Though I’m not against the death penalty, I felt bad about this execution. Based on what I had read about his case, I felt there has to be some reasonable doubt whether he was the killer. I mean, 1 eyewitness who said he did vs. 2 who said he didn’t? To be convicted on such evidence? He also physically fought the guards, much like an innocent man would.
But, as I read more about the man, he has committed multiple previous crimes, ones he had admitted, armed robbery which he shot the victims (2), kidnapping and rape.
OK, so this is not a guy you want living next to you, but for this crime, he should be convicted on whether he killed this guy, not that he had committed 13 previous crimes, right? So what do you think?
On another note, every time Texas or some other state has an execution, they get protests from France and other European countries. How about this, Texas doesn’t execute the man, but sends the guy to France for life imprisonment. Won’t this make everyone happy?
This is untrue. The one witness testified to have gotten a very good look at the perpetrator, who she positively and vehemently identified as Gary Graham. The other two said that they DIDN’T get a good look, so the judge decided that there was no reason for them to testify at all.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly’s understanding is mine as well. There were some other details in Graham’s favor, like the gun he was carrying was determined to not be the murder weapon and he was a minor at the time.
Last night after the execution, Larry King interviewed a victim of one of his other crimes. Graham did in fact try to kill this guy and told him at the time he had already killed 3 or 4 people. Graham also said that he was going to kill the guys fiance and her parents. This victim was certain that they got the right guy. BTW, this does not indicate DP support on my part.
Was there any other evidence against him in THIS CASE, other than the one eyewitness? The only people I’ve heard interviewed have been pro-Graham, so of course they’d be biased. The eyewitness seem to be on a bit of a crusade herself.
But if he was convicted solely on one eyewitness and no other evidence, I really am surprised that he was given the death penalty and no review. Is there some fact I’m missing here?
This is some info that I found. Since I don’t have any sources to corroborate this info (like trial transcripts), then you’re left with two conclusions:
If all of the counter arguments in this article are fabricated, then the “guilty” verdict was a miscarriage.
If even some of the counter arguments are true, then the people proclaiming his innocence are full of horse hockey.
(Regardless of the site name, this is not an endorsement of the death penalty on my part.) If this info is correct, I would have no “reasonable doubt” as to his guilt.
Grahman was precisely the kind of violent predator that the death penalty is design to remove from society. Basically a Commandant Goeth of Houston’s streets, he shot his victims even after they willing gave up their money. Though he admitted his other crimes, he claimed never to have taken a life - a lie, as testified above by his other victims, who he intended to kill.
There are a number of agendas at work here. One involves people who oppose the death penalty for any reason. These people would allow any murderer (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) to live out their lives in prison no matter what the crime. This group includes well known civil rights leaders, prisoners’ advocates, Hollywood celebrities, and major news organizations. There’s no arguing with them, they oppose the death penalty even when the predator openly celebrates his crimes.
(News Flash: The ACLU sued in Federal Court today to allow Adolf Hitler, now 120+, to profit from his new book, “My Struggle - Part II - This Time We Finish the Job”.)
There’s a lot of propaganda. The Washington Post’s Friday edition notes that Graham was “implicated” in the crime. Earlier it publicized the fact that the victim had criminal background - as if that mattered. The victim (a stranger to Graham) was also a Korean war vet.
Others point out that only one witness saw the crime and witnesses have been mistaken. There’s a long tradition in English (and many other cultures’) common law that if a credible witness says you did something, the courts can place you in jail and execute you. Makes for great Hitchcock films, but even for death penalty supporters it has to give some pause. But not enough in this case, IMHO.
To paraphrase General Sherman: “Yes, total war is all the South will understand. They chose war to settle this dispute [Lincoln’s election], I say give it to them in full measure.”
From the opposing side, thisfact sheet. It’s in PDF format, so you might need to equip yourself with Adobe Acrobat Reader first.
I am firmly against the use of the death penalty, period, but I believe this particular case is especially horrifying. It seems to me that the six living witnesses couldn’t have kept this story together for 17 years if it wasn’t true. I honestly believe an innocent man was executed last night, and he wasn’t the first.
Innocent hardly describes this man. His guilty conviction for the Lambert murder may be false (we’ll never know), but clearly the man is a criminal. A self admitted criminal. I don’t think he should have died, but I certainly am not going to use the word “innocent” as as adjective for him.
“OK, so this is not a guy you want living next to you, but for this crime, he should be convicted on whether he killed this guy, not that he had committed 13 previous crimes, right? So what do you think?”
Most of the people here seem to think that regardless of whether he committed the current crime, he should be exceuted because he’s a career criminal and committed all those previous crimes. Isn’t that contrary to our laws, aren’t you guys a little too bloodthirsty, or don’t you care?
On the question of death penalty. I don’t think the courts or our government should be deciding whether we should have it. I think the victims should decide. I mean, if I got killed in a robbery or by some maniac for no reason, I would want my killer to die, slowly. Like saying whether we want to be donors or not on our driver’s license, we should have this choice on our driver’s license too. Maybe it will make criminals think twice about killing their victims.
I found this quote from the pro-death penalty web site illuminating as to what kind of person Graham was:
“When I knew he was going to rape me I told him I was 60 years old. He then hit me in the face and said ‘don’t lie.’ He said ‘I’m going to f— you in the ears and the eyes and every place else.’ He raped me until I couldn’t stand it any longer and I screamed and he stopped. He then attempted anal sex. I was screaming and crying and shaking very, very hard… I was in great pain at that moment, great pain.” (Trial Testimony.)
Hmm. . . it seems to me that Dante was the only poster that expressed something along those lines.
This is extremely biased and totally against having an impartial jury.
Isn’t this argument already used for the DP? Is it working?
It seems to me that we are fighting the smoke and not the fire. Why are all of our efforts concentrated on punishment? Maybe we should look at what is driving this need to murder, rape, etc.
There is a little distinction - he was found guilty of the murder based on the evidence of this crime alone. And rightly so IMHO. When the jury decided the sentence, they then get to see his past criminal history, so he was sentenced to die in large part because of his other crimes. And rightly so IMHO.
How does anyone know he was innocent? Was anyone on this board involved in the case? No! I watched the news last night, and I saw all of the things he had done in the past. He looked like a convicted criminal to me. And there could have been two reasons he fought the guards.
1)He was innocent,
2)He was guilty and didn’t want to take the punishment for the crime he had committed.
I personally think he was guilty, and I don’t buy the whole argument of how he didn’t get access to a fair trial. He had 17 years, if I’m not mistaken, and had been denied 36 appeals. He was given the due process of law, and I think that 36 appeals is full access to a fair trial. The evidence was obviously overwhelming, and I dont’ think that the jury would convict some one guilty of something he didn’t do.