Obama administration readies first execution

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

The Justice Department is making preparations for what could be the first federal execution under President Barack Obama, according to a new court filing.

The Bureau of Prisons gave notice to a federal judge on Wednesday that it intends to set an execution date for Jeffery Paul, 34. Paul was convicted in 1997 and sentenced to death or the robbery-murder of an 82-year-old National Park Service employee, Sherman Williams, on federal land in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1995.

Plans for the execution were disclosed by Justice Department lawyers in a lawsuit pending in Washington over federal lethal injection procedures. Several federal death row prisoners are covered by a stay entered in that suit, but Paul is not among them since U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts denied Paul permission to join the case earlier this year, saying he had waited too long.

"Paul is not a party to this suit nor has he received a stay barring his execution in another jurisdiction. Given this posture, the U.S. Department of Justice respectfully informs the Court of its intent to set an execution date for Paul....Any date set for Paul’s execution will be at least 120 days after the filing of this Notice," said the filing submitted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald Machen.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1210/Obama_administration_readies_first_execution.html

[MineralMan]

1. This is a place where I'd like to see the President act.

He can commute the sentence if he wishes, and I think he should, as a statement against capital punishment. I'll be sending a letter to that effect to the White House.

[mikekj]

2. Maybe he can resurrect the dead guy, too.

That family has suffered enough already, also.

[obxhead]

3. Killing this man will not bring him back either. nt

[roguevalley]

33. federal murder is no better than a dork shooting someone

its vengence plain and simple and how do you explain that some murder is okay and some isn't. either all murder sucks or murder is okay. can't have both. can't and call yourself moral.

[obxhead]

34. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's exactly it.

I must add though, America took morality out back and bludgeoned it to death decades ago.

[Ruperto31]

36. But three do. n/t

[MineralMan]

4. That's hardly the point. I oppose the death penalty categorically.

You may have another opinion. I hope the President acts to end the use of the death penalty in federal cases. He can do that.

Executing this man does nothing to bring his victim back. It does, however, put the government in the position of killing individuals as punishment. I believe that is wrong.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. While I understand the visceral feeling

The death penalty changes nothing, deters nothing, heals nothing.

If you are going to have a death penalty, then inevitably, you are going to kill innocent people.

So, the question I ask you is the question I ask all death penalty advocates:

How many innocent people are you willing to kill in order to have your pound of flesh?

And please, a hard number.

[customerserviceguy]

30. When it takes fifteen years

between the crime and the punishment, with it only happening a tiny fraction of the time in death penalty cases, of course it has zero deterrent value.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Folks who have studied the historical

record, comparing societies that had no death penalty with those that had swift execution still found no deterrence.

Also, the more summary the execution, the more innocent people who will die.

So, again, I ask:

How many innocent people are you willing to kill in order to have your pound of flesh?

And please, a hard number.

[Puzzledtraveller]

50. agreed

Even if one were to support a death penalty, the sheer time taken for appeals, procedures, etc gives the appearance of vengeance when the execution actually occurs, and as you said the deterrent effect is greatly weakened. I can understand and almost accept the Samuel L. Jackson a Time to Kill style justice, but that opens up a whole other can of worms too. Maybe we need "Regulators"!!! ;) jes kiddin.

[Riftaxe]

58. How many more people will this murderer

kill after he is executed?

I would suggest that is the ultimate deterrent, much more so then life in prison, after all a life sentence does not deter a murderer from killing again.

[sabrina 1]

55. The U.S. stands alone in the civilized world as a country that still

practices the barbaric policy of state-sponsored killing. Support for it is diminishing even here, however, and I hope one day soon, it will be abolished completely.

Our system of justice is not meant to be based on revenge. That is the worst possible excuse for why we are in the company of countries like Saudi Arabia regarding the Death Penalty.

And no country should base its system of justice on individual cases. What is best for the country as a whole should determine policy.

There is no redeeming value involved in the DP. It doesn't reduce crime, it doesn't make us a better country, it teaches violence and if anything, makes murder seem justified.

Otoh, we make no excuses for killing other human beings, even when sometimes they could be justified (a father killing the murderer of his child eg would still be prosecuted) yet, we give to the state the right to kill in our name.

What purpose is served other than maybe, and not always, a sense of having achieved revenge. If that is all that comes of the DP, then why not allow the victims do the killing?

[lunatica]

56. You think they'll suffer less if the death penalty continues?

How ill executing the murderer help them?

[Capitalocracy]

19. I doubt he'll come out against execution after a trial

when he's already argued in favor of execution without a trial.

[BOG PERSON]

28. hahaha

:spray:

[bitchkitty]

52. Do you think that will make a difference?

Do you believe that the President will read it, hear about it, or consider your opinion if he does read it?

Genuinely curious, not trying to be mean.

[davidthegnome]

6. I've got mixed feelings about this

Why the hell would anyone rob and kill an 82 year old man? Robbing him is one thing, but why kill him? It's not exactly difficult to overpower a man that advanced in age (generally speaking). I can find no sympathy for the murderer. That said, I don't think execution is the right way to go. It implies that killing a man for killing a man is just. Then again, if he had killed my Father or Grandfather, I think I'd want him dead regardless of the method or what it implied. Still, the proper course of action here just isn't clear to me. How do we justly punish those who have committed these sorts of crimes? What are the chances for any real rehabilitation?

I'm not certain what the proper course of action is here, some things just aren't that black and white.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. You punish them

by keeping them confined and away from the rest of society, but you confine them humanely.

The advantage to confinement is if you make a mistake, you can free the person and compensate them. If you kill them, how do you undo that?

[MikeW]

18. hard labor and solitary confinement

NO TV
NO COMPUTER
NO BOOKS

[MadMaddie]

21. I would agree with this

Right now there is no incentive not to commit crimes. They have more than the poor have in this country.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. You need to do a bit of research into prison life in America

It is a pretty vile place, and the poor people I know would NOT trade places for any reason.

I certainly know when I was poor (and at one point living on the street) I had no desire for prison.

Being brutalized physically and sexually by guards and prisoners, fed food so bad I would not feed it to a dog I hated, and being daily subjected to humiliating and inhumane treatment is not my idea of a "having more than the poor have".

Yes, you can find some poor souls for whom prison might be an improvement, but that is going to be rare.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Well, I would agree about computers

and I am aware of no medium or maximum security prison that allows access to computers.

I must disagree with no books or no TV. If you take away these small diversions, what do you leave them with to occupy their minds?

"Hard labor" in a term open to interpretation, and it is invariably abused.

Prison must rehabilitate those incarcerated so they can return to society with a job skill and the ability to function in normal society. Those who cannot be returned must still be treated humanely.

Keep them busy, but do NOT dehumanize them. Once we do that, we are no better than they are.

[boppers]

32. If you keep a man in prison for 10 years, you cannot "compensate them". Ever.

The damage of that lost time is gone forever.

That being said, a pine box 6 feet under makes for an awfully efficient form of confinement. Cheap, too.

The same, however, can not be said of the process for putting people into the boxes, which is my personal objection to the death penalty... it's too expensive to pay all those lawyers and judges and clerks (etc.) for the seemingly endless amounts of appeals.

[Kelvin Mace]

39. I agree you can't

but I can MITIGATE the damage, and provide them with the funds to function for the rest of their life. I am APPALLED at the paltry compensation given to wrong convicted prisoners. It should quote generous ($250K-$500K per year).

Lost time can NEVER be returned, but at least we can make the remaining time better.

Death, of course, cannot be undone.

One man's "seemingly endless appeals" is another man paltry safety net against injustice.

[boppers]

48. No argument there.

...I assume you meant "be quite generous"?

[SpartanDem]

7. The guy killed an 82 year old man

99% of the time the death penalty should not be applied, but killing a senior citizen in a is heinous enough for me say it's justified.

[Bragi]

44. So victim's age determines sentence? Huh? /nt

[daleo]

46. On purely rational grounds

the murder of an 82 year old ought to be considered less heinous, as fewer years of potential life are lost. That's the sort of reasoning applied when calculating damages in civil suits.

But age of the victim ought not to matter either way in a criminal prosecution. Nor should social status, though in practice it is often taken into account, though that isn't usually acknowledged.

[Heywood J]

8. "Sorry, you waited too long and we're not going to allow you to appeal

the needle we're sticking in your arm to kill you." That's a hell of a procedural matter to screw someone on. The difference between who lives and who dies is now predicated on when you file papers.


(This is in addition to all the usual pro/con capital punishment arguments)

[coalition_unwilling]

53. I was struck by this also. There's a constitutional issue regarding use of

lethal injection but, because this inmate 'waited too long' to join the appeal, he's not eligible for relief under said constitutional issue? In other words, the protections of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment have a limited shelf life????

I no longer recognize this country as worth preserving. It's too far gone.

Edited for clarity and spelling.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Via Arne Duncan?

:freak:

[alex cross]

10. Rather than speculate I looked up President Obama's

previous stance...

Barack Obama and the death penalty

NCADP cannot and does not endorse candidates for elective office. We can't because of our tax status as a 501(c)(3). However, we can engage in public education -- i.e., we can tell voters where candidates stand on issues such as the death penalty.

Courtesy of today's Washington Post, here's where Barack Obama stands on the death penalty. In a nutshell: He's pro-death penalty but he is also pro-let's not execute the wrong guy:
....

Five years later, Obama waded into a complex capital-punishment debate after a number of exonerations persuaded then-Gov. George Ryan (R) to empty death row.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

http://deathpenaltyusa.blogspot.com/2007/02/barack-obama-and-death-penalty.html

So if Obama thinks they have the "right guy" and it seems heinous enough, I think this murderer is toast.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Nice and pat position

He's pro-death penalty but he is also pro-let's not execute the wrong guy

Since no one can be sure that mistakes or misconduct haven't wrongly convicted someone, this answer is not realistic.

At the moment, we have a man in Guantanamo accused of killing U.S. soldiers with a grenade when he was 15. He was tortured and a confession extracted. He now faces a "military tribunal" where his "confession" will be used against him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020904020.html

Even if his confession is genuine, he was 15 years old, had been shot twice in the chest during an attack on his compound. I quote from the story:

Apache attack helicopters, A-10 Warthog fighter jets and, finally, two F-18 jets unleashed their arsenals, reducing the hideout to rubble.

When the dust settled, American forces approached the ruined compound, only to be blasted by a grenade thrown by someone inside. Delta Force 1st Sgt. Christopher Speer, a father of two, would die more than a week later at a military hospital in Germany. Another Special Forces soldier, Sgt. Layne Morris, was blinded in one eye by another grenade.

Inside the compound was one survivor, Khadr, who had been shot twice in the chest.

You are 15. You are told "the enemy is coming". And suddenly, hell on earth explodes around you, you are shot twice, and everyone around you is dead. The enemy is now coming to kill you. You have a grenade.

What do you do?

I have seem "airtight" convictions, complete with confessions collapse after science steps in. But, I have also seen in my own state, crime labs that falsified and/or rigged test results.

In light of this, how can we be sure of someone's guilt.

This boy will probably not face the death penalty, though he is eligible, because the case is already becoming too hot to handle.

Others are not so lucky.

[Capitalocracy]

20. Also, he's in favor of the death penalty despite understanding it's not a deterrent

Just to express outrage. Really? You're in favor of the state expressing outrage?
No wonder we're still in Afghanistan.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Precisely

I heard this excuse over Susan Smith years ago when she drowned her kids in South Carolina.

"Her crime is so cold blooded, so outrageous, that it demands the death penalty!!"

Right, and exactly where was that outrage, that thirst for vengeance on behalf of defenseless children, when she was the child and her stepfather, a fine upstanding Republican and church elder, was raping her? He ADMITTED to it, and yet was never punished, never even arrested.

People's outrage is SO selective.

And when a terrorist attacks in the U.S. because Obama's predator drones wipe out a few hundred people, I sure people will be SO outraged by that (the terrorist, not the murder of innocents by Obama).

[dflprincess]

59. Another problem with his position is that the more heinous the crime

the more anxious the public and the state are to punish someone making the chances of convicting the wrong person even higher.

[struggle4progress]

11. 217 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2000)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JEFFREY WILLIAM PAUL, APPELLANT.

No. 98-3497

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Submitted: December 13, 1999
Filed: June 27, 2000

http://openjurist.org/217/f3d/989/united-states-of-america-v-jeffrey-william-paul

[IamK]

13. He may just order a drone strike on him.... n/t

[backwoodsbob]

14. I hate to say this..but

the politics of this has to be looked at.After all,ALL things are political in D.C.

[ProSense]

16. This is not news

It's a poorly written blog post filled with a lot of speculation:

<...>

A lawyer for Paul, Robert McGlasson, also said he had no details on the government's plans to move forward with the death penalty for his client. "As for the immediacy of a possible execution date, we know nothing more than what you have seen in the government's filing," McGlasson said in an e-mail responding to a query from POLITICO.

<...>

"We also believe, of course, that until this matter particularly, and the overall ... lawsuit, generally, are resolved, it is premature for the government to set an execution date on Mr. Paul," McGlasson wrote.

<...>

The 120-day period before an execution is designed to allow for court challenges as well as the filing of a commutation petition with the president. McGlasson said no such petition has been filed at this point.

<...>

[PDJane]

17. If I kill a man, it's murder.

If the state kills a man, it's still murder.

The death penalty is simply revenge, and is due to political motives.

[micraphone]

23. Correct

The State IS us.

Why else have all other first-world countries given up this arcane practice?

If there is even the slightest chance that you have the wrong perp (and since DNA there have been plenty) it just should not happen. How many innocent people have the people/state murdered?

USA - right up there with the rest of the 3rd world.

[mommalegga]

24. There is a difference between killing and murder

Google it if you dont know.

I dont see the death penalty as a deterent, but I do see it as a just punishment.

I too hope Obama practices what he preaches and allows justice to be meted out.

[mikekj]

25. Not necessarily

If you kill a man on purpose, it can be murder, yes. However, if you kill a man accidentally, it is homicide. That can get you as little as probation, or several years in prison.

If you kill an old defenseless man,on purpose, you should get the needle(I would bring back public hanging, needles are to sterile, and hidden from the public), and I'll volunteer to stick it.

[micraphone]

27. If you kill a man on purpose, it can be murder, yes

Then what is the State (i.e. us) doing committing murder???

The state has NO business murdering people.

Again, why have the rest of the first-world countries removed state sponsored murder as a penalty?

[polmaven]

26. I totally agree!

NOT IN MY NAME

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Incorrect. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

[robcon]

22. The president should follow the law.

And I think he will allow the execution.

[Historic NY]

29. +1000

[saigon68]

35. He won't prosecute WAR CRIMINAL Cheney ---who killed thousands

[Kelvin Mace]

42. He's awfully damned selective about which laws he follows

It seems that killing poor people is fine, whereas even arresting a rich person is unacceptable. Especially old white war criminals.

[daleo]

47. One death is a tragedy

A million is a statistic. Stalin said it, but it's thinking common to wagers of aggressive war, like Bush/Cheney. Based on their behavior, many (if not most) modern U.S. presidents have concurred.

[boppers]

31. "sentenced to death or the robbery-murder"

I think he'll take the latter.

[BOG PERSON]

43. with the highest incarceration rate in the world

america could bootstrap itself out of this permanent slump and reduce unemployment forever by utilizing convict labor. not only could we find a way to undersell third world workers in a perfectly legal way but we could get undesirable elements off of the streets and definitely compel them to stop sponging off the legitimate economy.

[Bragi]

45. I agree with Kevin Mace on everything

Just wanted to cast my vote in this discussion.

[pettypace]

49. To all the death row opponents

isn't it sufficiently clear that life in prison is immeasurably more cruel and barbarous than being euthanized?

Liberty or Death as Patrick Henry put it.

[tama]

51. No

Not clear at all. :)

[soryang]

54. There were errors during the trial

The Eigth Circuit just blew them off.

Here's the opinion:

http://openjurist.org/217/f3d/989/united-states-of-america-v-jeffrey-william-paul

[pettypace]

57. Ouch

Can't believe he's getting such a raw deal for beating an 82 year old man so hard his EYE came out of its socket.

[soryang]

60. The prosecution admitted it gave an erroneous instruction

...in the sentencing phase. Prejudicial 404(b) evidence was admitted at trial. Who cares about fair trials anyway?

[msanthrope]

61. The prosecution did no such thing.

It argued, successfully, that the totality of the instructions given complied with FDPA, and were not violative of either Webster or Jones.

As for the 404b 'prejudicial' evidence, well, ALL evidence is prejudicial. The question is, is the evidence admitted improperly prejudicial? In this case, the court found not.

[soryang]

62. Actually your first point is incorrect

Read the case.

[msanthrope]

63. I did--you should try it. The government argued, successfully, that it had correctly charged

the jury in the totality.

The court agreed.