Texas man has sat on death row for 30 years, SCOTUS puts temporary hold on his execution because tha - Polidicks

[quote]The Supreme Court on Thursday put a temporary hold on the execution of a Texas man — Lester Bower — who has been on death row for 30 years. In a one page order, the Court agreed to temporarily grant a stay of execution until the justices decide whether to take up Bower's case. Bower was convicted in 1984 of taking part in the murder of four men while attempting to steal an ultra-light aircraft. The state argues that Bower was "properly convicted and sentenced to die" for the brutal murders of Bobby Tate, Philip Good, Ronald Mayes and Jerry Brown. But lawyers for Bower argue in part that their client has "steadfastly maintained his innocence" and that there is a "significant lingering doubt regarding guilt or innocence." His lawyers say that throughout his time on death row he has "suffered through six death settings" and has not abused the legal system.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/politics/texas-execution-stay-scotus/index.html[/url]

Death Row itself is ridiculously cruel.

The guy still killed 4 people I hope they just change it to a life sentence or something

[QUOTE=Karmah;47102522]The guy still killed 4 people I hope they just change it to a life sentence or something[/QUOTE] "But lawyers for Bower argue in part that their client has "steadfastly maintained his innocence" and that there is a "significant lingering doubt regarding guilt or innocence."" Reading sure is hard

After serving 30 years on death row you'd reckon they'd just call it a day and give him a life sentence. Something has to be wrong if the process has taken that long, enough to justify not executing him.

Lol yeah, they're willing to call the long wait cruel but if he had been killed quicker that would be a-OK.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47102582]Lol yeah, they're willing to call the long wait cruel but if he had been killed quicker that would be a-OK.[/QUOTE] Eh, i rather die instead of rotting in prison for 30 years on death row.

This can't be fair on that guy. Sure he committed a crime but, sitting in a cell for 30 years wondering if you're going to be executed or not must be horrible for his mental well-being, that's like torture.

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47102695]Eh, i rather die instead of rotting in prison for 30 years on death row.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, that option isn't given to the prisoners to decide.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47102582]Lol yeah, they're willing to call the long wait cruel but if he had been killed quicker that would be a-OK.[/QUOTE] Anti-death penalty here. Both are rather cruel, but honestly death over many decades in prison--death row in particular--does seems much more merciful, though execution is still barbaric. Either case you have no future, but life in imprisonment is decades of life in one of the bleakest places possible, alienated from the majority of society with nothing to really do but hit the gym, with your only company being horribly violent criminals, and eventually ends in your death after many years of hardship. By comparison, just dying quickly and without enduring those hardships would be more merciful, though it admittedly rules out being potentially exonerated later.

Oh man, 30 years of thinking "This might be the last month I'm alive". What's the hold up on his sentence? Someone please explain how a person can be on deathrow for 30 years, and still not have died.

[QUOTE=booster;47102754]Oh man, 30 years of thinking "This might be the last month I'm alive". What's the hold up on his sentence? Someone please explain how a person can be on deathrow for 30 years, and still not have died.[/QUOTE] They haven't killed him yet. It's really that simple. Specifically, there are a number of reasons to postpone an execution, including doubt about whether the conviction, trial, sentencing etc. was done correctly, the governor putting a stay or moratorium on executions during his or her term, the drug for lethal injections not being available (this has been a pretty big issue recently and if you want you can find a lot of news stories about states mixing their own drugs and the horrific details of botched executions.) Honestly it's so much of a legal and logistical nightmare to execute somebody, Even ignoring morality, there is no real reason the death penalty should still exist.

[QUOTE=booster;47102754]Oh man, 30 years of thinking "This might be the last month I'm alive". What's the hold up on his sentence? Someone please explain how a person can be on deathrow for 30 years, and still not have died.[/QUOTE] They dont just walk in and say "today is the day you die" -- You know your date.

He's been on death row for longer than I've been alive. Wow. [del]About seven years longer, to be precise, but whatever.[/del]

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47102695]Eh, i rather die instead of rotting in prison for 30 years on death row.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Maegord;47102746]Anti-death penalty here. Both are rather cruel, but honestly death over many decades in prison--death row in particular--does seems much more merciful, though execution is still barbaric. Either case you have no future, but life in imprisonment is decades of life in one of the bleakest places possible, alienated from the majority of society with nothing to really do but hit the gym, with your only company being horribly violent criminals, and eventually ends in your death after many years of hardship. By comparison, just dying quickly and without enduring those hardships would be more merciful, though it admittedly rules out being potentially exonerated later.[/QUOTE] That might be your take on it but maybe this guy would rather spend 1000 years in prison than be dead. It's not up to you.

30 years. Dude, why do we even bother with executing people when some of them practically serve live sentences before it even happens? Abolish the freaking death penalty already.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;47102534]"But lawyers for Bower argue in part that their client has "steadfastly maintained his innocence" and that there is a "significant lingering doubt regarding guilt or innocence."" Reading sure is hard[/QUOTE] 'Defense lawyers say client is innocent' Why are you talking as if that means anything whatsoever? Arguing for their client's innocence at all costs is their job, of course they're going to say there's doubt whether there is or not. There wasn't doubt amongst the juries that convicted him and that's what matters.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47103704]'Defense lawyers say client is innocent' Why are you talking as if that means anything whatsoever? Arguing for their client's innocence at all costs is their job, of course they're going to say there's doubt whether there is or not. There wasn't doubt amongst the juries that convicted him and that's what matters.[/QUOTE] This is not necessarily true. The fact is, whether the defense attorney is state provided or privately hired, they are people who can and do go above and beyond their duties. Also, a guilty verdict requires a unanimous decision by a jury, yes. That does not mean that there was no doubt among the jurors. Jurors are often subject to pressure by their fellow jurors and attorneys and judges even though the process tries to prevent it. One more thing, a person can be convicted of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt in the eyes of the judge, jury, public, attorneys, witnesses, experts and everything the fuck else [I]and still not have actually committed the crime.[/I] The system is [B]not perfect[/B]. Mistakes, abuses and injustices happen and can always happen. When there is even the most remote possibility that you are putting an innocent person behind bars, doing something as permanent as killing them is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

[QUOTE=Karmah;47102522]The guy still killed 4 people I hope they just change it to a life sentence or something[/QUOTE] in the 1980s all you needed for a conviction was one guy who thought they saw the crime happen... today the bar is significantly higher (though not set equally high for some), this is an interesting argument if their case is that sitting on death row for 30 years is considered cruel punishment, if the SCotUS actually rules on this it could radically alter the way the death penalty is practiced, since it would force states to either execute or commute sentences if one is on death row too long which would probably weigh on the sentencings too

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;47103800]The fact is, whether the defense attorney is state provided or privately hired, they are people who can and do go above and beyond their duties. [/QUOTE] Wait, what does this mean? That the attorney would snitch on their client? Isn't that super illegal?

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;47103800]When there is even the most remote possibility that you are putting an innocent person behind bars, doing something as permanent as killing them is, in my opinion, unacceptable.[/QUOTE] Which is why the death penalty process takes so long - they need to iron out those kinks. That is why a death penalty decision is automatically appealed in most states. There is no way to just say "fuck it I'll just go die", you have to go through the mandatory appeals process because the state wants to thoroughly eliminate the possibility of executing an innocent person. Not arguing for it, but the reason this dude has sat there for 30 years is because there is at least some doubt on someone's behalf (barring the execution just not being possible).

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;47103896]Wait, what does this mean? That the attorney would snitch on their client? Isn't that super illegal?[/QUOTE] I wasn't clear. An attorney could be so convinced that their client is innocent that they do everything that they can to make sure they are not murdered by the state. To me, a thirty year legal battle says that his defense is still fighting the hard fight to keep their client alive. [editline]9th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Snowmew;47104205]Which is why the death penalty process takes so long - they need to iron out those kinks. That is why a death penalty decision is automatically appealed in most states. There is no way to just say "fuck it I'll just go die", you have to go through the mandatory appeals process because the state wants to thoroughly eliminate the possibility of executing an innocent person. Not arguing for it, but the reason this dude has sat there for 30 years is because there is at least some doubt on someone's behalf (barring the execution just not being possible).[/QUOTE] I would argue that "ironing out those kinks" is not possible. To say that it is implies that we will one day have a perfect legal system that will never wrongly convict a single person and will completely eliminate malice and error. It's a pipe dream. That's not to say things can't be better, because they can. We can make the system more fair and improve it in other ways, but there will never ever be perfection.