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 ...
It is irrelevent. He should be snuffed no matter what his religion is.
Next.
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 :)
If torture and sacrifice of humans is your religion, it would seem to be very relevant to me.
Agree it’s part of who he was his character I hope they don’t rule in his favor!
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.
“his new religion — Satanism”
He’s gotta point- I mean, he found Satan and is probably turning his life around.
Fair point.
Please note: ‘precedent’
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.
I agree, I don’t care if he belongs to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, he has to answer to his crime.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.