Posted on 06/04/2010 8:44:53 AM PDT by JoeProBono
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- In a rare gesture, Gov. Ted Strickland on Friday spared an inmate who was scheduled to be executed next week, citing court decisions that questioned the death sentence and problems with trial testimony.
Strickland announced he was granting clemency to Richard Nields, who strangled his girlfriend in 1997 during an argument in suburban Cincinnati.
Strickland, a Democrat, said he made the decision after reviewing Nields' case.....
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Sweetie?..is this the start of name calling?
Here’s why it’s illogical...
Someone can commit premeditated murder under your stated criteria so long as they start a domestic squabble in front of witnesses or simply in thier one home...because it’s “domestic voilence”...
He choked the life out of someone with his bare hands.....
Not only should he be executed...he should die in the same manner that he killed...hanging would be appropriate..
Is that logical enough for you?
*sigh*...so yes...you are not only going to put up an unpopular and illogical position...you’ll act like an ass to defend it...
Here ya go...the law you cite:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2929.04
“The existence of any of the mitigating factors listed in division (B) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a sentence of death”
Section B is where mitigating circumstances are listed...such as being pissed off at your wife and choking her to death...
Game,set,match.
Good grief, you're an idiot. This is why amateurs should NEVER cite statutory law. They almost ALWAYS get it wrong.
An absence of a mitigating factor isn't evidence of aggravating circumstances. Again, I'm sorry you lack the intellectual capacity to understand such a remedial point of law.
That statute plainly says...
Imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is precluded unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code and proved beyond a reasonable doubt:...
The opinion about this case from author of this very statute was characterized in the article...
"Justice Paul Pfeifer, who helped write Ohio's death penalty law as a state legislator in 1981, wrote that Nields' crime was not what lawmakers considered as a case eligible for the death penalty when creating the law."
Contrary to your ridiculous assertion, this statute plainly states that "murder is not murder". There must be aggravating factors to impose a sentence of death. Every state that has the death penalty, spells out the requirement of aggravating circumstances to impose death.
“The existence of any of the mitigating factors listed in division (B) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a sentence of death”
I can read too...you are ignoring this clear text.
What you are citing is section A..not section B...you may note that B comes after A...
Sure, I'm wrong. Both myself and the guy who wrote the statute are wrong, and you're right. Perfectly logical.
You don't seem to understand that even in the absence of mitigating factors, one of the aggravating factors must be present for a sentence of death to be imposed. Why does this escape you?
Nope...you got it backwards.....section B precludes along with section A...
Section A deals with automatic death penalties...section B with elective penalties and mitigating circumstances...
Your appeal to authority argument doesnt matter....what the laws says DOES..doesent matter what the legislator INTENDED 29 years ago....what matters is how the law is WRITTEN...
Just becuase you are mad at the wife and choked her to death in a fit of anger does not save you from the death penalty...
Once again the entire law:
2929.04 Death penalty or imprisonment - aggravating and mitigating factors.
(A) Imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is precluded unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code and proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) The offense was the assassination of the president of the United States or a person in line of succession to the presidency, the governor or lieutenant governor of this state, the president-elect or vice president-elect of the United States, the governor-elect or lieutenant governor-elect of this state, or a candidate for any of the offices described in this division. For purposes of this division, a person is a candidate if the person has been nominated for election according to law, if the person has filed a petition or petitions according to law to have the person’s name placed on the ballot in a primary or general election, or if the person campaigns as a write-in candidate in a primary or general election.
(2) The offense was committed for hire.
(3) The offense was committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense committed by the offender.
(4) The offense was committed while the offender was under detention or while the offender was at large after having broken detention. As used in division (A)(4) of this section, “detention” has the same meaning as in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code, except that detention does not include hospitalization, institutionalization, or confinement in a mental health facility or mental retardation and developmentally disabled facility unless at the time of the commission of the offense either of the following circumstances apply:
(a) The offender was in the facility as a result of being charged with a violation of a section of the Revised Code.
(b) The offender was under detention as a result of being convicted of or pleading guilty to a violation of a section of the Revised Code.
(5) Prior to the offense at bar, the offender was convicted of an offense an essential element of which was the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill another, or the offense at bar was part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons by the offender.
(6) The victim of the offense was a law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2911.01 of the Revised Code, whom the offender had reasonable cause to know or knew to be a law enforcement officer as so defined, and either the victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, was engaged in the victim’s duties, or it was the offender’s specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer as so defined.
(7) The offense was committed while the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, aggravated robbery, or aggravated burglary, and either the offender was the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or, if not the principal offender, committed the aggravated murder with prior calculation and design.
(8) The victim of the aggravated murder was a witness to an offense who was purposely killed to prevent the victim’s testimony in any criminal proceeding and the aggravated murder was not committed during the commission, attempted commission, or flight immediately after the commission or attempted commission of the offense to which the victim was a witness, or the victim of the aggravated murder was a witness to an offense and was purposely killed in retaliation for the victim’s testimony in any criminal proceeding.
(9) The offender, in the commission of the offense, purposefully caused the death of another who was under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, and either the offender was the principal offender in the commission of the offense or, if not the principal offender, committed the offense with prior calculation and design.
(10) The offense was committed while the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit terrorism.
(B) If one or more of the aggravating circumstances listed in division (A) of this section is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the offender did not raise the matter of age pursuant to section 2929.023 of the Revised Code or if the offender, after raising the matter of age, was found at trial to have been eighteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense, the court, trial jury, or panel of three judges shall consider, and weigh against the aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, character, and background of the offender, and all of the following factors:
(1) Whether the victim of the offense induced or facilitated it;
(2) Whether it is unlikely that the offense would have been committed, but for the fact that the offender was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation;
(3) Whether, at the time of committing the offense, the offender, because of a mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the offender’s conduct or to conform the offender’s conduct to the requirements of the law;
(4) The youth of the offender;
(5) The offender’s lack of a significant history of prior criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications;
(6) If the offender was a participant in the offense but not the principal offender, the degree of the offender’s participation in the offense and the degree of the offender’s participation in the acts that led to the death of the victim;
(7) Any other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the offender should be sentenced to death.
(C) The defendant shall be given great latitude in the presentation of evidence of the factors listed in division (B) of this section and of any other factors in mitigation of the imposition of the sentence of death.
The existence of any of the mitigating factors listed in division (B) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a sentence of death on the offender but shall be weighed pursuant to divisions (D)(2) and (3) of section 2929.03 of the Revised Code by the trial court, trial jury, or the panel of three judges against the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing.
Effective Date: 05-15-2002
Under you reading of the law..NO ONE would ever face the death penalty unless they violate section A...thus there would be no need for a section B...
You can hurl invectives all day long, cite whom ever you want.....wont make you right...
No, what will make me right is my ability to comprehend what I'm reading, an ability that apparently escapes you.
Where precisely does "chocking your wife to death in a fit of rage" fit into the aforementioned aggravating factors specified in Section A? Of course, I'd point out that per statutory requirement, at least ONE of these factors must be proven to impose a sentence of death. What part of "precluded" don't you understand?
I'll wait.
Have fun waiting....pavlov has left the building...
Thanks. I'll take that as an admission of your stupidity, not that I needed to have it validated.
Ah...time for the eye test I see...how many fingers am I holding up?
From the above article:
Quote:
Juries in Ohio must find offenders guilty of a serious secondary offense — such as rape, arson or aggravated robbery — in addition to aggravated murder to recommend a death sentence.
Nields was convicted of aggravated robbery for taking Newsome’s car and money from her purse.”
He was convicted....he took her car and her money besides choking her to death...
The death panalty applies and the only reason he isnt being put to death is becuase of some murder coddling libtards who have a say in the matter...
You’ll note then even aggravated battery applies....your notion of not getting the death penalty for killing someone while simply trying to assault them isnt even close to what the law is...
This is clearly a death penalty case....and it should have been carried out...
I await your further insults and hyperbole with passing wind.
I see you left the rest of the paragraph out...
But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether those acts supported the robbery charge and said his death sentence barely fit the definition of capital punishment under Ohio law.
Robbery was not the intent of the crime, which CLEARLY is what is being addressed in the requisite aggravating factors of the statute.
"You’ll note then even aggravated battery applies....your notion of not getting the death penalty for killing someone while simply trying to assault them isnt even close to what the law is..."
OK, now you're just making things up. The word "battery" appears NOWHERE in the statute. Try again.
I'll type slower, perhaps that will help. People who kill their spouses during an incident of domestic violence, absent any aggravating factors, are NOT eligible for the death penalty in Ohio, or in any state in the Union.
The Ohio governor (who has seen almost a dozen men executed during his tenure) agreed with the man who wrote the Ohio death penalty statute. This particular case didn't merit execution as it did not fit the spirit of the statute.
Aggravated battery is a felony in Ohio and you know that..
His robbery conviction was NOT overturned...in fact..the appeals court let his death penalty conviction STAND...but you will try and hang your hat on the appeals court ignore they let it stand while cherry picking a statement from the sole disenting judge...
Nice dance......it’s clear you side with the libtards in this matter...
Wire fraud is a felony in Ohio too. But, if you murder someone while committing wire fraud, that doesn't make you death penalty eligible. To be eligible for the death penalty in OH, you MUST be convicted at trial of one of the requisite aggravating crimes. Aggravated battery isn't one of those aggravating circumstances set forth in the statute. It's as simple as that.
Fact; The Trial Judge disagrees with you.
Fact: The jury disagrees with you.
Fact.. The 6th district court od appeals disagrees with you.
Fact: The Ohio Supreme court disagrees with you.
Oh but the rabidly liberal Gov agrees with you...
Right, the liberal governor who has overseen over a dozen other executions in the state, commuting only 3 sentences of the 17 that have come across his desk. Strickland has problems, but executing prisoners isn't one of them.
And, the Republican politician (now Justice) who wrote the statute supports commutation as does the Ohio Parole Board where 5 of 7 members were appointed by Republicans, voted to recommend commutation.
“Right, the liberal governor who has overseen over a dozen other executions in the state, commuting only 3 sentences of the 17 that have come across his desk. Strickland has problems, but executing prisoners isn’t one of them.
And, the Republican politician (now Justice) who wrote the statute supports commutation as does the Ohio Parole Board where 5 of 7 members were appointed by Republicans, voted to recommend commutation.”
non sequitur...my statement is true...and you ducked the rest..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.