Execution Watch: Billy Jack Crutsinger

We are fully aware that many condemned prisoners have committed crimes of the utmost cruelty and depravity and that such persons are not entitled to the slightest sympathy from society in the administration of justice or otherwise. Nevertheless, it is incompatible with the dignity of an enlightened society to attempt to justify the taking of life for purposes of vengeance.

Over the weekend, there was a flag that the murderer of RFK was stabbed in prison and is in stable condition. He has been in prison now for fifty years.  He could have been executed years ago (though it is unclear if he was mentally stable at the time) but the California Supreme Court (with retroactive application; Charles Manson also was covered) held the death penalty violated the state constitution. The majority rejected on punishments resting on mere vengeance and as a whole argued: "the total impact of capital punishment, from the pronouncement of the judgment of death through the execution itself, both on the individual and on the society which sanctions its use." I would start even before the judgment, punishment a complete process and system.*

The people soon changed that, and though less than fifteen people were executed among hundreds more (there are over 700 on California's death row now, so it probably with deaths amount to a thousand at least), the death penalty was uphold.  A concurring opinion noted: "Thus with a feeling of futility I recognize the melancholy truth that the anticipated dawn of enlightenment does not seem destined to appear soon."  The person who brought the earlier case (murder of a pawn shop employee and wounding others, including a police officer during a shootout) had been released by then.  He later tutored preschool children at day-care centers and served as a counselor for juvenile delinquents.

The state court in that very case found the specific prosecution illegitimate on due process grounds and there was repeating controversy on California judges too often finding fault with capital prosecutions. The latest scheduled execution has been going on for around fifteen years and challenges rest on due process concerns.  To quote a state reply to his last minute appeals (as usual, one can do a search of the name on the Supreme Court docket page): "Crutsinger’s  main  complaint  of  harm  is  that  he  was  provided  a professionally incompetent state habeas attorney. " Said attorney was subject to attack in the past.  But, since the defendant received better help later, it's unclear how blatant this all was especially to justify a stay.

A summary of the crime: "On April 6, 2003, in Fort Worth, Texas, Crutsinger [late forties, white] entered the residence of a 71-year-old white female and an 88-year-old white female and stabbed both victims multiple times, resulting in their deaths."  It turns out was a mother and daughter. Also, the media reports suggest he didn't come off as a pleasant type: "Through all of the testimony Friday, there was a theme: Crutsinger liked to drink, and he drank a lot. And when he did, he hurt people."  This all might suggest why what comes off as a cruel robbery/murder but not quite "worse of the worst" territory resulted in a death sentence.

A good article by someone from Texan reporter that used to be in NY covered the other side:

During trial, as detailed in 2003 media coverage, defense attorneys outlined Crutsinger’s tough life as well as his troubles with alcohol. According to legal filings, he grew up in a large family where his father had a drinking problem and none of his siblings finished high school. After dropping out in 11th grade, Crutsinger had a string of failed marriages and other relationships. His first child died hours after birth, his second drowned as a toddler and his third was killed in a car wreck at 16. Through it all, Crutsinger drank off and on, turning into what relatives once described as “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”

It also summarizes all his claims: "In the years since he was sent to death row, Crutsinger has filed appeals arguing that he is actually innocent, that he had a bad trial lawyer and that the trial court should have suppressed any evidence stemming from his illegal arrest."  But, looks like it too thinks the incompetent habeas lawyer claim is the strongest.  A recent execution had credible concerns of innocence or at  least reasonable doubt, especially if we desire a heavier test for executions.  Another was at least a borderline case of intellectual disability.

This one seems to approach core principles. Not quite so since a robbery/murder of this sort to me seems not "worse of the worst" material.  Recent means of execution opinions might suggest the test is a bit looser but this to me is a valid summary of the rule noted in a death penalty case in 2008:

The rule of evolving standards of decency with specific marks on the way to full progress and mature judgment means that resort to the penalty must be reserved for the worst of crimes and limited in its instances of application. In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense.

The case involved a non-homicide (child rape) but as noted there it also applies in homicide cases.  Our society unfortunately has many murders int the course of felonies of this sort over the years, but executing someone for them is a rarity.  We need not think of special cases like the murder of a potential POTUS or someone like Charles Manson here.  Or, tricky cases like a person who murders in prison or during an escape. Such things have arisen though even there non-capital punishment jurisdictions also find a way to address such possibilities.  We deal here with, though this will seem heartless, a sort of standard murder (yes, of two people, if one criminal act) during a robbery.  The first one had more aggravating circumstances.

I will likely never say that the procedural due process claims raised have no merit given that every capital case is likely to have some credible concern.  Did not do a deep dive in these capital entries, but simply put, that sometimes also clarifies things some more too. But, in the scheme of things, that doesn't seem to amount to too much here.  At least by now, after a range of appeals, a specific constitutional claim won't do the trick here.  As to length of time of death row, we are starting to approach notably long as these things go.  Still, bottom line, my concern here would be that detention in prison would be suitable for these crimes.

The person involved in the first crime was released after a little over a decade and appears to have lived a good life. A young black criminal involved in a basic robbery in California in the 1960s and 1970s might be seen like an ideal situation there. The injury to his hands if anything might also have helped since it made it harder for him to commit further crimes.  An older white asshole who brutally murdered two old people in their home is more egregious. But, detention would provide a means to address that.  A few people executed yearly in Texas will do little to deter or provide "just deserts" above and beyond that. 

The final rejection is expected but do appreciate Justice Sotomayor explaining her vote while saying that there might be a better related claim in a later case. Crutsinger was executed without apparent incident.  

---

* From a National Review article by a political science professor cited from the dissent:

"Capital punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is substantially repulsive, if infinitely less repulsive than the acts which invoke it. Yet the mounting zeal for its abolition seems to arise from a sentimentalized hyperfastidiousness that seeks to expunge from the society all that appears harsh and suppressive. If we are to preserve the humane society we will have to retain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquility and civility may rule comprehensively. It seems very likely that capital punishment is a ... necessary, if limited, factor in that maintenance of social tranquility and ought to be retained on this ground. To do otherwise is to indulge in the luxury of permitting a sense of false delicacy to reign over the necessity of social survival."

The number of places that doesn't have it suggests otherwise.