What was the crime, and was is it comparable? If not, then I stick by my statement.
Your original statement did not sound conditional:
It sounded like you said any president would sign off on any death sentence that was arrived at pursuant to the law of the land.
I said “he”, meaning this particular person. But presidents and governors have been known to commute death sentences in the past, so it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary in the general sense. This heinous crime stands out as one that would create an uproar if the guy was let off the hook.
So? If one is against the death penalty except when it might rock the boat, then one is not truly against the death penalty.
Yes, it’s not really a manner of whether or not the murderer in question deserves the DP, it’s more that he does not deserve commutation.
True, but it still sounded like the only issue the president should consider is whether the sentence was legally applied.
So Fear Itself, other than a general dislike of the DP, can you give us a reason why this* particular *death sentence should have been commuted?
Then why should there ever be a commutation? Has not a jury of twelve men good and true decided that he should die? How does a governor or president decide that a commutation is appropriate except by whim?
Isn’t that reason good enough?
I do not have “general dislike” of the death penalty. I am morally opposed to it, and I resent my government imposing it in my name. The circumstances of the crime simply do not enter into my opinion; indeed, to do so would confirm a need for revenge rather than protecting the public. Further justification of my view is not necessary.
Extenuating circumstances. Evidence of great remorse and a changed personality after a single offense. Some new evidence that doesn’t meet appeal guidelines but passes the “sniff test”.
So, Fear, then if all DP cases are morally wrong- why this one for a PIT thread? Just a chance to bash Bush?
No. The Prez/Gov should not commute a sentence for that reason. If you oppose all Death Penalty, then get it outlawed.
I think I have been pretty consistent on these boards regarding the death penalty. I haven’t singled this one out. I would bash a Democrat (president or governor) who made the same decision.
But there is a reason for additional scrutiny in this case.
It breaks a fifty year moratorium. This is a rare death sentence that does not just give the president an opportunity to commute, but requires him to approve the death sentence. Bush had an opportunity to make the choice to move away from a brutal and anachronistic practice, but chose not to. I condemn him for that, as I would any president of any party.
But that is the law of the land. If you don’t like it, get the law changed.
As in Karla Tucker? Whose great remorse and changed personality was responded to by Bush with mocking?
In fairness, a Texas governor does not have the power to unilaterally commute a death sentence. However, given the opportunity, Bush chose to commute Henry Lee Lucas. Go figure.
In fairness, a man who takes such glee in the ability to mock the condemned deserves all the bashes he gets.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not talking about my own personal position on this, but what a hypothetical president’s position would be. At this time, I don’t believe that an anti-death penalty pol could get elected president of the US.
I’m against the death penalty in all cases, included this one.
I’m not against the death penalty at all, especially given the advent of DNA evidence and the lengthy appeals process that we have now.
We aren’t a society that kills innocent “victims” of the justice system anymore.
The death penalty is so closely monitored and administered that it’s almost ridiculous to believe that we are slaying innocent people in a witch hunt.
I wonder at people that oppose the death penalty for people that they will admit to being vile, atrocious members of society, but would rather their imprisonment for life than being put to death.
People act like we execute prisoners left and right, when in fact it is really rare, not to mention a well-documented and vested process.
If someone is a proven and confessed career murderer, I see no reason beyond the already in place checks and balances in the judicial system to afford them free room and board for whatever length of time as opposed to humanely offing them like an ill dog…
I don’t take any of those positions. I oppose the death penalty because I don’t think a society such as ours needs to deliberately kill anyone. It doesn’t work as a deterrent, and it lowers the overall moral rightness (if you will) of our society as a whole.
So killing them is cheaper than keeping them alive? Frankly, I see little difference between your justification for execution and the criminal’s reasons for murder. It certainly is easier to kill people when you reduce them to the status of animals. Really just doing them a favor, right?
Can someone fight my ignorance?
I googled “Federal death penalty cases”, and got this site: http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/shared_files/docs/1__overview_of_fed_death_process.asp .
From here, it does not appear that Bush is breaking a 50 year non-execution streak…