Arnie says yes to execution

[stevie_c2it]

Without going over the rights and wrongs of capital punishment again, are people uneasy that an elected official (up for re-election next year) gets the final say on whether someone lives or is executed? Doesn't this decision present a conflict of interest? I.e. the outcome could depend on which 'side' represents the most votes. Should justice always be 'blind' and not open to public influence (as it is in the UK), or would people prefer a similar system to the US model?

[Loosehead]

You are right, I do not know why after a jury and judge convicted and passed sentence and the full appeals process has taken place that the whole lot is negated by the govenor having the final say. There's been a lot of hysteria about this "Arnie kills Tookie" type stuff but really I think Arnie or any govenor would, would given the choice rather not have the final say and in any case he is only deciding not to over turn the original sentence he is not, as some say, sentencing him to death personally.

Yes I think it also does represent a conflict of interest, as it's know that generally republicans tend to be in favour of execution. However the optimist inside me hopes that when it comes to an execution party politics would be put to one side.

I'll be back!

[luckyboy]

People only prefer a system that ends up with the decision they individually agree with, stevie..

I agree with you, i feel uneasy that a person's life is decided on the say so of one individual, especially a politician but thats the us system for you.. but i think you'll find as this thread develops, the majority will find no problem with it..

[jno]

I think governors have the power to overrule death sentences like this, but it doesn't imply that they have the power to overrule every court decision - they couldn't order someone to be jailed after a verdict of not guilty, for instance. In fact, as far as I know, this power is exercised very sparingly and responsibly, probably because no elected official wants to give the impression that he's above the law.

A few years back, the Illinois governor did put all executions on hold because studies were showing how capriciously they were ordered. Some details here. But that suggests not bowing to electoral concerns but a much more fundamental concern about human rights

[DavidUK]

It is probably only a matter of time before such decisions are made by a "Big Brother" style telephone vote of the viewing public. To answer your question, though, I think that the Governer should NOT have the choice to allow someone to be executed. But then, in my opinion, the judge should not have this choice either.

This whole issue, however, is insignificant for a country that has gone around the world for decades causing the "executions" of countless numbers of people, most of whom had never committed any crimes other than being in the way of US policy.

[Englishbird]

It made me cringe when the papers reported that Arnie would risk upsetting the Republicans if he gave clemancy. We can never know whether this was a factor, although I hope to god it wasn't.

It's ridiculous that one man ultimately has the power to decide another man's life or death, surely that's what got us here in the first place. I'm sure it's not a power he or any governor would relish, or, once again, I hope to god it isn't.

[marcoddy]

I don't know all the details, but to me... executing "tucci" was pointless. He's was actively seeking peace and had obviously massively changed his life. Why bother?

[jno]

governors don't put people to death, that's done by order of properly constituted courts. So punishment generally is in the hands of the legal system, as in Britain. The governor has the power to stop it happening, that's all, and as I suggested before, I think they use this power very hesitantly or not at all.

Incidentally: As far as I know, the Home Secretary has powers to intervene in Britain, which is why Myra Hindley never got out of jail although plenty of other killers did. He (or rather, they) were responding to media pressures. Those, it seems to me, are just as bad as political considerations; and Schwarzenegger could be seen to have withstood them much better than someone like Jack Straw would.

[gary baldy]

This case goes to the heart of the nature of punishment. Do we punish to reform or for revenge? Execution reeks of revenge and as the ancient proverb says "Those going to seek revenge should dig two graves." This man clearly had reformed and was contributing to society. His crimes were terrible and maybe he should never be released but to kill him has achieved what exactly?
It is ironic that the man who decided the fate of a killer made his name and fortune playing merciless killers. What part has arnie the 'actor' played in ridding the USA of gun violence?

[stevie_c2it]

I just remembered there are examples of this type of thing happening in the UK. In exceptional circumstances the Home Secretary of the day can get involved in extending or reducing criminal sentences. So it applies here too.

[stevie_c2it]

Oops. Crossed posts jno, good point.

[gary baldy]

Yes - didnt the European Court of Human Rights rule Michael Howard illegal in extending the sentences of the Jamie Bulger killers?

[jimmer]

Arnie is governer of california? no way. next you'll be telling me an actor could become president. that would be awful, yes sir. I'll just stick with good old Jed Bartlet if you don't mind. Nobody died on his watch.

Allowing a man a couple of decades to meditate on his death sentence and offering a tantalising glimpse of false hope just before you terminate him seems a good way to highlight the true nature of capital punishment. It reminds me of the sort of thing a Nazi would do.

jim

[Ouisch]

Going to the governor for a last-minute pardon is the last resort, the final step, the last ray of hope for a condemned prisoner after all other legal avenues have been exhausted. It's not like Gov. Arnold is the right hand of God and regularly makes this arbitrary decision. It takes many years for a case to get to that level; the Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court all get involved first. The average appeal time for a Death Row inmate is 20 years.

[LordyGeordie]

JImmer sorry to disappint but unfortunately Jed Bartlett did allow a man to be excuted who was concivted of a capital offence. it represented a great moral choice for him as a practicing catholic he was against the death penalty. it didn't help that the catholic church of america sent an envoy to him to petition for clemency, leaving bartlett open to claims of dual-priorities shoud he have relented.

you obviously missed that episode. shame it was agood one!