Kaye Grogan
Clemency makes a mockery of the judicial process
By Kaye Grogan
People on death row denied mercy to those they killed, so why should they be granted clemency years after the fact? Death row inmates have had years (at the expense of taxpayers) to go through a process of appeals in the hopes their death sentence will be updated to life in prison without parol status. The appeals process extends the lives of convicted killers many years beyond what should be acceptable for the punishment to be carried out. During this time the victims fade into the background, while sympathy grows for the killer/killers.
Proponents of the death penalty don't understand the need for the ultimate punishment for murderers, because they are living in a dream world on the assumption that most hardened criminals can be rehabilitated and they won't ever be a victim.
At least 99.9 percent of those who committed murder knew it was wrong at the time they were performing these hideous acts, so how can they be rehabilitated?
If the death penalty was effective as it should be, it would be more of a deterrent to people contemplating murder — is the futile argument of opponents of the death penalty. While many other people believe the deterrent is a failure, because it takes so many years before the sentence is actually carried out.
Whether or not to grant clemency to a death row inmate has to be a difficult decision, and I am convinced it was not any easier for California Governor Schwarzenegger, as he denied clemency to convicted killer Stanley Williams. There were many areas for Schwarzenegger to consider: The jury had spoken when they found Mr. Williams guilty 25 years ago, and recommended the death penalty for the four people he was accused of killing. The four were denied their right to life and liberty, due to having their lives being snuffed out by a callous and uncaring killer. In California the death penalty is law. And what about the victims and the people they left behind who will grieve a lifetime for their brutal deaths? Where is their justice if a killer is granted clemency?
Many anti-death penalty advocates think that life in prison without parole is the answer to lowering the crime rate. But there are not any substantial documents of proof or favorable statistics to back up their claim.
Carrying out the death penalty is for a crime already committed. It is the ultimate "punishment" for murderers. I view the punishment as a state's retribution for the victim/victims who had their lives snuffed out. The state is acting in self-defense for the victims who were brutally killed. They were not granted mercy by their slayers, so an eye for an eye is the only way to rid society of these people who don't have any respect or regard for human life.
Will having regret or saying "I'm sorry" benefit the family of victims? Hardly!
The numerous recounts by the media of how Mr. Williams reacted to a nurse encountering problems injecting the lethal substance into a particular arm or how he looked at them or other people in the room — as his life was ending, just shows how the media has a fixation with the macabre side of life.
I am sure that Mr. Williams died a painless death compared to his victims. But the mental anguish of eating a last meal, and watching the clock move rapidly to the execution time, has to be a very foreboding and intense process.
If the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, it is all we have (at this time) until someone comes up with a better solution. But I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to get my hopes up for a viable solution to come along anytime soon.
And that's just my opinion!
© Kaye Grogan
People on death row denied mercy to those they killed, so why should they be granted clemency years after the fact? Death row inmates have had years (at the expense of taxpayers) to go through a process of appeals in the hopes their death sentence will be updated to life in prison without parol status. The appeals process extends the lives of convicted killers many years beyond what should be acceptable for the punishment to be carried out. During this time the victims fade into the background, while sympathy grows for the killer/killers.
Proponents of the death penalty don't understand the need for the ultimate punishment for murderers, because they are living in a dream world on the assumption that most hardened criminals can be rehabilitated and they won't ever be a victim.
At least 99.9 percent of those who committed murder knew it was wrong at the time they were performing these hideous acts, so how can they be rehabilitated?
If the death penalty was effective as it should be, it would be more of a deterrent to people contemplating murder — is the futile argument of opponents of the death penalty. While many other people believe the deterrent is a failure, because it takes so many years before the sentence is actually carried out.
Whether or not to grant clemency to a death row inmate has to be a difficult decision, and I am convinced it was not any easier for California Governor Schwarzenegger, as he denied clemency to convicted killer Stanley Williams. There were many areas for Schwarzenegger to consider: The jury had spoken when they found Mr. Williams guilty 25 years ago, and recommended the death penalty for the four people he was accused of killing. The four were denied their right to life and liberty, due to having their lives being snuffed out by a callous and uncaring killer. In California the death penalty is law. And what about the victims and the people they left behind who will grieve a lifetime for their brutal deaths? Where is their justice if a killer is granted clemency?
Many anti-death penalty advocates think that life in prison without parole is the answer to lowering the crime rate. But there are not any substantial documents of proof or favorable statistics to back up their claim.
Carrying out the death penalty is for a crime already committed. It is the ultimate "punishment" for murderers. I view the punishment as a state's retribution for the victim/victims who had their lives snuffed out. The state is acting in self-defense for the victims who were brutally killed. They were not granted mercy by their slayers, so an eye for an eye is the only way to rid society of these people who don't have any respect or regard for human life.
Will having regret or saying "I'm sorry" benefit the family of victims? Hardly!
The numerous recounts by the media of how Mr. Williams reacted to a nurse encountering problems injecting the lethal substance into a particular arm or how he looked at them or other people in the room — as his life was ending, just shows how the media has a fixation with the macabre side of life.
I am sure that Mr. Williams died a painless death compared to his victims. But the mental anguish of eating a last meal, and watching the clock move rapidly to the execution time, has to be a very foreboding and intense process.
If the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, it is all we have (at this time) until someone comes up with a better solution. But I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to get my hopes up for a viable solution to come along anytime soon.
And that's just my opinion!
© Kaye Grogan
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
