The Chief Justice made the right decision in this case. The United States law should not punish people because of who they are; the crimes the committed are all that should matter, not the color of their skin, gender, etc. Additionally, the first sentence of this article is ridiculous to say the least. His lawyers are supposed to defend him in hopes for a lesser punishment; however, in Buck’s case, his lawyers were clearly biased towards his race, and created inadequate argument against Buck. The lawyers presentation was unethical and presented incompetence, which the Supreme Court noted when deciding whether or not Buck’s circumstances proved his trial to be inadequate. The justices needed to consider both sides to the issue at hand. Buck did commit a violent crime, but they debated whether reopening his sentence would really make a difference or not. Throughout the course of the debate, the justices noted that Buck did not deny committing the crime, but he did argue the incompetency of his lawyer. One of the stipulations to a fair trial, which is a right discussed in the United States Constitution, is to obtain a lawyer who is competent. Buck did not receive a competent lawyer, thus he did not receive a fair trial. Purple003
I think that Duane Buck should definitely get another hearing. The first time he went in for trial was terrible. The attorney who was supposed to defend him and make his sentencing a little less severe and help him out, basically just screwed him over and made it worst by showing more evidence. On top of that, there were some comments that should not have been made about his race and how he was more dangerous because of it. I am not saying that he is not guilty, I am just saying that everybody deserves a fair trial, and Buck did not get a fair trial at all. Rayder004
Buck committed multiple heinous crimes that should be reason enough for him to be put on death row. Bringing race into the equation is very much unnecessary. Roberts mentions that our law should not punish people for who they are but for what they do, and I agree with that statement. This article not only points out that race is a major problem in the criminal justice system, but also the morality of capital punishment. The case should refocus on the fact that Buck murdered his ex-girlfriend, shot his step-sister at point blank, and shot a man through the heart. Buck should be able to get a new hearing, but based on solely his crime be convicted to life in prison or the death penalty. Buck showed absolutely no remorse, which should add to the punishment. By bringing race into the case, it moves the advancement of the criminal justice system backwards. As the future of the criminal justice system, we need to work on reversing this by completely eliminating discrimination. It surprises me that this is still a problem today; as a nation, we achieved so much but still get hung up when it comes to race. We have to use this story as an example to become aware and address that discrimination is a problem in the criminal justice system. Scuba004
This is crazy I never knew that in the psychological practice determining whether a violent offender will recidivate they put race into factor. Now statistically speaking African Americans make up 13% of the population and commit 50% of the murders but that is not at all a race issue. Personally I believe it is a cultural issue with the young African American man. An older African American man made a good point about it last year at the Peoria "Police, Race, and Inequality" meeting he said there is a problem with todays majority of young black males and their culture there is a lot of gang activity and deviance. But like I said this is not an issue of race or the physical traits of one. Statistically young black males growing up in low socioeconomic areas will be more deviant and get caught committing more crimes. This is also true for any other race in a low socioeconomic area(The reason could be higher socioeconomic areas are doing the same things behind closed doors) . The numbers say that black Americans account for 24% of our nations people below the poverty line which explains the high amount of deviance and violent crimes with young black males. As for the ruling of this case I agree that people blew it out of proportion and took one out of at least twenty other risk factors and made a big deal out of it but at the same time I don't think that race should be looked at in this i think it should be a cultural background to look at and if the offender just so happens to have a high risk cultural background known to be more deviant I do not think they should face the death penalty I think they should be rehabilitated to help them leave the lifestyle they one lived. Buck could have came from a non violent culture and just have black skin and not be a risk for violence again but these practices would work against him because of his skin color. I believe Buck was not given a fair trial and he should have a rehearing because of the lack of ethics in this courtroom. BIke004
This is just another case that shows how prejudice the people of this country are. Mr. Buck was guilty of the crimes he committed but he certainly did not have good representation. For his defense to label him as a threat simply because of the color of his skin is ludicrous. He did not receive the fair trial that he is rightfully supposed to get just like any other person in this country. Violent crimes are committed by people of all races. But the criminal justice system is especially harsh on minorities. The color of one's skin should not be brought up during a court trial. We are all aware of the violence in black communities. But it has nothing to do with their skin color. The poverty rates in the black communities are far worse than the whites leaving them vulnerable to lives of crime. Perhaps if this country focused more on getting people of of these poor socioeconomic situations and less on race we could alleviate some of these crimes being committed. If minorities continue to be treated so poorly by the justice system they will continue to have an distrust towards the system and these unfair treatments are only adding fuel to the fire. The murders Mr. Buck committed were enough to convict him and even give him a death sentence. There was no need to mention the color of his skin. Like Mr. Buck said it was pretty much saying because you are a black man you deserve to die. mommy004
This article is unbelievable to me. A person's race does not make them more or less likely to commit a violent act, nor can it predict the likelihood that said person will commit more criminal acts in the future. The environment that the person is does. Who that person is exposed to and surrounds himself with does. If you live in an impoverished area and surround yourself with people who are involved with crime, then it is more likely that you will get involved in it too. If he went to prison and served his sentence, got out and got the help he needed to get out of that "bad part of town" and got a job that paid him a living wage, then the likelihood that he would commit any sort of crime would decrease drastically, no matter what a person's race may be. That attorney obviously in the wrong when it came to this case, and who knows how many others. I believe that this man deserves a new sentencing hearing, because he does not deserve to die because he is black. EKT004
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of one Duane Buck recently and have pushed his trial to a lower court for a possible new sentencing. However, this comes at the light of possible racial evidence being used by both the defense and prosecutors. Some of Buck's own lawyers used the concept of his race, African American, to prove that he would be a future danger to the community. This is one of the requirements for the death penalty under Texas law, but the use of racial evidence, some argue, makes it unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This recent news comes in light of Arkansas planning to execute 8 men over 10 days, which is the fastest and highest rate of the death penalties use in American history. Even two justices argue that this case and others gives reason to look at just how constitutional the death penalty is and if its being administered fairly throughout the country. It comes as a huge relief to me that men like Buck, though committing terrible crimes, is given a chance for something more like life in prison instead of execution, especially with racial evidence being brought to the stand. The right of a government to legally kill others has always been a touchy subject, especially in a open speech driven America. Nevertheless, the brutal crimes Buck has been found guilty of committing require a very strict and moderately extreme form of punishment. The constant issue of racial inequality within our criminal justice system also raises concerns for offenses such as this one occurring in other places throughout the country as well. Justices Thomas and Alito even stated, "...our law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.", and I believe this to be very true. Who someone is can only be used in terms of mental status, but race and ethnicity shouldn't be brought to the courts in the form of evidence for or against either side. To bring race and ethnicity into a trial would be to invite unjust views or rulings and therefore would violate one of the key values of our Judicial branch, equality. Ghost003, Ghost004
The trial was not to see if he was guilty or not. He was already guilty of his 2 counts of murder. The argument is did he get a fair trial to try to get life in prison or to be on death row. I don't know what exactly happened at the trial and, frankly, I never have and probably never will trust stuff that CNN reports, so I can't say whether he got a fair trial. If that was his own lawyer, he can plead misrepresentation and try again. If it was a public defender, you can't really expect much from them anyway. It's hard to make a judgement on something when you weren't there. It's like putting a 100 piece puzzle together but only having 30 pieces. you can see some of it, but there are to many large holes to make a well formulated opinion based on what we have. I think that's the problem today is people jumping to conclusions way to quickly while they are still missing far too many pieces. USA003
The Chief Justice made the right decision in this case. The United States law should not punish people because of who they are; the crimes the committed are all that should matter, not the color of their skin, gender, etc. Additionally, the first sentence of this article is ridiculous to say the least. His lawyers are supposed to defend him in hopes for a lesser punishment; however, in Buck’s case, his lawyers were clearly biased towards his race, and created inadequate argument against Buck. The lawyers presentation was unethical and presented incompetence, which the Supreme Court noted when deciding whether or not Buck’s circumstances proved his trial to be inadequate. The justices needed to consider both sides to the issue at hand. Buck did commit a violent crime, but they debated whether reopening his sentence would really make a difference or not. Throughout the course of the debate, the justices noted that Buck did not deny committing the crime, but he did argue the incompetency of his lawyer. One of the stipulations to a fair trial, which is a right discussed in the United States Constitution, is to obtain a lawyer who is competent. Buck did not receive a competent lawyer, thus he did not receive a fair trial. Purple003
ReplyDeleteI think that Duane Buck should definitely get another hearing. The first time he went in for trial was terrible. The attorney who was supposed to defend him and make his sentencing a little less severe and help him out, basically just screwed him over and made it worst by showing more evidence. On top of that, there were some comments that should not have been made about his race and how he was more dangerous because of it. I am not saying that he is not guilty, I am just saying that everybody deserves a fair trial, and Buck did not get a fair trial at all. Rayder004
ReplyDeleteBuck committed multiple heinous crimes that should be reason enough for him to be put on death row. Bringing race into the equation is very much unnecessary. Roberts mentions that our law should not punish people for who they are but for what they do, and I agree with that statement. This article not only points out that race is a major problem in the criminal justice system, but also the morality of capital punishment. The case should refocus on the fact that Buck murdered his ex-girlfriend, shot his step-sister at point blank, and shot a man through the heart. Buck should be able to get a new hearing, but based on solely his crime be convicted to life in prison or the death penalty. Buck showed absolutely no remorse, which should add to the punishment. By bringing race into the case, it moves the advancement of the criminal justice system backwards. As the future of the criminal justice system, we need to work on reversing this by completely eliminating discrimination. It surprises me that this is still a problem today; as a nation, we achieved so much but still get hung up when it comes to race. We have to use this story as an example to become aware and address that discrimination is a problem in the criminal justice system. Scuba004
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy I never knew that in the psychological practice determining whether a violent offender will recidivate they put race into factor. Now statistically speaking African Americans make up 13% of the population and commit 50% of the murders but that is not at all a race issue. Personally I believe it is a cultural issue with the young African American man. An older African American man made a good point about it last year at the Peoria "Police, Race, and Inequality" meeting he said there is a problem with todays majority of young black males and their culture there is a lot of gang activity and deviance. But like I said this is not an issue of race or the physical traits of one. Statistically young black males growing up in low socioeconomic areas will be more deviant and get caught committing more crimes. This is also true for any other race in a low socioeconomic area(The reason could be higher socioeconomic areas are doing the same things behind closed doors) . The numbers say that black Americans account for 24% of our nations people below the poverty line which explains the high amount of deviance and violent crimes with young black males. As for the ruling of this case I agree that people blew it out of proportion and took one out of at least twenty other risk factors and made a big deal out of it but at the same time I don't think that race should be looked at in this i think it should be a cultural background to look at and if the offender just so happens to have a high risk cultural background known to be more deviant I do not think they should face the death penalty I think they should be rehabilitated to help them leave the lifestyle they one lived. Buck could have came from a non violent culture and just have black skin and not be a risk for violence again but these practices would work against him because of his skin color. I believe Buck was not given a fair trial and he should have a rehearing because of the lack of ethics in this courtroom. BIke004
ReplyDeleteThis is just another case that shows how prejudice the people of this country are. Mr. Buck was guilty of the crimes he committed but he certainly did not have good representation. For his defense to label him as a threat simply because of the color of his skin is ludicrous. He did not receive the fair trial that he is rightfully supposed to get just like any other person in this country. Violent crimes are committed by people of all races. But the criminal justice system is especially harsh on minorities. The color of one's skin should not be brought up during a court trial. We are all aware of the violence in black communities. But it has nothing to do with their skin color. The poverty rates in the black communities are far worse than the whites leaving them vulnerable to lives of crime. Perhaps if this country focused more on getting people of of these poor socioeconomic situations and less on race we could alleviate some of these crimes being committed. If minorities continue to be treated so poorly by the justice system they will continue to have an distrust towards the system and these unfair treatments are only adding fuel to the fire. The murders Mr. Buck committed were enough to convict him and even give him a death sentence. There was no need to mention the color of his skin. Like Mr. Buck said it was pretty much saying because you are a black man you deserve to die. mommy004
ReplyDeleteThis article is unbelievable to me. A person's race does not make them more or less likely to commit a violent act, nor can it predict the likelihood that said person will commit more criminal acts in the future. The environment that the person is does. Who that person is exposed to and surrounds himself with does. If you live in an impoverished area and surround yourself with people who are involved with crime, then it is more likely that you will get involved in it too. If he went to prison and served his sentence, got out and got the help he needed to get out of that "bad part of town" and got a job that paid him a living wage, then the likelihood that he would commit any sort of crime would decrease drastically, no matter what a person's race may be. That attorney obviously in the wrong when it came to this case, and who knows how many others. I believe that this man deserves a new sentencing hearing, because he does not deserve to die because he is black. EKT004
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court ruled in favor of one Duane Buck recently and have pushed his trial to a lower court for a possible new sentencing. However, this comes at the light of possible racial evidence being used by both the defense and prosecutors. Some of Buck's own lawyers used the concept of his race, African American, to prove that he would be a future danger to the community. This is one of the requirements for the death penalty under Texas law, but the use of racial evidence, some argue, makes it unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This recent news comes in light of Arkansas planning to execute 8 men over 10 days, which is the fastest and highest rate of the death penalties use in American history. Even two justices argue that this case and others gives reason to look at just how constitutional the death penalty is and if its being administered fairly throughout the country. It comes as a huge relief to me that men like Buck, though committing terrible crimes, is given a chance for something more like life in prison instead of execution, especially with racial evidence being brought to the stand. The right of a government to legally kill others has always been a touchy subject, especially in a open speech driven America. Nevertheless, the brutal crimes Buck has been found guilty of committing require a very strict and moderately extreme form of punishment. The constant issue of racial inequality within our criminal justice system also raises concerns for offenses such as this one occurring in other places throughout the country as well. Justices Thomas and Alito even stated, "...our law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.", and I believe this to be very true. Who someone is can only be used in terms of mental status, but race and ethnicity shouldn't be brought to the courts in the form of evidence for or against either side. To bring race and ethnicity into a trial would be to invite unjust views or rulings and therefore would violate one of the key values of our Judicial branch, equality. Ghost003, Ghost004
ReplyDeleteThe trial was not to see if he was guilty or not. He was already guilty of his 2 counts of murder. The argument is did he get a fair trial to try to get life in prison or to be on death row. I don't know what exactly happened at the trial and, frankly, I never have and probably never will trust stuff that CNN reports, so I can't say whether he got a fair trial. If that was his own lawyer, he can plead misrepresentation and try again. If it was a public defender, you can't really expect much from them anyway. It's hard to make a judgement on something when you weren't there. It's like putting a 100 piece puzzle together but only having 30 pieces. you can see some of it, but there are to many large holes to make a well formulated opinion based on what we have. I think that's the problem today is people jumping to conclusions way to quickly while they are still missing far too many pieces. USA003
ReplyDelete