Evolution in Texas -- On the Death Penalty

There are many Americans who do not believe in evolution. And it is probably fair to say that a disproportionate number of them reside in Texas.

But it is from Texas that we gain confirmation of the absolute certainty that human evolution is a reality.

When George Bush was governor of Texas in the 1990s, he approved executions with impunity, sending to death those who might have been innocent and those who might have been guilty, those who had repented and those who had not, those who had adequate representation and those whose lawyers slept through the trials, those who had the mental capacity to understand their crimes, those whose mental state would have barred even a trial in more civilized jurisdictions.

In all, Bush signed more 150 execution orders as governor, a record for the state and nation. The world press recognized him as the "Texecutioner" or, in the slightly less volatile phrasing of London's Independent newspaper: "a death penalty enthusiast."

As president, Bush has continued his energetic advocacy for state-sponsored slaying. Only this month, it was reported that Bush and his soon-to-be-former Attorney General had developed a plan to speed up the executions of Americans lingering on the nation's death rows. The plan, which will be one of the last initiatives of Alberto Gonzales, is to make it easier for executions to be "fast-tracked" by states that want to avoid long appeals processes in the federal courts.

The Bush-Gonzales plan is to borrow a page from recent anti-terrorism legislation -- which strip away habeas corpus protections and other legal guarantees -- in order to allow states to rely on the Justice Department, rather than the federal courts, to decide whether death-row inmates received adequate representation at trial.

That would eliminate one of the primary avenues of appeal from convictions in states such as Texas, which have a history of providing inadequate representation for poor and minority defendants.

Bush and Gonzales, who have worked together since the president's days in Texas to make the killing machines of the states run more smoothly, also want to reduce the amount of time that death-row inmates have to file federal appeals and to pursue them.

So what's this about evolution? Clearly, Bush has not grown as a human being or as a public official with the power to decide who lives and dies.

But Bush is no longer the governor of Texas. Conservative Republican Rick Perry has the job. And on Wednesday, Perry commuted the sentence of Texas death row inmate Kenneth Foster's sentence to life. The decision came just hours before an innocent man was to be killed by the state -- a prospect that would not, in all likelihood, have concerned George Bush or Alberto Gonzales but that did concern Rick Perry.

Foster and his lawyers had long contended that, while he was in a car that was involved in a 1996 armed robbery spree that ended in the murder of a 25-year-old San Antonio man, he killed no one and had no knowledge or intention that a murder should occur. Indeed, Foster was at least eighty feet from where the killing took place.

All of this should have been sorted out at his trial. But Foster's trial was a travesty at which his attorney was not given a chance to cross-examine the defendants partners, who both received life sentences. Even if Foster's trial had been by a legitimate one, however, he might not have escaped the draconian implications of a Texas law that permits the casual execution of any and all participants in crime sprees that turn deadly.

The murderous mess that is Texas jurisprudence was dramatically illustrated by the Foster case. Thanks to the tremendous work of the Save Kenneth Foster Campaign, the world was made aware of the fact that Texas was preparing to perpetrate one of the most wrongful executions in the state's long history of wrongful executions. Even death-penalty proponents began to object.

Last Sunday, the conservative Dallas Morning News editorialized last:

Kenneth Foster was a robber. He was a drug user. He was a teenager making very bad decisions.

He is not an innocent man.

But Mr. Foster is not a killer.

Still, the State of Texas plans to put him to death Thursday.

Joining calls religious and political leaders around the world for a commutation of Foster's sentence, the Morning News ended its editorial by declaring, "Mr. Foster is a criminal. But he should not be put to death for a murder committed by someone else."

"Governor Perry once said that there was no hue and cry against the death penalty in Texas," said Lily Hughes of the national Campaign to End the Death Penalty. "Well, here was your hue and cry."

On the eve of the scheduled execution, Perry announced that, "After carefully considering the facts of this case, along with the recommendations from the Board of Pardons and Paroles, I believe the right and just decision is to commute Foster's sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment. I am concerned about Texas law that allows capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously, and it is an issue I think the legislature should examine."

That is not a message that would have been issued by Governor George Bush -- particularly the part proposing legislative intervention to correct an injustice.

This small measure of evolution, occurring in the unlikely state of Texas, has saved the life of a man who should never have been charged with a capital crime.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (47)

1. Well, good news there, Mr Nichols, but two things--

   1. You note "Mr Foster is not an innocent man"...then end your piece with "This small measure of evolution, occurring in the unlikely state of Texas, has saved the life of an innocent man." Innocent of murder, but not "innocent". Try to be clearer in your writing.

   2. I think you're reading WAY too much into this. Polls still show majority support for the death penalty. The fact that a sentence has been commuted in what is obviously an OVER-BLOWN "guilt by association" law...is hardly "evolution" on the issue (whatever defintion you want to give to "evolution").

   Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 2:53pm

2. "This small measure of evolution, occurring in the unlikely state of Texas, has saved the life of an innocent man."

   (More like saved the life of a man who while not an innocent man, did not pull the trigger.)

   Posted by drhammer at 08/30/2007 @ 2:54pm

3. NICHOLS: The decision came just hours before an innocent man was to be killed by the state.....

   Who says NICHOLS is NOT a hack?

   Would NICHOLS explain to us why this "innocent" man now HAS to serve a LIFE SENTENCE?

   Posted by Happy at 08/30/2007 @ 2:58pm

4. I love the above posts.......maybe you should try commenting on the article, as opposed to correcting the grammar of the reporter.

   Posted by jpolston at 08/30/2007 @ 3:01pm

5. Any policy step in the opposite direction of Bush is evolutionary. What seems alarming, to me at least, is not the issue of the death penalty, but Bush and Al's eagerness to expedite these cases through so as to kill as many off as quickly as possible. How many other cases such as Foster's are based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence? It really begs the question. That the majority of the recipients of these expedited scheduled deaths are minorities really points to covert genocide.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/30/2007 @ 3:03pm

6. "2. I think you're reading WAY too much into this."

   Posted by MASK 08/30/2007 @ 2:53pm

   I agree. This is the same type of relative semantic used in "raised taxes/lowered taxes" arguments, or claims by the administration that the percentage of people living in poverty is down this year, after rising precipitously for the six years prior.

   It is a positive step, but still a small amount of progress after many years of regression.

   Posted by drhammer at 08/30/2007 @ 3:07pm

7. After reading the article my take is that Nichols thinks even Texas is capable of evolution regarding their archaic death penalty stand. Any comments about that, rather than picking apart some misplaced words. Furthermore, the author brings up the important point that Gonzo and GWB are attempting to streamline the process of putting to death those on DR........anyone care to comment on how this will undoubtedly lead to more innocent Americans dying, and how this disproportionately affects those of lower socio-economic status.

   Posted by jpolston at 08/30/2007 @ 3:07pm

8. Posted by MATTMAN 08/30/2007 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

   You hit the nail on the head there. Thanks for attempting to put the topic back on thread.

   Posted by jpolston at 08/30/2007 @ 3:09pm

9. Only in America can commuting the sentence of an innocent man condemned to death by the state, to life without parole -- and for a crime he did not even commit, be considered a good thing. If I had been in Perry's position, knowing the facts of the case, I'd have granted Foster a full pardon and worked to get the conviction expunged from his record. Foster was nowhere near the scene of the crime, had no idea that a passenger in his car would commit murder after leaving it, appears to have had absolutely no connection to the slaying. Yet the state of Texas decided he was even more guilty of murder than the killer! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Perry showed some mercy and spared the life of an innocent man. But he can and should do much more than that.

   Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 08/30/2007 @ 3:15pm

10. I am absolutely shocked about this. I guess Perry thought this would boost his terrible approval ratings.

    Whether or not it was a political stunt, I am so happy to see Foster spared. It would have been a major mistake and an embarassement.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/30/2007 @ 3:20pm

11. Posted by MATTMAN 08/30/2007 @ 3:03pm

    The problem is....there is one "nail in the coffin" (or atleast "door-stop" if you prefer) that those who oppose the death penalty have YET to find....that of a PROVABLE case of an innocent put to death.

    Though horrific to contemplate, it WOULD easily push a nation-wide moratorium. But it's never been found and proven. Even Foster was "technically guilty" of the "guilt by association" law.

    But until that "Andy Dufresne" case is found...reforms and trimming at the edges will happen, but there won't be a blunt to a public that still overwhelmingly supports capital punishment.

    Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 3:29pm

12. Posted by DRHAMMER 08/30/2007 @ 3:07pm

    Like Ms vanden Heuvel's "Sweet Victories", I suppose Mr Nichols needs to get them where he can!

    Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 3:30pm

13. well, i've posted this here before but it's so shocking that here goes again:

    Most Executions carried out in 2006

    1. China (at least 1,010 but sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000)

    2. Iran (177)

    3. Pakistan (82)

    4. Iraq (at least 65)

    5. Sudan (at least 65)

    6. United States (53)

    sounds like "an axis of acrimony" to me

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2007 @ 3:32pm

14. There have been a tremendous number of cases in Texas (over 200)that were felony convictions (some of them for murder) that have been overturned due to examination of DNA evidence, that have proved that the person convicted COULD NOT have killed the victim or perpetrated the crime. If I recall correctly, there were in the neighborhood of 140 were in one county.

    Posted by brantl at 08/30/2007 @ 3:39pm

15. Posted by MASK 08/30/2007 @ 3:29pm

    close call [newsobserver.com]

    "Since 1973, 123 people on death row across the country have been cleared of the crimes they were convicted of, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Five of those have been in North Carolina."

    i suppose we don't hear about cases of people being cleared after their execution because THEIR DEAD. case closed. can't waste taxpayers money investigating a dead man's innocence.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2007 @ 3:39pm

16. So, I'm essentially saying that your case has already happened, MASK.

    Posted by brantl at 08/30/2007 @ 3:39pm

17. Would NICHOLS explain to us why this "innocent" man now HAS to serve a LIFE SENTENCE?

    Posted by HAPPY 08/30/2007 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person

    He was innocent of murder. Not too hard to figure out, Happy.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/30/2007 @ 3:47pm

18. LL No, only Foster's statement that he didn't know the other guy was going to kill his victim. That may or may not be true, but no evidence has been provided to substantiate that fact. What we do know is that he was a criminal, engaged in repeated criminal activity.

    You have it backwards LL. It's up to the state to prove that Foster had the requisite homicidal intent before executing him.

    The steps instituted by Bush and Gonzales only apply to Federal Prisoners. It has nothing to do with death penalty cases in the individual states. That would be an unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment. It also does not eliminate state and federal courts appeals.

    You are just flat-out wrong on that point. The issue is the federal appeals process as it applies to state and federal prisoners. As the LATimes pointed out [tinyurl.com] "The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.

    Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court."

    Posted by brunowe at 08/30/2007 @ 3:49pm

19. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/30/2007 @ 3:39pm

    Posted by BRANTL 08/30/2007 @ 3:39pm

    Guys, you're missing my point...probably because it's kind of grotesque to contemplate, but politically a atomic bomb for the anti-capital punishment guys.

    Good or ill, it's not the "near-misses" that matter. All that does is tell people "See, they figure it out EVENTUALLY, and nobody innocent gets executed."

    What you need is...an actual Honest-to-Gosh case of somebody wrongly executed. Not just "wrongly executed for a wrong murder, but he was still a murderer", but an actual "He didn't do it and they killed him" case.

    FROSTY, you might be right...they drop the investigations after the executions....but that means the advocates are dropping the ball and essentially hoping for a fumble (American football analogy...heheh) from the opposing team.

    Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 4:07pm

20. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/30/2007 @ 4:04pm

    THIS...is why Mr Nichols' grammer matters, guys. By calling Foster "innocent" and not the more accurate "innocent of this murder"...he opens the door to RIO saying he's "calling a thief 'innocent'", etc.

    Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 4:09pm

21. On the eve of the scheduled execution, Governor Perry announced that, "After carefully considering the facts of this case, along with the recommendations from the Board of Pardons and Paroles, I believe the right and just decision is to commute Foster's sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment. I am concerned about Texas law that allows capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously, and it is an issue I think the legislature should examine."

    That is not a message that would have been issued by Governor George Bush --

    hell, its a message chimpy would have been incapable of writing himself, much less saying any more comprehensibly than miss teen south carolina...wonder if chimpy had an affair with the girl's mom 18 years ago...she reminded me of him.

    regardless, this seems to suggest that not every "conservative republican" is a callous know nothing mushmouth.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/30/2007 @ 4:25pm

22. He was innocent of murder. Not too hard to figure out, Happy.

    Posted by BLUESPARK 08/30/2007 @ 3:47pm

    He MAYBE innocent of the LaHood murder under the Texas `party to' law....furthermore, Gov. Perry cited an entirely different rationale to commute Foster's death sentence in order to revisit the issue of the "Texas law that allows capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously...."

    It's clear some of you did NOT read PETER ROTHBERG's commentary on this case where us bloggers did the research to unearth the FACT that Foster and 3 fellow criminals, committed a string of armed robberies that night before the murder was committed by one (of the 4) Foster had been hanging out and driving around with!

    My smack of NICHOLS was for not citing the FACT of the several armed robberies that preceded the murder he was convicted for being a "party to" under Texas law!!!!!

    Just to fill in the gap: The actual trigger guy, M. Brown, has already been executed and the other two, like Foster now, are serving Life Sentences! Another key FACT, Foster, on his own, had been guilty of two prior attempted murders where both parties survived! Foster is not "innocent" of wrongdoing for that night's activities! This "innocent" man has been involved in harming/killing 3 men!

    Posted by Happy at 08/30/2007 @ 4:30pm

23. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/30/2007 @ 4:38pm

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/30/2007 @ 4:39pm

    Hey, I like seeing my name as the first `spoken' comment :))))

    Posted by Happy at 08/30/2007 @ 5:25pm

24. Goodie, goodie for Governor "Good Hair" Perry. Mean while, the state of TX did execute a man (the 23rd this year) that was identified by a witness "only after reapeated interviews and a hynosis session with investigators" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, page 5B, 08/30/2007).

    It's strange to see the resident fundamentalist hicks lament the undoing of an execution. Let your "god" take care of taking lives.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/30/2007 @ 5:28pm

25. MTSPENCE05:

    God commands them to value human life only until it leaves a woman's uterus. Then all bets are off. Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/30/2007 @ 5:52pm

26. i think the important part of Perry's decision is his tacit admission that the law in Texas which allows criminal defendants to be tried together is fundamentally unfair insofar as it leads to an incredible risk of prejudice. Anyone should be able to figure out (RIO, this means you now) that someone convicted and sentenced to death or a loss of liberty under a procedurally flawed method should receive a new, unbiased trial. Foster is not innocent and he needs to serve whatever time he got for the robberies in which he was involved. But I am revolted by the fact that some of the psuedo-Christians on this track cannot figure out what the fair, right and proper thing to do is. WWJD? Use your heads and your hearts.

    Posted by The Goods at 08/30/2007 @ 6:06pm

27. Comment after comment about Nichols calling him an innocent man. No he was no an innocent man in the truest sense. But he is innocent of the crime he was convicted and sentenced to death for. Maybe you're all looking way too far into the meaning of the word "innocent."

    Posted by BlindOasis at 08/30/2007 @ 7:17pm

28. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/30/2007 @ 3:59pm

    (Sumbitch can't do everything wrong...)

    Posted by drhammer at 08/30/2007 @ 7:45pm

29. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/30/2007 @ 4:29pm

    If YOU read what I posted, RIO, you'd see I was actually defending you (sort of).

    Mr Nichols was sloppy in his writing, by declaring Foster "innocent" and not "innocent of the murder" or "unjustly prosecuted under a bizarre 'party to murder' law" he opened the door for your criticism that he was letting a thief who hung out with murderers be called an "innocent".

    S'why I noted that in my first post. By taking the EXTREME rhetoric in defending Foster, Mr Nichols actually worsens his case for him.

    Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 7:53pm

30. "Only in America can commuting the sentence of an innocent man condemned to death by the state, to life without parole -- and for a crime he did not even commit, be considered a good thing. If I had been in Perry's position, knowing the facts of the case, I'd have granted Foster a full pardon and worked to get the conviction expunged from his record. Foster was nowhere near the scene of the crime, had no idea that a passenger in his car would commit murder after leaving it, appears to have had absolutely no connection to the slaying. Yet the state of Texas decided he was even more guilty of murder than the killer! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Perry showed some mercy and spared the life of an innocent man. But he can and should do much more than that."

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 08/30/2007 @ 3:15pm

    Apparently, you didn't read the whole story. Kenneth Foster and company where high on drugs and on a robbery spree. (Something Peter R. didn't mentioned when he first wrote the article.)

    You don't give pardons to people who rob others at gunpoint.

    Posted by ACook at 08/30/2007 @ 8:25pm

31. "You don't give pardons to people who rob others at gunpoint."

    If you think one should receive a death sentence for robbery, then say it. Don't be a coward. Cowards are the worst people in this world.

    Instead of being wishy-washy, man-up and say what you think.

    In the meantime pick up a history book and read it (although, similar to a child you probably find books boring). History is filled with dictators who killed their citizens for lesser and lesser crimes. It's called a police state.

    Get educated before you speak. Remember, knowledge is power. And right now, your a sickly, weak fool.

    Posted by Kepler at 08/30/2007 @ 9:25pm

32. "You don't give pardons to people who rob others at gunpoint."

    If you think one should receive a death sentence for robbery, then say it. Don't be a coward. Cowards are the worst people in this world."

    Excuse me, but you're way off base. I was commenting on Archangel's misconception that Kenneth Foster should receive a full pardon based on his reading Mr. Nichols' biased writing.

    "Instead of being wishy-washy, man-up and say what you think."

    I'm a woman and I do support the death penalty for the most henious crimes committed against society.

    "In the meantime pick up a history book and read it (although, similar to a child you probably find books boring). History is filled with dictators who killed their citizens for lesser and lesser crimes. It's called a police state."

    That's interesting you say that...considering, you didn't read Peter Rothburg's thread either.

    "Get educated before you speak. Remember, knowledge is power. And right now, your a sickly, weak fool."

    Kinda tough on yourself, aren't you? Perhaps a little red hat with a spinning propellor will help keep you calm.

    Posted by KEPLER 08/30/2007 @ 9:25pm

    Posted by ACook at 08/30/2007 @ 10:10pm

33. So Nichols suddenly has decided Foster is an innocent man, on what basis? Was any exculpatory evidence provided to substantiate this fact? No, only Foster's statement that he didn't know the other guy was going to kill his victim.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/30/2007 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person

    Typical LeaveLiberty BS!!! Mouthing off pure venom before ascertaining even remotely factual.

    Foster was convicted for the 1996 murder of Michael LaHood Jr., who was shot following a string of robberies, by a man named Mauriceo Brown. Brown admitted to the shooting and was executed by lethal injection last year.

    Brown admitted to pulling the trigger, and testified that he didn't intend to shoot the victim and that the others also had no idea what was about to happen. The third person in the group, Julius Stern, also testified that it was Brown who pulled the trigger and that none of them had any idea was about to happen.

    And the victim's girfriend, who was also in the car, testified that the shooter was Brown and NOT Foster.

    IN reality, there is not one shred of evidence that points to Foster as the shooter or as having any more involvement in the murder other than being the driver before and after LaHood was killed. Foster had no knowledge of any intentions of Brown to shoot LaHood.

    And a mountain of evidence that Foster didn't pull the trigger and didn't know what was going to happen...a mountain far, far and above LeaveLiberty's claim that there was only Foster's statement!

    Posted by Lillian at 08/30/2007 @ 10:33pm

34. So if Brown admitted pulling the trigger, and all of the witnesses agree, AND Brown was found guilty of pulling the trigger and executed for it...

    ...why did it take a last minute action by the governor of Texas to keep Foster from being executed for this crime?

    I agree with ARCHANGEL_M...but with a slightly different wording...

    Only in an America that has suffered under 6 years of Bushco, is NOT executing man who is clearly innocent of the crime for which he was tried, considered 'progress'.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/30/2007 @ 10:39pm

35. The problem is....there is one "nail in the coffin" (or atleast "door-stop" if you prefer) that those who oppose the death penalty have YET to find....that of a PROVABLE case of an innocent put to death.

    Posted by MASK 08/30/2007 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person

    http://cedpaustin.blogspot.com/2006/06/texas-killed-innocent-man.html

    Members of the Austin chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, a national organization whose aim is the abolition of the death penalty, are horrified and saddened by the recent conclusion of a panel of prominent fire experts convened by Barry Scheck of The Innocence Project that a 1991 house fire in Corsicana, Texas could not have been intentionally set.

    A Texas jury at the time found based on mistaken testimony of officials who had investigated the scene that the fire was indeed arson. It convicted Cameron Todd Willingham, owner of the home and father of the three children that died in the fire, of capital murder. He received the death sentence for these crimes. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Willingham adamantly maintained his innocence, yet the highest judges in the state of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his wrongful conviction and death sentence. This ordeal culminated in Willingham's execution in 2004.

    The Texas Pardon and Parole Board and Governor Rick Perry received a report written by another arson expert commissioned by Willingham's defense team detailing the exact same conclusion, that the fire could not have been intentional and therefore Willingham was innocent, in the days leading up to Willingham's execution. The majority of the Pardon and Parole Board and Governor Perry rejected the findings of this report and allowed Willingham's execution to proceed. Only now, two years after the execution when proper reparations are not possible are state officials recognizing that this execution was in error.

    The panel's findings mean one thing: Texas executed an innocent man.

    Also...

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238

    Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989 Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993 Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995 Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997 David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997 Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998 Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000 Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004

    Also Noted: Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy."

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/

    http://www.ocadp.org/news/stories/williamson.html

    http://www.cacp.org/

    Posted by Lillian at 08/30/2007 @ 10:54pm

36. RIO BRAVO,

    I personally am opposed to the death penalty. But two questions have not been asked and/or answered:

    1. Did Foster know his co-defendant had a gun (which should be a yes because they commited four robberies enroute to the fateful murder.

    2. Did Foster know his the future killer was getting out the car on that fateful night with his firearm? Most likely a yes to that question as well.

    Assuming the answer to both questions is yes, you would have to be a pretty big fool to allow someone to get into a car you are driving with a gun, allow them to get out, do who knows what, and then allow them to get back into the car with you and drive off. If he had been executed, then he would have had no one to blame but himself for that. As for my stand on the death penalty, it is gratifying that the death sentence in this case has been lifted.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 11:44pm

37. Yawn. Another self-aggrandizing column by the Nation's worse columnist EVER.

    Posted by nationwatch at 08/31/2007 @ 12:46am

38. Posted by LILLIAN 08/30/2007 @ 10:54pm

    Then THAT's it, LILLIAN.

    Get Cameron Willingham's face and story out there...every time, all the time. Show the evidence, get the anti-capital punishment folks on the various talks shows and TALK IT UP.

    Tell America "Texas executed an innocent man!!!!"

    But we don't hear that now....why? THAT would be the clincher, if proven, it would slam those who favor capital punishment in the face and get a moratorium nation-wide AT THE LEAST, if not some permanent moratoriums.

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 09:38am

39. But we don't hear that now....why?

    Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 09:38am | ignore this person

    Because it wouldn't be "the clincher" that you are pretending it would be.

    For people who support the death penalty, it really doesn't matter that you can show them case after case of innocent people on death row being proven innocent and released because new evidence or better technology comes along to exhonert them. And it really doesn't matter to them whether that new technology or evidence comes before or after the person convicted has been put to death.

    Go back and re-read the posts from LeaveLiberty and Happy and Acook(and I assume Rio)...they are 'Happy' to defend this death sentence and would celebrate the govenrment carrying it out...

    ...and afterwords would have no problem whatsoever rationalizing it as a 'good thing' whether he was later 'proven' innocent or not.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/31/2007 @ 4:06pm

40. exhonert

    exonerate

    Posted by Lillian at 08/31/2007 @ 4:07pm

41. Posted by LILLIAN 08/31/2007 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person

    But then you already knew that Mask.

    Your 'point', claiming that showing one such case "...WOULD easily push a nation-wide moratorium" on the death penalty was a...

    ...what are we calling them now?...oh yes...

    ...a "straw dildo'.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/31/2007 @ 4:15pm

42. I think the proposal is very good.

    The procedures would cut to six months, instead of a year, the time that death row inmates have to file federal appeals once their cases have been resolved in the state courts.

    It would also impose strict guidelines on federal judges for deciding such inmates' petitions. Federal district judges would have 450 days, appeals courts 120 days. Proponents say that would prevent foot-dragging by liberal judges.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/30/2007 @ 10:09pm

    We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

    Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

    Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

    sir liberty:

    you seem to advocate killing far more than forgiveness.

    i know you'll be able to find all sorts of biblical arguments (i assume your a christian clergyman) to back up some of your assertions and i am ill-equiped for a "bible-off" with thee as i am not a christian. it just strikes me as odd that one who professes the teachings of jesus (pbuh) would take such violent positions.

    BTW the bible does seem to advocate the death penalty:

    DEATH PENALTY » For murder (Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:16-21,30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6)

    DEATH PENALTY » For adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:24)

    DEATH PENALTY » For incest (Leviticus 20:11,12,14)

    DEATH PENALTY » For bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15,16)

    DEATH PENALTY » For sodomy (Leviticus 18:22;20:13)

    DEATH PENALTY » For sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)

    DEATH PENALTY » For the rape of a betrothed (engaged) virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25)

    DEATH PENALTY » For perjury (Zechariah 5:4)

    DEATH PENALTY » For kidnapping (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7)

    DEATH PENALTY » For the promiscuousness of a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)

    DEATH PENALTY » For witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)

    DEATH PENALTY » For offering human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)

    DEATH PENALTY » For striking or cursing one's father or mother (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9)

    DEATH PENALTY » For disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

    DEATH PENALTY » For stealing (Zechariah 5:3,4)

    DEATH PENALTY » For blasphemy (Leviticus 24:11-14,16,23)

    DEATH PENALTY » For desecrating the Sabbath day (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36)

    DEATH PENALTY » For prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines (Deuteronomy 13:1-10)

    DEATH PENALTY » For sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)

    DEATH PENALTY » For refusing to abide by the decision of the court (Deuteronomy 17:12)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 12:09am

43. For perjury -- there goes gonzales

    For kidnapping -- there goes the CENTRAL RENDITION AGENCY

    For the promiscuousness of a priest's daughter -- bye bye jenna and the other one

    For sodomy -- look out senators

    For sexual immorality -- see above

    For witchcraft -- adios mr. cheney

    For offering human sacrifice -- this one's for mr. bush -- 650,000 of them

    For stealing -- too numerous to mention

    For prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines -- shalom, shalom mr kristol

    For refusing to abide by the decision of the court -- too numerous to mention

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 12:24am

44. First, let me say I believe we need the death penalty. Murderers and their accomplices have to go.

    However, had Nichols been killed rather than the innocent person who actually was murdered, I would support a commutation of his sentence.

    Further, how about all those who are against the death penalty registering ahead of time, and if they or their family members are murdered, the murderer automatically gets life instead of death. Maybe these folks could be part of a public list or carry ID cards, so the murderers would be able to determine if they robbed and killed them they would not be eligible for the death penalty. Further, the victim's estate could be billed for the costs to support the murderer in prison, and fund their ongoing appeals, for an even lesser sentence. They could even pay for art classes or buy them a flat screen TV if they wanted.

    For the rest of us, put out the trash.

    -Sun

    Posted by suntzu at 09/03/2007 @ 5:57pm

45. Posted by SUNTZU 09/03/2007 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person

    Those who would commit murder are vile, sub-human, animals. Now, you've merrily lowered yourself to exactly their level.

    Congratulations. You must be so proud.

    Posted by Lillian at 09/04/2007 @ 01:31am

46. The moron above unwittingly shows us all the REALITY behind the death penalty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'justice'. It's all about blind, bloodthirsty, vengeance.

    You know those radical religious nuts in the middle east who cut off people's heads while shouting 'God is Great'...

    ...we now have at The Nation, the posting of a home-grown variety. Take a good look. Grade A wing-nut.

    I used to think that, if we're going to have a death penalty, it should be done in public, live, maybe on prime-time TV. Let regular-Joe citizen see what is REALLY being done in the name of American 'justice'.

    Except this guy shows us that we have our own group of perverted whack jobs who would be driven absolutely giddy by observing that kind of blood-lust.

    Sick.

    Posted by Lillian at 09/04/2007 @ 01:44am

47. I used to think that, if we're going to have a death penalty, it should be done in public, live, maybe on prime-time TV. Let regular-Joe citizen see what is REALLY being done in the name of American 'justice'.

    Except this guy shows us that we have our own group of perverted whack jobs who would be driven absolutely giddy by observing that kind of blood-lust.

    Sick.

    Posted by LILLIAN 09/04/2007 @ 01:44am

    please don't send your idea to fox. please don't.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 08:21am