ADVERTISEMENT

Texas Execution - 30+ Years after Murders

Barring last-minute interference from the U.S. Supreme Court, Lester Bower will soon be dead. And as Jordan Smith at the Intercept reports, that would be a travesty of justice. His story is everything that’s wrong with the death penalty in America.

Bower is one of the country’s longest-serving death row inmates. He was sentenced in 1984. He’s now 67 years old. There is still significant doubt about Bower’s guilt, including evidence that was suppressed at his trial. But in the three decades Bower has lived on death row, the court system hasn’t been processing the new exculpatory evidence. Rather, the court fights have been over whether it should even be considered. And they’ve decided that it shouldn’t.

From Smith:

In a 2012 ruling that denied the majority of his claims on appeal, state Judge James Fallon opined that while Bower’s evidence that someone else committed the crime “could conceivably have produced a different result at trial, it does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that [Bower] is actually innocent.”

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the alleged standard at trial. But once you’ve been convicted, you’re essentially tasked with proving your innocence. Mere doubts about your guilt are no longer sufficient.

In Bower’s case, Smith reports that prosecutors told jurors that they found a very rare kind of ammunition at the crime scene, one that was used only to kill people and that Bower was one of only a few people to have purchased. That must have seemed damning. It was also wrong.

Amid thousands of pages of records ultimately released to the lawyers was evidence that the state knew the ammunition was nowhere near as rare as prosecutors and witnesses had suggested; that it was marketed for small game hunting and often used for practice shooting, not just for killing people; and that Bower was hardly alone in having purchased it. (Bower’s lawyers had to file multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and, ultimately, sue to get all the of the withheld documents.)

There’s more:

Also in the records was a detailed and previously undisclosed tip that the murders were actually connected to drug dealing in the area. In December 1983, the FBI was told that local drug supplies had dwindled after a source was “knocked off in Sherman.” Bower’s lawyers point out that, at the time, there were no other murder victims in Sherman, Texas apart from the bodies found in the hangar. What’s more, at the time, allegations existed that one of the victims, Tate, had been involved in cocaine trafficking in the years leading up to the murders — allegations that investigators knew about. But these claims went un-investigated — including by Jerry Buckner, Bower’s trial attorney.

Witnesses have also since come forward to identify who they say is are the real killers, including a girlfriend and wife of the alleged killers, both of whom corroborate one another’s story. Read Smith’s terrific reporting of this sordid story here.

Bower’s attorneys have argued that his extended stay on death row anticipating his execution amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Death penalty opponents will counter that this is an argument for limiting appeals, so convicts are executed sooner. But if after 30 years this much doubt about Bowers’ guilt persists — if after 30 years the courts still haven’t adequately grappled with his poor representation at trial and the evidence that surfaced after his conviction — how could anyone possibly think justice would be served by limiting his appeals? Killing an inmate 20 or 30 years after he was sentenced is an injustice. But given that people have been exonerated after serving terms that long, killing death row residents sooner can’t be the answer. Or maybe it is. It depends on the question. If the question is, “How can we bring finality to these cases, regardless of justice?,” then swifter executions will work just fine. If the question is, “How can we be certain we aren’t executing innocents?,” the only real answer is to stop executing people.

It’s cruel to make a condemned man wait 30 years before his execution. But it may be even crueler to kill him sooner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hats-wrong-with-the-death-penalty-in-america/
 
The easiest way of not getting executed is don't kill 4 people. While some of you lament the fact this man was put to death I feel bad for the families of the victims he killed.
 
In fairness to the fiscal issue (not one I agree with, obviously), his age has a direct correlation to the cost of housing him, so, fiscally, it still makes sense to kill him, he is about to become much more expensive to the State of Texas.

Its crazy they let this guy decide his fate:

slide_316625_2929851_free.gif
 
The easiest way of not getting executed is don't kill 4 people. While some of you lament the fact this man was put to death I feel bad for the families of the victims he killed.

You do understand that you can do both, right? Lament and feel bad?
 
The easiest way of not getting executed is don't kill 4 people. While some of you lament the fact this man was put to death I feel bad for the families of the victims he killed.

Yes, the families of the victims deserve our sympathies. It's also a pity that this man is now dead, and the real killer(s) are likely alive and well.
 
Too many pro-DP people think this is the argument:

"I feel bad for the victims/families" vs. "I feel bad for the killer".

That isn't it, it isn't even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
On the plus side of things, the article says he snored quietly about six times and then stopped moving. This stands in contrast to all the recent executions we've heard about where the condemned person thrashed or moaned in pain for some period of time before finally giving up the ghost.

Perhaps they've finally figured out a drug cocktail that works effectively.
 
The easiest way of not getting executed is don't kill 4 people. While some of you lament the fact this man was put to death I feel bad for the families of the victims he killed.
What if he didn't do it? Even if he did, it is wrong and uncivilized... But what if he didn't do it?
 
What if he didn't do it? Even if he did, it is wrong and uncivilized... But what if he didn't do it?

But, in general, this is a failing debate. I think everyone would agree that if he "didn't do it", he shouldn't be executed. Very few people buy in to the system so fully that a conviction is all that matters. But the system played out these issues and didn't find him innocent, whether or not that is a tragedy really doesn't matter.

At least not to where the debate should be, in my opinion obviously. You hit it with your first statement, even if he did it, it is wrong and uncivilized. That is the point that you should push. I take it in a bit of a different direction and say that it a) doesn't work for its intended purpose (at least most people's intended purpose: deterrence), b) it doesn't advance societal goals.
 
I have already stated that I am against the death penalty, but what in the hell kind of sense does it make killing a man (67) after he has already been in jail for 32 years (nearly half of his life)? If the death penalty is going to be served, it should be done quickly or not at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/04/texas-man-67-executed-for-183-killings/?intcmp=trending

I read an article that stated there are individuals in California that have been sentenced to death and are on death row and they haven't even started the appeals process. The reason is that enough money hasn't been allocated to the public defender's office responsible for death penalty appeals process.

This highlights another issue that any sane person should have concerning the death penalty. Unless you come into the process wealth, the scales are tilted towards the government case. The public defenders offices are underequipped to handle a case of this size.
 
And the appeals often increase the ineffective-ness of the system. Starting with the simplest: Once it has been "decided", how motivated is anyone to really dive in to/sort through the issues. Second, most states have a state-run organization that does the appeals, so they do have specific specialty, but that usually ends with the direct appeals. After those fail one moves on to whatever the state Post-Conviction civil process is, and most states, iirc, aren't heavily involved in that. The cases get sent out to various attorneys and they work on them at their leisure, because they aren't criminal cases they don't have strict deadlines, and can drag on years. After that comes the federal Habeas, with similar issues. Attorneys generally don't do these for free, and they have less Constitutional protections so they just sit and sit and sit.

That is why the various Innocence Projects were/are so important and have been quite successful, they get funding specifically for handling these types of issues.

Once the case is lost at the trial level it is an extremely hard hill to climb, even for people with money, but without it becomes damn near, statistically, impossible. And in most cases, rightfully so.
 
I have already stated that I am against the death penalty, but what in the hell kind of sense does it make killing a man (67) after he has already been in jail for 32 years (nearly half of his life)? If the death penalty is going to be served, it should be done quickly or not at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/04/texas-man-67-executed-for-183-killings/?intcmp=trending
While I'm not always against the death penalty, I totally agree with the sentiment that it should be done quickly or not at all. How quickly Saddam Hussein was convicted and killed is about right. I don't remember exactly how long it was, but it wasn't long.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT