Killer Presidents

[Glitch]

IIRC, that duelist eventually got shot and killed when his opponent got a quick but lucky hit to the head. I guess his theory had a slight flaw.

[dougie_monty]

To John Bredin: At the time that Rachel’s marriage to Robards went sour, Jackson was a “solicitor” in a district of North Carolina that later became part of Tennessee, which achieved statehood in 1796. Anyway, Jackson was working in another territory, outside the jurisdiction of Virginia; Rachel was a native Virginian and it seems to me that the state legislature would be more likely to accept her entreaties–even in a more male-dominated era–than Andy’s, since he had no legal standing or authority in Virginia.

[Otto]

Karla Faye Tucker was a woman in Texas who helped commit a fairly brutal murder and was sentenced to death. While awaiting execution, she underwent a religious conversion and supposedly became very remourseful about her crime. The decision as to whether to commute her sentence to life imprisonment or continue with her execution was a big controversy. Texas Governor (and current presidential candidate) George Bush decided to let her be executed. Later in a moment of tastlessness, he supposedly did an impression of her dying moments.

I had not heard about the alleged impression, but the other information is not quite accurate. The governor of Texas does not have the power to commute death sentences. The governor’s power is limited to granting a one-time 30 day stay of execution. W did refuse to grant the stay to Tucker. I believe the body which can commute death sentences is the Board of Prisons and Parole.

[Nixon]

Is this correct?!?

President Bush admitted that he, personally, strafed unarmed Japanese seamen as they abandoned ship?!?

Imagine if a Japanese Prime Minister (and young teens were flying for Japan in 1945) were to admit to killing unarmed Americans in lifeboats.

Or if John McCain admitted something similar about his experience in Vietnam.

IIRC, weren’t we in a tizzy over the election of Kurt Waldheim as Austrian President since his unit (not Waldheim personally) had been accused of murdering Yugoslavian civilians during WWII?

(If true, I wonder if Bush enjoyed it at the
time.)

[Irishman]

Originally posted by dougie_monty:
And isn’t it interesting that there was no cloud over Robards’ head about this, the way there was over Andrew Jackson’s?

Well, who gives a rat’s behind over some unimportant ignoramus Robards? He didn’t become President. Never heard of him.

But I do second your notion that the abusive slug should be given all the shame he deserves. It does seem bad that Jackson gets bad press from the situation when Robards was the reprehensible one.

[Northern_Piper]

The governor of Texas does not have the power to commute death sentences. The governor’s power is limited to granting a one-time 30 day stay of execution. W did refuse to grant the stay to Tucker. I believe the body which can commute death sentences is the Board of Prisons and Parole.

Doesn’t the Texas Governor have some say in the matter?

Article 4, Section 11(b) of the Texas Constitution reads:

In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of punishment and pardons; and under such rules as the Legislature may prescribe, and upon the written recommendation and advice of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, he shall have the power to remit fines and forfeitures. The Governor shall have the power to grant one reprieve in any capital case for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; and he shall have power to revoke conditional pardons. With the advice and consent of the Legislature, he may grant reprieves, commutations of punishment and pardons in cases of treason.

I would read this as saying that a convict first has to apply to the Board for review, and only if the Board recommends a pardon does it then go to the Governor. But, it looks like the Governor then has the final say on whether a pardon should be granted.

(Of course, the Board is final if it refuses to recommend, which I gather was the case in the Tucker case.)

---

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Northern_Piper]

Here’s the site: Texas Constitution

---

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Otto]

I would read this as saying that a convict first has to apply to the Board for review, and only if the Board recommends a pardon does it then go to the Governor. But, it looks like the Governor then has the final say on whether a pardon should be granted.

I would tentatively agree with your interpretation, although there may be case law which speaks to the issue as well. More precisiely I suppose I could have said that Bush alone doesn’t have the power to commute sentences, but can only do so with permission from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Said permission was not granted in the Tucker case.

This is what I get for sticking up for a Republican!

[dougie_monty]

quote:

                I would read this as saying that a convict first has to apply to the Board for review, and
                only if the Board recommends a pardon does it then go to the Governor. But, it looks like
                the Governor then has the final say on whether a pardon should be granted.
            I would tentatively agree with your interpretation, although there may be case law which speaks to the
            issue as well. More precisiely I suppose I could have said that Bush alone doesn't have the power to
            commute sentences, but can only do so with permission from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Said
            permission was not granted in the Tucker case.

Interesting thought. I was a high-school senior in California in 1966, when Reagan defeated Pat Brown (who was trying for a thirid term). My government teacher–sort of a prototype for Rush Limbaugh–said that after Brown lost the gubernatorial election he decided to spite the California voters by granting parole/pardon to some dangerous convicts incarcerated in San Quentin!
Any California lawyers or law-enforcement people among the Teeming Millions may be able to answer this; I don’t think even in CA can a Governor “parole” a convict unilaterally.

[Northern_Piper]

The Constitution of California gives the Governor the following clemency powers:

ARTICLE 5, SEC. 8.

(a) Subject to application procedures provided by statute, the Governor, on conditions the Governor deems proper, may grant a reprieve, pardon, and commutation, after sentence, except in case of impeachment. The Governor shall report to the Legislature each reprieve, pardon, and commutation granted, stating the pertinent facts and the reasons for granting it. The Governor may not grant a pardon or commutation to a person twice convicted of a felony except on recommendation of the Supreme Court, 4 judges concurring.

(b) No decision of the parole authority of this State with respect to the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension of parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of murder shall become effective for a period of 30 days, during which the Governor may review the decision subject to procedures provided by statute. The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider. The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action.

In response to your inquiry, dougie, it looks like the Governor in theory could do what your teacher said, but note that he can only pardon someone convicted twice of felonies on the recommendation of 4 judges of the Supreme Court. How many dangerous offenders in San Quentin are serving their first term? Probably not many, which would prevent the Governor from unilaterally letting a lot of them out of jail free. (Note: I couldn’t tell from the website I found if this provision has been amended since 1966.)

As Otto commented, for a definitive answer you would have to check on the case-law applying this provision, and also the procedural statutes that the California legislature has passed to implement it.

California Constitution

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

[Northern_Piper]

First post was commenting on para. (a).

I meant to add - for review of parole board decisions for indeterminate sentences for murder, under para. (b), it looks like the Governor can only act in the 30 days following the Board’s decision, and then must apply the same principles that the Board itself used. So, the power in para. (b) likely doesn’t lend itself to unilateral action either - there would have to be a previous decision of the Board within the past 30 days.

but what do I know? I’m just reading the provisions, and Otto is right that the case-law is equally important. Melin - any insights on California law here?

---

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

[BrotherCadfael]

President Jack Ryan killed a Soviet sailor working for the GRU (Hunt for Red October) and an IRA terrorist who was attempting to kidnap the Prince of Wales from his (Ryan’s) home (Patriot Games).

[Quercus]

And, to correct the record on George Bush (Sr), he couldn’t have shot down any enemy planes, as he flew a torpedo bomber.
An offical U.S. Navy history site (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-1.htm) does say “Ensign Bush and another pilot received credit for sinking a small cargo ship.” which most likely caused casualties. It’s possible that he was given that credit in part because of his prominence and political connections, but absent any other evidence, for this question we can assume he did kill someone.
Not surprisingly, the site does not highlight any incidents of him strafing sailors after they abandoned ship.

[DrDeth]

@Quercus

And, to correct the record on George Bush (Sr), he couldn’t have shot down any enemy planes, as he flew a torpedo bomber.

You do know that both USN Torp bombers were well armed, and some of them did manage to shoot down an enemy airplane?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Nixon

Imagine if a Japanese Prime Minister (and young teens were flying for Japan in 1945) were to admit to killing unarmed Americans in lifeboats.

Maybe he did and that explains why Bush threw up on him.

[elfbabe]

Aaaah! Zombie thread! Aaaaah!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[chukhung]

@elfbabe

Aaaah! Zombie thread! Aaaaah!

I think this thread may have sprung back to life because Cecil answers a very similar question to the OP in his latest (29-Oct-2004) column.

Maybe this should be moved to Comments on Cecil’s Columns?

[bibliophage]

Please don’t resurrect threads more than a month or two old unless you have a factual non-redundant and very specific answer to the original question. Those wishing to comment on Cecil’s column about killer presidents can do so in the appropriate forum.

bibliophage
moderator GQ