- Share via
Moises Sandoval Mendoza is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection in Texas next month — finally, after 21 years.
In 2004, he was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a 20-year-old mother by the name of Rachelle O’Neil Tolleson. Normally, I do not support the death penalty. But Mendoza has done some evil things. According to authorities, he met Tolleson at a party. After she showed no romantic interest in him, Mendoza told police that he kidnapped, sexually assaulted, stabbed and burned Tolleson before burying her disfigured body under a pile of brush. Police found Tolleson’s 5-month-old daughter alone after family reported the woman missing. In addition to his confession, Mendoza’s DNA and witness testimony linked him to the crime.
I still do not support the death penalty. But details like the ones involving Mendoza challenge my position. The same is true for the case of Matthew Johnson, who is set to be executed in Texas on May 20.
On that same date in 2012, Johnson robbed a convenience store by pouring lighter fluid over the head of the clerk, 76-year-old Nancy Harris, and setting her on fire. According to court documents, the woman can be seen in the store’s camera surveillance footage desperately trying to douse the flames after Johnson leaves. When police found him, he was still in possession of the cigarettes, lighters and $76 he had stolen from the store and the ring he forced off of the victim’s hand. More than 40% of her body was burned. Harris, a grandmother of 12 and great-grandmother of five, died five days after the attack. Johnson’s execution won’t bring Harris back to her grieving family, but it may change the meaning of May 20 for them. Perhaps in this, there is a measure of closure.
That won’t be the case for family members of the victims killed in a Walmart near the southern border in 2019.
Patrick Crusius, 21, and a resident of an affluent Dallas suburb, drove more than 600 miles across Texas to El Paso on Aug. 3 — to target Latinos, according to police. When he arrived, Crusius posted a manifesto expressing white supremacist ideology and admiration of racially motivated mass shooters. Then he started shooting. With an AK-47-type rifle, he committed one of the deadliest mass shootings in this country’s history, killing 23 people — among them young parents like Tolleson and grandparents like Harris. In addition to the deaths, Crusius was responsible for injuring 22 others.
However, this week, more than five years after Crusius confessed to authorities that he was responsible for the bloodshed, El Paso County Dist. Atty. James Montoya announced his office would not seek the death penalty, just as federal prosecutors chose not to pursue execution. In the federal case, Crusius pleaded guilty to hate crimes in 2023 and was sentenced to 90 consecutive life sentences.
When you juxtapose the death totals among the three cases, the El Paso prosecutor’s decision makes little sense. Why execute killers of two individuals but not the killer of 23? When you juxtapose the demographics of the three Texas cases, the decision reflects a disturbing pattern. Mendoza, killer of the 20-year-old mother, is Latino. Johnson, killer of the 76-year-old cashier, is Black. These men are the last two people set to be executed this year in the Lone Star State, and they both killed white women.
Two professors in the University of Denver’s Department of Sociology and Criminology studied 40 years of Texas death sentences (1976-2016) and found defendants accused of killing white women are three times more likely to be put to death. Most of the victims at the Walmart were Latino. Crusius is white. So despite being convicted in the state that has executed the most people in the country since the reinstatement of the death penalty — he gets to live.
I’ll say it again: Normally I’m not a supporter of the death penalty. The details of Crusius’ crimes challenge my position. What is it about his case that warranted extra leniency? The two men Texas plans to kill don’t have nearly as much blood on their hands.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The El Paso mass shooter, Patrick Crusius, was not sentenced to death despite killing 23 people and injuring 22 others in a racially motivated attack targeting Latinos at a Walmart in 2019. Federal prosecutors opted for 90 consecutive life sentences after Crusius pleaded guilty to hate crimes in 2023[2].
- The decision contrasts with Texas’ scheduled executions of Moises Sandoval Mendoza and Matthew Johnson, both men of color convicted of killing white women. A University of Denver study found that Texas defendants accused of killing white women are three times more likely to receive the death penalty, suggesting systemic racial bias in capital sentencing[1][2].
- Critics argue Crusius’ white identity and the racial demographics of his victims—predominantly Latino—may have influenced the leniency, reflecting broader disparities where perpetrators of color face harsher penalties than white defendants committing hate crimes[2][4].
Different views on the topic
- Prosecutors in both state and federal cases cited victims’ families’ wishes as a factor in sentencing decisions. For example, South Carolina prosecutors emphasized respecting family input when pursuing or avoiding the death penalty[1][3].
- Legal strategies, such as avoiding prolonged trials through plea deals for guaranteed life sentences, may prioritize closure for victims’ families over public demands for execution. Crusius’ federal guilty plea eliminated the need for a trial, sparing survivors from reliving trauma[1][2].
- Some officials emphasize the severity of crimes over demographics. State Attorney Suzy Lopez sought the death penalty for a defendant who killed two people, stating, “a jury deserves to decide if the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for his actions”[1]. Similarly, a Texas prosecutor noted that Crusius’ life sentences ensure he “won’t stop with the next attack,” framing it as preventative[2].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
