Texas Governor Perry has replaced three state commission members that were investigating the state's execution of a man who now seems to have been innocent, two days before the commission was going to hold an open hearing about the case.
Today's development and some background:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/...
Very lengthy and disturbing New Yorker article that convinced me that Texas did indeed kill and innocent man, and furthermore, they should have known they were doing so:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...
Now I know this is Texas, but I have to imagine that Perry's move is only going to make this story a bigger deal than it already was. What consequences should a State and its agents face [if any] in a case like this?
No, you obviously don't. This is Texas. You count yourself lucky if you get a trial down here instead of a summary execution.
Perry won't suffer anything...in fact, this will probably help him against his biggest rival at the moment.
Yep, gotta' agree. Most people I know (not in Texas) would view this story as "Well he had to have been doing something wrong to get himself in that situation. Even if he wasn't guilty of that crime I'm sure he was guilty of something." Not a ton of sympathy for people in prison (unless they're a family member) as evidenced by the general "thumbs up" attitude to the Gitmo detention practices.
Steam ID
That's the staple of the argument the Soviet masses used to justify the purges.
XBox Live | Twitter | Flickr
Did you think "It's like a whole 'nother country" was just an advertising slogan?
I'm glad I'm not most people.
I think the fact that we give people the death sentence is appalling. Specifically for this reason, that they could be innocent but it's still carried out because of politics. Ugh.
I stream stuff!
It is a time honored tradition, on both sides of the aisle, to shirk responsibility whenever possible.
Ever hear of the "State Secrets" defense? It basically means that if the government says something can't go to trial because the details would compromise national security, the courts MUST take their word for it. Of course, the government has used it to avoid embarrassment and responsibility. In fact, the landmark case in which the precedent was set turned out to be precisely that. A soldier was killed in a plane crash and the US refused to have a public investigation because they claimed the report on the plane contained sensitive information. When that report was later declassified, it was found to contain absolutely nothing of the sort.
Fortunately, the Obama administration has put an end to that kind of nonsense... By promising they won't abuse it (they totally pinkie-swear, and you're not allowed to investigate).
NOTE: Not a doodle bug.
Yes, I know it is unrealistic to expect someone in a case like this to have enough balls to say, "Yep, we totally killed that guy by mistake, Opps!" but it still would be nice.
The New Yorker piece indicated that proof of an innocent man being executed would be constitutional shot against the death penalty, as Scalia had previously specifically argued that the death penalty was A-OK because no one who was posthumously proven innocent had ever been executed. But, it now looks like Scalia is arguing that even the innocent don't have protection from execution.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/17/...
Posting on the boards is easy. The trick is to kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's %^*&. Chiggie Von Richthofen on how to transition from lurker to poster.
Yup, just another reason I generally oppose the death penalty.
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
The New Yorker article was an awesome piece of journalism. Long, but gripping.
Little Raven, I understand that there's no sympathy for criminals, but is there that much enthusiasm for the politicians that people will turn a blind eye to that sort of chicanery?
pPunc"tuat,,ion is: har'd!
.
So am I after seeing how readily you throw convention and rules out the window you big hunk of rebellious man love, you.
I'm like the Nate Silver of grunge - Podunk
It probably doesn't help that the guy was, by some accounts at least, not the nicest of people. You could, of course, argue that being an asshole isn't a capital offense (something I should probably more more thankful for) but that doesn't seem to sway people as much as it should.
Not everyone, no, but the people that matter will.
Remember, Texas is a red state. R.E.D. The Republicans could run a sack of flour wearing googlie eyes and win the Governor's seat. So the only contest that really matters is the Republican primary. Whoever wins that wins the prize. The number of people that actually vote in the primary is staggeringly small...~20,000, I think. And those 20,000 are the reddest of red. The truest of the true. The Godliest of God's warriors.
Plenty of people will look at this and think it's shameful. Possibly even most people. But the people that count, the people that Perry needs to win over to keep his seat, will be at best indifferent. Many will actively cheer this decision.
We had a lot of people right here arguing that it was okay to kill a trespasser, as long as it was "a bad guy". I just saw it come up again in a non-P&C thread.
I belive the proper term in TX is "he needed killin'".
XBox Live | Twitter | Flickr
He's also against gay marriage.
NOTE: Not a doodle bug.
He looks like the kind of sack of flour that I'd like to sit and have a beer with.
Certis: Quintin is both smart and attractive.
Fedaykin98: Good lord, I wouldn't have expected brilliance like that from that nemeslut Quintin Stone!
Yonder: It's weird to say this, but Quintin Stone may be the wisest person here.
Fixed?
Better to reign in P&C than serve in Everything Else. - Tanglebones
Free-to-play games are free so that the people who pay money for them have someone to play them with. -Cloquette
You, sir, win Friday, October 2nd. it is yours to do with as you please.
(And please don't make me any flour beer)
In other Texas related news: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33128108/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Rick Perry: In favour of blind nepotism or did he just throw a family member 'under the bus'? We repost, you speculate!
Does not own a picture of Lenin... just putting that out there.
I want this....it will be mine =)
pPunc"tuat,,ion is: har'd!
.
So am I after seeing how readily you throw convention and rules out the window you big hunk of rebellious man love, you.
I'm like the Nate Silver of grunge - Podunk
I'm going for "under the bus". For a politician it's just a natural response. I believe it has either evolved as a part of every politician's DNA or an intelligent designer put it there. I haven't decided yet, but either way it's what a politician would naturally do in this situation.
Steam ID
Or he might actually not know the guy. I have some cousins I've met, like, once, and I have no idea what they look like.
Those are not exclusive.
Steam, Grouvee
Take two of deez nutz and call me.
Avus nethrolis
I think my opinion of Mr. Parry was pretty much crystallized in an interview with the NYT.
That was a jaw-dropper for me.
I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
Watch me learn to draw.
Sorry, had to add my own ending to that interview after that hilarious closer.