Today the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an emergancy stay of execution for Napoleon Beazley. The stay is in effect until “further orders” from the court. For those that are not familiar with the case, Beazley was convicted of murder in 1994 of a prominant businessman who’s son later became a federal judge. Beazley was only 17 at the time of the murder, but was sentanced to death for the crime, which he does not deny taking part in. He has asked that his case be reviewed to see if the US Constitution prohibits the execution of people that were under the age of 18 when the crime was committed.
My question is: What do Y’all think of this? Should Beazley be executed for his crime? Do you think that the fact that the victim’s son became a federal judge has had any effects on his appeals? Anybody know of the Constitution’s place in all of this?
I personally have not formed a concrete opinion on the matter yet. On one hand, I feel that capital punishment is necessary in certain situations,and the particulars of this crime certainly apply. I do not think a juvenile should be eligible for capital punishment, but I do not have a clear opinion on what should be considered a juvenile. I think a stay of execution was appropriate for this case so that it can be reveiwed more closly.
I find it unconscionable to sentence a minor to death general. But AFAIK, the only Constitutional issue involved is whether or not the execution is cruel and unusual.
:shrug:
If executions in general are not unconstitutional, I’m not sure on what basis this one could be.
BTW, good to see you, Kneekettle. How’s things?
-andros-
This is a big problem here in the US. Different ages for different things. 18 to be drafted and go to war, 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to buy alcohol. I know this doesn’t answer the OP but it seems to me if all of these ages were the same the answer to “WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ADULT?” would be much more clear. FTR I remember being 17 and I clearly knew right from wrong - unless Beazley can be proven to have some mental deficiency (which is an entirely separate thread) under current law I think this case merits the death penalty.
I agree that at 17 I clearly knew right from wrong, and that is probably the basis of his appeal (although I think the argument is that no juvenile should be legally accountable for knowing the difference between right and wrong).
I also agree that we need a clear age at which someone is to be called an adult, whether that age is 16, 17, 18, or so on.
I don’t believe anyone can dispute Beazley’s guilt. Everything points to the fact that he walked up behind John Luttig, shot him, tried to shoot Luttig’s wife, shot Luttig again and then rifled through Luttig’s pockets and stole his car.
Basically, Beazley ambushed Luttig, and that is deserving of the death penalty. It seems, too, that Beazley would have been quite happy to have killed Luttig’s wife as well in order to steal their car. There are no mitigating circumstances such as Luttig trying to fight or pulling a gun in return. Luttig resisting would not have kept Beazley out of prison, but would, in my mind, have mitigated against the death penalty.
I don’t find Beazley’s age to be a problem. He knew right from wrong at 17 and should have to accept the consequences of his actions. By Federal and state law, that included execution.
I can’t make a call on the appeals court decision. None of the news sites I checked have anything of substance about the decision yet. We’ll have to wait and see what they said before making that call.
Commentary on the execution (written prior to the stay) can be found at National Review where the New York Times is castigated (surprise) for a series of columns defending Beazley and at the Dallas Morning News where Bianca Jagger attempts to argue against Beazley’s execution.
The death penalty is barbaric and unforgivable, in any
circumstances. Lifetime imprisonment for offenders that are beyond rehabilitation is, IMVHO, actually more of a punishment, anyway. 60 years incarceration will give the man plenty of time to reflect on what he ought to have done.
I seriously doubt that fighting back would be a mitigating circumstance that would prevent an execution in the state of Texas. The law in Texas is pretty clear on when force and deadly force can be used. Going by that criteria I can’t imagine many juries saying “Sure he murdered the guy while attempted to rob him. But since the victim fought back it isn’t like he murdered him in cold blood.”
**
I have some reservations about his age not that I doubt that he knew right from wrong. But I don’t like the legal system treating him like an adult but not having all the rights as an adult.
Explain that one to me. You say the death penalty is barbaric and unforgivable. Next you say that life imprisonment is more of a punishment. So you support a form of punishment that is worse then the barbaric and unforgivable one you are against?
Life in prison is a free ride. Room, board, books a free education in wasting taxpayers money by tying up the legal system with trivial, unwarranted lawsuits. I doubt they suffer much if any mental anguish over their choices. Maybe over the consequences, but not their choices.
…being locked up in a small room for the rest of your life, having no control over the smallest details of your daily existence, having those in authority over you control every detail of your interaction with the outside world, including the right to censor what books you read. (I won’t even mention the possibility of being brutalized or assaulted by other prisoners, since I really think we should do more to eliminate violent crimes in prisons, and not just accept it as a “natural” part of incarceration.)
I didn’t say or intend to imply it was easy or fun. It shouldn’t be. Losing the right to a large comfy room and control over contact with the society that you committed a crime against is the potential consequence for crime. It’s a consequence that is well known and generally not a surprise to the people who commit crimes. I said generally because I am fully aware that there are mentally ill people and young people who may not. But I’ve heard elementary school kids recite “Do the crime, do the time” when someone complains of discipline. This indicates that young people are infact capable of understanding consequences for actions that “break the rules”. I said that it is a free ride and it is.
I think it’s possible for someone facing prison time to rationalize that it’s not so bad, and ignore the more unpleasant aspects of the Big House. But when you look on the other side of the act you’re considering, and there’s a big skeletal dude sharpening his scythe . . .
I have no sympathy at all for the guy. Nor do I find the fact that he was under 18 when he committed the murder to be relevant–age lines are artificial at the best of times. He was old enough to know what the consequences of his actions could be–if 17 isn’t sufficient for that, then 17-year-olds have no business being allowed out of sight of a parent or guardian. If 17 isold enough, then it leads back to the gurney for Mr. Beazley.
My vote, unless there’s something relating to mental capacity of which I’m not aware: off him.
As I sit in Fort Worth, I ponder how I would decide the case in that situation. The law does define the circumstances surrounding assault and self-defense and the use of deadly force. All those factors come into play when the victim has the opportunity to fight back. The jury is still charged with sorting it all out and determining if capital punishment is appropriate.
To me, the victim fighting back, especially if deadly weapons were involved on both sides, would tend to negate the argument that a criminal assault was done in ‘cold-blood’. I could be swayed by an argument that the accused shot only to defend himself. It wouldn’t get him off the hook for having started the incident in the first place, but I would probably shy away from the death penalty and instead vote for life in prison.
However, when the victim cooperates or is never even given the chance to surrender and is still shot or injured, well, get a rope. In fact, IMHO, the victim would not even have to die for the death penalty to take effect. Without the conflict the only way to describe an assault in that assault would be as ‘cold-blooded’ and it is time to permanently remove that perpetrator from society.
Agreeable, but we set tons of arbitrary age limits, which one should define maturity? Drinking, driving, voting, sex, marriage, abortion, all have age limits from 12 to 21. Remember your 16th birthday (or whenever you were eligible to get your driver’s license). The day before at 15 and 364 days, it would have been illegal for you to drive a car without a licensed driver in the right front seat. You weren’t mature enough. Suddenly, 24 hours later, you are legal. Are you really that much changed?
Beazley, at seventeen, was old enough to drive. That’s enough for me to accept that he was mature enough to understand right from wrong and to accept the consequences of his actions. It is sad that he may not live to see another birthday, but he made his choice when he pulled the trigger that night.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty familiar with the deadly force laws of Texas. When it comes to capital murder it makes no difference whether or not the victim resisted.
Title 5 Chapter 19; 19.03 of the Texas Penal Code on Capital Murder Reads “the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, or obstruction or retaliation;”
Granted I suppose a jury might not give someone the death penalty for a variety of reasons. But I’m going to argue that they can’t give someone life instead of death based on whether the victim defended himself or not. To me that’s little more then blaming the victim for being murdered.
**
Well I guess we should probably take the phrase cold blooded out of the equation. Texas Law doesn’t use it so I guess we shouldn’t either. One thing to remember is that the criminal assault or robbery does not begin when or if the victim fights back. The criminal assault/robbery occurs the second the criminal threatens the victim.
And as for the criminal acting in self defense this is false. The criminal is unlawfully using deadly force in the commission of the robbery. Keep in mind that a shot need not be fired for it to be deadly force. If the victim uses defends himself with deadly force he would be doing so in a lawful manner. The criminal would not be shooting in self defense he would be shooting in commission of aggravated robbery. He would not be legally justified in using deadly force.
Let’s say a man is convicted of aggravated sexual assault and murder in the comission of said crime and we’ve got it all on tape. Watching the tape you see the man threaten the woman and during a struggle physically knocks her down and begins to rape her. During the rape she sees a steak knife within reach that fell on the ground during the struggle. She grabs the steak knife and stabs her attacker right in the shoulder. The rapist responds by stabbing her to death with his knife. Are you going to tell me that he was simply defending himself from this dangerous woman? Of course not.
I’ll again go back to the penal code
*Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 section 9.32
“(a) A person is justifed in using deadly force against another when:”
"(A) To protect himself against the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or;
(B) To prevent the others imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."*
There is no justificated under Texas law for the criminal to use deadly force during the commission of a crime. None. I guess a jury could take it into account but in the state of Texas, I doubt it would make a difference.
Oh man, MGibson, making me go look this stuff up. I will second that I am not a lawyer, however, my understanding is that the law is pretty specific about when a prosecutor can ask for the death penalty. Further, even when convicting an actor of a capital crime where the prosecution has requested the death penalty, the jury has the option to come back with a sentence of life in prison or death. That is when having the money for a good lawyer (or not gunning down a judge or top lawyer’s dad) comes into play.
The jury gets to consider the whole range of circumstances in the case and in some instances is allowed to look at previous criminal convictions in determining the level of threat to society. AFAIK, there are no specific guidelines that tell a jury (as opposed to the prosecutor) when the death penalty must be applied.
Using the hypothetical you gave, a good lawyer could argue that the actor was not intending to murder the victim, he only struck, in a panic, after she had stabbed him. From the standpoint of a jury member, I would argue that the actor was guilty of a capital felony (rape and murder) because his use of force was not justified. However, the fact that there was a heat of battle type situation leading to the murder might, depending on other evidence available, sway me that execution was not neccessary and life in prison would satisfy society.
Don’t get me wrong, the death penalty is a tool the state should have, but I don’t believe my fellow Texans are as cavalier about its application as seems to be implied.
I don’t see you rushing to sign up. Life in prison is a hellish nightmare.
As to the issue of Mr. Beazley, I would remind everyone that the United States is a signtoary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically forbids the execution of persons under 18 (article 37(A)) and so in doing this, the U.S. is breaking its word.
I would also point out that the ONLY other countries on the face of the earth that do this sort of thing are places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Somehow I would not want to be lumped into a group with their justice systems.
He could argue it but I think most people would call it horse hockey. If he’s already been convicted of capital murder I seriously doubt the jury is going to accept her murder as an unfortunate accident.
**
Obviously I’m not going to be swayed by such an arguement. In my mind he came prepared to murder and he made that decision before the attack let alone before she resisted.
I’m not implying that they are cavalier about it, and up until a few months ago I was one of your fellow Texans. For the most part I think the juries are very careful in how they come to the conclusion of life or death. I just don’t think most juries in Texas would vote for life instead of death because the victim resisted. The victim resisting in no way makes his murder understandable, reasonable, or less of a crime.
Of course I would expect that there are other legitimate reasons they might vote for life instead of death. But I would be angry if they voted life because of the victims actions while he was being attacked.