Biden plays heartless politics with death penalty commutations
The death penalty has been a difficult issue for me personally. There is a part of me that opposes ANY arbitrary or unnecessary taking of a human life. But there is also a part of me that differentiates between the killing of innocents and the execution of those who are found guilty of killing innocent people and causing lifelong grievous pain for loved ones. At times, I have found myself opposed to the death penalty – and at the same time willing to pull the switch on individuals who have committed the most terrible crimes.
At this point in my life, I tend to lean in favor of the death penalty in cases of the most horrific crimes – as long as the evidence is beyond refutation and the judicial process is fair.
However, I am not conflicted in my opposition to commuting or pardoning death row prisoners who have had their fates determined by evidence, police and judges. There must be extraordinary circumstances for clemency on a case-by-case basis. Blanket commutations, like the ones President Biden has issued, are heartless and wrong … period.
While Biden expresses compassion for those facing capital punishment, he demonstrates an utter and contemptible disregard for the suffering of the victims’ families. His sympathy goes to guys like Jorge Avila-Torrez (pictured above). Biden commuted Avila-Torrez’s death sentence even though he was convicted of raping and murdering three people – 8-year-old Laura Hobbs and 9- ear-old Krystal Tobias — who were riding their bicycles near their home in a Chicago suburb in 2005. Four years later he raped and murdered naval officer Amanda Snell, 20, inside her barracks in Arlington, Virginia. And those are only the ones with which he has been charged.
Or how about drug dealer Kaboni Savage, who killed and ordered the murders of 12 people, including four children? And the list goes on.
In issuing his clemency order, Biden said, “Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss.” Make no mistake, Biden’s action was NOT condemnation, grief or empathy for the families. What he actually visited on the families was cruel and unnecessary punishment – a life sentence of pain and agony.
Biden said he was “guided by [his] conscience and [his] experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President.”
He continued, “I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level. In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.”
The first highlighted language is in order to point out that a federal death penalty is NOT the authoritarian decision of a President. It is the responsibility of the Congress.
The latter highlighted language shows that Biden is obsessed with Trump. Regardless, it is not Biden’s role to thwart the actions of a new administration and the will of the public.
Thanks to Biden, the families of these victims will never have justice or closure. The monsters who murdered their loved ones will live relatively comfortably in a federal prison at taxpayer expense — with the families aware of their existence for the rest of their lives.
Biden did not want to hear the concerns of the families and loved ones. He never reached out to them to discuss his plan. In fact, he rejected requests for such meetings from the families who learned of his plan in the media. Biden did not give a damn about the living victims of these heinous crimes. He only cared about his own public image and his liberal creds – perhaps mixed with a false sense of nobility.
In terms of the taxpayer expense, thanks to Biden, the most heinous criminals in society will continue to live on welfare for the rest of their lives. The annual cost to the taxpayer to maintain a person in a federal prison is approximately $40,000 per year according to 2020 figures. Do the math. Those 37 prisoners whose lives Biden just spared will cost the taxpayer more than $1.5 million this year — and that cost will rise significantly every year over the course of their lifetimes. Conversely, these individuals will provide no benefit to society.
And as far as no chance of parole, that is a crap roll. Prisoners convicted to life without parole have been paroled. The families will have to live with that fear.
Biden has already abused the pardoning power in the case of his own son. While claiming devotion to the concept that no man is above the law, Biden literally placed his son above the law – or at least beyond the reach of the law. That is true even if one can understand the love of a father. And in the Hunter case, fatherly love may be intermixed with protecting other members of the Biden family from potential legal problems.
Biden later went on to pardon another 39 prisoners — including an Illinois politician who embezzled millions of taxpayer money and a judge who took bribes to send children to private penal institutions — and issued more than 1500 commutations for allegedly minor crimes.
And now Biden has commuted the sentence of the worst of the worst. He said it was a matter of conscience. We can know that is bullcrap since he did not commute the sentences of three individuals who not only violated the law by also the unwritten law of political correctness — including Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, Robert Bowers, the shooter at the Tree of Life Synagogue, and Dylann Roof, the shooter at the Mother Emanuel AME Church. If Biden had believed capital punishment was morally wrong, he would have pardoned all death row inmates. But … political calculus obviously played into his decision. We also saw that in his reference to Trump.
Biden’s claim to be motivated by his conscience is interesting when you consider his stand on abortion. He claims—as a Catholic – that he is morally opposed to abortion but does not wish to impose his personal moral views onto the public. In terms of the death penalty, however, he is more than willing to foist his personal moral view onto the public. Either he is lying about his personal opposition to abortion, or his conscience is morally fickle.
It is also interesting that among the influences cited for his decision were conversations with Pope Francis. It is reported that Francis brought up the issue of death sentences with Biden — and encouraged him to go the commutation route. (I find it interesting that the Pope has never brought up the issue of abortion with Biden in view of his active support for abortion on demand. But then, what can you expect when you have two hypocrites dealing with moral principles? But I digress.)
These and future pardons will further damage Biden’s pathetic legacy. It will damage the Democratic Party as a political institution more sympathetic to criminals than their victims. As a self-proclaimed “institutionalist,” Biden undermines the institutions of justice
Unfortunately, the damage these commutations have done is irreparable. No … this was not an act of compassion on Biden’s part. It was an expression of heartless contempt for the families and loved ones of the victims. It was a contempt for the American judicial system. It was contempt for the opinion of the American people.
Biden may see himself as Santa Claus this holiday season, but he played the Grinch by giving Christmas gifts to vicious criminals … and putting coal in the stockings of the families of their victims.
So, there ‘tis.
How could you write this story without explaining clearly it is commuted to a life sentence without parole? SPIN much?
“Prisoners convicted to life without parole have been paroled.” At the Federal level, name one. I do not think there is one. Mistake or purposeful, the reader can be the judge. But his statement is not true.
You say life without parole is more expensive than a death sentence. Every expert I find says you are wrong. I saw your numbers, but they were just yearly expense, you did not show the death sentence cost. Again, this is wrong. Purposeful or mistake, let the reader be the judge. But I can prove you wrong on the numbers.
OK, my two cents: I take an economic view and conclude the death penalty is OK, only IF we can limit the appeals cost. That’s a tough one against our rule of law. Otherwise, my research says life is cheaper, so there’s my choice. But it’s one the money, I am just fine offing them for these crimes. Just hate the money spent in countless appeals.
I served a jury once, the guy broke, entered, robbed, raped, murdered and burned her up. She was in her 70’s. Pretty sure he had done it, or something like it, before. HUGE case for Podunk Ville. Must have been 150 of us in the courtroom for jury day one to hear about pictures of burned bodes, physic crap, etc. and fill out questionnaires asking about how we view gross stuff. Gross. I did the math of 150 times at losing a day and it’s 24K at 40K median NJ wage. My mother was down recuperating from a hi replacement so I raised my hand for a last second excusal. Next think I know, I am in the judges chambers with all the lawyers, the bad guy, and the judge is asking penetrating questions like where was her home. I freaked, but he said, you’re in. Remember, 150 people are chilling why this goes on. We went home Then we came back, 75 of us and now we go through the metal detectors, sit in a conference room where I notice a bad guy had carved the table with a knife, oh my. And we got through voie dire, one a time time. Another 12K. Two more sessions before the lottery with 30 people. I figure 50K out of the economy and the guy plea bargained for life. I understand the process, but seems like process improvement opportunities abound. I was almost ready for professional juries for many crimes. Cheaper.
Imagine that for a few appeals for this guy.
So my take is economic and that seems to lead to life over death, given our system. And Joe’s concern for future paroles for Federal death sentences seems moot so far. But if you can limit appeals, I can live with death as a punishment. This guy deserved it for sure.
Frank Danger ….. You missed the “So, there ’tis.” closing. LOL Once you say this guy deserves it, you ae no longer an opponent of the death penalty. Like you, I want to make sure it only occurs were the crimes is of the most serious nature and the evidence is beyond refutation — As I wrote in the commentary. I am also concerned that the appeals process is too long. A reasonable appeal should not take 20 or more years.
I gotten under his skin….. He can’t refute many of my arguments, except weakly, with much emotion and not a lot of facts, statistics, expert quotes, and with much name calling, but his old-man-mind remembers any perceived “insult” and he hold his grudge like an Irishman. He thinks he’s got me, he’s won, and now he can discount all my words based on actions in my youth, over 50 years ago.
Like a junk-yard dog, he’s got his “transgression” which permeates the next 50 years of my life apparently, at least in his mind, and he’s not going to unclench his teeth from my ankles. No second chance for Danger. This time his old-man-mind with it’s old ideas, high n mighty fake moral code, stands judgement on all he feels inferior and wrong. He has little compassion for anyone he believes is on “the other side” but just recognized that Matt Gaetz is a bad man yet wonders if he can make it back in Larry’s party…..oye.
In my youth, over 50 years ago, I sold pot, a lot of pot, but not a major player by far. A lot mostly because it was a few years. Now he calls that a serious felony, but he lies. I was always at the low end of the weight limit, clean record, white, college bound, and could have great lawyers. Not that serious. Would never be a serious felony. Would never have jail time. That’s just idiotic.
Plus, what was illegal is basically legal now so, in all truth, seems I was just ahead of my time as much as Horist is behind the times. Old. Not in age, but in ideas and heart. Now he says, so what to time and reality….
He extends that to “serious felonies” tying that to me being “pompous,” “hypocritical in your judgement of others,” and having a more serious felony than Trump. In his old mind, he seems to forget my pot selling was 50 years ago, it’s basically legal now, while Trump’s felonies are still against the law, he got caught, tried, convicted, whatever. And his company is convicted. He paid off fraud for his university. He paid off stealing from charity. Yeah, I’m the serious lawbreaker. Shit, I bet this guy loves Dukes of Hazard and other stories of moonshiners…
He even claims my alleged crimes, self-admitted as they were, had victims whereas Trump’s crimes, that as a man he couldn’t even admit, were victimless. I said: “tell that to Hillary, tell that to people looking for the loans that Trump cheated to get. His university student, his charity victims, EJ Carroll, and more. He even says I am like a Mafia hit man; that’s just deluded hate. And a lie. A Horist lie. He knows Trump talks mafia, I don’t. Trump has an mafia organization management model, I did not.
He then surmises: “YOU could not handle the truth in a courtroom since you dodged that bullet as you so smugly stated.” I think this man is on drugs to imagine all that since it’s all a big fat Horist lie. He does this to avoid talking on point, discussing the issues with facts, figures and expert sources. Because he can’t toe the line. So, he obsesses, vents, name calls, demean, defames, and now hyperventilates over some pot.
Did this old man live in the 60’s and 70’s? How did he miss trying some pot. And IF he did try some pot, how the fuck did he think he got it? Fell out of the sky? Come on Larry, tell us you NEVER smoked a puff at least. And then he tee’s off on my speeding and a few other traffic thingees as if he has never gone over the speed limit, never missed a stop sign or light. Oh my God how old is this guy? I asked him if he never transgressed on the law, never went over the limit, got a traffic tickets and he answers: crickets. Why won’t he answer to the truth. Who the fuck is sitting in hypercritical judgement now? Guy lobbied for big tobacco, victimless crime? He worked for Nixon, yeah, that’s law and order. Who the fuck is he to judge me? Because to the court, I am a model citizen, always have been.
And my crimes were over half a century ago. Let it go Larry. Doesn’t everyone get a second chance.
And the guy votes for a felon, a sex abuser, a digital rapist, a defamer of women, a man who stole from his own University students, he stole from his own charity foundation, his business has dozens of felonies, tax abuses, and more. And he calls me a hypocrite to judge.
Later he vents about me not getting some building permits; this guy had a really old house, I tend to doubt he got all the permits required over the years to do the work he probably did. Again, fess up Larry. Never did work without a permit?
Now watch the junk yard dog drag this out, embellish it over time, just like he continues to drag out my DC thumping by a cop for crossing PA ave in front of Nixon’s house where he was on the inside aiding and abetting the criminal Nixon. He got that wrong and, when corrected, continues to get it wrong as his embellishment gets larger and stranger with each rendition.
HEY LARRY —- I JAYWALK TOO.
Sorry Larry, America is a country full of rebels. You just voted for one. Get over it old man.
Thanks for reading my mind Horist, except those were my words except you forgot the caveats. Then again, you are the great mind reader so maybe you know more about me than I do.
FYI: I did not miss the closing. The article was by Joe and now is by you.
Frank Danger…. When you said the guy deserves the death penalty, not sure how to say you are against it. I was not reading your mind but what you wrote. On occasion with the commentaries are up loaded, it picks up the wrong author. Usually corrected quickly. What you call caveats, I see as double talk. You do a lot of that. Like rationalizing your drug dealing with the fact that drugs are legal today — although private drug dealing is still illegal. You say you never done anything for which you could be convicted. Not so. You could have been convicted of drug dealing, but the statute of limitations has probably run out. You made a reference about lying about charitable deductions. We you admitting to tax evasion? As usual, you are very vague. I find it interesting when you list all your transgressions — large and small — you use the old everyone does it excuse. Perhaps for self comfort you believe that…. but not necessarily true. Seems to me you are just one of those folks who thinks the law does not apply to them.
Try reading my view on death penalty since you seem to have an out of context rendition.
Also, you harp on this versus your incorrect reporting of the facts on paroles and cost differences tween life and death. One miss can be a mistake, two is a lie. That was three…..
BUSTED
BUSTED
Frank Danger … I do not make up statistics…. and you lie when you falsely claim I do. I am just not into feeding you lust for responses and recognition. I give my opinion. You give yours. And I trust my readers are smart enough to find the truth — even doing their own research. They will determined who is busted — not your absurd self judgment.
One more time since you probably won’t re-read.
‘When you said the guy deserves the death penalty, not sure how to say you are against it. I was not reading your mind but what you wrote.” Actually you did read my mind and not what I wrote, but I will give you a SECOND mulligan for clarity even though I have suggested you re-read what is wrote quoted as follows:
“OK, my two cents: I take an economic view and conclude the death penalty is OK, only IF we can limit the appeals cost.” I noted that’s tough given our system of appeals that lowers risk of false conviction but raises the cost and perhaps too much for too little. “But it’s one the money, I am just fine offing them for these crimes. Just hate the money spent in countless appeals.”
And from those two statements you conclude: “When you said the guy deserves the death penalty, not sure how to say you are against it.” Gee Larry, how can you be for something and against it? Just can’t get your fingers around that one, eh? Republican. Very limited on the nuance and the grey areas. Even in principles sometimes.
I think I explained my nuance clearly and clearly identified my logic as economic, you college major. Although perhaps that’s where I confused you so try: I choose the most cost effective alternative: life or death sentence and have no issue with either. Right now, Horist is still completely wrong and life sentence without parole is the most cost effective.
End of story which I summarized for you as “So my take is economic and that seems to lead to life over death, given our system.” What can’t you understand?
Get it?
I will deal with your drug obsession in the other thread where you bring it up again. Think you feature it in over three threads now, but not obsessed. Maybe you should just get over it and do the doobie. Sinatra’s way for you: scoobie, doobie, doo. On the tax evasion, that’s in your mind, I said I have been investigated a few times, always dismissed any penalties, and always made good, usually correcting the IRS along the way. But honest errors and still against the law. One was for low six digits, plus penalty, but lobbied down to low five digits and it was valid. A very good year and just too much money. Wasn’t even Clinton. That’s another day.
HOWEVER: you conveniently once again avoid stepping up to fix your errors as is your way to avoid fessing up to you own errors while making up a few for others.
You claimed: “Prisoners convicted to life without parole have been paroled.” At the Federal level, name one. I do not think there is one. Mistake or purposeful, the reader can be the judge. But his statement is not true.” Why do you choose to bash me just to hide your own mistake, not step up and correct yourself, and after so many asks: LIE?
You claimed: life without parole is more expensive than a death sentence. Every expert I find says you are wrong. I saw your numbers, but they were just yearly expense, you did not show the death sentence cost. Again, this is wrong. Purposeful or mistake, let the reader be the judge. But I can prove you wrong on the numbers, but I would rather you man up and tell the truth. Or prove me wrong, with facts, sources, and citations.
Yeah, right, can see this one coming….. the great debater my lily-white ass.
Fine piece, Mr. Horist…we are on the same page…your limited misgivings re the death penalty are mine as well…the abortion analogy is particularly well put and is indisputable…Richard E. Vatz/Distinguished Professor Emeritus/Towson University
Thanks.
Larry, mince words and wax on at length on your opinion that the death penalty is warranted. If that your position in your, then isn’t your opinion on the issue of right to life suspect.
If one is pro life, then they should think of cradle to grave pro life as a standard. The right to lifers are antiabortion or right to birth advocates, which is the preferred choice In my mind. However, life in America is supposed to include liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When in this country quality of life after birth is unequal and support for life becomes threatened by reducing and eliminating Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and affordable insurance. What then say you?
If life is precious in the womb enough that ending it is against the law why isn’t life also worthy of saving even when a person in their life has been charged with and found guilty of ending life for others. Is it pro life or right to life, in your opinion, that society disallows aborting a pregnancy, denies quality of life to the poorest and the oldest among us, and then choose the death penalty as a punishment as a means of exacting justice. And equivocate on all of it by saying, that just the way it is and life isn’t fair,
I know it’s complicated, but when comparing financial costs between life in prison and the expense of execution justifies execution doesn’t your lofty ideals being pro life have a glaring hole in it.
In for a penny in for the entire pound?
Moral and ethical standards should have consistency and that’s not the realm of an opinion. It is or it isn’t. Moral and ethical standards are not on a sliding scale as are opinions. For opinions tend to change and mutate as social conditions shift.
It appears in culture today that moral standards and ethical codes are less fixed and not the standard for acceptable behaviors that once was in our culture. Today moral and ethical as terms are relegated to opinion status and often based one one’s politics.
What other reasons are there for Trump with his proven low moral code and his use of situational ethics non-standard yet he has managed to receive the level of public acceptance that he has.
It’s truly puzzling to me that man like Trump who is unprecedented among all past presidents and past candidates campaigning to be president with respect to his moral/ethical character’s lack of both Trump still speaks and acts as one immune from judgement on moral:ethical grounds.
He says he is pro life, but he waffles on explaining what that means in his estimation. And, he rails against Biden’s ruling clemency for a number of inmates on death-row. Trump’s very displeased remarks came because Biden’s decision went contrary to Trump’s campaign promise that he made about ensuring death row inmates’ execution dates would be moved up and the executions begun.
Biden shows he is ultimately pro life. But, as life does not hold a straight line through out and justice must intervene in some cases, Biden withheld clemency for others on death-row. He stated his reasons for both.
I know it’s your opinion of Biden and that your readers know it’s quite low. You can-not muster an objective observation on anything even remotely connected to Biden. So, I hope that after January 20 and Biden has moved on into his retirement that politics will be a less combative sport. Although its competitive nature will always stand as it is its nature.
AC … I did not read past your first couple paragraphs –which is more than I usually read.
Pro-lifers can accept the death of humans that have been or are a threat to the lives of others. Police are allowed to use lethal force to protect themselves and others from injury or death. In wars we kill enemies in defense — what St. Augustine called “just war.” People kill others in self defense. You fail to understand the distinction between the taking of an innocent life or the death or a person in other situations. Those on death row have been judged guilty of the most heinous and extreme crimes — mostly the deaths of innocents. Even then, only a small percentage of those who commit murder are sentenced to death. There is no parallel between deaths from abortions and deaths of heinous killers.
As so many liberals, you are ok with aborting the children of folks with lower incomes under the absurd belief that you can know the outcomes of their birth. Making life conditioned the type of person you elitists decide smacks of Nazism You are using the same reasoning as Margret Sanger , who was into genocide and was personally associated to Hitler and his population theories.