TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:I believe that in many death penalty statutes, that once guilt is determined, aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be or must be considered when deciding on death as a penalty.

I think all death-penalty procedures are like that.

After a finding of guilt in a capital case, the jury then has to find for or against the death penalty is a separate hearing. (That reduces the possibility of a juror finding not guilty or causing a deadlock in the first part of the trial because of being queasy about the death penalty.)

The penalty hearings often go on for days. They have the criminal's relatives talking about how basically good he is, his mother dropped him on his head while she was smoking crack, etc.

Then they have victim impact statements.

However, the problem with all this is that one or more innocent victims is already dead.

We don't have an effective "three strikes" law in Texas. If a third violent felony conviction resulted in life in prison or the maximum 99 year sentence, the streets would be much more peaceful.

Also the prisons would be full to the rafters and cost a lot more money to operate, which is why criminals with multiple convictions get out quickly.

- Jim

Another thing to think about in the cost-benefit debate: Few murderers are first-time criminal offenders. Granted, there are a few nutcases, jealous lovers, parents who kill their children, and that sort of thing.

Most people who are convicted of capital murder (death-penalty or not) have already been convicted of other violent felonies such as robbery, aggravated assault, and rape. Many have also been convicted of numerous drug and weapon offenses. Many are on parole when they commit their latest crime.

All violent felonies carry maximum prison terms between 10 and 99 years in Texas. If these people had been locked up for anything like a just and reasonable sentence, their later victims would have been spared, and many would have gotten out at an age where most offenders clean up their act.

I don't know about this particular case, but I would be surprised if the "suspect" was not a previously convicted felon.

- Jim

If you want to call life in prison without parole "getting away with it," I won't argue with you.

I'm not saying at all that the offender deserves a break. If the facts reported in this case are correct, he entered a bank to rob it. When he saw that there was an armed guard, all he had to do was leave and go to a bank that didn't have an armed guard (which most don't).

Instead he killed a man who was just doing his job, and then compounded his crime by terrorizing and endangering the lives of other innocent people. If he had gotten his hands on a vehicle, he may well have killed and injured others.

Morally, he deserves to roast on a spit and be fed to dogs.

The legal protections of due process are in place to protect the innocent.

Most of these decisions were made by the Texas legislature and elected judges. Granted, many decisions came from appointed federal judges upholding the U.S. Constitution or federal civil rights laws.

Like nearly every problem that is laid at the feet of government, the voters have the solution in their hands twice a year (or more often sometimes).

- Jim

jocat54 wrote:So does all this add up to more than "housing" him for 30 years?

Maybe or maybe not. The guy could get shanked and die his first week in prison, or he could live to 100 with expensive health problems.

It's human nature and especially the tendency of bureaucracies—which county governments are—to solve a problem quickly and cheaply now, even if it will cost more in the long run.

Plea bargains are cheap. Felony jury trials cost more. Death-penalty trials cost the county a lot more.

Once the prisoner is convicted, whether by plea bargain or a guilty verdict, he goes to TDCJ and becomes the state's problem (unless he later gets a mistrial or something).

- Jim

Death-penalty trials are more expensive than non-death capital murder trials for several reasons:

• If the defendant is indigent, which they nearly always are, the county has to pay for public defenders that are qualified to defend death-penalty cases.
• Death penalty cases are more complicated and take longer.
• Often they require expert witnesses.
• They are automatically appealed, which the county has to pay for.
• They can be appealed time and again by pro-bono groups like The Innocence Project or a prisoner who becomes an amateur lawyer in prison, with the state paying for its side of appeals (I think it goes on the state's budget at that point).

Counties have limited budgets (though Dallas no doubt has a huge one). If they pull out all the stops for a few capital murder cases, they end up giving easy plea bargains or even losing other prosecutions because they can't take them all to trial.

I don't make the rules, so I'm asking in advance please don't get mad at me.

- Jim

Capital murder, no death penalty, life in prison without parole.

Killing a security guard during a robbery was bad enough, but the the subsequent armed robbery at a church is going to have the prosecutors salivating like starving pit bulls.

Death penalty prosecution is too expensive and iffy with jury trials.

- Jim