Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


slavejali -> Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 12:54:42 PM)

This is not a topic about whether or not you agree with the death penalty, yet your views in this regard could be incorporated in your response, im gonna paste something from a news article i found on the web, then write my question after it.

LOS ANGELES - Exactly 229 death-row inmates have been granted clemency since the United States reinstated capital punishment in 1976, and the list of reasons is short. The 16 governors who have given such pardons cited just three reasons: lingering doubt about guilt, a governor's own philosophical opposition to the death penalty, and mental disability of the accused.

Starkly absent from the list - notable because of a high-profile clemency request now pending in California - is character reform of the guilty. As in the 2000 Texas case of convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker, who experienced a death-row religious conversion and became a model inmate, the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams is reviving the debate over rehabilitation and its role in the US penal system.

Mr. Williams, cofounder of the notorious L.A. street gang the Crips and a four-time murderer, has been in prison since 1981. Since then, he has become an antigang crusader whose work earned him several Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

His appeal for clemency on the claim of personal redemption poses a personal, political, and philosophical dilemma for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who must decide before Dec. 13 whether Williams will live or die. Like governors before him, notably George W. Bush of Texas, who proclaimed one such decision "the most agonizing part of being governor," Mr. Schwarzenegger is finding that clemency cases can ignite intense passions - and often leave large blocs of voters feeling aggrieved, no matter how the decision comes down.

A high-profile clemency decision also immediately confronts Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D). He has denied such petitions from 11 other death-row prisoners, but activists working on behalf of Robin Lovitt say the fact that DNA evidence in his case was improperly destroyed - and might have exonerated him - is enough to merit a commutation to a life sentence. If the execution proceeds as scheduled Wednesday, Mr. Lovitt would become the 1,000th person to die under death-penalty laws since 1976.

Grants of clemency have declined in the past 25 years, with about 1,000 death-row inmates having sought it and 229 receiving it. Of those, 167 came from one governor in one act in 2000: former Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, who called the death-penalty system in his state "arbitrary and capricious and therefore immoral." His action has since been excoriated by victims' families and lawmakers, even as it is lauded by death-penalty opponents.

"We as a country have been dramatically changing our notions about clemency and the death penalty in the past half decade," says Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment and analyzes death-penalty trends. After two decades of meting out death sentences at a steady rate of about 300 a year, the nation has seen that number fall by one-third since 2000.

Much of that shift can be attributed to advances in DNA testing and other technology, which have exposed shortcomings in the legal proceedings that put people on death row, say Mr. Dieter and others.

The decision awaiting Schwarzenegger is complex since Williams has aimed to both cast doubt on his conviction and persuade the governor that he has become a changed man behind bars.

"This is a terribly difficult decision - not just because of all the competing considerations, from the political to the spiritual - but because there are no clear guidelines given to governors," says Robert Batey, professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in DeLand, Fla.

Laws differ in the 38 states with clemency provisions. Some require boards or commissions to make recommendations or to act in tandem with the governor. In other states the governor alone decides, with no legal, ethical, or moral criteria spelled out for guidance.

"Governors ... can decide not only whether a person is redeemed or not, [but] they can decide [inmates] have changed and put them to death anyway," says Professor Batey. "In the case of Mr. Schwarzenegger, it's up to him to create his own reasons."

The origin of clemency in the US predates the Constitution and was considered a necessary corrective to the severity of the criminal-justice system of the day. It has been revisited and sharpened regularly ever since. "Clemency is an act of grace," wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in 1833, and Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1927: "[It] is part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."

Exactly how to define and weigh the public welfare is Schwarzenegger's prerogative, experts say. Beyond the consideration of Williams's personal fate, the governor must weigh the consequences, symbolic and otherwise, to others.

"If he goes ahead and puts to death a man who has clearly shown he has turned himself around, [and] is not the man he once was, what does that say to all other prisoners who are similarly incarcerated and are trying to reform themselves - that personal reform doesn't matter?" asks Jan Handzlik, a member of Williams's defense team.

Similarly, what message does a commuted death sentence send to prosecutors and law-enforcement officers, who daily work to fulfill the requirements of the legal system to obtain proper prosecutions? Or to victims' families and other convicts?

"It sends the worst signal to the criminal element if you commute someone," says Michael Paranzino, who runs a nonpartisan research group dedicated to crime victims and their families. "What are other criminals supposed to think ... that if you suddenly write poetry, say all the right things, and find a champion on the outside that you get a 'get out of jail free' card?"

Because of all this, "clemency is a very lonely decision," says Margaret Love, former head of the pardon office in the US Justice Department. "It is a question of how to blend mercy with justice, the human and the legal in light of all circumstances before you, with life on the line."

p>• Thirty-three states give their governors exclusive, unconditional power to grant pardons or reduce prison sentences.

• Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, and Texas have stripped their governors of the power to pardon and instead established clemency boards, whose members are appointed by the governor.

• In nine states, the governor can only consider clemency recommendations issued by a clemency board.

• In Nebraska, Nevada, and Utah, the governor sits as a member of a pardoning board, making clemency decisions in cooperation with board members.

Source: Stateline.org

Question:

If you were the Governor, do you feel you could deal with the responsonsibility of having to make clemency decisions as part of your job? If so, how would you personally deal with it?





FangsNfeet -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 1:01:37 PM)

quote:

If you were the Governor, do you feel you could deal with the responsonsibility of having to make clemency decisions as part of your job? If so, how would you personally deal with it?


It wouldn't be a problem for me. No evidence that says you're innocent. Clemency denied. Not only would I deny it but all administer the sentance myself to cutt down on the over priced cost to humanely kill them that our tax payers pay.




sub4hire -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 1:01:50 PM)

quote:

If you were the Governor, do you feel you could deal with the responsonsibility of having to make clemency decisions as part of your job? If so, how would you personally deal with it?


It's part of your job, you know it when you run for election. So, I sure hope I'd be able to deal with it.

I would not grant this man clemency, primarily because most prisoners are model prisoners. After all they are incarcerated. They have nothing to do, being model gets them things they may otherwise not get. Like living when sentenced to death.

The judge and jury made their decision they should hold it up.




candystripper -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 1:09:08 PM)

quote:

If you were the Governor, do you feel you could deal with the responsonsibility of having to make clemency decisions as part of your job? If so, how would you personally deal with it?

slavejani


Clemency occupies an odd place in the law. There are generally standards for parole, but none at all for clemency...as we saw when Nixon was granted clemency. Governors are elected officials and generally are planning to seek reelction or higher office. The electorate treats a Governor as virtually unelectable if He grants clemency to a death row inmate regardless; He is branded "soft on crime".

When Clinton was running for President and still Govenor of Arkansas, He refused clemency to a death row inmate with an undisputed mental age of 5 or so. There was outrage all around...but obviousy Clintom felt the safest course was to deny clemency.

Clemency, IMO, is no panaeca to the ills which plague the criminal justice system, particularly as regards the death penalty. To me, clemency is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things.

As Govenor i would never grant clemency; or perhaps i'd do what the Governor of Illinois did and grant clemency to all death row inmates in my state. But any attenpt to rationalise a case-by-case basis is just an exzcersise in futility to me.

candystripper




JohnWarren -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 1:57:30 PM)

Will the four people he murdered be getting clemency?





IronBear -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 2:42:43 PM)

I have no issues with this and like Fangs I'd double as executioner myself especially if Aussie got real and handed down the death penalty for narcotics importation and major distributors instead of letting Singapore do it for them. (Sheesh just have to get fit to pull the handle on the trapdoor).




siamsa24 -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 4:13:22 PM)

I couldn't find the article on stateline.org (I like to go to the source and read the comments that are usually posted from other readers), but it looks like the original article was in the Christian Science Moniter. It may not seem that important, but I tend to get a bug up my butt about things like that [:D]




slavejali -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 4:48:24 PM)

siamsa: it was actually a link from the initial news items that come up on yahoo, pasted it as it was.




dekley -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 5:28:07 PM)

quote:

i'd do what the Governor of Illinois did and grant clemency to all death row inmates in my state.


Yes... and many of those were convicted of some really horrendous crimes. Take for instance Henry Brisbon, who murdered at least four people. One women he first ordered to strip and then shoved the barrel of his shotgun up her vagina before pulling the trigger. Nice guy, huh? Imagine how you'd feel if she was your wife, mother, sister, or daughter. His other murders were just as unique. Do a search. And the list goes on and on and on. Rehabilitate? I think not. Mentally ill? Who cares.





Chaingang -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 6:15:13 PM)

I could make the decision, and I would commute all sentences to life in prison.

I oppose the death penalty.

The death penalty is basically a revenge kick on the part of society and I think it therefore sends the wrong message. It clearly has no significant deterrent effect for premeditated acts, killing in furtherance of theft, and there's just no way it deters crimes of passion which are acts committed in the moment. It isn't what the person deserves or what you'd like to do to him - it's merely a question of what society should uphold as a standard. Somebody kills somebody. We say that he had no right to do it - that it's a criminal act. So we then execute him? We collectively have a right to perform a "wrong act" we deny to the individual?

Society should take no revenge. We should handle crime as problem management issue. When someone is a problem for the rest of society we should act to ameliorate the problem. Nothing more, nothing less. The alternative is to keep up the revenge executions, be one of the few western countries still doing it, and basically claim as our moral grounds the same territory claimed by the Hatfields and McCoys: "He killed one of ours."

I reject the philosophy of the blood feud, or vendetta, as anyone's moral high ground.




dekley -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 6:48:36 PM)

quote:

It clearly has no significant deterrent effect


It would have deterred Henry Brisbon (see above). His last victim was a prison guard while he was incarcerated. BTW... nothing wrong with revenge IMHO.




Chaingang -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 7:05:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dekley
BTW... nothing wrong with revenge IMHO.


"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind." - Mohandas Gandhi




dekley -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 7:44:23 PM)

quote:

"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind." - Mohandas Gandhi


"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." - Al Capone




Chaingang -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 10:33:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dekley
"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." - Al Capone


You are off topic. What does persuasion have to do with anything?




slavejali -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/29/2005 11:33:23 PM)

just realised i havent actually responded to the topic.

i dont think i could handle or would want the responsibility. I'm not necessarily anti-death-sentence, i think in some cases its warranted i just would never like to have to make that decision. To make the decision to end someones life, i would feel the same as if i was a murderer myself no matter how much of a heinous crime they committed. To have the decision "Shuold they live"" "Should they die"" i just couldnt do it.

i was watching Braveheart last night with Master - it was the first time ive actually seen that movie believe it or not. There was one scene in it when Mel Gibsons character was being tortured in front of the crowd, having his intestines pulled out while he was alive etc, and they had the crowd cheering and having a great time watching, and i know this has happened throughout history, and the people in the crowd really felt justified to revel in this mans pain and the ending of his life, they really thought he was a criminal who deserved this treatment, it made me so incredibly upset, it just made me wonder if we as a human race have ever really made any progression ......i just cant revel or be part of someones suffering,,,or the ending of someones life....it totally disturbs me. i know this is probably a weak or immature attitude, some part of me that cant grasp some part of justice or something....anyways..thats my reply for this topic.





UtopianRanger -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/30/2005 12:24:38 AM)

quote:


If you were the Governor, do you feel you could deal with the responsonsibility of having to make clemency decisions as part of your job? If so, how would you personally deal with it?


By virtue of my complete disagreement with the death penalty, I could never hold a public office that had the responsibility and/or capacity surrounding yay or nay decisions regards clemency.




- The Ranger




LadyHibiscus -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/30/2005 4:21:35 AM)

I don't feel that the death penalty is a deterrent of any kind, and I have no faith in the criminal justice system to apply it reasonably. That said, there are certainly people out there that I would pull the trigger on myself, rather than spending a fortune on allowing them to live.

The State of California is paying for Charles Manson to live and breathe and spew on television, they should do the same for the other murderers.

Could I hold that kind of job? Yes, though not willingly. I can make unpopular decisions, but I don't want to.




Chaingang -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/30/2005 6:34:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus
The State of California is paying for Charles Manson to live and breathe and spew on television, they should do the same for the other murderers.


I think it's interesting that you chose Manson to talk about here.

The way I understand it, Manson never killed anybody:
"Although Manson himself was not present at the Tate/La Bianca killings, he was convicted of first degree murder on January 25, 1971, for ordering and directing them, and on March 29 was sentenced to death. The death sentence was later automatically commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court's People v. Anderson decision resulted in the invalidation of all death sentences imposed in California prior to 1972."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

Do people really have magical powers to make other people commit crimes for them? Should such a person actually pay the exact same penalty as the person(s) that actually carried out the murders with their own hands? Nobody even claims that Manson paid to have these people killed - the claim is that Manson basically led some kind of very elaborate quasi-cult conspiracy based on the music of the Beatles and some unique views on The Book of Revelations from the Bible.

I smell bullshit. I always did. The whole case stinks of scapegoating some hippies. Sheesh, go read the possible motives for the crimes at Wiki and tell me that one motive doesn't seem more ridiculous than the others.

BTW, Manson is probably as mad as hatter - but we don't make crazy people responsible for the crazy shit they may do. We lock them up and try to help them with medical treatments and otherwise contain them if they are a problem to society. In the main, this doesn't significantly differ from what I suggested we do with people facing the death penalty.

I also think it's interesting that while you almost certainly think that Manson is crazy - almost everyone does - you suggest that you would prefer to kill someone who can't be held responsible for his actions rather than allow it to be an expense to the state of California to keep such a person alive. You blame Manson for spewing his nonsense on TV - but is someone holding a gun to the head's of the likes of Tom Snyder and Charlie Rose to give him the air time? Manson gets TV time because people are unduly fascinated with crimes of the kind The Manson Family members were convicted of committing. "Rose's interview won the national news Emmy Award for "Best Interview" in 1987." And that's somehow Manson's fault?

Gimme a break...!





LaMalinche -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/30/2005 11:29:08 AM)

"If Dillinger [Williams] had understood what he was doing (which seemed incredible) then he got what was coming to him . . . except that it seemed a shame that he hadn't suffered as much as had little Barbara Anne [William's 4 victims] -- he practically hadn't suffered at all.
But suppose, as seemed more likely, that he was so crazy that he had never been aware that he was doing anything wrong? What then?
Well, we shoot mad dogs, don't we?
Yes, but being crazy that way is a sickness --
I couldn't see but two possibilities. Either he couldn't be made well -- in which case he was better dead for his own sake and for the safety of others -- or he could be treated and made sane. In which case (it seemed to me) if he ever became sane enough for civilized society . . . and thought over what he had done while he was "sick" -- what could be left for him but suicide? How could he live with himself?
And suppose he escaped before he was cured and did the same thing again? And maybe again? How do you explain that to bereaved parents? In view of his record?
I couldn't see but one answer."

-Starship Troopers


I say kill him. If Williams is truely reformed, how can he live with himself? And yes, I would be willing to administer the injection, pull the trigger, or pull the lever myself.

Yes, we humans do like a blood show. The stoics (such as Seneca) spoke against it, yet we still have football and wrestling and hockey.

The fact that clemency would be granted to Williams, who has murdered 4, yet parole has not been granted Amy Fisher (at least last I checked), who killed none, is sickening. And Amy was a minor. And being coerced by Joey.

Just my $.02.

Have a great day.




Sartoris32801 -> RE: Could you handle the responsibility of this job? (11/30/2005 12:19:19 PM)



quote:

Question:

If you were the Governor, do you feel you could deal with the responsonsibility of having to make clemency decisions as part of your job? If so, how would you personally deal with it?


Excellent Post!

Good question and one that no one can answer unless coming face to face with that decisions and all the ramifications.

Leaving aside the death penalty debate, I would like to think that I would make the decision as an elected official, leaving aside my personal opinions and the political fallout.

Having said that these decisions are rarely made courageously but as a rule follow the history of Pontius Pilate and “Give them Barabbass”

Sartoris





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125