Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Jan 9, 2008 19:10:35 GMT -6
Reading about the Governor commuting Spirko's sentence to LWOP brought questions to mind .It is my understanding if a sentence is commuted by the Governor ,it is his choice on what the new sentence is. Technically LWOP wasn't a sentencing option when Spriko was sentenced to death in 1982 .
My question is this , if the DP is abolished ,will all 3500+ sentences be commuted to LWOP or whatever sentence was available when they was sentenced to begin with ,in that state ?
In Ohio ,for example , LWOP wasn't a sentencing option until 1996 so my guess is anyone sentenced to death before 1996 would be sentenced to either 20-life or 30-life since that was the other sentencing options available at the time . Am I correct in assuming that ? Ohio has several people who has been on death row for 20+ yrs ,so my guess would be many of those folks would be automatically paroled or paroled shortly afterwards .
I know in Texas before LWOP became an option in 2005 ,the sentence was 40 yrs . Can someone tell me how much of the 40 yrs they had to serve before parole ? Do they serve a flat 40 or 80% of their sentence ?
While I am an anti and don't want anyone executed , I would never want to see a boatload of murderers freed on a technicality . Murderers should NEVER be freed .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2008 20:49:58 GMT -6
Reading about the Governor commuting Spirko's sentence to LWOP brought questions to mind .It is my understanding if a sentence is commuted by the Governor ,it is his choice on what the new sentence is. Technically LWOP wasn't a sentencing option when Spriko was sentenced to death in 1982 . My question is this , if the DP is abolished ,will all 3500+ sentences be commuted to LWOP or whatever sentence was available when they was sentenced to begin with ,in that state ? In Ohio ,for example , LWOP wasn't a sentencing option until 1996 so my guess is anyone sentenced to death before 1996 would be sentenced to either 20-life or 30-life since that was the other sentencing options available at the time . Am I correct in assuming that ? Ohio has several people who has been on death row for 20+ yrs ,so my guess would be many of those folks would be automatically paroled or paroled shortly afterwards . I know in Texas before LWOP became an option in 2005 ,the sentence was 40 yrs . Can someone tell me how much of the 40 yrs they had to serve before parole ? Do they serve a flat 40 or 80% of their sentence ? While I am an anti and don't want anyone executed , I would never want to see a boatload of murderers freed on a technicality . Murderers should NEVER be freed . In TX in 2001 the life40 sentence for capital murder meant a minimum of 40 years before they are even eligible for parole, no good time. That is what the one that supplied the transportation, guns and knives pleaded to. I am don't remember for sure when those guidelines were put into place, but I am thinking sometime in the late 90's was when it changed to the minimum 40 and no more good time.
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Jan 9, 2008 21:15:50 GMT -6
I do not know the legal answer to your question, Lady, but when Illinois Gov. Ryan commuted all the death row inmates a few years back, I think all but 2 or 3 ended up with LWOP. I am not sure when the state adopted LWOP but I assume some of those convicted were sentence before it was an option.
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Jan 9, 2008 21:28:13 GMT -6
I do not know the legal answer to your question, Lady, but when Illinois Gov. Ryan commuted all the death row inmates a few years back, I think all but 2 or 3 ended up with LWOP. I am not sure when the state adopted LWOP but I assume some of those convicted were sentence before it was an option. I believe there would be a difference between a governor commuting a sentence and if the DP was abolished across the board , so to speak . I mean ,the courts is debating about LI right now, as we speak . What if they decided to overturn the DP and abolish it ,then how would the inmates be resentenced ? When a governor chooses to commute a sentence ,it is his choice on what he resentences them to, but I am also speaking of what happens if the DP is tossed out . Look at the Manson Family for example , once the DP was tossed out in 1972 ,they was resentenced to 7- life . I was just curious on how it would work this time . I appologize if my post is confusing, because I suppose I am asking 2 different things . Maybe I shouldn't take pain meds before posting .
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Jan 9, 2008 21:34:51 GMT -6
I do not know the legal answer to your question, Lady, but when Illinois Gov. Ryan commuted all the death row inmates a few years back, I think all but 2 or 3 ended up with LWOP. I am not sure when the state adopted LWOP but I assume some of those convicted were sentence before it was an option. I believe there would be a difference between a governor commuting a sentence and if the DP was abolished across the board , so to speak . I mean ,the courts is debating about LI right now, as we speak . What if they decided to overturn the DP and abolish it ,then how would the inmates be resentenced ? When a governor chooses to commute a sentence ,it is his choice on what he resentences them to, but I am also speaking of what happens if the DP is tossed out . Look at the Manson Family for example , once the DP was tossed out in 1972 ,they was resentenced to 7- life . I was just curious on how it would work this time . I appologize if my post is confusing, because I suppose I am asking 2 different things . Maybe I shouldn't take pain meds before posting . No your question was fine. I do see the difference, now that you mention it, between a commutation and the blanket removal of the death penalty. When the death penalty was removed, wasn't Manson and his group then given the longest sentence available? In that case it was a life sentence but didn't they convert them all to the longest available sentence?
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Jan 10, 2008 1:19:51 GMT -6
Whenever a state abolishes the death penalty, as we've learned with New Jersey, the death sentences of each condemned prisoner would be reduced to life in prison or LWOP (depending on what that state's longest possible prison sentence is).
Some brought up the contention in New Jersey that the eight death row inmates that Gov. Corzine issued commutations to, the day before he signed the death penalty abolition bill, should not have had their sentences changed from death to life in prison without parole. Some say Corzine was in error. They said LWOP was not available in NJ when those men were sentenced to death. However, the governor of NJ has the final and sole authority over all matters relative to executive clemency; so his decision has thus far remained unchallenged.
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Jan 10, 2008 7:27:04 GMT -6
Whenever a state abolishes the death penalty, as we've learned with New Jersey, the death sentences of each condemned prisoner would be reduced to life in prison or LWOP (depending on what that state's longest possible prison sentence is). Some brought up the contention in New Jersey that the eight death row inmates that Gov. Corzine issued commutations to, the day before he signed the death penalty abolition bill, should not have had their sentences changed from death to life in prison without parole. Some say Corzine was in error. They said LWOP was not available in NJ when those men were sentenced to death. However, the governor of NJ has the final and sole authority over all matters relative to executive clemency; so his decision has thus far remained unchallenged. Hopefully I understood what you are saying correctly , if there was a blanket removal of the DP nationwide ,then it would be up to the governor in each state to resentence the inmates ? That doesn't sound right ,because it would be the courts abolishing the DP ,and not the governors . In NJ Gov Corzine signed the DP abolition bill ,which means it gave him the power to resentence the inmates in his state , but what I am talking about is how are they resentenced if the higher courts decide to do away with the DP ? Are they resentenced according to the state laws at the time they was originally sentenced ?
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Jan 10, 2008 8:30:41 GMT -6
Whenever a state abolishes the death penalty, as we've learned with New Jersey, the death sentences of each condemned prisoner would be reduced to life in prison or LWOP (depending on what that state's longest possible prison sentence is). Some brought up the contention in New Jersey that the eight death row inmates that Gov. Corzine issued commutations to, the day before he signed the death penalty abolition bill, should not have had their sentences changed from death to life in prison without parole. Some say Corzine was in error. They said LWOP was not available in NJ when those men were sentenced to death. However, the governor of NJ has the final and sole authority over all matters relative to executive clemency; so his decision has thus far remained unchallenged. Hopefully I understood what you are saying correctly , if there was a blanket removal of the DP nationwide ,then it would be up to the governor in each state to resentence the inmates ? That doesn't sound right ,because it would be the courts abolishing the DP ,and not the governors . In NJ Gov Corzine signed the DP abolition bill ,which means it gave him the power to resentence the inmates in his state , but what I am talking about is how are they resentenced if the higher courts decide to do away with the DP ? Are they resentenced according to the state laws at the time they was originally sentenced ? First of all, I doubt there will ever be a blanket removal. Even in 1972 when Furman v. Georgia came down; all it did was suspend executions across the country. Most of the states quickly re-wrote their death penalty laws to confirm to SCOTUS's directives. Others, like North Dakota, did repeal their death penalties outright instead (as of 1973 in N.D. No one had been executed in the state since like 1908). So, if SCOTUS happens to rule against the three-drug cocktail in lethal injections, it will be up to the states to decide how to proceed. I read a piece somwhere that in some 14 states, state lawmakers would have to reauthorize use of lethal injection because of the particular wording in their statutes (Colorado and S.D. included) would essentially be ineffective if SCOTUS were to issue such a ruling. The rest of the states could quickly adjust their protocols without legislative intervention.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Jan 10, 2008 8:53:41 GMT -6
The simple answer: If the DP was abolished, and someone was originally sentenced at a time where LWOP was NOT an option, they could not involuntarily be sentenced to LWOP. They'd get Life with Parole. To do otherwise would be a due process violation.
HTH.
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Jan 10, 2008 22:50:21 GMT -6
The simple answer: If the DP was abolished, and someone was originally sentenced at a time where LWOP was NOT an option, they could not involuntarily be sentenced to LWOP. They'd get Life with Parole. To do otherwise would be a due process violation. HTH. Thanks, Anony. We knew you'd come through with a reasonable answer. What then about New Jersey? There was a bit of a dust-up out there when Gov. Corzine signed the death penalty abolition bill. The day before he commuted the sentences of all eight death row inmates to life without parole. Apparently, New Jersey did not have life without parole when those eight people were initially sentenced to death. New Jersey's state constitution grants the governor sole and unilateral authority relative to all matters of executive clemency. Is it perhaps given that fact that Corzine's commutations cannot be challenged in that the constitution gives the governor such broad executive clemency authority? I'm not an attorney or a legal expert; and I understand that you are a lawyer. Why do you think Gov. Corzine was able to commute those sentences to life in prison without parole instead of life with possibility of parole? Each state's constitution is worded differently and grants such powers in different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Jan 11, 2008 6:57:18 GMT -6
The simple answer: If the DP was abolished, and someone was originally sentenced at a time where LWOP was NOT an option, they could not involuntarily be sentenced to LWOP. They'd get Life with Parole. To do otherwise would be a due process violation. HTH. Thanks, Anony. We knew you'd come through with a reasonable answer. What then about New Jersey? There was a bit of a dust-up out there when Gov. Corzine signed the death penalty abolition bill. The day before he commuted the sentences of all eight death row inmates to life without parole. Apparently, New Jersey did not have life without parole when those eight people were initially sentenced to death. New Jersey's state constitution grants the governor sole and unilateral authority relative to all matters of executive clemency. Is it perhaps given that fact that Corzine's commutations cannot be challenged in that the constitution gives the governor such broad executive clemency authority? I'm not an attorney or a legal expert; and I understand that you are a lawyer. Why do you think Gov. Corzine was able to commute those sentences to life in prison without parole instead of life with possibility of parole? Each state's constitution is worded differently and grants such powers in different ways. To be completely honest, I'm not sure. Obviously, the rules surrounding commutations must be different than strict rule of law. If I have time to look into it, I will, but I can't promise. But if it all happened as you relate, and what the Governor did was kosher, then he was smart to commute before he invalidated the statute, else all would have gotten life sentences. Of course, it is possible that what he did was NOT kosher, and the inmates are going to sue to have a sentence of life with parole imposed. Heck, that's what I'd do........ I most likely won't have time to look into it this weekend. Perhaps Monday. Remind me if you don't hear back from me on this next week......
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Jan 11, 2008 10:58:21 GMT -6
So obviously, the public defender in NJ has the same questions as I do, so it's not a done deal that they've all got LWOP. My guess would be that the Governor was acting outside of his authority, and after a lawsuit by the PD's office, they'll get life:
New Jersey's Public Defender's Office, which represents all eight men, questioned whether Corzine had authority to commute death sentences to life in prison without parole.
"We have to discuss the implications of commuting a sentence to a sentence that did not exist at the time they were sentenced," said Tom Rosenthal, spokesman for Public Defender Yvonne Smith Segars.
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Jan 11, 2008 19:53:35 GMT -6
So obviously, the public defender in NJ has the same questions as I do, so it's not a done deal that they've all got LWOP. My guess would be that the Governor was acting outside of his authority, and after a lawsuit by the PD's office, they'll get life: New Jersey's Public Defender's Office, which represents all eight men, questioned whether Corzine had authority to commute death sentences to life in prison without parole.
"We have to discuss the implications of commuting a sentence to a sentence that did not exist at the time they were sentenced," said Tom Rosenthal, spokesman for Public Defender Yvonne Smith Segars. Yeah, they've got nothing to lose. My guess is that the governor, of course who would be represented by the attorney general of the state will argue that since the state constitution gives the governor such broad executive clemency powers, accordingly his proclamation (which is tenamount to an executive order) cannot be challenged. The theory being that the Constitution of the State of New Jersey stands superior to the codified laws of the state as enacted by the Legislature. In other words, a judge would look for guidance to the state constitution before the codified laws of the state and further to any legal precedents. The public defender's office would then counter in its argument that since LWOP did not exist when the eight inmates were sentenced, then they cannot have their death sentences commuted to a sentence that did not exist in the state's codified laws as enacted by the Legislature at the time the men were initially sentenced. They'll try to argue something like "It appears to us that the Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, did not find it necessary to provide for a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole at the time when our clients were initially sentenced. Therefore, we maintain that the governor overstepped his constitutional authority by commuting their sentences to the life without possibility of parole standard."
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Jan 11, 2008 21:05:14 GMT -6
The theory being that the Constitution of the State of New Jersey stands superior to the codified laws of the state as enacted by the Legislature. In other words, a judge would look for guidance to the state constitution before the codified laws of the state and further to any legal precedents. But it's the US Contitutional notion of due process that it violates. Not state law. They're up against a legal principle much larger than the one you suggest. So I doubt any lawyer, particularly the AG for the great state of New Jersey, would further the argument you suggest. Nice try, counselor.
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Jan 12, 2008 10:20:00 GMT -6
The theory being that the Constitution of the State of New Jersey stands superior to the codified laws of the state as enacted by the Legislature. In other words, a judge would look for guidance to the state constitution before the codified laws of the state and further to any legal precedents. But it's the US Contitutional notion of due process that it violates. Not state law. They're up against a legal principle much larger than the one you suggest. So I doubt any lawyer, particularly the AG for the great state of New Jersey, would further the argument you suggest. Nice try, counselor. Definitely I can see your point. Even state judges have to consider the impacts of the US Constitution in such a case. Personally, I'm on the same page with those of you who think Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey overstepped his bounds. Quite likely, the commutation orders were written by someone in the governor's office or maybe the AG's office who likely was acting upon improper legal advice by putting in the life without parole wording. Corzine probably didn't even read and study the orders before he signed them. All he really cared about was the overall ... signing the death penalty abolition bill the minute it hit his desk. Of course such a high profile bill called for him conducting a bill signing ceremony and the resulting press coverage. Meanwhile, he took advantage of the media coverage in order to take all the credit, to wave the freshly signed bill and the commutation documents in front of the cameras and get his mug on television and in the print media, announcing the commutations. Thank you, Your Honor.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2008 12:40:29 GMT -6
i would still say that, regardless of how sweeping the clemency law is, there is no provision in the state's constitution allowing the executive branch to create a sentence not authorized by the legislative branchand upheld by the judiciary
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Jan 12, 2008 20:18:07 GMT -6
But it's the US Contitutional notion of due process that it violates. Not state law. They're up against a legal principle much larger than the one you suggest. So I doubt any lawyer, particularly the AG for the great state of New Jersey, would further the argument you suggest. Nice try, counselor. Definitely I can see your point. Even state judges have to consider the impacts of the US Constitution in such a case. Personally, I'm on the same page with those of you who think Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey overstepped his bounds. Quite likely, the commutation orders were written by someone in the governor's office or maybe the AG's office who likely was acting upon improper legal advice by putting in the life without parole wording. Corzine probably didn't even read and study the orders before he signed them. All he really cared about was the overall ... signing the death penalty abolition bill the minute it hit his desk. Of course such a high profile bill called for him conducting a bill signing ceremony and the resulting press coverage. Meanwhile, he took advantage of the media coverage in order to take all the credit, to wave the freshly signed bill and the commutation documents in front of the cameras and get his mug on television and in the print media, announcing the commutations. Thank you, Your Honor. Actually, even though I don't know the governor or his politics from Adam, I'd have a different read on it: He knew that the minute he signed the abolition bill, all death sentences would be changed to life in prison with the possibility of parole. So if he commuted them BEFORE he signed the bill to life WITHOUT parole, there was a chance he could guarantee that these murderers would never get out. So overall, politically, he makes the abolitionists happy, and still appears to be tough on murder.
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Jan 12, 2008 22:26:13 GMT -6
Definitely I can see your point. Even state judges have to consider the impacts of the US Constitution in such a case. Personally, I'm on the same page with those of you who think Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey overstepped his bounds. Quite likely, the commutation orders were written by someone in the governor's office or maybe the AG's office who likely was acting upon improper legal advice by putting in the life without parole wording. Corzine probably didn't even read and study the orders before he signed them. All he really cared about was the overall ... signing the death penalty abolition bill the minute it hit his desk. Of course such a high profile bill called for him conducting a bill signing ceremony and the resulting press coverage. Meanwhile, he took advantage of the media coverage in order to take all the credit, to wave the freshly signed bill and the commutation documents in front of the cameras and get his mug on television and in the print media, announcing the commutations. Thank you, Your Honor. Actually, even though I don't know the governor or his politics from Adam, I'd have a different read on it: He knew that the minute he signed the abolition bill, all death sentences would be changed to life in prison with the possibility of parole. So if he commuted them BEFORE he signed the bill to life WITHOUT parole, there was a chance he could guarantee that these murderers would never get out. So overall, politically, he makes the abolitionists happy, and still appears to be tough on murder. Jon Corzine's probably one of the most liberal Democrats there is out there. Before he was elected governor, Corzine served in the U.S. Senate. He had a very liberal voting record in Congress. In fact, Corzine signed the eight orders of executive clemency, which commuted the eight death row prisoners' sentences to life in prison, the day before on Sunday, Dec. 16, 2007. He signed the death penalty abolition bill in a state capitol ceremony the following morning, Monday, Dec. 17, 2007 at promptly 10 a.m. Interesting he signed the commutations on a Sunday, which isn't a normal government business day. So, Corzine ain't no dummy. I think he's an attorney by profession himself.
|
|