BS: Should Tracy die?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 04:25 PM

Eleventh Circuit Opinion for U.S. Court of Appeals.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: SharonA
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 07:21 PM

Thanks again, kat. That document certainly puts a different spin on the situation than Amnesty does, eh?

Interesting that Housel's guilty plea was part of a plea bargain (in return, the state dropped the charge for the sexual assault of Jeanne Drew). Interesting that the Court's opinion states that "Housel's post-murder behavior was not entirely consistent with uncontrollable intoxication."

Interesting that Housel told the police twice that he wanted to make a voluntary confession to the Texas murder, after which he was driven from the jail to the police station where he signed a waiver of his rights and restated that waiver on tape before confessing. Interesting that the description of the conditions of Housel's solitary confinement were based on (a) the testimony of a sheriff's deputy who wasn't employed there until after Housel confessed; and (b) affidavits from fellow inmates that did not explain how they could have personal knowledge of what was happening to Housel in solitary.

There's a lot of interesting detail in that opinion, actually, about the man and about the decisions of the defense attorney (whose performance at trial and sentencing was not deficient according to the Court's description).


If, as Bobert said in response to my rhetorical question (Should Tracy die, according to US law as it now stands?), this thread is not about written law but about the moral fabric of US society, I must point out that Housel is not a man of particularly high moral standards, from what that Court opinion describes. If the question is "Should anyone be put to death, no matter how immoral he is, when our moral standards are higher?" then I must point out that moral standards vary from person to person, even among those whose standards are the highest, and therefore the question can never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. This is why we have laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 09:29 PM

Thanks for doing the chasing Kat. And credit to SharonA for hanging in on this.

Having followed that last link, and read the 11th circuit judgment, I now believe that the Amnesty briefing I put at the top was contentious and misleading. This is not Amnesty's usual style on my past experience, and I have been quite closely involved with some of the cases they have pursued. I intend to let them know my view of their Housel briefing, and if I get a response, I'll post it.

All that said, I don't regret that I petitioned on Housel's behalf - only that I relied on an over-stated case in persuading others to do so.

(Saw the film, Toadfrog: a film of two deaths: the first probably murder, the second blatently murder. Unfortunately there was not a lot else to pad out the 130 minutes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 12:27 AM

You're welcome, Fionn; always glad to go looking for such things.
I haven't read it, so cannot comment, but my past experience with Amnesty International has always been positive. Perhaps some of the evidence which AI has available was not admissable or known at the time of the decision? Sorry, haven't read all of it in depth.

In the case of Virginia, any evidence found 21 days after the date of sentencing is nto admissable; perhaps Texas has some similar restrictions?

Thanks,

kat