John Henry Ramirez Execution

John Henry Ramirez was driving while drunk and high with two women. He was looking for someone to rob. He found someone (who turned out to be a father of nine) and stabbed him 29 times.

Prosecutors said he got $1.25. Ramirez fled to Mexico, started a family, but was caught and prosecuted three years later. A little over a decade later, sill under 40, Texas was going to execute him.  The cruelty of the murder mixed with him fleeing makes it understandable Ramirez was sentenced to die. He admitted he did it. He seems as far as it goes ready to die.

Local article: "Ramirez, who was 20 at the time of the murder and a former Marine, had no prior criminal record when he encountered 46-year-old Pablo Castro after a three-day drug binge."  You can say he should not be executed for one horrible act.  There is some argument that 21 at least should be the cut-off. So, yes, even without knowing more, there are arguments to be made even here.

On principle, this is one of the death sentences that are harder to oppose, except well, on principle.  Guilt is not at issue. It was a cruel murder. He fled and staid away for three years.  He was in his 20s.  It is one murder, but there are aggravating aspects.  I'm sure there was at least some mitigating things cited.  But, it's basically a matter of the system as a whole being problematic. Also, unlike Alabama, Texas seems to know how to execute people without botching it regularly.  

Ramirez wanted a minister to be allowed to vocally pray and touch him while dying. The Supreme Court, applying a federal law protecting religious exercise in prison, granted it to him 8-1.  I was not sure about the touching part, but as a whole, this is a sound result if possible.  If someone wants a specific religious accommodation for a key event with special religious connotations (including life and death), try to grant it. 

The district attorney of Nueces County, Mark Gonzalez, filed a motion withdrawing his office’s request for a death warrant, citing his “firm belief that the death penalty is unethical.”  The judge determined this was not possible; not in the court's power to do.  The request was final.  

I don't know the procedural rules there, but I can understand that result. It would be more problematic if an elected local prosecutor was not able to not seek a death sentence at the trial.  Checking, the submission by the office apparently was a mistake. That might be more iffy. 

===

There was no last minute appeals. Well, at least, we avoided the gruesome execution day appeals watch.  A long shot attempt to get clemency failed.  And, ultimately, Ramirez was executed.  The immediate coverage does not suggest any issues.  Third from Texas, 11th in U.S., with another execution [Oklahoma] scheduled later this month.

ETA: I saw one person on Twitter noting that Ramirez "just wanted to live and convert people in prison" and that is a way to go.  

There is a fiction book about a "lesson before dying," where someone is executed by the state, but first gets some his manhood. People have found some peace in prison. Ideally, prison (or a hospital for those civilly committed) should include some redemption. The idea that an eventual execution (or life in prison) provides no chance of rehabilitation is wrong. 

Over a million people died from COVID related illness. On some level, eleven people being executed is really trivial.  There is a much bigger picture here. As I have noted before, if prison is worse than death, why should a few get an "out" while most languish there?   What ultimately happened here is that one of many who caused public harm was executed. 

Again, I don't see that as good public policy, and the state executing people will remain for me something notable. I'm sure there are a lot of other stories to be told, but a small number of executions provide a way to focus on a few that get attention.