Ore. governor bans death penalty for rest of term
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Haunted by regret for allowing two men to be executed more than a decade ago, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber now says it'll never happen again on his watch.
Calling Oregon's death penalty scheme "compromised and inequitable," the Democratic governor said Tuesday he'll issue a reprieve to a twice-convicted murderer who was scheduled to die by lethal injection in two weeks. He said he'd do the same for any other condemned inmates facing execution during his tenure in office.
"I simply cannot participate once again in something that I believe to be morally wrong," the governor said in uncharacteristically emotional remarks during a news conference in his office.
More at the link.
You can bet any governor taking this stand is a Democrat as NO Republican would believe they could do this and EVER win re-election to any office again.
I don't understand why/how, but supposedly, it costs more money to execute folks than to jail them for life?
Having never been in a jail in my life, IF we wanted the death penalty to really work, shouldn't the executions take place in a "timely fashion"? That is, you are sentenced and die in less than a year...no endless appeals. IF you need this as a deterrent, it needs to be meted out swiftly.
He should have to resign if he cannot uphold the state law. Here in New York several town officials have been forced out of work for not performing gay weddings because they felt it was morally wrong.
I give him credit for taking a no questions asked stance on the matter. That takes a lot of guts for a politician. However much I disagree with him, I applaud his candor and, if he sticks to it, his resolve.
George Ryan did that in Illinois a few years back. Right before he was arrested....
Some info on the costs of execution vs. life imprisonment.
Caveat - I haven't vetted that website. I spent about 15 seconds on google finding it so if it's bias'ed don't get your panties all twisted. Just google your own site and I'm sure you'll find something you can live with. 
Wally wrote:
He should have to resign if he cannot uphold the state law. Here in New York several town officials have been forced out of work for not performing gay weddings because they felt it was morally wrong.
I have to agree here. Even if I agree with him ideologically, re-writing the article to allow me to do whatever I feel is right by my own standards just would not fly methinks...
NE, Pa. (MP) — Haunted by regret for spending hard-earned money for more than three decades, Ordinary Citizen GPS now says it'll never happen again on his watch.
Calling PA's tax code scheme "compromised and inequitable," the Independent citizen said Tuesday he'll just not pay in April. He said he'd do the same for any other taxes during his tenure as a citizen.
"I simply cannot participate once again in something that I believe to be morally wrong," the citizen said in uncharacteristically emotional remarks during a news conference in his office.
Is abortion legal in Oregon? If it is, when is he going to issue a moratorium on that?
I think this guy needs to reconsider running for re-election. Sounds like he's been in office for a while and can't uphold the constitution (state).
Wally wrote:
He should have to resign if he cannot uphold the state law. Here in New York several town officials have been forced out of work for not performing gay weddings because they felt it was morally wrong.
Dunno. Maybe, but it is different. He is upholding the state law. He has the legal right to do what he did. He isn't refusing to do anything the law states, but using a legal prerogative it gives him.
Ian F
SuperDork
11/23/11 9:30 a.m.
One would have to dig through the law, but since most governors are allowed to grant a stay of execution, it is likely legal. He is just being a bit more proactive in saying what he'll do if asked make that call.
The net effect will likely be that prosecutors will delay executions for as long as possible in the hope he won't get re-elected.
So executions and gay weddings are now moral equivalents?
That's a sick world you live in.
As someone with a relative who was on death row(before it was eliminated in IL), I've gained some insight into the system(he was already sentenced before I married into the family, so I've come into the situation after all the emotional turmoil). I've also seen several stories of people who were very likely not guilty having been executed.
That said, I'm not entirely opposed to it, nor is my wife's family. But there really needs to be a level of conviction beyond "beyond a reasonable doubt" for cases where the death penalty is a possibility.
The appeal process is a bit of a mess too. For example, in my brother-in-law's case, one of the "expert witnesses" for the prosecution was convicted later for falsifying evidence in another case, yet that can't a reason for an appeal nor brought up in his existing appeal.
And I should mention, just for the sake of open honesty, that my B-I-L claims his innocence(he was an severe alcoholic and doesn't remember much from the timeframe the murder occurred in), but the only evidence linking him to the crime was that his credit card was found in the victim's apartment(he believes his roommate stole it). No DNA, no blood stains, no weapon, no witnesses, nada. Unfortunately, my in-law's couldn't afford to hire a lawyer and the Public Defenders whom handled his case didn't seem to have much regard for the outcome. It also occurred in a small town, and the local Prosecutor was obviously pushing for someone to be punished.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
Wally wrote:
He should have to resign if he cannot uphold the state law. Here in New York several town officials have been forced out of work for not performing gay weddings because they felt it was morally wrong.
I have to agree here. Even if I agree with him ideologically, re-writing the article to allow me to do whatever I feel is right by my own standards just would not fly methinks...
NE, Pa. (MP) — Haunted by regret for spending hard-earned money for more than three decades, Ordinary Citizen GPS now says it'll never happen again on his watch.
Calling PA's tax code scheme "compromised and inequitable," the Independent citizen said Tuesday he'll just not pay in April. He said he'd do the same for any other taxes during his tenure as a citizen.
"I simply cannot participate once again in something that I believe to be morally wrong," the citizen said in uncharacteristically emotional remarks during a news conference in his office.
It's not the same. I don't know enough (anything) about their state law to say if there is a legal argument against what he is doing. There may be. But this isn't it. His case- he's using the law in a very pro-active way, that is likely not what the people who created that law intended. Your example, you're breaking the law.
What he is doing is not unlike what the Republicans in the Senate are doing by requiring practically any law to have 60 votes to pass. That's what the rule says, but very likely being used in a way it was never intended to be. Is he right? Are the Senators right? Hard to say. But I think you'd have to change the law to stop it.
Cone_Junky wrote:
So executions and gay weddings are now moral equivalents?
That's a sick world you live in.
I am pretty sure he (Wally) did not imply that at all.
He was simply stating that a Governor was not following a state law because of a moral objection. In one case it is execution, in the other gay marriage. Both things that people commonly have moral issues with. I am not sure how that makes them morally equivalent. Jaywalking and murder are both against the law (moral issues for the state if you will), that doesn't make them equivalent.
Regarding the Governor. I would say he really needs to follow the laws of the state unless he has some very clear state interest related reason not to. If he wants to stop them because they are ridiculously expensive, I can see that. To stop them because he has moral issues with it, no. He needs to resign if that is the case and find a state that he is more morally aligned to.
State executions are morally OK with me, but in practical terms they are pretty ridiculous, not terribly fail safe and likely not "effective" in any way.
Remember the state supreme court justice in Alabama who wouldn't remove the 10 commandments statue? He got kicked to the curb for not following the rules. So I'm not sure how an elected official can not do something based on his beliefs if the law states that it is required...it certainly opens up a large can of worms especially in our messed up lawyer driven world.
cardiacdog wrote:
Remember the state supreme court justice in Alabama who wouldn't remove the 10 commandments statue? He got kicked to the curb for not following the rules. So I'm not sure how an elected official can not do something based on his beliefs if the law states that it is required...it certainly opens up a large can of worms especially in our messed up lawyer driven world.
What law states that execution is required? Separation of Church and State is mandated; so despite the fact the majority of Western law clearly comes from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I can see the case that failing to remove a religious statue is a violation of that Justice's duty. It's typical for governors to have the power to grant stays of execution/reprieves. Even if you disagree with him, it's hardly a dereliction of his duties.
Wally wrote:
He should have to resign if he cannot uphold the state law. Here in New York several town officials have been forced out of work for not performing gay weddings because they felt it was morally wrong.
If the state law says, "The governor may commute any death sentence to life imprisonment," he is following state law. I'm not sure how the law is worded, but if it says that the governor has the power to stop any execution and does not need specific reasons to do so, then electing a governor who disapproves of the death penalty should be a valid way for the public to vote to not have a death penalty. Seems reasonable to me.
The Govenor apparently did not say I am issuing a "stay of execution". That is his right. Do it and be over with it. Make yourself feel good. I feel he is doing it this way as grandstanding. Maybe for higher office down the road.
Why are executions so expensive? 9mm ammo is cheap.
spitfirebill wrote:
The Govenor apparently did not say I am issuing a "stay of execution". That is his right. Do it and be over with it. Make yourself feel good. I feel he is doing it this way as grandstanding. Maybe for higher office down the road.
Grandstanding or making a public moral stand. It depends on your viewpoint.
JoeyM wrote:
spitfirebill wrote:
Is abortion legal in Oregon? If it is, when is he going to issue a moratorium on that?
flounder
Why? They're two remarkably similar debates.
MG_Bryan wrote: Why? They're two remarkably similar debates.
It may be considered a similar debate but it is a different subject, one that invariably is more contentious on web boards and usually leads to a lock.
In the debating world I believe this is called a red herring.
stuart in mn wrote:
In the debating world I believe this is called a red herring.
In the message board world we call that a flounder.
93EXCivic wrote:
Why are executions so expensive? 9mm ammo is cheap.
Are you trying to spark the 9mm vs .40 cal flounder?
Just say Hitler already.
