• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top court halts Texas execution of convicted triple murderer

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Balentine argued he deserved a reprieve because an ineffective trial lawyer failed to present mitigating evidence, such as emotional problems and a difficult upbringing, that could have led to a life sentence.
Click to expand...

Now here's what I don't understand - A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was retarded, with a verifiable IQ of 61. Then they turn around and grant a reprieve to a triple killer who planned and executed his murders because his lawyer claims he had a difficult upbringing? This does not make sense.

What the **** does the Supreme Court do on death sentence appeals? Do they flip a coin? Heads for fry 'em and tails for let 'em go? Seems that they do. Nothing else can explain this.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Now here's what I don't understand - A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was retarded, with a verifiable IQ of 61. Then they turn around and grant a reprieve to a triple killer who planned and executed his murders because his lawyer claims he had a difficult upbringing? This does not make sense.

What the **** does the Supreme Court do on death sentence appeals? Do they flip a coin? Heads for fry 'em and tails for let 'em go? Seems that they do. Nothing else can explain this.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

**** like this is why lawyers get a bad rep.His childhood and emotional are irrelevant to the fact he committed triple murder.
 
danarhea said:
Now here's what I don't understand - A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was retarded, with a verifiable IQ of 61. Then they turn around and grant a reprieve to a triple killer who planned and executed his murders because his lawyer claims he had a difficult upbringing? This does not make sense.

What the **** does the Supreme Court do on death sentence appeals? Do they flip a coin? Heads for fry 'em and tails for let 'em go? Seems that they do. Nothing else can explain this.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to understand why there is such a difference in these two appeals. One, the Supreme Court refused to even hear. Yet they are accountable to no one -- neither their decisions nor why they made them.
 
This is why I hate the idea that once on the Supreme Court you are there till you die or till you can't remember who you are.

Justice Antonin Scalia reviewed Balentine's emergency appeal and referred the case to the full court for consideration.

Here is another surprize. Justice Antonin Scalia is the longest-serving justice currently on the Court. Time to clean up some of the fossils in the court.
 
I think the basis is not his "emotional problems" but his attorneys failure to present them as a possible mitigating factor. Theoretically, a lawyer is supposed to do everything possible for you no matter what they may think of you.

Sure, he might not get executed. But he won't be going home anytime soon. I'm guessing that Texas prisons are not warm and fuzzy (just my guess).
 
danarhea said:
Now here's what I don't understand - A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was retarded, with a verifiable IQ of 61. Then they turn around and grant a reprieve to a triple killer who planned and executed his murders because his lawyer claims he had a difficult upbringing? This does not make sense.

What the **** does the Supreme Court do on death sentence appeals? Do they flip a coin? Heads for fry 'em and tails for let 'em go? Seems that they do. Nothing else can explain this.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Back door Eugenics maybe?
 
specklebang said:
I think the basis is not his "emotional problems" but his attorneys failure to present them as a possible mitigating factor. Theoretically, a lawyer is supposed to do everything possible for you no matter what they may think of you.
Click to expand...

True ... however, the lawyer code of ethics requires them to also follow the law. I guess that means they aren't supposed to lie. I wonder why lawyer and liar share 3 of the same letters? Must be a coincidence.

A L
 
If lying were a crime....I can't even imagine how different it would all be.

Another Lurker said:
True ... however, the lawyer code of ethics requires them to also follow the law. I guess that means they aren't supposed to lie. I wonder why lawyer and liar share 3 of the same letters? Must be a coincidence.

A L
Click to expand...
 
So, when a lawyer knows you committed a crime and then has you plead not guilty, is that perjury?

Also, lets not lose track of the original point. His lawyer would not have lied if he had presented ameliorating testimony about his childhood. Indeed, it was his responsibility to do so. His failure to do so was egregious enough to get a far-right judge to review the case.



Another Lurker said:
No "if" to it. Ever heard of a concept called PERJURY?

A L
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
So, when a lawyer knows you committed a crime and then has you plead not guilty, is that perjury?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. That same code of ethics REQUIRES the lawyer to put up a vigorous defense.

specklebang said:
Also, lets not lose track of the original point. His lawyer would not have lied if he had presented ameliorating testimony about his childhood. Indeed, it was his responsibility to do so. His failure to do so was egregious enough to get a far-right judge to review the case.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. It appears to me that the lawyer built and appeal into the case by not including that in the original case. That smacks with unethical ... but it will NEVER happen that any Office of Disciplinary Counsel would find against the lawyer. All of us have heard about 'cop protecting cop' ... same is true of lawyers.

A L
 
danarhea said:
Now here's what I don't understand - A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was retarded, with a verifiable IQ of 61. Then they turn around and grant a reprieve to a triple killer who planned and executed his murders because his lawyer claims he had a difficult upbringing? This does not make sense.

What the **** does the Supreme Court do on death sentence appeals? Do they flip a coin? Heads for fry 'em and tails for let 'em go? Seems that they do. Nothing else can explain this.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I think they're just screwing with him. This is the third time they put the breaks on an hour before he got the shot.

Letting him think he's going to die, then live, then die, then live...

They're probably betting on how many times it takes before he just hangs himself.
 
He murdered 3 people in their sleep so I have no problem with them messing with him.



hazlnut said:
I think they're just screwing with him. This is the third time they put the breaks on an hour before he got the shot.

Letting him think he's going to die, then live, then die, then live...

They're probably betting on how many times it takes before he just hangs himself.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom