Friday, Sep 5, 2008
Bush's nonchalance toward death penalty is disturbing Plus: Is Microsoft's call for censoring justified? America's "Child Geniuses" are just book-smart.
May 15, 2000 | The hanging governor
BY ALAN BERLOW
(05/11/00)
I am not sure which I find more distressing, the fact that George W. Bush seems so callous about putting people to death in Texas, or the fact that he doesn't seem either intelligent enough or concerned enough to see that this rubber-stamping process is a perversion of our justice system. While I and the governor may differ on our view of the death penalty, it remains a fact that the state has the duty to uphold the rights of all of its citizens, even those accused and convicted of crimes. If Bush can't be bothered to consider whether a fair trial was given, or if witnesses were deceitful, or counsel was effective before executing one of the citizens he is sworn to protect, there is no reason to think he will be any more zealous in protecting the rights of the citizens of all the states.
-- Kristina Carey
Alan Berlow writes that prior to commutation of a death sentence, "what Bush and his lawyers seem to require from those on death row is absolute proof of innocence," and notes that "Such a standard applied in a court of law would ... undermin[e] one of the most fundamental precepts of our justice system." Unfortunately, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has seen fit to apply just such a standard in most cases.
Another tragic example is the case of Roy Criner, who obtained DNA evidence that absolutely proved he had not had sexual intercourse with the woman he was convicted of raping and murdering. Notwithstanding the fact that Criner had been convicted of the crime based almost entirely on unreliable blood-type evidence that he had proven to be incorrect, Texas has rejected his motion for a new trial because, in the words of Judge Sharon Keller, "it's up to him to prove that he's innocent. That's his burden under the law: Has he unquestionably established that he's innocent?" Obviously, that burden is absolutely impossible to meet, and because of that Roy Criner will spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. Governor Bush's application of a similar standard in regard to death sentences is but another example of how, at least in Texas, the system values convictions and punishment over justice, even when life is at stake.
-- Jay Macke
Excellent article. I can tell you the reason George W. Bush refuses to commute sentences in two words: Willie Horton. He is terrified that he will free someone from death row only to have that person commit a high-profile violent crime later -- one which his political opponents can use against him the way Bush Sr. used Willie Horton.
If Bush is so execution-happy, what role does former Gov. Ann Richards play in all this? Most of the people mentioned in your article were sentenced to death on her watch. And most of the death-penalty laws in Texas were revised under Richards' supervision. Using your logic, Richards is some kind of crazed mass murderer allowing innocent people to be sentenced to death.
-- Lane Willson
The author writes as if it is the governor's responsibility to serve as both judge and jury, and to re-try some of these capital murder cases in Texas. In my opinion, that is the responsibility of the judges and juries and the Criminal Appeals Court, and Bush does not have the same "reasonable doubt" standard. My opinion is that the Texas judicial system might be at fault, if anyone is. Personally, I think even seven years is too long to wait to carry out court-ordered punishment for capital offenders. The governor needs to spend his time managing state government, not re-trying capital murder cases, when there is an appellate system already in place. However, I do think the three-person Board of Pardons should review these matters in more detail, and perhaps have more hearings.
-- Jim White
Get Salon in your mailbox!