You mean- commute, not pardon, I hope. If you’re pardoned, it’s like you were never convicted and you are free to go.
If you* commute* a sentence, you can either let them go with time served or commute only the DP part, leaving them in prison for life. That latter is what I expected him to do several of.
Probably zero where the execution actually occurred. Very very few where later appeals overturned the conviction.
California has a recall process that can happen at any time.
He set back gay rights in CA for years because of that, in fact. His sound bite where he said"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now, It’s going to happen – whether you like it or not." was used, successfully to fight against gay marriage.
*And while San Francisco is more liberal than other areas of the state, there was little to indicate a sweeping upside for an ambitious politician. A Los Angeles Times poll taken two months after Newsom’s action showed that only 31% of Californians supported gay marriage, while 40% considered it morally wrong.
Newsom’s action was ultimately quashed by the courts but he remained an integral player, in the worst way. In May of 2008, when the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, he growled out a finger-pointing, taunting message to gay marriage opponents.
“As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now,” he said. “It’s going to happen – whether you like it or not.”
The last sentence, which Newsom later said he regretted, was seized on by proponents of November’s Proposition 8, who aired ads that made Newsom the poster boy for the measure that banned marriage except between a man and a woman.*
The actual order has three parts, a reprieve for everyone on death row, a repeal of the lethal injection protocol, and an immediate closure of the death chamber at San Quentin.
The power of reprieve is for individual cases. It is his right to reprieve anyone he wants to, but he should not be able to do it all at once, the lethal injection protocol and the closure of the death chamber are not within his power to decide.
His justifications are non-sequitors. He says that the death penalty is unfair and unjust and argues that justice should be applied equally for all races, mental abilities, and levels of wealth.
If time on death row is indicative of the order of execution the next person executed would be Lawrence Bittaker, one of the Tool Box Killers. After a series of crimes he was convicted of kidnapping, raping, torturing, and murdering five teenage girls. At his apartment they found a tape of a girl being raped and screaming in pain while begging for her life. They also found bottles of acid which were to be used in torturing his next victims. They were photos of dozens of girls in the apartment, 19 of the girls photographed were reported missing, it is not known whether he killed those girls as well.
He was white, quite intelligent, and grew up in a middle class family. What about his sentence is unfair or unjust?
Really? In what specific way did he set gay rights back? What rights did we have before 2004, that we lost subsequent to his stance on gay marriage? Or are you, perhaps, suggesting that if he hadn’t tried to legalize it in San Francisco in 2004, we’d have gotten marriage rights in California sooner than 2013?
the GOP governor of Illinois did the same thing in 2003
As your article notes, he gave that speech in 2008. It wasn’t particularly related to his same sex marriage order as mayor in 2004. I remember those Prop 8 ads very well. While they may have been effective, and thus it may be true that Newsom unwittingly had a hand in setting back gay rights, the 2004 marriages didn’t. If anything they moved the debate forward.
In the past 75 years or so, I’d say no person has been wrongly executed in this country.
Retribution is how justice works in every civilized society - the guilty party is made to suffer for what they’ve done, either through fines, incarceration, or death.
All of those are people whose convictions were reversed before execution (meaning the system works had posthumous convictions reversed on procedural grounds not relating to the fact that they were guilty of the crime.
Care to name someone who was actually innocent of a crime they were executed for?
For varying definitions of 'civilized".
Well this makes me realize I have some kind of bias here, because if, in 2008, the governor of CA had usurped the will of the people by overturning Prop 8, I’d be singing his praises. But that’s because Prop 8 discriminated against innocent people & robbed them of their rights.
Furthermore, I think that in any other election, Prop 8 would have failed miserably. The only reason it passed in 2008, IMO is that Obama was on the ballot, which brought a lot of African Americans to the polls. African Americans (as a generalization) tend to be religious & religious people (another generalization) tend to be opposed to gay marriage. So overturning the will of the people when they are clearly wrong–no problem.
But I just don’t have that same drive to fight for the rights of say, a man who kidnapped children, raped, tortured, and sodomized them for hours or days, then murdered them by slitting their throats (that’s one of our charming 737 on death row). And given that executions have been on hold here since 2006, I think Newsom’s motives of saving innocent lives are very questionable.
That’s not the question you asked.
I rather expect there is less effort to exonerate someone after they are dead. But you seem to be saying that given the relatively high rate of false convictions, every single falsely convicted person is exonerated before execution, right? Seems unlikely to me.
Given how long it has been since anyone has been executed here, I doubt that fear of execution prevents anyone from doing anything - even if it ever did. The murder rate has decreased since that time. (I don’t think there that is due even in part to the end of executions.)
I’d rather my tax money go to something more useful than death row.
He is about the only one, however.
Not only was he very likely not guilty, there was very likely no crime at all.
The evidence against him was a notoriously unreliable jailhouse informant, that he had a Iron maiden poster :rolleyes: , a tattoo of a skull and serpent (which meant he was obviously a sociopath :rolleyes: ).
The fire investigator Vasquez is a total fraud. "“The whole case was based on the purest form of junk science. There was no item of evidence that indicated arson”.
There are a couple others such as
But the strongest ones are quite old. 1939, 1944, etc. Yes, Tafero likely didnt pull the trigger, his accomplice did, but still, he was technically guilty of murder anyway.
The USA has been pretty good about this, with long drawn out appeals processes.
That doesnt mean the DP is moral, however.
We’ve discussed Willingham at length in previous threads and it’s clear to me that he is unquestionably guilty. He clearly intended to murder at least one of his daughters for the insurance money and admitted as much through his own words and deeds
The odds of that are not good. Once there is a conviction, the State stops investigating and are more than a little reluctant to listen to ANYONE telling them they may have erred. One need look no farther than the case of the West Memphis Three for proof of that.
And here I will bring up the incredible case of Rolando Cruz. Cruz was convicted, sentenced to die, case overturned, retried, sentenced to die, case overturned, retried… even though one of the cops admitted he lied, the DNA did NOT match, the prosecution withheld exculpatory physical evidence and AND…they had a confession and an DNA match to someone in prison on a similar rape\murder . Cruz was finally pardoned in by the Governor in 2002, with DA still saying Cruz was guilty.
From that page we get this tidbit:
And for for your consideration:
Seriously, give it a read. Pay particular attention this paragraph in the case of David Spence:
Obviously getting into a tangent, but I think this analysis is quite wrong.
It’s not like California was ready to vote for gay marriage at the time of Prop 8. I guess maybe there wouldn’t have been a Prop 8 if no one had started recognizing same sex marriages, but it’s hard to see that as being a major pro-gay rights development because… they wouldn’t have been able to get married.
And the way same sex marriage was eventually secured was through the courts. I can’t imagine the courts would have ruled earlier if Newsom had acted differently.
The fact that he gave a juicy sound bite to the Prop 8 campaign seems mostly immaterial. Prop 8 would likely have passed anyway (your own cite shows polling that supports this), and the courts would have done what they did.
This idea got bandied about a lot right after the election, and was almost immediately debunked.
No, that’s how half-civilized societies do it. Compare with the Scandiwegian model, where they realize that criminals are made not born, and while they do segregate convicted criminals from society they treat 'em like human beings, listen to them, provide them with wordly comforts and support both while they’re incarcerated and after they’re released… and in return enjoy the lowest recidivism rate on the planet.
But hey, don’t let this utilitarian and humanitarian argument distract you and yours from that whole holy wrath and retribution train.
Just meditate on this : “deserve” is for the birds.
Then I take it you’re also opposed to life imprisonment? What’s the maximum sentence in your mind that’s appropriate for someone who kidnaps, sexually assaults, and murders a young child and shows no remorse, if we’re operating under the assumption that the purpose of justice is to reform rather than to punish?