emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Will Texas Execute a Man for Being Black? - Yahoo! News
In this article, a psychologist was asked in court if race was a risk factor, and if the offender's being "black" increased his chances of being a danger to society or repeat offender. Because the psychologist answered yes, this causes a controversy if someone's
race, and the statistics based on race, can or cannot be used as a factor in determining
one of the conditions for the death penalty which is posing a continuing threat.
1. of course, if the doctors did a medical evaluation to determine the man's state, then that would be clearly be based on the doctor's assessment (similar to testifying if cancer is cured or is in remission with or without chance of returning, and whether a tumor is removed, no longer a threat, fatal, malign or benign, etc.)
2. but if it is based on racial statistics
a. is this automatically rejected on the basis of judging someone by race instead of their actual condition which may or may not match the statistical probability
b. can the defense or prosecution DELIBERATELY bring up this issue to THROW the trial if not, what is in place to PREVENT people from bringing up the race issue, trying to corner someone on the prosecution side, and then contest the trial as racially biased?
If so, it seems no one can be put on trial.
If it takes MEDICAL evidence of criminally ill people being cured or being at risk of repeat offense, then by the time you prove that using medical evaluation of the actual person, instead of race or other statistics, people who are criminally ill would be sent to treatment. So you wouldn't put any criminally ill people to death, if their disease renders them unable to control their impulses in order to obey the law and not harm others.
You could force people into detention for life, if they prove to be dangerous medically, or rehab until their tests come back normal.
In the meantime
a. could anyone get out of charges by claiming the people making the decisions are racially biased [and could the defense DELIBERATELY bring up race to throw the trial or introduce doubt into the minds of the jury?]
b. or by arguing that criminally ill people are unable to help themselves due to their diseased conditions?
In this article, a psychologist was asked in court if race was a risk factor, and if the offender's being "black" increased his chances of being a danger to society or repeat offender. Because the psychologist answered yes, this causes a controversy if someone's
race, and the statistics based on race, can or cannot be used as a factor in determining
one of the conditions for the death penalty which is posing a continuing threat.
1. of course, if the doctors did a medical evaluation to determine the man's state, then that would be clearly be based on the doctor's assessment (similar to testifying if cancer is cured or is in remission with or without chance of returning, and whether a tumor is removed, no longer a threat, fatal, malign or benign, etc.)
2. but if it is based on racial statistics
a. is this automatically rejected on the basis of judging someone by race instead of their actual condition which may or may not match the statistical probability
b. can the defense or prosecution DELIBERATELY bring up this issue to THROW the trial if not, what is in place to PREVENT people from bringing up the race issue, trying to corner someone on the prosecution side, and then contest the trial as racially biased?
If so, it seems no one can be put on trial.
If it takes MEDICAL evidence of criminally ill people being cured or being at risk of repeat offense, then by the time you prove that using medical evaluation of the actual person, instead of race or other statistics, people who are criminally ill would be sent to treatment. So you wouldn't put any criminally ill people to death, if their disease renders them unable to control their impulses in order to obey the law and not harm others.
You could force people into detention for life, if they prove to be dangerous medically, or rehab until their tests come back normal.
In the meantime
a. could anyone get out of charges by claiming the people making the decisions are racially biased [and could the defense DELIBERATELY bring up race to throw the trial or introduce doubt into the minds of the jury?]
b. or by arguing that criminally ill people are unable to help themselves due to their diseased conditions?
