Stay of execution for Texas death row inmate

[rower 0]

Texans,

Frances Newton is scheduled to be put to death today. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has asked Governor Perry for a stay of execution for 120 days. However, he has the option to disregard their request and proceed with the execution. I don't know if she is innocent or not, but I think it is worth further investigation.

You can read more about this and email Governor Perry at:

http://www.texasmoratorium.org/

[peregrinerose 0]

I don't understand why a guy getting executed isn't nearly as big a deal as a woman getting executed. That doesn't really make much sense.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[rower 0]

Gender is irrelevant to me. It just happens that this is a woman. Putting someone to death and knowing that they might possibly be innocent, no matter how small that chance, is reprehensible.

[peregrinerose 0]

To you, yes, but it is being smeared all over the internet and news due to gender. I'm all for a 120 day stay to double check the evidence lab work. If it clears her, great. If it confirms the conviction, based on what I read of her crime, she does not have my sympathy.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[rower 0]

Haha! I didn't know that it was being smeared across the internet. I found out via an email from the Texas Moratorium Network. In hindsight, it makes sense that it is receiving a lot of press. However, here in Texas, putting someone to death is a pretty frequent occurrence so I didn't think anything about it.

[Guest]

The claim is poor legal representation and questionable forensics results.

I'm sorry to say it, but although Karla Faye Tucker got what she had coming to her, this case appears different.

A 120-day stay while the evidence is re-examined won't hurt, IMO. It'll either make the case against her airtight, or it will result in the evidence being thrown out. Justice will be served in any case.

mh

.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Frances Newton is scheduled to be put to death today.

She shot her husband in the head while he slept on the couch, killing him, and then turned the gun on her children, ages 7 and 2, shooting them in the chest and killing them.

She claims a drug dealer did it...

http://www.click2houston.com/news/3950898/detail.html

[funks 1]

Quote

Texans,

a stay of execution for 120 days

Let her fry. All these stays of execution do is cost the taxpayer gobs of money. That is what the appeal process is for throughout the entire course of their imprisonment. If she hasnt been found innocent by now then quit coming up with excuses just to keep her alive.

Why wait until the last minute to try and prove innocence? what the hell are these attornies doing the entire time these people are locked up? If they cant find anything over the course of X number of years then they sure as hell arent going to find anything in 120 days.

[PhillyKev 0]

Umm, it's hard to appeal when you are dead. That's WHY they want the stay. So that they can appeal based on new technology available to confirm the validity of the circumstantial evidence used to convict her.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Texans,

a stay of execution for 120 days

Let her fry. All these stays of execution do is cost the taxpayer gobs of money. That is what the appeal process is for throughout the entire course of their imprisonment. If she hasnt been found innocent by now then quit coming up with excuses just to keep her alive.

Why wait until the last minute to try and prove innocence? what the hell are these attornies doing the entire time these people are locked up? If they cant find anything over the course of X number of years then they sure as hell arent going to find anything in 120 days.

They sure did in Illinois.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,476]

>what the hell are these attornies doing the entire time these people are locked up?

In many cases, they are waiting for new technology (like DNA analysis) to come along. As good as some are, not even the best attorney can singlehandedly create a new forensic technique.

[rower 0]

A stay of execution was granted for Frances Newton.

Personally, I'm willing to pay the money to find out whether someone is innocent. Not only that, but I don't think that we should ever convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing it is.

I'm not against the death penalty; I'm just against putting innocent people to death. Quite frankly, being tried by a jury of my peers is a little scary.

[rower 0]

BTW, I recognize that in this case, there was physical evidence that caused her to be convicted. My comment was not directed at this particular case, it was just a general statement.

>>Not only that, but I don't think that we should ever convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing it is.

[Nightingale 0]

people are found guilty or liable based on circumstantial evidence a lot.

At the close of the trial, judges will generally instruct juries that circumstantial evidence is to be accorded the same weight as direct evidence. Indeed, in some respects it is even more persuasive than direct, eyewitness testimony since it is generally not vulnerable to the same avenues of attack on cross-examination. Circumstantial evidence is not an after-the-fact recollection recounted by a witness who may now have the benefit of hindsight in shaping his or her testimony, but is instead often a small piece of evidence, frequently insignificant at the time, sometimes delivered by the defendant, often created at or around the time of the alleged offense.

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1101136516424


Personally, I don't agree with the death penalty because:

1. it's damn hard to be absolutely certain about anything unless you've got it on video, and even then, it can be hard to identify the parties.

2. It's not a deterrant. Nobody commits a crime when they think they're going to get caught.

3. You can't un-execute someone if the evidence later proves their innocence. You can, however, let someone out of jail.

4. It's more expensive than just keeping someone in jail. To really be certain (and even then you can't be certain), we have to allow the appeals process, and death penalty appeals are very pricey. Lock em up and throw away the key.


IF we had a way to be absolutely, completely certain 100% about the guilt of the person, sure, execute. Juries, however, don't convict on absolute, complete certainty. They convict when they can agree that the person's guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Personally, I don't like the idea of execution on "beyond a reasonable doubt." Find a way to ensure total certainty, or don't do it. The death penalty is not reversable.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Gender is irrelevant to me. It just happens that this is a woman. Putting someone to death and knowing that they might possibly be innocent, no matter how small that chance, is reprehensible.

Right, which is why virtually all of the industrialized freeworld have repealed all cap pun laws. The US even executes people that are convicted of 1st degree murder when the conviction stemmed from a crime that occurred when they were a minor at 16 or 17. This puts us in very small company.

There is no way to be certain or even think there is a very good chance of executing people without knowing that innocent people will be executed. Look at the Ray Crone story - 2 years on death row, 8 more after a 2nd trial and 2nd conviction from idiots in a jury.... a judge finally exonerated him by way of evidence.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

To you, yes, but it is being smeared all over the internet and news due to gender. I'm all for a 120 day stay to double check the evidence lab work. If it clears her, great. If it confirms the conviction, based on what I read of her crime, she does not have my sympathy.

Are you joking? Don't you think DNA can be planted very easily? Just because the DNA matches...... that means - the DNA matches.

This death penalty argument is circular in that you can never be absolutely sure of all executions. Most people in jail and on death row are guilty, but our system is supposedly different in that it protects the minoroty - supposedly.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Texans,

a stay of execution for 120 days

Let her fry. All these stays of execution do is cost the taxpayer gobs of money. That is what the appeal process is for throughout the entire course of their imprisonment. If she hasnt been found innocent by now then quit coming up with excuses just to keep her alive.

Why wait until the last minute to try and prove innocence? what the hell are these attornies doing the entire time these people are locked up? If they cant find anything over the course of X number of years then they sure as hell arent going to find anything in 120 days.

They sure did in Illinois.

Right, and Gov Ryan was slammed over it, even though there were I think 4 clear cases of misconduct. How can it be that American are appauled when they hear of violence when we corner the market of it and hide behind this concept of democracy and justice?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

people are found guilty or liable based on circumstantial evidence a lot.

At the close of the trial, judges will generally instruct juries that circumstantial evidence is to be accorded the same weight as direct evidence. Indeed, in some respects it is even more persuasive than direct, eyewitness testimony since it is generally not vulnerable to the same avenues of attack on cross-examination. Circumstantial evidence is not an after-the-fact recollection recounted by a witness who may now have the benefit of hindsight in shaping his or her testimony, but is instead often a small piece of evidence, frequently insignificant at the time, sometimes delivered by the defendant, often created at or around the time of the alleged offense.

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1101136516424


Personally, I don't agree with the death penalty because:

1. it's damn hard to be absolutely certain about anything unless you've got it on video, and even then, it can be hard to identify the parties.

3. You can't un-execute someone if the evidence later proves their innocence. You can, however, let someone out of jail.

IF we had a way to be absolutely, completely certain 100% about the guilt of the person, sure, execute. Juries, however, don't convict on absolute, complete certainty. They convict when they can agree that the person's guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Personally, I don't like the idea of execution on "beyond a reasonable doubt." Find a way to ensure total certainty, or don't do it. The death penalty is not reversable.

"2. It's not a deterrant. Nobody commits a crime when they think they're going to get caught."

Or...... they don't care if they're caught. Please, someone tell me of a case where a person moved to Wisconsin, or one of our 13 states that no longer have cap pun, where a person moved there solely to murder because they wanted to avoid the death penalty? Cap pun is revenge, Old Testament Retribution, call it what you want, but it is in no way deterrence.

"4. It's more expensive than just keeping someone in jail. To really be certain (and even then you can't be certain), we have to allow the appeals process, and death penalty appeals are very pricey. Lock em up and throw away the key.

The counter to this is that we should do away with appeals. Just think of the murder rate of the gov then....

I like how you think

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Juries, however, don't convict on absolute, complete certainty. They convict when they can agree that the person's guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Personally, I don't like the idea of execution on "beyond a reasonable doubt." Find a way to ensure total certainty, or don't do it. The death penalty is not reversable.

Funny. A very good friend and I had this discussion last night. I told him about a child sexual abuse trial that I testified at. The ONLY thing that convicted this man was my testimony, which was basically my recollection of what a child said and did during psychotherapy over a 3-4 week period of time. There were NO other witnesses besides me. While I thought the man was guilty, I was appalled that after just a couple hours of deliberation, this man was found guilty and later sentenced to 10 years in prison.

He was found guilty on much, much less than "beyond reasonable doubt." He was found guilty due to the people of this small town's emotional connection with the victim and on the public defender's incompetence.

I have no philosophical problem with the death penalty. Remember R Gene Simmons??? One of the people he killed on Christmas day 18 or 19 years ago was a very close friend of mine. I'm glad RG Simmons died. I do have a problem with how easily some people are convicted of crimes. Until that is somehow rectified, I can't support the death penalty.

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Texans,

Frances Newton is scheduled to be put to death today. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has asked Governor Perry for a stay of execution for 120 days. However, he has the option to disregard their request and proceed with the execution. I don't know if she is innocent or not, but I think it is worth further investigation.

You can read more about this and email Governor Perry at:

http://www.texasmoratorium.org/

If there is new evidence, then I'm all for the stay.

What chaps my ass is the appeal after appeal after appeal, when there is no new evidence or no changes in evidence.... (the above does not include the automatic appeal in death penalty cases)

in reply to a post above, about the death penalty being no deterrent:

1. Rehabilitation through reincarnation

2. It damn sure cuts way down on the recidivism rates...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

According to Bush, Texas does NOT execute innocent people. If the jury said they are guilty then they are guilty.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Falko 0]

Quote

1. Rehabilitation through reincarnation
2. It damn sure cuts way down on the recidivism rates...

Tasteless.
I am also guilty of not always being the politically-correct type, but this comment is not very funny.

You seem to be having morbid fun with the thought that a human (guilty of a horrific crime, but still human after all) is being put to death.

Or is it just that eye-for-an-eye tastes so sweet for some people?

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Tasteless.
I am also guilty of not always being the politically-correct type, but this comment is not very funny.

You seem to be having morbid fun with the thought that a human (guilty of a horrific crime, but still human after all) is being put to death.

Or is it just that eye-for-an-eye tastes so sweet for some people?

No, it's the fact that I feel that a murderer has forfeited their right to live, except at the pleasure of the state.

Do you feel satisfaction that a person that has murdered their spouse and children in cold blood is still alive?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

As the topic been raised can I put in a quick plea to you, as a Nation, to petition for better provision for good quality legal representation for death row inmates.

Please.

The UK sends lawyers over to the US in the same way that the US sends aid workers to a third world nation. Think about that for a moment – the world’s legal community sees your country’s death row legal representation in the same way as you look at starving kids in Africa.

I have friends who have gone over at their own expense to help with the representation of American convicts. There is a whole community of lawyers over here committed to charitably giving their help to what is seen by the international community as a system that deprives those most in need of legal advice.

Everyone disserves competent legal representation – especially when faced with charges that would result in their life being ended. If you want to be certain of these convictions and of the eventual execution of these people you MUST give them competent lawyers. Sadly appropriate representation is far from common... what there is relies on the support of international aid!

Back to your thread.

[Falko 0]

> No, it's the fact that I feel that a murderer has forfeited their right to live,
Believe it or not, I'm with you there. I have nothing but negative feelings towards a murderer. But it doesn't matter what I or you think, what matters is whether we grant the state the right to take a life.

> except at the pleasure of the state.
What do you mean by that?

Quote

Do you feel satisfaction that a person that has murdered their spouse and children in cold blood is still alive?

Nice try, but wrong question.
My "satisfaction" regarding a murderer being alive or not doesn't matter here.
Where I DO feel satisfaction is that I live in a country that recognizes the right to life as being inviolable. The justice system has no authority about a persons life, and rightfully so.

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)