The Execution State, Not the Death Sentence State
Jacob Sullum | December 26, 2007, 11:39am
This year, The New York Times reports, Texas accounted for 62 percent of the country's executions. But contrary to the state's reputation, it is not especially likely to impose death sentences. It is just more likely than other states to carry them out:
According to a 2004 study by three professors of law and statistics at Cornell published in The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Texas prosecutors and juries were no more apt to seek and impose death sentences than those in the rest of the country.
"Texas' reputation as a death-prone state should rest on its many murders and on its willingness to execute death-sentenced inmates," the authors of the study, Theodore Eisenberg, John H. Blume and Martin T. Wells, wrote. "It should not rest on the false belief that Texas has a high rate of sentencing convicted murderers to death."
Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:23pm | #
There is a recent story out of Texas that
HnR really should have blogged, but hasn't.* Short version of the story:
Two undocumented immigrants from Columbria break into a house and are making off with loot. Next door neighbors calls 911, says he will shoot the burglars, is told by the 911 operator not to shoot the burglars, tells the operator that he is going to shoot the burglars anyway and proceeds to shoot the burglars to death. Police show up and decline to arrest. It is not clear whether any criminal charges will be brought against the killer.
More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/23texas.html?em&ex=1198558800&en=8fd40a9a62c46725&ei=5087%0A
Also, the tape of the 911 call is available on the Nets and worth hearing.
On the one hand, you can kind of see why
HnR hasn't found this blogworthy, what with: (i) the bad light it casts on undocumented immigrants; and (ii)
HnR's Texas correspondent having taken the position that people won't casually shoot other people just because guns are easily accessible. However, these are also exactly the resons that
HnR should have reported this interesting story.* So they can explain to the gunnuts why what Joe Horn did was okay. So the gunnuts will have a response when this item comes up in chit-chat.
FOOTNOTE:
* Correct me if I am wrong on this. Also, I don't follow that Chas. Oliver thing if they still do that.
Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:53pm | #
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Dave comments:
1. I think they amended this recently to get rid of the "nighttime" limitations.
2. You can shoot someone to prevent "criminal mischief" under 9.42(2)(A)?!?!?!?!
3. If this (bad) law were applied justly, I still don't think that section 9.42(2) should be applied, and I don't think Horn could make a case under section 9.42(3).
GinSlinger | December 26, 2007, 6:02pm | #
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Okay, so that's what Dave dug up. (preface what I'm about to say by IANAL)
It's only "theft" and "criminal mischief" that appears to be modified by "during the nighttime."
So, that doesn't matter.
"
or
(B) to prevent the other who is
fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;" (emphasis added)
This would seem to allow Horn to shoot them, even in the back.
Finally: "he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land
or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means" (emphasis added)
Who here has ever had anything stolen from them? How many of you have had it returned? So far, the authorities have batted .000 in their five trips to the bat on my behalf.
That said, unless Dave W. is correct in
assuming that the thieves "dropped the loot" (which, based on my days in Loss Prevention, I would have to say, no, they didn't), it looks like a
legal shoot.
Still, doesn't make it moral.
Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 7:19pm | #
No Dave, read it again and tell me where it says simple "theft." It's my state Dave, I know the statutes. Since a retail establishment is well lighted, it cannot fall under the nighttime clause.
Look, I am not trying to represent that I have done detailed research here. Anyway, my question to you was whether you wish the law in your jurisdiction had allowed you to shoot shoplifters.
First, you tried to dodge the question by saying that no one would ever want that to be the law. Faced with section 9.42, you are now trying to say that shoplifting from an open store cannot be considered as "theft during the nighttime." Maybe you are correct, maybe you are wrong, but I think these little forays into collateral matters are just your way of avoiding answering a question you seem to find difficult, which is:
Do you let wish the laws of your jurisdiction had let you shoot shoplifters?
Why is the question difficult? Would it have been easier if I had asked: how valuable does a stolen item have to be before deadly force is justified? Feel free to answer that one, if the previous question is too tough.
btw, before any of you other sleuths points it out, section 9.43 is probably more applicable to the Horn case than 9.42. Further brief review seems to indicate that 9.42 applies to use of deadly force to protect one's own property. I haven't analyzed teh Horn case under 9.43, but here is the statute:
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
