Motion To Table On Amendment 4 To HB 8

Exchange between Villarreal and Riddle:

Then why would you take away the deterrant of murder by allowing for the death penalty in cases of non murder…you provide a powerful incentive to kill the victim…to kill the victim! Because, the consequence is not any different. By killing the victim, you eleminate the key eye witness.

Riddle: You are giving the perpetrators of this crime too much credit…

Now Terri Hodge is up (this is going to be good).

Hodge: Rep. Riddle, on the death penalty being a deterrant, we currently have the death penalty today, but I don’t agree with you on the idea of thinking that one who is a rapist is too stupid to think. Now, you mentioned,

Riddle: I didn’t use the word stupid, I said they don’t use the same rational thinking process…

Hodge: I’m using the word stupid because…

Riddle: I did not…

Hodge: What do you think woudl deter a person who has offended sexually the second time? Do you think none of them would be aware that the penalty for that crime would be death?

Riddle: I’m not sure of the question.

Hodge: (a person) now commits the second offense, are you saying they wouldn’t be aware that the penalty is death?

Riddle: They may well be aware, I don’t know. Let me tell you something, Terri, anyone who is going to be a child predator, this is not the first time statistically that they assault a child, they do it many times statistically before they are convicted on the first offense. We are allowing our children out there to be prey for these predators.

Hodge: We’re not talking about what one does that is not caught. We are discussing criminal offenses where the offender is caught. My question to you is this: On the second offense, when the penalty is death, what do you think would be the deterrant? ‘I’m going to die anyway?’ Why would I not possibly kill the only person who could identify me?

Riddle: We covered this.

Hodge: Well, I did not here the answer and I would like to hear your answer.

Riddle: [Point of order, time expired].

[Hodge moves to extend time, time is extended.]

Riddle:  [Asking if she moves to table before or after talking to Ms. Hodge]

Hodge said she’s wait to the appropriate time to discuss other portions of the bill.

Hodge: In your bill, in section D, you talk about failing to allow for parole. Is this on the first offense or the second offense? In today’s environment, the only sentence that we have without parole is life without parole and that is under the capital felony sentencing.

Riddle: On a first offense, when someone is convicted of sexually assaulting a minor…we are talking about children 13-years and younger. If they were found guilty, from 5-99 years, a first degree felony, without parole. On a second offense, there is a choice, either life without parole or a death penalty?

Hodge: You’ve already given them life without parole!

Riddle: Not necessarily. They could get five, to ten or seven years.

Hodge: I understand five to 99 years. If they get five years, they never get parole. If they get 99 years, they never get parole.

Riddle: This is to protect the children from pedophiles and from people who would do them harm.

Hodge: So if I got a first degree felony, I get 99 years…

Riddle: He might give it to you but not to someone else.

Hodge: We can argue semantics all we want. If the judge gives the offender a 99-year sentence, we do the same as we have done with the capital felony! We have created a life without parole.

Riddle: But we are talking about real judges who make real decisions before the law. You are saying everyone is going to get this or that.

Hodge: Mam, listen. What we do in this body is pass good laws we hope can be implemented. My questions are about facts and the changes this legislation will make in statute as proposed by you.

Riddle: My questions are also about facts, and let me tell you one that is important. 250,000 children are molested every year in our fine state. Do you not believe that it is time for us to take a strong stand and say, ‘we’re not going to allow that to continue?’

Hodge: I think I, along with you and every member of this body do not wish our children perpetrated upon by sexual predators. And you are correct, it is time we get tough. But we must be sensible with our justice and we cannot put our children in harm’s way to make a politically popular message. My next question…

Riddle: Under no cicrumstance do I believe that this bill puts any children in harm’s way….we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Hodge: It is not about what you and I believe, but according to your own bill, it has already ocurred. Little Jessica is already dead!

Riddle: Florida enacted the law after that tragedy.

Hodge: You also said if the supreme court overruled any action in your bill, we could overturn that. Explain to me if we can overrule the supreme court’s decision, why did we not do that in 1970 when the court ruled that the way the death penalty was being carried out it was cruel and unusual punishment. Everyone who was on death row had their sentences commuted to life.  In 2004, the supreme court ruled that we could no longer give the death penalty to [retarded felons]…we have not overruled any of those court decisions. What makes your bill different that we can violate a rule of the supreme court.

Riddle: We are not violating any rule of the supreme court. The attorneys we have consulted with believe this bill is constitutionally sound and do not believe the supreme court would overrule the death penalty part of it. However, in the remote chance, one in a million, that it might ocurr, that is why I introduced the amendment I did earlier. It drew a bright line with the death penalty. In the outside chance that would ocurr, that would not affect any of the death penalty provisions of other laws here in Texas and it would not negate any of the rest of this bill.

Hodge: You are misrepresenting what you heard from the DA. I don’t think the DA told you anything about the Supreme Court’s ruling on your bill….

Riddle: Representative Hodge, I do not believe I am misrepresenting anything…

Hodge: Is there not already a case that the supreme cour thas ruled on that was a death penalty case where the woman was brutally, brutally raped and murdered?

Riddle: That is the difference. When you have a murder you have a different situation.

Hodge: Was he given the death penalty…

Riddle: Are you talking about the one in Florida?

[Time expired]

Riddle moves to table.

Dutton will close.

Dutton: Let me clear up some confusion. The committee substitute, or the substitute laid out by Ms. Riddle, as I understand it now, says the second offenses will be treated as capital offenses. My amendment only leaves off the death penalty portion of that. Life without parole would be the singular option avaliable for punishment [n second offenses]. In these kinds of cases, they are difficult. If you really want to keep these people off the streets, vote not to table. If you select death as the option, these will be appealed ad infinatum.

[Craddick calls for order]

Dutton: YOu ought to vote not to table because if the option is life without parole, there is almost no chance, even on appeal…are less effected by this option of life without parole. The state doesn’t have to grant you an appeal…If you chose the option of capital, so the person gets the death penalty, you have to go through all these appeals and the person could be released on some technicality on appeal.

Yields to Hartnett.

Hartnett: You are removing death penalty?

Dutton: Yes.

Hartnett points out that you get the death penalty either way b/c the death penalty could be an incentive for the perp to kill the victim.

Moreno is asking a question now. Asks him to explain to the membership when a person gets the death penalty that the case is avaliable for appeals from that date on. Dutton says that is correct. Habeas, etc.

Moreno: Do you know that I have a case that’s been pending for 30 years, it’s a capital murder case, no DNA, the man is still incarcerated after 30 years, and all of his appeals are still going on.

Dutton: I am aware of that, there are several cases like that. But what worries me is the people we don’t read about where the person has been found leagally guilty but is factually innocent. We have found DNA that might overturn that sentence, but because the death penalty is so final, we never have that opportunity.

Moreno: I’m on the record totally against capital punishment. [Says live w/o parole is the more appropriate punishment]

Dutton says this won’t expose the bill to challenges from the supreme court.

Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) calls a point of order on the bill.

Bookmark It