
In Texas, a man who didn’t kill anybody is about to be executed for murder - samsolomon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/12/in-texas-a-man-who-didnt-kill-anybody-is-about-to-be-executed-for-murder/?utm_term=.8a947c26d6c5
======
danso
IMO, the real apparent injustice in this case is the prosecutor's use of a
forensic psychiatrist who apparently has a cottage industry in testifying
against defendants:

> _Wood was committed to a mental health hospital after he was found
> incompetent. A neuropsychologist had testified that Wood was delusional,
> unable to grasp the issues about his case and the reality facing him..._

> _The writ of habeas corpus, filed in July, spotlights something else the
> jury did not know: the troubled history of a forensic psychiatrist whose
> testimony resulted in Wood’s death sentence._

> _James Grigson was no stranger to capital murder cases: By the time Wood
> went on trial, in 1998, Grigson said he had testified in 163 such cases.
> Prosecutors often sought his testimony to secure the ultimate punishment for
> defendants. Often, they were successful, earning Grigson a nickname: “Dr.
> Death.”_

> _In 1995, three years before Wood’s trial, Grigson was expelled from the
> American Psychiatric Association and its Texas branch at that time, the
> Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians, for predicting a defendant’s
> potential threat to society based solely on a hypothetical. The expulsions
> followed an investigation by the Texas association’s ethics committee, which
> cited Grigson’s “willfully narrow rendition of psychiatric knowledge.”_

~~~
jrapdx3
Obviously I don't know all the details of the case but I find it troublesome
that a psychiatrist would render an opinion without examining the individual
who is the object of the opinion. On its face this is unethical particularly
in a situation where there's so much at stake.

I'm aware that "assessment at a distance" is frequently sought, for example,
reviewing clinical info in the medical record to determine if services were
consistent with billing for reimbursement. This is often a question arising
with Medicare and other 3rd party payers. However that's not unethical since
it's quite different from providing a diagnosis or determining the qualities
of a person's functioning without examining the individual.

I have no idea if the doctor's conduct had come before the state licensing
board, but it appears there would be substantial reason to consider that
conduct "unprofessional" given the actions of the professional societies
declaring the behavior as unethical. Normally such disciplinary action carries
consider weight with licensing bodies. Most likely this avenue of doing
something to keep the situation from recurring has already been explored, it
would be a shame if it was overlooked.

~~~
techdragon
It's troubling that his input is still considered sufficient to render a
judgement. That one person was of poor moral character and has been
appropriately expelled from his profession by his more reputable peers is
just, proper, and generally how things are supposed to work. (My use of
"supposed to work" no way implies belief in a world where "supposed to work"
is equals "is how it actually works")

------
techsupporter
I'm a native Texan, which I point out solely to rebut the assertion that all--
or even many--Texans are in favor of the death penalty, and I very much oppose
the death penalty for reasons exactly such as this. Maybe this man committed a
crime; it sure seems like he did. But maybe he didn't. Or maybe he didn't in
the way that the state, or the psychiatrist, or the eyewitnesses claim he did.

That's the problem with the death penalty: There are vanishingly few
situations where we can be 100%, absolutely clear on whether a person did
something that warrants permanently removing that person from existence.

We are a nation of laws and we are also a nation of fallible human beings. If
we could be completely certain, then _perhaps_ I would be OK with the
permanence of death. But we can't, so we shouldn't be killing criminals in the
name of the people or the state. Because what happens if we are wrong? What
happens if we are wrong 138 times[0]?

Why have we forgotten that "[i]t is better that ten guilty persons escape than
that one innocent suffer?"

0 - [http://tcadp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/TXDPFactSheet01-...](http://tcadp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/TXDPFactSheet01-11.pdf)

~~~
ythl
> There are vanishingly few situations where we can be 100%, absolutely clear
> on whether a person did something that warrants permanently removing that
> person from existence.

So would you say that the vast majority of murder convictions leave at least a
little room for doubt?

~~~
techsupporter
Yes. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is fine for throwing someone in jail and
putting the key all but permanently out of reach. But I think that, as a
society, we must retain the ability to say "oh shit we fucked up very much
here is the door we are very sorry please take this huge sack of cash along
with our sincere apologies" if or when we discover that our legal system made
a massive error.

In this day and age, were an exoneration to happen, I would also mandate that
the state put up billboards in the person's home town and where the crime
allegedly took place and run Internet ads and do lots of press interviews to
get it out as widely as possible that someone has been exonerated.

~~~
wtbob
> "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is fine for throwing someone in jail and
> putting the key all but permanently out of reach. But I think that, as a
> society, we must retain the ability to say "oh shit we fucked up very much
> here is the door we are very sorry please take this huge sack of cash along
> with our sincere apologies" if or when we discover that our legal system
> made a massive error.

You'll still never return lost years and decades of someone's life any more
than you could return life to a dead man. You can't restore the fractured
relationships, undo the pain of imprisonment.

Honestly, I think a quick death (not the insane decades-of-imprisonment-
followed-by-ritualistic-execution we have now) is far more humane than life in
prison.

~~~
dalke
Then stop treating prisoners so poorly. What I read of US prisons sounds
inhumane, so your last sentence comes across to me as comparing two different
NaNs.

Also, many countries have banned life imprisonment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_ab...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_abolition)
.

------
allendoerfer
I am neither Texan nor American, so this is an outsiders perspective:

What I do not get is how the EU can just blatantly ignore this. When one of
our politicians travels to an Arab country or to China and does not address
the human rights situation clear enough, he or she will be bashed. When Turkey
starts _talking_ about reintroducing capital punishment the instant reactions
are that this will end the negotiations about EU membership. Capital
punishment is a hard line for the EU, if your country has it, it is not
considered to value human rights and is out, no further questions asked.

The only people really criticizing the US here (in Germany) are usually
haters, who glorify Russia.

It cannot be about the money either, because China is an important partner,
too. They have to put up with our obligatory human rights talk every time,
while the US has not.

~~~
makomk
They can't. The EU requires its members not to extradite anyone to the US if
there's any possibility that a death sentence might be applied. On the other
hand, China has a whole lot more human rights issues than the US.

~~~
allendoerfer
The US holds itself to higher standards. It tries to get Europe to fight wars
together in the name of these standards, so it should be held accountable.
China is corrupt to the core, they do not claim anything else and nobody
expects anything different.

I am not saying that we can or should do anything about it, just that we have
to point these things out if do not want to lose our face.

------
gozur88
>Legal experts say his case is rare, even in Texas, the execution capital of
America — and a state that allows capital punishment for people who did not
kill anyone or did not intend to kill.

Forty six US states have Felony Murder statutes. I don't think this is all
that rare for states with capital punishment. According to the wiki "...the
death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a major participant in the
underlying felony and 'exhibits extreme indifference to human life'."

~~~
refurb
Correct! I'm not sure why Texas is being singled out here. California has this
statue as well.

If you participate in the commission of a felony crime and someone dies, then
you are guilty of felony murder. They have something similar in the EU (e.g.
Germany has "with deadly outcomes") where you receive an extended sentence
even if you never intended for that person to die.

~~~
honkhonkpants
California has executed 13 people in 40 years, and none in the last ten. Texas
has executed 500 people in the same time.

~~~
gozur88
On the other hand, there are more than 750 people on death row in California.
It's not that we don't sentence them to death; it's just that we've created a
system where we can't carry out the execution before they die of natural
causes.

------
bArray
I think if he's found not guilty he deserves some kind of compensation. You
can't just keep somebody in limbo like that, knowing they will "die soon" for
years. It is mental torture. What he's going through now is arguably worse
than being found guilty. You can't justify that. They're punishing him and his
family repeatedly.

I think this is a perfect example of the US completely getting it wrong. If
states can't get it right, I think the ability to arbitrarily punish serious
crimes should be dissolved to upper government. Why it makes a difference what
state you're in is beyond me. I thought it was something they were phasing out
of.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
_I think this is a perfect example of the US completely getting it wrong. If
states can 't get it right, I think the ability to arbitrarily punish serious
crimes should be dissolved to upper government. Why it makes a difference what
state you're in is beyond me. I thought it was something they were phasing out
of._

Because if it were all handled at a higher level, there is a very good chance
these types of policies would be in place for more people. Also, it would take
more effort to change them. Concentration of power is not good, didn't you see
star wars?

~~~
bArray
The reason it takes such effort to change things at the top is a problem that
needs sorting in it's own right. There's a lot of corruption.

Why do you think these policies would be in place for more? I this rubbish
would be gone, weed legalised and it would make it easier to change the
political system. In the UK the decentralised part of government is the worst
bit.

------
Aelinsaar
Another case in point for why "Texas" is Norwegian slang for "Crazy".

------
myrryr
This seems like an odd article to be posted here. The author has stopped
posting comments and around the same time started just posting links to
articles.

Also he isn't posting any comments to any of the articles he is posting....

His twitter feed isn't mentioning anything like this...

I wonder if his account is still under his control?

------
joesmo
It seems to me that such laws punish people for associating with certain
individuals who go on to commit crimes, requiring everyone to essentially be
psychic or predict others' actions correctly 100% of the time to stay on the
right side of the law. Either that or avoid associating with anyone.

It's insane--and certainly unjust--that a law that makes such impossible and
ridiculous demands of people is considered just.

~~~
djrogers
Setting aside the death penalty aspect, this case is not about association -
it's about explicit participation in a felony that resulted in the death of an
innocent victim.

Doesn't require a psychic to determine that committing a robbery with someone
whom you know to own and carry a firearm could result in a death.

~~~
vacri
> _with someone whom you know to own and carry a firearm could result in a
> death_

In modern Texas with its 'carry' laws, this could be anyone.

Besides, given the gun lobby rhetoric, 'guns don't kill people', so a death is
'just as likely' with a knife or any other tool to hand - even stuff already
in the shop. After all, if someone is intent on killing you, 'they're going to
do it whether or not they have a gun'.

