where do you get these statistics circ?? pullin em out your arse? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by circmand
Printable View
where do you get these statistics circ?? pullin em out your arse? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by circmand
I find this whole thread distressing on many levels. The tragedy is bad enough without our supposedly close knit group turning these officers' deaths into a forum to debate gun control, angrily in at least a few cases ("idiot"). I find it further frustrating that people who would probably define themselves as patriots are perfectly comfortable advocating, in effect, extra-judicial slayings of suspects, and the removal of legally established due process and the entire appeals system, a core part of our legal system, as well. There have been numerous numerous cases of people convicted of horrific, serious crimes, capital offenses, only to have later evidence prove them innocent. Further, eliminating any appeals process would massively encourage already rampant prosecutorial misconduct, since there would be no forum in which to find it. I like to count myself as a patriot too, and I am willing to bet that these officers were patriots as well, and I like to hope, perhaps naively, that some of them, as officers of the law, would want us to support the actual laws and constitution rather than the third world autocratic death squad state some of you seem to be arguing for.
/rant
We have the right to free speech and you have the right to ignore us. Just because we all share an affinity for an unique automobile does not mean we have to march in lock step in every thought. We are all adults (I think) and should be mature enough to realize not everyone will agree with us even if we all drive the same car. Remember we all customize a different way and have chosen from a rainbow of colors. Of course it is great that you share your thoughts with us as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
I do support our legal system, however, I also realize that it is far from perfect. It is a very unfortunate fact that there are thousands of less than moral members of the legal community out there that have so twisted our legal system that it has come to the point where it sometime seems that the criminals are more protected and have more rights than a good, law abiding citizen. That, I feel, is a shame. I do not advocate death squads or any facsimile there of, I do, however, feel that it is unfair and unjust that someone who murders another person live out their life to it's natural end, incarcerated or not. I should not have to pay to support someone who is a bane to society with the taxes taken from my hard earned money. I can think of much better things to spend the money on. Better pay, training, and equipment for law enforcement for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
I do mourn the loss of those officers and my sympathies go out to their families in their time of mourning. But that does not mean I will put aside my anger and frustration with the person that committed the heinous act. He did it, there were witnesses who identified him. There was no question as to his guilt. In my eyes, his death at the hands of that officer was justified and only served to save the taxpayers of that city and state the time, effort, and valuable taxpayer money that would have been expended on his trial and incarceration.
RabidPony 4 PREZ!:yes:
If you read the following article you will see some states require as little as 3 hours fire arms training a year with the rest being 16 hours or under. As the article states the training is mostly target shooting on a range. While any firearm owner who enjoys shooting will probably do at least this much the average hunter is spending days tracking and shooting at a moving target. While we cant train anyone with the target shooting back a moving hard to spot target is far more useful than shooting at a piece of papers even if it has a picture of a bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbkid
Obsolescence: The Police Firearms Training Dilemma
By Thomas J. Aveni, MSFP
The Police Policy Studies Council
No, you absolutely do not support our legal system. You support an imagined caricatur of it more suited for a dceveloping world or an authoritarian state. The existance of less than moral people has little to do with providing a very careful process before we allow the state to kill them. Your sense of victimhood is palpable, and overblown. This system, which you so decry for supposedly providing more rights to criminals than you, has now resulted in a country with the highest percentage of our population in jail in the world. Higher than the Soviet gulag period even. There are lots and lots of things that I don't want to pay taxes to support, legal due process is not one I begrudge the government paying for.
You so easily conflate anger at the person who did this crime with justification for removing core principles of our legal system. Fine, but recognize it as an emotional response to tragedy, not a reasonable policy proposal. And I agree, his death at the hands of the officers was justified: he shot, the returned fire, he was wounded and died. Justified. How in the world is this relevant to the belief that we should remove due process for death penalty cases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidPony
Or in this case, Autocrat. Call me crazy but I withhold my endorsement of granting the government the power to summary execution. I find it disconcerting when people in one breath complain about the government's use of their taxes, and in the next grant the the most extraordinary power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldub
I'm not questioning the legal system. I'm questioning the people behind it. The greatest, most philanthropic idea in the world with always fail, not because of the ideal, but because of people. The ideals that our legal system and our laws (most of them) embody are good, and at the risk of sounding cliche again, just. But the people we trust to carry them out as they were intended, are not always as good and just. Lawyers, judges, politicians, and sadly even officers themselves do not always have the best interests of the people in mind when carrying out the letter of the law. Some of them take these good ideals and twist them and bend them to their own benefit and often to the detriment of the very people that they swore to serve and protect. Please do not confuse my disdain for these corrupt officials for a disregard of our justice system. Instead, see it as a desire to see the system run as it was meant to be, by people as good and just as the laws they are sworn to uphold.
As far as me believing that criminals should be disposed of rather than coddled, yes, it's harsh. It is a rather extreme idea and frankly one that even I would not put forth as evan a proposed policy. I do feel though that it is unfair to force hard working people who work for their money and pay their taxes to pay to care for these criminals. Even if we only took the worst of the worst, career criminals who have been convicted again and again, people who know nothing but violence, killers who have no chance of redemption and not even the faintest illusion of innocence. Even if we took only those and did away with them once and for all. It would free up a lot of resources that could be much better used. Don't even get me started on these people who sit on death row for 20, 30, 40, plus years and never receive their punishment.
Take my words for what they are. My beliefs and opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Though they may differ from yours I would ask that you respect them as such as I do yours. Now, let's let this thread get back to what it was intended for and if you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me. I came here to learn about my VehiCROSS, not publicly air my political views.
And in regards to this, I have no desire or aspirations what-so-ever to any position of power and I certainly don't advocate anyone, let alone the government, having the power of summary execution. I just feel that if someone is beyond redemption, why wast the time, effort, and resources to lock them in a cell and let them live out their life? You get convicted, you get one appeal, then you serve your sentence. If it's a death sentence, they are put to death and not put in jail for another 20 plus years before the sentence is carried out. And I think a life sentence, especially life without parole, is just counterproductive. Do away with the life without parole option and just make it a bit more difficult to attain the death penalty. Just if the death penalty is still called for after the appeal is settled, actually carry it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
If you are so concerned about hijacking this thread and letting it get back to being about vehicross, then why respond? Strikes me as mighty convenient. "I shall now provide a three paragraph last word, but you should not reply because that would be dragging this out." The very strange part is that I agree with nearly every word of your first paragraph. What I don't understand is how you reconcile a perfectly rational recognition of the human frailties in our judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers etc, and simultaniously support granting them greater power, and removal of the protections built in to prevent abuses by just these people.
Why must there be only a choice between "disposed of" (nice euphemism) and "coddled"? That is a false dichotomy. Coddled in the cases of capital crimes means spending many years on death row while the judicial system follows the careful procedures of review required by our system.
And yes, your solution does indeed sound "harsh". The summary execution of all career criminals sounds a little more than just harsh. And whom do you grant the authority to decide which of them is the "worst of the worst"? Would it be the same flawed judges lawyers and police that are subject to all too human pressures that might have little to do with justice? Who decides, and how, which of those in our prisons have "no chance at redemption"?
Like I said, there are a lot of things I don't want my taxes spent on. Due process for our citizens, particularly those with the least ability or means to defend themselves, is not one I oppose.
:hj:
:tweed:
here we go again eh?
Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?
I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?
Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.
And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidPony
were is HOT WASBI JUNKY when you need him.
:work:
Very few state do a quick death penalty, some states do not do it at all and then 1 idiot governor can pardon murders, see this case, and see Wisconsin I beleive where he took everyone off death row so that even though the state and its process allow it 1 person corrupted it. Those people the system condemned to death now no longer face their rightful penalty and cannot have it reimposed unless they kill again. This idiot was given life in prison and then a few people say oh thats to harsh and parole him and what happens 4 more dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
circmand,
Wisconsin has not had the death penalty for 150 years. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
And yes, the duly elected governor of a state can, in accordance with that state's constitution, pardon someone, though I know of no death row inmate awaiting execution that has ever been pardoned. What I am familiar with is governors granting stays of execution for evidentiary or procedural issues, or possibly commuting a sentence, say from death to life in prison. So again, I am not sure which governor execution pardons you are thinking of.
It was Illinois where 1 governor stopped the legally instituted death penalty for all on death row. As for Wisconsin after 150 years they are looking to make it legal again. But what I am saying is you can not trust the legal system if one person a governor who knows nothing about a case except a brief can over rule what a judge and jury decided was appropriate. This guy who murdered 4 cops was legally found guilty and sent to jail for life. Huckabee said thats too harsh let him out and now 4 cops are dead. In Illinois dozens were legally found guilty and one person the governor decided the legal system was wrong and commited their death penalty sentence. Remember Willie Horton a vicious murdered set free by the governor Mike Dukakis who was out for a short time and murdered again. I may be more willing to give up the death penalty if these people who get life sentences actually never got out but it seems they end up being paroled in a few short years and kill again. One thing is sure no one who was ever given the death penalty ever murdered again while many who got life sentences have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
Well at least you have your state right now. Illinois Governor Ryan placed, in effect, a moratorium on executions via a commution order after 18 death row inmates were exonerated. I want to say that again: later evidence exonerated 18 death row inmates. A mixture of perjured testimony, often jail house informants trading false testimony for preferential treatment by wardens and prosecutors, or prosecutorial or law enforcement tunnel vision, or evidence errors, lead 18 people to death row in Illinois alone, by mistake, including a former Chicago cop. This situation caused the governor to believe that the system in his state, as currently constructed, was deeply flawed. He took what he believed to be the most prudent and moral action, effectively suspending the death penalty until such a time as the Illinois legislature and law enforcment community fixed the system that allowed them to put 18 people on death row by mistake.
Yes, it turns out Huckabee's decision had terrible consequences. Circmand, do you even know what he was convicted of and how much of a sentence he received that Huckabee chose to commute? It was burglery and assault (fist, no weapon). The sentence was 108 years. It was his first incarceration. He was 17. Are you telling me that all underage burglers should receive life sentences? Or just the ones that your perfect knowledge of the future allows you to see will turn into cop killers? Because the rest of us, including governors, are not blessed with such phenominal powers of future vision.
You would let him out here is some of his recordQuote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
Clemmons has a violent, erratic past, and authorities in Washington state and Arkansas — where then-Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2000 commuted his 108-year prison sentence for armed robbery and other offenses — are facing tough questions about why an apparently violent and deranged man was out on the street.
On Sunday, six days after posting bail in Washington on charges of raping a child, Clemmons walked into the coffee shop in Parkland, Wash., a suburb a few miles south of Tacoma, and killed four uniformed Lakewood police officers as they caught up on paperwork on their laptops, police said.
Armed robbery that is weapons not fist
Raping a child hey no big deal
Yeah he should have been locked up for life after raping a child and armed robbery not walking the street murdering cops.
circmand,
I had hoped to tone down my response to you and keep it on a more conversational level, but seeing as how you have effectively accused me of siding with child rape, I find it difficult. Let's see what I can do.
I think you are knowingly and intentionally distorting what I wrote, and most certainly what I meant. A key portion of this distortion is the timeline.
What I actually wrote, as opposed to your emotional distortion of it: At the time that Hucakabee recieved the commutation request Clemmons had served 11 years in prison, was only convicted of a home burglery and an assault during the course of a purse snatching, and that he was 17 at the time of those incidents, and had been given a sentence of 108 years do to some odd idiosynchrasies in the way Arkansas law counts sentencing guidelines. Hucakabee commuted, which made Clemmons eligible for parole. The Parole Board then voted 5-0 to parole.
AFTER these incidents, and this is the key that you seem to be willfully ignoring, after these incidents, Clemmons got it more robbery related trouble, and several Arkansas and Washington State law enforcement organizations, for reasons that I strongly hope are under investigation, failed to adequetly pursue revocation of his parole. Between 2004 and 2009, for a five year period, he seemed to be clean. Then in May of this year, he went completely nuts. As in "I am the Messiah, everybody needs to get naked now" nuts. Completely off his rocker. He spiraled into violent craziness which lead, along the way to our current tragedy, to charges of child molestation.
I hope you will note the timeline here. The child rape you reference came well after Huckabee's involvement. Does this make it less tragic? Certainly not. All I have argued is that given the clemency case Hucakabee was presented, and lacking the ability to predict the future, a skill reserved mainly to you I guess, Huckabee made a decision that seemed pretty reasonable. I don't care for Huckabee much, but I have trouble blaming him for this decision.
As to his law breaking in 2001 and his later spiral into of violence: I agree, it should have resulted in revocation of his parole and further charges. His bail hearing should have examined his history. He should, indeed, have been locked up. But all of these things came later, after he had served 11 years for burglary and weaponless assault, after Huckabee granted clemency.
Now let me come back to some of the things you have implied about me:
1. You stated that I would "let him out" after he committed a slew of violent acts including child rape.
2. By extension, you implied that I don't think child rape is serious, or that I side with Clemmons in light of his later violence. "Raping a child hey no big deal"
I hope you understand, from what I have written above, that this is not at all what I believe. And I want you to know that I find your suggestion, your implication, that I believe these things disgusting. I just want you to know that.
you wrote "Circmand, do you even know what he was convicted of and how much of a sentence he received that Huckabee chose to commute? It was burglery and assault (fist, no weapon). " you did not tone it down you insinuated that I did not know what his crime was and then stated that the crime was a purse snatching. That was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
I did not put words in your mouth.
I did say you were wrong according to you his only crime at the time of his sentence was assault with his fist. His actual crimes were
To clarify matters, here's what state Correction Department spokesman Dina Tyler says the state record shows for a criminal past for Maurice Clemmons (shown in LRPD mugshot), who's being sought for questioning in the slaying of four Washington police officers. (UPDATE on earlier: Clemmons turned out not to be inside a house that officers had surrounded most of the night.)
* Sentenced to 5 years for robbery in Pulaski County, Aug. 3, 1989.
* Sentenced to 8 years for burglary, theft and probation revocation in Pulaski County, Sept. 9, 1989
* Sentenced to an indeterminate amount for aggravated robbery and theft in Pulaski County, Nov. 15, 1989
* Sentenced to 20 years each for burglary and theft of property in Pulaski County, Feb. 23, 1990.
* Sentenced to 6 years for firearm possession in Pulaski County, Nov. 19, 1990.
Tyler said some sentences were concurrent and some consecutive. But the total effect of all these sentences was a sentence of 108 years.
This is what he orginally was charged with. After his gift he got parole and raped a child while on that parole and then the people in the system allowed him bail. This is why people prefer the death penalty because the system constantly puts these guys out on the street to murder and rape again and again. If they get the death penalty and it is carried out it is a guarantee they at least will not commit another crime.
Circmand,
I did write that sentence, and it was in THAT post that I wanted to tone it, hoped to tone it down, but after readig your insinuation about my tolerance of child rape, I was unable to completely do so.
As to the crimes, I was largely correct. The crimes you list are exactly those I referred to. My failure was perhaps being loose with specific categories of crime, i.e., theft/burglery/robbery. The assault was committed with his fist, not a weapon. I did make on error, and I apologize for it, he did have a illegal firearm conviction in there too, but he did not use it in the assault.
And yes, they were all sentenced at once. 108 years for burglary and theft and assault with a fist and a seperate possession charge.
What I don't understand is why you think burglary and theft and assault committed by a juvenile should be punished by execution.
What I really don't understand is where you get your imagined powers of future vision. Because the entirety of my argument has been that given the information Huckabee had to work with, which at the time was only the crimes committed in 1989 and 1990, I have trouble faulting his decision because no one really has magical predictive powers. YOU argued against.
At no time did I suggest that the later crimes, like those committed in 2001 or the sexual assault committed this year, should be treated lightly. At no time. This did not stop you from directly implying that I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
as listed he committed several crimes including using a weapon it was not one just one unarmed crime. The crimes were comitted over several years 79 thru 90, it was a crime spree. just one of those (Sentenced to 20 years each for burglary and theft of property in Pulaski County, Feb. 23, 1990.) was enough for 20 years. While I never said these were enough for the death penalty it was the child rape that was bad enough for it as I have stated twice now. So even if the 198 years was too severe he should at least have served the term for the worst crime. Which would have kept him in prison through 2010. But he was let out after only 11 years. Then he raped the child while on probation and was given bail so he could commit murder. You are right no one can read the future but this guy was given 3 different breaks before commiting the murders. I can read the future enough to know if he was not let out early he would not have raped the child. If we was not given bail he could not have killed the cops. So it really seems keep him locked up would have made everyone including this butcher better off.
Geez is this still going?
As usual, it's become a "who gets the last word" contest...:rolleyesgQuote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
Nobody has changed the others mind, both sides remain steadfast in their belief, nothing has changed since a random finger made the first key stroke...:_thinking
And so it goes, & always shall.
I believe (no mater how painful on both sides) these debates are healthy for the good of all. after all is the goal to change the others mind or just get closer to the truth?Quote:
As usual, it's become a "who gets the last word" contest...
Nobody has changed the others mind, both sides remain steadfast in their belief, nothing has changed since a random finger made the first key stroke...
And so it goes, & always shall.
The truth has been out there for anyone who can read or google...or both even, since about day 1 or 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXR
Rehashing it on a primarily automotive forum serves no real purpose IMO.
And gun control & the death penalty? PLEASE, how many different ways have those tired old horses been beat to death over the last....oh, lets say century?
Bet none of us can count that high...:rolleyesg
circmand,
Clearly our debate suffers from the blending of issues. You have repeatedly included events (failures by law enforcement or prosecutors in 2004 and 2009) into the argument for which I have made no defense. I have only defended the situation Hucakabee (and I am NOT a fan of the man) faced in a clemency hearing in 2000, and by extension, the power of governors to grant clemency, commute sentences, and in very special cases, grant pardons. You can continue to pretend that I somehow defend the errors made in 2004 (failure to revoke parole) and 2009 (granting bail), but I did not. You can even continue to pretend that I consider child rape a minor issue.
Back to the actual issue: The period of the crimes for which he first went to prison was 1989 to 1990, not 1979 to 1990. 18 months not 11 years. The assault did not include a weapon, you are repeatedly mistaken. I suspect that it is the seperate firearms possession that is leading you to believe this.
The molestation occured nineteen years later, or if you prefer, eight years after parole.
You repeatedly insist on including crimes that NO ONE could have predicted into the debate about Hucakabee's clemency decision, unless you believe in miraculous phychic power. Your statements on this have been consistant and either stated outright or implied as is directly possible that this incident is Huckabee's fault and he was either foolish or weak or in violation of some sort of ill-defined will of the people or the law. And you have provided no information that changes the actual facts in the incident: He had a juvenile defendent, with crimes limited to burglery, robbery, non-weapon assault, and an earlier possession charge. He had served 11 years of a 108 sentence. The sentence was in excess of the average for first incarceration for these types of crimes. He was recommended for clemency, Huckabee granted it, which only made him eliglible for, but not guaranteed parole . The parole board voted 5-0 to grant parole.
And I think the part that gets me the most, is you want to make this case the standard by which all sentences are judged. That we must pretend like every parolee is a likely child molester and cop killer, so no one can be granted parole. We already have the highest percentage of our populatin in prison in the world. How much higher would you like it to go?
OK, now he's got the last word...next?...:rolleyesg
Couldn't you two accomplish the same futile goal by emailing each other?
Many of the rest of us don't feel the need for any further enlightenment.
No matter how clearly I make my point you still seem to not understand it or change what I say to make your point valid.
* The original most serious of the several crimes commited was good enough for 20 years. So while 108 years was too severe 11 years the time he served was not severe enough.
* Commuting his sentence allowed him to get out in 11 years Mistake One and yes no one could know a violent felon would commit another crime despite the fact it almost always happens.
*while on parole he rapes a child. He is given bail instead of incarceration Mistake two. Who could predict a violent felon who is on parole who rapes a child might commit another crime? I think by now most people can predict the answer to this.
* This violent felon murders 4 police officers and goes on the lam. Friends and family assist in helping him. he is finnaly gunned down in an arrest. wow a cop killer gunned down by police who could predict that. Huge sums of money spent in the man hunt who could predict that?
So since we cant read the future we ask ourselves was the proper decision made by the one person who was allowed to over rule a jury and a judge? Well the one made allowed a violent and deragnged criminal who had 6 arrests on his record to be freed before he spent 11% of his sentence in prison, he raped a child and murdered 4 people. Had the decision been to keep him in jail would any of this have happened? No!
So since we can not read the future we have to chose from two different methods. One protects the felon and allows him out and one that protects society and keeps him in prison. You would put society at risk I would put the criminal in jail. Given that the felon was shot to death even he would be better off still alive and in prison that shot dead by police and having 8 of his friends and relatives going to prison for aiding and abeting his escape. Frankly I do not see anyone better off in the methos you prefer we use please show me who is better off by us releasing violent felons who statistics show have a very high rate of recidivism.
for me, as an immigrant in particular, and yonger fella than most of you are, it is kind of interesting to read live discussions with some history insights. also, their opinions are logically sound, at least to me.
I would even ask them to continue. the truth born in debates (c)
Then you will L:heart:VE this...:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZubrAZ
A site specifically made for the debate of all recent political topics...who'd a thunk it?...:_thinking...:_confused
With an even LONGER thread on this specific topic...:rolleyesg
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...years-ago.html
So far...28 pages, 279 posts...all leading to the exact same end...:slap:...:argue:...:bla:
Same vBulletin format, so y'all will feel right at home...:smilewink
This is my personal favorite...http://www.debatepolitics.com/news-weird/
AND...they've got a really sweet arcade section, with lotsa swell games to play...:dance:...:yesgray:
Happy Reading...:yesgray:
It's Friday! A little humor to lighten the thread...
http://www.1bad69.com/keltec/images/...dAmendment.jpg
http://www.tbeckett.net/images/control_comic.jpg
http://www.survivalarts.com/images/g..._is_racist.jpg
http://slightlyunstable.org/files/guns.png
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/camping.gif
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1...un-control.gif
:thanx:...:thumbup:...:laughing:...:thumbup:... :thanx:Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
LDub,
I see your points, and acknowledge nearly every aspect of it. But this is chitchat, and though harsh at times, we are having an ongoing discussion. And does it really bother you to simply know of the existance of a thread with this material in it? Its not like we are making you read it. (I don't know how to word that without it sounding rude, please take it as not intended to sound rude.)
Doesn't bother me in the least...I just don't see the point...especially when I've so graciously provided you a more appropriate sandbox to bury your turds in...:yesgray:Quote:
Originally Posted by Osteomata
Circmand,
I really don't think you are discussiong this in good faith. Even though I have said half a dozen times that I am only talking about the original decision, and by extension governors powers in this area, you keep brining in the later crimes as if they are predictable. "wow a cop killer gunned down by police who could predict that. Huge sums of money spent in the man hunt who could predict that?" You know perfectly well that I am talking abou the predictive ability from 2000, when there was no evidence that he was an insane wannabee child molester/cop-killer. Both of your sarcastic predictions were predicated on us already knowing that he had gone off the rails and murdered four cops, and then predicting that he would die in a shoot out. Not at all the same subject.
Also, the six arrests were actually, I believe, two, mabye three with multiple charges included, all addressed in one court appearance, one conviction, one sentence. I believe what happened is that his arrest for one of the burgleries/thefts lead to evidence of the other crimes, allowing the police to charge him for those as well.
Doesn't matter what it really comes down to is this, and I am honestly trying to capture your true argument/position rather than a bad faith distortion of it, so correct me if I am wrong.. Scratch, that, let me just ask you out right if this is your opinion:
- There should be no power of governors or other officials to grant clemency, commute sentences, or grant pardons.
- There should be no such thing as parole, i.e., conditional monitored release before the end of an assigned sentence.
- There should be no such thing as early release for whatever reason the various states have instituted it.
- The percent of our population in prison, higher than any other country in the world, should actually be higher, as all parolees and commuted sentence convicts should still be incarcerated until the end of their maximum sentence. (I fully admit this is a loaded statement which I worded this way just to illustrate the effect of the first three statements)
And from our other discussion before we focused on Clemmons:
- You do not believe that the governor of a state should have the power to stop executions pending review and improvement of the process, even if 18 death row inmates in his state have been exonerated.
Even with a few complaints received, this thread will remain open, it's in the appropriate location so, no problem with that.
Although the OP was merely pointing out the tragedy of what happened, I knew this would spark, at the least, a minor debate. I am impressed, for the conduct has remained civil. Remember the RULES and it shall remain open.
Huckabee does have a disturbing record of granting clemency. As I stated before this is not the first person he let out that later killed someone (and maybe not the last).
Huckabee also pressured the parole board to free Wayne DuMond, who was serving time for raping a high school student. They paroled him on the condition that he leave Arkansas. He moved to neighboring Missouri, where he raped and murdered Carol Sue Shields.
In all, he issued 1,033 pardons and commutations during more than 10 years as governor an average of about one every four days.
I think one good thing has already come from this. At the very least (although maybe for only a short time) I believe any governor who wants to continue and/or further their political career will learn from this and think twice before granting any clemency.
I had forgotten about the Dumond case, VXR. I seem to recall one of the crucial aspects of that case being the question, as you have highlighted, of Huckabee's possibly applying inappropriate pressure to the parole board. I believe that incident is still highly contentious, with pretty good evidence supporting the accusation, but a lot of it possibly tainted by political payback and CYA.
Let me ask you a question: Given that you view as a good thing the idea that governors will significantly role back there clemency/pardon/commutation/etc decisions as a result of this incident, how do you arrrive at this "one good thing" assessment? What I mean is, how do you measure the benefits versus the downside? I assume you see the benefit as "a certain portion of these parolees/commutees/clemency cases would have reverted and committed horrible crimes, so we have prevented that happening." But given that the purpose of all these gubernatorial decisions is to even out discrepencies in sentencing between district courts, to compensate for those wierd legal situations where the idiosynchracies of the law allowed a transgression of a certain level to be punished at a much higher level, where an apparant overreach of the prosecutor appears to have resulted in overpunishment, or possilby where a convict has demonstrated extraordinary potential, how do you measure the benefit of that? Its much easier to point to a couple of cases where the worst happened and say "I told you so." Its much harder to point to the numerous cases where nothing bad happened at all and say "see the system worked, this person became a productive citezen" That just doesnt make headlines.
I guess what I'm asking is, do the thousands of cases where the clemancy "worked", (which I define as a non-recidivist case) matter? Or should we only concern ourselves with the demonstrated worst outcomes (Clemmons, Dumond), and based on those assume the worst in all of them? If there is a reasonable possibility of actual rehabilitation, rather than merely retribution for the crime, should that be considered?
I never stated there should never be any clemency, pardons, or commutations. I just wanted to point out that it can be overdone as I believe it was in the case of Huckabee.
We only know of these two cases because they killed people. It would be interesting to know how many of the 1,033 did re-offend to a lesser degree and/or did not get caught.
So yes I think governors thinking twice or being extra careful when making these decisions is a good thing.