SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jbe who wrote (84811)8/4/2000 9:52:43 AM
From: CharleyMike  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
The point remains: Texas WILL convict on the basis of a single witness. And in a state where capital punishment is so popular, the governor is unlikely to nudge his/her appointees on the Board of Paroles to recommend a stay of execution.

Does this mean that where you live, if a reputable citizen witnesses a felon commit a crime, and there is no other evidence, your state lets them go free?

Please let us know which state this is so we may avoid it.

And as for nudging appointees, if you are going to do their job for them, based on your reaction to the media and a very vocal minority of the citizenry, why would you appoint them in the first place?

Most members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles in Texas would strongly object to undue influence from the Governor and that is as it should be. Their responsibility is to the citizens of Texas directly, not to the Governor.

And the citizens of Texas, for the most part, approve of the Board's policies. Or, they(the citizens) would have their legislators change the rules.



To: jbe who wrote (84811)8/4/2000 10:57:41 AM
From: Daniel Schuh  Respond to of 108807
 
Sounds like "The Thin Blue Line", though I'm sure there are plenty of less publicized cases, where the guy fries. Well oiled machine they got running there in Texas, wouldn't want to let any sand get in the works.

Cheers, Dan, in a manner of speaking.



To: jbe who wrote (84811)8/4/2000 4:30:36 PM
From: haqihana  Respond to of 108807
 
Like I already said, any prisoner on death row, is only entitled to ONE stay of execution by a Governor, and no ensuing Governor, can grant another. The Board of Paroles, can grant a parole, but cannot grant a stay of execution. There have been many cons who may not deserve to die, but you wouldn't want them back on the streets via parole.

I thought you were referring to Graham, because that event was so recent and attracted vultures like Jesse Jackson, Al Sarpton, and Quanell X. These three men didn't give a damn about Graham. They just wanted the "stage" his situation provided for them to be before the cameras.

Personally, I would welcome the option of life without possibility of parole, but would still support the death penalty in certain circumstances, and when the guilt could not be, reasonably, questioned. Until such options are available by constitutional amendment, we have to work with what we have. There have been too many instances where felons have gotten out on technicalities, and killed again, and again. The people of Texas got sick and tired of that happening over, and over. ~H~



To: jbe who wrote (84811)8/4/2000 5:27:03 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Respond to of 108807
 
The sole witness, in this case, was the man who may have actually committed the murder. If you are at all interested, I will find the article tomorrow.

Could that have been the thin blue line? An excellent documentary from the late 80s which publicized the case. David Harris was offered some sort of immunity for his testimony, if I recall.

Adams, a transient, was traveling through Dallas County with his brother and staying at the Comfort Motel, while looking for work.

One day, Nov. 26, he ran out of gas and was walking along when he was picked up by Harris.

One month later, he was arrested, along with Harris. Five months later, Randall Adams was convicted for the murder of Robert Wood and sentenced to death -- all on the basis of testimony by Harris.

movieclub.com