When capital punishment repeal bills are being pushed through legislatures, the last thing the repealers want is for the vote to be characterized as one to overturn the well-deserved sentences of the vicious killers presently on death row. It is just as wrong, of course, to preclude justice for the as-yet-unknown atrocities to be committed in the future, but in terms of politics and public perception, it is far more difficult for them to block it in a known case with human faces.
So the repealers routinely include nonretroactivity provisions in the repeal bills, promising that the existing sentences will not be affected. They did that in New Mexico, Connecticut, and Maryland. But the promise is hollow.
To the surprise of no one, outgoing Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has commuted the sentences of the remaining murderers on that state's death row, Brian Witte and Ben Nuckols report for AP.
Mary Frances Moore, whose father and stepmother were fatally stabbed by Burch in 1995 in Capitol Heights, said she was "devastated" by the governor's decision.
"I think he was hoping I would give him the OK on it, to give him life without parole, and I didn't give him that," Moore, 71, said Wednesday.
The story notes, "None of the executions was imminent because the state didn't have a procedure to carry one out." Why doesn't it have one? Because the state agency that is supposed to establish the procedure just did not do its duty. Can a bureaucrat nullify a law enacted by the state's legislative authority? I don't think so. We will find out in California. Stay tuned.
The immediate lesson of Maryland, though, is that when any repeal advocate in any other state promises that the existing sentences will still be carried out, opponents of appeal should stand up, point their fingers, and shout, "Liar!"
And here is one more gem from the story:
O'Malley, who is considering running for president in 2016, will leave office next month after two terms, the limit in Maryland.
A man who stabbed the victims of crime in the back as a presidential candidate? If the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate him, he could be their worst mistake since Walter Mondale.
Kent correctly identifies the promise made here -- which he first generously characterizes as "hollow" -- as a lie.
This is what it is with abolitionists. Knowing they cannot prevail, and have not prevailed, on the merits if honestly stated, they just lie about it.
In this instance, the lie was that those already sentenced would get the fate the jury imposed; repeal was merely prospective. As Kent correctly notes, this same lie was used in Connecticut, and abolitionists are presently in the process of slithering away from it.
Other lies are: (1) "We just want reforms and safeguards, not abolition;" (2) "We just want a moratorium to study the problems;" and (3) "We just want a more humane way of doing it."
This stuff is virtually never true. Lying is the only way to sell abolition to the public, which doesn't buy it if told the truth. It has to be disguised.
It's hard to know which is more depressing -- that the death penalty, a just and appropriate punishment, is being squeezed by lying; or that its opponents think they have a RIGHT to lie. And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what they think.
These same thoroughly dishonest people are, of course, the ones who'll call you a barbarian at the drop of a hat.
A typical 'rat politician who elevates the interests of capital murderers over victim's families.
GOP politicians need to nationalize this sort of thing.
O'Malley is a deeply evil man.
Most "abolishionists" I know point to the hundreds of people acquitted of crimes after DNA became widely used to show how unreliable the trial system really is. Also, they point to the randomness with which those sentences are given (why one murderer and not another). Also, personally, I am just not a fan of the government having the power to kill people.
I suppose if we have a magic truth machine to reveal with 100% certainty the crimes one has committed, the pro-death penalty argument would be stronger. But because so much doubt exists in so many cases, the death penalty is just expensive to litigate -- especially because the government is trying to fight against the doubt that often exists after a poor person is convicted on flimsy evidence because their public defender fell asleep.
Congratulations on packing nearly every prominent abolitionist shibboleth into just two short paragraphs.
"...personally, I am just not a fan of the government having the power to kill people."
So you're morally superior to Washington, Lincoln and FDR, right?
So you're for abolishing the right of policemen (i.e., government agents) to kill in self-defense when confronted with a gun wielding hoodlum, right?
So you would just as soon have seen the Nazis win instead of letting the Unites States "government having the power to kill people," right?
The problem of innocent people on death row (or otherwise imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit) is a problem, no doubt. I know there are substantial debates as to its extent, but it does exist.
However, I don't think any of these 4 convicts have any legitimate claim to innocence so that argument is irrelevant. The fact some killers get the death penalty and other killers who commit "equivalent" (if there can be such a thing) or worse (again, not sure how you measure that) crimes don't is a product of the discretionary nature of the punishment. I certainly wouldn't call it unfair to those on death row.
I think they are a narrow set of cases (capital but usually not) where wrongful convictions tend to cluster which involve things like shaken baby syndrome, recovered memories, spurious rape charges, eyewitness identification issues, and so-called junk science. If I was king for a day, I'd focus resources on reviewing the guilt in those types of cases.
However, the vast majority of those on death row have earned their place. The potential innocence of a few is no reason to not execute the obviously guilty.