The Texas judiciary appears to have become merely an arm of the prosecutor's staff and the trial and appellate courts treat executing someone who is probably guilty, but plausibly not, as cavalierly as does a ruthless actual criminal who kills indiscriminately as just another part of his criminal act.
As otherwise reprehensible as was the former governor of Illinois in matters of political corruption, his analysis of the way in which the death penalty was routinely applied in his state, as well as several others, including Texas, was palpably correct. The subject of this post and the Houston newspaper's investigation was just another elimination of a political inconvenience and another instance of election proof of how ostensibly tough elected politicians can shout to their constituents. At the end of the process, the achieving of justice, the reduction of crime, effecting a retribution for society or deterrence to others similarly inclined are of little significance.
In these questionable cases, the real ulterior objective seems to be the breast-beating and satisfying of the crowd's shouting for blood; someone's blood, anyone's blood that law enforcement and prosecutors choose whether truly guilty or not. Notwithstanding the reality that it will be an irremediable error if subsequent facts show they're wrong, if such turns out to be the case, that is a mere non sequitur that is to be shrugged off as an unfortunate event but not really meaningful in the larger scheme of society. And besides, if he wasn't guilty of the crime for which he was executed, he certainly was a bad guy and no doubt guilty of something equally heinous and thus deserving of his fate.
"Texas, on the other hand, apparently treats the death penalty as a cursory event that is used to clear a case from the police blotter and the prosecutor's in-basket"
Bold stement there. Care to back it up with some tangible evidence?
That is so not so...