In Texas, a man who didn’t kill anybody is about to be executed for murder
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
> Wood was committed to a mental health hospital after he was found incompetent. A neuropsychologist had testified that Wood was delusional, unable to grasp the issues about his case and the reality facing him...
> The writ of habeas corpus, filed in July, spotlights something else the jury did not know: the troubled history of a forensic psychiatrist whose testimony resulted in Wood’s death sentence.
> James Grigson was no stranger to capital murder cases: By the time Wood went on trial, in 1998, Grigson said he had testified in 163 such cases. Prosecutors often sought his testimony to secure the ultimate punishment for defendants. Often, they were successful, earning Grigson a nickname: “Dr. Death.”
> In 1995, three years before Wood’s trial, Grigson was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and its Texas branch at that time, the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians, for predicting a defendant’s potential threat to society based solely on a hypothetical. The expulsions followed an investigation by the Texas association’s ethics committee, which cited Grigson’s “willfully narrow rendition of psychiatric knowledge.”
I'm aware that "assessment at a distance" is frequently sought, for example, reviewing clinical info in the medical record to determine if services were consistent with billing for reimbursement. This is often a question arising with Medicare and other 3rd party payers. However that's not unethical since it's quite different from providing a diagnosis or determining the qualities of a person's functioning without examining the individual.
I have no idea if the doctor's conduct had come before the state licensing board, but it appears there would be substantial reason to consider that conduct "unprofessional" given the actions of the professional societies declaring the behavior as unethical. Normally such disciplinary action carries consider weight with licensing bodies. Most likely this avenue of doing something to keep the situation from recurring has already been explored, it would be a shame if it was overlooked.
That's the problem with the death penalty: There are vanishingly few situations where we can be 100%, absolutely clear on whether a person did something that warrants permanently removing that person from existence.
We are a nation of laws and we are also a nation of fallible human beings. If we could be completely certain, then perhaps I would be OK with the permanence of death. But we can't, so we shouldn't be killing criminals in the name of the people or the state. Because what happens if we are wrong? What happens if we are wrong 138 times[0]?
Why have we forgotten that "[i]t is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer?"
0 - http://tcadp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/TXDPFactSheet01-...
So would you say that the vast majority of murder convictions leave at least a little room for doubt?
In this day and age, were an exoneration to happen, I would also mandate that the state put up billboards in the person's home town and where the crime allegedly took place and run Internet ads and do lots of press interviews to get it out as widely as possible that someone has been exonerated.
You'll still never return lost years and decades of someone's life any more than you could return life to a dead man. You can't restore the fractured relationships, undo the pain of imprisonment.
Honestly, I think a quick death (not the insane decades-of-imprisonment-followed-by-ritualistic-execution we have now) is far more humane than life in prison.
I think many would agree, that both systems are broken. The fix for the first is easier: Just stop it.
Also, many countries have banned life imprisonment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_ab... .
No, but you also can't make a completely perfect criminal justice system. It is infinitely more possible to free a person from prison, pay that person many millions of dollars (or do other things to make the remainder of that person's life very easy), and otherwise let that person go back to having some kind of life...than it is to raise the dead.
> Honestly, I think a quick death (not the insane decades-of-imprisonment-followed-by-ritualistic-execution we have now) is far more humane than life in prison.
Perhaps it is for the actually-guilty. But for the actually-innocent, I do not agree because they will always have the hope and possibility of someday being freed again.
When it comes to an action as permanent as killing a person, disapproval without preventative action (i.e., abolition) is tacit approval. So long as Texas keeps executing people, I don't see what difference it makes how many Texans are in favor of it.
"So long as Texas keeps executing people, I don't see what difference it makes how many [Americans] are in favor of it."
The perceived inability of one does not excuse the lack of action by the many, especially if the techsupporter's assertion is true -- that not many Texans support the death penalty.
I suspect that, given California couldn't even replace it with life imprisonment (it failed 52-48 with Prop 34 in 2012), the considerably more conservative state of Texas has at least a simple majority support for the death penalty.
>"So long as Texas keeps executing people, I don't see what difference it makes how many [Americans] are in favor of it."
I agree wholeheartedly.
From the outside looking in, it seems that most Texans who oppose the death penalty are either indifferent or resigned to the issue. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I find very little evidence of a credible abolition movement. Without sustained political pressure, disapproval counts for very little.
If the death penalty is unjust, inhumane, and unequally applied, isn't it also then both crual and unusual?
The standard we apply in our justice system is not one of popular opinion.
That said, I wonder if you live in the same Texas I visit each year. The vast majority of Texans support the death penalty.
A University of Texas (Austin) poll last year showed 49% of Texans support the death penalty. 26% somewhat support. That's almost 20 million Texans. While just 19% are opposed (of which just 9% strongly oppose).
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/support-death-penalty-f...
This is a little strawperson.
If you support the death penalty you also know innocent people will die from the death penalty.
But you support it because you believe overall less people will be removed from existence.
IE it's a deterrent. IE less criminals escape and go on the commit again. IE it costs less so more money goes to save lives in hospitals. [please don't rehash why this are faulty arguments, that's OT to the point I'm making]
What I do not get is how the EU can just blatantly ignore this. When one of our politicians travels to an Arab country or to China and does not address the human rights situation clear enough, he or she will be bashed. When Turkey starts talking about reintroducing capital punishment the instant reactions are that this will end the negotiations about EU membership. Capital punishment is a hard line for the EU, if your country has it, it is not considered to value human rights and is out, no further questions asked.
The only people really criticizing the US here (in Germany) are usually haters, who glorify Russia.
It cannot be about the money either, because China is an important partner, too. They have to put up with our obligatory human rights talk every time, while the US has not.
I am not saying that we can or should do anything about it, just that we have to point these things out if do not want to lose our face.
Forty six US states have Felony Murder statutes. I don't think this is all that rare for states with capital punishment. According to the wiki "...the death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a major participant in the underlying felony and 'exhibits extreme indifference to human life'."
If you participate in the commission of a felony crime and someone dies, then you are guilty of felony murder. They have something similar in the EU (e.g. Germany has "with deadly outcomes") where you receive an extended sentence even if you never intended for that person to die.
I think this is a perfect example of the US completely getting it wrong. If states can't get it right, I think the ability to arbitrarily punish serious crimes should be dissolved to upper government. Why it makes a difference what state you're in is beyond me. I thought it was something they were phasing out of.
Because if it were all handled at a higher level, there is a very good chance these types of policies would be in place for more people. Also, it would take more effort to change them. Concentration of power is not good, didn't you see star wars?
Why do you think these policies would be in place for more? I this rubbish would be gone, weed legalised and it would make it easier to change the political system. In the UK the decentralised part of government is the worst bit.
Also he isn't posting any comments to any of the articles he is posting....
His twitter feed isn't mentioning anything like this...
I wonder if his account is still under his control?
It's insane--and certainly unjust--that a law that makes such impossible and ridiculous demands of people is considered just.
Doesn't require a psychic to determine that committing a robbery with someone whom you know to own and carry a firearm could result in a death.
In modern Texas with its 'carry' laws, this could be anyone.
Besides, given the gun lobby rhetoric, 'guns don't kill people', so a death is 'just as likely' with a knife or any other tool to hand - even stuff already in the shop. After all, if someone is intent on killing you, 'they're going to do it whether or not they have a gun'.