Duane Buck: Given the death penalty because he's a black male?
Nope: He's a two time murderer, who tried to murder two more
Dudley
SharpNope: He's a two time murderer, who tried to murder two more
Rebuttal to Leonard Pitts' "Texas case exposes racial bias in death
penalty for Duane Buck", Miami Herald, 5/5/13,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/05/3381274/leonard-pitts-texas-case-exposes.htmlNOTE: Quotes are from the denial of certiorari, US Supreme Court (1).
Bold and/or CAPS my emphasis.
Duane
Buck is a vile criminal who has spawned another round of worldwide anti death
penalty hand wringing, based upon the fraud that Buck was sentenced to death
because of racism, trial testimony that both blacks and males are more likely
to commit violent acts and to re offend - facts which are true (2), but which
could not have been a factor in Buck's death sentence.
Duane Buck was tried and sentenced to death because, with premeditation, he murdered his ex-girlfriend, Debra Gardner, in the middle of the street, as her daughter and son witnessed. In addition, he murdered Debra's new boyfriend, Kenneth Butler, and attempted to murder his own sister, Phyllis Taylor, who was shot point blank in the chest, but survived and attempted to also murder Butler's brother, Harold Ebnezer, who was fired upon, but escaped, unharmed - two capital murders and two attempted capital murders.
Buck, repeatedly, laughed about the murders, which were pre meditated and occurred at the same time and location.
The defense called two psychologists as experts, Walter Quijano and Patrick Lawrence, both of whom confirmed and restated that Buck had a lower probability of being a future danger, testimony given to reduce Buck's chances of receiving a death sentence, which, in Texas, requires an additional finding that the murderer is a future danger - a consideration not, constitutionally, required, which adds additional burdens of proof on the prosecution and provides more benefits to the murderer, both at trial and on appeal, as seen here.
The "future danger" requirement should be removed from Texas law.
From majority denial of certiorari:
"The witness, Dr. Walter Quijano, testified that (Buck), if given a noncapital sentence, WOULD NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO SOCIETY." (1).
Quijano responded affirmatively and truthfully, to the prosecutor's question, regarding that both blacks and males were more likely to be violent and re offend (2).
From majority denial of certiorari:
"And, on redirect, defense counsel mentioned race ONLY TO MITIGATE the effect on the jury of Dr. Quijano’s prior identification of race as an immutable factor increasing a defendant’s likelihood of future dangerousness." (1).
When the prosecution presented Buck's probability of future dangerousness, IT WAS NEVER IN THE CONTEXT OF BUCK'S RACE OR GENDER.
From majority denial of certiorari:
"Moreover, the prosecutor did not revisit the race-related testimony in closing or ask the jury to find future dangerousness based on Buck’s race." (1).
THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT "ASK THE JURY TO FIND FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS BASED UPON BUCK'S RACE" OR GENDER.
Repeatedly, defense counsel and the two defense experts made it clear that BUCK DID NOT FIT INTO THE CATEGORY OF BLACK MALES THAT WERE MORE LIKELY TO RE OFFEND AND THAT BUCK WAS AT A REDUCED RISK TO RE OFFEND.
Never was it presented to the jury that because Buck was black and/or male, that he was more likely to re offend because of that. All of the evidence was to the contrary.
Even when true, should race/ethnicity/gender crime statistics be used in criminal cases? No. It is best to stick with the individual case, itself, to not apply a statistical reality, when it may not apply to that specific defendant/murderer.
There were six other death penalty cases, wherein Dr. Quijano testified, that some minorities and males were more likely to be a future danger.
From the dissent, denial of certiorari:
“In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were overrepresented in the criminal justice system; (Quijano) DID NOT STATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP (BY RACE OR GENDER), NOR DID HE LINK THIS STATISTIC TO BUCK AS AN INDIVIDUAL."(1). (parenthesis my words added)
For obvious reasons, Buck was not given that opportunity and all state and federal courts have refused Buck any relief.
The majority, here, correcting the dissent error, from denial of certiorari:
"Although the dissent suggests that the District Court may have been misled by the State’s inaccurate statements, the District Court, in denying petitioner’s motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was fully aware of what had occurred in all of these cases. It is for these reasons that I conclude that certiorari should be denied." (1).
"In four of the six other cases, see, e.g.,Saldano v. Texas, 530 U. S. 1212 (2000), the prosecution called Dr. Quijano and elicited the objectionable testimony on direct examination." Other, meaning the six cases other than Buck's..
With the cooperation of then Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, those 6 other cases received re sentencing trials, within which there was no mention of any gender/race/ethnicity effect in violence and re offending.
In those 6 re sentencing trials, all received the death penalty, again, a solid rebuttal to any claim that race/gender testimony, in any of the cases, was a factor in the prior jury decisions to give death.
Just as with Buck, it was the nature of the crimes and other non racial/gender factors which convinced 156 jurors in those 13 trials to, unanimously, award the death penalty.
Invoking racism, as with the Buck case, is just another example of how death penalty opponents will apply any deception, no matter how vile, to achieve their ends.
1) From the denial of certiorari
DUANE EDWARD BUCK v. RICK THALER, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, No. 11–6391. Decided November 7, 2011
Duane Buck was tried and sentenced to death because, with premeditation, he murdered his ex-girlfriend, Debra Gardner, in the middle of the street, as her daughter and son witnessed. In addition, he murdered Debra's new boyfriend, Kenneth Butler, and attempted to murder his own sister, Phyllis Taylor, who was shot point blank in the chest, but survived and attempted to also murder Butler's brother, Harold Ebnezer, who was fired upon, but escaped, unharmed - two capital murders and two attempted capital murders.
Buck, repeatedly, laughed about the murders, which were pre meditated and occurred at the same time and location.
The defense called two psychologists as experts, Walter Quijano and Patrick Lawrence, both of whom confirmed and restated that Buck had a lower probability of being a future danger, testimony given to reduce Buck's chances of receiving a death sentence, which, in Texas, requires an additional finding that the murderer is a future danger - a consideration not, constitutionally, required, which adds additional burdens of proof on the prosecution and provides more benefits to the murderer, both at trial and on appeal, as seen here.
The "future danger" requirement should be removed from Texas law.
From majority denial of certiorari:
"The witness, Dr. Walter Quijano, testified that (Buck), if given a noncapital sentence, WOULD NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO SOCIETY." (1).
Quijano responded affirmatively and truthfully, to the prosecutor's question, regarding that both blacks and males were more likely to be violent and re offend (2).
From majority denial of certiorari:
"And, on redirect, defense counsel mentioned race ONLY TO MITIGATE the effect on the jury of Dr. Quijano’s prior identification of race as an immutable factor increasing a defendant’s likelihood of future dangerousness." (1).
When the prosecution presented Buck's probability of future dangerousness, IT WAS NEVER IN THE CONTEXT OF BUCK'S RACE OR GENDER.
From majority denial of certiorari:
"Moreover, the prosecutor did not revisit the race-related testimony in closing or ask the jury to find future dangerousness based on Buck’s race." (1).
THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT "ASK THE JURY TO FIND FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS BASED UPON BUCK'S RACE" OR GENDER.
Repeatedly, defense counsel and the two defense experts made it clear that BUCK DID NOT FIT INTO THE CATEGORY OF BLACK MALES THAT WERE MORE LIKELY TO RE OFFEND AND THAT BUCK WAS AT A REDUCED RISK TO RE OFFEND.
Never was it presented to the jury that because Buck was black and/or male, that he was more likely to re offend because of that. All of the evidence was to the contrary.
From the dissent, denial of certiorari:
"On direct examination, Quijano referred to RACE AS PART OF HIS OVERALL OPINION THAT BUCK WOULD POSE A LOW THREAT TO SOCIETY WERE HE IMPRISONED." (1).
Even when true, should race/ethnicity/gender crime statistics be used in criminal cases? No. It is best to stick with the individual case, itself, to not apply a statistical reality, when it may not apply to that specific defendant/murderer.
There were six other death penalty cases, wherein Dr. Quijano testified, that some minorities and males were more likely to be a future danger.
From the dissent, denial of certiorari:
“In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were overrepresented in the criminal justice system; (Quijano) DID NOT STATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP (BY RACE OR GENDER), NOR DID HE LINK THIS STATISTIC TO BUCK AS AN INDIVIDUAL."(1). (parenthesis my words added)
For obvious reasons, Buck was not given that opportunity and all state and federal courts have refused Buck any relief.
The majority, here, correcting the dissent error, from denial of certiorari:
"Although the dissent suggests that the District Court may have been misled by the State’s inaccurate statements, the District Court, in denying petitioner’s motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was fully aware of what had occurred in all of these cases. It is for these reasons that I conclude that certiorari should be denied." (1).
"In four of the six other cases, see, e.g.,Saldano v. Texas, 530 U. S. 1212 (2000), the prosecution called Dr. Quijano and elicited the objectionable testimony on direct examination." Other, meaning the six cases other than Buck's..
With the cooperation of then Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, those 6 other cases received re sentencing trials, within which there was no mention of any gender/race/ethnicity effect in violence and re offending.
In those 6 re sentencing trials, all received the death penalty, again, a solid rebuttal to any claim that race/gender testimony, in any of the cases, was a factor in the prior jury decisions to give death.
Just as with Buck, it was the nature of the crimes and other non racial/gender factors which convinced 156 jurors in those 13 trials to, unanimously, award the death penalty.
Invoking racism, as with the Buck case, is just another example of how death penalty opponents will apply any deception, no matter how vile, to achieve their ends.
1) From the denial of certiorari
DUANE EDWARD BUCK v. RICK THALER, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, No. 11–6391. Decided November 7, 2011
2) Race, ethnicity and crime statistics.
For the Hispanic- White comparison, the Hispanic level is 4.0 times greater than the White level for homicide, 3.8 times greater for robbery, 2.8 times greater for rape, and 2.3 times greater for aggravated assault.
For the Hispanic–Black comparison, the Black level is 3.1 times greater than the Hispanic level for homicide, 4.1 times greater for robbery, 2.4 times greater for rape, and 1.9 times greater for aggravated assault.
From
REASSESSING TRENDS IN BLACK VIOLENT CRIME, 1980.2008: SORTING OUT THE "HISPANIC EFFECT" IN UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS ARRESTS, NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY OFFENDER ESTIMATES, AND U.S. PRISONER COUNTS, DARRELL STEFFENSMEIER, BEN FELDMEYER, CASEY T. HARRIS, JEFFERY T. ULMER, Criminology, Volume 49, Issue 1, Article first published online: 24 FEB 2011
with more:
RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO
THE RACISM CLAIMS
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html
======
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html
======
Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
