Lawyers for TX Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ

[uscitizen]

HUNTSVILLE, Texas — Prison officials were moving forward with plans to execute a 44-year-old man Thursday evening for raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl, despite pleas from his attorneys he is too mentally impaired to qualify for capital punishment.

Bobby Wayne Woods was transferred 45 miles from his death row cell at a prison in Polunsky to a holding cell in Huntsville, a short walk from the death chamber where he was scheduled to die by injection at 6 p.m. CST.

Attorneys for Woods, 44, were waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court, which they asked to halt the execution. They argued Woods was mentally impaired and ineligible for execution under court guidelines, and that previous appeals to spare Woods' life were unsuccessful because of shoddy work by his lawyers at the time.

Tests administered to Woods have put his IQ anywhere from the 60s to the 80s. An IQ of 70 is considered the threshold for mental impairment.

Woods was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die for the April 1997 murder of Sarah Patterson, his ex-girlfriend's daughter. She and her 9-year-old brother were snatched from their home in Granbury, near Fort Worth. Sarah's throat was slit with a knife. Her brother was beaten and left for dead but survived to testify against Woods.

Lawyers for Texas Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

If they let this guy off we will never be able to execute criminal Republicans.

 

[geauxtohell]

Stupidity is not a defense.

Inability to comprehend your actions is.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as too stupid to die, just like there is no such thing as too big to fail.

Both are myths.

As far as the proof on no such thing as too stupid to die? Ever heard of the Darwin Awards?

Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The insanity defense is based on evaluations by forensic professionals that the defendant was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense. Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control his or her behavior at the time of the offense. A defendant making the insanity argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.

 

[Jay Canuck]

is it possible that he is just acting dumb and answered questions wrong when he was being tested? - yes.

the murder and rape of an 11 year old girl calls for his death no matter how dumb this evil creature and his lawyer wants people to think he is.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Stupidity is not insanity.

 

[geauxtohell]

lmao....it is not a non-sequitur....you actually proved my point....because it is a life long obligation, they of course would not sentence them to prison, same as they probably wouldn't actually kill the person....

You are still getting hung up on the "time commitment" aspect. The point of the statement is that people are more than willing to make a decision if they don't have to do the dirty work.

Again, the emotional toll of killing somebody, even if considered "just" is more than the average citizen wants to bear. Hence the "one live bullet" policy for firing squads.

It's also the reason why studies have found that many soldiers in war intentionally miss their target. Read On Killing if you want further enlightenment on that.

its about committment and personal action, both are applicable, however, that is not how our justice system works....juries are not there to mete out the punishment, thats just the most stupid thing i've heard, they are supposed to be impartial, if we have them doling out the punishment you just lost your impartiality.....

That's why it was a "quip" you hockey-puck.

Nobody was arguing for a policy change, just making an astute observation about human nature.

 

[geauxtohell]

Stupidity is not insanity.

I didn't say it was, though I can see how it could have been construed that way.

I said there were provisions in the law for being found not guilty because a person did not comprehend their actions.

It doesn't apply here, the person has been found guilty. This is more of an act of asking for the "mercy of the court".

 

[xsited1]

Lawyers for TX Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ

The only problem I see is that he's still alive 12 years after the murder. I've got plenty of knives to slit his throat if Texas is out. Just give me a call.

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

He sounds like a defense attorney.

 

[geauxtohell]

The only problem I see is that he's still alive 12 years after the murder. I've got plenty of knives to slit his throat if Texas is out. Just give me a call.

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

He sounds like a defense attorney.

He was. He got sick of practicing law and is a businessman now.

People bemoan defense attorney's (and trial attorney's) until they need one.

 

[Shogun]

I say let him ride the lightening. He killed without remorse so there is no reason his punishment should not fit the crime. good riddance.

 

[Jay Canuck]

besides if they don't kill him some politician who is weak on crime like Huckabee might let him out.

 

[xsited1]

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

He sounds like a defense attorney.

He was. He got sick of practicing law and is a businessman now.

People bemoan defense attorney's (and trial attorney's) until they need one.

Attorneys, in general, are a necessary and expensive evil. I've had mostly good luck with attorneys.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......they could let the dude out, but that would be bad for him.

I hear hunting season opens the second he steps out of jail.............

 

[geauxtohell]

He sounds like a defense attorney.

He was. He got sick of practicing law and is a businessman now.

People bemoan defense attorney's (and trial attorney's) until they need one.

Attorneys, in general, are a necessary and expensive evil. I've had mostly good luck with attorneys.

Well, I don't think they are evil. Especially since I am sleeping with a 3rd year law student.

I certainly think they are necessary.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You know......they could let the dude out, but that would be bad for him.

I hear hunting season opens the second he steps out of jail.............

It's good when we can agree on a subject.

 

[geauxtohell]

You know......they could let the dude out, but that would be bad for him.

I hear hunting season opens the second he steps out of jail.............

His lawyer is not trying to get him off. He is trying to spare him execution.

 

[geauxtohell]

You know......they could let the dude out, but that would be bad for him.

I hear hunting season opens the second he steps out of jail.............

It's good when we can agree on a subject.

I doubt a good dude like you would engage in murder.

 

[Yurt]

lmao....it is not a non-sequitur....you actually proved my point....because it is a life long obligation, they of course would not sentence them to prison, same as they probably wouldn't actually kill the person....

You are still getting hung up on the "time commitment" aspect. The point of the statement is that people are more than willing to make a decision if they don't have to do the dirty work.

Again, the emotional toll of killing somebody, even if considered "just" is more than the average citizen wants to bear. Hence the "one live bullet" policy for firing squads.

It's also the reason why studies have found that many soldiers in war intentionally miss their target. Read On Killing if you want further enlightenment on that.

its about committment and personal action, both are applicable, however, that is not how our justice system works....juries are not there to mete out the punishment, thats just the most stupid thing i've heard, they are supposed to be impartial, if we have them doling out the punishment you just lost your impartiality.....

That's why it was a "quip" you hockey-puck.

Nobody was arguing for a policy change, just making an astute observation about human nature.

you're the one making an issue over the time factor, not me

your underlined once again proves my point....a juror would not likely convict if they had to do the "dirty work" of guarding them....you're just to arrogant to admit you're wrong so you'll just spout crap about how i'm a hockey puck

 

[geauxtohell]

The point of the statement is that people are more than willing to make a decision if they don't have to do the dirty work.

you're the one making an issue over the time factor, not me

your underlined once again proves my point....a juror would not likely convict if they had to do the "dirty work" of guarding them....you're just to arrogant to admit you're wrong so you'll just spout crap about how i'm a hockey puck

No you are comparing apples and oranges and trying to walk with that BS argument.

The issue has always been about the ultimate act of taking life. Most ordinary people want no part of it. That's why Juries are shielded from it by simply giving a verdict. My BIL's point was, in a hypothetical world where juries had to execute the defendant they found guilty, they would be less likely to vote "guilty".

Other than that, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the "guarding for life" vignette. Life imprisonment is not equal to execution.

If it were, no one would be getting worked up over this issue.

 

[xsited1]

He was. He got sick of practicing law and is a businessman now.

People bemoan defense attorney's (and trial attorney's) until they need one.

Attorneys, in general, are a necessary and expensive evil. I've had mostly good luck with attorneys.

Well, I don't think they are evil. Especially since I am sleeping with a 3rd year law student.

I certainly think they are necessary.

Sleeping with a law student???

I need to go take a shower just thinking about that. BRB.

 

[geauxtohell]

Attorneys, in general, are a necessary and expensive evil. I've had mostly good luck with attorneys.

Well, I don't think they are evil. Especially since I am sleeping with a 3rd year law student.

I certainly think they are necessary.

Sleeping with a law student???

I need to go take a shower just thinking about that. BRB.

Well, in fairness, she was my wife before becoming a law student.

In all seriousness, I appreciate the law students. They are a hell of a lot more social than the med students.