Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
(Reuters) - The governor of Missouri on Monday commuted to life in prison without parole the death sentence of a man convicted in a 1994 murder-for-hire plot.
Richard Clay had been sentenced to die Wednesday for murdering Randy Martindale. Prosecutors said Clay killed Martindale at the request of his wife Stacy Martindale, who was having an affair with Charles Sanders, a friend of Clay's.
In a statement, Gov. Jay Nixon said that he was convinced of Clay's involvement in the murder, but decided "after significant thought and counsel" to commute Clay's sentence to life.
"Richard Clay's involvement in this crime is clear, and he must, and will, serve the remainder of his life behind bars for his role in this heinous act," Nixon said.
Missouri governor commutes death sentence to life | Reuters
Interesting.
Why come, Missourian?
Interesting.
Why come, Missourian?
Nixon is a pro-capital punishment.
Yet he decided to commute Clay's death penalty, the first commutation in over a decade.
It's not going to be a popular decision here and he'll take a lot of heat for it, but it's a step in the right direction.
Well, if the man's guilt is not in doubt, why do you feel he did the right thing?
I'm not pro-death penalty; I'm just curious as to why you think this man deserved more mercy than the jury showed him.
Interesting.
Why come, Missourian?
Nixon is a pro-capital punishment.
Yet he decided to commute Clay's death penalty, the first commutation in over a decade.
It's not going to be a popular decision here and he'll take a lot of heat for it, but it's a step in the right direction.
Did the wife get the DP? If she didn't and he did, then I think that is a travesty of justice!
Well, if the man's guilt is not in doubt, why do you feel he did the right thing?
I'm not pro-death penalty; I'm just curious as to why you think this man deserved more mercy than the jury showed him.
I have a laundry list of reasons:
1) I believe the State's duty is punishment, not revenge. Life in prison is punishment, execution is revenge.
2) Capital punishment is cruel and unusual.
3) The appeals process takes so long...in this case 16 years...that the person who committed the crime has changed...mean essentially a different person is being executed than committed the crime.
4) Execution is final, there's no going back. No matter how confident the State is in the verdict, unless that certainty is 100%, there is a chance, however small, that a innocent man is being murdered.
I have a laundry list of reasons:
1) I believe the State's duty is punishment, not revenge. Life in prison is punishment, execution is revenge.
2) Capital punishment is cruel and unusual.
3) The appeals process takes so long...in this case 16 years...that the person who committed the crime has changed...mean essentially a different person is being executed than committed the crime.
4) Execution is final, there's no going back. No matter how confident the State is in the verdict, unless that certainty is 100%, there is a chance, however small, that a innocent man is being murdered.
Well, if the man's guilt is not in doubt, why do you feel he did the right thing?
I'm not pro-death penalty; I'm just curious as to why you think this man deserved more mercy than the jury showed him.
I have a laundry list of reasons:
1) I believe the State's duty is punishment, not revenge. Life in prison is punishment, execution is revenge.
2) Capital punishment is cruel and unusual.
3) The appeals process takes so long...in this case 16 years...that the person who committed the crime has changed...mean essentially a different person is being executed than committed the crime.
4) Execution is final, there's no going back. No matter how confident the State is in the verdict, unless that certainty is 100%, there is a chance, however small, that a innocent man is being murdered.
Well, if the man's guilt is not in doubt, why do you feel he did the right thing?
I'm not pro-death penalty; I'm just curious as to why you think this man deserved more mercy than the jury showed him.
I have a laundry list of reasons:
1) I believe the State's duty is punishment, not revenge. Life in prison is punishment, execution is revenge.
2) Capital punishment is cruel and unusual.
3) The appeals process takes so long...in this case 16 years...that the person who committed the crime has changed...mean essentially a different person is being executed than committed the crime.
4) Execution is final, there's no going back. No matter how confident the State is in the verdict, unless that certainty is 100%, there is a chance, however small, that a innocent man is being murdered.
You'll get no argument from me, but in that case, shouldn't your governor have commutted the sentences of everyone on death row?
Why vote on crime and punishment laws if a pol can merely set them aside?
Why vote on crime and punishment laws if a pol can merely set them aside?
The death penalty is a strange animal, Revere. It sucks up far too much in resources, is ineffective and burdens the victims' families too much. But campaigning for its repeal is like the kiss of death, politically.
It has to be attacked obliquely; we seem incapable of anything else in this country.
Why vote on crime and punishment laws if a pol can merely set them aside?
The death penalty is a strange animal, Revere. It sucks up far too much in resources, is ineffective and burdens the victims' families too much. But campaigning for its repeal is like the kiss of death, politically.
It has to be attacked obliquely; we seem incapable of anything else in this country.
Obliquely, my ass. If the citizens of your state do or don't want it, you have a duty to uphold it.
The death penalty is a strange animal, Revere. It sucks up far too much in resources, is ineffective and burdens the victims' families too much. But campaigning for its repeal is like the kiss of death, politically.
It has to be attacked obliquely; we seem incapable of anything else in this country.
Obliquely, my ass. If the citizens of your state do or don't want it, you have a duty to uphold it.
I personally have diddly shit to do with it, Revere.
Obliquely, my ass. If the citizens of your state do or don't want it, you have a duty to uphold it.
I personally have diddly shit to do with it, Revere.
What the hell is the point of laws and trials and sentencing hearings then?
