BS: Should Tracy die?

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

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: 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: 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 - 04:16 PM

Thanks for the link, kat. I still haven't found any link to the decision handed down by the US Court of Appeals. Has anybody else had better luck?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 11:26 PM

There can be no doubt that the death penalty is overused and abused. I ask you this, however; every five or ten years a murderer appears who is so violent, so willing and ready to kill that there is nothing else to do with him. To put such a man in prison with relatively harmless thieves is to condemn a random selection of them to death. To put such a man in solitary confinement for life if forbidden. What else can be done? If there is NO doubt of guilt, some crimes, some people, require the death penalty. Call it revenge if you like. There's nothing wrong with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: michaelr
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 07:36 PM

Killing for life is like f***ing for virginity.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: SharonA
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 07:29 PM

kat: Oh. Okay. Just seemed to me that when you started talking with Chip about "someone of the mentality of a little child", you were still referring to Housel. Sorry. The thing I was trying to say in that paragraph is that someone with brain damage and psychological impairment isn't necessarily operating at the level of a child. Depends a lot on the brain damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 07:03 PM

Sharon, no one said Housel had the mental capacity of a seven year old. I just used that as an example from other cases I've read about.

Here's some more info: Tracey Housel Court Papers in 2 different formats.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: SharonA
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 06:37 PM

In other words, either way (execution or life imprisonment), the sentence will end with the criminal's death, but with life imprisonment the sentence drags on for decades in a hostile environment one cannot escape. I'm not sure that one sentence is less humane than the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: SharonA
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 06:31 PM

I dunno; it seems to me that being sentenced to life in prison would be an example of "punish, punish and punish."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 06:17 PM

This really isn't about written law but about the moral fabric of the US society. We tend to be in such a hurry that we take shortcuts. Capital punishment is one of those shortcuts. Rather than deal with the real issues we just punish, punish and punish. Heck, its quicker, cheaper and less threatening to the "system" than looking at the reality that we have created a peasant class of folks who live in poverty in a society that flaunts so much wealth. This post isn't about excusing behavior but rather explaining it. Until the ruling class is made uncomfortable, nothing will change. It's their country. They own it pretty much by birthrite and they plan on keeping what they have rationalized belongs to them. And the saddest part about it is they have so many folks duped into identifying with one of the two major parties, which are more like rival fraternaties. Neither party is on record of respecting, without reservation, ones right to happiness (thru opportunity) or the sanctity of life. Until we as a nation stand FIRM on sanctity of life and the pursuit of happiness thru opportunity, we will continue the current cycle of crime, incarceration and violence. Ending capital punishment would represent a good step toward becoming a more civilized society... Peace. Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: SharonA
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 05:51 PM

Should Tracy die, according to US law as it now stands? I don't know enough about the law to say, but he's lost his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. We've seen the compelling arguments for staying his execution; I'd like to see a link to some info about the court's decision and the compelling arguments on which it was based. What aren't we being told here?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 05:45 PM

Callie, I understand your opposition to the death penalty for the crime of murder. My argument with your citing of sanctions and war is that it twists the meaning of the word "murder" to include all forms of killing, even if that killing is inadvertant.

As to sanctions in Iraq, those were applied to punish the ruling regime for not living up to agreements made to allow weapons inspections. I might add that these weapons are of a nature that threaten the entire world if they are unleashed by this irresponsible maniac, Hussein. If his people are suffering, he should honor his obligations, or he should be eliminated. But that's another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: GUEST,Willie-O using IE 3.0!!!!
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 05:42 PM

If this can even post that's a minor miracle. Not like I really want to leap into this debate, listening to Americans kicking capital punishment around seems to be along the lines of "how many times should we kill him?"

Hey--THE GUY HAD A COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT DEFENSE.

Unlike Paul Bernardo, who is an intelligent, white Canadian psychopath who will hopefully spend the rest of his life in Her Majesty's Prison For Lifers. (And few will cry if they find him with his head in a toilet bowl tomorrow morning.) He had some very good lawyers.

For every Paul Bernardo, though, there seem to be several Stephen Truscotts, Donald Marshall Jrs and Guy Paul Morins. (Innocent men who were convicted of murder in Canada. Truscott was sentenced to death at the age of 14 in the late 50's, sentence later commuted, he is still trying to clear his name.)

A state that kills mentally incompetent persons, at all, but most especially when it does so without giving them the benefit of proper legal representation, is not civilized.

Sorry folks, that's barbaric.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Callie
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 05:33 PM

EJ

I'm not condoning any crimes of murder, nor intend any disrespect to victims or those affected. I can't imagine what it would be like for a murder to occur in my midst, and hope I never have to.

In my previous e-mail I merely attempted to point out that there seems to be a distinction between murder that is not acceptable and murder that is. Murder that is acceptable includes the killing of civilians in other countries, either directly or as a result of sanctions. I just wonder why the difference. Is it that civilians in other countries are not American citizens, and therefore the rules do not apply?

I don't believe the death penalty should be applied to Tracy Housel because I don't think it should be applied to anyone (for reasons already outlined by others and by groups such as Amnesty).

Callie

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: GUEST,Extra Stout
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 05:25 PM

He'll die soon enough, like the rest of us. Untill then he apparently should be kept away from the rest of us. If he's killed to show people that it's wrong to kill, some of us might not understand the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 05:16 PM

Callie, I fail to see the resemblance between the situation of an armed soldier who kills another armed soldier in combat, and that of a predatory killer who murders a defenseless child in order to cover up his molestation of her. They may be equal actions in the eyes of a few, but I would suggest that society views the two actions in entirely different lights.

There is no end to the debate over the correctness or incorrectness of the death penalty. Right now, at least in most states in the Union, it is law. Whether it should be applied to Tracy Housel is a legitimate question.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Callie
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 04:59 PM

I don't need any info about Tracey to speak out against the death penalty. He may have committed the worst crimes against humanity (and let's face it - so many war criminals are enjoying retirement in Florida) - I still don't believe that anyone on earth should have the authority to hand down a death sentence.

I find the support for the death penalty hypocritical. What about all those army and airforce personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan who murder innocent citizens? Are they exempt from your equation? And the navy personnel imposing sanctions on Iraq and forcing thousands of children to die? And their governement who allows these atrocities? Are exempt too? I'll bet they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: SharonA
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 04:42 PM

I don't see where it says that Housel has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old. It does say, on the site kat linked to, that Housel picked up Jeanne Drew at a truck stop; assuming that "picked up" means that he was driving, he at least had enough mental capacity to be able to operate a motor vehicle without attracting undue attention while the crime was in progress.

But if he's really so severely mentally ill, why was he sent to jail rather than to an institution? Why aren't they appealing to have the sentence changed to "guilty but mentally ill" so he can get some help? ...Perhaps, without the infusion of alcohol, he's not sufficiently impaired for that? Note this excerpt from the Amnesty briefing posted by Fionn:

"...two mental health experts have concluded that Tracy Housel suffers from brain damage and psychological impairment, which combined with his drug and alcohol abuse, "substantially impaired" Housel's ability to recognize the criminality of his conduct. The state has introduced no expert testimony to rebut this evidence, which could have been used to present a defence of temporary insanity. Instead, his lawyer allowed Housel to plead guilty to capital murder."

Temporary insanity. Now, I infer from the above that while he'd been sitting in jail without the aggravating circumstance of drug and alcohol abuse available to him, his ability to recognize the criminality of his conduct was less substantially impaired. And when it came time for him to enter a plea, he pleaded guilty. Whether or not he knew what he was doing at the time of the murder, he had a better idea later of what he had done that day.

That doesn't speak to the question of rightness or wrongness in executing him but I'm just saying that, based on what little info has been provided in this thread, I don't envision Housel as someone who hasn't got a clue as to why he's on death row.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 03:30 PM

Well, another assumption bites the dust. Thanks Kat.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 03:17 PM

There is more information, if one scrolls down, about Tracey Housel on this page which includes a picture of him.

Yes, it is a biased site, but it also has links, which I did not explore, which may give more info, fwiw.

Fair enough, Chip, agreed we will probably not change each other's minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 03:14 PM

bob s, EXCELLENT observation!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: bob schwarer
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 02:32 PM

Why do you think he is black?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Chip2447
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 12:36 PM

Callie, I'm not perfect by any stretch of the word, but I have never killed anyone. Also I'm willing to accept responisibility and the consequences for my actions.


Kat said....

"The answers do not lie in killing each other. BUT, in a feudal society, which we still live in, it has always been the privilege of the "king" to do as he will with his subjects, including leading and gaining the cooperation of the majority through fear, intimidation, and disinformation much as Bush is doing right now"

Would this be be different from leading and gaining the cooperation of the majority through lies, deceit and scandal much as the previous administration did?

I've stated my opinion knowing full well that it tends to run contrary to most of the mudcat community. Now, I'm done...I'm not likely to change anyone's mind on this, nor or you likely to change mine.
Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 12:23 PM

Regarding the will of the majority in the last Presidential election, what can I say? The election was incredibly close, and its resolution open for debate. I voted for Gore and had reservations about the Supreme's decision, but I see Bush's swearing in as an acceptable termination of the turmoil, rather than a gross miscarriage of justice. By and large, our elections and elected officials reflect the will of the majority, and I think that that is the expressed intent of Democratic Government.

Regarding Tracy, I repeat that not enough information is provided here to make an informed opinion. I do not believe that the death penalty should be uniformly and inflexibly applied. The story of the crime must be heard, and extenuating circumstances considered. If the man accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering the 7 year old Van Dam girl is found guilty, then I defy you to tell me he deserves mercy. If true, he is a poisonous murdering child molester, and it is God's business to show him mercy and foregiveness, not ours.

Wait...he's black, poor, mentally handicapped...of course, he should die!

Sorry. That's a sensational and emotional statement based on almost no information, just like saying if he was black, rich, and a Sports Hero, there's no way he could be convicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: GUEST,Banned by Max
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 12:07 PM

For the pedants:

I meant Western Europe, and I meant 'guns' in terms of a cultural thing.

Taking my above post literally, there are plenty of holes in the arguement.

Taken philosophically? I'm not so sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: GUEST,Banned by Max
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 12:03 PM

If America stopped thinking that it was in charge of the world, and always 'right' there would be no issue.

There is no death penalty anywhere in Europe. We don't have guns either.

It's about time America grew up.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 11:34 AM

Yo, Rick. Here in the US uor prisons are filled with folks who were convicted of "Victimless" crimes. We have very screwed up laws about drugs, drug dealing, prostition. Our narrow mindedness insures the econmic stability of attorneys, the court system, and the prison industry. And we got the right guy at the wheel. He comes from Texas, the incarceration and capital punishment meca of the universe. And once in prison, if you weren't a vilent person when you came in, you can bey you will be when you are released.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 11:00 AM

I didn't know it but Virginia was the first place to introduce the death penalty to the "New World" way back when, according to this website.

Also, it had the following, which I find equally disturbing:

Under the post-Furman laws, Virginia has become the 2nd most active killing state.

Only Texas , with a far larger population, has executed more prisoners than Virginia.

In Virginia, juveniles as young as 16 at time of offense can be tried on a capital offense and sentenced to death.

Virginia allows the executions of the mentally retarded, the severly brain damaged and the mentally ill. At least 7 such mentally handicapped prisoners have been executed in Virginia.

Morris Mason, a young, black man from the Eastern Shore with a lifelong history of paranoid schizophrenia and a mental age of 8, was the first severely mentally handicapped prisoner executed by Virginia post Furman . Morris was killed on June 25, 1985. The most recent execution of a mentally retarded prisoner was that of Walter Correll, Jr. on Jan. 4, 1996.

If you go to that website, it also has pecentages of Virginians who do not agree with the state on another issue related to this. That is, the law in VA says a defendant cannot present any new evidence in the appeals process after 21 days have passed from judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 10:17 AM

A seven year old does not understand the finality of death, esp. when caused by their actions. If a man has the mental ability of a seven year old, this can be even more so because of his size and physical strength.

RichM, spot on!

The answers do not lie in killing each other. BUT, in a feudal society, which we still live in, it has always been the privilege of the "king" to do as he will with his subjects, including leading and gaining the cooperation of the majority through fear, intimidation, and disinformation much as Bush is doing right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 07:36 AM

You're right the prisons are full Chip. A bigger proportion of the US population is behind bars than in any country on earth, and the UK is catching up with the biggest jail population in Europe. It relates directly to how wide the gap is between rich and poor. (In the UK pre-Thatcher the biggest earners made do with 30-40 times average earnings. Now they get the average wage x 200-300, increasing the number of people they need to be protected from.)

But if you think the convicts are all "self-proclaimed" innocent, you've never been in a prison. You don't need to - just talk to people who work in them. Very, very few convicts go on claiming to be innocent for year after year. And in the UK it's becoming crystal clear that the ones who do, usually are. There have been dozens of cases where the full panoply of the law found people guilty beyond all doubt, only for it to turn out that the full panoply of the law got it wrong. At least in the UK they're likely to be still alive when the mistake is acknowledged.

RichM: on the button!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Callie
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 06:40 AM

You ever done something that needed forgiveness Chip, or you perfect?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 04:08 AM

My great problem with the death penalty, apart from the basic sanctity of human life, lies with the executioner.

To whom do we give the right to take a human life?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: RichM
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 03:55 AM

Wait...he's black, poor, mentally handicapped...of course, he should die!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Chip2447
Date: 07 Mar 02 - 01:09 AM

Kat, How many seven year olds do you know that have killed people? Or how many seven year olds that don't kow the difference between what is right and what is wrong.
It has become too easy to blame society, or a dysfunctional family life, or that fact that everyone teases you. Etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Let's stop mollycoddling the bad guys, and just feeling sorry for the families of their victims. Our prisons are full of self proclaimed innocent people, people who claim it wasn't their fault. There comes a time in everyone's life you you must face the consquences of your actions. The Majority of our society says that it is alright to kill a killer. Count me as part of that majority.
Tracy has had nearly 17 years to sit in his little cell and ponder his actions, and the results that he brought upon himself.
I don't see the world becoming a better place by allowing our jails to fill up with real life sentences.
Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:58 PM

Chip2447, in cases other than this one, mentally handicapped persons have been put to death for crimes. How is someone of the mentality of a little child, say 7 years old, supposed to accept the responsibility of their actions if they don't even understand what murder and death are all about?

Also, how is anyone supposed to accept their responsibility without time to think about it, in a tiny cell, and talk it through with someone, i.e. a counsellor? Surely, even someone the state is planning to put to death deserves a chance to talk it through, understand why they have been sentenced to death, etc.? No, I know they most likely didn't do the same with their victims, but why would the government want to emulate their methods of kiling anyway?

Ol' Bobert, sorry to say we may have found one thing in which we do not agree. Though I am not a "follower of Christ" I am spiritual and I do not believe any god is cruel enough not to understand the tortured soul of a suicide and forgive them. We sure DO agree about the death penalty, though!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:58 PM

"continue to send the message that killing, other than in self defense, is under the right conditions, just fine"

You mean it's not?

Isn't execution of a criminal a sort of societal self-defence?

Upon reflection, I do have to admit that I need to retreact my example above...

Killing is too good for the likes of Paul Bernardo...

That's just my view...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:48 PM

Yes he shoulddie,he is no fucking use to himself or society.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Chip2447
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:37 PM

He admitted to his crime. Enough trying to blame a bad childhood, there comes a time when one must stand up and take responibility for ones actions. If the true story was as Amnesty International postulates then someone would have stepped in and at least stayed the execution. But no. We have to concern ourselves more with the criminals rights than we do for the victims.
Capitol punishment is a deterrent to crime, it will deter that criminal from ever committing an act of criminal violence on another person again, something that even life behind bars cannot guarantee.
Face it folks, in a perfect society there would be no need for people to die whatever the reason. However, the society we live in is far from perfect.
Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Morticia
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:36 PM

I really struggle with this one.....a person takes a life =murder; a goverment takes a life=justice......how's that again?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:24 PM

Speaking as a follower of Christ, I say no, for suicide is the only sin for which there is no possibility of forgiveness. But I am powerless to prevent folks from killing themselves. I would suggest, however, if the US society were to take if's and but's out of the equation that fewer people would take their own lives, but this is supostion, since we still continue to send the message that killing, other than in self defense, is under the right conditions, just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Callie
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 04:23 PM

Lonesome EJ: "the will of the majority"???? give me a break. That's hardly an argument to use following the last US election!

Capital punishment is no deterrent for criminal acts. That's a proven fact. So any arguments FOR the death penalty are an emotive wish for revenge on the victims who too often are victims themselves of crimes ranging from poverty to abuse perpetrated against them.

Besides, I thought it was un-American to seek an eye for an eye.

Thanks Fionn for bringing this to our attention.

Callie

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 03:17 PM

Can we believe in the ability of some to sacrifice the sanctity of their lives through their actions, Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 02:46 PM

Taking of life to demonstrate one's feelings for the sanctity of life tarnishes one's position. Either we believe in the sanctity of life or we don't. There are no if's of but's...

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 01:15 PM

I'm a big fan of Steve Earle, but we part trails on the death penalty subject. His argument makes some sense, and was essentially Thoreau's argument in opposing the Mexican War back in the mid 1800s. The problem with it is that, no matter what policy the government pursues from the conduct of war to funding school lunches, it is easy to find someone vehemently opposed. He has a right to maintain his opposition, but the government's responsibility is primarily with the will of the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 12:34 PM

I heard Steve Earle make a wonderful argument against Capitol punishment... in a nut shell, he said his government was him, and anything they did, he did, and he didn't want to be killin' folk...

Check out his song "Over Yonder"...

Personally I can think of people who need killin... Paul Bernardo leaps to mind...

I donno anything about Tracy, except what I've read here...

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 12:33 PM

The article sited doesn't really give enough information to answer your question. The statement concentrates on the circumstances of Housel's upbringing, and makes accusations regarding his treatment while in custody, and makes almost no mention of his crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 11:50 AM

As James Earl Ray did, in the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Tracy die?
From: MMario
Date: 06 Mar 02 - 11:06 AM

I believe if they plead guilty to a capital offense they are actually waiving trial - and go directly to sentencing - as mentioned.