Three cheers for the judiciary! (Finally)
A murderer got his just desserts after sitting in prison for 20 years when he should have been put to death when the sentence was passed!
Court 'closed', inmate executed
From correspondents in Washington
October 04, 2007 07:50am
* Court refuses to stay open to hear appeal
* Inmate Michael Richard subsequently executed
* Local media outraged by attitude of court
A TEXAS death-row inmate was executed after a local court refused to stay open an extra 20 minutes to hear an appeal.
At 10am on September 25, the US Supreme Court announced it would review in early 2008 an appeal by two Kentucky death row inmates challenging the legality of the lethal injection.
The same day, Michael Richard, 48, was due to receive the deadly cocktail at 6pm in southern Texas for the rape and murder of a woman in 1986.
His attorneys said they rushed to draft an appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases.
At 4.50pm, the lawyers called the court to ask it to remain open 20 more minutes after they were stalled by a computer malfunction.
"We close at five,'' was the response from the court clerk, a quote widely reported by local media.
In a last-ditch effort, Richard's attorneys took their case to the Supreme Court, which remains open for executions.
The legal move delayed the execution by a few hours, but since the convict did not file his appeal with a local court first, his arguments were not accepted in Washington.
The execution went ahead that evening and Richard was declared dead at 8.23pm.
It's quite easy to see that the writer of this article is some anti-death penalty do-gooder. Obviously they've never known anyone close to them to be raped or murdered.
The court's behaviour angered a leading Texas daily newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, which expressed outrage in an editorial entitled "We Closed at 5".
"Hastening the death of a man, even a bad one, because office personnel couldn't be bothered to bend bureaucratic procedure was a breathtakingly petty act and evinced a relish for death that makes the blood of decent people run cold,'' the newspaper said.
This has to be one time when I say that I love bureaucracy. It's just a shame that the same bureaucracy is what was responsible for this person being allowed to remain alive for another 20 years while his victim could not.
Justice needs to be swift and sure and seen to be done. In this case it was seen to be sure - now all they need to do is work on the other 2 requirements and the crime rate might actually go down.
4 comments:
OMG - a sudden purge of posts!
I'm speechless.
Jai lives, he lives!
Hey Jai, welcome back dude.
How goes it with the girls eh?
I'm with your capital punishment stance in theory, but the practicality requires a reliance on judges, police and juries to actually get the right person when trying to find a perpetrator. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of confidence -- especially in this era of trial by media.
Personally, I say just lock the bastards up forever and take away a lot of the perks they get in prison. Someone who's wrongly accused but later found innocent can still be released and compensated, but we can still rid ourselves of the scum this way.
That's why I'm a big fan of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the USA.
Too lazy to look for the link but if you put the name into Google and search, read the entry in Wikpedia about him. A bit of a bad bastard but he does a tough job and he gets it done.
Post a Comment