Texas man who said death sentence was based on discredited testimony is executed for 1990 killing
Texas man who said death sentence was based on discredited testimony is executed for 1990 killing
The execution was carried out after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims by Brewer's attorneys that prosecutors at a 2009 resentencing trial had relied on false and discredited expert testimony.
A Texas man who said his death sentence was based on false and unscientific expert testimony was executed Thursday evening for killing a man during a robbery decades ago.
Brent Ray Brewer, 53, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville for the April 1990 death of Robert Laminack. The inmate was pronounced dead at 6:39 p.m. local time, 15 minutes after the chemicals began flowing.
Prosecutors had said Laminack, 66, gave Brewer and his girlfriend a ride to a Salvation Army location in Amarillo when he was stabbed in the neck and robbed of $140.
Brewer’s execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in over the inmate’s claims that prosecutors had relied on false and discredited expert testimony at his 2009 resentencing trial.
You're viewing a single thread.
“Pro-Life”
If that's how you interpret "pro life" then you must be okay with this execution if you're "pro choice". The state "choose" to execute this man after all.
That's the worst attempt at a gotcha I've ever seen.
Ya. It doesn't make sense at all. That's like saying anti abortion legislators are Pro choice because they are choosing to force you to have that rapist's baby.
I mean, the original comment was pretty shit too. That was kinda the point. Knowingly taking words out of context as a gotcha does absolutely nothing useful and only serves to annoy literally everyone involved. You're not clever
Maybe it wasn't a "gotcha"?
Okay, then what on Earth was your point?
That using political slogans outside their intended context and reading them literally is a bad idea.
Also that partisans will only notice when you do that for one side's slogan and not the other.
I'm pretty sure the context that "all life is precious" applies here. That's what pro-lifers claim. But apparently someone who may be innocent still deserves to be executed according to the people pro-lifers knowingly vote for.
Brewer has long expressed remorse for the killing and a desire to apologize to Laminack’s family.
“I will never be able to repay or replace the hurt (and) worry (and) pain I caused you. I come to you in true humility and honest heart and ask for your forgiveness,” Brewer wrote in a letter to Laminack’s family that was included in his clemency application to the parole board.
He did not dispute the guilty verdict. He is guilty. He admitted guilt. He has not claimed innocence. Quite the contrary, he explicitly claimed to have committed the murder.
He disputed the expert testimony of a witness at his sentencing hearing who claimed he would forever remain a danger.
Nobody is claiming he is innocent in the article that I read.
But you don't think that somebody can believe that life is precious but also that some people don't deserve to live?
If that's how you interpret "pro choice" no wonder you want control over women's bodies..?
This seems like a poor choice of articles to discuss abortion in though. And yes, I know you didn't start it.
Do you mean to say it's a bad idea to interpret a political slogan literally and in a different context from where it is meant to be used?
I mean, did you make it past the first sentence in my comment?
... Yes? Not sure how the second sentence is relevant though.
Then exactly what fucking point were you trying to make. If you understood the words I wrote, how did I misinterpret yours? I clearly must have...
All I know is I'm confused. 🙂
I was being too clever, perhaps, for lemmy.
Buddy, you being "too clever" is not your issue lol
Let me spell it out for you why this is a ridiculous argument.
A person who is "pro-choice" believes that the law should give each affected individual the choice of what to do. It is about individual liberty, and definitely not about a government having a choice. There is simply no way to extend this to mean what you're saying.
If that's not enough for you, a person who is "pro-life" believes that the law should not allow an individual to decide what to do. They believe that this individual liberty is not as important as the life of a fetus. So, it's rather easy to extend this one. In fact, when you hear a pro-life person trying to explain why they are right, virtually all of their rationale also works for people after they are born. But then when you try to show the ramifications of their arguments, they simply don't accept them.
The problem is that these are not two equal sides. Pro-choice people can actually argue consistently and with conviction. But pro-life people cannot, unless they throw in all this other stuff. So, when people mock "pro-life" in this situation, they are actually mocking the idiotic actual views that these people hold, and contrasting them against an ideal pro-lifer who actually believes what they say.
Disregarding my personal views on this subject, this is a straw man argument.
You have very noticably left out that pro-lifers view the fetus as one of these individuals you say the Pro-choice regard so highly. The Pro life argument is that it should be systemically illegal to end the life of what they view as innocent individuals.
Which... yes, is kind of similar to the general take on this article, regardless of your views on the individuality of fetuses
regardless of your views on the individuality of fetuses
While I can appreciate what you're going for here and will even relent that your argument is topical to the discussion at hand. I do feel the need to point out that a fetus is, by deffinition, objectively, not a human being.
I get where you're coming from and I respect that you believe these 2 things are equitable. But, feelings aside, capital punishment for a human being is very very very different from removing a small collection of half formed cells. Its like comparing the death of an animal to that of a tumor that was removed in a surgical procedure. The tumor died, but it's not the same thing as killing an actually sentient aninal
Except tumors don't have the potential to grow into sentient animals, so those are pretty different things too. Also, where are you getting this definition from? I study biology for a living and I don't know anyone who doesn't consider the term "human being" to include the whole life cycle of the organism.
Frankly, I think a lot of the issue lies with where you decide the value of a life comes from.
Species? Speciesism is kinda fucking the world right now as we make tons of species go extinct to make room for humans above all things.
The sum of a being's autonomy or it's life experiences? Kinda ableist/ leads to saying children have less intrinsic value than the elderly (which is not exactly a common viewpoint)
It's potential for life? That would mean we should value fetuses above all other life
Sky Daddy said so? ...doesn't really need any criticism as it's so inherently problematic
My personal feelings are almost entirely mixed and agnostic on this subject, so I'm trying to keep them out of this discussion, but my point here is I don't think you are seeing double enough to realize how easily a different perspective changes the whole argument into a "righteous" one.
The people you are arguing with ABSOLUTELY have hypocritical stances, but we should focus on attacking those, not straw man arguments that don't take into account that they have ENTIRELY alternate world views, that are frankly, not simply as dismissable as saying "well, WE define it differently"
A tumor is a collection of cells that have one or more missing flags that would normally restrict cell growth, allowing it to grow and multiply far beyond what your body is built to allow for. The difference is that as it grows, a fetus will eventually reach a floor of cognitive ability to allow for sentience whereas a tumor will just spread.
I'm not here to discuss the philosophical quandary of valuing one life over another. I don't want to debate the ethical ramification of arguing on the behalf of a hypothetical man who has never known true autonomy, or a diefic figure who simply decides that from a utilitarian perspective your life is worth less than that of your neighbor. I'm simply saying that sentience is the defining characteristic of intelligent life. I don't think that should have to be a controversial statement.
An embryo may have the potential to become a human one day but at the moment it is not. Just like an acorn is not an oak tree. I wouldn't sit under an acorn for shade, nor would I hang a tire swing from it, because it isn't a tree. It's an acorn. And an embryo is not a thinking and feeling human being. It's an embryo.
Now where am I getting this information from? Well I suppose I am applying my own personal understanding of it since I don't have an exact quote or reference for you. I do not have a degree in biology, but I know someone who does, a lot of someone's actually. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 people in my close, immediate circle who have studied biology at length, 1 of which has multiple degrees in the discipline and another 2 are doctors. And yes, I HAVE heard "human beings" described as having started to exist in that state from the point of sentience. Matter of fact, while I'm sure some do see it like you do I personally have never heard someone refer to a zygote or embryo as a human being.. They call them zygotes and embros.. Because that's what they are, despite what they may potentially become.
But that's all beside the point. I can see you are just trying to be reasonable and explain that I will not convince anyone this way. And you're probably right; but I will make a counterpoint. This is not a strawman. Despite what one feels or believes on the subject a fetus under a certain threshold of development is not capable of the very barest minimum required cognitive functions to be considered a human baby. And suggesting that it has more rights Than it's fully formed human mother is fucking insane.
I don't really have a counter argument that I would like to make, because it's not and never was my goal to convince you that your opinion was wrong I only intended to critique the way it was made.
However, I am curious where you would personally draw the line on a human infant becoming sentient. This not intended as a trap or an argument- as a conflicted person, your certainty is interesting.
(By the way, that downvote didn't come from me. I upvoted you just to counteract it.)
I don't understand what you are saying at all. I don't mean that the argument is unclear. I mean that your sentences don't make enough sense to me to convey the information to me that you clearly want to convey.
I think you have to be extremely clear when you say that somebody is making a straw man argument. What exactly did I say that was a mischaracterization, and why does it make it easier for me to argue against their point?
Because as I read this, you are setting up the argument to be:
Pro choice believes in protecting individual autonomy, as opposed to Pro life, which believes in telling people what to do, because of insert any number of reasons here
This is pretty true of a lot of the pro life apologists and political campaigners, but I feel is a pretty ineffectual argument against the people who truely believe this as an ideology.
The people that truely believe in pro life genuinely don't see a difference in values about protecting individual autonomy- they believe that's what they are doing by banning both murder and abortion (something that they don't differentiate between)
Plenty of these would agree with you that this execution was in fact a murder.
Let me spell it out for you why this is a ridiculous argument.
I was mocking the shitty logic of the post I replied to. So yes. It is a ridiculous argument. 👍
Congratulations. You've managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you. The "shitty logic" you're referring to is actually pro-choicers giving pro-lifers the best possible interpretation of their own logic. But on the other hand, there is no way to do the same thing to the pro-choice side, because the pro-choicers already believe in the best version of their argument.
To be fair, I wouldn't read a post that starts with "let me spell it out for you" even if you're completely right.
I'm guessing you don't require a particularly compelling reason to avoid reading something.
It's more like if that's the tone of your first sentence, I wouldn't want to be subjected to more condescension.
No, you only like to dish out condescension with phrases like, "I wouldn’t read a post that starts with 'let me spell it out for you' even if you’re completely right."
Sorry for the confusion but I'm not the guy you were talking with. I'm completely on your side I was just critiquing the messaging.
There's no confusion. I quoted YOU. How strange is it to suggest that I was confused about who I was talking to when essentially the entire comment was quoting the person I was talking to. I'm being generous and assuming that you didn't just get confused because you're trying to utilize multiple accounts that you own, and that you forgot which account you used to make which comment.
And my point was that you used a condescending tone when it suited your argument, which puts us in exactly the same boat. The main difference seems to be that I was originally condescending to a person who used an embarrassingly poor argument, which was worthy of condescension.
Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you.
Thanks - being brigaded by libs means I'm kinda skimming responses at this point.
I'm saying maybe use the interpretation of their argument that they use and not the one you wish to shoe-horn onto it. Whenever I've listened to pro-lifers (at least the better versed ones) they clearly only intend to stop what they view as "actively killing an unborn child." Their logic, taken from that POV (and assuming a BUNCH of their premises are true) seems to be reasonably consistent and would have no bearing on the death of a convicted murderer.
they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.”
It doesn't matter where they intend to stop.
If I say, "one apple plus one apple is two apples," and my stated justification is "1+1=2". And then later, I say, "one orange plus one orange is three oranges," you would be right to say, "Your justification 1+1=2 also works for oranges, so somewhere in your arguments you're incorrect." But here, you're saying that I can respond, "I only intend to stop at apples," and that this is "reasonably consistent."
This is some sort of cognitive dissonance sophistry that simply doesn't work. It's not reasonably consistent.
It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.
It's their argument - so yes it does?
Do you believe people should be free? Well how about criminals? Does it matter now "where you intend to stop"?
If I stated that all people deserve to be free, but I actually meant except for criminals, then that is something that I can be challenged about and I can revise my statement, and I could say, "All people except criminals deserve to be free." But we're not talking about that. We're talking about people who believe in absolutes, but never defend the actual ramifications of those beliefs.
I mean... They do.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/pro-life-perspective-on-the-death-penalty/
You may not like the explanation (i don't). But they do discuss it and have justifications of sorts for their beliefs.
He didn’t really get to chose. It seems others chose for him…
He chose when he killed his victim.
You’re right. That’s why every aborting woman should be sent to death row /s
Pro-choice is for bodily autonomy. The death penalty is very much against bodily autonomy.
And "pro life" is for fetuses not convicted murderers.
It's interesting how partisans view the world though. Anything I post pointing out this discrepancy is voted way down. But the "hurr pro life" post is voted up.
Tribalism is a hell of a drug. 😆
Did you miss the part where he could have been innocent?
Apparently. Can you point that out to me? What I read said he was convicted and twice sentenced to death. And the defence only challenged the death penalty claiming "Richard Coons, falsely claimed Brewer would be a future danger" without any details about what that means (the article seems to be taking their word for it).
And I see a letter from him apologizing for the murder.
Nowhere do I see anybody claiming he is innocent.
The typical pro life position is that a fetus is a person and therefore has a right to live.
Yes, I used "fetus" here to avoid the inevitable "fetuses aren't people" response.
I'm against capital punishment because convictions can be overturned, but executions cannot.
That said, your crimes against logic are clear and convincing. Ironically, they've also convinced me to change my mind. You, definitely deserve to be executed for this clear case of language perversion and aggregated rhetorical idiocy.
Sooo - my "crime against logic" was a mockery of how bad the logic the person I was responding to was.
I used the same tactic they did. Misunderstanding "the other side" and assuming my straw-man version of their point was valid.
Subtlety doesn't work on Lemmy or with partisans.
It's your misunderstanding, not theirs. The origins of the pro-life movement is Catholic and absolutely includes opposition to capital punishment, as well as abortion.
The Democrat party once accepted slavery. Things change.
A pig's orgasm can last up to 30 minutes!
Figured you'd like to know, as we're now clearly in the sharing irrelevant facts stage of conversation.
I was too subtle. The Catholics who started it are not the fundies chapioning it today.
No, I understood what you were saying. But the Christian fundamentalists hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the critique that being pro capital punishment is antithetical to being pro-life.
I mean.. If the person making the argument tells you that they only believe in death penalties for people who have been convicted of a heinous crime... You're telling me that contradicts their belief that an innocent child should not be killed before birth (their believe - not mine)?
I honestly don't see that as hypocritical.
Lol, good point.