Fla. to investigate 34-minute execution

boston.com ^ | 12-14-06 | Ron Word

[pinkpanther111]

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412795.pdf

this link details the numerous charges he was convicted of PLUS another murder where he stabbed someone 19 times.

The MSM article downplayed his crimes.

[ReignOfError]

If a hanging is done properly, the body drops, the rope plays out, and the noose snaps the neck close to the skull. Death may take some time, but if it's done right, there's little chance that the condemned is awake and aware while dying.

According to at least one account, the U.S. Army hangman (obviously a fading MOS by then) at Nuremberg told folks later that he was so offended by Julius Streicher's defiant cries of "Heil Hitler" on the scaffold that he intentionally shifted the noose a few degrees. As a result, Streicher's neck didn't break, and he died, while conscious, of strangulation.

[slowmo2006]

He had killed before:

"Angel Nieves Diaz, 55, was convicted of fatally shooting Joseph Nagy during a robbery he committed with two other men at the Velvet Swing on Dec. 29, 1979.........

In 1978, Diaz was sentenced in Puerto Rico to 10 to 15 years in prison for the second-degree murder of a prison drug rehab director. Diaz stabbed the man to death while he was incarcerated for armed robbery.

He escaped custody a year later and fled to Florida. In 1981, he fled the Hartford Correctional Center in Connecticut by holding one guard at knifepoint while another was beaten as he and three other inmates escaped."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20061212/cr_ct/deathrowinmateangeldiazsettodieforslayingmanageroftoplessbar

[jackibutterfly]

"But Diaz took 34 minutes to die..."

Well, it took Terri 2 weeks to die....

[packrat35]

I agree, why did it go so fast? Should have lasted at least an hour.

[jackibutterfly]

I don't understand this "pain" crap. When I was put under for my 8 surgeries, each and EVERY time I felt nothing. So why in the world are they claiming that these murderers feel pain???? I don't get it. Don't they anethesize them??? IF so, they don't feel ANY pain. This whole "pain" thing is just a crock.

[packrat35]

Name one "innocent" man put to death this century. So far, no one has come close to proving this!

[RunningWolf]

I guess we are all a little bit different and I have never been deeply anesthetized (unconscious) including for a C3-C4 fusion.

There is a reason that they strap the people down. It is for people like me that decide they have had enough, and it is time to leave LOL

Wolf

[scatterometer]

My preferred method is simple and cheap.

And artsy if I may say so.

Load up a crew of them once a month from whatever State into a C17 then shove em out over water from ~15k ft. (keeps em a tad cold but conscious all the way down.)

[RunningWolf]

Some will survive and make it to land

[Dan Lacey]

Thanks for inspiring the toon, Bosco.

[backslacker]

If you are concerned about innocent people dying, there are better avenues to pursue, like supporting the 2^nd amendment, reducing crime, supporting families, strong divorce laws (eliminate no-fault), strong moral and biblical development for our youths, etc.

[Bosco]

Wish that situation didn't happen to provide the object lesson.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

[BraveMan]

-snip-

Diaz next contends erroneously that his appellate counsel was ineffective for his failure to argue that Diaz had an absolute right to represent himself during the penalty phase of his trial under Faretta v. California, which states that “[t]he Sixth 16 Amendment ... grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense.” 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975). Faretta allows “the trial judge [to] terminate self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct.” Id. at 834 n.46, 95 S. Ct. at 2541 n.46.

Diaz sought to frustrate the completion of his trial by repeatedly changing his mind regarding self-representation at the guilt phase of the trial. Faretta allowed the trial judge to remedy Diaz’s misconduct.

Diaz offered a written motion for a mistrial that alleged that the trial judge did not “remain impartial as a judge should” and “allow[ed Diaz] to incriminate [him]self by defending [his] own case without the necessary intellect to do so.”

The court denied Diaz’s motion and found as follows that Diaz tried to frustrate the completion of his trial:

[Mr. Diaz,] you have used your intellect to delay this trial, to attempt to stop it, and ... you have represented yourself very well; ... the Court finds that you have not limited intellect but a great deal of intellect. ... I took the precaution of having you examined by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, and their oral statements to this Court in open court were that you were very competent to stand trial, and there is nothing that you have done that changes this Court’s opinion that you are very competent and very intelligent.

I would like to state as well that the Court has allowed and has ordered the attorney that you fired, Mr. Lamons, to stay with you at all times during the trial. ... [Y]ou, obvious to everyone in this courtroom, have taken advantage of Mr. Lamons’ legal ability. You have conferred with him at all times during the trial, and at every material stage of the trial the Court has asked the jury to leave the courtroom so you can confer with Mr. Lamons. You have had every opportunity that could be afforded someone who desires to represent himself and even more so.

It is clear from the trial transcript that Diaz was given great leeway in the course of mounting his own defense and that Diaz abused his right to selfrepresentation to delay his trial. The trial court properly decided that Diaz should be represented by counsel to conduct the sentencing phase. Diaz’s appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal.

-snip-

From http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412795.pdf
(Requires Acrobat Reader)

[papasmurf]

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. :)

I agree with your choices. I just want to make sure that guilty people are punished with death, and those that are innocent of that crime aren't killed for it.

We have the technology to drastically reduce the chances of innocent people being convicted, but many courts throw it out on technicalities. That's BS.

As I said, I am 100% in favor of the death penalty for the guilty ones. Heck, I'd even volunteer to be the executioner. :) In fact, I'm for expanding the list of crimes that the death penalty applies to.

But, c'mon, haven't we all seen cases where dna absolved a person who was on death row? That's something I find hard to live with. You know...there, but for the Grace of God-go I? I think about that.

I don't think we would be having this conversation,nor would the death penalty even be an issue, if our courts and prisons would dole out real, meaningful punishment to convicted criminals.

Life at hard labor. And mean it. Hard labor means work, extremely hard, doing something that contributes to the society that you screwed. A life sentence means until you die. When prisoners start a gang fight, let 'em fight. Then just toss out the bodies. TV's, computers, free legal teams for years and years after conviction, conjugal visits, disciplinary action reviews with representation, ad infinitum...NOT! NO WAY, NO HOW!!! Then let's see, after 20 years or so, how it's going.

Is that cruel and unusual punishment? No more so than the cruel and unusual punishment these criminals have "poxed" our society with.