• 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!

In spite of scant evidence to convict Robert Pruitt, Texas just executed him.

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
12,030
Reaction score
5,672
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Based on the little bit I have read, this case really irks me! Yes, I think Robert Pruitt killed a Corrections Officer. The State failed to produce a single eye witness or any DNA evidence. My notion of Due Process does not include rendering the Death Sentence based on Circumstantial Evidence.

As a Progressive, I would hope to never have to rely on a Texas Court for relief or a fair judgment.

Texas executes inmate convicted of fatally stabbing a prison guard

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-prison-guards-death/?utm_term=.d836803ef2ae
 
I don't know if you are relying on just that article for your evidence or not, I gather that this guy had many appeals since the conviction.

I also don't know how you can say "I think he did it" and then say that not a single shred of evidence, eye witness or DNA was produced.

Not saying your wrong but by your own admission you have "read very little" on this

djl
 
Based on the little bit I have read, this case really irks me! Yes, I think Robert Pruitt killed a Corrections Officer. The State failed to produce a single eye witness or any DNA evidence. My notion of Due Process does not include rendering the Death Sentence based on Circumstantial Evidence.

As a Progressive, I would hope to never have to rely on a Texas Court for relief or a fair judgment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-prison-guards-death/?utm_term=.d836803ef2ae

It's really unfair to indict an state's entire judicial system in this way.

Here is an interesting article I read this morning: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/10...eaves-behind-a-literary-indictment-of-us-all/

From the Texas Tribune:

Pruett's 2002 conviction in Nagle’s murder was primarily based on eyewitness testimony from inmates, which his lawyers have argued is unreliable. He fought for years to test crime scene evidence for DNA in an attempt to prove his innocence. Courts twice ordered testing on clothes, the report and the weapon, but results were ruled inconclusive. In April, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said the results would not have affected his conviction, setting the path for a new execution date.

Jack Choate, executive director of the Special Prosecution Unit, which prosecutes crimes in Texas prisons, said that after all of the court reviews, he didn’t see “room” for an innocence claim, mentioning how Pruett admitted on cross-examination he had asked an inmate to testify that he had cut his hand the day of the murder. Pruett’s blood on a prison shirt, he testified, was because of an injury he got lifting weights.

“I think when people look at the whole picture ... you can see what the jury saw and review that, and it makes for a very compelling case against Mr. Pruett,” Choate told The Texas Tribune on Monday. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/1...tt-who-insisted-innocence-prison-guards-murd/

CV man sent to death row - Houston Chronicle

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/texas-calls-off-robert-pruett-execution-hours
 
I don't know if you are relying on just that article for your evidence or not, I gather that this guy had many appeals since the conviction.

I also don't know how you can say "I think he did it" and then say that not a single shred of evidence, eye witness or DNA was produced.

Not saying your wrong but by your own admission you have "read very little" on this

djl

Scant Evidence differs from "not a single shred of evidence". The State of Texas, IMO, convicted Pruitt on Circumstantial Evidence, not Direct Evidence. I do not support a Death Penalty predicated by Circumstantial Evidence AND without Direct Evidence.
 
Scant Evidence differs from "not a single shred of evidence". The State of Texas, IMO, convicted Pruitt on Circumstantial Evidence, not Direct Evidence. I do not support a Death Penalty predicated by Circumstantial Evidence AND without Direct Evidence.

"Not a single shred of evidence" is a key buzzword for intellectually dishonest and close-minded people. The vast majority of the time there IS evidence, just not much or very good evidence. Most likely no proof, to be sure.

People have been convicted of murder without a body and on circumstantial evidence, though that is rare. The DP should never ever be done with circumstantial evidence. Hell, that even contradicts the DP supporters who claim it should be ok for cases when guilt is "clear beyond all doubt".

Jailhouse snitch testimony should always be viewed as suspicious. They're already known criminals, which throws their credibility into question. What did they get in return?
 
Don't know anything about this case and I couldn't possible learn enough and make a judgment anytime soon. I support the death penalty thats for sure. I don't support it under circumstantial evidence though. Don;t know if that was done here or not but it's all I have to offer. I've also did some research into "evidence" in general and its shocking to learn that so much evidence is totally questionable and flat out unreliable but we accept it anyway basically because "well we accepted it before". Its sad to see how we manipulate evidence to fool a jury and sell it to them on what we know is totally false or unreliable pretenses but they don;t know that.
 
Don't know anything about this case and I couldn't possible learn enough and make a judgment anytime soon. I support the death penalty thats for sure. I don't support it under circumstantial evidence though. Don;t know if that was done here or not but it's all I have to offer. I've also did some research into "evidence" in general and its shocking to learn that so much evidence is totally questionable and flat out unreliable but we accept it anyway basically because "well we accepted it before". Its sad to see how we manipulate evidence to fool a jury and sell it to them on what we know is totally false or unreliable pretenses but they don;t know that.
Confessions are still the "gold standard" in criminal prosecution, even trumps DNA with juries, and we're just lately figuring out that it's coerced and inaccurate surprisingly often. We *know*, but we still fall back on old presumptions and biases.
 
It's really unfair to indict an state's entire judicial system in this way.

Here is an interesting article I read this morning: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/10...eaves-behind-a-literary-indictment-of-us-all/

From the Texas Tribune:

Pruett's 2002 conviction in Nagle’s murder was primarily based on eyewitness testimony from inmates, which his lawyers have argued is unreliable. He fought for years to test crime scene evidence for DNA in an attempt to prove his innocence. Courts twice ordered testing on clothes, the report and the weapon, but results were ruled inconclusive. In April, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said the results would not have affected his conviction, setting the path for a new execution date.

Jack Choate, executive director of the Special Prosecution Unit, which prosecutes crimes in Texas prisons, said that after all of the court reviews, he didn’t see “room” for an innocence claim, mentioning how Pruett admitted on cross-examination he had asked an inmate to testify that he had cut his hand the day of the murder. Pruett’s blood on a prison shirt, he testified, was because of an injury he got lifting weights.

“I think when people look at the whole picture ... you can see what the jury saw and review that, and it makes for a very compelling case against Mr. Pruett,” Choate told The Texas Tribune on Monday. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/1...tt-who-insisted-innocence-prison-guards-murd/

CV man sent to death row - Houston Chronicle

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/texas-calls-off-robert-pruett-execution-hours

Thank you for the links! Florida, my home state, has vast and wide issues, IMO, with rendering Fair Judgment. I point to the Casey Anthony "Not Guilty" verdict as an obvious and egregious example.

I have not indicted the State of Texas. Hypothetically though, if charged with Capital Murder and facing the Death Sentence, I would choose a trial in Florida over Texas. Texas, the 2nd most populated State with nearly 28mil people, has led the Nation the past 40 years in carrying out executions.
 
Confessions are still the "gold standard" in criminal prosecution, even trumps DNA with juries, and we're just lately figuring out that it's coerced and inaccurate surprisingly often. We *know*, but we still fall back on old presumptions and biases.

I agree and i've known that for along time. The other scary part is about DNA and fingerprints and bite marks which are often used. Especially partials.
 
Thank you for the links! Florida, my home state, has vast and wide issues, IMO, with rendering Fair Judgment. I point to the Casey Anthony "Not Guilty" verdict as an obvious and egregious example.

I have not indicted the State of Texas. Hypothetically though, if charged with Capital Murder and facing the Death Sentence, I would choose a trial in Florida over Texas. Texas, the 2nd most populated State with nearly 28mil people, has led the Nation the past 40 years in carrying out executions.

That it has, but Florida has also certainly been enthusiastic.
 
That it has, but Florida has also certainly been enthusiastic.

Immediately Florida's Attorney General, Pam Bondi, a Huge Trump Supporter, comes to mind. I despise Ted Cruz... though I would choose Ted over Pam in a heartbeat to represent me in any Court in America!
 
I agree and i've known that for along time. The other scary part is about DNA and fingerprints and bite marks which are often used. Especially partials.

Bite marks have been pretty much discredited. 50/50, at best. They're still used sometimes, though. Evidence doesn't have to be right, it just has to convince a jury.
 
Bite marks have been pretty much discredited. 50/50, at best. They're still used sometimes, though. Evidence doesn't have to be right, it just has to convince a jury.

And thats what bothers me about evidence. The one time utmost expert on them admits now they shouldn't be used. Yet there are people in prison right now based on them. SMH
 
And thats what bothers me about evidence. The one time utmost expert on them admits now they shouldn't be used. Yet there are people in prison right now based on them. SMH

Not to go too far off tangent, but that begs the question: If a person is convicted primarily on since discredited evidence, should they get a retrial?
 
Not to go too far off tangent, but that begs the question: If a person is convicted primarily on since discredited evidence, should they get a retrial?

Absolutely and if it can be proven they at the time they knew the evidence wasn't sound there should be a possibility that they should just be released and charges dropped (IF that's the only evidence that convicted them)
Especially the bite marks when I learned about them I was appalled.
 
Back
Top Bottom