Tag Archives: Capital punishment

Tim Kaine: serious about the oath he takes

24KAINE1-master768

Tim Kaine’s selection as Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate is bringing forth the expected public vetting of the U.S. senator’s public policy record.

One item that’s been drawing some attention has involved capital punishment.

A New York Times story Sunday notes that although Kaine is vehemently opposed to executing people for capital crimes he was able to carry out executions while serving as governor of Virginia.

My reaction: Well, duuuhhh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/politics/tim-kaine-death-penalty.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Felection-2016&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Kaine has moved on to the Senate, where he gets to vote on laws that affect all Americans. But while serving as governor, he took a solemn oath to do one thing essentially: to follow the law as prescribed and written by the legislative assembly of his state.

Governors really have little leeway as it regards capital punishment. Sure, they can commute sentences, which Kaine did while serving as Virginia governor, and which he was empowered to do under the state constitution.

However, if the state executed someone who had been sentenced to death by a jury, then it follows that the governor — barring some extraordinary circumstance — is obligated to do what the law tells him to do.

Virginia is No.2 in the nation in executing capital criminals. No. 1? Oh, yeah … that would be Texas!

The two hats Kaine wears — as one who opposes certain public policy but who must adhere to the law –aren’t the least bit confusing, to me at least.

He struggles as well with abortion. Kaine is a devoted Catholic who believes in the doctrine of his church, which opposes abortion for any reason. However, abortion is legal in this country and, therefore, Kaine must follow the law.

Indeed, he also remains pro-choice on that issue, regardless of his personal opposition to the practice based on his own moral compass and the teachings of his church — believing, apparently, that the government should allow women to make that gut-wrenching decision for themselves.

Sen. Kaine is a serious man who now has been given a serious task, which is to run alongside the Democrats’ presidential candidate. His executive government experience owing to his days as a governor demonstrates he also is a serious public servant.

 

Duggar saga gets even more weird

The Duggar saga has taken a number of bizarre turns.

Get this tidbit as it relates to the scandal involving Josh Duggar, of the “19 Kids and Counting” reality show and his admitted molestation of young girls, including some of his sisters, while he was a teenager.

Josh’s father, Jim Bob, ran for the Republican Party nomination to the U.S. Senate in 2002. He lost to eventual GOP nominee Tim Hutchinson.

Jim Bob Duggar was asked what he thought should be the appropriate punishment for those who commit incest.

He responded: “Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes.”

http://defamer.gawker.com/duggar-dads-political-platform-incest-should-be-punish-1706929035

You know, of course, how society treats “capital criminals.” It executes them. Capital crimes deserve capital punishment. Isn’t that correct?

He said also, “If a woman is raped, the rapist should be executed instead of the innocent unborn baby.”

TLC, the network that broadcast “19 Kids,” has pulled the series off the air. It might return the reality show to the airwaves, but without Josh Duggar. He would be excluded from any future on-air face time.

As for Daddy Duggar’s view of how society should punish those who’ve committed the very crimes to which his own son has admitted, well … I’m betting his view on that has “evolved.”

 

Death Row to freedom … how does one cope?

Of all the stories I read each day, the one type of story that stretches my comprehension deals with Death Row inmates who suddenly find themselves free to pick up the pieces of their lives.

I never can quite grasp how these individuals cope with such profound circumstances.

Anthony Ray Hinton sat on Alabama’s Death Row for nearly 30 years. He’s now a free man. He gets to go to the grocery store, watch the movie of his choice, visit with friends and family members … you know, do the things you and I get to do.

http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-death-row-inmate-freed-nearly-30-years-174433714.html

The court had convicted him of a 1985 murder, sentenced him to death and then let him sit there for three decades. The U.S. Supreme Court, though, ruled that Hinton didn’t receive a competent defense, to which he is entitled under the U.S. Constitution. “He was a poor person who was convicted because he didn’t have the money to prove his innocence at trial. He was unable to get the legal help he needed for years. He was convicted based on bad science,” according to Bryan Stevenson, head of Equal Justice Initiative, based in Alabama.

Now the court has determined it doesn’t have enough evidence to kill him, so Hinton has been set free.

Good for him. I will pray for him as he seeks to acclimate himself to a life he hasn’t known for 30 years.

How he accomplishes that is the great mystery.

***

This story also brings to the forefront the great debate about capital punishment.

Anthony Hinton sat in an Alabama prison cell for more than half of the life he’s lived already. What if the state had executed him for a crime it couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt? In Hinton’s case, he reportedly had an alibi and couldn’t have been present when two men were shot to death.

It is fair to ask whether Hinton symbolizes other individuals whose guilt remain in question.

The ultimate punishment for crimes requires utterly incontrovertible proof that the person awaiting execution is guilty of the crime. Innocent people have been put to death; of that there can be no doubt.

A single wrongly executed individual is one too many.

Anthony Hinton has been spared.

Now the hard part commences. This man has to figure out how to live like a human being.

Godspeed, Anthony Ray Hinton.

 

Hard to oppose death penalty on this one

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is making it difficult for a capital punishment opponent — such as myself — to remain true to principle.

He’s the young man accused of killing three people and injuring several others April 15, 2013 at the end of the Boston Marathon.

The federal government has ended its case against Tsarnaev, turning it over to the defense team, which is going to argue that his life should be spared.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/boston-marathon-bombing-trial-1425481307-slideshow/boston-marathon-bombing-trial-photo-1427725054614.html

Tsarnaev’s guilt actually isn’t being questioned by his defense team. His lawyers are going to make the case that the feds shouldn’t execute him, which the Justice Department wants to do if he’s convicted of this terrible crime.

The case to keep him alive seems a bit shaky. Lead defense counsel Judy Clark said Dzhokhar was under the spell of his radicalized older brother, Tamerlan, who died when Dzhokhar ran over him with their getaway vehicle.

I remain opposed to capital punishment, but reporters covering the trial in Boston keep referring to the defendant’s lack of emotion, how he slouches in his chair and how seems utterly detached from what’s happening around him.

Any parent of a young man can relate to Dzhokhar’s outward demonstration of disinterest. It’s what teenagers and young adults do when they’re facing discipline — even when it threatens to end their life.

Tsarnaev is going down. That much is virtually without question. Whether he dies for his crime remains in the hands of the jury.

The family members of those who died deserve justice. They’ll get it with a conviction. To them, at least, justice won’t be delivered fully until Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is executed. While I disagree with that form of punishment, I certainly understand the loved ones’ desire to see justice administered in its entirety.

 

Utah reloads on its execution policy

Utah’s legislators want to bring back the firing squad as its method of executing criminals.

Well, I won’t comment so much on that decision, except to reaffirm my opposition to capital punishment.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah-set-to-bring-back-death-sentence-by-firing-squad/ar-AA9DpqR

Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, has the option of vetoing the bill that sits on his desk. I have no clue what he’ll do with it. Death penalty foes have condemned lawmakers’ decision to bring back the firing squad.

This method of killing capital criminals, though, has produced a strange fascination on at least one aspect of the way it is carried out.

The firing squad comprises several shooters. One of them is given a blank round. The state doesn’t not tell which of the shooters is firing the blank. My understanding is that the blank round is intended to provide some semblance of doubt as to whether a shooter actually fired a bullet that killed the person who is executed.

But the practice does make me wonder about something. Anyone who’s ever shot a blank round from a rifle, as well as a live round, knows that the blank produces significantly less “kick” than the live round. So, when you shoot the blank, the weapon you use is going to recoil a good bit less than it would if you shoot an actual bullet.

Thus, the question: Does the blank round inserted into an unknown gun actually cast sufficient doubt on which of the shooters fired the blank?

Whatever. As Ralph Dellapiana, head of Utahns for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said: “I think Utah took a giant step backward.” He added that firing squads are “a relic of a more barbaric past.”

 

Random selection for grand juries?

 

Grand juries have been in the news of late.

A Travis County grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on charges of abuse of power and coercion; another grand jury declined to indict a Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of a young black man; and still another grand jury no-billed a Staten Island, N.Y., cop in the choking death of a black man.

All those decisions provoked controversy.

I bring this up as an introduction to a chance encounter I had Tuesday with a state district judge whom I’ve known for nearly 20 years. Judge John Board and I were visiting for a time and our discussion turned to grand jury selection in Texas. Board mentioned he’s been using a random selection method for some time, rather than relying on a jury commissioner system that remains the selection-method of choice for most trial judges in Texas.

We talked about an editorial campaign of which I was part in Beaumont many years ago. We argued vehemently at the Beaumont Enterprise for a change in the way grand jurors are selected in the two criminal courts in Jefferson County. We didn’t like the commissioner system, as it relied on jury commissioners’ discretion in picking grand jurors. Jury commissioners — who are appointed by judges — could pick friends, or friends of friends to serve on the grand jury; they could pick judges’ friends.

The theory is that the jury commissioner system enables courts to pick the “best and the brightest” of a community to decide whether criminal complaints warrant prosecution. But the system is exposed to the possibility of manipulation. It could be used to settle scores. A jury commissioner with a bone to pick with someone — for whatever reason — could find grand jurors who would side with him in getting revenge.

I’m not saying such a thing happens frequently, nor do I even have first-hand knowledge of it ever happening. But it could.

I am a strong believer in the random selection method. I was heartened to hear my friend, Judge Board, say that he uses the random system in his court, which has jurisdiction in Potter and Randall counties.

Our newspaper in Beaumont finally won out, by the way. The two courts in question in Jefferson County eventually switched to a random selection method — with grand jurors selected off the voter registration rolls — and to my knowledge it’s been working fine ever since.

So, why not require it across the state?

Amarillo is represented in the Legislature by two fine lawyers — Republicans John Smithee and Four Price. Might there be an opportunity for one or both of them to pitch legislation calling for mandatory random selection of grand juries?

If a trial jury chosen at random can be charged with sentencing someone to death, surely the state can put its trust in a random selection method to pick a grand jury to decide whether to prosecute someone for a crime.

 

 

Blogging is a blast … most of the time

Readers of this blog know — I hope — that I take great joy in expressing opinions on this or that subject.

I consider it a form of recreation, perhaps even therapy. I like sharing it on various social media. I post the blog entries to my Twitter feed, which goes automatically to my Facebook feed. They also post automatically to LinkedIn and Tumblr.

Sometimes, though, the Facebook feed results in some, shall we say, unfortunate reactions among a few of the hundreds of friends and “friends” who read this stuff on that social medium.

Some of my friends/”friends” react to the blog post. Their reaction draws a critical response from someone else on the feed. Then the initial responder respond to the response. Back and forth it goes. Then others enter the fray. Then it becomes a game of insults, a put-down contest, if you please.

Some of it is good-natured. Some of it isn’t. Then it gets out of hand.

I commented earlier today on Texas executing a young woman for the murder of a little boy. I stated my opposition capital punishment. Then the fusillade started among a few folks who had read the blog.

It got a bit crazy.

Sometimes I’m a bit slow on the uptake and sometimes I don’t recognize good humor when it’s hidden behind insults. Perhaps my friends — and these individuals are people I know well — were just kidding among themselves. They really didn’t mean to say all those nasty things to each other, or at least outsiders looking in — such as yours truly — shouldn’t interpret them as mean-spiritedness.

Forgive me, guys. I don’t get it.

I’ll keep spewing this stuff. Others can comment. They’re free to insult each other as long as they don’t use the magic word, which in baseball rhubarb parlance is “you.” By that I don’t want them saying, “You bleeping so-and-so!”

Let’s keep it clean.

Ho, hum; Texas executes a woman

How times have changed since the late 1990s.

Texas has just executed a female inmate, Lisa Coleman, 38, in the death of a 9-year-old boy she starved to death.

I didn’t even know she was scheduled to die, only learning of her death after the fact.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/texas-executes-woman-for-starvation-of-boy-9-1

Yep, just another day at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice death chamber.

I couldn’t help but think of the international uproar that arose when Texas put down Karla Faye Tucker back in 1998. Do you remember when then-Gov. George W. Bush mocked Tucker just days before she died when he said, using a pitiful voice, that Tucker likely said, “Pleease don’t kill me.” Oh, that Dubya, .. what a card.

A South Africa TV station called to interview little ol’ me — yours truly — about Tucker’s impending death. They must have run out of more suitable subjects to interview, but there I was — on the air, live, with some reporter in Cape Town, South Africa, offering my own perspective on what it meant to execute a woman.

I’ve kept my feelings about capital punishment pretty much quiet. Only my family and closest friends had known how I feel about it. I more or less had to keep quiet about it, given that I worked for newspapers that supported the use of the death penalty as punishment for capital crimes. Now that I can speak for myself, I have declared my opposition to capital punishment.

It doesn’t upset any more when we execute women. I detest the punishment for men and women equally.

What’s more detestable, though, is that the death of a young woman on a TDCJ execution chamber gurney came and went and so few of us seemed to care.

Did condemned man die from 'torture'?

John McCain knows torture when he sees it.

The Republican U.S. senator from Arizona was victimized by it as a prisoner of war in Vietnam for more than five years. So when the 2008 GOP presidential nominee says an Arizona inmate was tortured before he was executed this week, I tend to listen.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/justice/arizona-execution-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I’ll declare here that I oppose capital punishment, largely because keeping someone alive to think about the crime he or she committed is punishment enough — in my book.

Well, this week Joseph Wood became the latest condemned man to die in what amounts to a botched or nearly botched execution. He gasped, moaned, snorted and writhed on the gurney for nearly two hours before succumbing to the drugs pumped into his body. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, another Republican, has ordered a complete review to determine what went wrong; the state attorney general has halted future executions until the review is complete.

Wood wasn’t a good guy. He committed a terrible and violent crime that put him on death row. Hardliners out there say they feel not a shred of remorse over what happened to him on the death chamber gurney. He still got off easy compared to the pain he inflicted on his victims, they will say.

Still, the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” States that used to hang, shoot, electrocute or gas inmates to death have gone to lethal injection as a form of supposedly “human” execution. Well, James Wood didn’t die humanely. Neither did the Oklahoma inmate who was executed in a hideously botched process in which the lethal drug was injected into tissue, rather than into his bloodstream.

What are states to do? Texas, which had gone on a death row killing spree in recent years, has somehow slowed the pace of executions. We still kill inmates more regularly than other states. We’ve had none of the instances lately of the kind of torture that John McCain described in the Wood case.

“The lethal injection needs to be an indeed lethal injection and not the bollocks-upped situation that just prevailed. That’s torture,” Sen. McCain told Politico on Thursday.

Yes, the state should review its capital punishment procedures. However, if states cannot guarantee prevention of the type of agony suffered by a condemned inmate, perhaps there ought to be some serious debate about ending the procedure altogether.

Let these inmates rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

Oklahoma botches an execution

Clayton Lockett is dead.

To some, it’s no big deal. He was a murderer who was sentenced to die for a hideous crime. He didn’t depart this world quite the way the state of Oklahoma desired. He suffered terribly in a botched execution.

Still no big deal? Well, it is.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117585/clayton-lockett-execution-botched-problem-lethal-injection

Oklahoma executioners used a drug cocktail for the first time. They thought they’d administered the lethal injection, only to have the condemned man lurch on the gurney, gasp, choke, thrash about before succumbing.

Hey, he was a killer who deserved to die, right? Some have even ventured that he should have suffered the same level of agony he delivered to his victim.

Well, the government is supposed to be above that kind of barbarism. States that execute inmates for their capital crimes should do so humanely. That’s what civilized governments prescribe for this kind of punishment, isn’t it?

It appears that the individual who inserted the needle into Lockett’s arm missed the vein. The drugs began to flow, but not into the man’s bloodstream. Thus, the suffering occurred and it has caused state officials to look deeply into the methods they use to carry out these punishments.

None of this should be grist for jokes, or snide comments about whether a condemned criminal has gotten “what he deserved.” If states are going to execute inmates for these capital crimes, it is imperative they develop fool-proof methods that do not produce the kind of ghastly drama that played out this week in Oklahoma.