mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 19:15:39 GMT -6
The defense calls the warden to talk about lwop and how after reviewing his record it his opinion that the defendant would not be a danger and would have a stabilizing influence on other prisoners with shorter sentences and that he would remain in high-security prison for the remainder of his life. He would also talk about how he would have a job, participate in counseling or be a counselor to other prisoners, etc. The defense want to argue that he’s not a future danger and his life is not a total waste. Who cares if he plays cards and has contact visits? Other states have them on DR so it would make no difference if they get it in GP. ****Obviously, this defense tactic isn’t suited for every defendant because most are sociopathic loonies. Now, what purpose would it serve to have the warden testify as to conditions on DR? It would only make the jury more likely to recommend lwop. Are you suggesting that the warden(s) who testify thusly are lying? What would be his/her reason for that? The only one suggesting that is you. What is your reason for your deliberate misinterpretation and unfounded accusation? Just trying to start trouble? I'm not interested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:34:33 GMT -6
I don't know if the do it in Texas but in other states the defense will call a prison warden to give evidence about lwop. I didn't know this. If the defense can call prison wardens to give evidence about LWOP, can the prosecution call prison wardens to give evidence about DR? In some states is the jury made aware of the difference that way? I don't know if it's allowed in Texas, but it would make sense to me. I guess this would depend on your definition of "society," or who is and who is not included in "society." It wasn't covered in the statute Janet posted. I read through it quickly so I might have missed it though. I remember the defense calling a warden in 'our' case. They showed pics of Pelican Bay, which is where he (the warden) said our perp would go (and where he is) after a short stay at Tehachapi (sp) ~ a sort of orientation prison ~ all inmates in the area go before going where they'll eventually serve their sentence. Tehachapi has security levels 2, 3, and 4, if memory serves, and level 4 (at least) was entirely separated from levels 2 and 3, fenced, barbed wire, guards. Pelican Bay is a level 4, maximum security prison. Half of it contains level 4 prisoners in a 'general population' environment. The other half is the 'SHU', which, as I understand it, is very like death row.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:43:35 GMT -6
Are you suggesting that the warden(s) who testify thusly are lying? What would be his/her reason for that? The only one suggesting that is you. What is your reason for your deliberate misinterpretation and unfounded accusation? Just trying to start trouble? I'm not interested. No accusation. A simple question. Just sounded like that's what you were saying since you said 'this is a defense tactic...'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:56:49 GMT -6
Who would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? I consider prison employees part of society. Surely, if the only choice is LWOP & death, jurors are thinking about the risk to prison employees and non-violent offenders if they opt for LWOP. Or I guess they could be thinking about the possibility that the murderer might have his LWOP sentence overturned, commuted, or that he might somehow be released someday if he's not executed. I know that I would be thinking about all of those possibilities, but I can only speak for myself. Who knows what goes through their minds at a time like that though? Do you remember if the difference between DR and GP was explained to the jury? I'm not sure anyone who hangs here could get on a jury for a capital murder case ~ especially those of us who don't sit on fences blowin' in the wind.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 20:00:24 GMT -6
The only one suggesting that is you. What is your reason for your deliberate misinterpretation and unfounded accusation? Just trying to start trouble? I'm not interested. No accusation. A simple question. Just sounded like that's what you were saying since you said 'this is a defense tactic...' Both prosecutors and defense attorneys make tactical choices on how they are going to present their cases.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 20:02:41 GMT -6
I didn't know this. If the defense can call prison wardens to give evidence about LWOP, can the prosecution call prison wardens to give evidence about DR? In some states is the jury made aware of the difference that way? I don't know if it's allowed in Texas, but it would make sense to me. I guess this would depend on your definition of "society," or who is and who is not included in "society." It wasn't covered in the statute Janet posted. I read through it quickly so I might have missed it though. I remember the defense calling a warden in 'our' case. They showed pics of Pelican Bay, which is where he (the warden) said our perp would go (and where he is) after a short stay at Tehachapi (sp) ~ a sort of orientation prison ~ all inmates in the area go before going where they'll eventually serve their sentence. Tehachapi has security levels 2, 3, and 4, if memory serves, and level 4 (at least) was entirely separated from levels 2 and 3, fenced, barbed wire, guards. Pelican Bay is a level 4, maximum security prison. Half of it contains level 4 prisoners in a 'general population' environment. The other half is the 'SHU', which, as I understand it, is very like death row. Was he a gangbanger?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 28, 2009 20:05:10 GMT -6
Pelican Bay is a level 4, maximum security prison. Half of it contains level 4 prisoners in a 'general population' environment. The other half is the 'SHU', which, as I understand it, is very like death row. Wait a minute. Has something changed? It used to be no prisoner was assigned directly to Pelican Bay. It was said "you earned your way in" with bad behavior in other, less secure prisons. I know there's been constant litigation by the various whiny crybaby organizations like the ACLU over Pelican Bay. So, has that changed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 20:06:15 GMT -6
I remember the defense calling a warden in 'our' case. They showed pics of Pelican Bay, which is where he (the warden) said our perp would go (and where he is) after a short stay at Tehachapi (sp) ~ a sort of orientation prison ~ all inmates in the area go before going where they'll eventually serve their sentence. Tehachapi has security levels 2, 3, and 4, if memory serves, and level 4 (at least) was entirely separated from levels 2 and 3, fenced, barbed wire, guards. Pelican Bay is a level 4, maximum security prison. Half of it contains level 4 prisoners in a 'general population' environment. The other half is the 'SHU', which, as I understand it, is very like death row. Was he a gangbanger? Most definitely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 20:13:04 GMT -6
Pelican Bay is a level 4, maximum security prison. Half of it contains level 4 prisoners in a 'general population' environment. The other half is the 'SHU', which, as I understand it, is very like death row. Wait a minute. Has something changed? It used to be no prisoner was assigned directly to Pelican Bay. It was said "you earned your way in" with bad behavior in other, less secure prisons. I know there's been constant litigation by the various whiny crybaby organizations like the ACLU over Pelican Bay. So, has that changed? I dunno, Bob. He flat out said Sanchez would go there. Now, perhaps he was saying that based on his own past experience with perps like Sanchez. However, the prosecution didn't challenge his statement. Also, each day of court, we spent time outside talking with our prosecutor and/or the defense attorney and both said (any number of times) that's where he'd be going. Again, maybe his attitude and background ~ or the fact he'd already got in trouble waiting for trial?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 22:30:00 GMT -6
I find the practice of using ‘future dangerousness’ to determine if a murderer ought be doled death interesting, too. First, since (once found guilty) they’d only get DP or LWOP, the future dangerousness jurors are basing their decision on, can only be behind bars. So, theoretically, a person who has a long rap sheet of preying on children, and no other crimes against people, who finally murders even several children, wouldn’t be a continuing danger. Would this person, deserving of death, not be doled death because he wouldn’t be a threat behind bars? Also curious, IMO, is that once ‘future dangerousness’ has been determined by a jury, the murderer spends 10, 15, 20 or more years on Death Row. If, in that 10, 15, 20 years, he hasn’t killed ~ even because of our own safeguards and preventive measures ~ doesn’t THAT past behavior, in all those years before execution, prove he’s not the ‘continuing danger’ so long as he's confined properly? Personally, I think anyone who could murder a child could murder anyone. Is he likely to? I don't know. That's up to experts, but obviously there are expert witnesses who are willing to testify that "future dangerousness" is a concern or child murderers wouldn't be getting the DP here. It's also possible that all of the child murderers who have received the DP here have assaulted adults one way or another in the past, too. If an inmate so much as spits at a CO or is combative in any way, even verbally, they're written up. I'd like to see one inmate who's been on DR for 15 years, just one, who hasn't been written up for some kind of aggressive, violent behavior. I guess it's possible, but it's highly unlikely.
|
|
Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 29, 2009 0:59:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jan 29, 2009 1:47:39 GMT -6
Anyone who kills kids shouldnt be let out period. Experts? god, they have made some clangers in the past with their expert evidence haven't they. Nope you kill a kid, its the dp or LWOP. Or it should be. theri is something prime evil about child killers. Snuff them out.
Look at that twat yesterday in Australia who through his daughter over the bridge into the river, she was resusitated but later died. That guy who did that knew what he was doing and as far as i am concerned (forget the expert evidence given by so called experts) that bastard should be terminated. I dont care the reason, he killed his child and thrown her into the river. He knew what he was doing regardless of the pressure he was under. To kill his own kid, its a bloody tragic mess but he knew what he was doing and should be treated accordingly. Scumbal.
Expert advice. yeah, right. We had an expert over here who gave evidence at three trials which convicted three woman of killing there child (shaken head syndrome) it was later found they the children died naturally. Two of those woman have since taken their own lifes. Thier lifes were ruined because of so called expert evidence. I would rather listen to factual evidence or scene evidence then expert advice which at best is speculation.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 29, 2009 3:59:47 GMT -6
Who would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? I consider prison employees part of society. Surely, if the only choice is LWOP & death, jurors are thinking about the risk to prison employees and non-violent offenders if they opt for LWOP. Or I guess they could be thinking about the possibility that the murderer might have his LWOP sentence overturned, commuted, or that he might somehow be released someday if he's not executed. I know that I would be thinking about all of those possibilities, but I can only speak for myself. Who knows what goes through their minds at a time like that though? Texas v.Virgil MartinezAt penalty phase, DA argues to jury: You know, think about the nurses in the penitentiary. Think about the secretaries. Think about the guards....Think about the other people this defendant is going to come into contact with. Think about the other people that you can protect by giving the death penalty in this case.On appeal, defense argues comments were based on facts outside record. TCCA agrees but says admissible as a plea for law enforcement and as a statement of matters within the realm of common knowledge. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/73131a&invol=1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 8:35:01 GMT -6
I find the practice of using ‘future dangerousness’ to determine if a murderer ought be doled death interesting, too. First, since (once found guilty) they’d only get DP or LWOP, the future dangerousness jurors are basing their decision on, can only be behind bars. So, theoretically, a person who has a long rap sheet of preying on children, and no other crimes against people, who finally murders even several children, wouldn’t be a continuing danger. Would this person, deserving of death, not be doled death because he wouldn’t be a threat behind bars? Also curious, IMO, is that once ‘future dangerousness’ has been determined by a jury, the murderer spends 10, 15, 20 or more years on Death Row. If, in that 10, 15, 20 years, he hasn’t killed ~ even because of our own safeguards and preventive measures ~ doesn’t THAT past behavior, in all those years before execution, prove he’s not the ‘continuing danger’ so long as he's confined properly? Personally, I think anyone who could murder a child could murder anyone. Is he likely to? I don't know. That's up to experts, but obviously there are expert witnesses who are willing to testify that "future dangerousness" is a concern or child murderers wouldn't be getting the DP here. It's also possible that all of the child murderers who have received the DP here have assaulted adults one way or another in the past, too. I guess I always consider those who prey upon children as cowards and weaklings, who would therefore pose no threat to adults. Also, such persons, I've been told, are at great risk in the general population of level 4 prisons among other murderers.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 29, 2009 8:59:22 GMT -6
Personally, I think anyone who could murder a child could murder anyone. Is he likely to? I don't know. That's up to experts, but obviously there are expert witnesses who are willing to testify that "future dangerousness" is a concern or child murderers wouldn't be getting the DP here. It's also possible that all of the child murderers who have received the DP here have assaulted adults one way or another in the past, too. I guess I always consider those who prey upon children as cowards and weaklings, who would therefore pose no threat to adults. Also, such persons, I've been told, are at great risk in the general population of level 4 prisons among other murderers. That they are weak and cowards is an unfounded stereotype. Case in point: Richard Allen Davis. If child molesters were at risk, there would a lot more of them being killed in prisons. Occasionally, you hear about it, though I think many of those murders are for other reasons (a hit ordered to join a gang or someone wanted his shoes) and they claim they did it because he was a child molester as an after the fact defense.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 29, 2009 9:06:15 GMT -6
Personally, I think anyone who could murder a child could murder anyone. Is he likely to? I don't know. That's up to experts, but obviously there are expert witnesses who are willing to testify that "future dangerousness" is a concern or child murderers wouldn't be getting the DP here. It's also possible that all of the child murderers who have received the DP here have assaulted adults one way or another in the past, too. I guess I always consider those who prey upon children as cowards and weaklings, who would therefore pose no threat to adults. Also, such persons, I've been told, are at great risk in the general population of level 4 prisons among other murderers. I wouldn't stop there. I think most murderers are cowards. The ones who beat their wives to death, the ones who shoot their robbery victims in the back (or wherever), the ones who kill in drive by shootings, on and on. Just because they're cowards, doesn't mean they're not dangerous. IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 9:18:19 GMT -6
I guess I always consider those who prey upon children as cowards and weaklings, who would therefore pose no threat to adults. Also, such persons, I've been told, are at great risk in the general population of level 4 prisons among other murderers. That they are weak and cowards is an unfounded stereotype. Case in point: Richard Allen Davis. If child molesters were at risk, there would a lot more of them being killed in prisons. Occasionally, you hear about it, though I think many of those murders are for other reasons (a hit ordered to join a gang or someone wanted his shoes) and they claim they did it because he was a child molester as an after the fact defense. Sure they're at risk. Even murderers think they're slime. Many are put in PC for that reason. Richard Allen Davis' crimes were all over the place. I wouldn't consider him a 'mere' child preditor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 9:24:47 GMT -6
I guess I always consider those who prey upon children as cowards and weaklings, who would therefore pose no threat to adults. Also, such persons, I've been told, are at great risk in the general population of level 4 prisons among other murderers. I wouldn't stop there. I think most murderers are cowards. The ones who beat their wives to death, the ones who shoot their robbery victims in the back (or wherever), the ones who kill in drive by shootings, on and on. Just because they're cowards, doesn't mean they're not dangerous. IMO. True enough. And, I agree with you ~ they're all cowards. I'm just thinking the ones who ONLY prey on children are rather gutless wonders who wouldn't dare go up against an adult, particularly in a setting where the 'other guy' (COs) would have the upper hand. **only, as in 'that's their entire history', not to be mistaken for 'only' as in 'not as bad as some other bad dude'.
|
|
swif
Regular
Body Beautiful
Posts: 427
|
Post by swif on Jan 29, 2009 9:29:11 GMT -6
Steven Hugeley is a prime example as to why LWOP (see my thread is specific DP threads re him) does not work at all, IMLHO
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 29, 2009 9:58:55 GMT -6
I wouldn't stop there. I think most murderers are cowards. The ones who beat their wives to death, the ones who shoot their robbery victims in the back (or wherever), the ones who kill in drive by shootings, on and on. Just because they're cowards, doesn't mean they're not dangerous. IMO. True enough. And, I agree with you ~ they're all cowards. I'm just thinking the ones who ONLY prey on children are rather gutless wonders who wouldn't dare go up against an adult, particularly in a setting where the 'other guy' (COs) would have the upper hand. **only, as in 'that's their entire history', not to be mistaken for 'only' as in 'not as bad as some other bad dude'. I don't know what's in their "entire history." Professionals who have access to those records are testifying, and jurors are being swayed by their testimony. If a jury isn't convinced that future dangerousness is a concern, the jury is supposed to sentence a capital murderer to LWOP (in Texas). That's all I know. This can be argued at the appellate level. I'm sure some have been successful, and their sentences have been commuted to LWOP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2009 20:44:55 GMT -6
True enough. And, I agree with you ~ they're all cowards. I'm just thinking the ones who ONLY prey on children are rather gutless wonders who wouldn't dare go up against an adult, particularly in a setting where the 'other guy' (COs) would have the upper hand. **only, as in 'that's their entire history', not to be mistaken for 'only' as in 'not as bad as some other bad dude'. I don't know what's in their "entire history." Professionals who have access to those records are testifying, and jurors are being swayed by their testimony. Of course you don't, nor I. Theoretically, however, the worst of the worst (as described by many members of society ~ those who prey upon and murder children) may not be the capital murderers who get death if they have no offenses that would intimate they'd be a 'continuing danger' while imprisoned where, obviously, there are no children. I thought LWOP was brought (in 2005 or 06?) as a third sentencing option for Capital Murder in TX. Is that not the case?
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 29, 2009 21:08:46 GMT -6
In 2007, there were 610 job related homicides. You said it, not me. I just want to say there's a lot to be said for a job position that has it's own classification.... "going postal".
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 29, 2009 21:09:55 GMT -6
Finally, a voice of reason in a sea of clamoring voices who would mislead us into thinking that CO's have it the worst and it just is not true. Misty-- I don't think ppl are saying COs have it "worst" but I would say they are in an especially high-risk category of danger and should be provided additional assets and protection because of who/what they are charged with handling. Would you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 29, 2009 22:22:16 GMT -6
...obviously, there are no children. Well, there are no bank tellers or liquor store clerks either, but I understand what you're saying. No. The only sentencing options for capital murders committed after September 1, 2005, are death or LWOP. For capital murders committed before 2005, the options were/are death or Life with Parole (eligible after serving a min. of 40 years), because, as you know, LWOP wasn't an option at all before 2005 in Texas. law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-procedure/37.071.00.html
|
|