Texas May Have Executed an Innocent Man

[Johnboy60]

In the early summer of 2008, the woman known as Witness Number One sat in the living room of her East Texas home and told me the following story.

It was the second weekend of October 1983 and her boyfriend at the time, a man named Lynn, seemed particularly agitated, she said. He finally explained why as the two of them were driving through Sherman, a small city in a rural area an hour north of Dallas. A dope deal near Sherman had gone sour, Lynn said, and he and three accomplices—guys who went by Ches, Rocky and Bear—“had to kill four people.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...wer-execution-texas-118993.html#ixzz3dO0MJpwv

 

[BensonInABox]

Anytime people ask me why I oppose the death penalty, cases like this are one reason I offer in response.

 

[nightflight]

Anytime people ask me why I oppose the death penalty, cases like this are one reason I offer in response.

Me too.

 

[LionL]

How can a supposedly civilised country still impose the death penalty? Most advanced nations did away with it long ago.

 

[Armoured]

Texas May Have Executed an Innocent Man

"May"? "An"? as in singular?

 

[dgiharris]

How can a supposedly civilised country still impose the death penalty? Most advanced nations did away with it long ago.

How can a supposedly civilized country confine a sentient being to indefinite detention in a metal box for 60 or 70 years?

I am of the belief that life imprisonment is cruel and inhumane because we are NOT the same person over the course of ou rlifetimes.

Are you the same person at 35 as you were at 18? Are you the same person at 59 as you were at 22? In effect, we are condemning a 59 year old man for something that a 22 year old did...

The reason I support the death penalty in cases where this is 100% no doubt is simple-- I sincerely believe the death penalty is the more humane and just sentence that punishes the person for the crime committed.

Truth is, we make life and death decisions every day and directly or indirectly make choices that determines whether others will live or die. Last week I went on a date, dinner and a movie and spent around $75. That same $75 could have bought a month's worth of food for starving Children in South America or Asia or Africa.

So the argument that life is some sacred thing that no one has a right to decide is just not true. We decide every day.

And it is my belief that someone who unjustifiably kills another human being has forfeited their right to live and that the death penalty is the only just and humane punishment. I really don't care about prevention or deterrence or whatever other red herring argument one wants to make. No. I care about a just and fair and humane punishment that matches and fits the crime. That is why I support it.

It annoys me to no end how we can rationalize "collateral damage" during wars and conflicts yet somehow putting a murderer to death is just not right. Why is it okay to kill someone in self defense yet not okay to kill a person who is 100% guilty of murdering an innocent person?

I call it the Stars Wars Remake Han Solo ethical dilemma.

In the first Star Wars Han Solo killed a bounty hunter BEFORE the hunter could get him first.

In the First Star Wars "remake" they changed the scene so that the bounty hunter shot first THEN Han Solo killed him.

I hate the fact they felt the need to make that change. It is hypocritical BS. Same with this argument about not having the right to decide who lives and who dies. Truth is, we make those decisions every time we buy widgets made from an overseas sweatshop or change the channel because we can't bear to watch some charity tout starving children in front of us...

 

[LionL]

it is my belief that someone who unjustifiably kills another human being has forfeited their right to live and that the death penalty is the only just and humane punishment...

The trouble I have with the death penalty is that we say it is wrong to kill. So as a punishment for killing we will kill.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Also, there is never 100% certainty. Innocent people are often killed.
I just thank God that I live in a more compassionate country.

 

[dgiharris]

The trouble I have with the death penalty is that we say it is wrong to kill. So as a punishment for killing we will kill.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Also, there is never 100% certainty. Innocent people are often killed.
I just thank God that I live in a more compassionate country.

Is it really compassionate to lock a sentient being up in a metal box for 70 years?
Is it really compassionate to force someone to live in a hostile environment where they face the very real threat of being raped, beaten, and killed every single hour of every single day for 70 years?

I'm being serious, I do not think it is compassionate to force a sentient being to live like that, everyday without any hope whatsoever immersed in fear every second of the day. You will quite literally go insane.

Sorry, I don't think that is compassionate, I think that is barbaric.

now maybe prisons in the UK are much better and allow for you to have some semblance of a decent life if you are a convicted murderer.
But American prisons are no joke, and if you are a murderer you don't get the country club prisons. You get the prisons that are barely a step up from hell...

If given the choice between life imprisonment in a prison I describe above or death, I'd choose death.

 

[Armoured]

How can a supposedly civilized country confine a sentient being to indefinite detention in a metal box for 60 or 70 years?

I am of the belief that life imprisonment is cruel and inhumane because we are NOT the same person over the course of ou rlifetimes.

Are you the same person at 35 as you were at 18? Are you the same person at 59 as you were at 22? In effect, we are condemning a 59 year old man for something that a 22 year old did...

The reason I support the death penalty in cases where this is 100% no doubt is simple-- I sincerely believe the death penalty is the more humane and just sentence that punishes the person for the crime committed.

Truth is, we make life and death decisions every day and directly or indirectly make choices that determines whether others will live or die. Last week I went on a date, dinner and a movie and spent around $75. That same $75 could have bought a month's worth of food for starving Children in South America or Asia or Africa.

So the argument that life is some sacred thing that no one has a right to decide is just not true. We decide every day.

And it is my belief that someone who unjustifiably kills another human being has forfeited their right to live and that the death penalty is the only just and humane punishment. I really don't care about prevention or deterrence or whatever other red herring argument one wants to make. No. I care about a just and fair and humane punishment that matches and fits the crime. That is why I support it.

It annoys me to no end how we can rationalize "collateral damage" during wars and conflicts yet somehow putting a murderer to death is just not right. Why is it okay to kill someone in self defense yet not okay to kill a person who is 100% guilty of murdering an innocent person?

I call it the Stars Wars Remake Han Solo ethical dilemma.

In the first Star Wars Han Solo killed a bounty hunter BEFORE the hunter could get him first.

In the First Star Wars "remake" they changed the scene so that the bounty hunter shot first THEN Han Solo killed him.

I hate the fact they felt the need to make that change. It is hypocritical BS. Same with this argument about not having the right to decide who lives and who dies. Truth is, we make those decisions every time we buy widgets made from an overseas sweatshop or change the channel because we can't bear to watch some charity tout starving children in front of us...

Possibly you need to explore the possibility that both long term confinement and capital punishment are both inhumane and cruel.

 

[Armoured]

Is it really compassionate to lock a sentient being up in a metal box for 70 years?
Is it really compassionate to force someone to live in a hostile environment where they face the very real threat of being raped, beaten, and killed every single hour of every single day for 70 years?

I'm being serious, I do not think it is compassionate to force a sentient being to live like that, everyday without any hope whatsoever immersed in fear every second of the day. You will quite literally go insane.

Sorry, I don't think that is compassionate, I think that is barbaric.

now maybe prisons in the UK are much better and allow for you to have some semblance of a decent life if you are a convicted murderer.
But American prisons are no joke, and if you are a murderer you don't get the country club prisons. You get the prisons that are barely a step up from hell...

If given the choice between life imprisonment in a prison I describe above or death, I'd choose death.

Kind of a rock and a hard place choice.

 

[dgiharris]

Possibly you need to explore the possibility that both long term confinement and capital punishment are both inhumane and cruel.

Interesting point I will have to contemplate...

So I have to ask, what is the solution?

Kind of a rock and a hard place choice.

yes, it is. There is no happy-go-lucky answer to this problem, at least I don't think there is. I could be wrong...

 

[Armoured]

Interesting point I will have to contemplate...

So I have to ask, what is the solution?



yes, it is. There is no happy-go-lucky answer to this problem, at least I don't think there is. I could be wrong...

Honestly, I have no answer, either. But I think acknowledging that neither available solution is satisfactory is the first step to change?

As a first brainstorming type idea, I'd say move towards a less punishment based, less time specific model and move towards more of a therapeutic, rehabilitative model where release is dependent on key sociological and psychological indicators than mere "time served".

 

[LionL]

Is it really compassionate to lock a sentient being up in a metal box for 70 years?

No, but people who are found to be innocent can be released from prison. The dead cannot be resurrected.

 

[Armoured]

Honestly, I have no answer, either. But I think acknowledging that neither available solution is satisfactory is the first step to change?

As a first brainstorming type idea, I'd say move towards a less punishment based, less time specific model and move towards more of a therapeutic, rehabilitative model where release is dependent on key sociological and psychological indicators than mere "time served".

thinking on it further, I think we can also say that technologies have advanced to a point where it doesn't make much sense to incarcerate anyone but those who pose significant risk to the wider community.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

thinking on it further, I think we can also say that technologies have advanced to a point where it doesn't make much sense to incarcerate anyone but those who pose significant risk to the wider community.

So.....how, exactly, are you going to punish criminals? Say, one who gets herself blind drunk and kills someone in a bar fight. Obviously, she wouldn't do this normally so she can't reasonably be called a "significant risk to the wider community".
So, let her off with a "Don't do that again, okay?"?

Letting criminals off (and yes, that's exactly what you're suggesting) is inviting anarchy and vigilantism. Justified vigilantism, btw.

 

[Messy]

How can a supposedly civilized country confine a sentient being to indefinite detention in a metal box for 60 or 70 years?

That's why we have normal prisons.
But here they free you 2 years after you killed someone so you can go kill the next one.

 

[grasping the after wind]

thinking on it further, I think we can also say that technologies have advanced to a point where it doesn't make much sense to incarcerate anyone but those who pose significant risk to the wider community.

Like someone that has shown the capacity to murder another person? Or someone that has proven by their actions that they do not respect the laws of the wider community? I know of no other way to judge whether someone poses a significant risk to the wider community than that. Potentially everyone alive poses a risk to the wider community but only those that have proven by their actions that they are an actual risk to the wider community are supposed to be incarcerated. Seems like the system of punishment and the intentions behind it are correct even if implementation is not flawless.

As for life not being sacred as a different poster claimed. Then why punish murder at all? If the state can purposely kill at its discretion because there is no right of the individual to live why should the decision of an individual to purposely kill another cause any distress? I can find no logical train of thought in a statement that totally dismisses the right to life while insisting it is wrong for only an very few individuals that do not have sanctioned license to kill from a government entity to take a life. Why is it wrong and why is the state right to punish the action of to taking something from someone that does not have a right to possess that thing? Is it a matter of the state arbitrarily punishing anyone it does not happen to approve of? If so, why should the state be allowed to exercise such power so arbitrarily?

 

[com7fy8]

So.....how, exactly, are you going to punish criminals? Say, one who gets herself blind drunk and kills someone in a bar fight. Obviously, she wouldn't do this normally so she can't reasonably be called a "significant risk to the wider community".
So, let her off with a "Don't do that again, okay?"?

Well, she might not be able to do that, while sober; but she was able to get herself drunk. And now they have proof of what can happen while she is drunk. So, I would say that, if you think she should not be put in prison, then you need to have a way of making sure she can not get drunk, again. Then . . . can you trust her, or does she need to be put under some sort of management so always ones have proof she is not getting drunk?

If she were allowed to go free, I think you would need to require that she aggressively makes sure people keep track of her. And she must make sure she is not a nuisance about it. If ones can be creative and clever enough to get their booze, she can be creative and clever enough to do this and make it work.

In the early scripture, if you were a drunkard who would not change, you got the death penalty (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Letting criminals off (and yes, that's exactly what you're suggesting) is inviting anarchy and vigilantism. Justified vigilantism, btw.

I would say it is barbaric to let predators and murderers stay free. But I would say that this world's ways of handling evil people is barbaric. However, I can see how plenty of this world's authority people are not Christians: they are under the dictatorship of their own wrong and selfish nature which keeps them from doing things right; so I don't think it is realistic to expect wrong people to do what is right.

Even so, God is able to use worldly people to deal with wrong people. He said He would do this, with Solomon > 2 Samuel 7:14. And Paul does say that a secular authority person "is God's minister to you for good" >

"For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Romans 13:4)

So, yes, God's law to Moses has plenty of death penalty things, but also they were required to have two witnesses, in order to prosecute someone > Deuteronomy 19:15-21 < this includes, by the way, that if a person falsely accused another of a capital crime, then the false accuser would get the punishment which he or she hoped to bring on the innocent person; so if the false accusation was for a death penalty offense, then the false accuser was to get executed, I understand.

 

[Armoured]

So.....how, exactly, are you going to punish criminals? Say, one who gets herself blind drunk and kills someone in a bar fight. Obviously, she wouldn't do this normally so she can't reasonably be called a "significant risk to the wider community".
So, let her off with a "Don't do that again, okay?"?

Letting criminals off (and yes, that's exactly what you're suggesting) is inviting anarchy and vigilantism. Justified vigilantism, btw.

What's the point in destroying her life once the root cause of any social problems she may have has been treated? What purpose does a lengthy prison sentence serve, other than to satisfy a human desire for retribution? I suggest there could be more constructive things done with such a person .

 

[Armoured]

Like someone that has shown the capacity to murder another person? Or someone that has proven by their actions that they do not respect the laws of the wider community? I know of no other way to judge whether someone poses a significant risk to the wider community than that. Potentially everyone alive poses a risk to the wider community but only those that have proven by their actions that they are an actual risk to the wider community are supposed to be incarcerated. Seems like the system of punishment and the intentions behind it are correct even if implementation is not flawless.

As for life not being sacred as a different poster claimed. Then why punish murder at all? If the state can purposely kill at its discretion because there is no right of the individual to live why should the decision of an individual to purposely kill another cause any distress? I can find no logical train of thought in a statement that totally dismisses the right to life while insisting it is wrong for only an very few individuals that do not have sanctioned license to kill from a government entity to take a life. Why is it wrong and why is the state right to punish the action of to taking something from someone that does not have a right to possess that thing? Is it a matter of the state arbitrarily punishing anyone it does not happen to approve of? If so, why should the state be allowed to exercise such power so arbitrarily?

You'll note I said "significant" risk. Sadly, no human system will be perfect.