meower wrote: 

I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.I am not a lawyer, I do not think like one. This human being needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth.......period.

Edit: If an American did this abroad, they can shoot him on site for all I care, one less rapist to come back in this country.

We're probably killing someone today...... Can you imagine if this was going on with an American in another country?  Nasty.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-defies-calls-to-delay-execution-of-mexican-2308109.html

Texas appeared set last night to proceed with the execution today of Humberto Leal Garcia Jnr, rebuffing requests for a delay from defence lawyers, the White House and the State Department.

The Mexican government has joined the chorus admonishing Texas, arguing that regardless of the guilt or innocence of Leal - who was convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl in 1994 by bludgeoning her with a slab of asphalt - the state is in violation of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations, which requires foreign nationals have access to their consulates when taken into custody in another country.

 steeler wrote: 
My links are old-ish. Latest reports indicate the poor schmuck has been charged with capital murder. I can find a link but you get the idea. I'm not saying they (any of the cases mentioned) should not be charged with homicide: their intentionally violent, criminal actions led to the death of a person, whether they actually pulled the trigger(s) or not.

I'm okay with those sorry SOBs rotting in prison, for life if that's what the jury decides. But I'm not okay with putting them to death if they did not personally do the deed. Maybe I'm trying to shave the Law too finely, but it seems to me an easy distinction to make. It'll be interesting to see how the case in Texas pans out. It happened recently, so it will be YEARS before any resolution (another gripe against the death penalty, but that's another story.)

Peace,

c.

 cc_rider wrote: 

It does not appear that the youth who fled is charged with capital murder.  

The fourth teen, 17-year-old Frank Castro, fled on foot and was arrested when he returned. He was charged with aggravated robbery and was being held at the Hays County Law Enforcement Center on a $50,000 bond. 

I have never heard of LOP or a similar principle used to convict someone of capital murder when the perpetrators were the ones killed.  It is used when, for example, a group is committing a robbery and the person being robbed — or an innocent bystander — is killed when one of the guys, even unbeknownst to the others, pulls a gun and starts shooting.

You may have heard of the shooting of Redskins safety Sean Taylor a year or so ago in Florida.  It was a house invasion and one of the punks ended up shooting Taylor, who died.  All of those guys who were part of the plan to burglarize the house, including the guy waiting in the car, could be and, I believe, were charged with homicide.  

Making something capital murder — murder committed during the commission of a felony — makes one eligible for death peanlty in some jurisdictions. 

You see it used sometimes in instances where gang members are shooting at each other and some innocent gets caught in the crossfire.  No intent to kill that person, but that does not matter because person charged did have the intent to commit the other crime (assault with intent to kill)       

Interesting case here in Central Texas. Four punks (three are minors) break into some dude's house in the middle of the night, apparently to steal broccoli. I think they had pellet guns and a handgun. Dude grabs his own pistol and discovers the young miscreants in his living room: bad things ensue. Two punks dead, one wounded, one flees and is caught shortly thereafter. Punks never fired a shot, although dude says one pointed a gun at him.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Two_teens_killed_in_San_Marcos_shooting.html

So, the cat who fled the scene? Just the other day he was charged with CAPITAL MURDER. According to the Texas 'Law of Parties', he could be sentenced to death just the same as if he had shot those guys himself.

http://www.lairdcarlson.com/celldoor/00603/Foster00603TXandtheLawOfParties.htm

Now, I don't have one whit of sympathy for the punk. I'd just as soon see him spend the rest of his miserable life in jail. His actions, along with those of the rest of the brain trust, led to the deaths of two young people. Who themselves were obviously scumbags, or at least had exceptionally poor decision-making skills. But is putting this dumba$$ to death justice? Really? I do not see how anyone can justify executing someone who did not actually commit murder, even though the law is quite plain on the subject.

This is the kind of thing that gives people on any side of the death penalty fits: the law is not nuanced enough to take into account complex situations.

 cc_rider wrote: 

There is an interesting new program that allows for the creation of a DNA profile. I see great harm in it's use in the wrong hands.
No, I do not have a vested interest in believing DNA evidence is th end-all, be-all in forensics. My only interest is as a genetic engineer. There is nothing gained/lost by my interests beyond that in the realm of DNA and forensics.
Mistakes will always be made whenever a human element is in play. Regrettable mistakes can not be walked back. Innocent lives have been executed by mistake.
I think you oversell possible coercion by other members of the law enforcement community. Your suggestion would give rise to the thought that a good number of bench workers can be coerced into offering inaccurate results. I don't believe that. The crime labs around this country are for the most part first class, state of the art with dedicated professionals at all levels.
Looking back at the OJ trial, an elementary reading of the presented DNA evidence was overwhelming in its verdict: OJ slaughtered two people. Dr. Robin Cotton, a top flight professional, conducted the DNA profiling. I personally know Dr. Cotton. She is beyond reproach as are almost all of her colleagues.
That the jury dismissed the DNA gun in that case is something they must live with. They ignored pure ballistics, if you will. I think part of that lies with the fault of both prosecutor and Dr. Cotton: they didn't dumb down the DNA evidence and put it in everyday terms and understandings. And the defense was clever by one-half. They abused Dr. Kerry Mullis, the researcher who conceived of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) because Dr. Mullis had dropped LSD. That didn't mean his science was bad, but it furthered a portrait of bumbling conspiratorial folks out to get OJ.
Whenever DNA evidence is introduced into a Court of Law, the introducers will stand by it and the defense will seek to dismiss it.
I do think DNA evidence is an unquestionable smoking gun if for no other reason than the astronomical odds against it being wrong if properly conducted.

 musik_knut wrote:
 
You have a vested interest in believing DNA evidence is the end-all and be-all of forensic evidence. Just as much as the fire investigator whose 'analysis' caused a man to be murdered in the name of the State of Texas. All human endeavors are subject to errors. Period. Texas in particular has had a big problem with so-called 'experts' allowing their personal biases to affect their decisions. Even the poor man's defense attorneys believed he was guilty, and all of their efforts were based around that presumption. The 'expert' testimony was shoddy even for the time period, and the courts' refusals to even LOOK at new evidence is really the most damning indictment of the State. Heck, the state of Texas is not willing to accept new DNA evidence either: there are current cases in which the convicted person or an advocacy group has paid to have an independent lab conduct DNA testing, and the State simply says "Too little, too late. You should have presented that evidence at trial, twenty years ago. Go away. Oh yeah, one more thing: your date with the needle is in two weeks." If you think I'm exaggerating, do a little digging for yourself. I don't have specific cases at hand, but they've been in the news and shouldn't be hard to find.

Consider the cases in Houston: here's just one. http://wrongful-convictions.blogspot.com/2009/08/dna-testing-proves-houston-mans.html

It seems quite possible that testing labs, if not individual technicians, can be, and have been, coerced into providing inaccurate results. Of course you are above the possibility of such transgressions, but you probably don't have a police detective breathing down your neck, or a supervisor yelling at you, or whatever malfeasance caused such shoddy work.

But this is all not really about DNA testing at all, but the system. We must accept the possibility that our system can make mistakes. We must accept the fact that innocent people can be, and almost certainly have been, executed. There is no way to say 'oopsie' and give them their freedom.

 cc_rider wrote: 

I make a living toiling with DNA...I know the pitfalls, the strengths...I know how DNA profiling is performed and what those profiles tell us.
Sloughed skin cells would never be mistaken for semen or blood found at a crime scene...
Those exonerated by DNA evidence were cleared after DNA profiling, a methodology which did not exist at the time of their trial...DNA evidence can say who did it or didn't do it. That is why some crime labs are busily testing 'old' evidence with techniques not nearly as old as some of the crimes.
Family members do share common 'marker's, but each of us is unique enough in our DNA profile to be seen as individual profiles within a family of inherited characteristics born of shared DNA's...

 musik_knut wrote: 
Speaking of sloppy work, do a google on Houston DNA evidence. It ain't pretty: many allegations of evidence tampering, false results, the works. There are thousands of cases in limbo due to sloppy lab work. Plus, family members can share a number of markers, so if the lab does not use sufficient data points, there is room for error.

Not to mention, being at the crime scene does not automatically prove guilt. Also the abundance of 'stray' DNA evidence: apparently we shed DNA evidence constantly, through skin cells, sneezing/coughing, whatever. They are now able to get DNA from tiny samples.

Of course, evidence such as the victim's blood in the suspect's car carries far more weight than a smidgen of skin cells in the same room with the victim.

And to explain what I mean about DNA not being able to say 'this is the person', consider the recent exonerations due to DNA evidence: the incriminating DNA at the scene (blood, et al) has been proven NOT to match the blood of the heretofore convicted person. The DNA evidence doesn't say who DID do it, just that a specific person did NOT do it.

DNA is not ALWAYS the magic bullet/smoking gun everyone wants it to be. Of course it is far more reliable than anything else we have, but it is not 100% perfect in 100% of the cases. Nothing is, never will be. Witness the man in Texas who was executed based on 'expert analysis' of the 'crime' scene. The man was convicted and executed based on what was considered 'perfect' evidence.

I'm just saying, when it comes down to YOUR neck on the line, you might not be so quick to say it provides definitive proof.

I hope it's found guilty and sentenced to death. 

 cc_rider wrote: 

Oh yea, the ONE IN ONE BILLION would not necessarily point to one individual's DNA profile...DNA can say 'this is the person'...or we're left to calculate the odds that 6 or so people, the ONE IN ONE BILLION, were all at the same crime scene.

Sorry, but short of sloppy work, both gathering and analyzing, DNA is a smoking gun...and I don't believe for a moment that sloppiness is a common factor.

 musik_knut wrote:
 
Not so fast, my friend. DNA evidence collected where? When? Not to mention that it can't really say 'yes, this is the person', it can only say 'no, this is not the person'. Sounds like a semantic argument, I agree, but depending on the number of markers used, the number of matches, blah blah blah, DNA evidence can still leave room for doubt. The good thing is, it is FAR less subjective than other methods, but it is not perfect. Nothing is, and that's point.

 kysmet wrote: 

DNA evidence, unless ignored as the OJ jury did, is an unshakeable smoking gun...not kinda, not sorta, not maybe or possibly...

 cc_rider wrote: 

Exactly.  The system will never be perfect and we can't subject some people to the dealth penalty who may be, possibly, kinda, sorta guilty.  Evidence can be tainted, people can be framed, eyewitnesses aren't even dependable, etc.

Bob Herbert's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=1

The New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

The death penalty is like marriage; a wonderful idea, but, being implemented by imperfect humans, virtually impossible to carry out in the spirit that it is intended.

 kysmet wrote:
  I am against the death penalty on 'practical' grounds, not moral ones. First of all, capital cases are EXPENSIVE and take FOREVER to work their way through the courts. Sentencing someone to life with no possibility of parole is actually cheaper. Second, and far more important, is the fact that the system is not, cannot be, perfect. It is quite likely, practically a certainty, that innocent people have been executed. Just look at the number of DNA exonerations in recent years. This case is just the most egregious, in a state where the justice system models itself after Judge Roy Bean. I wish I was exaggerating.

Now, on the other hand, if I had first-hand knowledge, pure indisputable proof, of some of the heinous crimes committed by death row inmates, I would have little moral issue with executing someone myself. Kenneth Duff and Daniel Devoe come to mind: two heinous scumbags I don't think I'd have a problem pulling the trigger on.

 cc_rider wrote: 

That makes me want to cry.  No innocent person should die in the name of the death penalty.  I used to be 100% for the death penalty when I was much younger.  Then I educated myself about it and yeah, not so much anymore.

 rosedraws wrote:
 
It started with an article in The New Yorker. In 1991, a fire broke out, which killed a man's three little daughters. He was convicted of arson and executed in 2004. He was convicted almost solely on 'expert testimony' which has since been debunked by a number of leading fire investigators. Before he was executed, a number of those investigators provided their findings to the appeals courts, which all summarily dismissed said findings. The man continued to proclaim his innocence with his dying breaths.

Bob Herbert wrote an editorial about it. Several of the principals involved have been interviewed on NPR. It seems poised to become major news, if anybody has the decency to pick it up and run with it. Texas needs to have its nose rubbed in this: it is a disgrace.

This case may turn out to be the final straw in making Texas the most backwards state in the Union. The 'justice' system here makes a cruel mockery of the concept.

 cc_rider wrote: 
Haven't heard this. 

Will it be like Minority Report?  They will do away with all executions?