१७ जानेवारी, २००६
Is advanced age and infirmity a good argument for clemency?
Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected that argument, made by lawyers on behalf of the murderer Clarence Ray Allen, who was just executed. It almost seems that there was an argument that keeping him alive would be a way of inflicting more punishment on him. At least, one might say that execution has lost the meaning it is supposed to have for the condemned man. But none of that states a reason for clemency.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
Since when does age and infirmity give one a pass to commit multiple murder? Allen was in his 50s when he arrange for the murders of his most recent victims and serving a life sentence for murder.
Perhaps we can include along with the initial social security check a "Get Out of Jail Free" card allowing one free hit on anyone.
He was sentenced to death for ordering the murder of three people in 1980 while he was serving a life sentence for another killing.
He was responsible for the deaths of three more people while already in prison. The man was a perfect example of why we need the death penalty.
The only thing California did wrong was not executing him 25 years ago.
I wrote at some length about this case (Allen v. Ornoski), its antecedents and where it's likely going - both yesterday, and again this morning. I was going to e-mail Ann about it, I was interested in what she thought about this (which this post doesn't address) but I didn't want to be fishing for links, and I wasn't sure about my analysis. ;)
David said...
...and the state does not have to continue the cost of supporting his sorry self in a prison.
from the linked BBC article: Trial and appeals meant he ended up spending 23 years on Death Row.
Which cost taxpayers more - The support while serving a life sentence or the appeals while on Death Row?
Re: "Which cost taxpayers more - The support while serving a life sentence or the appeals while on Death Row?"
Since it does indeed cost more to fund appeals, you point strongly to the need for more rapid decisions. To reward a man who delayed his own execution until he became so frail that he comes to argue that frailty per se buys him exemption is simply stupid.
Either have a death penalty or do not. Abolish foot dragging and execute killers promptly, or abolish the death penalty.
"Was his children's book any good?"
Mr. Clarence Ray Allen, I served with Ted Kennedy, I knew Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy was a friend of mine. Mr. Multiple Murderer, you are no Ted Kennedy.
Well put, Pogo.
"Was his children's book any good?"
Probably not. That would explain the dearth of activist and media supporters, wouldn't it?
It wasn't an execution. it was assisted suicide for a terminally ill man.
"It wasn't an execution. it was assisted suicide for a terminally ill man."
Since he appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay of execution, that would suggest that it was an involuntary suicide. "Involuntary suicide by proxy of the state" - sounds a lot like an execution to me.
Simon:
I won't be too sure about that.
Clarence Ray Allen's last words were ''It's a good day to die. Thank you very much. I love you all. Goodbye.''
Jake,
I'm pretty certain. Gary Gilmour's last words were "let's do this"; he not only declined to appeal to the Supreme Court, but point-blank prohibited his attorneys or the LDF from doing so. If there was going to be a guy who volunteered to go, that was the way to do it.
But Allen sought a stay of execution; the fact that, the stay having been denied, he offered some choice words is besides the point. He tried to prevent his execution; not the action of a man who wants to die.
Sean: Maybe "he" refers to the son.
Wasn't this the case that inspired the movie "At Close Range"? I haven't seen that referenced in any of the news reports (and I live in L.A.), so I'm either mistaken, or it's another example of how quickly [financially] unsuccessful films fall down a black hole.
Like Miklos, I go back and forth. I am not convinced by the moral case against the death penalty, and I think the Constitutional case advanced by Brennan et al is ludicrous, but I do feel that I have arrived at the view that my concerns for the reliability of our system of justice is insufficient to support it at this time. Because I have concerns about the miscarriage of justice -- that is to say, the execution of someone who is innocent, rather than the fundamental morality of killing guilty murderers and rapists -- if the issue were actually placed before me in a way which demanded a choice (a ballot initiative, for example), at this time I would vote to suspend the death penalty for the foreseeable future, or whichever option most closely effectuated that position.
He's serving a life sentence for murder and is worried about getting rid of a witness to a prior burglary? What am I missing?
Nobody said he was smart.
I'm generally opposed to the death penalty. Witnesses lie. Science is't foolproof. But I'm not going to loose sleep over this guy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा