Replies

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.

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.