It doesn't even have to be rather than death. It just needs to be another option available for juries. There can be all sorts of reasons why a state might have a lower crime rate (for example, Michigan, a non-death penalty state had a higher murder rate than 24 states with the death penalty in 1998 - the stats I found quickly). Texas is only slightly above the national average in murder rate in 1998 (and lower than Michigan). All but one of the states with higher murder rates than the national average (as of 1998) were in the South/Southwest, and that one state has a moritorium on the death penalty last I heard (Illinois). The non-death penalty states are (by the way): North Dakota Iowa Hawaii Masachusetts Maine Rhoda Island Vermont Minnesota Wisconsin West Virginia Alaska Michigan I personally don't have a problem with getting rid of the death penalty, but I don't think it's an argument that's necessarily linked to the argument that there should be a life without parole sentence. This state is unlikely to get rid of the death penalty anytime soon, but adding a life without parole is not anywhere near as difficult an option. I would bet we could get over 50% of the state's residents to support the idea of a life without parole option. I don't think we could get that high support for abolishing the death penalty.
I think that having life sans parole as an option in addition to the death penalty would be a great idea. Juries should have all the possible sentencing tools available and the lack of this option just inflates capital punishment numbers.
From the 'World Socialist Web Site': Clinton himself presided over four executions as governor of Arkansas. In January 1992 he flew back to Arkansas in the midst of his first presidential campaign to approve the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. Rector, who had blown away part of his brain in a failed suicide attempt, was so mentally impaired that he asked that his desert be put aside so he could eat it after his execution.
In general, death is something none of us wants, in fact it is something we don't even like to think about. When death takes place naturally, it is a process beyond our control to stop, but where death is willfully and deliberately brought about, it is very unfortunate. Of course, within our legal systems there are said to be certain reasons and purposes for employing the death penalty. It is used to punish offenders, to prevent them ever repeating their misdeed and to deter others. However, if we examine the situation more carefully, we will find that these are not the real solutions. Harmful actions and their tragic consequences all have their origin in disturbing emotions and negative thoughts, and these are a state of mind, whose potential we find within all human beings. From this point of view, every one of us has the potential to commit crimes, because we are all subject to negative disturbing emotions and negative mental qualities. And we will not overcome these by executing other people. What is deemed criminal can vary greatly from country to country. In some countries, for example, speaking out for human rights is considered criminal, whereas in other countries preventing free speech is a crime. The punishments for crimes are also very different, but usually include various forms of imprisonment or hardship, financial penalties and, in a number of countries, physical pain. In some countries, crimes that the government considers very serious are punished by executing the person who committed the crime. The death penalty fulfills a preventive function, but it is also very clearly a form of revenge. It is an especially severe form of punishment because it is so final. The human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it. Before advocating execution we should consider whether criminals are intrinsically negative and harmful people or whether they will remain perpetually in the same state of mind in which they committed their crime or not. The answer, I believe, is definitely not. However horrible the act they have committed, I believe that everyone has the potential to improve and correct themselves. Therefore, I am optimistic that it remains possible to deter criminal activity, and prevent such harmful consequences of such acts in society, without having to resort to the death penalty. My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this. Therefore, I support those organizations and individuals who are trying to bring an end to the use of the death penalty. Today, in many societies very little importance is placed on education or the development of human values through social programs and entertainment. In fact, if we take television programming as an example, violence, including killing, is regarded as having a high entertainment value. This is indicative of how misguided we have become. I believe human beings are not violent by nature. Unlike lions and tigers, we are not naturally equipped to kill with sharp teeth and claws. From a Buddhist viewpoint, I believe that the basic nature of every sentient being is pure, that the deeper nature of mind is something pure. Human beings become violent because of negative thoughts which arise as a result of their environment and circumstances. I wholeheartedly support an appeal to those countries who at present employ the death penalty to observe an unconditional moratorium. At the same time we should give more support to education and encourage a greater sense of universal responsibility. We need to explain the importance of the practice of love and compassion for our own survival and to try to minimize those conditions which foster murderous tendencies, such as the proliferation of weapons in our societies. These are things even private individuals can work towards. - Tenzin Gyatso
I remember that...apparently it was meant to boost his electibility - to show that he was tought on crime. Stupid. Just like this is stupid. The guy rants for two minutes before he dies about getting his money back. If we had a good support system for the mentally ill (rich and poor) then this guy wouldn't have been released so many times and he probably would have never killed anyone and lived a better life. Oh well.
Darn it people, the governor of Texas has not say over who gets executed. He can give one 30 day stay, but he can not pardon the excecution.
Ok, cool. Inform me, because I'm unaware: Of the 156 opportunities, in how many did Bush issue a stay?
From: http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0700.html The governor also has limited powers of clemency, which gives him or her the capacity to grant relief from criminal punishment. Unlike governors in many states, the Texas Governor cannot independently issue a pardon or sentence commutation. In death penalty cases, the governor can issue one thirty-day reprieve. He or she can also make recommendations to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and can either approve or reject the board's recommendations on pardons or sentence reductions. Prior to a 1934 constitutional amendment, the governor had independent pardon powers. The amendment removing these powers was added after Jim and Miriam Ferguson were accused of selling clemency during her term as Governor. In modern times, governors have used what clemency powers they have been left with sparingly. As the application of the death penalty in the state has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism, and new technology has been made available to review old cases, governors have used reprieves to deflect criticism by allowing for further review of death penalty cases. These incidents have been rare, given the weak opposition to capital punishment. In cases where there is some compelling question about carrying out an execution, governors are ultimately in a safe position. Granting a thirty-day reprieve can appear judicious but not overly soft on criminals, as the governor cannot prevent an execution on his or her own. Apparently the paroles board and the judiciary have the power to stay an excecution, and the Governor can only grant clemency when the Board of Pardons and Paroles allows him. The ultimate power in Texas on executions is not in the Executive branch...although it does appear he had a decision to make in this case. I probably would have gone the same route as did the Governor, but to make it look like the Governor of Texas is responsible for the capital punishment in this state is uninformed.
Doesn't matter. To say he is reponsible for their punishment is dumb. The juries gave the sentences. I don't think the Governor should be able to override the will of a jury anyways except in very, very specific circumstances.
Not sure...I can only find info to say 1 for sure, but he did grant sentence reductions to life in prison on both cases he was allowed to do so by the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Appeals. You are guaranteed a stay if the evidence allows you to get the stay. The legislature passed a law in 2001 guaranteeing DNA testing to any condemned prisoner whose innocence might be secured as a result and an automatic stay of execution. More power taken out of the Governor's hands. So it looks like when the board recommended it, he commuted the sentences...otherwise, he went with the will of the people.
Why stay any execution for 30 days unless there is a situation where those 30 days would be necessary for something to do with the case (as in the Ricky McGinn case when then-Gov. Bush ordered a 30 day stay to allow for DNA testing to reviewed. McGinn was simply executed 30 days later than he otherwise would have. I don't think Bush issued any other stays during his term as Governor. As far as I know, he also never went against the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, as Gov. Perry did in this case.
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 admit I'm biased in this, as I completely oppose capital punishment, but if it is in fact only a stay, and short of evidence otherwise, 'the will of the people' will be followed, shouldn't we err on the side of taking too much time, than not enough? We are talking about human lives, and irreversable resolutions to same.
What if it was 156? Would that have mattered...? All of them would probably still have been executed given the Governor's inability to waive the execution completely. I don't think that death penalty opponents take the right route in their opposition. I'm against the death penalty, simply because I don't like the idea of our government having the power to execute criminals. That's what I would focus on were I inclined to try to drum up support for my position-- which I'm not. Our government is a reflection of humankind. It's flawed, and capricious. I trust it to build roads and provide for the national defense, and I can trust it within reason to provide what we consider justice. But extending that justice to the decision to end a human being's life as a punishment for committing a crime? No thanks. I think that's too big a responsibility for government to manage given that the execution of that responsibility (no pun intended) is not vital to the national well-being.
