home

Texecutions: Rick Perry's Willful Blindness to Injustice

There have been 234 executions in Texas under Gov. Rick Perry (database here.) Four more are imminent, scheduled over the next 8 days. One is Duane Buck. At Buck's sentencing, prosecutors argued in part he should be sentenced to death because he is black and therefore a threat to public safety.

Duane Buck is one of four men scheduled to die by lethal injection in Texas, where Perry is governor, over the next eight days – an exceptional rate even in this execution-happy state. At Buck's sentencing hearing, the jury that set his punishment was informed by a psychologist that black people had a higher rate of violent behaviour, a statement used by the prosecution as its key argument against giving him an alternative penalty of life imprisonment.

[More...]

Buck is scheduled to be executed on Wednesday night. Even the former prosecutor on the case, Linda Geffin, has written a letter (available here) asking Perry not to execute Buck.

It is· regrettable that any race-based considerations were placed before Mr. Buck's jury. No individual should be executed without being afforded a fair trial, untainted by considerations of race.

The surviving family member of the victim is asking for clemency. Buck's lawyers have filed a Petition for Clemency (available here) which is pending.

In 2000, Texas' then Attorney General, conservative John Cornyn, issued a press release about the cases in which the psychologist testified (Cited as "News Release, Office of the Attorney General, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn offers the following information on capital cases that involved Dr. Walter Quijano's testimony using race as a factor to determine future dangerousness (June 9, 2000)". From the Clemency Petition:

Attorney General John Cornyn, issued a press release in which he identified Mr.Buck’s and five other cases then pending in post-conviction proceedings as cases in which the government had unconstitutionally relied on testimony of psychologist Walter Quijano, that a defendant’s race should be considered in determining future dangerousness and, at least in Mr. Buck’s case, that being black was a factor that increased the likelihood of future dangerousness. The press release looked at a total of eight cases in which Dr. Quijano had been involved, but concluded that two cases did not have circumstances rising to a constitutional violation.

Through mistake or inadvertence, however, and despite the Attorney General’s admission of constitutional error in Mr. Buck’s case, he would be the only one of the six whose racially-tainted death sentence was left intact.

...“Five out of the six cases in which Attorney General John Cornyn conceded error resulted in new sentencing hearings. Mr. Buck has not received the same corrective process. The State of Texas cannot and should not tolerate an execution on the basis of an individual’s race, particularly where this State’s highest legal officer has acknowledged the error, not only in similarly situated cases, but in this case.”

Steven Woods is scheduled for execution tonight. Amnesty International put out this action alert. It says Woods was not the shooter and "his co-defendant pleaded guilty to killing both victims and received a life sentence."

At Woods’ trial, the prosecution argued that while Rhodes had participated in the murders and supplied the car and the guns used in the crime, Woods had planned the crime and committed the shootings. However, in Rhodes’ own sentencing under the plea deal in November 2002, Rhodes stipulated that he, Rhodes, had shot both the victims. Despite clear inconsistencies and a confession from Rhodes, the Texas appeal courts dismissed Steven Woods’ claim of unfairness.

Texas law allows the death penalty for those that did not actually kill the victim. The Guardian (linked above) reports:

Under the so-called "law of parties" in Texas, death penalties can be inflicted even on those who did not pull the trigger. Being present at a murder, knowing that an accomplice intended to kill, is sufficient. "A lot of people with no blood on their own hands get executed in Texas.

Texas may be the only state in which "the law of parties" allows the death penalty for someone convicted of participating in a crime in which a death results, even when another person actually did the killing and that person receives a lesser punishment.

Texas has executed 473 inmates since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated -- four times more than any other state. (Fact sheet here.) Here's Rick Perry's record in a nutshell. Here are the faces of a few.

Rick Perry says "Americans understand justice." What he's missing is the counterpart -- they don't approve of injustice.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | New Poll: Obama Beats Perry and Romney >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What Does 'Future Dangerousness'... (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    ... have to do with anything in a capital case ?

    Presumably, the defendant is never going to see freedom, arguing he would more dangerous in prison seems pretty ridiculous as to a factor in murdering him.

    Dr. Walter Quijano is one of these doctors that probably makes a living off testifying pure non-sense.  I would like to know who brought this clown into the mix and what his qualifications are for making such a bold claim.

    Sucks being from a state that if half the population had their way, everyone from shoplifters on up would be put to death w/o a trial.  For real.

    Perry has proven unbreakable in regards to the death sentence, retarded, underage, no problem, just adjust the dose and 'getter done'.  The guy that went on killing spree was murdered by the state even after one of the surviving victims went on a crusade to save his life.  Perry isn't letting anyone off the murderous hook.

    "Future dangerousness" is one (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:41:47 PM EST
    of the notorious "three questions" that Texas statutory law requires every jury to consider in deciding whether to impose a death sentence in a first degree murder case.  Are you trying to counter that with logic?  Silly boy ....

    Parent
    Has SCOTUS reviewed the statute? (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:42:48 PM EST
    many times (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    alas

    Parent
    Death penalty for (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    felony murder???

    And expressly because members of his race are more prone to violence?????

    But given the hootin' and hollerin' at recent GOP debates, I suppose no one should be surprised.

    Uh, yeah (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    The death penalty for felony murder may NOT be imposed on a defendant that did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place.  Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)

    It CAN, however, be imposed if the defendant was a "major participant" in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), which says:

    Although petitioners neither intended to kill the victims nor inflicted the fatal wounds, the record might support a finding that they had the culpable mental state of reckless indifference to human life. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty as [481 U.S. 137, 138] disproportionate in the case of a defendant whose participation in a felony that results in murder is major and whose mental state is one of reckless indifference. A survey of state felony-murder laws and judicial decisions after Enmund indicates a societal consensus that that combination of factors may justify the death penalty even without a specific "intent to kill." Reckless disregard for human life also represents a highly culpable mental state that may support a capital sentencing judgment in combination with major participation in the felony resulting in death.


    Parent
    Sure, the case law may support it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    It is still horid.....

    Parent
    Should (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    surprise no one since a lot of conservatives believe that we should be killing off Muslims because of their religious beliefs.

    I went to high school at this place (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    IOW (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    The fundamentalists are still fundamentally nuts.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 06:57:04 AM EST
    I grew up in the 40's and 50's in the rural south and my teachers didn't pass out all that type of stuff.

    Must have been a west coast thing.

    Parent

    Right ... because one person ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 08:52:04 AM EST
    ... didn't experience it must mean there was no religious bigotry in the South and it must have been a "West Coast thing".

    Heh.

    Parent

    a west coast thing.. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    as in, the entire west coast of the Tennessee River Valley..

    Parent