During the 1998 Wye negotiations, President Clinton supported Israel's refusal to release imprisoned terrorists because he was "haunted" by the fact that a murderer he once pardoned then killed again, according to Reuters (December 9, 1998). In November 1979, Clinton--then governor of Arkansas--pardoned imprisoned murderer James Surridge because Surridge had terminal cancer. After being released, Surridge murdered a pizza shop owner in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament: "We sat there at Wye...and President Clinton said: 'I understand you because when I was governor of Arkansas, they pressured me to release a murderer and I released him under public pressure and after that he murdered again.' And he said, 'I understand that you refuse to release murderers'. And thus we agreed."
zoa.org
In 1966 McDuff had been sentenced to death for killing three teenagers, but due to a Supreme Court ruling against the use of capital punishment, escaped execution. After serving time he was released. He then murdered a number of people before being captured and imprisoned again.
.............................................................
Around 1 in 10 convicted murderers will murder again when released. Of the 2,575 prisoners sentenced to death in the United in States 1992, 1 out of 11 had a prior conviction for homicide. This means that hundreds of additional people died because those convicted of murder were released only to kill again.
[Numerous supporting examples follow.]
members.iinet.net.au
Still feel equivocal? How equivocal will you be if one of these guys finds you? Me?
Life without parole? What does that mean? Many of those guys DO get out. A governor pardons them. A court decides there was something wrong in the preceding process.
You want cases of "life without parole" who murdered again? I can find them. Easily.
He has also asked for the federal death
penalty in cases in seven states that don't allow capital punishment.
That means absolutely nothing. Your talking different jurisdictions, different law, different charges, and federal supremacy. As an example, suppose the draft were re-instated and a state passed a law forbidding any of its citizens from being drafted. That law is meaningless. The issue of federal supremacy was settled long ago.
Now I won't argue that evidentiary standards in death penalty cases should be heightened. I think they should. Good solid physical evidence should be required that links the accused to the crime. And that does not mean "eye witness" testimony. That is notoriously unreliable. |
