Texas Death Penalty?

crackernutz

Do you believe in the death penatly or not? We have protestors from all over the world to protest Texas killing of violent murderous criminals. I'm wondering what your views are. We just found out yesterday that our local prosecutor is seeking the death penalty with this case. I say don't waste the taxpayer money on him and put one shot to his head, hell I'll even do it for free.


Rodriguez may face death penalty in Baldwin slaying
Surprise plea shakes up murder case

BY JASON WOMACK
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL


Rosendo Rodriguez was expected to plead guilty on Wednesday to the murder of Summer Baldwin in exchange for a life sentence.

Instead he pleaded ignorance and will face a capital murder charge and possibly the death penalty.

Rodriguez, 26, is charged with capital murder in connection with the 2005 beating death of Baldwin. He has also been named as a suspect in the disappearance of Lubbock teen Joanna Rogers, who vanished from her home in May of 2004.

Attorneys had hammered out an agreement where Rodriguez would admit to killing Rogers and Baldwin and plead to a lesser charge of murder.



Rodriguez

Prosecutors, in turn, would not seek the death penalty and would agree to a life sentence in the Baldwin case.

Although Rodriguez reportedly did confess to the killings, he did not enter into the agreement.

Jeff Blackburn, Rodriguez's defense attorney, said during the court hearing that his client refused to enter the guilty plea and now was claiming he did not understand the proceedings.

"I took this case to save this young man's life, to avoid the death penalty," Blackburn said, calling the recent turn "bizarre."

Blackburn speculated that his client may have decided not to plea because his father could not attend the hearing due to health reasons.

Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Matt Powell said Rodriguez understood the plea agreement perfectly, that the court hearing was not unexpected and that it was the result of weeks of work between his office and Blackburn.

"I think every law enforcement officer would testify. I think Mr. Blackburn would testify that the defendant fully understands the situation," he said.

Powell then urged the court to ask Rodriguez whether or not he intended to plead guilty.

"If he doesn't, I'm seeking the death penalty," he said.

Judge Jim Bob Darnell of the 140th District Court asked Rodriguez if he ever intends to enter a guilty plea in the Baldwin case.

"If the defendant does not respond to the question, it is the position of the court that he does not wish to enter into the plea agreement," Darnell said.

Rodriguez stood in front of the packed courtroom and said, "I don't understand the question."

"Do you understand that the state will file notice to pursue the death penalty?" Darnell asked.

Again, Rodriguez said he did not understand the question.

Powell then asked Darnell to set the case for trial "as soon as physically possible. We are ready to try this case today."

No trial date has been set.

Bailiffs handcuffed Rodriguez and returned him to Lubbock County Jail where he has been held in lieu of a $1 million bond.

Authorities arrested him over a year ago on suspicion of murdering 29-year-old Baldwin. He was later indicted on a charge of capital murder and accused of raping the mother of four and killing her unborn child.

Baldwin was five weeks pregnant at the time of her death.

A sanitation worker discovered her body Sept. 13, 2005, inside a suitcase at a city-owned landfill, about 15 miles north of Lubbock.

Investigators used the bar code on the suitcase to track the bag back to a Lubbock Wal-Mart location.

According to police reports, security cameras recorded Rodriguez buying the suitcase and a pair of latex gloves from the store at 3:30 a.m., the day before Baldwin's body was discovered.

During a subsequent court hearing, investigators named Rodriguez as a suspect in the disappearance of 16-year-old Joanna Rogers.

Information on the teen's computer led police to believe the pair had corresponded online.

The Rogers family confirmed that Rodriguez later confessed to killing Rogers and disposing of her body.

The Lubbock County Sheriff's Office, which has been investigating Joanna's disappearance, obtained $100,000 in state funds to search the city landfill for her body. The search that began at the end of August has so far not turned up a body.

Rodriguez never has been charged in connection with Joanna's disappearance.

Representatives from Joanna's and Baldwin's families attended the Wednesday hearing.

Uvah Robak, Baldwin's mother, traveled from Washington state to attend.

"We want to put this day behind us, and take the next step," she said after the hearing.

Manic Moran

Fine with me.

And I'm also pleased to note it's fine with the Governator. (Or at least, he doesn't let personal preference interfere with his job, which is even better). We must be due another execution soon, it's been almost a year since Tookie. Actually, we need to figure out a way to speed up the process. 20+ years is ridiculous.

However...

If there was a plea bargain made as appears may be the case in the example you post, and the State is reneging on the deal, I have an issue. (Actually, I have something of an issue with plea bargaining as it is, but since it's a permitted technique...)

NTM

MrPudding

I, like most civilised people, have a problem with the death penalty.

There are a number of reasons for my objection. First of all I believe that the state should be held to higher standards that the people it is trying. So murdering someone for murdering someone is a bit silly.

Aside from this there are also a number of other issues. The main one being there are a lot of unsafe convictions in the US. it is kind of hard to reverse putting someone to death when you realise that they have been wrongly convicted. Even when it can take 20 odd years for the state to murder someone we are still finding that some of them are innocent after the fact. One of your own presidents once said "better that 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man spend a day in prison." Well it was something like that, and he was just talking about prison.

MrP

Sleepy

better that 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man spend a day in prison.

Is it really though? Let's take a look at that statement.

The most recent re-offence figures I can find are UK figures for 2003 show that 61% of offenders were reconvicted within two years (http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/factfile.aspx).

So, if we let 100 criminals walk, at least 61 innocent people will suffer. If we lock up one innocent man, one person suffers. Simple maths tells you which is the better outcome

MrPudding

Sleepy wrote:

Is it really though? Let's take a look at that statement.

The most recent re-offence figures I can find are UK figures for 2003 show that 61% of offenders were reconvicted within two years (http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/factfile.aspx).

So, if we let 100 criminals walk, at least 61 innocent people will suffer. If we lock up one innocent man, one person suffers. Simple maths tells you which is the better outcome

Always with the actual facts. I think it is a good quote, bearing in mind that it is quite an old one and predates re-offending rates.

I suppose I used it to show that once upon a time someone in America actually thought that it wasn't all about the punishment, and he was just talking about prison.

What ratio of innocents to guitly is acceptable for death penatly?

MrP

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

So, if we let 100 criminals walk, at least 61 innocent people will suffer.

Do you hold the government accountable for all acts of criminals? If you get mugged walking down the street, is it the government's fault for not having better policing?

If we lock up one innocent man, one person suffers.

Yes, If we lock up one innocant man, then we cause direct suffering for one innocent man.

Simple maths tells you which is the better outcome

Simple logic tells me that you are comparing direct and indirect effects.

It also tells me that you're shuifting the argument from "death sentence" to "incarceration". Very few people will argue that its unacceptable to lock anyone up in case you get it wrong. Far more will tell you that it is unacceptable to end someone's life in case you get it wrong.

With the death penalty question, the issue of reoccurrence doesn't arise, because life imprisonment is at least one alternative which involves not risking the killing of innocent people and an avoidance of the reoccurrence problem.

So what it really boils down to is how much a nation is willing to pay to ensure that it doesn't execute an innocent man by mistake. Given the OP's comment to the effect that I say don't waste the taxpayer money on him , I think its clear that at least some people feel that the risk of execution of innocents is preferable to any financial cost.

jc

Sleepy

In a way I agree with you bonkey, I just find throw-away quotes like the above incredibly questionable.

I believe that the risk of punishing an innocent man isn't really part of the debate on the morality of the death penalty, instead being a question of reform of the judicial system. Something which, imho, would need serious overhaul before the death penalty should be seriously considered in the 'real world'.

However, I have no moral problem with the death penalty itself in the case of serial killers, career criminals etc once it can be done in an economically viable way (i.e. cheaper than the cost of life-imprisonment).

seamus

Sleepy wrote:

I believe that the risk of punishing an innocent man isn't really part of the debate on the morality of the death penalty, instead being a question of reform of the judicial system. Something which, imho, would need serious overhaul before the death penalty should be seriously considered in the 'real world'.

There will never be an infallible justice system. By it's nature, the justice system is subject to human error, human malice and human interpretation, so there is always room for error and the chance for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime.

The issue of wider justice reform doesn't really come in because it will never be possible for every conviction to 100% certain.

Better to incarcerate 1 million dangerous criminals than execute one innocent man.

Sleepy

seamus, ya think?

Personally I'd prefer the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Manic Moran

"I remember Massingbird's most famous case - the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses had seen him stab the victim and when the police arrived he said 'I'm glad I killed the bastard.' Massingbird not only got him off, he got hom knighted in the New Year's Honours list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to get the blood washed out of his jacket."

The unsafe conviction argument is far and away the best argument against capitol punishment. I have two thoughts on the issue. One is that a miscarriage of justice is to be avoided in all circumstances: A three year sentence for an innocent man is just as much to be avoided as an execution. However, looking for 100% certainty instead of the current 'beyond reasonable doubt' would paralyse the justice system. The other thought is that high-profile mis-carriages aside, it -is- possible in some cases to be 100% certain. The most controversial of today's cases are those which are being carried out on the basis of forensic evidence or technique which is 20+ years obseolescent. Modern technology makes a 100% certainty quite possible in many cases. Take the case two years ago of a state trooper who had pulled over a guy in a truck, who produced an M1 carbine and basically gunned the trooper down, all on the video of the trooper's dashcam. DNA technology is vastly improved as well.

As a result, my major concern is not with the morality, bit's with the safety of the conviction. If it really is 100%, then I have zero issue.

NTM

seamus

Sleepy wrote:

Personally I'd prefer the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Yes, but it provides the opportunity for correction. Ask Nelson Mandela if he would have preferred it if he'd been shot instead of being released after 25 years

A little facetious I know, but at least if a man is released after 13 years in prison, some attempts can be made to repair the damage. If he's dead however, he's dead, and there's nothing that can be done to compensate that.

Sleepy

A fair point seamus, and admittedly one I hadn't considered, but I think Manic Moran makes an interesting one too. In the modern world it is possible to convict someone with 100% certainty. In those cases, would you have a problem with the death penalty?

seamus

Sleepy wrote:

In those cases, would you have a problem with the death penalty?

Still yes, because (and I'm going to invoke your law here), "You can use facts to prove anything". If someone with the pull is eager enough to have the death penalty imposed, then it would be possible to obtain one of these so-called "100% certainty" convictions, and an innocent man (or one who is certainly not deserving of death) is killed.

100% certainty implies a perfection in the method of conviction, which simply cannot be obtained because the parts of that method (investigators, witnesses, prosecutors, etc) are imperfect.

While I am convinced of the ability to obtain a 100% conviction, and the desire of the justice system to tend towards this perfection, I am not convinced that all "100% certainty" convictions would in fact be 100% certain, because of the human factor involved.

Then you also have the problem of deciding what is a 100% certain conviction - who decides? The judge? The jury? More human factor involved, more chance of error.

crackernutz

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, you steal with your hand your hand is chopped off. you take someone's life yours should be taken...period no if and's or but's about it. If the death penalty wasn't in action there would be enough people out there to take the jails over and killl the bastards themselves..it's happened before here in texas.

MrPudding

Sleepy wrote:

In a way I agree with you bonkey, I just find throw-away quotes like the above incredibly questionable.

To be honest, even if the conviction is 100% I still have a problem witht he state putting people to death. I kind of think that the state should be above nasty stuff like that.

Then there is the punishment aspect. Sleep, you say yourself that you would prefer death to life in prison. This is the other side. Once you put someone to death it is over. The punishment is finished. Life in prision is the gift that keeps on giving.

MrP

crackernutz

MrPudding wrote:

To be honest, even if the conviction is 100% I still have a problem witht he state putting people to death. I kind of think that the state should be above nasty stuff like that.

Then there is the punishment aspect. Sleep, you say yourself that you would prefer death to life in prison. This is the other side. Once you put someone to death it is over. The punishment is finished. Life in prision is the gift that keeps on giving.

MrP

what a waste of taxpayer dollars, put a bullet in his head. how about if someone killed your mother,father,brother,sister,child? you would be ok with him not being put to death. For me I'd be damn sure the bastard was not breathing anymore

Manic Moran

MrPudding wrote:

Then there is the punishment aspect. Sleep, you say yourself that you would prefer death to life in prison. This is the other side. Once you put someone to death it is over. The punishment is finished. Life in prision is the gift that keeps on giving.
MrP

Cue the old adage that not only must justice be done, it must be perceived to be done. Relatives have a right to expect an outcome with gives them closure as well. As long as Joe Bloggs, who callously executed little Jane Doe, is still breathing, is there truly closure for the parents? It's not just about crime and punishment, it's also about the effect that the crime and punishment system has on people who are outside. Ultimately, life without parole generally has the same effect as a death penalty: In neither case will the convict ever walk the streets again. The effect on others is still up for grabs though.

NTM

azezil

MrPudding wrote:

To be honest, even if the conviction is 100% I still have a problem witht he state putting people to death. I kind of think that the state should be above nasty stuff like that.

Then there is the punishment aspect. Sleep, you say yourself that you would prefer death to life in prison. This is the other side. Once you put someone to death it is over. The punishment is finished. Life in prision is the gift that keeps on giving.

MrP

Are not your two comments there contradictory?

"state putting people to death. I kind of think that the state should be above nasty stuff like that"

"Once you put someone to death it is over. The punishment is finished. Life in prision is the gift that keeps on giving."

Sounds rather... barbaric? Is not then the death sentence the more 'humane' solution? In regard to the government being held to a 'hgiher standard'.

Bottle_of_Smoke

crackernutz wrote:

what a waste of taxpayer dollars, put a bullet in his head. how about if someone killed your mother,father,brother,sister,child? you would be ok with him not being put to death. For me I'd be damn sure the bastard was not breathing anymore

If someone killed my child I'd probably have a certain burning hatred towards them & I'd be happier in the knowledge they were being anally raped on a regular basis or at least going through prison than not feeling any pain/

If I was offered 20 years in prison(innocent or not) or death I'd happily pay the ESB bill.

Also if someone is kept in prison for a horrendous crime we might be able to study how their mind works & what made them do the crime - thus have a greater knowledge which may help prevent future similar criminals.

Sleepy

MrPudding wrote:

To be honest, even if the conviction is 100% I still have a problem witht he state putting people to death. I kind of think that the state should be above nasty stuff like that.

Then there is the punishment aspect. Sleep, you say yourself that you would prefer death to life in prison. This is the other side. Once you put someone to death it is over. The punishment is finished. Life in prision is the gift that keeps on giving.

MrP

I suppose, I'm just thinking about this in terms of maximising utility for society as a whole. If you know beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime for which they'd be locked up without any chance of release, it seems a better use of society's resources to simply put a bullet in their head than to foot the bill for their incarceration.

crackernutz

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Also if someone is kept in prison for a horrendous crime we might be able to study how their mind works & what made them do the crime - thus have a greater knowledge which may help prevent future similar criminals.

we can always study their mind when they have died ? lol
:cool:

The Sweeper

I would support the death penalty for some crimes. I do have reservations based on the risk of condemning an innocent man, but there are cases that are proven far beyond reasonable doubt. Those are the cases in which I believe the death penalty would be appropriate. For me, the criminals in question would include the abductors, rapists, sodomisers and murderers of children.

Though it has to be said, upon incarceration, child murderers often meet death long before the end of their sentence at the hands of folk with far fewer morals than the government.

Diogenes

Sleepy wrote:

I suppose, I'm just thinking about this in terms of maximising utility for society as a whole. If you know beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime for which they'd be locked up without any chance of release, it seems a better use of society's resources to simply put a bullet in their head than to foot the bill for their incarceration.

Emphasis mine. Sleepy, beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof the prosecution has to achieve in any criminal court case for the jury to return a guilty verdict. The jury are charged to find the defendent not guilty if there are any reasonable doubts, in their minds, about the defendants guilt. They cannot find the defendant guilty if they have any doubts in their mind about the defendants guilt or innocent they must aquit. The prosecution must convince the jury that the defendant is guilty without a shadow of a doubt.

This is a fundamental principle of our legal system.

You talk about reoffense rates. How many of those are serious crimes? Are you willing to see people hung because they are convicted of robbery on several occasions? How many murderers are are among those 61%?

We've had countrymen suffer appalling miscarriages of justices by politically motivated trials in the UK, during the 60s and 70s, trials in which one judge regretted not being able to dispense the death penalty.

sonic juice

some people are better off dead,but if our society wasn't so screwed up we'd never get these psychos,then gain how do you judge whom is evil....

Sangre

crackernutz wrote:

what a waste of taxpayer dollars, put a bullet in his head. how about if someone killed your mother,father,brother,sister,child? you would be ok with him not being put to death. For me I'd be damn sure the bastard was not breathing anymore

Except that they'll still be in prison for at least a decade anyway. Not to mention the huge cost of the number of appeals that are invariably sought.

RedPlanet

crackernutz wrote:

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, you steal with your hand your hand is chopped off. you take someone's life yours should be taken...period no if and's or but's about it. If the death penalty wasn't in action there would be enough people out there to take the jails over and killl the bastards themselves..it's happened before here in texas.

Well crackernutz.
DNA clears man of 1981 rape conviction
DALLAS - A decorated Vietnam veteran convicted of rape 25 years ago became a free man Tuesday after a judge ruled he probably wouldn't have been found guilty if DNA testing had been available.

Specialized DNA testing performed this year proved Larry Fuller, 57, was not the assailant who raped a Dallas woman in her home. Fuller has spent about two decades in prison for the crime.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_re_us/conviction_cleared

In your own state too.
You'd have had the guy castrated and raped in prison.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Simple maths tells you which is the better outcome

Not if you are the innocent man

Zombrex

crackernutz wrote:

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, you steal with your hand your hand is chopped off.

I imagine you have stolen something at least once in your life, be it something from the local shop when you were a kid, or a cookie from the oven. I also imagine you would not like your hands chopped off as punishment

Gurgle

I think the real issue is the waste of energy in just imprisoning a criminal, or for that matter frying them.

Using as 'fuel' the lowest quality sweepings from the floor of food packaging plants we could have violent criminals actually repay their debt to society. Generate electricity 12 hours a day for 10 years, then see if you're inclined to re-offend.

So many other advantages too:
Turns out they're innocent - saves apologising to the widow. Can even pay compensation and still make a profit.
Good for the environment: Practical recycling and save on fossil fuels.
There would be competition for a license to run a prison/power-plant.
The victim could be awarded a weekly slot with a whip.

I really should be running the world

Tar.Aldarion

MrPudding wrote:

I believe that the state should be held to higher standards that the people it is trying. So murdering someone for murdering someone is a bit silly.

This.
I would like to think a system is above those that have committed the crime. Lowering oneself to a murderers level in the name of 'justice' is no less a bad act in my eyes.
Government ... can’t be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill. The system can never be perfect, innocent men could and have died.
When somebody commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State should not extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.
It's just really tragic after all the horrors of the last 1,000 years, and moreso, that we can't leave behind something as primitive as government sponsored execution.

Diogenes

Gurgle wrote:

I think the real issue is the waste of energy in just imprisoning a criminal, or for that matter frying them.

Using as 'fuel' the lowest quality sweepings from the floor of food packaging plants we could have violent criminals actually repay their debt to society. Generate electricity 12 hours a day for 10 years, then see if you're inclined to re-offend.

I'm sorry using what as fuel?

So at the end of ten years you've got someone who's just as violent, has learnt nothing, and still full of rage, yes they will re-offend

So many other advantages too:
Turns out they're innocent - saves apologising to the widow. Can even pay compensation and still make a profit.
Good for the environment: Practical recycling and save on fossil fuels.

I'm sorry what will be used as fuel?

There would be competition for a license to run a prison/power-plant.
The victim could be awarded a weekly slot with a whip.

Thats not punishment thats vengence.

I really should be running the world

Really, no...

Gurgle

Diogenes wrote:

I'm sorry using what as fuel?

The stuff that usually goes into dogfood.

Diogenes wrote:

So at the end of ten years you've got someone who's just as violent, has learnt nothing, and still full of rage, yes they will re-offend

Maybe some would be put off by the thought of another 10 years?
The stats show pretty clearly that the current system isn't working. Prison can only ever be effective if the ex-con has at least some preference not to go back.

Diogenes wrote:

Thats not punishment thats vengence.

As opposed to the death penalty which is....rehabilitation?
(No, I don't really believe in the whipping part btw, it would be abused.)

Dades

I'm all for it in those really nasty, but watertight cases. And some cases are watertight. Sure we'll all be dead in less than 100 years anyway.

Just think of all those useful organs that could be harvested too.

Diogenes

Gurgle wrote:

The stuff that usually goes into dogfood.

Whut, how on earth could that be used as an energy source?

Maybe some would be put off by the thought of another 10 years?
The stats show pretty clearly that the current system isn't working. Prison can only ever be effective if the ex-con has at least some preference not to go back.

The facts say that prisoners reoffend rates are high. The stats don't say the reason that people reoffend is because prison is so easy. You're reading that supposition into your interpretation of the stats. Or do you have access to a set of "stats" I haven't seen?

The "stats" will also say that most repeat offenders, will also be likely to have a subpar education, possible mental health issues, come from a lower class social group, and have either drug or alcohol dependency issues.

Making them run on threadmills or having them generate electricity from dogfood won't do anything about any of the above. All you'll do is send the exact same person who went into prison out of prison ten years later. Having learnt nothing, and having the same issues that may have led them going to prison in the first place.

As opposed to the death penalty which is....rehabilitation?

I've argued aganist the death penalty on this thread. Claiming that your idea is better than my idea, while misrepresenting my position is a classic Strawman.

(No, I don't really believe in the whipping part btw, it would be abused.)

Gosh it would be abused? Rather than it just is abuse is the first place?

Gurgle

Diogenes wrote:

All you'll do is send the exact same person who went into prison out of prison ten years later. Having learnt nothing, and having the same issues that may have led them going to prison in the first place.

My arguement is more or less a tounge in cheek statement that thats how it is now so we might as well get something for society out of the exercise. We're not going to get rehabilited and productive citizens. Might as well make some cheap electricity.

Diogenes wrote:

I've argued aganist the death penalty on this thread. Claiming that your idea is better than my idea, while misrepresenting my position is a classic Strawman.

What is your idea?
You've pointed out all the problems, maybe suggest a solution?

I'm against the death penalty too btw, single reason being the fallibility of every justice system - This whole discussion has been done so many times that now I automatically jump straight to my 'Let the ****ers live but make them do something usefull' position.

Diogenes

Gurgle wrote:

My arguement is more or less a tounge in cheek statement that thats how it is now so we might as well get something for society out of the exercise.

Could you come up with something slightly less bonkers than energy out of dog food...

We're not going to get rehabilited and productive citizens. Might as well make some cheap electricity.

What is your idea?
You've pointed out all the problems, maybe suggest a solution?

Why aren't we going to get rehabilited and productive citizens? Seriously.

We don't spend nearly enough trying to rehabilitate prisoners. We don't spend enough on drug and alcohol dependency schemes in prison. We don't spend enough on prisoner education, and work release schemes. We don't spend enough on work placements and follow up social work with prisoners.

We pretty much dump them on Mountjoy street, or whenever with the clothes on the back that they had before they got it. With no prospects, the same or worse drug and alcohol problems they had when they walked in the door. Is it any wonder they reoffend?

You see you cannot spend money on these types of services, without appearing soft on criminals for the hulking masses who just assume that prison is soft ride and they should be made work for us while in prison.

I'm against the death penalty too btw, single reason being the fallibility of every justice system - This whole discussion has been done so many times that now I automatically jump straight to my 'Let the ****ers live but make them do something usefull' position.

Perhaps you might consider what other people have said on the thread before you before you "jump straight in".