More tales from Huntsville

[El Barto]

Texas inmate set to die for hate crimes in 9/11's wake

This is another damned fascinating one.  Once again, the guy seems like a real douchebag, and it's hard to feel sympathy for him.  The TL,DR version is that he got pissed off after 9/11 and decided to go out and kill some Muslims, which are easy enough to find around here working in convenience stores.  Dumbass that he was, he actually managed to kill a Hindu as well.  Body count was 2 dead, 1 Muslim and 1 Indian, and one wounded Pakistani who's now blind in one eye.  The problem is that the survivor, with the full support of the families of the deceased, is fighting like hell for clemency.  Clemency which the State of Texas seems unwilling to grant.  From the survivor's website:

I am requesting that Mark Stroman’s death penalty be commuted to life in prison with no parole. There are three reasons I feel this way. The first is because of what I learned from my parents. They raised me with the religious principle that he is best who can forgive easily. The second reason is because of what I believe as a Muslim, which is that human lives are precious and that no one has the right to take another human’s life. In my faith, forgiveness is the best policy and Islam doesn’t allow for hate and killing. And, finally, I seek solace for the wives and children of Mr. Hasan and Mr. Patel, who are also victims in this tragedy. Executing Stroman is not what they want, either. They have already suffered so much; it will only cause more suffering if he is executed.

The other victims in this tragedy are Mark Stroman’s children. Not only have the Hasan and Patel children lost their fathers, but, if executed, Stroman’s children will lose their father also. I forgave Mark Stroman many years ago. In fact, I have never hated him. I never hated America for what happened to me. I believe he was ignorant, and not capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, otherwise he wouldn’t have done what he did. I think about him waiting in a cell to be executed, and can feel the pain of how ignorance can be driven by such hate, and cause somebody like him to murder two completely innocent people.

If it were just a matter of indifference by the victims and the state wanting to save $30k a year for his cot,  then so be it.  In this case, though,  it would actually victimize these people yet again.  So the fundamental question here is how can it be considered justice to execute somebody despite the wishes of the only people entitled to that justice?  When the state goes through with this on Wednesday, they'll burn yet another argument that it arrogantly waves around in support of capital punishment.  Justice for the victim will no longer be credible since victims rights will have been proven worthless.

[MasterShakezula]

A very interesting case we have here.

I agree that if the victims are opposed to the execution, then, ideologically it would be wrongdoing to be carrying out the execution.  I guess that's all I can throw in. 

[Adami]

A very interesting case we have here.

I agree that if the victims are opposed to the execution, then, ideologically it would be wrongdoing to be carrying out the execution.  I guess that's all I can throw in. 

While I am 100% against the death penalty, I do not think the victims or their family should have any say in the punishment. Or else it goes both ways.

[El Barto]

A very interesting case we have here.

I agree that if the victims are opposed to the execution, then, ideologically it would be wrongdoing to be carrying out the execution.  I guess that's all I can throw in. 

While I am 100% against the death penalty, I do not think the victims or their family should have any say in the punishment. Or else it goes both ways.

It should go both ways.

[Adami]

It shouldn't. The victim or the family should be able to drop charges or whatever, but once the verdict is in....they should have no say in the punishment that is carried out. Sorry, I know you disagree but I think it needs to stay objective.

[El Barto]

You know,  I don't think I want to argue about how the death penalty should be fairly administered with somebody who's as vehemently opposed to the whole thing as I am.   

[Adami]

Touche.

[7thHanyou]

I've always believed that the full extent of any sentence should be in the hands of the victims or victims' families.  While violent murderers who may re-offend obviously need to be locked up, I have never seen anything wrong with seeking a more or less severe penalty based on the wishes of the victim.

Of course, my view of justice has always been victim-focused, where retribution is repayment to the victim, not to society, and the victim is granted partial ownership over the criminal or the criminal's possessions, depending on the crime. So long as a crime is a violation of the victim's natural rights and the government is designed to enforce and secure those rights, that makes the most sense to me.  It's obviously not the norm in the United States or most countries. But I wish it were.

[Adami]

I've always believed that the full extent of any sentence should be in the hands of the victims or victims' families.  While violent murderers who may re-offend obviously need to be locked up, I have never seen anything wrong with seeking a more or less severe penalty based on the wishes of the victim.

Of course, my view of justice has always been victim-focused, where retribution is repayment to the victim, not to society, and the victim is granted partial ownership over the criminal or the criminal's possessions, depending on the crime. So long as a crime is a violation of the victim's natural rights and the government is designed to enforce and secure those rights, that makes the most sense to me.  It's obviously not the norm in the United States or most countries. But I wish it were.

So you'd replace the justice system with a simple revenge system?

What happens when the victim of a robbery decides that the defendant should be stoned to death?

What happens when a rape victim demands mutilation?

[yeshaberto]

I am normally all for it but this is an interesting scenario.

[73109]

Do I want him dead? Yes. The dude is an ignorant fucker who if he just so happened to kill himself, I'd celebrate on the inside. The less bigoted fuckers we have on the Earth, the better. However, should he be killed? No. The death penalty is wrong and useless, and I think I can deal with this dickweed suffering in prison for the rest of his useless, pathetic life.

[Cool Chris]

I agree that if the victims are opposed to the execution, then, ideologically it would be wrongdoing to be carrying out the execution.

It shouldn't. The victim or the family should be able to drop charges or whatever...

In a criminal case such as murder? I don't think it should be up to the victim's family in such a case. Murder doesn't just affect the victim's family. It affects their friends, their community, and society as a whole. If some crazy comes around and kills my neighbors, I don't think it should be up to their families to decide to drop charges. I like my neighbors and wouldn't' want their killer to walk. And Dude might come after my family next.

(this all ignores the fact that I am also on the anti-death penalty side; just pointing out we need a system of laws that are standard, not based on a case-by-case basis of the victim's or their families' preferences).

[Heretic]

I agree for the most part that in a generalized situation, if those who have been victimized proclaim that they feel no need for the person who committed the crime to die, then perhaps another alternative could be chosen, despite what has already been set it stone. However, after the crime was committed, the situation transferred from the discretion of those harmed to those who uphold the law, therefore, I suppose the final decision lies in their hands, rather than the victims, which brings me to the above post; I wholeheartedly agree that the situation definitely affects more than just the victimized family, and that the final decision definitely should be in the hands of the law.

The death penalty in itself can be at times a wrongdoing, but I can also find several justifications for it. In this particular case, I feel as if that the perpetrator acted in a way that should be severely punished, because, let's face it, it was trite and stupid on his part to act in such a manner. There have been many instances where the death penalty was used unjustly, however, and for the most part, it isn't always needed.

[El Barto]

I agree that if the victims are opposed to the execution, then, ideologically it would be wrongdoing to be carrying out the execution.

It shouldn't. The victim or the family should be able to drop charges or whatever...

In a criminal case such as murder? I don't think it should be up to the victim's family in such a case. Murder doesn't just affect the victim's family. It affects their friends, their community, and society as a whole. If some crazy comes around and kills my neighbors, I don't think it should be up to their families to decide to drop charges. I like my neighbors and wouldn't' want their killer to walk. And Dude might come after my family next.

(this all ignores the fact that I am also on the anti-death penalty side; just pointing out we need a system of laws that are standard, not based on a case-by-case basis of the victim's or their families' preferences).

Alright, now it really gets whacky.

I agree with you that the victim shouldn't be able to have the charges dropped.  The issue is the continuing threat to society.  The state's going to need to do something with him so he's no longer a danger to the rest of us.  I disagree with you that the victim should have no input in the penalty aspect, though.  Aside from the notion that they're the ones with the most stake in the matter,  they're also the ones who's behalf the punishment is allegedly being carried out for.  In this situation, the execution is supposed to be for the family of Vasudev Patel, yet it would appear that they would be further harmed by it.  It sure seems to me that once the matter of threat removal is resolved, the best interest of the family should be of paramount importance.

Perhaps there's some other staunch death penalty opponent here who'd like to tell us how it should be administered fairly.   

[Adami]

When I said have the charges dropped, I didn't mean in cases like murder. I mean more like if someone robs someone and the family decides to not press charges or something.....stuff like that.

[El Barto]

This was written by the victim, presumably before the execution this evening.  It raises a couple of decent questions about Rick Perry.  I have a couple of reasons for thinking Perry's a douchebag, and considering that his hair and smile will make him a highly popular candidate when he announces his candidacy for president,  I'm all for anybody pointing out what a flunky he actually is.

As a proud Texan, it was strange to find myself sitting in court on Monday, suing our Governor Rick Perry for multiple violations of my rights as the victim of a violent crime. No-one wants to be in that position, and I was hoping with all my heart that the Governor would just do the right thing and quickly acknowledge my claim under our Texas Victims' Bill of Rights. But the day was to get stranger still - I couldn't believe my ears when I heard how Governor Perry's legal team responded to my case. He may well stand for President, but, right now, I can safely say that I do not know what our Governor truly stands for here in Texas. Is he really for victims' rights, as he says? Is he for State rights? Or is it all just talk? For this week in court, Governor Perry argued that Texas state court is not equipped to deal with the consequences of a violent crime which took place right here in Dallas. Instead, he has asked a Federal Court - a court that has had nothing to do with it -- to decide what should be done about my case.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, I was working the morning shift in a Dallas convenience store when I was shot in the face by a desperate, ignorant man called Mark Stroman. Mr Stroman was targeting men he believed to be of Middle Eastern descent, in a kind of mixed-up revenge. His crime was considered to be extremely serious by the state of Texas, and rightly so - he killed two men as well as injuring me, and 'hate crimes' are of course very damaging to our community. The way that Texas deals with disturbing events like this says a lot about our state, and it is surely for this reason that Governor Perry supports the Texas Victims' Bill of Rights, which brings victims into the criminal justice system and allows them to play a role. Governor Perry even decreed that April 10-16 2011 would be Victims' Rights Week. "I encourage all Texans," he said, "to join in this effort by learning more about victims' rights and supporting victims of crime whenever possible. We can help our fellow Texans on the road to recovery with compassion and respect."

Sadly, as I struggled on my own road to recovery (my jaw was shattered and my sight was damaged in the attack) I was to find myself denied all my rights under the Bill- from mediation with my attacker, to having a say on his punishment - as well as the compassion and respect that Governor Perry talked about. I was left feeling sidelined, and as a result I struggled to heal.

A major problem for me was that the trial jury was not told that I never hated Mark Stroman for his crime; nor did I want him dead. On the contrary, I was raised to believe that forgiveness is the best response to hostility. My mother always said: if someone treats you badly, try to be nice to them back. Only then will they be forced to reflect on what they have done, and only then will they learn that they were wrong. And only then can you heal. I always felt strongly that it would be better for everyone if Mark stayed alive. For I too believe that how we respond to 'hate crimes' says a lot about the world we want to live in. And that must include both sides of the story: how we punish the offenders and how we respond to the victims.

As a Texan, I believe I was right to expect compassion and respect from my state in the trial of my attacker, and right to sue the Governor for failing me in this regard. Others may disagree. But whatever your opinion, surely it is up to Texas's own court to decide issues like this - not the federal court which has nothing to do with it?

I had thought Governor Perry would think the same. On April 9, 2009, he said: "I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state." Governor Perry was pledging support for a resolution called HCR 50, which affirms Texas's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government. He added: "I believe the Constitution does not empower the federal to override state laws without restraint. I agree with Texas' 7th governor, Sam Houston, who once said, "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may." We didn't like oppression then and we certainly don't like it now."

So Governor Perry believes in Texas's right to decide its own affairs. How then can I make sense of his decision to ask the federal court to rule on my case? Sadly, our Governor seems to support Texan victims so long as they support the death penalty for their attackers; but now that a victim is pursing his Texan constitutional right to fairness, dignity and respect, Governor Perry wants to run to federal court.

This week I put my trust in my state and, for the second time, I was let down. I will soon find myself sitting uncomfortably in a federal court, a Texan with a Texan problem. I will respect the decision of the new court, of course, but all the same - I will not understand why Governor Perry has sent me there.

[skydivingninja]

The survivor is probably a better man than 90% of people on the planet.  I salute him.

[Scheavo]

The survivor is probably a better man than 90% of people on the planet.  I salute him.

That glass seems too full...