Supreme Court halts killer's execution in Texas

[bluefrog]

Buck's lawyers asked the Supreme Court and Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry to halt the execution because of testimony from a psychologist who made a statement that black people were more likely to commit violence.

The debate centered on then-Texas Attorney General and now GOP Sen. John Cornyn, who recommended in 2000 that six cases, including Buck's be reviewed for racially biased testimony.

While Buck's guilt is not in question, his lawyers argue the psychologist's statements unfairly swayed the jury and that Buck should receive a new sentencing hearing.

Buck was sentenced to die after being convicted of fatally shooting his ex-girlfriend , Debra Gardner, and her friend Kenneth Butler in 1995. Buck also shot his sister, but she survived and has since argued for a reduced sentence.

It will be interesting to see if this affects Perry's presidential campaign.

If Buck gets a new hearing he could receive the death penalty again. It's interesting that his sister is advocating on his behalf even after he shot her.

 

[Denny Crane]

The governor of texas cannot issue a pardon. They have a separate board of pardons with that power. All Perry could do is put the execution on hold for no more than 30 days to see what that board has to say.

 

[julius]

I get what they're saying, but I don't know if that would've been the tipping point for the jury to convict him to that sentence.

 

[Denny Crane]

I get what they're saying, but I don't know if that would've been the tipping point for the jury to convict him to that sentence.

In the court's eyes, and those of Sen. Cornyn, it's not proper Due Process. Nobody is doubting his guilt.

Our justice system may well convict and execute an innocent man once or twice. It's not perfect because humans aren't perfect.

Yet the constitution considers the likelihood where it states, "no person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without Due Process."

 

[BrianFromWA]

so, uh, umm....was the statement false?

 

[Denny Crane]

so, uh, umm....was the statement false?

The statement is irrelevant and prejudiced.

You can't judge a person's future intentions based upon his or her race.

If the psychiatrist found that Buck was a psychopath and for that reason likely to kill again, it'd have been proper.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I get that it's irrelevant, and shouldn't have been used, but how again is it prejudiced if it's true? (I have no idea if it is or isn't)

 

[Denny Crane]

I get that it's irrelevant, and shouldn't have been used, but how again is it prejudiced if it's true? (I have no idea if it is or isn't)

It's not necessarily true. Crime statistics may say so, but it's equally an indication of our system's willing to pursue cases against black people vs. white people.

It's beyond the witness' area of expertise, as well.

You know, men are more likely to commit violent crime than women. Should that be held against every man convicted of a crime?

How about postal workers. A few have gone postal. Does that mean the rest are likely to?

Or how about students. A few have gone postal as well (school shootings). Does that mean the rest are likely to?

Or how about sailors?