Bush's record with regard to the clemency process as governor was alarmingly vacant (though depressingly typical); this has been fairly well documented here. Though in his defense I don't know if he ever pulled anything like Rick Perry just did....what's a matter, did he have a fight with his...significant other?
So if a jury convicts someone for a double murder and then a jury sentences him to death, why is the Gov. obligated to grant him a stay?
Interesting point, BK. I have a couple of questions, if anyone knows... 1. Does the Governor appoint the members of the Board of Pardons and Appeals? 2. Does anyone else (besides me) think it would be next to impossible, in the foreseeable future, to make the death penalty illegal in the state of Texas, given the history and current political climate of the state? 3. And how many of you think it would have made a difference if Bush had granted stays to those up for execution while governor? (I think it would... not in every case, to be sure, but in some) My significant other, my resident expert on all things concerning state politics and laws, is out of pocket.
Nice post. Pretty much agree with everything you say, and my contention isn't with the accuracy of the highlighted word, but it's importance. Suppose probalby doesn't mean certainly, in each and every case. That admitedly infinitesimal realm of possibility is, when considering what's at stake, worth the effort, IMO. But am really arguing out of momentum here: I am against the death penalty, but don't really hold Governonr's responsible ofr upholding the law as is.
The Governor appoints them, though a sitting governor may not have appointed any of them (their terms don't expire at the end of every gubernatorial term). I didn't realize that the Board of Pardons and Paroles had been changed in 2003. Before, there were 18 members of the Board. Now there are 8 members. All of them appear to be Bush or Perry appointees at this point. I think that's true. I don't think it would've made any difference at all. However, I'm sure that the governor can hold some political sway over the Board of Pardons and Paroles. If the governor says to them privately that he wants to commute a guy's sentence, I think the Board would go along and vote that way (most of the time, anyway). Even though the governor doesn't have the direct power, he's got some power from the proverbial "bully pulpit". Well, there are other reasons, but for the sake of your argument, what percentage of convictions would you say are faulty? In what percentage of cases would you say there is cause to delay? I don't have any idea, but these people who were executed had exhausted their appeals and spent years on death row. If there was a problem, another thirty days would be extremely unlikely to make any difference in the case (and even in the Ricky McGinn case, he was put to death even after the stay). I'm all for ending the death penalty myself, but I don't think a lack of using a 30 day reprieve means anything. I don't think less of Ann Richards for not using it very often (I only know for sure of one case where she used it, but I haven't looked that hard). I don't think less of GWB for not using it.
I don't understand the idea of protecting mentally ill people, especially declaring them innocent and letting them free. These people have no idea between right and wrong, but yet let them back on the streets. Outside of serial killers, these are the worst of people. You simply can not control them. And to a point, serial killers are mentally ill. I don't think its right to execute someone who made a one time mistake, but im all for people who would kill again.
I want to see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. I want to eat dead, burnt bodies. I said kill!
