Speculation
Virginia Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, has granted clemency to Robin Lovitt just before his scheduled execution. The key piece of evidence (a pair of scissors) was accidently thrown away by a clerk and at the time of Lovitt's conviction, the DNA evidence could only prove that the blood on the scissors was that of the victim. The defendent's DNA was not found on the weapon. Gov. Warner thought the loss of this evidence constituted an extraordinary circumstance that warranted clemency. Based on what I know, I respect this decision. We should never execute a person if there's any lingering doubt. The moral argument for the death penalty is sound; its practical application in the hands of men is not. That's why governors have the power of clemency--it serves as a final check on the inherent weaknesses in man's attempt to administer justice.
I was upset, though, by the New York Times incorporating into its reporting on this story an analysis of the political ramifications of Warner's decision. Warner is widely speculated to be a viable contender for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. The Times leaves the reader with the impression that this decision was tempered in significant part by Warner's political calculations as he anticipates a Presidential run.
The problem with this is that Warner has presided over 11 executions. As governor, he's had 11 opportunities to appease the liberal base of his party by granting clemency before an execution. 11 times he didn't grant clemency. Could it be that Warner made this decision because there really was doubt in Lovitt's case?
How nice it would be if newspapers actually reported the news instead of incorporating rank speculation into their accounts.
I was upset, though, by the New York Times incorporating into its reporting on this story an analysis of the political ramifications of Warner's decision. Warner is widely speculated to be a viable contender for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. The Times leaves the reader with the impression that this decision was tempered in significant part by Warner's political calculations as he anticipates a Presidential run.
The problem with this is that Warner has presided over 11 executions. As governor, he's had 11 opportunities to appease the liberal base of his party by granting clemency before an execution. 11 times he didn't grant clemency. Could it be that Warner made this decision because there really was doubt in Lovitt's case?
How nice it would be if newspapers actually reported the news instead of incorporating rank speculation into their accounts.
1 Comments:
Playing Devil's advocate, the article mentions early on that there had been 11 executions while he was in office.
The part you're referring to, unless I'm missing something, is the second-to-last paragraph, not a major part of the story.
It also, unless I'm missing something, never outright speculates that he had political motivations, only that there could be a political impact to his decision. In fact, before it mentions the plus, it mentions the downside, that he could be "open to being attacked as soft on crime in a general election," likely not a motivation for doing it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home