The cruelty of the death penalty is amply demonstrated by the appallingly narrow grounds upon which the higher courts can intervene in such cases. This is the second case in which severe doubts including by the original prosecutors about the validity of the conviction is dismissed as irrelevant whilst bureaucratic considerations like “boilerplate decisions” are deemed far more important.
And this by a nation which judges itself Christian. Why is the “pro life” lobby also so often pro death?
Some of us are pro-life for all human beings, at all stages of human existence and in all circumstances. See for example www.consistentlifenetwork.org.
In any case, I wholeheartedly share your sentiments about the cruelty and capriciousness of the death penalty and fervently hope Mr. Roberson gets another chance to be heard and to be free.
"Consistent Life" sounds great on paper, but (aside from the websites' clear Catholic bias) it belies the sad reality of life... that "death" is not consistent. No matter how much you want to preserve all life, there are too many situations where nature itself forces us to choose between two evils.
With abortion, we've seen an increase in the number of women (and their unborn) dying from pregnancy complications that were preventable by abortion. By banning abortion, (assuming the argument that a fetus is a living human) there are many cases where you kill two people instead of one by your inaction. Catholics just blame this on God. I blame it on our society.
My standard for "consistency" in life and death is simply this: Let each individual decide how/when to die. Government mandated euthanasia is a violation of life rights, but assisted (or unassisted) suicide is an individual life right. War is a violation. Murder is a violation. Death penalties are state mandated violations.
Abortion... is tricky, but there's a weird exception to it. Because in my view, the fetus is not an "individual" until they are born. Before that time, they are at least a clump of cells growing from the mother, and at most a symbiotic "parasite" (only in a medical sense). Regardless, in either case the baby and mom are two parts of one "individual" and only the mother has the mental capacity to make decisions for the whole. Abortion rights must exist for the good of the whole. Once that baby is born, the umbilical is severed, the fetus is removed, and mother and child become distinct individuals.
But even then, parents have to make decisions for that baby, for example if that baby is going to die from an illness or birth defect, the parents have to decide how best to care for the baby. The same is true in DNR situations, death planning, and families deciding when to stop care for comatose patients. The adult can chose to give their life decision to others when they are incapacitated, without violating their rights.
Being "consistent" with life isn't easy, because our world isn't consistent with death. And sometimes we just have to face that and try to give humanity the most self-deterministic way possible to navigate it.
It seems that most or all of us here agree that killing Robert Roberson because of his daughter's tragic illness and death would be doubly tragic. I absolutely believe this, and I further believe that killing any human being because of the circumstances in which they were conceived would also be doubly tragic. Isn't all killing of human beings tragic? If life is a universal right, can there be any killing that isn't a violation?
(To be clear, I do not believe and have not said anything to suggest that refraining from extraordinary interventions to prolong life is the same as killing.)
This all came up only because I wanted to point out that, while there is indeed hypocrisy where people are pro-life for some and pro-death for others, there are also some who are pro-everyone's-life. Please understand that some of us really do mean "pro-life" to apply to all human beings.
I certainly agree that being consistent isn't easy, because our world isn't consistent. All the more reason to try.
I can only say a grateful thank you to the Texas legislators who did this, I agree with Ann, how is the “pro life” stance also so “pro death”? It is very clear that this certainly warrants a serious review which hasn’t been given, despite what feels like a great deal of strength to the arguments to stay this execution, and in fact not just grant clemency but pardon. If those involved in the prosecution itself say that now under current scientific views, they wouldn’t have prosecuted, how can Texas think going ahead with this serves any justice at all? I have been against the death penalty since my earliest knowledge of it - probably 60 years at least, and it’s just another reason why I could never vote for the Republicans and their current world view.
When I was 12 years old a 1953 movie came out entitled "I Want to Live" starring Susan Hayworth. It was a true story about Barbara Graham, a notorious bad girl except she claimed innocence of murder.
Ms. Hayworth earned an Oscar for her performance. The gas chamber scene alone was worthy of that win. We watched the eggs drop into the liquid, the mist rising as the eggs dissolved, and Ms. Hayworth struggling until she was overcome. We had waited for a phone call that would save her. Didn't happen.
It was a disturbing, heartbreaking scene. We, the audience, believed in her innocence.
I'm now 78. Through the years I've learned of too many innocent people put to death or spending years behind bars. The groups who eventually came together to help prove innocence were, to me, wonderfully helpful in getting the cases overturned.
Sir, you and those who assist you are amazing. I hope your future has a place for you in a high court.
I worked in law offices for about 30 years. I know how demanding of honesty, due diligence, and timing are for winning a case.
In my last years I was respondible for handling work for two partners and three Associates, often working late into the evening to handle deadlines. It helped that I have a typing speed of 110 WPM.
Once I got into working for law offices I never wanted to go back to corporate BS.
My apologies. Something told me I was giving Susan Hayward the wrong last name - Hayworth. That was Rita's last name.
I went back to Google where I'd gotten the date and other items about the movie "I Want to Live". Sure enough they had it wrong. I scrolled down and found it spelled correctly as Hayward.
Sorry. Having worked in law offices I hate to make mistakes.
I wasn't always against the death penalty but I have come to believe it's wrong unless there is absolutely zero chance of a mistake. The old adage better a guilty person go free rather than an innocent one be executed still means something. Or should.
I am 100% against the death penalty even if someone is “guilty.” What purpose does it serve to have the state execute a human being, even for a heinous crime? State-sponsored killing is retribution not justice. Even some families of victims have stated opposition to the death penalty. It will not bring their loved ones back, it just adds to the death toll.
I shared this on my list. (Unfortunately your last name got autocorrected and the message accidentally sent before I corrected it.)
This case was a glaring example that even with the best lawyers in the world and even with the massive resources of multiple organizations, combined with a truly impactful and masterful PR campaign, two of the three branches of government refused to intervene to halt an obvious injustice. How many others have gone to their deaths because the fresh look at newly developed evidence was procedurally barred, and they lacked the ability to build such attention? Someone ought to research that!
And the struggle continues. Of note, there was also an execution of a severely mentally ill man in Alabama last night.
Two weeks from Friday, there's another racially-based legal lynching in South Carolina. And then another "first in more than a decade" in Idaho. And then another gassing in Alabama. And so far, FOUR in December - mostly usual suspects (Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma) - but also the FOURTH state this year to resume executions after more than a decade without them - Indiana.
Fantastic news, almost fantastical in how it all came together! In this moment, I am so grateful to the House for pursuing truth and justice from both sides of the aisle.
The death penalty is legalized revenge. I believe a worse punishment would be life in prison without possibility of parole UNLESS there are grounds for appeal.
Fiddlesticks to Sotomayor for kicking the ball in the general direction of the elected branches, when SCOTUS has been radically unafraid to revise Executive or Congressional actions at will. Theoretically Roberson is a citizen of the United States, not merely of Texas, and if protecting the human rights of a citizen against assault under cover of law is not a Federal issue, I don't know what is the point. We told Texas they couldn't own people any more long since.
Absolutely correct. It is exhausting to watch legals norms get shredded by the cruelest people alive for the cruelest purposes imaginable, while those who are supposedly "on our side" sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to give them permission to do something good.
Thank God! I am thrilled to hear this news! I’ve been following this case, along with some others for a while. I signed the petition, wrote a few letters and made calls to Governor Abbot’s office. I appreciate how hard many people worked on this case. In the meantime, it’s not over and i know that the hard work will continue. Great job and congratulations to everyone who works on these cases! When I received a text the day before the execution date, I was loosing hope. But you won! 🏆. THANK YOU!
The cruelty of the death penalty is amply demonstrated by the appallingly narrow grounds upon which the higher courts can intervene in such cases. This is the second case in which severe doubts including by the original prosecutors about the validity of the conviction is dismissed as irrelevant whilst bureaucratic considerations like “boilerplate decisions” are deemed far more important.
And this by a nation which judges itself Christian. Why is the “pro life” lobby also so often pro death?
Excellent question, glad you asked. Hypocrisy seems to cover all the bases.
Some of us are pro-life for all human beings, at all stages of human existence and in all circumstances. See for example www.consistentlifenetwork.org.
In any case, I wholeheartedly share your sentiments about the cruelty and capriciousness of the death penalty and fervently hope Mr. Roberson gets another chance to be heard and to be free.
"Consistent Life" sounds great on paper, but (aside from the websites' clear Catholic bias) it belies the sad reality of life... that "death" is not consistent. No matter how much you want to preserve all life, there are too many situations where nature itself forces us to choose between two evils.
With abortion, we've seen an increase in the number of women (and their unborn) dying from pregnancy complications that were preventable by abortion. By banning abortion, (assuming the argument that a fetus is a living human) there are many cases where you kill two people instead of one by your inaction. Catholics just blame this on God. I blame it on our society.
My standard for "consistency" in life and death is simply this: Let each individual decide how/when to die. Government mandated euthanasia is a violation of life rights, but assisted (or unassisted) suicide is an individual life right. War is a violation. Murder is a violation. Death penalties are state mandated violations.
Abortion... is tricky, but there's a weird exception to it. Because in my view, the fetus is not an "individual" until they are born. Before that time, they are at least a clump of cells growing from the mother, and at most a symbiotic "parasite" (only in a medical sense). Regardless, in either case the baby and mom are two parts of one "individual" and only the mother has the mental capacity to make decisions for the whole. Abortion rights must exist for the good of the whole. Once that baby is born, the umbilical is severed, the fetus is removed, and mother and child become distinct individuals.
But even then, parents have to make decisions for that baby, for example if that baby is going to die from an illness or birth defect, the parents have to decide how best to care for the baby. The same is true in DNR situations, death planning, and families deciding when to stop care for comatose patients. The adult can chose to give their life decision to others when they are incapacitated, without violating their rights.
Being "consistent" with life isn't easy, because our world isn't consistent with death. And sometimes we just have to face that and try to give humanity the most self-deterministic way possible to navigate it.
I am on the board of the Consistent Life Network, and we are a nonreligious organization.
You may choose to believe that a human fetus is not yet an individual member of the homo sapiens species, but the science of embryology would beg to differ. (Multiple sources here: https://secularprolife.org/2024/03/sources-for-deconstructing-three-pro-choice-myths-presented-on-march-25-2024/#Biology_and_embryology_textbooks_and_relevant_quotes)
It seems that most or all of us here agree that killing Robert Roberson because of his daughter's tragic illness and death would be doubly tragic. I absolutely believe this, and I further believe that killing any human being because of the circumstances in which they were conceived would also be doubly tragic. Isn't all killing of human beings tragic? If life is a universal right, can there be any killing that isn't a violation?
(To be clear, I do not believe and have not said anything to suggest that refraining from extraordinary interventions to prolong life is the same as killing.)
This all came up only because I wanted to point out that, while there is indeed hypocrisy where people are pro-life for some and pro-death for others, there are also some who are pro-everyone's-life. Please understand that some of us really do mean "pro-life" to apply to all human beings.
I certainly agree that being consistent isn't easy, because our world isn't consistent. All the more reason to try.
I can only say a grateful thank you to the Texas legislators who did this, I agree with Ann, how is the “pro life” stance also so “pro death”? It is very clear that this certainly warrants a serious review which hasn’t been given, despite what feels like a great deal of strength to the arguments to stay this execution, and in fact not just grant clemency but pardon. If those involved in the prosecution itself say that now under current scientific views, they wouldn’t have prosecuted, how can Texas think going ahead with this serves any justice at all? I have been against the death penalty since my earliest knowledge of it - probably 60 years at least, and it’s just another reason why I could never vote for the Republicans and their current world view.
When I was 12 years old a 1953 movie came out entitled "I Want to Live" starring Susan Hayworth. It was a true story about Barbara Graham, a notorious bad girl except she claimed innocence of murder.
Ms. Hayworth earned an Oscar for her performance. The gas chamber scene alone was worthy of that win. We watched the eggs drop into the liquid, the mist rising as the eggs dissolved, and Ms. Hayworth struggling until she was overcome. We had waited for a phone call that would save her. Didn't happen.
It was a disturbing, heartbreaking scene. We, the audience, believed in her innocence.
I'm now 78. Through the years I've learned of too many innocent people put to death or spending years behind bars. The groups who eventually came together to help prove innocence were, to me, wonderfully helpful in getting the cases overturned.
Richard La France
He should be fully exonerated, not pardoned.
I do not understand all these bloodthirsty people who are so willing to ignore even the prosecutors who want their own gained convictions set aside.
I'll see you hypocrisy and raise you 'never discount stupidity as a reason (thanks Dad)
Sir, you and those who assist you are amazing. I hope your future has a place for you in a high court.
I worked in law offices for about 30 years. I know how demanding of honesty, due diligence, and timing are for winning a case.
In my last years I was respondible for handling work for two partners and three Associates, often working late into the evening to handle deadlines. It helped that I have a typing speed of 110 WPM.
Once I got into working for law offices I never wanted to go back to corporate BS.
Well, I look forward to more of your posts.
Richard La France
My apologies. Something told me I was giving Susan Hayward the wrong last name - Hayworth. That was Rita's last name.
I went back to Google where I'd gotten the date and other items about the movie "I Want to Live". Sure enough they had it wrong. I scrolled down and found it spelled correctly as Hayward.
Sorry. Having worked in law offices I hate to make mistakes.
Richard La France
Yep, I'm in the regulatory biz and feel the same way
In Texas of all places. That's amazing.
I wasn't always against the death penalty but I have come to believe it's wrong unless there is absolutely zero chance of a mistake. The old adage better a guilty person go free rather than an innocent one be executed still means something. Or should.
I am 100% against the death penalty even if someone is “guilty.” What purpose does it serve to have the state execute a human being, even for a heinous crime? State-sponsored killing is retribution not justice. Even some families of victims have stated opposition to the death penalty. It will not bring their loved ones back, it just adds to the death toll.
I shared this on my list. (Unfortunately your last name got autocorrected and the message accidentally sent before I corrected it.)
This case was a glaring example that even with the best lawyers in the world and even with the massive resources of multiple organizations, combined with a truly impactful and masterful PR campaign, two of the three branches of government refused to intervene to halt an obvious injustice. How many others have gone to their deaths because the fresh look at newly developed evidence was procedurally barred, and they lacked the ability to build such attention? Someone ought to research that!
And the struggle continues. Of note, there was also an execution of a severely mentally ill man in Alabama last night.
Two weeks from Friday, there's another racially-based legal lynching in South Carolina. And then another "first in more than a decade" in Idaho. And then another gassing in Alabama. And so far, FOUR in December - mostly usual suspects (Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma) - but also the FOURTH state this year to resume executions after more than a decade without them - Indiana.
Fantastic news, almost fantastical in how it all came together! In this moment, I am so grateful to the House for pursuing truth and justice from both sides of the aisle.
The death penalty is legalized revenge. I believe a worse punishment would be life in prison without possibility of parole UNLESS there are grounds for appeal.
Thanks Chris for vigilant coverage
There are a lot of pro-death people in Texas and on the Supremes.
Fiddlesticks to Sotomayor for kicking the ball in the general direction of the elected branches, when SCOTUS has been radically unafraid to revise Executive or Congressional actions at will. Theoretically Roberson is a citizen of the United States, not merely of Texas, and if protecting the human rights of a citizen against assault under cover of law is not a Federal issue, I don't know what is the point. We told Texas they couldn't own people any more long since.
Absolutely correct. It is exhausting to watch legals norms get shredded by the cruelest people alive for the cruelest purposes imaginable, while those who are supposedly "on our side" sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to give them permission to do something good.
Don't shake the baby, says Cooking Mama.
Thank God! I am thrilled to hear this news! I’ve been following this case, along with some others for a while. I signed the petition, wrote a few letters and made calls to Governor Abbot’s office. I appreciate how hard many people worked on this case. In the meantime, it’s not over and i know that the hard work will continue. Great job and congratulations to everyone who works on these cases! When I received a text the day before the execution date, I was loosing hope. But you won! 🏆. THANK YOU!