This is big news in central Florida. Back in December, Markeith Loyd shot his pregnant ex-girlfriend to death. He was on the run when he was confronted by a cop at a Wal-mart in January. He shot her execution style and there was a major manhunt for about a week before he was finally caught.
There is video footage from the Wal-mart parking lot of him shooting the police officer while she is lying on the ground. She did get a couple of shots off at him, but he was wearing a bullet proof vest. He has been combative during his court appearances, swearing at the judge and declaring himself a sovereign citizen.
I think my issue with this is she is now saying she will NEVER seek the death penalty. Since the death penalty is legal in Florida, I think a state attorney should seek the death penalty when appropriate, regardless of one’s personal feelings about it. Otherwise, don’t run for the state attorney office if you won’t uphold the law.
I think the voters have every right to elect a state’s attorney who publicly repudiates the death penalty. The law does not mandate the death penalty (and cannot – Gregg v Georgia). So I’m fine with this state’s attorney’s stance. If the voters in her county wish a new state’s attorney who is willing to wield the death penalty, they can make it so.
When stories like these come up, why does the governor always turn out to have a name like Rick Perry or Scott Walker or Rick Scott? Are they clones, or something?
She didn’t - as mentioned, she didn’t repudiate it until after she was elected.
The law in Florida says that the death penalty should be an option. This state’s attorney said that it never was going to be an option. Insofar as the law expresses the will of the people in how justice ought to be carried out, she is going against the will of the people.
So can the governor of Florida. So I’m fine with the governor’s stance.
What exactly does it mean when the prosecution decides to “seek” or “not seek” the death penalty? If the state attorney decides not to seek it, does that mean it’s off the table altogether or can the jury or judge still impose it?
I know that the state can decide what charges to go for, but are they also able to dictate the maximum penalty in this way?
Evolving on policy issues as a politician is fine. Evolving on policy issues as a prosecutor and then using ‘evolving’ as an excuse to not do the job, not so much.
If, as Shodan notes, the law says that the death penalty should be an option and the prosecutor ‘evolves’ to a point where she/he will never consider that option, then the correct response for the prosecutor ought to be to quit and go try and get the law changed.
I believe there are legal guidelines in place to determine when the death penalty can be sought. I think it applies to murder only in Florida, such as Ted Bundy and Aileen Wournos.
Can we draw a similar distinction to a pharmacist who refuses to hand out Plan B, even though it’s legal in their state?
Couldn’t this line of reasoning be used to argue that politicians should never change their minds on anything? We vote for people, not a packaged set of immovable positions. If a majority of her constituents disagree with her position now, they can recall (if allowed) or vote her out next election.
Can anyone point me toward something that indicates her views on the death penalty during the election? I’m not finding it myself.
“Her main message centered on increasing community engagement with the State Attorney’s Office, creating a separate unit for domestic-violence cases and re-establishing a central division to review charges. She also shared her husband’s criminal record, saying he served prison time for drug conspiracy and counterfeiting checks a decade ago.”
I’m not seeing any way that could be construed as support for the death penalty. I do see she campaigned on concerns with racial differences in sentencing, which is better correlated with opposition to the death penalty.
When Mario Cuomo was Governor of New York he made it quite clear that he opposed the death penalty and no executions would occur as long as he was in office (as governor, he had the power to commute death sentences to life imprisonment). But he made his position clear while he was running and the voters elected him with that knowledge.
I’d support Aramis Ayala is she had done the same. But by not declaring her position on this issue before the election, I feel she cannot now make a stand on it. I think Governor Scott is right to appoint a different prosecutor to the case.
I’m assuming the death penalty existed in Florida at the time Ayala ran for election. If so, it’s a major issue she should have considered and found her beliefs on before seeking office.