Reply With Quote
Here. Something to offset the puff piece...
Regardless, the Grand ol' State of Texas is going to execute him today at 6:00.
http://www.courttv.com/facing_death/...tv.html?page=1
Thank God. He's clearly an animal.
And he even confessed to the crime! And an accomplice testified against him!*
*As a result of the always foolproof method of offering lighter sentences to accomplices who agree to tell the right story.
Here. Something to offset the puff piece...
Ah, poor baby. He only killed someone in the process of trying to rob him. Why
is society so cruel. If Lahood had just given him his money everything would have
been okay. It is all Lahood's fault. boooooohoooooooo.
There's apparently some evidence to show that Brown wasn't the triggerman and that there was no robbery. Brown's story -- which was apparently dismissed by his trial lawyers and apparently has some foundation in the guards who were around him during trial -- is that he signed the confession not because he did the crime, but because the real triggerman (who is not mentioned in the TDC intake form, but who all admit was present because he was driving the vehicle in which Brown had been riding) threatened to kill Brown's child and girlfriend if Brown didn't take the fall.
Regardless, even if Brown was the triggerman, the only reason his conviction resulted in a death sentence was the claim that he and his colleagues were in the process of committing a robbery -- if there is no attempted robbery (or any other felony offense) Brown cannot be executed under Texas law. But all of the men who were with him have signed affidavits swearing that there was no intention to rob LaHood. It's a difficult claim to believe, if only because there is apparently no dispute that Brown and company had committed at least 2 robberies earlier in the evening. But the fact that they committed those robberies isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the LaHood killing -- committed by whomever pulled the trigger -- occurred during an attempted robbery.
In the end, Brown will be executed tonight, I think, because this evidence lacks any real objective component that would make it unassailable. It's just as easy to conclude from the affidavits that the looming specter of execution has caused some of these people to provide statements that might not be objectively verifiable. That's frequently a problem in criminal prosecutions -- along with the disproportionate advantages in terms of funds, availability of evidence, and perceived credibility that are concommitant with the State's position in most prosecutions.
I remain convinced that the structure of the criminal justice system makes it virtually impossible to carry out that sentence in a manner that is applied consistently over all criminal prosecutions. As such, I remain opposed to the death penalty.
Well obviously, 12 people believed he was in the process of a robbery. Which
indicates to me there was no reasonable doubt. Yep, to be a robber is , when
it comes time to pay the bill. And his time has come.
Give most lawyers the State's advantage in most criminal trials and they can probably get 12 jurors to believe that the Earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese.
Well, the evidence of robbery comes from his buddies, who were offered lighter sentences in exchange for testimony that would put Brown on death row. Those are the guys who are now saying it wasn't a robbery. The truth is out there somewhere, but I'm not sold on the idea that we know as a matter of fact that these guys were committing a robbery when the only evidence of that comes from sources who were saving their own asses and were hardly reliable to begin with.
Just me, though.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 07-19-2006 at 03:02 PM.
And just me too. I guess we can agree to disagree. The courts will decide. And
suspect the Supreme Court will made the final decision today, if it hasn't already.
Do you really harbor so much contempt for the concept of trial by one's peers, or was that unfortunate hyperbole amidst attempting to drive home another point?
It's a good concept, but IMO its credibility suffers from the means of choosing the 12... which typically involves weeding out anyone that looks like they might be inclined to voice an opinion.
"Do you really harbor so much contempt for the concept of trial by one's peers"
With modern, advanced jury selection techniques, plea barganing, ambitious prosecutors more interested in advancing their careers than serving justice, crooked cops, prejudice against minorities, the power of $$$ to pervert the sytem, the death penalty should be abolished. The ins ution of the legal system (I refuse to say "justice system") is too error prone to be trusted with lives.
Right, and no one has ever been wrongly convicted or executed before in your perfect little world
It was an effort at hyperbole, but having "seen how sausage is made," I'm also not entirely convinced that the ends that a jury trial system seeks to achieve are satisfied. My concern isn't with jurors, mind you; I think jurors do a fantastic job with the information they're given and in the overwhelming majority of cases, reach the proper result. My concern is more with what gets before the jurors and the degree to which delivery of that information is bent on finding the truth as opposed to obtaining particular results.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
