Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Satanism wrongly used at trial, death row inmate argues
Statesman.com ^ | 7/6/2010 | Chuck Lindell

Posted on 07/06/2010 11:49:15 PM PDT by FromLori

Irving Davis, convicted of raping and killing a 15-year-old El Paso girl, has asked a Texas appeals court to throw out his death sentence, arguing that jurors should not have been told about his new religion — Satanism.

The revelation, defense lawyers argue, violated Davis' free exercise of religion and improperly prejudiced jurors against the 27-year-old inmate.

Prosecutors counter that allegiance to the Church of Satan was relevant information for jurors, who had to determine whether Davis should be put to death as a continuing threat to society.

(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deathrow; satanism
Poor thing Religious Persecution!
1 posted on 07/06/2010 11:49:17 PM PDT by FromLori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FromLori

It is irrelevent. He should be snuffed no matter what his religion is.

Next.


2 posted on 07/07/2010 12:01:37 AM PDT by Hugin (Remember the first rule of gunfighting...have a gun..-- Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

I completely agree KILL HIM I guess I should have added the sarc tag but I assumed people knew the remark was meant that way :)


3 posted on 07/07/2010 12:07:20 AM PDT by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

If torture and sacrifice of humans is your religion, it would seem to be very relevant to me.


4 posted on 07/07/2010 12:08:40 AM PDT by GeronL (Just say NO to conservativecave.com, it rots your teeth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Agree it’s part of who he was his character I hope they don’t rule in his favor!


5 posted on 07/07/2010 12:15:52 AM PDT by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FromLori
Have a seat, Mr. Davis, while we think it over.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

6 posted on 07/07/2010 12:39:51 AM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

I have to side with the defense on this one. The prosecution is entering a big pile of facts not in evidence, even notwithstanding the whole ‘religious persecution’ angle.

A stunt like this makes me wonder if even the prosecution has doubts about whether the merits of the case warrant the death penalty. Otherwise they would simply feel confident presenting the facts of the crime itself and relying on the jury to make the right decision.

Most likely it is a case of an over zealous prosecutor that found yet one more thing to pile on top of the case. To me it is dangerous to condone such actions even if the end result would be the same without the trumped up addition - perhaps even moreso as, if unchallenged, it sets president that could be duplicated in a future case that isn’t so clearcut.


7 posted on 07/07/2010 1:43:32 AM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

“his new religion — Satanism”

He’s gotta point- I mean, he found Satan and is probably turning his life around.


8 posted on 07/07/2010 2:17:09 AM PDT by 4buttons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

Fair point.

Please note: ‘precedent’


9 posted on 07/07/2010 2:20:49 AM PDT by agere_contra (Obama did more damage to the Gulf economy in one day than Pemex/Ixtoc did in nine months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

You must understand that, in a Texas capital case, there is first the prosecution phase (guilty or innocent) and then the punishment phase (what should be done to him). So, he’s already been ruled guilty. In the punishment phase, jurors are asked to weigh his crime in the context of the damage done to society and the prospect of said convict’s possibility of returning to society as a productive member again. (IOW, if we ever turn him loose, what is the likelihood he’ll commit more crimes?).

In that context, one’s belief system is relevant just as it would be if the convicted were a Muslim or a Branch Davidian. To ignore his belief system is to give the jury less than the clear picture they need to determine the convict’s fitness for society should he ever win release.

Put another way, is the convicted’s crime likely to reoccur someday in the future. If the jury knows he’s a dedicated Satanist, I think they would realize he is less likely to be rehabilitated, just like if somebody says they are a committed Jihadist or a committed Marxist.

This is basically just one more defense plea to prevent execution for some vermin who richly deserves it.


10 posted on 07/07/2010 3:09:54 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FromLori

On 06/04/2001, in El Paso, Texas, Davis followed a 16 year old Hispanic female from a party. Davis drug her into an elementary school yard where he choked her with an unknown ligature and hit her in the head with an unknown object and killed the victim. Davis also sexually assaulted the victim.
11 posted on 07/07/2010 4:42:46 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

I agree, I don’t care if he belongs to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, he has to answer to his crime.


12 posted on 07/07/2010 6:03:59 AM PDT by freebird5850 (Obama golfed while the Gulf gushed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

Yeah, they could have simply gotten him on the underage rape and murder charge. Introducing his religion only opened up a can of worms for any person that’s a member of a minority or non-mainstream religion....


13 posted on 07/07/2010 9:04:29 AM PDT by NorthStarStateConservative (I'm just another disabled naturalized minority vegan pro life conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Please note: ‘precedent’

Heh, yeah I noticed that typo too - after I hit 'post' of course :P

In my defense it was a quarter to 2 in the morning when I posted that.

14 posted on 07/07/2010 7:20:19 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
In the punishment phase, jurors are asked to weigh his crime in the context of the damage done to society and the prospect of said convict’s possibility of returning to society as a productive member again.

That does not excuse sloppy prosecution in the form of blatantly submitting facts not in evidence:


Prosecutor Lily Stroud said the evidence was meant to show that Davis had chosen to affiliate with an organization that condones and encourages human sacrifice and other illegal acts.

She said that but backed it up with not a single account of any such act, let alone one tied to the defendant. Can you show any evidence where Satanism specifically drives this defendant toward criminal acts? If not, then it is mere mind reading and certainly facts not in evidence.

In that context, one’s belief system is relevant just as it would be if the convicted were a Muslim or a Branch Davidian.

If it were shown that he committed this or other crimes in the name of or even simply because of his religious beliefs then I would agree. That isn't the case here and that is the issue I have with it. As an example, I see a world of difference between a guy that happens to be Muslim that shoots a bunch of people while robbing a bank and a Muslim jihadist that blows up the exact same group of people at the same bank in Allah's name. In the first religion is not a factor at all. In the other it is extremely relevant.

The prosecution did a disservice to the people by cheapening the case with this puffery. Make no mistake, I don't think this lowlife deserves a free redo, but an idiot prosecutor gave it to him on a silver platter. That's all I'm saying.

15 posted on 07/07/2010 7:45:13 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: death2tyrants

16 posted on 07/08/2010 7:18:53 AM PDT by RingerSIX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Can you show any evidence where Satanism specifically drives this defendant toward criminal acts?

It would seem to me that someone who is a "Satanist" is someone who already had come to the conclusion that they belong in hell. Square peg in a square hole.

17 posted on 07/08/2010 7:23:55 AM PDT by RingerSIX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RingerSIX
Can you show any evidence where Satanism specifically drives this defendant toward criminal acts?

It would seem to me that someone who is a "Satanist" is someone who already had come to the conclusion that they belong in hell. Square peg in a square hole.

Assuming that you are 100% accurate in your mind reading and can show evidence to prove it, exactly what criminal statute does concluding that you belong in Hell violate?

18 posted on 07/08/2010 11:32:40 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Assuming that you are 100% accurate in your mind reading and can show evidence to prove it, exactly what criminal statute does concluding that you belong in Hell violate?

Mind reading? Blow it out!

It doesn't take a mind reader to realize that someone who truly considers themselves a "Satanist" is a blithering moron, right to the core of their soul. Not to mention the fact that they're not trustworthy in the slightest way around innocent and virtuous people.

In addition, proof of the existence of Satan is proof of the existence of God, while the converse is not true. So those who believe in Satan also believe in God, and then they make the obvious wrong choice, and they make it on purpose. I have no sympathy.

19 posted on 07/10/2010 3:01:52 PM PDT by RingerSIX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RingerSIX
Please understand my only interest in this thread is whether or not judicial boundries were crossed - I could really care less about the Satanism subject matter. With that in mind, I'd appreciate if you could clarify the following in that context:

It doesn't take a mind reader to realize that someone who truly considers themselves a "Satanist" is a blithering moron...they're not trustworthy in the slightest way around innocent and virtuous people.

Specifically, what evidence would you submit in a court of law to prove those statements? And unless that evidence is directly related to the defendant, it would have to be pretty much inclusive of every professed Satanist. And no, claiming that simply being a Satanist is proof in and of itself that Satanists are morons and untrustworthy is not acceptable.

In addition, proof of the existence of Satan is proof of the existence of God, while the converse is not true. So those who believe in Satan also believe in God, and then they make the obvious wrong choice, and they make it on purpose.

Please don't mistake this discussion as being even remotely theological. If you cannot separate your philosophical opinions from the legal question of whether the prosecution violated the defendants rights then we will both be happier if we let this thread drop.

I have no sympathy.

On a personal note, I would have rather read about this guy's uneventful and fruitless trail of denied appeals, culminating in his well deserved execution. I am disappointed that the prosecution tossed him such a stupid, unnecessary lifeline. They could have easily gotten the death penalty on the merits of the case - there was no need to screw it up with this crap.

Unless, of course, the ulterior motive was to conjure up a legal precedent to criminalize unpopular beliefs.

20 posted on 07/10/2010 4:30:01 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

You’re a bit more long winded than I’m willing to be. “Legalese” lawyer speak is not nearly as cool sounding to me as you might think it sounds to others.

You sound like you’re interested in what lawyers agree are right and wrong, and I’m interested in what is right and wrong. It’s a lot more black and white than you pretend. Logic is all that’s needed.


21 posted on 07/11/2010 11:11:02 AM PDT by RingerSIX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson