Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I feel that this is either a very elaborated media hype story, which I find very unlikely; or it is a very big mistake made by a politician, for political gain. The latter strikes me as incredibly likely.
How do you feel about this story? Should the people responsible be put on trial themselves; seriously though. Just listen to the guy's lawyer, I mean that strikes me as borderline criminal, to conduct your business in that manner. Your job is to protect that client, not mince words and draw personal conclusions on the matter. If Manchu gets a chance, I would like to hear his take on the defense attorney, being all lawyerly and all .
Yeah... as a residnet of Texas, someone who lives int the county with the highest death penality cconviction rate, and someone who works in the criminal justice system, I am very interested in seeing where this goes. I am really thinking we got ourselves a cover up going on. Perry could have stopped the execution, at least for a few days but people are so blood thirsty here. Will be interesting to see what happens.
Now I am just waiting for the usual suspects to come in here and say this is a non issue and/or the guy got what he deserved and should have been killed quicker so no questions could have been asked.
Now I am just waiting for the usual suspects to come in here and say this is a non issue and/or the guy got what he deserved and should have been killed quicker so no questions could have been asked.
What I don't get is how the same people who trust their government to kill the right people don't trust their government to save lives.
I don´t know if you are being sarcastic or if you are just a dead fish showing your empathy for the rest of the human race.
M.
Jenkins: You don't have jurisdiction here!
Smith Jamison: We aren't here, which means when we open up on you and shred your bodies with automatic fire then this will never have happened.
About the Clans: "Those brief outbursts of sense can't hold back the wave of sibko bred, over hormoned sociopaths that they crank out though."
As a TX resident and someone whose watched The Shawshank Redemption a lot; articles like these can only boil one's blood.
Doesn't help that I already have a very, very low opinion on Gov. Perry --- this guy was worse than Bush....'secede' wtf kind of an idiot is this guy; GOP must be in a world of hurt and rightfully so. Not sure what I'd do in his shoes now but he's got some serious gak on his platter to deal with.
Then I´ll offer my excuses. I should have guessed that.
M.
Jenkins: You don't have jurisdiction here!
Smith Jamison: We aren't here, which means when we open up on you and shred your bodies with automatic fire then this will never have happened.
About the Clans: "Those brief outbursts of sense can't hold back the wave of sibko bred, over hormoned sociopaths that they crank out though."
I feel that this is either a very elaborated media hype story, which I find very unlikely; or it is a very big mistake made by a politician, for political gain. The latter strikes me as incredibly likely.
How do you feel about this story? Should the people responsible be put on trial themselves; seriously though. Just listen to the guy's lawyer, I mean that strikes me as borderline criminal, to conduct your business in that manner. Your job is to protect that client, not mince words and draw personal conclusions on the matter. If Manchu gets a chance, I would like to hear his take on the defense attorney, being all lawyerly and all .
None of this is relevant or important. Whats important is that Texas let CNN into Texas (sorry didn't bother to actually open it up)?If so, talk about a slipup. Heads are gonna roll.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh wait, I forgot to add:
This is a non issue and/or the guy got what he deserved and should have been killed quicker so no questions could have been asked.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/26 11:22:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
None of this is relevant or important. Whats important is that Texas let CNN into Texas (sorry didn't bother to actually open it up)?If so, talk about a slipup. Heads are gonna roll.
Except maybe that Perry is doing everything he can to stack the commission that is looking into it towards his favor turning what should be an investigation of scientific merit into partisan politics. Yes... I will concede that he DOES have the privilege to replace the people whose terms had expired in the commission, but... it really does look bad for him when he does replace people during the middle of an investigation as to whether he screwed up and allowed an innocent man to die. Especially considering that the commission charter says that members can stay on after their terms expire by the will of the governor.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/10/26 12:13:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The idea that experts involved in the case would say there were serious doubts, and that instead of just delaying the execution until those doubts could be considered they went ahead and killed him anyway. Guilty or not, execution had been delayed for more than a decade, why not delay another month or two?
Which is why no society should have the death penalty. The smell of blood sends people crazy, and crazy people execute innocent people.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
What do you think this is? A Holiday Inn? This is Texas. We don't cotton to no slackers here, laying around like a bum, in a jail cell. Enough talk.
Oh look, a defense attorney saying he should get off. I never would have guessed. Well thats it for me, he was clearly innocent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/26 15:38:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:What do you think this is? A Holiday Inn? This is Texas. We don't cotton to no slackers here, laying around like a bum, in a jail cell. Enough talk.
Oh look, a defense attorney saying he should get off. I never would have guessed. Well thats it for me, he was clearly innocent.
No, his defence attorney was saying he was guilty. Unsurprisingly one of the appeals was on grounds of inadequate defence. Given that when his former defence attorney was asked about the defence case, he said that they cross examined the prosecution's witnesses and that was about it, the appeal might have had some merit.
The issue is experts in arson, not paid or otherwise motivated, saying the patterning on the ground was not indicative of arson. It's a field that's improved massively since the early 90s, so another look would have been justified.
But everyone was all excited about killing a dude so no review was taken.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sorry, Wrex, just saw this. Defense attorneys and prosecutors, traveling in the same professional circles day after day, often cooperate quite a bit more than you might think in our adversarial system. (This isn't necessarily a bad thing, however.) They tend to have a lot more in common with each other than either of them has with the average defendant. An uncooperative client just pushes the opposing counselors closer together as they both get more and more frustrated. But let's not be confused about the role of a defense attorney, or at least a court-appointed defense attorney. She or he isn't there to passionately believe in the client's innocence but merely to guarantee the client's minimal constitutional rights. It's not really very romantic at all. I can assure you, however, that defendants are not the only ones that the system dehumanizes. Lawyers on both sides, even those who are especially sensitive in their private lives, can end up being extremely callous toward the defendants. I'll be skinned as a pinko by frazzled for saying this, but even criminals have basic human dignity. When the lawyers lose sight of that, they forfeit some of their own basic human dignity.
So this guy, could have died, because the defense attorney "lost interest"? What could drive someone to carry so little interest in such an important case.
I could understand if it were a petty crime, and the person was going to do a maximum of 5 years for it; but in this case, I still feel that the defense lacked professionalism, in a slightly criminal fashion.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the defense attorney wrongly believed that his client was guilty. They almost always (99.99999%) are guilty. There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. First of all, I am fairly impressed by CNN's coverage (one of the most stark-ravingly mad conservatives I have ever met is a top producer there, for those who think it's merely liberal propaganda) but Mr. Cooper has the image of a social crusader to keep up. One thing that almost all serious proponents of death penalty (i.e., those who don't say something slowed like "kill all the bastards!!!") claim is that an innocent man has never been executed. So this sort of story is pretty pointed in that regard. Also, notice that we learn almost nothing about these nine expert opinions: where did they come from? what was their relationship to one another? by whom were they solicited and for what reason? Tellingly, the story collapses into a human interest angle and mainly asks: *gasp* did the defense attorney cruelly think his client was guilty? That's a preposterous question. I can tell you now that every defense attorney I've ever met either already knows or very strongly suspects their clients are guilty. Again, the defense attorneys job is to make sure that the defendant gets a constitutionally fair shake in front of the court. S/he's not their to hoodwink the court or to perform miracles. And who's going to pay for an indigent defendant's discovery, I might add? The truth is there is usually no Matlock moment, no careful and expensive detective work. The defense is passive: the main goal is to point out to the jury how the prosecutor has failed to make her or his case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/27 05:59:05
You give me so much hope for our legal system it is absolutely ridiculous.
Call me sappy, but innocent until proven guilty actually means something, and I am not saying this to be obtuse. So if I have learned anything from this thread, it is clearly to move into the woods, and never again ask why I should worry about government not having a goddam clue what they are doing; or worse, not giving a flying gak, because 99% of people are guilty of a crime.
Ten years until Minority Report, ten more years... you can call me crazy across the ten thousand miles of woodland between us at that point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/27 06:17:47
Manchu wrote:Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the defense attorney wrongly believed that his client was guilty. They almost always (99.99999%) are guilty.
Are you exagerating for effect? I'd be surprised if the number was anywhere near that and from the rest of your post . You note elsewhere that the judicial system is imperfect, police investigations are just as imperfect, and dealing with just as difficult cases. They also get it wrong, and put this means the wrong man is put on trial in a lot more than 0.00001% of the time.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. First of all, I am fairly impressed by CNN's coverage (one of the most stark-ravingly mad conservatives I have ever met is a top producer there, for those who think it's merely liberal propaganda) but Mr. Cooper has the image of a social crusader to keep up. One thing that almost all serious proponents of death penalty (i.e., those who don't say something slowed like "kill all the bastards!!!") claim is that an innocent man has never been executed. So this sort of story is pretty pointed in that regard. Also, notice that we learn almost nothing about these nine expert opinions: where did they come from? what was their relationship to one another? by whom were they solicited and for what reason? Tellingly, the story collapses into a human interest angle and mainly asks: *gasp* did the defense attorney cruelly think his client was guilty? That's a preposterous question.
Yeah, I'm a lot more interested in the substance of the claims made by the nine experts, but TV news is TV news and it's impacted by time constraints, budgets and the willingness of interviewees to present on camera. More than any of that, though, is people love a contraversy and here was a guy who was supposed to be defending his client and now he's saying he was guilty. Compare that to a guy in a labcoat droning on about the various causes of burn patterns and its easy to see which makes for more exciting telly.
I can tell you now that every defense attorney I've ever met either already knows or very strongly suspects their clients are guilty. Again, the defense attorneys job is to make sure that the defendant gets a constitutionally fair shake in front of the court. S/he's not their to hoodwink the court or to perform miracles. And who's going to pay for an indigent defendant's discovery, I might add? The truth is there is usually no Matlock moment, no careful and expensive detective work. The defense is passive: the main goal is to point out to the jury how the prosecutor has failed to make her or his case.
But more importantly, we acknowledge that courts are not always perfect, and not all evidence is available at the time of prosecution, and so we have appeals. Not every appeal is correct, of course, and there's no guarantee that the opinions of the nine experts was enough to overthrow the case. But surely it needs to be heard before you kill the guy?
Unfortunately, that final appeal is based on the whim of the Governor, a political position. That means that justice and fair and proper reviews are secondary to looking tough on crime.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I exagerated for effect. The real percentage is 99%. (Now I'm being droll for effect.) Look, prosecutors very, very rarely charge people they think they can't convict. It's a waste of everybody's time, especially theirs. Finally, the governor does not decide in any way whether the appeal is taken. The governor has the option of pardoning the convicted criminal from the death sentence.
Manchu wrote:I exagerated for effect. The real percentage is 99%. (Now I'm being droll for effect.) Look, prosecutors very, very rarely charge people they think they can't convict. It's a waste of everybody's time, especially theirs.
Yeah, but only prosecuting if they're confident of conviction doesn't actually mean they're guilty.
Finally, the governor does not decide in any way whether the appeal is taken. The governor has the option of pardoning the convicted criminal from the death sentence.
That's right, he can grant a stay of execution to give time for the appeal to be considered. I don't think anyone out there would want to argue that politics don't influence a governor's decision.
So when an execution needs to be delayed for an appeal to be given proper consideration, the decision to delay execution or carry on is a political one.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:Yeah, but only prosecuting if they're confident of conviction doesn't actually mean they're guilty.
Yes, that's why they still have trials. I'm not totally sure what you're driving at. If you want me to admit that out legal system is not perfect . . . well, I do. I don't think, however, that it's designed to murder or otherwise oppress the innocent nor do I find in my own experience that such is the case in the vast majority of examples. I really did not mean to paint too bright or too dim a picture. So to clarify once again, the defense attonrey in that case is not at all all anamolous nor does he seem to have in any way failed in his duty to adequately represent his client.
Sebster sorry but
1. you don't know about the criminal legal system
2. you don't know about the US legal system
3. youdon't know about the Texas legal system.
FYI appeals of death penalty cases are (or were when I was in L school) automatic.
Lighting candles from afair is, misplaced. Its like watching Hollywood types fly in and protest an execution, never realizing they are trying to save a confessed child killer (actually happened). On the positve this is Texas, we've told national governments to go themselves. The whining of tai dye types warms our hearts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/27 13:01:35
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I'm not sure what either of you are actually arguing ni favor of? Is this going to be a for/against the death penalty argument? Or about defending Hollywood stars? Or about how real life isn't perfect?
Manchu wrote:I'm not sure what either of you are actually arguing ni favor of? Is this going to be a for/against the death penalty argument? Or about defending Hollywood stars? Or about how real life isn't perfect?
Wait, you're assuming we KNOW what we're arguing about?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
.
2k+
1850 8/4/3
themselves. The whining of tai dye types warms our hearts.
