A Texas man who said his death sentence was based on false and unscientific expert testimony was executed Thursday evening for killing a man during a robbery decades ago.
Brent Ray Brewer, 53, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville for the April 1990 death of Robert Laminack. The inmate was pronounced dead at 6:39 p.m. local time, 15 minutes after the chemicals began flowing.
Prosecutors had said Laminack, 66, gave Brewer and his girlfriend a ride to a Salvation Army location in Amarillo when he was stabbed in the neck and robbed of $140.
Brewer’s execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in over the inmate’s claims that prosecutors had relied on false and discredited expert testimony at his 2009 resentencing trial.
Abolish capital punishment
deleted by creator
“Pro-Life”
If that’s how you interpret “pro life” then you must be okay with this execution if you’re “pro choice”. The state “choose” to execute this man after all.
That’s the worst attempt at a gotcha I’ve ever seen.
Ya. It doesn’t make sense at all. That’s like saying anti abortion legislators are Pro choice because they are choosing to force you to have that rapist’s baby.
Maybe it wasn’t a “gotcha”?
Okay, then what on Earth was your point?
That using political slogans outside their intended context and reading them literally is a bad idea.
Also that partisans will only notice when you do that for one side’s slogan and not the other.
I’m pretty sure the context that “all life is precious” applies here. That’s what pro-lifers claim. But apparently someone who may be innocent still deserves to be executed according to the people pro-lifers knowingly vote for.
Brewer has long expressed remorse for the killing and a desire to apologize to Laminack’s family.
“I will never be able to repay or replace the hurt (and) worry (and) pain I caused you. I come to you in true humility and honest heart and ask for your forgiveness,” Brewer wrote in a letter to Laminack’s family that was included in his clemency application to the parole board.
He did not dispute the guilty verdict. He is guilty. He admitted guilt. He has not claimed innocence. Quite the contrary, he explicitly claimed to have committed the murder.
He disputed the expert testimony of a witness at his sentencing hearing who claimed he would forever remain a danger.
Nobody is claiming he is innocent in the article that I read.
But you don’t think that somebody can believe that life is precious but also that some people don’t deserve to live?
I mean, the original comment was pretty shit too. That was kinda the point. Knowingly taking words out of context as a gotcha does absolutely nothing useful and only serves to annoy literally everyone involved. You’re not clever
If that’s how you interpret “pro choice” no wonder you want control over women’s bodies…?
This seems like a poor choice of articles to discuss abortion in though. And yes, I know you didn’t start it.
Do you mean to say it’s a bad idea to interpret a political slogan literally and in a different context from where it is meant to be used?
I mean, did you make it past the first sentence in my comment?
… Yes? Not sure how the second sentence is relevant though.
Then exactly what fucking point were you trying to make. If you understood the words I wrote, how did I misinterpret yours? I clearly must have…
Let me spell it out for you why this is a ridiculous argument.
A person who is “pro-choice” believes that the law should give each affected individual the choice of what to do. It is about individual liberty, and definitely not about a government having a choice. There is simply no way to extend this to mean what you’re saying.
If that’s not enough for you, a person who is “pro-life” believes that the law should not allow an individual to decide what to do. They believe that this individual liberty is not as important as the life of a fetus. So, it’s rather easy to extend this one. In fact, when you hear a pro-life person trying to explain why they are right, virtually all of their rationale also works for people after they are born. But then when you try to show the ramifications of their arguments, they simply don’t accept them.
The problem is that these are not two equal sides. Pro-choice people can actually argue consistently and with conviction. But pro-life people cannot, unless they throw in all this other stuff. So, when people mock “pro-life” in this situation, they are actually mocking the idiotic actual views that these people hold, and contrasting them against an ideal pro-lifer who actually believes what they say.
Let me spell it out for you why this is a ridiculous argument.
I was mocking the shitty logic of the post I replied to. So yes. It is a ridiculous argument. 👍
Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you. The “shitty logic” you’re referring to is actually pro-choicers giving pro-lifers the best possible interpretation of their own logic. But on the other hand, there is no way to do the same thing to the pro-choice side, because the pro-choicers already believe in the best version of their argument.
To be fair, I wouldn’t read a post that starts with “let me spell it out for you” even if you’re completely right.
I’m guessing you don’t require a particularly compelling reason to avoid reading something.
It’s more like if that’s the tone of your first sentence, I wouldn’t want to be subjected to more condescension.
Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you.
Thanks - being brigaded by libs means I’m kinda skimming responses at this point.
I’m saying maybe use the interpretation of their argument that they use and not the one you wish to shoe-horn onto it. Whenever I’ve listened to pro-lifers (at least the better versed ones) they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.” Their logic, taken from that POV (and assuming a BUNCH of their premises are true) seems to be reasonably consistent and would have no bearing on the death of a convicted murderer.
they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.”
It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.
If I say, “one apple plus one apple is two apples,” and my stated justification is “1+1=2”. And then later, I say, “one orange plus one orange is three oranges,” you would be right to say, “Your justification 1+1=2 also works for oranges, so somewhere in your arguments you’re incorrect.” But here, you’re saying that I can respond, “I only intend to stop at apples,” and that this is “reasonably consistent.”
This is some sort of cognitive dissonance sophistry that simply doesn’t work. It’s not reasonably consistent.
It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.
It’s their argument - so yes it does?
Do you believe people should be free? Well how about criminals? Does it matter now “where you intend to stop”?
Disregarding my personal views on this subject, this is a straw man argument.
You have very noticably left out that pro-lifers view the fetus as one of these individuals you say the Pro-choice regard so highly. The Pro life argument is that it should be systemically illegal to end the life of what they view as innocent individuals.
Which… yes, is kind of similar to the general take on this article, regardless of your views on the individuality of fetuses
regardless of your views on the individuality of fetuses
While I can appreciate what you’re going for here and will even relent that your argument is topical to the discussion at hand. I do feel the need to point out that a fetus is, by deffinition, objectively, not a human being.
I get where you’re coming from and I respect that you believe these 2 things are equitable. But, feelings aside, capital punishment for a human being is very very very different from removing a small collection of half formed cells. Its like comparing the death of an animal to that of a tumor that was removed in a surgical procedure. The tumor died, but it’s not the same thing as killing an actually sentient aninal
(By the way, that downvote didn’t come from me. I upvoted you just to counteract it.)
I don’t understand what you are saying at all. I don’t mean that the argument is unclear. I mean that your sentences don’t make enough sense to me to convey the information to me that you clearly want to convey.
I think you have to be extremely clear when you say that somebody is making a straw man argument. What exactly did I say that was a mischaracterization, and why does it make it easier for me to argue against their point?
Pro-choice is for bodily autonomy. The death penalty is very much against bodily autonomy.
And “pro life” is for fetuses not convicted murderers.
It’s interesting how partisans view the world though. Anything I post pointing out this discrepancy is voted way down. But the “hurr pro life” post is voted up.
Tribalism is a hell of a drug. 😆
The typical pro life position is that a fetus is a person and therefore has a right to live.
Yes, I used “fetus” here to avoid the inevitable “fetuses aren’t people” response.
He didn’t really get to chose. It seems others chose for him…
He chose when he killed his victim.
You’re right. That’s why every aborting woman should be sent to death row /s
I’m against capital punishment because convictions can be overturned, but executions can’t be undone.
That said, your crimes against logic are clear and convincing. Ironically, they’ve also convinced me to change my mind. You, definitely deserve to be executed for this clear case of language perversion and aggregated rhetorical idiocy.
Sooo - my “crime against logic” was a mockery of how bad the logic the person I was responding to was.
I used the same tactic they did. Misunderstanding “the other side” and assuming my straw-man version of their point was valid.
Subtlety doesn’t work on Lemmy or with partisans.
It’s your misunderstanding, not theirs. The origins of the pro-life movement is Catholic and absolutely includes opposition to capital punishment, as well as abortion.
The Democrat party once accepted slavery. Things change.
A pig’s orgasm can last up to 30 minutes!
Figured you’d like to know, as we’re now clearly in the sharing irrelevant facts stage of conversation.
I was too subtle. The Catholics who started it are not the fundies chapioning it today.
Lol, good point.
Brewer has long expressed remorse for the killing and a desire to apologize to Laminack’s family.
“I will never be able to repay or replace the hurt (and) worry (and) pain I caused you. I come to you in true humility and honest heart and ask for your forgiveness,” Brewer wrote in a letter to Laminack’s family that was included in his clemency application to the parole board.
So did he do it then? Because it sounds like they were trying to get him off on a technicality, rather than because he didn’t do it and was falsely accused.
You have to show sympathy and remorse to qualify for clemency or parole, so you say you’re sorry for the situation and their loss but never that you’re at fault.
Absolutely, I can understand why he would say he felt sorry for the family. But saying sorry for the pain he caused is an admission of guilt.
I think the timeline went like this:
- 1990 Brewer (then 19) and his girlfriend attack Laminack, killing him.
- 1991 Brewer is convicted and sentenced to death.
- 2007 Supreme Court overturns the decision because of a technicality on the jurors’ instructions.
- 2009 Brewer is re-tried, and again convicted, in part due to expert testimony from Coons.
- 2010 In another trial, Coons’ testimony was ruled as “insufficiently reliable”.
- Brewer’s lawyer then raises an appeal in Texas over Coons’ testimony in 2009. Appeals court says “you should’ve said that in 2009”.
- Brewer’s lawyers escalate to the Supreme Court, however they decline to hear the case, deferring to the Texas Appeals Court’s judgement.
Presumably, Coons’ testimony could have been challenged in 2009 in exactly the same way as it was in 2010, but they didn’t do this. I’m sure Coons is now seen as an unreliable witness, but he was considered reliable up until 2010.
It was actually the Texas Appeals Court that ruled that Coons was unreliable, however presumably the appeal in which they established that was granted for other reasons than his statement alone. Indeed, this is the 2010 case, there were 25 points in question. While the court ruled that Coons’ testimony was unreliable, they still reaffirmed the conviction.
It’s something they must do, read clemency pleas they’re basically all the same because boards want to see the same thing. Factually not guilty people have said the same thing in clemency letters.
I dunno who exactly is at fault nor did I read that much into it, what I am saying is don’t particularly base anything on clemency or parole letters, they’re intentionally flawed so they can be used against the subject later, it’s holdover slave shit that persists.
It wasn’t a question of whether he committed the crime. The appeal concerned sentencing.
The high court found jurors were not allowed to give sufficient weight to factors that might cause them to impose a life sentence rather than death. Brewer was abused as a child and suffered from mental illness, factors jurors were not allowed to consider, his lawyers argued.
Brewer was again sentenced to death during a new punishment trial in 2009.
Brewer’s lawyers allege that at the resentencing trial, Coons lied and declared, without any scientific basis, that Brewer had no conscience and would be a future danger, even though Brewer did not have a history of violence while in prison.
This is the 2010 trial in which Coons was declared unreliable: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/20229.html
In that appeal, they considered 25 points. While they agreed with points 3 and 4 regarding Coons’ testimony, they still upheld the conviction and death sentence. It was the same Texas Court of Appeals that considered that hearing as well as Brewer’s request for appeal.
Brewer and his lawyer were trying to get an appeal based on Coons’ statement, but this almost certainly wouldn’t be enough to change the sentencing, based on their 2010 ruling. I haven’t dug up Brewer’s appeal to see if there were any other reasons, but the fact that they were focusing on this one suggests that there wasn’t much else they could have argued.
No, he was trying to say he would have been sentenced to life instead of death if the jury hadn’t heard certain expert testimony.
I would guess the testimony would be along the lines of blood splatter or some other pseudoscientific forensics where the expert might say the crime was particularly vicious.
That didn’t matter in the death sentence appeal where the court ruled the testimony as unreliable: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/20229.html
They ruled that the testimony was unreliable, but still let the sentence stand. If all Brewer was arguing was the testimony, then the court would have reached the same conclusion.
Barbaric
The thumbnail looks like a set from a Victorian horror film
Not as barbaric as the murder he committed.
most executions are surprisingly brutal and painful. it probably was worse than being stabbed in the neck
The notions that modern executions by lethal injection are extremely painful are all conjecture. There’s no proof one way or the other. You have no idea which person suffered more, so don’t pretend you do. We know being stabbed in the neck and bleeding out is incredibly painful.
Stop pleading for sympathy for this shithead. I can get behind a ban on the death penalty, but too many people talk about it like the criminals who get executed are poor, unfortunate victims. They’re not. Most of them are assholes who ended someone else’s life. There are plenty of reasons to be against the death penalty, but the notion that cold-blooded murderers don’t deserve death is not one of them.
They’re still human beings and some non-zero percentage of executions are due to wrongful convictions. So, how can you be certain this person was a “shithead” deserving of a prolonged, if not painful, death?
No judgment is 100% certain and I don’t know the details of this case, but I’m also not in favor of the death penalty for this very reason. However, I do get sick of hearing other people claim those executed by the state don’t deserve their executions, because those people don’t know either. In my opinion, from a moral perspective, if you did commit premeditated murder, I do not think you should be allowed to live. So, for me, the problem with the death penalty is that our human justice systems can’t achieve enough certainty to be doling out punishments we can’t take back or ameliorate, but that’s not to say some of if not likely the majority of those who receive death sentences don’t deserve them.
“I don’t know the specifics, but this guy absolutely deserved a painful death. Stop defending him and acting like he deserved to live!”
Now I’m waiting for the ones who don’t like the death penalty because it’s not cruel enough to chime in.
Oh, they’re over on reddit. That place is a cesspool when it comes to posts like this one.
While I’m sure such people exist, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for them here.
Fair enough, so who is getting executed for this one?
You can feel free to do the legal research and try to figure out a compelling argument for executing a government.
Well no, we didn’t murder society for his murder, we murdered him. So we shouldn’t murder the government, we should murder his murderer. Right?
I just hope it wasn’t you that administered the lethal injection, then we’ll have to murder you!
By why stoop to that level?
I’m not saying we should. I just get irked when people gripe about the death penalty without acknowledging that a lot of the people who receive it deserve it.
deserve it.
Wow what an insightful, well-researched reason.
Removed by mod
Good thing that’s not at all how a trial works, genius.
Anyone who believes in the death penalty is a moron. That’s my final answer.
It’s funny that we live in a society where trying to kill yourself is a crime (punishment of which is to be locked up) but also one where if you commit a certain type of crime (or rather, are convicted of committing a certain type of crime) your punishment is to be locked up until you’re put to death
So strange
Eta: it’s like:
“Oh you tried to kill yourself? Jail time!” “Oh you killed someone? DEATH”
They’re saying death is only ok when the government does it to you (barring natural death and even then hospitals try everything they can to keep people alive, even those who are well past their expiration date and have given up on life a long time ago)
It’s ok, they can just unexecute him later when new evidence comes to light, or an appeal finds that a mistake was made.
15 minutes, fuck. It’s such a bullshit and simply meant to torture, whatever they claim. There are enough methods to kill quick and painless but no, that would not satisfy the people watching. Animals.
Surely, the life begins at birth people will mourne say this is a travesty
This is gonna sound fucked up, but him being murdered by the state was much more of a mercy than being raped, tortured and enslaved behind bars for the entirety of his natural life because of concern he may have been innocent.
Like people dismiss the state taking away large chunks of people’s lives because of the “at least they’re alive” argument, but you can use that to justify rape and abuse and all sorts of things that are very clearly worse than death.
If I was in his shoes, I’d have demanded expedited execution and so would all of you, if you knew truly what goes on behind bars.
Perhaps you should do something about that “raped, tortured and enslaved” part so the death penalty seems better than prison? Prison is supposed to keep dangerous people away from society and rehabilitate them if possible.
People in prison should be safe from such crimes happening to them.
I really don’t understand how people are okay with this “he’s going to be killed in prison” sentiment of someone is sent there for very bad crimes when his sentence is “prison” and not “death”. Prison should mean being locked away safely from society having time to think about their crimes - nothing else.
Amen. Nobody deserves to be raped or tortured. People who joke about this happening to prisoners make me sick.
If you cared, why wouldn’t you go out and force them to change instead of arguing on the Internet with an elephant?
The only way I as a pink drunken elephant could do anything about it is if I butchered millions of people in a brutal civil war to shut down the entire jail system and violently overthrow the U.S. government. Is that what you want, or are you demanding I instead submit to your opinion and advocate your perspective and feelings on the matter like some pink drunken robot? As if you ranting on the internet about it has done anything to change the system or save any lives?
Grow the fuck up. My opinion on the matter will not change and your mental gymnastics won’t change the fact that death really is better than prison in the U.S.
The only way I as a pink drunken elephant could do anything about it is if I butchered millions of people in a brutal civil war to shut down the entire jail system and violently overthrow the U.S. government.
🥵
Haha well 💁
I’m not living in the US but in a county with a working prison system. It’s just that a lot of people on here (and reddit) are completely okay with it because they don’t seem to see prisoners as humans to be rehabilitated but more like some abstract beings to be punished so whatever happens to them seems to be okay for them
deleted by creator
This is fair. But I am concerned about being humane and let’s be real, U.S prisons are far worse than death. Even old school executions are more humane than that shit.
but him being murdered by the state was much more of a mercy than being raped, tortured and enslaved behind bars for the entirety of his natural life
But that’s the thing. No one should get to make that decision for him, especially if he believed he had a path to exoneration. Maybe he would endure the torture for the chance of seeing the outside one day.
Who are you to decide that for this man?
They already made a decision for him by arresting him, putting him on trial and jailing him.
Your argument is weak.
Your assertion is essentially implying they should just kill every prisoner on account of avoiding what goes on in prison, and because the state should assume they’d want to die anyway.
I’d say your argument is far more ridiculous.
That’s actually exactly what I’m saying and the absurdity is the whole point. The system is so cruel, it’s their only available humane option at this point.
But thanks for showing anything I say goes over your head simply because I hold an opinion you don’t agree with. Makes it obvious you do not deserve my respect or my time.
“The system is so cruel they should just kill them all anyway” is an outlandishly evil and twisted take. Regardless of if you’re making it out of absurdity.
And likewise for showing me that I’m wasting my time arguing with an actual psychopath ✌️
If you’re going to kill someone who killed someone, to show that killing is wrong, the punishment should fit the crime.
Lethal injection, are you fucking kidding me? I know druggies that pay money for that, SMH.
If you’re going to execute someone, the gas chamber should be the only option. Let them feel the amount of anxiety their victims felt when they realized they were going to die a horrible death.
Yiiiikes
He has to be a troll. Or a teenager or maybe a seriously out of touch, stunted adult. Super cringeworthy either way.
Lmao this reminds me of my 4chan days
Holy fucking cringe batman 🤮
How is revenge productive to society? Sure, I have been through shit and I have wished that I would be able to cause physical harm and suffering onto those perpetrators, but I don’t think that is actually what should be done to people. We can’t build a better society by just getting revenge and escalating things. That’s how we all start living in fear.
