Friday, March 5, 2010

I Can't Leave You Kids Alone for A Minute . . .

Good Lord, I go out of town for a week, and you guys let the damn Death Penalty get abolished?

Kind of.

Not really.

Only in the 177th until the ruling gets reversed.

Man, the Democratic Judicial candidates right now are going to be pissed . . .

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know I feel a little better now knowing that our county is a bit safer. All those crooks out there preying on the innocent have now sat up and taken notice. I would venture to say that Judge Fine has done a fine job of securing the next century of judges to come from the Republican party.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of party affiliation, I'd say that what he says is accurate. We know we jail and execute innocent people in Texas. And knowing that, how can we in good conscience as people, especially those of you who claim to be Christians, believe that we should continue to execute people under the current system?

Anonymous said...

I could have sworn from my reading of his ruling that he only declared article 37.071 unconstitutional, not the entire death penalty. In fact, I can see at least 2 other motions seeking to declare the death penalty unconstitutional were denied by Judge Fine.
Am I missing something here?

Seer said...

Actually, if you read his order, he declared article 37.01 unconstitutional. The idiot. The motion alleges a number of things that are no longer the law. What a fool. I feel sorry for anyone in his court.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:25:

What planet are you on? If you don't like Texas law, please move tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

'Regardless of party affiliation, I'd say that what he says is accurate. We know we jail and execute innocent people in Texas.'

So those defendants who are currently on death row are all innocent? There are several defendants who were caught in the act of commtting a Capital Offense, gone through the court system and convicted.

Anonymous said...

Separate but equal used to be the law to but interpretations of the constitution change with time. What Jesus do Christians In support of the death penalty? I heard he like to spend time teaching to the sinners and not try to kill them.

Anonymous said...

Apparently the prior use of cocaine seemingly can have a more long term detrimental effect on one's mind than was originally suspected. When this putative judge was sworn in he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Apparently he has his own Constitution. He unfortunately though is but a microcosm of what is now transpiring in our country with the prospects of Obama care and the take over of your and my liberties. Fine has messed with Texas. Where is the outcry/ Judicial qualifications committee and/or removal complaints seem appropriate? Remember the left's (liberals) outcry on the Sharon Keller matter; it's time for the right (conservatives) to undertake a similar challenge.

Anonymous said...

So those defendants who are currently on death row are all innocent?

Yeah, you're a bright one. No reasonable reading of my post could lead any sane person to honestly believe that's what I said.

Congratulations, I think you're the dumbest person on the internet today,

Anonymous said...

Better is the idea that the Dem party Judicial candidates AGREE with the creation of a Public Defender's office. So the question becomes do you do court appointments? In Dallas county roughly 70% of the crim courts began using public defenders - do not believe it was for only folks in orange jumpsuits and it will not be here either.

At a mass meeting of Dem precinct chairs in which ALL democratic judicial candidates were present, only Anthony Limitone, Julia Maldonado, Sylvia Pubchara-Munoz and David Mitchum spoke out against its creation.

One Dem candiate has actively participated in the design of such an office, he's running for a felony bench.

Anonymous said...

I have been following the news and blogs about this story. For anyone listening, the issue isn't whether you think the death penalty is right or wrong. I am pretty sure Judge Fine, based on his experience, thinks that putting people in prison for possessing cocaine is wrong, yet he does in once in a blue moon. The question is whether or not you can follow the death penalty statutes. It IS the law. If you want to change it, call your state representative. Capital Crimes are talked about in the Bill of Rights, so clearly the death penalty wasn't viewed by the founders as unconsitutional. What Judge Fine did was to ignore his oath of office. His duty is to follow that oath, no matter what his beliefs are about he death penalty.

Anonymous said...

Hello, Judge Fine,
This was not your place. You are not the legislature and you are not an appellate or supreme court. Go back to law school 101, please.

Anonymous said...

There are currently judges who have made a paper mâché dildo out of the constitution and use it to screw people every day in Harris County. Ignoring blatant constitutional violations by police is no different than what fine did Fine just screwed the state and they are crying like a defendant whose motion to suppress was denied.

Anonymous said...

9:49 is correct, the Constitution speaks directly to capital punishment and in general it is not unconstitutional.

What you chumps fail to understand, however, is that Fine declared the process by which the punishment is given is improper. In other words, this is a due process argument. After all, just because capital punishment is proper does not mean that you can drag someone out behind the courthouse immediately after a trial and put them down. There are procedural and substantive due process guidelines that should be followed. His ruling is basically that if we know we jail innocent people, how can the procedures that due it comport with due process?

The Constitution is a big document. It moves with the times. And if during those times we see a problem, the Constitution must address it. It took guts to reach this decision. It will most likely end his career as a judge. But unlike all you ADAs who think the system is just fine but there are thew occasional breaches that you refuse to shed light on because it would be to your personal detriment, Fine had the balls to call it like he saw it.

If you ADAs had half the guts Fine does, our system would be in much better shape.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Nice full sleeve tatt on Fine. I hope his republican candidates use that photo in their campaign literature. Jeez, riding the hope ship of obama with a full sleeve and memories of cocaine...I guess too many brain cells CAN be killed. This would be a good ad for DARE.

jigmeister said...

The way to attack the death penalty is in the legislature. Am curious about what portion of the process is unconstitutional. If the premise is that the result, ie. using the death penalty on the innocent; then far more than 37.071 is unconstitutional. I am sure some small percentage of all convictions are bad.

I read Mark's blog on the subject and he raises some interesting questions that the appellate types might want to address. Can Fine be mandameused (sp) or the ruling be interlocatorily appealed by the State? No question the Court of Criminal Appeals will reverse if they can.

Anonymous said...

I have chosen to never engage Rage for a reason. You can't really argue with angry, ideological men. But somehow I feel the need to respond this time.

Your argument is that Fine only ruled the punishment scheme in Texas unconstitutional. Not really. Did you watch the twelve minute video of him on 13? Maybe he signed a motion that said it was the process that was unconstitutional, but the ruling he made on paper is logically inconsistent with what he said.

He said he found the sentencing scheme unconstitutional because innocent people may have AND/OR have the potential to be executed. That logic for opposing the death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the jury questions in determining punishment. There would be no sentencing scheme possible to prevent the POTENTIAL for having that result.

Based on his logic, the sentencing scheme for 911 terrorists, KKK thrill killers, child rapists/kileers, etc. also could never be sentenced to death, no matter what sentencing scheme existed.

I respect my friends who oppose the death penalty. Most of them do it on religious grounds. I happen to disagree. But I will never respect someone who puts forward an argument based on faulty logic simply because he/she are ornery.

Anonymous said...

For the record (again), I'm for the death penalty.

10:13, there are more to the procedures than just the jury charge. If the charge supports a finding that they should be put to death, yet procedures as a whole subject potentially innocent people to the death penalty, then it is more than logical to say that the charge language should not be there.

It's a means to an end. Kind of like when Scalia uses his definition of a word to make it mean anything he wants, something I'm sure you rarely disagree with.

And Jigmeister is right, with the underlying premise much more than just the charge is unconstitutional. I'd say from beginning to end that State fails to use known best practices based on evidence-based studies that would greatly reduce the potential for false convictions. From line-ups to forensics to junk science in the courtroom, there are lots of substantive due process issues. We regularly allow junk science in criminal courtrooms that civil judges would exclude. It makes no sense that we would allow them when determining the issues that are fundamental to our constitution, yet exclude them in cases dealing with only money because they are heavily vetted and contested before being accepted.

Because the judges are usually former prosecutors, and "that's the way it's always been done," and they see no problem with it.

Doesn't mean it's right, and it needs to change.

Rage

jigmeister said...

You misunderstood me Rage. My argument is that if 37.071 is unconstitutional on due process grounds because someone who is innocent could be executed, then the entire code of criminal procedure is subject to the same attack because undoubtedly someone innocent has been imprisoned. In other words, its BS regardless of how you feel about the DP.

Anonymous said...

No Jig, that's a slippery slope argument that I think takes it too far. If anything, my mistake was in thinking you were the more reasonable of this group, I guess.

If we use best practices and ewxclude junk science, I think the code is fine. If we don't, and we know we don't, it's a farce.

So, leave the code the way it is. Start treating criminal courts like they're more than just a one-way ticket to a conviction instead.

Rage