation for all others. If you’re not alive then of course you have no rights. The right to liberty is not “fundamental” in that sense.

So while I will agree that some rights can be violated for the good of society (for example limits to freedom of speech), depriving someone of their life does not have sufficient benefits (if any) to society to make it excusable. If you think the person has forfeited their right to life, does this mean they have also forfeited their right not to be tortured (for example?)

100

My goodness, some people will argue with anything. I am not even taking a position on the issue of the death penalty and here’s Olentzero arguing with me.

My only point is that the death penalty cannot be called murder any more than a prison sentence can be called kidnapping. It is a matter of definition and semantics and pretty simple to get (I would think).

Using inaccurate words to make something you don’t like appear bad is not reasoning, it’s cheap rhetoric and, in my case, it repels me so it is not a good tactic to gain my support. When people use words like murder or rape or genocide for things that clearly are not murder or rape or genocide, to me that is demagoguery and I immediately have a feeling they lack substance when they have to resort to that. PETA can call killing a cow murder if they like but that does not make it murder. Does calling it murder make it worse so they gain support? No, it makes them appear stupid and lose what support they might get from intelligent people.

As I say, I have no position on the death penalty but demagoguery just repels me.

I may be willing to accept arguments about why the death penalty should be abolished but I am not willing to accept that it is “state sanctioned murder” because that is just a contradiction in terms.

I can’t believe I’ve had to explain this three times already. I think I’ll go waste my time in some other thread where at least I have a position on the substantive issue.