It was bank robbery, now Capital Murder!

[AEA]

The security guard would have been justified using deadly force to prevent a robbery. Correct?

Yes.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Convicted, one-appeal and then end-of-life in 30 days. What is should cost more than life in prison.

Not that I really disagree, but I think the appeals should be different. Not on mistakes in legal procedures but strictly on guilt or innocence grounds.

I believe the death penalty is appropriate in several instances but I want to be absolutely sure of guilt.

AS currently done, Life without parole is cheaper for the legal system and the corrections department than the death penalty.

That may change.

[seamusTX]

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

[ELB]

Another thing to think about in the cost-benefit debate: Few murderers are first-time criminal offenders...

- Jim

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. Previous convictions, particularly violent ones, certainly count as aggravating circumstances. Some statutes require the jury to find that the convicted murderer presents a continuing threat to society, and a string of previous violent convictions goes a long way towards meeting that standard. I would guess that most prosecutors would not pursue a death penalty case based on "just" a murder, unless it was particularly barbaric or involved a police officer/public official or child.

I just looked at this month's (August) scheduled executions across the US at prodeathpenalty.com. Most mention previous crimes by the convicted, including previous murders/manslaughter. One was by a man serving life for a previous murder -- he and another prisoner killed a third prisoner.

Looks like all but one of the executions scheduled were stayed, and one is still marked "pending."

[jocat54]

I guess we have become a soft society, wouldn't want to violate a criminals civil rights.(they need to have their air conditioning, TV, ect.) It's probably a good thing I'm not in charge, I have zero tolerence for criminals. If they are guilty without a DOUBT (several witnesses-TV videoed them, I saw them, ect) they wouldn't even get a chance for some court to find a loophole, it would be straight to sentencing and I don't really care why they did it, insanity pleas are absolutely STUPID.

[seamusTX]

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