Would you grant clemency in the following situation?

[Richard]

If there was room for reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the prisoner in question, as there certainly was in this case given the situation and the actions of the Arlington Circuit Court clerk, then I would most certainly have done the same in granting clemency. 

Would you have freed him completely?  What makes him guilty that deserves life in prison, but not guilty for death?

Richius, don't play dumb. Seriously, it's beneath someone of your intelligence.

Then answer the bloody question.

[TheresNoMoney]

Yes, definitely.

[John Dibble]

If there was room for reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the prisoner in question, as there certainly was in this case given the situation and the actions of the Arlington Circuit Court clerk, then I would most certainly have done the same in granting clemency. 

Would you have freed him completely?  What makes him guilty that deserves life in prison, but not guilty for death?

Richius, don't play dumb. Seriously, it's beneath someone of your intelligence.

Then answer the bloody question.

Fine, play dumb. I didn't think I'd have to explain something obvious.

The death penalty should be reserved for cases when guilt is absolutely certain, because once implemented it can't be undone. If a person is convicted with sufficient evidence to show that guilt is probable but there is still uncertainty in the absoluteness of their guilt, the death penalty is not appropriate because there is a chance of innocence, but life imprisonment is appropriate because it removes them from society and punishes them. If innocence is later proven, you can't give them back their time but you can give them reparations(preferably at the expense of the actual criminal). As far as clemency goes, if a death row convict's case gets new evidence that puts reasonable doubt on their absolute guilt but does not exonerate them either then you get a situation where innocence isn't sufficiently proven, so you can't risk letting them back into society but you can let them live life in prison to see if more new evidence comes up to prove their innocence.

[Richard]

First of all, you don't prove innocence as you say.  Second, if someone is convicted regardless of the availabiliy of DNA, the case is damn solid and there is no need to pardon.  If there IS a need to pardon, it means the case made is so uncertain that he should never have been convicted in the first place.

There either is enough evidence at the date of the trail to get a conviction, or there isn't.  To go back at a later point and say, hey, we made a mistake indicates a lousy judiciary.  Why was this man found guilty?

Regardless, you're guilty, or you are not.  You cannot find a man guilty if there is a doubt.  Once you're found guilty, the punishment should be given according to the crime.


In this case, the fact that serious evidence was thrown away warrants this man's release, I believe.  I was not the jury, though, and I will trust the jury.

[John Dibble]

Fine, you have a differing opinion on the matter - just don't play dumb and act like you don't understand the other view. As I said, it's below your intelligence.

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes. I would in any situation.

You're the govenor. The man in question who is sentenced to death killed your family, and raped all the women in it before killing them, and defiled all their bodies. Are you so certain you'd grant clemency?

I'm certain.

[Inverted Things]

Yes. I would in any situation.

You're the govenor. The man in question who is sentenced to death killed your family, and raped all the women in it before killing them, and defiled all their bodies. Are you so certain you'd grant clemency?

I'm certain.

Agreed. Remember, there's no iron-clad evidence that this man did it.

[The Duke]

As Governor, its your job to apply the law.  It is not you job to make a judgement about the death penalty (The people have made this judgement for you) and it is not your job to determine someone's guilt or innocence (The courts have already done this for you).

The courts ruled Lovitt should die, so he should.  As a person with mixed feelings about the death penalty, I must also say that I have even more negative feelings towards Governors who do what George Ryan did in Illinois, and essentially abolish the death penalty by fiat through the pardon power.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As Governor, its your job to apply the law.  It is not you job to make a judgement about the death penalty (The people have made this judgement for you) and it is not your job to determine someone's guilt or innocence (The courts have already done this for you).

The courts ruled Lovitt should die, so he should.  As a person with mixed feelings about the death penalty, I must also say that I have even more negative feelings towards Governors who do what George Ryan did in Illinois, and essentially abolish the death penalty by fiat through the pardon power.

If the law was intended to be that way, there would be no power of clemency or pardon.

[GOP = Terrorists]

As Governor, its your job to apply the law.  It is not you job to make a judgement about the death penalty (The people have made this judgement for you) and it is not your job to determine someone's guilt or innocence (The courts have already done this for you).

So you of didn't agree with Nixon's pardon correct?  And if Bush pardons Libby and Rove you will not back that either correct?

I would stay all executions indefinitely.  I don't believe in the death penalty as it is not justice it is vengeance.

I'd even stay the death penalty for George W Bush and his 100k+ counts of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to wage aggressive warfare, conspiracy to torture children, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction upon civilians, etc.

[Cubby]

I oppose the death penalty on all accounts, and let's face it, he din;t get a fair DNA test.

Of course i'd grant clemency. We need to end the culture of death that the Death Penalty, abortion, and euthenasia so terribly instill on American culture.

Well said! At least you're consistent. (Although I disagree on w/ you on the last 2)

I would grant clemency in any case like this b/c I oppose the death penalty except for terrorists and cop killers.

[John Dibble]

Yes. I would in any situation.

You're the govenor. The man in question who is sentenced to death killed your family, and raped all the women in it before killing them, and defiled all their bodies. Are you so certain you'd grant clemency?

I'm certain.

Agreed. Remember, there's no iron-clad evidence that this man did it.

He video taped it and his DNA is in your female relative's corpses and elsewhere.

[opebo]

As Governor, its your job to apply the law.  It is not you job to make a judgement about the death penalty (The people have made this judgement for you) and it is not your job to determine someone's guilt or innocence (The courts have already done this for you).

Screw that.  If I'm elected I'm going to grant clemency to every death row inmate.  If the mob doesn't like it, they can vote for my opponent in the next election.  Stupid rabble.

[MODU]

No.  His crime occurred after DNA testing was available, not before, so the evidence against him appears clearly strong enough to convict him without the additional tests.  His case has been heard numerous times, all the way up to the Supreme Court level, with the same conclusion reached, all without having to resort to DNA testing.  So no, I would not grant clemency.

[Inverted Things]

Yes. I would in any situation.

You're the govenor. The man in question who is sentenced to death killed your family, and raped all the women in it before killing them, and defiled all their bodies. Are you so certain you'd grant clemency?

I'm certain.

Agreed. Remember, there's no iron-clad evidence that this man did it.

He video taped it and his DNA is in your female relative's corpses and elsewhere.

Regardless... I'd grant him clemency. If I had the videotape and DNA evidence, I'd lock him in my basement and take care of him in ways of my choosing. I hate state sponsored killing as punishment for crimes. I have no problem with the victims taking matters into their own hands.

[minionofmidas]

I would grant clemency in any situation.

But for those who support the death penalty, this case just screams clemency. THERE WAS EVIDENCE THROWN OUT! that means you cant prove him guilty.

Actually, this is a case for cleaning up the justice system and throwing everybody involved in the original verdict in jail, and of course overturning the legally absurd original verdict in court. It is not a case for clemency. Clemency is for guilty people where there are other reasons to save their life. Stanley Tookie Williams is a poster boy case for clemency.

(just reading through the answers I skipped before composing this reply ... MODU states that the original verdict came after DNA testing was widely available. A jury should never believe a story about cops accidentally destroying evidence. That's the ultimate Red Flag that something is fishy here.)

[The Duke]

As Governor, its your job to apply the law.  It is not you job to make a judgement about the death penalty (The people have made this judgement for you) and it is not your job to determine someone's guilt or innocence (The courts have already done this for you).

So you of didn't agree with Nixon's pardon correct?  And if Bush pardons Libby and Rove you will not back that either correct?

I would stay all executions indefinitely.  I don't believe in the death penalty as it is not justice it is vengeance.

I'd even stay the death penalty for George W Bush and his 100k+ counts of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to wage aggressive warfare, conspiracy to torture children, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction upon civilians, etc.

I was unaware that Nixon, Rove, or Libby had been convicted of their crimes.  I'm not saying whether I back it or not, I'm just pointing out that Lovitt was convicted, and his conviction upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court, US Circuit Courts, and the US Supreme Court.  There are no convictions of any of the people you mentioned.

Furthermore, Warner is not pardoning Lovitt, which just proves to me that Lovitt is guilty.  If there was reason to believe Lovitt was not guilty, Warner should have pardoned him.  If there is no such evidence, Lovitt should have been executed.

Your last paragraph shows that you are completely delusional.

[A18]

I'd even stay the death penalty for George W Bush and his 100k+ counts of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to wage aggressive warfare, conspiracy to torture children, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction upon civilians, etc.

LOL. You are so dumb I'm surprised you can breathe.

[opebo]

Actually, this is a case for cleaning up the justice system and throwing everybody involved in the original verdict in jail, and of course overturning the legally absurd original verdict in court. It is not a case for clemency. Clemency is for guilty people where there are other reasons to save their life. Stanley Tookie Williams is a poster boy case for clemency.

(just reading through the answers I skipped before composing this reply ... MODU states that the original verdict came after DNA testing was widely available. A jury should never believe a story about cops accidentally destroying evidence. That's the ultimate Red Flag that something is fishy here.)

Well said Trondheim.  Of course the unfortunate truth is that such verdicts are commonplace in the racist, classist American courts.  Good point about the cops claiming they destroyed evidence, but I'm afraid few juries trying a black man operate from an assumption of innocence.

[Blue Rectangle]

As a member of a jury, I would only vote to convict someone of a crime if I were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they were guilty.  I would use the same standard of proof whether the accused were facing the death penalty or a $50 fine.  It is profoundly unjust to send someone to jail for life because you only think he is probably guilty, and you assume that if he is innocent then he'll eventually be exonerated.

As for the role of the governor, I agree with John Ford.  We shouldn't allow the governor, who is elected and therefore is under a great deal of political pressure, to supplant the role of the courts.  If there are real doubts about Levitt's guilt, then the courts should throw out the conviction and grant a new trial.  Then if the doubts are so significant, the prosecution could decide to drop the charges (this would effectively be a pardon).

As for the politics involved, let's face it: Levitt's life was saved because 1000 is a big, round number.  What about that is just?

[minionofmidas]

You mean he was granted clemency because Warner didn't like the headline "!000st person since day x executed - amid doubts about exonerating evidence"?

[Blue Rectangle]

I'd like to point out that the murder weapon was submitted for DNA testing in 1999 and the results were inconclusive:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the DNA evidence was available and had been tested and considered during the trial.  There was also oportunities for further testing during the appeals process, though the scissors were thrown away before all of Lovitt's appeals were exhausted.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, I would rather have him rot than take a chance on killing the wrong guy.

And no, this does not conflict with my strong support of the death penalty.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, I would declare clemency, and then tell Starr he's still a worthless partisan hack.