PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Blocks Rick Perry From Executing Man "Based on the Color of His Skin"




bobbyw24
09-16-2011, 04:16 AM
Texas Governor Rick Perry uses his state's reputation for killing without question to gain applause for his presidential bid from Tea Party audiences that cannot contain their bloodlust. Perry, the frontrunner for the Republican party's 2012 nomination claims he "never struggled" with questions of justice and injustice, right and wrong, when it comes to approving the executions of Texans.

That's because Perry says "the state of Texas has a very thoughtful, very clear process in place."

On Thursday night, that "very thoughtful, very clear process" was due to execute the 236th inmate to die on Perry's watch.

But the latest victim, Duane Edward Buck, had been sentences to death after an "expert witness" told jurors in Houston that Buck posed a greater threat to public safety because he was African American.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163437/us-supreme-court-blocks-rick-perry-executing-man-based-color-his-skin

RonPaulMall
09-16-2011, 12:21 PM
This isn't really in the same league as the Cameron Todd Willingham case. Seems like there is no question as to the guys guilt and the only "issue" revolves around a statistically true but non politically correct answer that a social scientist made during testimony. Wouldn't be surprised if Perry himself is pushing media attention on this story as a means of deflecting attention from the truly offensive cases.

kylejack
09-16-2011, 12:26 PM
This isn't really in the same league as the Cameron Todd Willingham case. Seems like there is no question as to the guys guilt and the only "issue" revolves around a statistically true but non politically correct answer that a social scientist made during testimony. Wouldn't be surprised if Perry himself is pushing media attention on this story as a means of deflecting attention from the truly offensive cases.
A person is entitled to a sentencing phase free of racist testimony. Race should have nothing to do with it.

wannaberocker
09-16-2011, 12:27 PM
A racist witness cant still be right about the facts of a case.

kylejack
09-16-2011, 12:28 PM
A racist witness cant still be right about the facts of a case.
Being a racist and giving racist testimony are two different things. He was saying that the man should be executed because he is black. That's unacceptable.

jkr
09-16-2011, 12:30 PM
i gotta get out of this country


anyone in the tropics need a white cabanna boy?

since i'm white u know youll b safe!

can this now be a "bullet" point on my resume?
hire ME- just lookat my skin- im so white im clear

jmdrake
09-16-2011, 12:35 PM
Texas Governor Rick Perry uses his state's reputation for killing without question to gain applause for his presidential bid from Tea Party audiences that cannot contain their bloodlust. Perry, the frontrunner for the Republican party's 2012 nomination claims he "never struggled" with questions of justice and injustice, right and wrong, when it comes to approving the executions of Texans.

That's because Perry says "the state of Texas has a very thoughtful, very clear process in place."

On Thursday night, that "very thoughtful, very clear process" was due to execute the 236th inmate to die on Perry's watch.

But the latest victim, Duane Edward Buck, had been sentences to death after an "expert witness" told jurors in Houston that Buck posed a greater threat to public safety because he was African American.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163437/us-supreme-court-blocks-rick-perry-executing-man-based-color-his-skin

Unfortunately I can't read the article.
Access Denied

You are not authorized to access this page.


I can read this one however:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/09/15/texas.execution/index.html

This is interesting:

Black is referring to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who was the state's attorney general in 2000, when he spoke of seven death row inmates, including Buck. Cornyn said he believed the inmates had been unfairly sentenced to death based on testimony that was racially tainted by psychologist Walter Quijano, who repeatedly told juries that black or Hispanic defendants were more likely to commit future crimes.

Cornyn's high in the GOP leadership now. (Personally I can't stand him since he voted for the bailout, but anyway). I wonder if this could be used to drive a wedge between Perry and other parts of the GOP establishment? Maybe not...then again maybe.

wannaberocker
09-16-2011, 12:48 PM
Being a racist and giving racist testimony are two different things. He was saying that the man should be executed because he is black. That's unacceptable.

Why is that unacceptable? A testimony is a testimony racist or not, After hearing what is said. It is up to the jury to decide if the testimony is credible or not. Its like having someone give a testimony saying "the world is flat which is why person XYZ should be prisoned" as foolish as it sounds. The decision is up to the jury to take this testimony seriously or reject the testimony as flawed and foolish.
You cant demand that testimony be guided by certain standards that you claims are acceptable or not.

kylejack
09-16-2011, 12:54 PM
Why is that unacceptable? A testimony is a testimony racist or not, After hearing what is said. It is up to the jury to decide if the testimony is credible or not. Its like having someone give a testimony saying "the world is flat which is why person XYZ should be prisoned" as foolish as it sounds. The decision is up to the jury to take this testimony seriously or reject the testimony as flawed and foolish.
You cant demand that testimony be guided by certain standards that society claims are acceptable or not.
You were talking about the "facts of the case." This wasn't about facts. He had already been convicted. This supposed expert wasn't a witness to the incident and was only testifying about how dangerous black people are. I don't know if you just don't understand how trials work, but certain types of evidence or testimony are not allowed, and if it happens the judge has to either declare a mistrial or instruct the jury not to consider it. In particular, information that might unduly prejudice the jury is not permitted.

This is why SCOTUS stayed last night's planned execution.

jmdrake
09-16-2011, 12:55 PM
Why is that unacceptable? A testimony is a testimony racist or not, After hearing what is said. It is up to the jury to decide if the testimony is credible or not. Its like having someone give a testimony saying "the world is flat which is why person XYZ should be prisoned" as foolish as it sounds. The decision is up to the jury to take this testimony seriously or reject the testimony as flawed and foolish.
You cant demand that testimony be guided by certain standards that you claims are acceptable or not.

Actually with expert testimony you can demand certain standards. Experts all the only witnesses allowed to give opinion testimony. And they're allowed to do that based on their expertise. In criminal trials this is especially problematic because the state has nearly limitless resources to bring in experts to BS the jury and the defense does not.

Anti Federalist
09-16-2011, 12:57 PM
Yeah of course, race is the only issue, brought up by a witness, that will perk up the presstitutes and government shills in the lamestream media.

We won't make a big stink of the thousands of people in prison and, yes, on death row, black and white, that were put there by corrupt cops and prosecutors.

Fucking sluts.

RonPaulMall
09-16-2011, 01:01 PM
A person is entitled to a sentencing phase free of racist testimony. Race should have nothing to do with it.

I can't read the article. I heard about this case on the news, and as I understand it, the person giving the testimony was a social scientist for the defense. The prosecutor asked the witness if blacks as a group were more dangerous in terms of recidivism or something, and he said yes, which I'm presuming is statistically accurate. I don't really see the relevance of any kind of social science testimony in the first place, and if I were a juror would put zero stock in to it, but so long as what the guy said was factually accurate, I see this as more of a PC thing than a fundamental justice issue. This guy admits to murdering two people in cold blood. If you accept the death penalty as a valid form of punishment (and most Americans do), you aren't going to have any sympathy for this guy or his cause, and Perry is only going gain support for standing his ground on this. Todd Cameron Willingham is the death penalty victim we need to be making a household name.

kylejack
09-16-2011, 01:09 PM
I can't read the article. I heard about this case on the news, and as I understand it, the person giving the testimony was a social scientist for the defense. The prosecutor asked the witness if blacks as a group were more dangerous in terms of recidivism or something, and he said yes, which I'm presuming is statistically accurate. I don't really see the relevance of any kind of social science testimony in the first place, and if I were a juror would put zero stock in to it, but so long as what the guy said was factually accurate, I see this as more of a PC thing than a fundamental justice issue.
Yes, that's basically what happened. The defense knew of Quijano's racial opinions, but they called him anyway. The prosecutor then brought up the race issue. It wouldn't have been as bad if the judge had struck that question and answer from the record and given the jury an instruction. Since it was left in, it looks really awful for an all-white jury to be told "by the way, this guy is black and blacks are dangerous."

The guy deserves a fair sentencing phase purely on the merits of the case.

wannaberocker
09-16-2011, 01:10 PM
You were talking about the "facts of the case." This wasn't about facts. He had already been convicted. This supposed expert wasn't a witness to the incident and was only testifying about how dangerous black people are.

Im going by this " But the latest victim, Duane Edward Buck, had been sentences to death after an "expert witness" told jurors in Houston that Buck posed a greater threat to public safety because he was African American." Now if this testimony was told to the jurors, i assume it was during the trial and the guys guilt had not yet been established.


I don't know if you just don't understand how trials work, but certain types of evidence or testimony are not allowed, and if it happens the judge has to either declare a mistrial or instruct the jury not to consider it.In particular, information that might unduly prejudice the jury is not permitted.

Well i may not be a law expert. But i assume that a judge who understands the law processes alot better than me was watching over the proceedings. Ill also assume that if the judge felt that the testimony was unduly prejudice he or she would have told the jury to ignore it or declare a mistrial (as you suggested they are suppose to do). So hell, i maybe ignorant of what sort of testimony is allowed at a trial. But i hope the judge who watched over the trial wasnt ignorant.

jmdrake
09-16-2011, 01:14 PM
Well i may not be a law expert. But i assume that a judge who understands the law processess alot better than me was watching over the proceedings. Ill also assume that if the judge felt that the testimony was unduly prejudice he or she would have told the jury to ignore it or declare a mistrial. So hell, i maybe ignorant of what sort of testimony is allowed at a trial. But i hope the judge who watched over the trial wasnt ignorant.

Well the whole point of the appeals process is that judges who are supposed to "watch over the trial" do make mistakes and need to be corrected from time to time. (And some judges are corrupt, but that's another matter).

kylejack
09-16-2011, 01:15 PM
Im going by this " But the latest victim, Duane Edward Buck, had been sentences to death after an "expert witness" told jurors in Houston that Buck posed a greater threat to public safety because he was African American." Now if this testimony was told to the jurors, i assume it was during the trial and the guys guilt had not yet been established.
As I said, it was during the sentencing phase after he had already been convicted. The jury was to decide on a sentence between death and life with no chance of parole.


Well i may not be a law expert. But i assume that a judge who understands the law processess alot better than me was watching over the proceedings. Ill also assume that if the judge felt that the testimony was unduly prejudice he or she would have told the jury to ignore it or declare a mistrial. So hell, i maybe ignorant of what sort of testimony is allowed at a trial. But i hope the judge who watched over the trial wasnt ignorant.
Ah, an appeal to authority. In that case, I will appeal to SCOTUS, the ultimately legal authority in the country, who stayed the execution.

jmdrake
09-16-2011, 01:20 PM
This isn't really in the same league as the Cameron Todd Willingham case. Seems like there is no question as to the guys guilt and the only "issue" revolves around a statistically true but non politically correct answer that a social scientist made during testimony. Wouldn't be surprised if Perry himself is pushing media attention on this story as a means of deflecting attention from the truly offensive cases.

Well correlation does not equal causation and statistics can go a lot of ways. Take child molesters for instance. 66% of child molesters have been married at least once. 70% of convicted child molesters are non-hispanic whites. (Non-hispanic whites make up 63% of the U.S. population). Should those statistics be brought into play against an accused of convicted sex offender? Or should we just say "Meh? So what?"

RonPaulFanInGA
09-16-2011, 01:25 PM
Attacking Rick Perry on the death penalty is never going to gain any traction in the GOP primary. Perry probably wishes it was all his opponents would hit him on.

CaptainAmerica
09-16-2011, 01:34 PM
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/kappellmeister2003/b2a7c0bb.jpg

The Free Hornet
09-16-2011, 01:39 PM
Rick Perry just killed this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Michael_Woods,_Jr.

In his last words, Woods stated, "You're not about to witness an execution, you're about to witness a murder ... I've never killed anybody, never," Woods said. "This whole thing is wrong ... Warden, if you're going to murder someone, go ahead and do it. Pull that trigger." A needle carrying the lethal drugs on his right arm pierced a green tattoo of a rose branch. The distinctive tattoo had identified him when he was arrested. He said he could feel the drug working, uttered "Goodbye," then took several deep breaths before all movement stopped.[2] Woods was pronounced dead on September 13, 2011 at 6:22pm.[14] Woods' was the 10th execution carried out in Texas in 2011.[15]

Someone else confessed to the murders.

The Free Hornet
09-16-2011, 01:41 PM
Attacking Rick Perry on the death penalty is never going to gain any traction in the GOP primary. Perry probably wishes it was all his opponents would hit him on.

Electability may become a factor in the next few months. A few questionable deaths or a few hundred, may cause people to think twice about this guy. I see this as more solid than chasing down male prostitutes or legal bribes (campaign donations).

RonPaulMall
09-16-2011, 01:45 PM
Well correlation does not equal causation and statistics can go a lot of ways. Take child molesters for instance. 66% of child molesters have been married at least once. 70% of convicted child molesters are non-hispanic whites. (Non-hispanic whites make up 63% of the U.S. population). Should those statistics be brought into play against an accused of convicted sex offender? Or should we just say "Meh? So what?"

Like I said, I wouldn't give much credence to social science testimony at a sentencing hearing. The defense apparently called this guy to tell the jury that people who have never killed before (like the defendant) have lower recidivism rates than people who have killed before. The prosecutor countered by getting the same witness to acknowledge blacks (like the defendant) have higher recidivism rates than non blacks. Seems like there was a tit for tat in terms of non-specific generalizations. I don't see how the question the prosecutor asked is any different than the one initially raised by the defense. And in any case, this guy admits to doing it. There is no question of his guilt. So making hay about the case only helps Perry and detracts from the other case in which Perry let an innocent man die.

wannaberocker
09-16-2011, 01:52 PM
As I said, it was during the sentencing phase after he had already been convicted. The jury was to decide on a sentence between death and life with no chance of parole.

Ah, an appeal to authority. In that case, I will appeal to SCOTUS, the ultimately legal authority in the country, who stayed the execution.

You suggest that im ignorant of courtroom procedures and what is allowed and not allowed. Well clearly in this case the judge watching over the case didnt agree with you regarding what is allowed or not.

"The defense apparently called this guy to tell the jury that people who have never killed before (like the defendant) have lower recidivism rates than people who have killed before. The prosecutor countered by getting the same witness to acknowledge blacks (like the defendant) have higher recidivism rates than non blacks. Seems like there was a tit for tat in terms of non-specific generalizations. I don't see how the question the prosecutor asked is any different than the one initially raised by the defense. And in any case, this guy admits to doing it. There is no question of his guilt." RonPaulMall

And as RonPaulMall posted above. It seems like the guy in question was actually a defense witness.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-16-2011, 02:25 PM
Electability may become a factor in the next few months. A few questionable deaths or a few hundred, may cause people to think twice about this guy. I see this as more solid than chasing down male prostitutes or legal bribes (campaign donations).

Not at all. These are convicted murderers who had God knows how many appeals. They sat on death for years and year, when executions in this country used to take no time at all. How is Perry going to get blamed for any of this any more than a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, the prosecutors, the regular people that made up the juries, etc.?

This is a GOP primary. 78% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/144284/support-death-penalty-cases-murder.aspx) of Republicans support the death penalty (64% among all Americans.) Perry's death penalty stance is a positive for him. It'd only hurt him if he had a situation like Huckabee where he let someone out of jail and then that person went on to murder some people.

kylejack
09-16-2011, 09:53 PM
You suggest that im ignorant of courtroom procedures and what is allowed and not allowed. Well clearly in this case the judge watching over the case didnt agree with you regarding what is allowed or not.
Yes, and he's been overturned. The man will now get a new sentencing phase.

Bordillo
09-16-2011, 10:02 PM
Not at all. These are convicted murderers who had God knows how many appeals. They sat on death for years and year, when executions in this country used to take no time at all. How is Perry going to get blamed for any of this any more than a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, the prosecutors, the regular people that made up the juries, etc.?

This is a GOP primary. 78% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/144284/support-death-penalty-cases-murder.aspx) of Republicans support the death penalty (64% among all Americans.) Perry's death penalty stance is a positive for him. It'd only hurt him if he had a situation like Huckabee where he let someone out of jail and then that person went on to murder some people.

convicted doesnt mean anything. Especially if youre a black guy in Texas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_and_execution_of_Steven_Michael_Woods,_ Jr.