Stay of execution for Texas death row inmate

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you joking? Don't you think DNA can be planted very easily? Just because the DNA matches...... that means - the DNA matches.

DNA is not really taken as sole link of evidence. DNA is typically not the only facet of evidence of a crime. If it was, OJ would have been found guilty. But that glove was 'planted', remember?

Again, are you joking? Many big trials end with convictions w/o DNA, but when DNA is introduced juries go haywire for the prosecution.

As for OJ, first he was a celeb, second the DNA evidence had been lost and unnacounted for, so that was the defenses claim that won them the exoneration.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Looking for things to admire about the other countries that execute (particularly juveniles) is kind of like looking for someone else who's jumping a smaller canopy with fewer jumps and not dying, isn't it?

"If he's doing it that makes it OK for me."

Wendy W.

Nie analogy

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Wow, I had no idea that was the case. That's really disheartening. While I am not opposed to the death penalty, my thoughts about prison and the death penalty have changed significantly with more reading on the topic.

Some good non-academic books about this subject include "Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing" and "Bloodsworth". While the former is not about the death penalty, it is an interesting study on the effects of prison life.

An open mind is a great thing. Good for you. I entered college/univ in 96 a card-carrying member of the Repug Party, pro-death pen, all that...... I was educated out of ignorane. I had a professor that witnesses an execution and related all the events. Basically no last words, no diginity.

There are litterally thousands of innocent people in jails/prisons.

What the neo-con right does is to avoid facts, that way they can justify their positions.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, I see, now.... I never realized that Israel, the Bahamas, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, (etc etc etc) weren't free countries... thanks for the update.

Do you feel good about the USA being among the tiny group of countries that executes juveniles? Do you feel really good about the company you're in?

When was the last execution in Israel? The others you mention all have authoritarian governments (but we're getting there fast).

First off, I didn't look for any link to juvenile executions, so I can't speak for that part of it.

If they are judged competent to stand trial, they should be eligible for the same punishments as anyone else. If that be death, so be it.


I've found information online that shows that in the last (roughly) 30 years, the U.S. has sentenced to death 22 individuals that were between 16 and 17 years old at the time of their crimes. None of the criminals were younger than 23 at the time of death.

If you have information that someone younger than 18 has been executed please let me know.

Note: The Supreme Court has stated that the death sentence is applicable for the ages of 16 and 17.

16 and 17 correct. As for executed after the age of 18, of course. The term, "Executing juveniles" means people were juveniles at the time of the commission of their crime. It still is executing kids when you hold accountable to CP people for crimes committed when they were kids.

Here's a cute little note that you'll like. In AZ, children can be, by statute, transferred to adult court at the age of 8, hence sentenced to life at that point. Not saying they do it, just that the laws are there. 5 years from puberty and treated as adults..... pardon me, I need to go buy some American flags....

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, I see, now.... I never realized that Israel, the Bahamas, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, (etc etc etc) weren't free countries... thanks for the update.

Do you feel good about the USA being among the tiny group of countries that executes juveniles? Do you feel really good about the company you're in?

When was the last execution in Israel? The others you mention all have authoritarian governments (but we're getting there fast).

First off, I didn't look for any link to juvenile executions, so I can't speak for that part of it.

If they are judged competent to stand trial, they should be eligible for the same punishments as anyone else. If that be death, so be it.


I've found information online that shows that in the last (roughly) 30 years, the U.S. has sentenced to death 22 individuals that were between 16 and 17 years old at the time of their crimes. None of the criminals were younger than 23 at the time of death.

If you have information that someone younger than 18 has been executed please let me know.

Note: The Supreme Court has stated that the death sentence is applicable for the ages of 16 and 17.

Countries that execute juveniles:

Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
USA

Good company, isn't it.

Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
USA

The very countries we denounce, we emulate. Can you say...... hypocrite?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>what the hell are these attornies doing the entire time these people are locked up?

In many cases, they are waiting for new technology (like DNA analysis) to come along. As good as some are, not even the best attorney can singlehandedly create a new forensic technique.

They also play a lot of games with the system, intentionally waiting until the last minute to bring up a challenge issue. That way they thwart the system, and prolong the murderer's life as long as possible.

If they brought forth all their challenges immediately after conviction, they wouldn't have any cards left to play later.

I think there should be a limit on how long they have to file a challenge, unless they can prove something new has come along.

I've been waiting 17 years for an asshole in Florida to be executed, and he *still* has appeals left that haven't been used.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't think that we should ever convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing it is.

So you agree with the O.J. Simpson verdict.

And you think Scott Peterson should be set free.

Along with Charles Manson...

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think that we should ever convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing it is.

So you agree with the O.J. Simpson verdict.

And you think Scott Peterson should be set free.

Along with Charles Manson...

STANDARD OF PROOF: Beyond a Reasonable doubt?

Do you think it's possible to have a case that is built purely on circumstantial evidence and have it meet the standard of Beyond a Reasonable doubt?

I don't see how, with no eyewitness, no physical evidence, no witness testimony, no anything but things like: You can't account for your whereabouts on the exact night of Feb 12th, 2001 @ 6:53 pm. Who can? Who keeps a diary of where they go every second for all of their life?

The prosecution's job is to build a case based upon factual evidence, and the defense chips away at it - unless the defense is putting on an affirmative defense. If the state never meets that standard of proof, theoretically the defense could just say/do nothig, but Americans are blood-thirsty and love to rack em up on convictions.

[billvon 3,119]

>They also play a lot of games with the system, intentionally waiting until
>the last minute to bring up a challenge issue. That way they thwart the
> system, and prolong the murderer's life as long as possible.

Is investing in a 401k "thwarting" the tax code and denying the government its rightful due?

If the law allows something, then it is legal to do, under the laws created by our government. If you don't like what the law allows you to do - change it. Until you do that, lawyers will continue to do everything within the law to help their clients; indeed that is their job, and what you would expect of a laywer representing you.

>I've been waiting 17 years for an asshole in Florida to be executed,
>and he *still* has appeals left that haven't been used.

If it takes 17 years to make sure we don't execute the wrong guy - it's worth it.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

>They also play a lot of games with the system, intentionally waiting until
>the last minute to bring up a challenge issue. That way they thwart the
> system, and prolong the murderer's life as long as possible.

Is investing in a 401k "thwarting" the tax code and denying the government its rightful due?

If the law allows something, then it is legal to do, under the laws created by our government. If you don't like what the law allows you to do - change it. Until you do that, lawyers will continue to do everything within the law to help their clients; indeed that is their job, and what you would expect of a laywer representing you.

>I've been waiting 17 years for an asshole in Florida to be executed,
>and he *still* has appeals left that haven't been used.

If it takes 17 years to make sure we don't execute the wrong guy - it's worth it.

I agree with everything you write, and to expound, 17 years of appeals later, it's cost more to this point than it would have to jail whoever for a lifetime w/o continually attempting to execute. And when whoever is dead, society will have gained nothing except revenge/Old Testament Retribution. After all, as long as the convicted stays convicted, they aren't going anywhere? Who might they kill, other convictees? If so, I don;t see the compassion from the conservatives on that.

CONCLUSION: capital punishment IS revenge, which exemplifies the American attitude, and we wonder while crime has fallen over the past 3 years, murder has increased. Where's the so-called deterrence?

[rower 0]

I don't know enough about these cases to comment on them. I simply have never had enough interest to follow them. I know that may be difficult to believe given the media blitz surrounding each of them.

I tend to be of the opinion that unless I know everything about something that I don't know anything about it. So unless I know all the facts, I don't feel that I can make an informed decision about someone's guilt or innocence. Ultimately, this is something that I feel very strongly about and I find it completely unacceptable for an innocent person to waste away in a jail cell or be put to death for something that they didn't do. Humans run the criminal justice system so there is always some understood level of error. However, it's not okay to say that just because someone most likely committed some crime that they should be found guilty.

I think one of the real problems is that the system is set up in such a way that finding the real perpetrator is not the goal; it's often more about who wins the case. I don't think that we'll ever be able to move away from our current system, but I think that we can do things to mitigate its results. As I understand it, criminal trials use a system of "limited" discovery, whereby not all information is disclosed to the defense (I am not an attorney so I don't know the details of this). There are groups writing legislation to change these types of things so that we can improve our current system. I hope that our representatives will support these changes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think that we should ever convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you agree with the O.J. Simpson verdict.

And you think Scott Peterson should be set free.

Along with Charles Manson...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Countries that execute juveniles:

Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
USA

Good company, isn't it.

Prove your cite that we (as in the United States in the last 30 years) have executed an inmate younger than 18 years old.

I've done MY research...time for you to do some.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

Actually read what has been put in this thread.

No one has is saying that the US has executed someone who was less than 18.

What is being claimed is that the US executes people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime. This has already been explained in this thread.

The fact that they are no longer 18 at the time they were executed is testament only to the extreme length of time it takes for a case to work it's way though the legal system.

Executing people for something they did as a child is not something that most of the countries in the world condones - to be precise, all but 7.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

They may receive the death penalty for crimes committed at juvenile age, but are not eligible to drink alcohol until the age of 21 because they are considered "too immature".
Whow that kind of hypocrisy blows my mind!

Again, difference in cultures - we don't let our kids use pacifiers until they're 5, either. At least not usually

Quote

WTF does it matter what age they were when executed?
The date when the crime was committed is important. If they were minors at that time, they must not be judged like an adult! How pervert is that?

Evidently the crimes were heinous enough that the state felt the charges, and the punishment, justified. Should we just spat them on the hand and say "Now now, mustn't kill the neighbors...it's not nice!"

Bullshit - preschool children know that certain actions carry unpleasant consequences. You expect me to believe that a 16 or 17 year old does *NOT* (unless mentally deficient) realize that murder is WRONG, against the law, punishable by death?

Quote

Next time a 10 year old in a sandbox bashes his friends head in in an uncontrolled outbreak of childish rage, we just wait 8 years to execute him and everything will be perfectly legal.

Nice use of hyperbole, especially when I stated that the U.S. Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional to sentence to death a criminal under the age of 16.

Quote

Please read this
Quote: The juvenile death penalty is based on the false assumption that 16- and 17-year-olds possess the cognitive and emotional maturity of adulthood. Health professionals know that this assumption contradicts medical and scientific knowledge of adolescents’ development and capacities -- and that executing young offenders is inappropriate and unjust.

I'll read it when there's an actual study posted, not while it's simply an opinion letter.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Actually read what has been put in this thread.

No one has is saying that the US has executed someone who was less than 18.

What is being claimed is that the US executes people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime. This has already been explained in this thread.

The fact that they are no longer 18 at the time they were executed is testament only to the extreme length of time it takes for a case to work it's way though the legal system.

Executing people for something they did as a child is not something that most of the countries in the world condones - to be precise, all but 7.

Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

Maybe he could have put it better... I understood exactly what he meant though... it's not my fault you were unable to.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Countries that execute juveniles:

Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
USA

Good company, isn't it.

Prove your cite that we (as in the United States in the last 30 years) have executed an inmate younger than 18 years old.

I've done MY research...time for you to do some.

Apparently you haven't.

The reference is clearly to the age at which the crime is committed and the maturity of juveniles who commit crimes.

We don't allow kids to drink alcohol until they're 21. There's a good reason for that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

They may receive the death penalty for crimes committed at juvenile age, but are not eligible to drink alcohol until the age of 21 because they are considered "too immature".
Whow that kind of hypocrisy blows my mind!

Again, difference in cultures - we don't let our kids use pacifiers until they're 5, either. At least not usually

Quote

WTF does it matter what age they were when executed?
The date when the crime was committed is important. If they were minors at that time, they must not be judged like an adult! How pervert is that?

Evidently the crimes were heinous enough that the state felt the charges, and the punishment, justified. Should we just spat them on the hand and say "Now now, mustn't kill the neighbors...it's not nice!"

Bullshit - preschool children know that certain actions carry unpleasant consequences. You expect me to believe that a 16 or 17 year old does *NOT* (unless mentally deficient) realize that murder is WRONG, against the law, punishable by death?

Quote

Next time a 10 year old in a sandbox bashes his friends head in in an uncontrolled outbreak of childish rage, we just wait 8 years to execute him and everything will be perfectly legal.

Nice use of hyperbole, especially when I stated that the U.S. Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional to sentence to death a criminal under the age of 16.

Quote

Please read this
Quote: The juvenile death penalty is based on the false assumption that 16- and 17-year-olds possess the cognitive and emotional maturity of adulthood. Health professionals know that this assumption contradicts medical and scientific knowledge of adolescents’ development and capacities -- and that executing young offenders is inappropriate and unjust.

I'll read it when there's an actual study posted, not while it's simply an opinion letter.

"Again, difference in cultures - we don't let our kids use pacifiers until they're 5, either. At least not usually "

Why, are they still breast feeding until 5 years old?

"Evidently the crimes were heinous enough that the state felt the charges, and the punishment, justified."

Come on, it isn't the state that executes people, it's the counties. Oh, the state 'pulls the switch,' but the execution order, signed by the governor, originates in the county court. I would think a good ole Texas boy like you would know that, I mean Bush signed 152 or so death warrants w/o investigating one of them, so I think you know what I mean when I say that the governors signature is a rubber stamp. Then you get a gov like Ryan of Illinois and he's a SOB. Really, is it the ugly system or the blood-thirsty American attitude? Are we so far from Salem?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually read what has been put in this thread.

No one has is saying that the US has executed someone who was less than 18.

What is being claimed is that the US executes people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime. This has already been explained in this thread.

The fact that they are no longer 18 at the time they were executed is testament only to the extreme length of time it takes for a case to work it's way though the legal system.

Executing people for something they did as a child is not something that most of the countries in the world condones - to be precise, all but 7.

Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors?

"Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors?"

Your arguments are based on pure semantics rather than substance. As someone suggested, a person cannot drink alcohol legally before 21, however they are mature enough to die for their actions at 16, or for their country at 17 via Bush's murdering machine in Iraq. They cannot smoke until 18, are not emancipated until 18 absent extreme litigation, are not civilly accountable until 18 in most cases and jurisdictions, having driving restrictions in many jurisdictions before 18.

Just pick over this or totally ignore the tough questions with rhetoric.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Countries that execute juveniles:

The reference is clearly to the age at which the crime is committed and the maturity of juveniles who commit crimes.

We don't allow kids to drink alcohol until they're 21. There's a good reason for that.

Please explain by what twisted logic the statement "Countries that execute juveniles" = "Countries that execute juveniles for crimes commited while under the age of majority"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Countries that execute juveniles:

The reference is clearly to the age at which the crime is committed and the maturity of juveniles who commit crimes.

We don't allow kids to drink alcohol until they're 21. There's a good reason for that.

Please explain by what twisted logic the statement "Countries that execute juveniles" = "Countries that execute juveniles for crimes commited while under the age of majority"

Is the purpose of execution to punish a person for a crime they committed some time in the past, or for crime they commit at the instant of execution?

Your entire argument here is simply not relevant.

The US (or at least, some of the states) is in very bad company in its policy of executing juveniles.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually read what has been put in this thread.

No one has is saying that the US has executed someone who was less than 18.

What is being claimed is that the US executes people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime. This has already been explained in this thread.

The fact that they are no longer 18 at the time they were executed is testament only to the extreme length of time it takes for a case to work it's way though the legal system.

Executing people for something they did as a child is not something that most of the countries in the world condones - to be precise, all but 7.

Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors?

I've got another way to refute your silly avoidance of the fact that we execute juveniles.

If Bob was 20 years, 11 months, 30 days and was caught drunk in public, he wouldn't be tried and punished until he was over 21, which would be legal drinking age. Therefore, with your logic applied, he wouldn't be underage when tried and convicted, hence an adult over 21 was convicted with an alcohol charge of minor in possession.

Do you see your silliness? See, as I previously wrote, the neo-con agenda is real difficult to defend, just try to revert to misdirection. Good luck.....

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Your arguments are based on pure semantics rather than substance. As someone suggested, a person cannot drink alcohol legally before 21, however they are mature enough to die for their actions at 16, or for their country at 17 via Bush's murdering machine in Iraq. They cannot smoke until 18, are not emancipated until 18 absent extreme litigation, are not civilly accountable until 18 in most cases and jurisdictions, having driving restrictions in many jurisdictions before 18.

Just pick over this or totally ignore the tough questions with rhetoric.

I don't need to pick it over, but I did get one HELL of a laugh out of someone using the phrase

Quote

Bush's murdering machine

lecturing ME on rhetoric!!

My thoughts - Persons under 21 that enlist in the military should be able to smoke, drink and enter contracts at will. Not my fault that the various laws don't allow it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually read what has been put in this thread.

No one has is saying that the US has executed someone who was less than 18.

What is being claimed is that the US executes people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime. This has already been explained in this thread.

The fact that they are no longer 18 at the time they were executed is testament only to the extreme length of time it takes for a case to work it's way though the legal system.

Executing people for something they did as a child is not something that most of the countries in the world condones - to be precise, all but 7.

Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors?

I've got another way to refute your silly avoidance of the fact that we execute juveniles.

If Bob was 20 years, 11 months, 30 days and was caught drunk in public, he wouldn't be tried and punished until he was over 21, which would be legal drinking age. Therefore, with your logic applied, he wouldn't be underage when tried and convicted, hence an adult over 21 was convicted with an alcohol charge of minor in possession.

Do you see your silliness? See, as I previously wrote, the neo-con agenda is real difficult to defend, just try to revert to misdirection. Good luck.....

No misdirection at all... being a conservative, I don't have to account for 'spin' on everything I see, so I read the words AS THEY ARE WRITTEN and am not looking for "nuance" or "misdirection".

"Execute": to put to death
"Juvenile": a person under the age of legal majority
"Execute juvenile": to put to death a person under the legal age of majority

See how easy it is to just READ, and not spin?

Easy fix: Change the words to the truth (at least for the U.S., I can't vouch for the other countrys, it could be true in their cases)

"Countrys that execute individuals for crimes committed while a juvenile"

Wow... no twisted meaning to try and get the sympathy mail out... just plain truth - what a shocker, eh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Your arguments are based on pure semantics rather than substance. As someone suggested, a person cannot drink alcohol legally before 21, however they are mature enough to die for their actions at 16, or for their country at 17 via Bush's murdering machine in Iraq. They cannot smoke until 18, are not emancipated until 18 absent extreme litigation, are not civilly accountable until 18 in most cases and jurisdictions, having driving restrictions in many jurisdictions before 18.

Just pick over this or totally ignore the tough questions with rhetoric.

I don't need to pick it over, but I did get one HELL of a laugh out of someone using the phrase

Quote

Bush's murdering machine

lecturing ME on rhetoric!!

My thoughts - Persons under 21 that enlist in the military should be able to smoke, drink and enter contracts at will. Not my fault that the various laws don't allow it.

Right, but I'm not disecting your opinion so much, just the reflection of the system offerring few liberties and great responsibility/jeopardy. So what do you think of a system that allows few and late liberty, yet will execute a person at 16 for horrible actions? Isn't the establishment saying, by not legally allowing drinking, smoking, etc.. that a person ins't mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions if they partake? So how is that they then fully understand their actions when they are 16 for other things? Shouldn't the line be drawn accross the board?

Furthermore, the establishment could jail them for the rest of thier life w/o killing them, so this isn't an issue incapacity.